Speaker 1: This is Bloombird Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: My message is this, if you're trying to leave Cuba,
Speaker 1: Nicaragua or Haiti, you have and we or have agreed
Speaker 1: to begin a journey to America, do not do not
Speaker 1: just show up with the border, Stay where you are
Speaker 1: and apply legally from there starting today. If you don't
Speaker 1: apply through the legal process, you will not be eligible
Speaker 1: for this new parole program. Before his trip to Mexico,
Speaker 1: President Biden announced a series of new measures that he
Speaker 1: says will curb the influx of migrants at the southern border.
Speaker 1: There will be new requirements for those seeking asylum. One
Speaker 1: measure will expand a parole program to migrants seeking asylum
Speaker 1: from nations like Haiti, Nicaragua, and Cuba. The process requires
Speaker 1: migrants to be sponsored while also going through a vetting
Speaker 1: and background check process. Another plan is to impose a
Speaker 1: new regulation, a version of the Trump era policy often
Speaker 1: call the Transit Ban. Joining me is integration law expert
Speaker 1: Leon Fresco, a partner at Hollandon Knight. Let me start
Speaker 1: with Biden's visit to Mexico. What is he hoping to accomplish?
Speaker 1: What can he accomplish well. The key thing for President
Speaker 1: Biden to accomplish in Mexico is to get Mexico's blessing
Speaker 1: to accept as many people as possible that the United
Speaker 1: States wants to exclude from the four countries which are Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela,
Speaker 1: and Haiti under Title forty two, given that there's this
Speaker 1: new carrot and six approach where individuals from those countries
Speaker 1: are going to be asked to apply for a legal
Speaker 1: entrance into the United States, such that if they try
Speaker 1: to enter illegally, they will be pushed into Mexico. Right now,
Speaker 1: Mexico doesn't accept people who are not from the Northern
Speaker 1: Triangle or from Mexico proper, and so the idea would
Speaker 1: be for Mexico to accept these people, knowing that at
Speaker 1: the end of the rainbow or at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, them accepting them in the short term for
Speaker 1: now will be the consequence that's necessary to sort of
Speaker 1: dismissed this long term problem because hopefully more people will
Speaker 1: use the legal pathway as opposed to be illegal pathway.
Speaker 1: Let's go back a step to that Title forty two expansion.
Speaker 1: So the Buiding administration is fighting to end Title forty
Speaker 1: two in the courts, but it's expanding a policy that
Speaker 1: depends on expanding the use of Title forty two or
Speaker 1: to rapidly expel asylum seekers from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Correct.
Speaker 1: There's a bit of an incongruency there in that the
Speaker 1: Biden administration is saying, look, and the long term, we
Speaker 1: would like to end Title forty two. But while our
Speaker 1: hand is quote unquote being forced, although I would argue
Speaker 1: they've made the litigation decisions that have forced their own hand.
Speaker 1: But nevertheless, while their hand is being quote unquote force,
Speaker 1: they will take advantage of Title forty two and use
Speaker 1: it to the maximum extent possible to create a consequent
Speaker 1: delivery carrots and six system where we tell the largest
Speaker 1: group of people at the border that aren't from the
Speaker 1: Northern triangle in Mexico, which is against Cubans, Paitians, Venezuelans,
Speaker 1: and Nicaragua's people fleeing from political oppression, that those individuals
Speaker 1: need to enter through the legal parole pathways that are
Speaker 1: being created and not enter illegally in between the ports
Speaker 1: of entry, because all that's going to do is lead
Speaker 1: to you being excluded under Title forty two when you
Speaker 1: had this perfectly legal pathway to it. There is. The
Speaker 1: program has been in effect for Venezuelans, and that's been
Speaker 1: working well. The first group that got this program under
Speaker 1: the Biden administration were Ukrainian. So Ukrainians. Actually we're appearing
Speaker 1: thousands and thousands of Ukrainians on the southern border after
Speaker 1: Russia attacked Ukraine and they were trying to get in
Speaker 1: through the southern border same way as everybody else. And
Speaker 1: the Biden administration said, this is unstendable. We can't do this.
