1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,320
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grassoe from Bloomberg Radio

2
00:00:05,720 --> 00:00:08,680
Speaker 1: in the Rose Garden. On Monday, President Trump threatened to

3
00:00:08,680 --> 00:00:12,079
Speaker 1: send military forces into cities and states that failed to

4
00:00:12,200 --> 00:00:15,680
Speaker 1: quell violence spiraling from protests over the death of George

5
00:00:15,680 --> 00:00:20,079
Speaker 1: Floyd while in police custody. Mayors and governors must establish

6
00:00:20,200 --> 00:00:24,640
Speaker 1: an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled.

7
00:00:25,640 --> 00:00:28,600
Speaker 1: If a city or state refuses to take the actions

8
00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:32,199
Speaker 1: that are necessary to defend the life and property of

9
00:00:32,280 --> 00:00:36,840
Speaker 1: their residence, then I will deploy the United States military

10
00:00:36,960 --> 00:00:41,320
Speaker 1: and quickly solve the problem for them. Trump would likely

11
00:00:41,440 --> 00:00:44,480
Speaker 1: use the eighteen o seven Insurrection Act, but there would

12
00:00:44,520 --> 00:00:47,480
Speaker 1: be serious questions about the legality of such an order.

13
00:00:47,800 --> 00:00:51,360
Speaker 1: Trump's own Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, broke with the

14
00:00:51,400 --> 00:00:55,120
Speaker 1: President on Wednesday and said he opposed sending troops in

15
00:00:55,720 --> 00:00:57,840
Speaker 1: the option to use active duty forces in a law

16
00:00:57,920 --> 00:01:00,720
Speaker 1: enforcement role should only be used as a matter last resort,

17
00:01:01,320 --> 00:01:04,360
Speaker 1: and only in the most urgent and dire of situations.

18
00:01:04,840 --> 00:01:08,240
Speaker 1: We are not in one of those situations now. I

19
00:01:08,319 --> 00:01:11,480
Speaker 1: do not support invoking the Insurrection Act. Joining me is

20
00:01:11,520 --> 00:01:14,600
Speaker 1: Harold Grant, professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law,

21
00:01:15,160 --> 00:01:18,520
Speaker 1: Can he do that? Can he use the military to

22
00:01:18,640 --> 00:01:21,560
Speaker 1: go into states? Yes? And no. I mean from the

23
00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:24,720
Speaker 1: time of our founding Congress is whether there may be

24
00:01:24,800 --> 00:01:27,760
Speaker 1: some emergency in which the president would have to deploy

25
00:01:28,000 --> 00:01:32,200
Speaker 1: federal troops to protect against some kind of insurrection or

26
00:01:32,240 --> 00:01:35,399
Speaker 1: some kind of violence at the state level. There are

27
00:01:35,440 --> 00:01:39,720
Speaker 1: a couple of different categories in which Congress has envisioned

28
00:01:40,120 --> 00:01:43,560
Speaker 1: the President involving the troops in such protection or defense

29
00:01:43,840 --> 00:01:46,160
Speaker 1: of the country. The first is when the governor asked

30
00:01:46,160 --> 00:01:48,960
Speaker 1: for the president's help, and the governors have done that

31
00:01:49,200 --> 00:01:53,760
Speaker 1: on the number of occasions, most notably recently after the

32
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:57,320
Speaker 1: riots after the beatings of Rodney King in Los Angeles,

33
00:01:59,320 --> 00:02:02,840
Speaker 1: Man govern Wilson then said I need help, and President

34
00:02:02,880 --> 00:02:06,160
Speaker 1: Bush sent in troops to help calm the streets of

35
00:02:06,240 --> 00:02:09,120
Speaker 1: Los Angeles after the continued fighting. So that's the most

36
00:02:09,160 --> 00:02:13,840
Speaker 1: recent occasion. There been other times in our country as

37
00:02:13,880 --> 00:02:17,600
Speaker 1: well in that genre when governors themselves have lost control.

38
00:02:18,080 --> 00:02:22,519
Speaker 1: The second context, which we've also seen is when there's

39
00:02:22,560 --> 00:02:26,880
Speaker 1: a need to protect federal law that sometimes states will

40
00:02:26,960 --> 00:02:30,840
Speaker 1: not protect federal law, and so they're the insurrection that

41
00:02:30,960 --> 00:02:33,600
Speaker 1: gives the president the ability to send in troops. Most

42
00:02:33,639 --> 00:02:37,080
Speaker 1: famously was used in our country in Arkansas to enforce

43
00:02:37,120 --> 00:02:40,280
Speaker 1: the civil rights laws to make sure that desegregation was

44
00:02:40,440 --> 00:02:43,720
Speaker 1: a reality because the states were refusing to enforce federal

45
00:02:43,800 --> 00:02:47,079
Speaker 1: law and to allow integration to take place. So those

46
00:02:47,120 --> 00:02:51,480
Speaker 1: are the two most common contexts. The third category, and

47
00:02:51,480 --> 00:02:54,640
Speaker 1: that's the category that President Trump would need to fit

48
00:02:54,919 --> 00:02:58,120
Speaker 1: this use of troops into, was when there is a

49
00:02:58,440 --> 00:03:02,360
Speaker 1: sort of a failure of will process and when a

50
00:03:02,560 --> 00:03:07,640
Speaker 1: state can no longer protect its citizens because there is

51
00:03:07,919 --> 00:03:12,119
Speaker 1: so much violence going on and the normal administrative machinery

52
00:03:12,280 --> 00:03:16,640
Speaker 1: is not available to protected citizens. That's never been used

53
00:03:17,400 --> 00:03:21,120
Speaker 1: and it's unlikely to be used in this case because

54
00:03:21,120 --> 00:03:25,639
Speaker 1: states themselves that said there is no failure of the process.

55
00:03:25,639 --> 00:03:27,680
Speaker 1: There may be a riot, but a riot is not

56
00:03:27,760 --> 00:03:32,440
Speaker 1: an insurrection. Courts are still open, police stations are still open.

57
00:03:32,919 --> 00:03:36,480
Speaker 1: And so that would be the category that Trump would

58
00:03:36,520 --> 00:03:41,000
Speaker 1: have to fit this introduction of federal troops into. And

59
00:03:41,280 --> 00:03:45,560
Speaker 1: it's unprecedented, but it doesn't seem to fit the exception.

60
00:03:45,600 --> 00:03:47,000
Speaker 1: And the way to look at it is is this

61
00:03:47,160 --> 00:03:50,280
Speaker 1: really an insurrection that the states can no longer function

62
00:03:50,600 --> 00:03:52,760
Speaker 1: or is this a riot? And if it's a riot,

63
00:03:52,960 --> 00:03:55,840
Speaker 1: it doesn't seem to fit in within the structure of

64
00:03:56,360 --> 00:03:59,880
Speaker 1: the statute allowing for the introduction of U. S. Troops.

65
00:04:00,520 --> 00:04:04,160
Speaker 1: What about the part of that statute that allows military

66
00:04:04,240 --> 00:04:08,480
Speaker 1: to put down domestic violence? Could this be considered domestic violence?