Speaker 1: Let's create a program that allows Ukrainians to enter legally
Speaker 1: to be paroled into the United States and hopefully they'll
Speaker 1: stop using the illegal pathway up the border. And lo
Speaker 1: and behold, that's what happened. You don't see any Ukrainians
Speaker 1: on the southern border now. They entered through the legal pathway.
Speaker 1: So then the Biden administration said, well, let's see what
Speaker 1: happens if we extend it to a few thousand, twenty
Speaker 1: something thousands Venezuelan individuals. Will this work? And you've seen
Speaker 1: Venezuelans used this pathway, So now the idea is, well,
Speaker 1: maybe for thirty thousand people a month. We can create
Speaker 1: new pathways for Cubans, Venezuelans, Haitians, and Nicaragua. Now is
Speaker 1: that going to be enough? Now, that's not gonna be
Speaker 1: anywhere near enough. But I mean it is still, you know,
Speaker 1: amateur mathematics, here three hundred and sixty thousand people a
Speaker 1: year that will be paroled into the country. And I
Speaker 1: don't know how much more reasonable it is. Might it
Speaker 1: take more people than that? So the idea is, hey, wait,
Speaker 1: use this pathway, and if you use this pathway, you're
Speaker 1: gonna get in legally. So don't do it illegally because
Speaker 1: all of what's can happen in PYT two. So the
Speaker 1: Departments of Homeland Security and Justice also released a plan
Speaker 1: to impose a new regulation, and it's a version of
Speaker 1: the Trump era policy, which was often called the Transit Band,
Speaker 1: although Secretary Majorkists denies that is not a fac simile
Speaker 1: or an identical copy. It is a resemblance in the
Speaker 1: sense of what it's going toward. Is this idea that
Speaker 1: there will no longer be an acceptance of people going
Speaker 1: in between the ports of injury on the southern border
Speaker 1: and applying for asylum. If you want to do that,
Speaker 1: you will be banned from getting asylum. And that's a
Speaker 1: serious thing because if you can't get asylums, that means
Speaker 1: you can't get a passive citizenship. You can't apply for
Speaker 1: your spouse and your children and your family members to
Speaker 1: enter the United States once you get American citizenship down
Speaker 1: the line, and so all you'd be able to get
Speaker 1: is this thing called withholding of removal, which is basically
Speaker 1: a temporary stay on your deportation, and that's if you
Speaker 1: win your case that you're going to be persecuted abroad. Now,
Speaker 1: the difference is that if you can show that you
Speaker 1: would be persecuted in Mexico where you're waiting, you'll be
Speaker 1: able to come in. And their ideas, look, that's more
Speaker 1: compassionists and Trump wouldn't really care for that approach, which
Speaker 1: is he did really phenomenally did, but didn't really allow
Speaker 1: people to show that they'd be persecuted waiting in Mexico.
Speaker 1: But nevertheless, it is the same to the extent of
Speaker 1: what it's doing is it's saying, look, there's no applying
Speaker 1: for asylum in between the ports of entry. They're going
Speaker 1: to the ports event three, or there's applying for asylum
Speaker 1: at a country that you're passing that has a credible
Speaker 1: asylum system. And if you don't do either of those things,
Speaker 1: don't think you're going to cross the border in the
Speaker 1: United States and get asylum. And so that's getting a
Speaker 1: lot of criticism from advocates and and some of the
Speaker 1: more liberal members of Congress. But I do think when
Speaker 1: coupled with this parole program where if you enter legally
Speaker 1: and you get paroles, you can apply for asylum once
Speaker 1: you've entered legally, the idea is hopefully this character and
Speaker 1: sixth approach will channel some large amount of people through
Speaker 1: this program rather than through the in between the parts
Speaker 1: of entry on the southern border. So now are there
Speaker 1: also plans to expand Title eight border processing? Well, so
Speaker 1: what I think is gonna happen is when Title forty
Speaker 1: two goes away, if and when whenever that may be,
Speaker 1: what's gonna happen is you're gonna have a lot more
Speaker 1: people persecuted who are single adults who are coming coming
Speaker 1: in between the ports of entry, and you're gonna have
Speaker 1: a lot more people put into removal proceedings under side
Speaker 1: of a expedited removal proceedings and try to really focus
Speaker 1: on getting people out as part of those expedited removal
Speaker 1: proceedings mean being a little upper not saying that they
Speaker 1: have a credible fear that allows them to wait inside
Speaker 1: the United States. But you can only do so much there.
Speaker 1: And then again, the other thing that is focused on
Speaker 1: is okay, and this is starting now with this new
Speaker 1: CDD one app that they're developing is finally they're doing
Speaker 1: what we do with visas all over the world, which is,
Speaker 1: here's gonna be a one app that CDP will have
Speaker 1: where you book an appointment and try to make your
Speaker 1: initial asylum showing out a port of entry. And the
Speaker 1: good news about that is CDP totally controls how many
Speaker 1: people they can see, so they'll know we're gonna have
Speaker 1: a thousand of people here, five people here, seven people there.
Speaker 1: And it's not a surprise that you can plan your
Speaker 1: day and have the resources you need for each day,
Speaker 1: as opposed to when people come in between the ports
Speaker 1: of entry, you have no idea who's coming and how
Speaker 1: many people are coming and where they're coming. So that's
Speaker 1: the virtual platform that's going to be sort of a
Speaker 1: one stop shop migrants correct to find information that's what
Speaker 1: CVP is trying to do is to basically do the
Speaker 1: parole process for the thirty thou people a month, but
Speaker 1: for the for the additional people above the thirty thousand,
Speaker 1: to schedule appointments for people to make their initial asylum
Speaker 1: claim at a port of entry instead of in between
Speaker 1: the port of entry. But a lot of people may
Speaker 1: not have access to the internet. Well, this is gonna
Speaker 1: be an interesting question about what the n g O
Speaker 1: s are going to be doing on the northern border.
Speaker 1: Will they be able to help people, you know, for
Speaker 1: better or for work the smuggling networks that do everything
Speaker 1: else for people to come up obviously, will they have
Speaker 1: access to the apps? And will they be able tell
Speaker 1: people Okay, in addition to whatever assistance we've given you
Speaker 1: to get you to the north part of Mexico, the
Speaker 1: southern border here is now your app appointments. And so
Speaker 1: just know that you have an appointment on Mark first
Speaker 1: at twelve thirty pm. Okay, So now the person knows
Speaker 1: they don't really need to do much more than that,
Speaker 1: other than to show up with their appointment. It's not
Speaker 1: unreasonable to think that the nd O s will be
Speaker 1: able to do it, but quite frankly as sophisticated as
Speaker 1: some of these smuggling networks are. Where they know on
Speaker 1: a daily basis, where the CDP resources are, where the
Speaker 1: ports are, which one is the best one to go to,
Speaker 1: where is that? Where are they acting nights, assword people,
Speaker 1: et cetera. That they would be able to use an
Speaker 1: app if not so unrealistic. So there are things that
Speaker 1: the Biden administration could have done years ago. They always say,
Speaker 1: we need Congress to have a comprehensive plan, we need
Speaker 1: more money, But there are things they could have done.
Speaker 1: Why did he wait two years to take that photo
Speaker 1: up trip I as it is to the border and
Speaker 1: do this. I think there is a sort of reticent
Speaker 1: to engage on immigration because there's a calibration problem currently
Speaker 1: that exists in the Democratic Party about how liberal the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party has to be on immigration. And I think
Speaker 1: you're seeing this with the changing demographics of the Latino
Speaker 1: votes and how in some states you have many more
Speaker 1: Latinos voting for Republicans than you used to have in
Speaker 1: the past. And the idea is, I think people in
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party want compassion, but they don't want open
Speaker 1: borders with large I don't think that's a position that's
Speaker 1: the majority of Democrats polls, and I think the Democratic
Speaker 1: leaders who thought that there was a lot more sympathy
Speaker 1: for open borders in the base and that there actually is,
Speaker 1: is maybe recalibrating that understanding a little bit and saying, look,
Speaker 1: as long as we have a compassionate policy and a
Speaker 1: fair policy, we also need a policy that doesn't permit
Speaker 1: just since really unchecked immigration through the southern border of
Speaker 1: the United States. Not having said that, Congress does have
Speaker 1: a role to play is the long term in building
Speaker 1: worker programs. The biggest problem in like immigration practice every
Speaker 1: single day is that you have employers wanting workers and
Speaker 1: realizing and learning for the first time, oh, there's no
Speaker 1: actual way to apply for a worker who's not doing
Speaker 1: a job that requires a college degree. So if you
Speaker 1: want a plumber, or you want a construction person, or
Speaker 1: you want waiters for your seasonal restaurant or whatever, there's
Speaker 1: basically nothing available. There's no way to get these workers.