67
00:04:09,320 --> 00:04:12,960
Speaker 1: That's not really in the Insurrection Act itself. With the

68
00:04:13,000 --> 00:04:16,760
Speaker 1: eighteen or seven statute that President Trump invoked, there is

69
00:04:16,800 --> 00:04:21,480
Speaker 1: another sort of idea of emergency used. There's an inherent,

70
00:04:21,920 --> 00:04:25,200
Speaker 1: some kind of inherent authority of the president in an

71
00:04:25,240 --> 00:04:28,360
Speaker 1: emergency to protect the country. Right, and this is most

72
00:04:28,400 --> 00:04:32,039
Speaker 1: famously President Lincoln cited this when he was trying to

73
00:04:32,160 --> 00:04:35,320
Speaker 1: use the forces of the North to prevent a successful

74
00:04:35,400 --> 00:04:38,080
Speaker 1: rebellion in the South, and did not wait for any

75
00:04:38,160 --> 00:04:41,640
Speaker 1: kind of congressional action, but just said, I have to

76
00:04:41,680 --> 00:04:45,400
Speaker 1: have a reservoir emergency authility to protect the nation. Sure,

77
00:04:45,880 --> 00:04:49,080
Speaker 1: President Trump can invoke his inherent authility. He didn't so far,

78
00:04:49,560 --> 00:04:51,600
Speaker 1: but if he does, it just doesn't seem to rise

79
00:04:51,680 --> 00:04:54,479
Speaker 1: to that kind of level of a catastrophe. Now most

80
00:04:54,480 --> 00:04:57,400
Speaker 1: people think, if we have a terrorist attack, the president

81
00:04:57,480 --> 00:05:01,359
Speaker 1: should invoke emergency powers and not worry about the niceties

82
00:05:01,400 --> 00:05:05,840
Speaker 1: of making a proclamation under the Insurrection Act or anything

83
00:05:05,839 --> 00:05:07,920
Speaker 1: of that sort. But just introduced troops that we need

84
00:05:07,960 --> 00:05:10,599
Speaker 1: to to protect against terrorists, and some people think he

85
00:05:11,080 --> 00:05:14,400
Speaker 1: talked about the Antifa as a terrorist group as an

86
00:05:14,400 --> 00:05:18,159
Speaker 1: alternative way to pay the ground for introduction of U

87
00:05:18,240 --> 00:05:21,520
Speaker 1: S troops on the theory that we were really facing

88
00:05:21,839 --> 00:05:25,880
Speaker 1: a terrorist attack by the Antifa as opposed to domestic disturbances.

89
00:05:26,200 --> 00:05:31,240
Speaker 1: Explain what Antifa is and what happened recently. So, Antifa

90
00:05:31,320 --> 00:05:37,240
Speaker 1: is a loosely organ organized UH left wing anarchist group

91
00:05:37,480 --> 00:05:42,080
Speaker 1: that believes in in violence and destabilizing the status quo

92
00:05:42,520 --> 00:05:47,640
Speaker 1: UM and the President has declared that that group is

93
00:05:47,680 --> 00:05:51,640
Speaker 1: a domestic terrorist organization bent on using violence to overthrow

94
00:05:52,080 --> 00:05:55,720
Speaker 1: the US government UM. And there is not much evidence

95
00:05:56,240 --> 00:06:01,080
Speaker 1: of the Antifa's involvement in the recent protests around the

96
00:06:01,080 --> 00:06:05,280
Speaker 1: country about the George Floyd Floyd killing. I mean, there

97
00:06:05,320 --> 00:06:07,680
Speaker 1: may be in some elements from Antifa that have mixed in,

98
00:06:07,760 --> 00:06:10,680
Speaker 1: and not just Antifa, but there are other kinds of

99
00:06:11,279 --> 00:06:15,480
Speaker 1: agitators who we have and looters as well, who use

100
00:06:15,600 --> 00:06:19,520
Speaker 1: the means or used the context of a peaceful protest

101
00:06:20,120 --> 00:06:23,640
Speaker 1: as a means to further their own ends. Will be

102
00:06:23,760 --> 00:06:28,960
Speaker 1: that the stabilization or booting, But there's no evidence that

103
00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:33,159
Speaker 1: I've seen so far that the Antifa was behind the

104
00:06:33,240 --> 00:06:37,120
Speaker 1: peaceful protests, behind the violence any kind of great extent.

105
00:06:37,240 --> 00:06:41,080
Speaker 1: But President Trump has labeled them as a terrorist organization,

106
00:06:41,080 --> 00:06:44,760
Speaker 1: which maybe again one plank down the road of saying

107
00:06:44,760 --> 00:06:50,000
Speaker 1: that he's introducing troops to protect against this terrorist threat.

108
00:06:50,160 --> 00:06:54,080
Speaker 1: Now that's not directly again UH provided for in the

109
00:06:54,120 --> 00:06:57,680
Speaker 1: Insurrection Act, but I think most people would believe that

110
00:06:57,720 --> 00:07:00,880
Speaker 1: the president has the authority to introduce troops if we

111
00:07:00,960 --> 00:07:03,440
Speaker 1: are in the case of invasion obviously, or the in

112
00:07:03,440 --> 00:07:10,040
Speaker 1: case of an active um UH domestic terrorism challenge. Some

113
00:07:10,280 --> 00:07:14,760
Speaker 1: legal experts believe that the broad language of the Insurrection

114
00:07:14,840 --> 00:07:18,480
Speaker 1: Act means that Trump might have a case. Noah Feldman,

115
00:07:18,880 --> 00:07:22,560
Speaker 1: who's a Bloomberg Opinion columnist Harvard law professor, says that

116
00:07:22,800 --> 00:07:26,440
Speaker 1: the rioting and looting is obstructing execution of federal law

117
00:07:26,560 --> 00:07:29,280
Speaker 1: to the extent that local police and the National Guard

118
00:07:29,320 --> 00:07:32,960
Speaker 1: can successfully stop violence on the streets. So if it

119
00:07:33,000 --> 00:07:36,200
Speaker 1: comes to that point, does Trump have a better case.