Speaker 1: And so if you could create a program, and that's
Speaker 1: what the Immigration Build did that pass the sentence but
Speaker 1: didn't pass the House, where you would have large amounts
Speaker 1: of these visas available during time periods like this where
Speaker 1: unemployment is law but has very few visas available during
Speaker 1: time periods where unemployment and by you can actually have
Speaker 1: people all go through these eagle famiels. You wouldn't have
Speaker 1: anybody having to claim a sylum. Most people claim a
Speaker 1: flound because they have no alternative. There's no other way
Speaker 1: to do this. But people wouldn't want to claim asylum,
Speaker 1: and they could just access these worker programs. You'd have
Speaker 1: people do these jobs and when these jobs are finished,
Speaker 1: then they can return home with a lot of savings
Speaker 1: for them and their family and return whenever they want
Speaker 1: to when the times are high again. And so that's
Speaker 1: the idea of how you build these programs in those situations.
Speaker 1: But we don't have a program like that that exists,
Speaker 1: and so this is what creates all of this illegality
Speaker 1: on the southern border. So now let's move on to
Speaker 1: Ron de Santis. First, he was flying Texas migrants to
Speaker 1: Cape Cod. Now he's going to court to make his point.
Speaker 1: Trial opened in federal court in Pensacola, where he's claiming
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration allowed thousands of migrants into the
Speaker 1: US each month by ignoring policies to detain them. Is
Speaker 1: this a serious case? This lawsuit was bye, but it's
Speaker 1: not a new lawsuit. It's just at the trial is
Speaker 1: happening this week. I mean it's a serious case to
Speaker 1: the extent that the a judge has denied emotions to
Speaker 1: this miss twice already, and it's saying, look, we're gonna
Speaker 1: go to trial on an Administrative Procedure Act claim that
Speaker 1: the Biden administration has to be detaining people as the
Speaker 1: Southern borders. That it's not true what they're saying, that
Speaker 1: we don't have an alternative but to release people into
Speaker 1: the United States. Now, I think the problem is people
Speaker 1: don't realize how complicated this mosaic is. No person is
Speaker 1: treated the same as another person. And what do I
Speaker 1: mean by that? If you're under the age of eighteen,
Speaker 1: the law is extremely clear that you can't be detained
Speaker 1: or removed or anything else. You have to be let
Speaker 1: in the country. If you appear as either an unaccompanied
Speaker 1: minor or even if you come as a family and
Speaker 1: the family has mom, dad and a bunch of kids
Speaker 1: under a team, the bunch of kids under a team
Speaker 1: cannot be detained, can't be the ordered or anything. They
Speaker 1: have to be letting the country and allowed to make
Speaker 1: any immigration claims that they're allowed to make. That's by sages.
Speaker 1: Then the question is, well, what do you do with
Speaker 1: family because the kids have to be allowed to come in?