120
00:07:37,600 --> 00:07:40,120
Speaker 1: Most of what we've see in the streets there has

121
00:07:40,200 --> 00:07:45,280
Speaker 1: been a threat to state law issues, to property law,

122
00:07:45,560 --> 00:07:50,400
Speaker 1: to traffic laws, and and so forth. Transportation, there has

123
00:07:50,480 --> 00:07:54,000
Speaker 1: not been a direct threat to federal laws. The question

124
00:07:54,080 --> 00:07:57,280
Speaker 1: is what is the federal interest. Certainly there's a right

125
00:07:57,360 --> 00:08:00,720
Speaker 1: to protect federal buildings such as the courthouse for a

126
00:08:00,880 --> 00:08:06,000
Speaker 1: federal bank, but the federal legal interests involved in the

127
00:08:06,040 --> 00:08:09,360
Speaker 1: writings so far have been very marginal. So I think

128
00:08:09,360 --> 00:08:12,920
Speaker 1: it would be a stretch to justify any kind of

129
00:08:12,960 --> 00:08:15,720
Speaker 1: Trump intervention on the base of the need to protect

130
00:08:16,040 --> 00:08:20,280
Speaker 1: federal law. The state cops are still their National Guard

131
00:08:20,320 --> 00:08:24,560
Speaker 1: can be there, and so the machinery justice is still working,

132
00:08:24,960 --> 00:08:28,240
Speaker 1: and there's very little at stake at risk from a

133
00:08:28,320 --> 00:08:33,280
Speaker 1: federal law perspective. New York Attorney General Letitia James tweeted,

134
00:08:33,679 --> 00:08:36,280
Speaker 1: we will guard the right to peaceful protests and will

135
00:08:36,320 --> 00:08:39,439
Speaker 1: not hesitate to go to court to protect our constitutional

136
00:08:39,559 --> 00:08:42,800
Speaker 1: rights during this time and well into the future. But

137
00:08:43,320 --> 00:08:46,280
Speaker 1: by the time you get into court, isn't it too late?

138
00:08:46,800 --> 00:08:49,360
Speaker 1: You know, if he decides to send troops in, how

139
00:08:49,400 --> 00:08:51,160
Speaker 1: long will it take to get a court to rule

140
00:08:51,200 --> 00:08:56,760
Speaker 1: on that. This is one of those difficult political constitutional

141
00:08:56,840 --> 00:09:00,640
Speaker 1: questions that is not meant for speedy resolution in the courts.

142
00:09:01,120 --> 00:09:04,400
Speaker 1: I mean, the court might try to say that there's

143
00:09:04,400 --> 00:09:07,240
Speaker 1: an emergency motion and here it can decide within the day,

144
00:09:07,240 --> 00:09:10,040
Speaker 1: but even within a day, the troops would already be

145
00:09:10,200 --> 00:09:13,200
Speaker 1: on the ground and the whole sort of reality would

146
00:09:13,240 --> 00:09:16,200
Speaker 1: be changed. Now. I do think that there might be

147
00:09:16,360 --> 00:09:21,040
Speaker 1: litigation after the fact, because if someone was arrested or

148
00:09:21,080 --> 00:09:26,880
Speaker 1: somebody was in fact um beat up that by a

149
00:09:26,920 --> 00:09:28,960
Speaker 1: member of the U. S. Army, then they would be

150
00:09:28,960 --> 00:09:31,280
Speaker 1: able to sue after the fact on the ground that

151
00:09:31,400 --> 00:09:33,920
Speaker 1: the whole introduction of U. S. Troops was illegal and

152
00:09:33,960 --> 00:09:37,560
Speaker 1: therefore their arrest or certain seizures should be thrown out.

153
00:09:38,000 --> 00:09:40,800
Speaker 1: But in terms of immediately trying to get a court

154
00:09:40,920 --> 00:09:44,360
Speaker 1: order to stop the introduction of U. S. Troops, I

155
00:09:44,360 --> 00:09:48,840
Speaker 1: think that's a high hurdle to overcome that. I wouldn't

156
00:09:48,840 --> 00:09:52,280
Speaker 1: expect a court to be able to effectively stop the

157
00:09:52,320 --> 00:09:55,480
Speaker 1: introduction of federal troops until for several days afterwards, but

158
00:09:55,600 --> 00:09:59,559
Speaker 1: which time it might be too late. On the under hand,

159
00:09:59,559 --> 00:10:01,600
Speaker 1: a few except back and look at it if this

160
00:10:01,640 --> 00:10:04,680
Speaker 1: is really a political issue. The governors, such as governors

161
00:10:04,679 --> 00:10:06,880
Speaker 1: of Illinois, New York, and Minnesota, have stood up and

162
00:10:06,920 --> 00:10:09,320
Speaker 1: said we don't want any federal troops here. And I

163
00:10:09,320 --> 00:10:12,600
Speaker 1: think there's leaders in the federal UM military who have

164
00:10:12,720 --> 00:10:15,520
Speaker 1: also said we don't think we should introduce troops in

165
00:10:15,520 --> 00:10:18,720
Speaker 1: this way. So already there there is a political movement

166
00:10:18,760 --> 00:10:22,040
Speaker 1: against the threat by President Trump, and I think that's

167
00:10:22,080 --> 00:10:26,680
Speaker 1: probably going to be the most important um uh sort

168
00:10:26,679 --> 00:10:29,520
Speaker 1: of weight against the president as opposed to any potential

169
00:10:29,559 --> 00:10:34,440
Speaker 1: court challenge. This seems to be a unique situation in

170
00:10:34,480 --> 00:10:37,520
Speaker 1: our country. Can you remember another time when there were

171
00:10:37,840 --> 00:10:41,640
Speaker 1: protests like this across the country? You know, where a

172
00:10:41,640 --> 00:10:46,080
Speaker 1: president would be even be thinking about military action. Well,

173
00:10:46,120 --> 00:10:49,120
Speaker 1: most recently they've been situations because of a natural disaster,

174
00:10:49,160 --> 00:10:52,720
Speaker 1: whether it was in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina or

175
00:10:52,840 --> 00:10:57,720
Speaker 1: Hurricane in the Virgin Islands. Those uh disasters left sort

176
00:10:57,720 --> 00:11:00,400
Speaker 1: of devastation and in the awaken whether it was wasn't

177
00:11:00,400 --> 00:11:02,240
Speaker 1: that far from what happened to Puerto Rico just a

178
00:11:02,280 --> 00:11:04,840
Speaker 1: couple of years ago, And there there has been a

179
00:11:04,880 --> 00:11:09,920
Speaker 1: need to have have quick action by federal authorities to

180
00:11:10,000 --> 00:11:13,440
Speaker 1: try to restore order. But we haven't seen it in

181
00:11:13,440 --> 00:11:16,760
Speaker 1: a kind of political context. And and remember that most

182
00:11:16,800 --> 00:11:21,240
Speaker 1: almost everybody would agree. I think so far that six

183
00:11:21,360 --> 00:11:24,440
Speaker 1: percent of all of the protests has been peaceful, they've

184
00:11:24,480 --> 00:11:27,840
Speaker 1: been constructive. And so to send the military in because

185
00:11:28,120 --> 00:11:30,400
Speaker 1: of even what some people might say is a few

186
00:11:30,400 --> 00:11:35,120
Speaker 1: bad apples or these provocateurs seeming to be an overreach,

187
00:11:35,400 --> 00:11:38,760
Speaker 1: and there's been no evidence that the states on their

188
00:11:38,800 --> 00:11:41,239
Speaker 1: own can't take care of it. Maybe not as efficiently

189
00:11:41,360 --> 00:11:44,600
Speaker 1: as we've all would like, but it looks like that

190
00:11:44,840 --> 00:11:48,200
Speaker 1: issues are subsiding, the violence is subsiding, and that the

191
00:11:48,240 --> 00:11:51,840
Speaker 1: protests that are continuing are again are well within the

192
00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:56,040
Speaker 1: First Amendment rights and in fact very productive for the country.

193
00:11:56,200 --> 00:12:00,520
Speaker 1: I also want to talk a little bit about that incident, uh,

194
00:12:00,600 --> 00:12:04,880
Speaker 1: the clearing of the peaceful protesters from around the White House.

195
00:12:05,200 --> 00:12:10,240
Speaker 1: You had General Mark Milly wearing combat fatigues on the

196
00:12:10,240 --> 00:12:15,320
Speaker 1: streets of the Capitol and military units were used against

197
00:12:15,880 --> 00:12:21,320
Speaker 1: the protesters. Is that allowed on the streets of our country?

198
00:12:21,880 --> 00:12:24,439
Speaker 1: So really, the presidents in a better position because it's

199
00:12:24,480 --> 00:12:27,240
Speaker 1: d C. D C is not a state. D C

200
00:12:28,200 --> 00:12:32,359
Speaker 1: does have militia, but it's also connected with a more

201
00:12:32,400 --> 00:12:36,679
Speaker 1: closely controlled to the federal government and to UH the U. S.

202
00:12:36,800 --> 00:12:39,839
Speaker 1: National Garden. Because of that, to the U. S. Army

203
00:12:40,280 --> 00:12:44,040
Speaker 1: as well, So in that sense, the president does have

204
00:12:44,160 --> 00:12:50,360
Speaker 1: more control to order the military to protect him or

205
00:12:50,760 --> 00:12:53,600
Speaker 1: people or property in d C than they would in

206
00:12:53,640 --> 00:12:57,319
Speaker 1: New York, Illinois, Minnesota, or elsewhere. But but the question

207
00:12:57,360 --> 00:12:59,959
Speaker 1: is why, I mean, why would you have to send

208
00:13:00,960 --> 00:13:05,439
Speaker 1: those kind of messages to people who are peacefully protesting. Um,

209
00:13:05,440 --> 00:13:08,480
Speaker 1: what happened in Minnesota, it's sort of defies any kind

210
00:13:08,760 --> 00:13:12,040
Speaker 1: of imagination. So it's in my mind a wholly excessive

211
00:13:12,040 --> 00:13:14,920
Speaker 1: short of force. But again, he there's more legal backing

212
00:13:14,960 --> 00:13:19,000
Speaker 1: to what he did in DC than there would be

213
00:13:19,120 --> 00:13:23,800
Speaker 1: in a state. More National Guard troops have been deployed

214
00:13:24,480 --> 00:13:27,520
Speaker 1: inside the US at this time than at any previous

215
00:13:27,600 --> 00:13:31,400
Speaker 1: time in our history. The White House has asked some

216
00:13:31,559 --> 00:13:36,080
Speaker 1: governors to send National Guard troops to d C, and

217
00:13:36,200 --> 00:13:40,440
Speaker 1: governors in Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware have declined

218
00:13:40,480 --> 00:13:43,960
Speaker 1: to do so. Who has the power over those troops

219
00:13:44,200 --> 00:13:46,320
Speaker 1: is that the governors. That the governors have the power

220
00:13:46,360 --> 00:13:49,200
Speaker 1: to say no, we're not going to send you any troops.

221
00:13:49,280 --> 00:13:51,520
Speaker 1: Right the first level, the governors do have the authority

222
00:13:51,559 --> 00:13:55,760
Speaker 1: to decide how their own National Guards troops should be deployed.

223
00:13:55,960 --> 00:14:00,200
Speaker 1: But the very name national Guards suggest that people in

224
00:14:00,240 --> 00:14:02,840
Speaker 1: the National Guard where two had their first loyalty is

225
00:14:02,880 --> 00:14:06,760
Speaker 1: to the states. But if the federal government goes to

226
00:14:06,880 --> 00:14:11,760
Speaker 1: the right procedures to federalize the National Guard, then the

227
00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:14,720
Speaker 1: fellow federal military would be at the head of the

228
00:14:14,800 --> 00:14:17,240
Speaker 1: National Guard House. The government has not done this yet.

229
00:14:17,559 --> 00:14:19,680
Speaker 1: I hope it doesn't. It doesn't see the need to

230
00:14:19,680 --> 00:14:22,840
Speaker 1: do that. But this again is a unique sort of

231
00:14:22,840 --> 00:14:27,040
Speaker 1: window into the dual nature and dual loyalties of the

232
00:14:27,160 --> 00:14:29,680
Speaker 1: national guards in our country. First of a state, whether

233
00:14:29,680 --> 00:14:32,520
Speaker 1: it's Virginia or Illinois, um, and then of course to

234
00:14:32,800 --> 00:14:37,160
Speaker 1: the national government itself. I believe it was President Eisenhower

235
00:14:37,320 --> 00:14:40,880
Speaker 1: who took over the state's National Guard in nineteen fifty

236
00:14:41,000 --> 00:14:45,400
Speaker 1: seven from the governor without the governor's consent. Yeah, and

237
00:14:45,640 --> 00:14:48,000
Speaker 1: President Trump might take that to deep and we think

238
00:14:48,040 --> 00:14:51,400
Speaker 1: that that's probably within his bigal authority to do so. Um,

239
00:14:51,480 --> 00:14:55,120
Speaker 1: that does come with more responsibilities and obligations, and he

240
00:14:55,240 --> 00:14:58,880
Speaker 1: is not shown willingness to take that step. And I

241
00:14:58,880 --> 00:15:00,280
Speaker 1: don't think he needs to, And I think I don't

242
00:15:00,280 --> 00:15:03,920
Speaker 1: think he needs to because, um, he's sitting with the U. S.

243
00:15:04,040 --> 00:15:07,160
Speaker 1: Army at his back, and if he wants to take

244
00:15:07,160 --> 00:15:11,400
Speaker 1: a dramatic move, he'll probably do so through the introduction

245
00:15:11,720 --> 00:15:14,200
Speaker 1: of the armed forces, as he's threatened to do already,

246
00:15:14,440 --> 00:15:18,280
Speaker 1: as opposed to taking a step of nationalizing the state's

247
00:15:18,360 --> 00:15:20,640
Speaker 1: national Guards, but who knows. We'll have to stay tuned

248
00:15:20,640 --> 00:15:25,240
Speaker 1: to watch unfolding developments. So then, just to clarify, it's

249
00:15:25,240 --> 00:15:30,000
Speaker 1: a different legal issue his taking over National Guard in

250
00:15:30,040 --> 00:15:33,960
Speaker 1: a state as opposed to sending the military in. The

251
00:15:34,000 --> 00:15:36,040
Speaker 1: answer is yes, But the answer is also that I

252
00:15:36,120 --> 00:15:38,520
Speaker 1: don't know the procedures that have to follow to do that.