Speaker 1: Do you separate the parents from the children. That's what
Speaker 1: the Trump administrates and tried, and we know what the
Speaker 1: consequences of that were. And so I don't think the
Speaker 1: court is gonna order the Biden administrations to separate the
Speaker 1: parents from the children. I just don't think that's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: So we're back now to again single adults. So when
Speaker 1: the adults come alone with no children, you know, the
Speaker 1: most common thing is families and children when you add
Speaker 1: those up together, but there's still a number of people
Speaker 1: come just as adults, not accompanied by any children. Do
Speaker 1: you have to detain all of those people? And what
Speaker 1: the record is probably gonna show him these cases is
Speaker 1: most of those people currently are being detained or put
Speaker 1: in expedited removal or put through Title forty two. And
Speaker 1: so if you're just talking about the few people that
Speaker 1: make it through the tracts because they have some medicals
Speaker 1: or something else, are you really gonna force the Biden
Speaker 1: administration's hands to say no, no, no, every single person
Speaker 1: you have to detain. I mean, that's where this judge
Speaker 1: is gonna I think have a hard time craft they
Speaker 1: have decisions because in the end, the issue with the
Speaker 1: children makes this so complicated that people don't realize that
Speaker 1: that's why most people are getting through when they enter
Speaker 1: the United States. And so what chance do you think
Speaker 1: this suit has in Florida? I think, you know, given
Speaker 1: who the judges here, and that the judges is sort
Speaker 1: of sympathetic to these claims and has been. I do
Speaker 1: think that some version of a decision will be issued
Speaker 1: requiring the Biden administration to detain more people on the
Speaker 1: southern border than they're currently detaining. But I do think
Speaker 1: very quickly the judge, either on his own account, will
Speaker 1: realize the problem that's happening with families and with unaccompanied children,
Speaker 1: or that sort of buzz all will be lead to
Speaker 1: reversal in the eleventh Circuit, especially because there's a lot
Speaker 1: of dicta in the remain in Mexico decisions. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about the Biden administration's ability to allow people to enter
Speaker 1: in the United States, that the choices aren't just to
Speaker 1: remain in Mexico or the tension that there is a
Speaker 1: third choice and that the Biden administration has that third
Speaker 1: choice to allow people to enter into the United States
Speaker 1: and wait here while their claims are pending. So now
Speaker 1: one question on on the Supreme Court case, um, the
Speaker 1: Court's going to take that decide that case here the
Speaker 1: arguments in February or March. Is the answer in that
Speaker 1: case going to be Title forty two is legal or
Speaker 1: not legal? Or is it going to be? Well, the
Speaker 1: Republican States can sue or can't sue? Right, That's the
Speaker 1: problem is the only thing the Court can do is
Speaker 1: at the end of the day allowed a state to
Speaker 1: intervene in the appeal of the case that's currently in
Speaker 1: the DC Circuit where there is a challenge to the
Speaker 1: ability of the Biden administration to use Title forty two.
Speaker 1: That's it. But what will happen is if the States
Speaker 1: are successful the Supreme Court, all they will be doing
Speaker 1: is allowing the state to try to get a second
Speaker 1: chance at getting This decision repeals that bans the administration
Speaker 1: from using Title forty two. And then at the same
Speaker 1: time there's a case coming up through the Fifth Circuit
Speaker 1: on bad So eventually, what will happen is it will
Speaker 1: end at the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court will
Speaker 1: have to decide whether the Biden administration can get rid
Speaker 1: of Title forty two. And again, I just don't see
Speaker 1: how a Supreme Court can say that a public health
Speaker 1: determination that's the Biden administration or any administration wants to
Speaker 1: get rid of based on the fact that the public
Speaker 1: health emergency is over, as to be kept into place
Speaker 1: once the public health emergency is over. It does seem
Speaker 1: very strange to me. But I just don't know if
Speaker 1: the idea is just to keep this Title forty two
Speaker 1: in effect for as long as possible and that sort
Speaker 1: of everybody is in on the joke, as that's all
Speaker 1: we're trying to accomplish here. Thanks so much for your insights, Leon.
Speaker 1: As always, that's immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner
Speaker 1: at Hollandon Knight. George Santos has been a member of
Speaker 1: Congress for less than a week, but the freshman Republican
Speaker 1: has already been engulfed in controversy and investigations, and now
Speaker 1: he's officially facing a Congressional ethics complaint filed on Tuesday
Speaker 1: by two New York Democrats. Congressman Dan Goldman and Richie Torres. Mr.
Speaker 1: Santos is conduct both as it relates to his outright
Speaker 1: lies about his biography, about his employment, UM, about his
Speaker 1: his entire person as being his religion. Um. All of
Speaker 1: that is reflects on every one of us in Congress.
Speaker 1: Even more egregious than his line is his possible love breaking.
Speaker 1: A million dollar question has where did all the money
Speaker 1: come from? Santos has admitted misrepresenting significant details about his religion, education,
Speaker 1: and career, including that he graduated from college and worked
Speaker 1: for Goldman, Sachs and City Group, but he says Santos
Speaker 1: will be facing more than his colleagues. Federal and local
Speaker 1: prosecutors are already investigating him, and a complaint has been
Speaker 1: filed with the Federal Election Commission joining me his elections
Speaker 1: law expert Richard Brafalt, a professor at Columbia Law School.
Speaker 1: Santos has acknowledged line to reporters about his educational and
Speaker 1: professional history, though he calls it embellishing his resume. But
Speaker 1: is there any law, rule or regulation that makes such
Speaker 1: misstatements illegal? It just seems like it's not something that
Speaker 1: he can really be held accountable for, except by voters. No. No,
Speaker 1: there's certainly no federal law prohibiting lying by a candidate
Speaker 1: during an election. Hardly any states have anything like that.
Speaker 1: There even some questions about whether it would be constitutional
Speaker 1: to punish somebody for lying, as opposed to say something
Speaker 1: like defamation, as he obviously lies about somebody in a
Speaker 1: way that stains them, that might be the basis of
Speaker 1: at least civil action. Uh No, there's generally no restriction
Speaker 1: onlining other than lying on a federal form or lying
Speaker 1: through the federal government in the course of a federal inquiry.
Speaker 1: And that's really where the extent that there's going to
Speaker 1: be a legal problem for Mr Santos. It's going to
Speaker 1: be questions about whether he lied in his financial disclosure
Speaker 1: forms and is can't take finance reporting. Federal prosecutors in
Speaker 1: the Eastern District of New York are reportedly looking into
Speaker 1: Santos's finances and how he was able to lend his
Speaker 1: campaign seven hundred thousand dollars when as late as he
Speaker 1: was declaring a salary of only fifty five thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: That's right, and in the context of his campaign, he
Speaker 1: claims to have loaned his campaign more than seven hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars in two and yet, as you point out,
Speaker 1: in he basically said he had an income of fifty
Speaker 1: five dollars and little there no assets. So a good
Speaker 1: part of the financing of his campaign came from this
Speaker 1: loan based on resources he claims to develop from this
Speaker 1: LLC devolder. But the year before he was basically declaring
Speaker 1: very little income. So the issue that complaint isn't fired
Speaker 1: with the FTC. And what I imagine the prosecutors are
Speaker 1: looking into is was this money really being funneled to
Speaker 1: him by other donors? Was he, in in fact a
Speaker 1: so called straw donor, claiming to be donating his own
Speaker 1: money but actually donating other people's money. Yeah, So let's
Speaker 1: talk about the complaint filed with the FEC by the
Speaker 1: Campaign Legal Center, which, as you say, accused his business
Speaker 1: of being a front for illegal straw donors and accused
Speaker 1: him of illegally using campaign funds for personal expenses like travel,
Speaker 1: luxury hotels, and expensive meals. That seems like it might
Speaker 1: be an easy thing to prove or disprove, right, they
Speaker 1: went through his financial the report here, you're you're required
Speaker 1: to file reports with the FEC about your campaign, both
Speaker 1: your contributions and your expenditures. And they went through his
Speaker 1: expenditure lists and found things that look like they might
Speaker 1: have been paying for rent on a home. They've been
Speaker 1: looking for kinds of meals that looked like they might
Speaker 1: have been personal meals than campaign meals, because you know
Speaker 1: they were part of his travels. So it is illegal
Speaker 1: to use campaign money for what's called personal use. That
Speaker 1: would include things like paying for rent on your own
Speaker 1: personal residents, are paying for personal travel, personal meals not
Speaker 1: connected to the campaign. They contended, based on the reported
Speaker 1: information and his financial disclosure forms, likely that he was
Speaker 1: using some campaign funds for personal use. If that's true,
Speaker 1: that would be illegal. They said that dozens of his
Speaker 1: campaign expanditures were recorded as costing a hundred dollars and
Speaker 1: ninety nine cents, so a penny below the threshold under
Speaker 1: federal Again, if your expenses there are or more, you're
Speaker 1: supposed to itemize what you were spending them on. Anything
Speaker 1: under that you can just put onto a broader category
Speaker 1: without you know, providing any details. And I think they
Speaker 1: pointed out that something like more than half of his
Speaker 1: his expenditures something around numbers around forty either were a
Speaker 1: hundred nine hundred, which they just seems to just wildly implausible.