253
00:15:38,800 --> 00:15:42,240
Speaker 1: Are there any procedures he has to follow? He decided

254
00:15:42,360 --> 00:15:46,200
Speaker 1: to invoke the Insurrection Act, there is one procedure that

255
00:15:46,240 --> 00:15:49,400
Speaker 1: he must follow, and he must make a proclamation that

256
00:15:49,600 --> 00:15:53,440
Speaker 1: he will be introducing troops and why he will be

257
00:15:53,520 --> 00:15:57,920
Speaker 1: introducing troops. Um, that's the only with procedural obstacle for

258
00:15:58,160 --> 00:16:02,200
Speaker 1: invoking the Insurrection Act. So it's a relatively minimal procedural

259
00:16:02,280 --> 00:16:06,840
Speaker 1: hurdle that he must satisfied. Thanks Hal. That's Harold Crent,

260
00:16:07,040 --> 00:16:11,880
Speaker 1: professor at the Chicago Kent College of Law. Next Friday,

261
00:16:11,920 --> 00:16:14,400
Speaker 1: the d C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral

262
00:16:14,520 --> 00:16:18,280
Speaker 1: arguments to determine whether Judge Emmett Sullivan has the power

263
00:16:18,360 --> 00:16:21,800
Speaker 1: to review the Justice Department's plan to drop its charges

264
00:16:21,840 --> 00:16:25,560
Speaker 1: against former National Security advisor Michael Flynn after his two

265
00:16:25,640 --> 00:16:28,560
Speaker 1: guilty Please joining me is Brad moss, a partner at

266
00:16:28,600 --> 00:16:32,640
Speaker 1: Mark said, Brad, can you remember the last time an

267
00:16:32,640 --> 00:16:38,560
Speaker 1: appellate court asked a federal judge to explain his actions? No,

268
00:16:38,720 --> 00:16:41,120
Speaker 1: I mean this. I'm sure there are instances in the

269
00:16:41,120 --> 00:16:43,960
Speaker 1: past in which that has occurred, probably not the first

270
00:16:44,000 --> 00:16:47,520
Speaker 1: time it's ever happened. But this is altogether a rather

271
00:16:47,640 --> 00:16:53,520
Speaker 1: unusual and somewhat unprecedented situation, because this is where a

272
00:16:53,560 --> 00:16:56,520
Speaker 1: situation where the defendant has already pleaded guilty and more

273
00:16:56,560 --> 00:16:59,720
Speaker 1: than one hearing and in writing the guilty plea was

274
00:16:59,720 --> 00:17:03,360
Speaker 1: already accepted, they were ready for sentencing. The Justice Department

275
00:17:03,360 --> 00:17:08,600
Speaker 1: had defended itself multiple times against allegations of misconduct, against

276
00:17:08,640 --> 00:17:11,680
Speaker 1: allegations that the that the false statements were not material,

277
00:17:11,800 --> 00:17:13,600
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden, at the last minute,

278
00:17:13,840 --> 00:17:19,000
Speaker 1: but there meant changes its mind without rescinding its previous

279
00:17:19,119 --> 00:17:22,920
Speaker 1: sworn assertions defending its position, and said we're going to

280
00:17:23,000 --> 00:17:26,679
Speaker 1: dismiss the charges. We've reconsidered our legal analysis, and so

281
00:17:26,880 --> 00:17:30,600
Speaker 1: put Judge Sullivan in a rather difficult situation, which is

282
00:17:30,600 --> 00:17:32,960
Speaker 1: why we are in the current predicament in which we

283
00:17:33,000 --> 00:17:35,680
Speaker 1: find ourselves that now has the DC Circuit hearing this

284
00:17:36,160 --> 00:17:40,800
Speaker 1: next week. Judge Sullivan responded through his attorney, what was

285
00:17:40,840 --> 00:17:44,879
Speaker 1: his response to why he stepped in here? So the

286
00:17:44,880 --> 00:17:48,960
Speaker 1: the ultimate point that Judge Sullivan's attorney was arguing in

287
00:17:49,160 --> 00:17:51,960
Speaker 1: outlining is that this is a way too early and

288
00:17:52,000 --> 00:17:55,040
Speaker 1: premature for the circuit or for any kind of you know,

289
00:17:55,080 --> 00:17:57,760
Speaker 1: release to be provided, because Judge Sullivan hasn't actually done

290
00:17:57,880 --> 00:18:02,320
Speaker 1: anything yet. So under criminal Procedure forty eight, which is

291
00:18:02,320 --> 00:18:05,040
Speaker 1: the one the government moved to dismiss the charges, it

292
00:18:05,160 --> 00:18:09,119
Speaker 1: requires leading the court requires the court's permission at this

293
00:18:09,200 --> 00:18:13,119
Speaker 1: point to have the charges dismissed. And what job Salvan

294
00:18:13,200 --> 00:18:15,920
Speaker 1: is saying is, I'm not a rubber stamp. I get

295
00:18:16,000 --> 00:18:19,800
Speaker 1: the I have the discretion to inquire before I grant leave.

296
00:18:20,720 --> 00:18:24,840
Speaker 1: I have an unusual situation. It's virtually unheard of for

297
00:18:24,960 --> 00:18:28,800
Speaker 1: the government to withdraw the charges in this context, after

298
00:18:28,840 --> 00:18:31,960
Speaker 1: the defendant has already pled guilty multiple times in my

299
00:18:32,119 --> 00:18:35,359
Speaker 1: courtroom and to me, and after the government has fought

300
00:18:35,400 --> 00:18:39,320
Speaker 1: back allegations of Brady violations and things along those lines

301
00:18:39,359 --> 00:18:44,000
Speaker 1: and passed motions, and to now suddenly, with this politicized environment,

302
00:18:44,359 --> 00:18:47,240
Speaker 1: to move to withdraw the charges. And the Judge Sullivan's

303
00:18:47,240 --> 00:18:50,440
Speaker 1: comment was, I have the authority in that circumstance to

304
00:18:50,560 --> 00:18:53,080
Speaker 1: a point, an A meek us to appoint someone like

305
00:18:53,160 --> 00:18:57,320
Speaker 1: Judge Gleeson to argue against the dismissal, if only to

306
00:18:57,440 --> 00:19:00,240
Speaker 1: ensure the adversarial process before I make a choice. My

307
00:19:00,359 --> 00:19:03,840
Speaker 1: choice might still be to grant leave and dismiss the charges,

308
00:19:04,320 --> 00:19:08,280
Speaker 1: but I have that discretion to review that situation first,

309
00:19:09,000 --> 00:19:11,679
Speaker 1: and that the Circuit shouldn't be intervening. It should be

310
00:19:11,680 --> 00:19:15,600
Speaker 1: allowing him to conduct that discretionary In Corey, he said

311
00:19:15,600 --> 00:19:20,359
Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice repeatedly affirmed for years that

312
00:19:20,800 --> 00:19:23,879
Speaker 1: the evidence that Flynn lied to the FBI was iron

313
00:19:24,000 --> 00:19:29,440
Speaker 1: clad and crucial to the FBI Russia investigation. How does

314
00:19:29,480 --> 00:19:34,640
Speaker 1: that compare with what the Department of Justice has said? Yes,

315
00:19:34,800 --> 00:19:39,879
Speaker 1: so now the just departments changed view on this, never

316
00:19:39,920 --> 00:19:44,000
Speaker 1: rescinded any of their past defenses. All they have essentially

317
00:19:44,040 --> 00:19:47,240
Speaker 1: said here is that even if he did lie, we

318
00:19:47,359 --> 00:19:50,919
Speaker 1: have now concluded that it was not a false statement

319
00:19:51,400 --> 00:19:55,760
Speaker 1: material to an ongoing investigation because the investigation shouldn't have

320
00:19:55,840 --> 00:19:59,680
Speaker 1: been ongoing in the first place, which is some very fancy,

321
00:20:00,040 --> 00:20:04,000
Speaker 1: you know Monday morning quarterbacking by the just former and

322
00:20:04,080 --> 00:20:07,320
Speaker 1: lawyer who signed that brief, saying they shouldn't have been

323
00:20:07,320 --> 00:20:10,800
Speaker 1: talking to Flynn anyway. That didn't rescind any of the

324
00:20:10,840 --> 00:20:13,679
Speaker 1: past affidavits they submitted. It didn't rescind any of the

325
00:20:13,720 --> 00:20:17,880
Speaker 1: past motions and oppositions they had filed in. What particularly

326
00:20:17,920 --> 00:20:20,840
Speaker 1: concerned Judge Sullivan was he didn't have any of the

327
00:20:20,880 --> 00:20:24,200
Speaker 1: original prosecutors on the brief. It was a brand new,

328
00:20:24,680 --> 00:20:28,159
Speaker 1: temporarily appointed individual put in there by the Attorney General

329
00:20:28,640 --> 00:20:31,800
Speaker 1: who signed that brief alone, and then he left as well,

330
00:20:31,840 --> 00:20:34,160
Speaker 1: And so that was why Judge Salvian wanted to inquire

331
00:20:34,240 --> 00:20:37,040
Speaker 1: further to see what exactly was going on there. Does

332
00:20:37,080 --> 00:20:41,760
Speaker 1: anyone take into an account that Flynn pleaded to these

333
00:20:41,800 --> 00:20:45,600
Speaker 1: particular charges but there were other charges that were being

334
00:20:45,640 --> 00:20:49,159
Speaker 1: considered against him, Yeah, that has been mentioned. I mean,

335
00:20:49,160 --> 00:20:53,240
Speaker 1: there's certainly there was a Foreign Agent Registration Act issue

336
00:20:53,320 --> 00:20:55,359
Speaker 1: that came up in the plea deal that was mentioned

337
00:20:55,359 --> 00:20:58,880
Speaker 1: in the statement offense that Michael Flynn had been doing

338
00:20:58,920 --> 00:21:02,040
Speaker 1: work in support of Turkey and he had never registered

339
00:21:03,040 --> 00:21:05,080
Speaker 1: with the Justice Department as a foreign registered agent, and

340
00:21:05,119 --> 00:21:08,200
Speaker 1: that he had lied about the detail that was part

341
00:21:08,240 --> 00:21:09,760
Speaker 1: of it came up in the statement offense. And there

342
00:21:09,840 --> 00:21:13,120
Speaker 1: was always this issue of for there other charges that

343
00:21:13,240 --> 00:21:17,000
Speaker 1: Mueller's team had been considering against Flynn prior to him

344
00:21:17,000 --> 00:21:19,199
Speaker 1: pleading guilty. There was a question about whether or not

345
00:21:19,320 --> 00:21:22,600
Speaker 1: he had properly outlined his work in support of Turkey

346
00:21:22,760 --> 00:21:26,080
Speaker 1: and his interactions with various foreign government officials on his

347
00:21:26,200 --> 00:21:30,240
Speaker 1: security clearance paperwork, and failure to properly document that is

348
00:21:30,280 --> 00:21:33,840
Speaker 1: a felony can be a felony under again a team USC.

349
00:21:34,000 --> 00:21:37,080
Speaker 1: One thousand one. So there were certainly other issues that

350
00:21:37,080 --> 00:21:39,720
Speaker 1: could have been raised if Mueller had wanted to throw

351
00:21:39,760 --> 00:21:42,080
Speaker 1: the entire kitchen sink at him, but they didn't. They

352
00:21:42,119 --> 00:21:45,080
Speaker 1: struck a plea deal to get his cooperation, and those

353
00:21:45,080 --> 00:21:47,720
Speaker 1: were things that I'm sure to some extent Judge Sullivan

354
00:21:47,800 --> 00:21:51,040
Speaker 1: would want to enquire into as part of his assessment

355
00:21:51,080 --> 00:21:53,760
Speaker 1: of the rule forty eight motions. Flynn's lawyers filed this

356
00:21:53,920 --> 00:21:57,680
Speaker 1: rid of mandamus. Did the Circuit Court have to call

357
00:21:57,760 --> 00:22:00,480
Speaker 1: a hearing and ask for briefs and everything? Could they

358
00:22:00,520 --> 00:22:03,840
Speaker 1: have just rejected that out of hand? They could have

359
00:22:03,880 --> 00:22:05,639
Speaker 1: rejected it out of hand, but I don't think anybody

360
00:22:05,760 --> 00:22:10,320
Speaker 1: was expecting them to do so, given the sensitivity of

361
00:22:10,359 --> 00:22:15,720
Speaker 1: the topic and given the constitutional concerns. I mean, there's

362
00:22:15,760 --> 00:22:17,960
Speaker 1: certainly an issue about Brady violations and here that have

363
00:22:17,960 --> 00:22:20,320
Speaker 1: been alleged there. It would have made no sense for

364
00:22:20,359 --> 00:22:23,200
Speaker 1: the Circuit to have just summarily denied the motion. It

365
00:22:23,359 --> 00:22:26,240
Speaker 1: was certainly proper for them at that point to get briefs,

366
00:22:26,240 --> 00:22:28,919
Speaker 1: to let Judge Slivan submit a brief. Let's just department

367
00:22:28,960 --> 00:22:32,040
Speaker 1: submit a brief, to let AMICI submit brief, and to

368
00:22:32,240 --> 00:22:34,399
Speaker 1: call a hearing and to hear this out and to

369
00:22:34,520 --> 00:22:37,879
Speaker 1: let this be truly argued before this panel. How it

370
00:22:37,920 --> 00:22:40,239
Speaker 1: will play out, I think is anybody's guys. I think

371
00:22:40,240 --> 00:22:42,159
Speaker 1: a lot of people are trying to get ahead of

372
00:22:42,160 --> 00:22:44,520
Speaker 1: themselves on whether or not politics will play a player

373
00:22:44,600 --> 00:22:47,680
Speaker 1: Roland who decides how to vote on this vere person

374
00:22:47,760 --> 00:22:50,159
Speaker 1: panel with respect to whether grant that the right of

375
00:22:50,200 --> 00:22:52,560
Speaker 1: mand Dame is. I do not believe they will ultimately grant.

376
00:22:53,160 --> 00:22:56,200
Speaker 1: This is a more conservative panel than you might expect

377
00:22:56,200 --> 00:22:59,560
Speaker 1: to find at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, considering

378
00:22:59,760 --> 00:23:04,959
Speaker 1: it's it's makeup, and with one president Trump appointd so

379
00:23:05,640 --> 00:23:09,840
Speaker 1: might that play into how the judges view this? And

380
00:23:09,840 --> 00:23:11,240
Speaker 1: and that's kind of going towards what I was just

381
00:23:11,280 --> 00:23:13,480
Speaker 1: saying before. I think a lot of people are assuming

382
00:23:13,480 --> 00:23:15,280
Speaker 1: that you know, because of the more conservative vent if

383
00:23:15,320 --> 00:23:18,400
Speaker 1: some of these judges are more closely alliance to the president,

384
00:23:18,680 --> 00:23:21,240
Speaker 1: that they will automatically just vote, you know, and lock

385
00:23:21,320 --> 00:23:24,439
Speaker 1: step with the president. While that's certainly a potential, you

386
00:23:24,480 --> 00:23:28,680
Speaker 1: know reality, I think some people are underestimating the extent

387
00:23:28,720 --> 00:23:30,920
Speaker 1: to which you know, one or two these judges might

388
00:23:31,240 --> 00:23:34,840
Speaker 1: be a little off put by the idea of the

389
00:23:34,880 --> 00:23:37,800
Speaker 1: circuit granting this kind of relief because of the door

390
00:23:37,840 --> 00:23:41,240
Speaker 1: it could open in the future. I think it would

391
00:23:41,280 --> 00:23:43,879
Speaker 1: go against some of the conservative principles for them to

392
00:23:44,640 --> 00:23:48,439
Speaker 1: allow for the just department and of criminal defendant who

393
00:23:48,480 --> 00:23:51,560
Speaker 1: had already played guilty to you know, essentially joined forces

394
00:23:51,720 --> 00:23:54,040
Speaker 1: against the judge. So I think lis a degree there

395
00:23:54,040 --> 00:23:55,560
Speaker 1: to which each others are going to play it a

396
00:23:55,600 --> 00:23:57,920
Speaker 1: little put close to their vest of just how much

397
00:23:57,960 --> 00:24:00,680
Speaker 1: they're gonna let politics, you know, how some of their

398
00:24:00,800 --> 00:24:03,960
Speaker 1: overriding conservative you know, legal principles might play a role

399
00:24:03,960 --> 00:24:06,080
Speaker 1: in how they tried to weasel their way out of

400
00:24:06,080 --> 00:24:08,199
Speaker 1: this and basically say no, this has got to go

401
00:24:08,240 --> 00:24:10,600
Speaker 1: back to the judge until he actually makes a decision.

402
00:24:10,600 --> 00:24:14,879
Speaker 1: The first when the federal government filed its last brief,

403
00:24:15,320 --> 00:24:20,200
Speaker 1: it took a step even further than the Flynn attorneys

404
00:24:20,200 --> 00:24:23,679
Speaker 1: had done in asking the court to stop Judge Sullivan

405
00:24:23,800 --> 00:24:28,320
Speaker 1: or any other judge from proceeding with contempt proceedings, which

406
00:24:28,520 --> 00:24:32,560
Speaker 1: is different from accepting the play or not correct and so.

407
00:24:32,640 --> 00:24:36,440
Speaker 1: And that was in the context that technically, under federal law,

408
00:24:36,680 --> 00:24:41,280
Speaker 1: federal judges have inherent authority to hold an individual that

409
00:24:41,320 --> 00:24:44,199
Speaker 1: came before them in criminal contempt or lying or providing

410
00:24:44,240 --> 00:24:47,040
Speaker 1: false statements to the judge. And that was something that

411
00:24:47,080 --> 00:24:49,920
Speaker 1: obviously jud Sullivan was going to inquire into with his

412
00:24:50,080 --> 00:24:53,159
Speaker 1: proceedings at a district court level because Mr Flint had

413
00:24:53,160 --> 00:24:56,159
Speaker 1: come before first Judge Contraras and said, yes, I am

414
00:24:56,200 --> 00:24:59,439
Speaker 1: pleading guilty, eyelied, and then had done before Judge Sullivan,

415
00:24:59,560 --> 00:25:02,200
Speaker 1: is that yet I am guilty? I lied, had done

416
00:25:02,200 --> 00:25:04,800
Speaker 1: that in a sworn statement, And so I'm sure Judge

417
00:25:04,800 --> 00:25:07,080
Speaker 1: Sulvon was going to be asking him. I asked you

418
00:25:07,119 --> 00:25:10,240
Speaker 1: over and over and over, are you sure? Are you sure?

419
00:25:10,320 --> 00:25:12,879
Speaker 1: And you said you were? And now you're pulling it back.

420
00:25:13,320 --> 00:25:15,880
Speaker 1: So are you lying? Then? Are you lying now? And

421
00:25:15,960 --> 00:25:19,360
Speaker 1: technically the Judge Sullivan has the authority in that circumstance.

422
00:25:19,440 --> 00:25:21,480
Speaker 1: I don't think he would employ it, but he has

423
00:25:21,520 --> 00:25:25,080
Speaker 1: the authority to criminally punish Blend himself. And how does

424
00:25:25,119 --> 00:25:29,400
Speaker 1: the Justice Department answer that, because it seems that that's

425
00:25:29,480 --> 00:25:32,800
Speaker 1: just a separate issue from the Flynn play that if

426
00:25:32,840 --> 00:25:35,359
Speaker 1: someone is received to have lied to a court, the

427
00:25:35,400 --> 00:25:39,359
Speaker 1: court has the right to protect its integrity. Yes, so

428
00:25:39,400 --> 00:25:42,600
Speaker 1: the Just Department's view, in this very tread soul like

429
00:25:42,760 --> 00:25:45,800
Speaker 1: contorted argument they had to make basically say it would

430
00:25:45,800 --> 00:25:50,280
Speaker 1: be inappropriate for Judge Sullivan to go down that path

431
00:25:50,560 --> 00:25:54,280
Speaker 1: in this situation where the Justice Department is now apparently

432
00:25:54,359 --> 00:25:57,440
Speaker 1: siding with Flint's lawyers, saying if there were the improprieties

433
00:25:57,520 --> 00:26:00,560
Speaker 1: in how the FBI had conducted the quarries in the

434
00:26:00,640 --> 00:26:03,639
Speaker 1: context of it, and so therefore, to whatever an extent,

435
00:26:03,840 --> 00:26:06,560
Speaker 1: Flynn may have provided the statements that if now we're candid,

436
00:26:06,920 --> 00:26:08,680
Speaker 1: it would be inappropriate for the judge to try to

437
00:26:08,800 --> 00:26:11,679
Speaker 1: use that inherent authority. And to be clear, that inherent

438
00:26:11,720 --> 00:26:15,160
Speaker 1: authority is rarely, if ever used, that it's not something

439
00:26:15,240 --> 00:26:18,720
Speaker 1: judges commonly have to worry about because usually law enforcement

440
00:26:18,720 --> 00:26:21,080
Speaker 1: takes care of it, and d OJ certainly doesn't want

441
00:26:21,119 --> 00:26:23,879
Speaker 1: to start feeding any kind of authority to the judges

442
00:26:23,880 --> 00:26:27,160
Speaker 1: in that regard. When the Justice Department decided to drop

443
00:26:27,200 --> 00:26:31,240
Speaker 1: the charges against Flynn. It came as a shock to

444
00:26:31,680 --> 00:26:36,320
Speaker 1: most people, and Attorney General bar in a TV interview

445
00:26:36,480 --> 00:26:40,159
Speaker 1: explained that it was justice for all and that you

446
00:26:40,200 --> 00:26:42,359
Speaker 1: wanted to make sure that everyone was treated the same.

447
00:26:43,040 --> 00:26:47,600
Speaker 1: But how unusual is it after all the litigation that's

448
00:26:47,600 --> 00:26:51,640
Speaker 1: gone on, and what is behind this withdrawal of the

449
00:26:51,720 --> 00:26:54,600
Speaker 1: charges against Flynn. Is it part of an attempt to

450
00:26:54,600 --> 00:26:58,280
Speaker 1: erase the Russia probe? Well, that's certainly is what it

451
00:26:58,320 --> 00:27:00,600
Speaker 1: appears to be, at least, you know, a hit, bit

452
00:27:00,640 --> 00:27:04,159
Speaker 1: by bit effort. First in the writer Stone sentencing for

453
00:27:04,280 --> 00:27:07,440
Speaker 1: the President, g o J intervened on the sentencing recommendation,

454
00:27:07,680 --> 00:27:09,399
Speaker 1: and then now with Flynn, was trying to get the

455
00:27:09,440 --> 00:27:12,919
Speaker 1: charges pulled back entirely. You see a slow, you know,

456
00:27:13,000 --> 00:27:16,440
Speaker 1: steady degradation of the entirety of the Mulla report. You've got,

457
00:27:16,480 --> 00:27:18,720
Speaker 1: you know, the Attorney General bar has got all these

458
00:27:18,760 --> 00:27:22,440
Speaker 1: different U S attorneys running separate probes, trying to peel

459
00:27:22,480 --> 00:27:26,479
Speaker 1: apart and pull apart any semblance trust in what Mueller

460
00:27:26,480 --> 00:27:28,480
Speaker 1: had done, and trying to suggest the whole thing was

461
00:27:28,520 --> 00:27:32,160
Speaker 1: a fraud. So to an extent, Judge Sullivan, I think

462
00:27:32,200 --> 00:27:34,600
Speaker 1: at least to the degree that there's something before him,

463
00:27:35,320 --> 00:27:38,840
Speaker 1: is trying to reassure public confidence in how this is

464
00:27:38,880 --> 00:27:41,399
Speaker 1: being handled. He obviously is not in a position to

465
00:27:41,520 --> 00:27:44,320
Speaker 1: nor should he be using his role to try to

466
00:27:44,440 --> 00:27:47,359
Speaker 1: address the entire of Mueller issue, But he is trying

467
00:27:47,400 --> 00:27:50,359
Speaker 1: to ensure that what was done before him, and he

468
00:27:50,480 --> 00:27:53,600
Speaker 1: is a constitutional officer, it was appointed by a president

469
00:27:53,640 --> 00:27:55,480
Speaker 1: and confirmed by the Senate at the time he was

470
00:27:55,600 --> 00:27:58,639
Speaker 1: put on the bench, has that role to ensure that

471
00:27:58,680 --> 00:28:01,240
Speaker 1: the proceedings before him done in candor. And when he

472
00:28:01,320 --> 00:28:03,879
Speaker 1: sees what's going on here with how d o J

473
00:28:04,119 --> 00:28:07,520
Speaker 1: is now you know, playing foot see with the Flynn team,

474
00:28:07,560 --> 00:28:10,199
Speaker 1: there is a certain degree of this dispression that he

475
00:28:10,280 --> 00:28:13,679
Speaker 1: has that he has chosen to employ to inquire further

476
00:28:13,760 --> 00:28:16,920
Speaker 1: to make sure he personally is comfortable with what's going

477
00:28:17,000 --> 00:28:20,440
Speaker 1: on before he signs off on dismissing the charges. Judd

478
00:28:20,480 --> 00:28:25,080
Speaker 1: Sullivan was concerned that the career prosecutors handling the case

479
00:28:25,119 --> 00:28:29,200
Speaker 1: declined to sign the motion to dismiss, but the government's

480
00:28:29,560 --> 00:28:33,960
Speaker 1: brief was signed by one of the long time prosecutors

481
00:28:34,000 --> 00:28:37,560
Speaker 1: on the case, as well as two other career prosecutors,

482
00:28:37,960 --> 00:28:41,680
Speaker 1: So does that mitigate against that one argument by Judd

483
00:28:41,720 --> 00:28:44,320
Speaker 1: Sullivan it might and I think that's something that he

484
00:28:44,400 --> 00:28:47,239
Speaker 1: was certainly going to, you know, inquire into. And this

485
00:28:47,280 --> 00:28:49,520
Speaker 1: is part of the whole argument that ultimately he's making

486
00:28:49,680 --> 00:28:53,160
Speaker 1: to the circuit is this is all prettymature to try

487
00:28:53,200 --> 00:28:55,480
Speaker 1: to stop what he's doing. He hasn't even made a

488
00:28:55,600 --> 00:28:58,600
Speaker 1: choice yet. He might still grant the dismissal and Flynn

489
00:28:58,640 --> 00:29:00,719
Speaker 1: will go free, But all he's trying to do at

490
00:29:00,720 --> 00:29:02,920
Speaker 1: the moment is flesh out the record a little bit

491
00:29:02,920 --> 00:29:06,680
Speaker 1: more clearly, given the unusual nature of what's going on before,

492
00:29:06,960 --> 00:29:10,280
Speaker 1: including this really weird set of memos coming out of

493
00:29:10,360 --> 00:29:13,240
Speaker 1: d O J. You know, first before they withdrew everything,

494
00:29:13,280 --> 00:29:15,880
Speaker 1: and now after they tried to withdraw charges and the

495
00:29:16,080 --> 00:29:18,960
Speaker 1: rotating chairs of who's on the breech, and that's within

496
00:29:19,040 --> 00:29:21,920
Speaker 1: his discretion to enquire into. I personally think he was

497
00:29:21,960 --> 00:29:24,360
Speaker 1: still going to grant themotions dismissed in the end, but

498
00:29:24,520 --> 00:29:27,800
Speaker 1: now I just don't know. Thanks Brad, that's Brad Moss

499
00:29:27,840 --> 00:29:30,600
Speaker 1: of mark Z. I'm Jim Rosso and this is joom

500
00:29:30,640 --> 00:29:30,880
Speaker 1: Burn