Speaker 1: And then they actually looked at some of the expenses
Speaker 1: and then kind of compared them to we're online to
Speaker 1: public information about what the vendor was charging, and it
Speaker 1: seemed to be either more or less but not that amount.
Speaker 1: So they looked at like what a cost the park
Speaker 1: to FK airport or using the clear system for kind
Speaker 1: of expedited treat and you know, and going through airport security,
Speaker 1: and they actually say clear charges of a hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty nine, but they put down a hundred ninety nine there.
Speaker 1: I mean again, they're basically saying that, you know, if
Speaker 1: you look at all of it, there's a huge number
Speaker 1: of which seems to evidence in intent to basically to
Speaker 1: file a false report. So the Campaign Legal Center filed
Speaker 1: the complaint asking the FEC to investigate. Will the FEC investigate,
Speaker 1: And it's really up to them. They have to look
Speaker 1: at the complaints see whether on its face it it
Speaker 1: makes a plausible allegation of both facts and a violation
Speaker 1: and law, and then they have to make a decision
Speaker 1: whether they want to undertake a formal investigation that requires
Speaker 1: a vote of the Commission. Then they do the investigation,
Speaker 1: and then if they conclude that kind of the fact
Speaker 1: support the allegations that the Campaign Legal Centers making, they
Speaker 1: can then bring a case against him. As a civil case,
Speaker 1: they can impost fines and and enjoin them from doing
Speaker 1: these things. Again, the FEC doesn't have a criminal enforcement power,
Speaker 1: but they could refer that if they think that there's
Speaker 1: a criminal matter there, they can refer to the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, so they can bring a civil case. They
Speaker 1: can seek actually they can be securely hety finds that
Speaker 1: they can seek, but its essentially civil penalties. And as
Speaker 1: far as the criminal case, you know, the Eastern District.
Speaker 1: Let's say that the federal prosecutors find what the Campaign
Speaker 1: Legal Center alleged in it's complained to the FEC accusing
Speaker 1: his business of being a front for illegal straw donors
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, and accusing him of illegally using campaign
Speaker 1: funds for personal expenses. What kind of charges could prosecutors bring.
Speaker 1: Well again, I mean just I'll just focus on the
Speaker 1: campaign financial ones. I don't know that there's any tax
Speaker 1: problems or anything with his LLC or anything involving the
Speaker 1: LLC itself. These campaign financial violations would become criminal if
Speaker 1: they are what's called knowing and willful. If he knew
Speaker 1: and intentionally violated the law, if he was part of
Speaker 1: a scheme to take money from unknown donors and pretended
Speaker 1: was his. And it gets more serious of some of
Speaker 1: that money came from corporations possible. We don't know. If
Speaker 1: some of that money came from foreigners, that's illegal, and
Speaker 1: maybe you know, given his ties to Brazil or elsewhere,
Speaker 1: it's conceivable that some of the money came from foreign sources.
Speaker 1: That's illegal. And it's also quite conceivable that some of
Speaker 1: the donations were above the statutory limit. There's a limit
Speaker 1: of twenty nine or a dollars per election that anyone
Speaker 1: donor can give one candidate. It's quite possible, again the
Speaker 1: stall we don't know any of this, but it's possible
Speaker 1: that some of those donations were well above the donor
Speaker 1: nation limits. So it's not just the parent misreporting of
Speaker 1: the his expenditures and being a straw donor. That that's
Speaker 1: pretty serious in itself, and criminal cases have been based
Speaker 1: on that. But it's possible that the reason he's the
Speaker 1: straw donor is that's it's disguising all sorts of illegal contributions,
Speaker 1: as I say, by corporations, by foreigners, or by people
Speaker 1: who gave way too much money. So if this was
Speaker 1: all intentional, knowing and WillFull is the legal language that
Speaker 1: could be the basis officity is criminal case. Two congressmen
Speaker 1: from New York are filing an official complaint asking the
Speaker 1: House Committee on Ethics to investigate him and whether he
Speaker 1: broke the law when he filed his required financial disclosures
Speaker 1: late and without key details about his finances. Is that
Speaker 1: separate from the federal Election Commission exactly? That's a separate issue.
Speaker 1: The House of Representatives has rules requiring people to file
Speaker 1: financial disposure forms, including I think candidates, because obviously he's
Speaker 1: misreporting or misreporting this while he was a candidate. But
Speaker 1: the House also has these filing requirements. They obviously only
Speaker 1: have jurisdiction against somebody a person is actually member of
Speaker 1: the House, but he now is, so they there is
Speaker 1: a House Ethics Committee, and they can look into these things,
Speaker 1: and they can recommend sanctions. I mean, their sanctions would
Speaker 1: be along the lines of reprimand or more serious. But
Speaker 1: really I mean they're largely you know, verbal like refermence
Speaker 1: and but in the most egregious cases, they could ultimately
Speaker 1: recommend expulsion. I mean, that's a pretty serious thing that
Speaker 1: very rarely happens. And it's unlikely that he would be
Speaker 1: expelled unless there actually is a federal criminal case brought
Speaker 1: against him and and he's convicted, but that would be
Speaker 1: the ultimate thing. More more likely they're gonna do something
Speaker 1: like if they were to find a violation, would be
Speaker 1: some nature of a revermand. But they don't even have
Speaker 1: to investigate. If they don't want to write in the House,
Speaker 1: they don't have to, and of course they can take
Speaker 1: their time there. Uh there. It's just being reconstituted based
Speaker 1: on the actions of the House yesterday, which imposed term
Speaker 1: limits on on members of the Ethics Committee, which meant
Speaker 1: that at this moment, I think all but one of
Speaker 1: the Democrats actually have to get off the committee. So
Speaker 1: I wouldn't expect every rapid action from the House Ethics Committee,
Speaker 1: but it's possible that they too will get involved in this. Well.
Speaker 1: House majority leaders Steve Scalie told reporters yesterday that the
Speaker 1: Santos issue is being handled internally. We're going to have
Speaker 1: to sit down and talk to him about it, Well,
Speaker 1: that sounds more like, you know, go a visit with
Speaker 1: the principle, or maybe you know, the parents sitting down
Speaker 1: with a teenager who borrowed the car. But the House
Speaker 1: can vote to expel a member. It requires a two
Speaker 1: thirds vote, and and it really only it is constitutionally
Speaker 1: possible they need they would need a two thirds vote.
Speaker 1: It really only happens in the most egregious cases, and
Speaker 1: it's hard to imagine it happening here unless he's actually
Speaker 1: convicted of a federal crime. In some ways, the damage
Speaker 1: has been done. Um, the fact that I mean, I mean,
Speaker 1: if he's violently they can't pay finance law, then when
Speaker 1: then those are serious issues and that needs to be resolved.
Speaker 1: But in terms of the line to the public, line
Speaker 1: to the voters, that's all out there now. Um. And
Speaker 1: you know, if he runs again, certainly that's going to
Speaker 1: be part of his record. Any final thoughts about this
Speaker 1: and all the investigations going on, what helps the support
Speaker 1: the idea that he might have committed can't pay finance violations.
Speaker 1: That's build the case that he might very well be
Speaker 1: a straw donor and that he may very well have
Speaker 1: filed false um expendature reports is all the other lies
Speaker 1: that he's already admitted to. You know, the fact that
Speaker 1: he's kind of comes into this as uh an acknowledged
Speaker 1: embellisher and acknowledge liar about his resume, about his ancestry,
Speaker 1: about his education kind of um at least provide some
Speaker 1: context for the claim that he also lied on his
Speaker 1: campaign finance report. Thanks so much, rich I always appreciate
Speaker 1: your analysis. That's elections law expert Richard Brafalt, a professor
Speaker 1: at Columbia Law School. And that's it for this edition
Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get
Speaker 1: the latest legal news, Honor Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm June Grosso
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg