1 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brossel from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:08,760 --> 00:00:12,040 Speaker 2: Mail in ballots are corrupt. Mail in ballots. You can 3 00:00:12,080 --> 00:00:16,760 Speaker 2: never have a real democracy with mail in ballots. And 4 00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:19,560 Speaker 2: we as a Republican party, are going to do everything 5 00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:22,800 Speaker 2: possible that we get rid of mail invalots. We're going 6 00:00:22,840 --> 00:00:25,320 Speaker 2: to start with an executive order that's being written right 7 00:00:25,360 --> 00:00:28,320 Speaker 2: now by the best lawyers in the country to end 8 00:00:28,480 --> 00:00:33,839 Speaker 2: mail in ballots because they're corrupt. And do you know 9 00:00:33,880 --> 00:00:35,960 Speaker 2: that we're the only country in the world, I believe 10 00:00:36,000 --> 00:00:38,400 Speaker 2: I may be wrong, but just about the only country 11 00:00:38,440 --> 00:00:39,400 Speaker 2: in the world that uses it. 12 00:00:39,880 --> 00:00:44,159 Speaker 3: In fact, more than thirty countries, including the UK, Canada 13 00:00:44,200 --> 00:00:48,560 Speaker 3: and Australia, use mail in voting. But President Trump has 14 00:00:48,640 --> 00:00:52,600 Speaker 3: complained for years about mail in voting leading to fraud 15 00:00:53,000 --> 00:00:57,400 Speaker 3: without any evidence, and in an interview with Fox's Sean Hannity, 16 00:00:57,600 --> 00:01:03,000 Speaker 3: Trump pointed as validation to comments by Vladimir Putin, Russia's 17 00:01:03,040 --> 00:01:04,440 Speaker 3: authoritarian leader. 18 00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:07,759 Speaker 4: You know, Vladimir Putin said something, one of the most 19 00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:12,760 Speaker 4: interesting things. He said, your election was rigged because you 20 00:01:12,840 --> 00:01:16,600 Speaker 4: have mail in voting. He said, mail in voting every election. 21 00:01:16,840 --> 00:01:19,760 Speaker 4: He said, no country has mail in voting it's impossible 22 00:01:19,840 --> 00:01:23,400 Speaker 4: to have mail in voting and have honest elections. And 23 00:01:23,440 --> 00:01:24,960 Speaker 4: he said that to me, it was very truck because 24 00:01:25,000 --> 00:01:26,679 Speaker 4: we talked about twenty twenty. He said, you won that 25 00:01:26,720 --> 00:01:27,680 Speaker 4: election by so much. 26 00:01:28,520 --> 00:01:32,520 Speaker 3: Trump says he'll sign an executive order targeting mail in 27 00:01:32,640 --> 00:01:36,880 Speaker 3: ballots and voting machines, which he also claims are quote 28 00:01:37,160 --> 00:01:41,880 Speaker 3: highly inaccurate. He's trying to prevent Republicans from losing control 29 00:01:41,959 --> 00:01:46,119 Speaker 3: of Congress during the midterms. In several other ways, there's 30 00:01:46,200 --> 00:01:51,680 Speaker 3: the widely publicized demand that Texas Republicans redraw their congressional 31 00:01:51,720 --> 00:01:55,760 Speaker 3: map to create five new GOP seats, and in March 32 00:01:55,800 --> 00:01:59,240 Speaker 3: he signed an executive order now put on whole by 33 00:01:59,320 --> 00:02:03,720 Speaker 3: federal cos sort that would require documented proof of citizenship 34 00:02:03,960 --> 00:02:08,040 Speaker 3: to vote. My guest is constitutional law professor Rick Peldis 35 00:02:08,280 --> 00:02:12,720 Speaker 3: of NYU Law School. Rick, Under the Constitution, what roles 36 00:02:12,760 --> 00:02:17,240 Speaker 3: do the President, Congress, and the states play in elections? 37 00:02:17,840 --> 00:02:20,840 Speaker 5: So let's start with the president. Actually, so the president 38 00:02:20,919 --> 00:02:24,639 Speaker 5: has no power constitutionally to dictate to the states how 39 00:02:24,680 --> 00:02:29,799 Speaker 5: they conduct national elections. The Constitution gives states the power 40 00:02:29,840 --> 00:02:32,799 Speaker 5: to regulate the way in which our national elections are held, 41 00:02:33,360 --> 00:02:37,200 Speaker 5: and the Constitution also gives Congress the power to decide 42 00:02:37,240 --> 00:02:40,560 Speaker 5: to sort of supplant the states in that role. But 43 00:02:40,919 --> 00:02:45,320 Speaker 5: the president has no power constitutionally to dictate how states 44 00:02:45,360 --> 00:02:46,320 Speaker 5: conduct elections. 45 00:02:46,919 --> 00:02:52,160 Speaker 3: What could Congress do. Let's say Congress agrees with President Trump, 46 00:02:52,520 --> 00:02:57,800 Speaker 3: what could Congress do to change the way elections are held? 47 00:02:58,520 --> 00:03:01,079 Speaker 5: I think that begins to get us into the more 48 00:03:01,080 --> 00:03:04,480 Speaker 5: significant questions in a sense. So even if the President 49 00:03:04,560 --> 00:03:08,320 Speaker 5: doesn't have the power to do this, once he puts 50 00:03:08,360 --> 00:03:11,400 Speaker 5: the marker out there on this by issuing the executive Order, 51 00:03:11,880 --> 00:03:14,320 Speaker 5: then the question becomes, you know what's going to happen 52 00:03:14,360 --> 00:03:17,640 Speaker 5: in the States, and what's going to happen in Congress. Congress, 53 00:03:17,639 --> 00:03:22,240 Speaker 5: in theory, does have the power to determine issues like 54 00:03:22,639 --> 00:03:27,000 Speaker 5: the appropriate use of absentee ballots in national elections. Congress 55 00:03:27,040 --> 00:03:30,880 Speaker 5: could require absentee ballots to be provided, It could determine 56 00:03:30,919 --> 00:03:33,680 Speaker 5: the conditions under which they can be used, and I 57 00:03:33,720 --> 00:03:36,440 Speaker 5: think in theory it probably could ban their use. There 58 00:03:36,520 --> 00:03:40,840 Speaker 5: might be some constitutional challenges individual voters would bring, but fundamentally, 59 00:03:40,920 --> 00:03:44,760 Speaker 5: the Supreme Court is recognized extremely broad power in Congress 60 00:03:44,800 --> 00:03:49,240 Speaker 5: to regulate national elections under the Elections Clause. Now you 61 00:03:49,240 --> 00:03:52,800 Speaker 5: know whether Congress would actually do this, I'd say fairly 62 00:03:52,840 --> 00:03:56,720 Speaker 5: skeptical about because number one, of course, as long as 63 00:03:56,720 --> 00:03:59,920 Speaker 5: we have the filibuster, the Democrats are going to oppose 64 00:04:00,200 --> 00:04:03,520 Speaker 5: this and it won't get through the Senate. But number two, 65 00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:07,200 Speaker 5: the Republicans have for a very long time been very 66 00:04:07,280 --> 00:04:11,360 Speaker 5: much against nationalizing the election process. There will certainly be 67 00:04:11,440 --> 00:04:14,000 Speaker 5: some Republicans I would imagine who would go along with 68 00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:17,040 Speaker 5: the President, but I think there might well be pushed 69 00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:21,359 Speaker 5: back from within the Republican Party on going down this route. 70 00:04:21,400 --> 00:04:26,120 Speaker 5: At the national level, election administrators, including in red states, 71 00:04:26,279 --> 00:04:28,600 Speaker 5: are I'm not going to be happy about a change 72 00:04:28,640 --> 00:04:32,240 Speaker 5: like this because it means the election process will be 73 00:04:32,320 --> 00:04:35,359 Speaker 5: more complicated for them to run because it would increase 74 00:04:35,920 --> 00:04:38,960 Speaker 5: the number of people who would turn to in person voting. So, 75 00:04:39,400 --> 00:04:42,640 Speaker 5: in theory, Congress could regulate in this area, but I 76 00:04:42,640 --> 00:04:45,120 Speaker 5: don't know what the politics will be about that. I 77 00:04:45,160 --> 00:04:49,400 Speaker 5: think then the question is what will happen in red states, 78 00:04:49,680 --> 00:04:51,800 Speaker 5: you know that are run by legislators and governors who 79 00:04:51,800 --> 00:04:55,400 Speaker 5: are sympathetic to the president's agenda, And will we see 80 00:04:55,680 --> 00:04:59,160 Speaker 5: significant changes going on in red states about the use 81 00:04:59,160 --> 00:05:01,560 Speaker 5: of absentee ballot And. 82 00:05:01,600 --> 00:05:04,800 Speaker 3: Let's say Congress does pass a law like that, what 83 00:05:04,800 --> 00:05:07,800 Speaker 3: would a challenge look like from the Blue states. 84 00:05:07,960 --> 00:05:12,880 Speaker 5: So if Congress were to ban absentee ballots altogether, I 85 00:05:12,920 --> 00:05:17,880 Speaker 5: can imagine individual voters who cannot be in the jurisdiction 86 00:05:18,200 --> 00:05:22,160 Speaker 5: on election day or during the early voting process if 87 00:05:22,160 --> 00:05:25,080 Speaker 5: the state has early voting who say I just can't 88 00:05:25,160 --> 00:05:28,680 Speaker 5: exercise my right to vote at all, in effect, because 89 00:05:28,720 --> 00:05:31,680 Speaker 5: I just, for whatever reason, cannot be in the jurisdiction 90 00:05:31,800 --> 00:05:34,960 Speaker 5: during those days. I could imagine they might bring a 91 00:05:35,120 --> 00:05:38,880 Speaker 5: challenge under the federal Constitution and sort of right to 92 00:05:38,960 --> 00:05:43,400 Speaker 5: vote constitutional doctrine. They would argue that this ban would 93 00:05:43,440 --> 00:05:47,279 Speaker 5: impose a severe burden on their voting rights. So I 94 00:05:47,320 --> 00:05:50,040 Speaker 5: suspect that would be the form the challenge would take, 95 00:05:50,080 --> 00:05:53,000 Speaker 5: And I think the voters who would have the strongest 96 00:05:53,040 --> 00:05:55,839 Speaker 5: case would be the voters in that category I just described, 97 00:05:55,960 --> 00:05:59,360 Speaker 5: people who just physically can't be in the jurisdiction during 98 00:05:59,440 --> 00:06:02,159 Speaker 5: any of the day on which voting takes place. I 99 00:06:02,160 --> 00:06:04,719 Speaker 5: don't know whether they would win that constitutional challenge, but 100 00:06:04,880 --> 00:06:06,679 Speaker 5: that's what I would envision. 101 00:06:07,360 --> 00:06:11,560 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean the military votes by mail for that reason. Also, 102 00:06:11,839 --> 00:06:16,479 Speaker 3: Republicans poured tens of millions of dollars last year into 103 00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:20,960 Speaker 3: convincing their voters that ballots by mail are safe. And 104 00:06:21,000 --> 00:06:25,200 Speaker 3: Trump himself has voted by mail. Now, what about voting machines. 105 00:06:25,400 --> 00:06:29,280 Speaker 3: Trump wants to go from voting machines to paper ballots 106 00:06:29,400 --> 00:06:30,520 Speaker 3: with water marks. 107 00:06:31,400 --> 00:06:35,240 Speaker 5: Well, I don't understand exactly what he has in mind 108 00:06:35,520 --> 00:06:41,440 Speaker 5: yet about that. So we do overwhelmingly vote on paper 109 00:06:41,480 --> 00:06:46,440 Speaker 5: ballots already. The question then is how those ballots are counted, 110 00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:51,239 Speaker 5: and typically, you know, that's where machines come into the picture. 111 00:06:51,839 --> 00:06:53,960 Speaker 5: So if you vote on you know, what's called an 112 00:06:53,960 --> 00:06:57,839 Speaker 5: optical scan machine, you fill in the bubbles on your ballot. 113 00:06:58,279 --> 00:07:01,000 Speaker 5: You then enter the ballot int to the machine that 114 00:07:01,080 --> 00:07:05,120 Speaker 5: tabulates the vote. So I doubt he means so I'm 115 00:07:05,160 --> 00:07:09,000 Speaker 5: a little load to speculate. If he means that voting 116 00:07:09,040 --> 00:07:12,160 Speaker 5: should be done on a paper ballot, most of our 117 00:07:12,200 --> 00:07:15,160 Speaker 5: voting already takes place that way. If he means that 118 00:07:15,240 --> 00:07:19,160 Speaker 5: the vote should be somehow counted by hand rather than 119 00:07:19,400 --> 00:07:23,800 Speaker 5: counted by a machine whose accuracy has been you know, validated, 120 00:07:24,080 --> 00:07:27,480 Speaker 5: and by the way, we also do audits after the 121 00:07:27,560 --> 00:07:31,280 Speaker 5: tabulation to make sure the machines are accurately counting the ballots. 122 00:07:31,480 --> 00:07:33,840 Speaker 5: If he means to get rid of machines for counting 123 00:07:33,840 --> 00:07:38,040 Speaker 5: the ballots. It's very hard to conceive of what that 124 00:07:38,120 --> 00:07:41,400 Speaker 5: would mean and how that could possibly be done, because 125 00:07:41,400 --> 00:07:45,400 Speaker 5: it would mean, you know, hand counting millions of ballots, 126 00:07:45,520 --> 00:07:50,000 Speaker 5: which would introduce huge delays in the counting process. And 127 00:07:50,040 --> 00:07:53,280 Speaker 5: we know counting by hand is actually much less accurate 128 00:07:53,440 --> 00:07:56,480 Speaker 5: than using the machines to count the ballots. So it's 129 00:07:56,520 --> 00:07:59,160 Speaker 5: really unclear to me what he even has in mind 130 00:07:59,280 --> 00:08:02,400 Speaker 5: about voting. I guess we need to see what the 131 00:08:02,560 --> 00:08:03,840 Speaker 5: order actually ends up saying. 132 00:08:04,440 --> 00:08:07,160 Speaker 3: What's really going on here. Is it an attempt to 133 00:08:07,200 --> 00:08:12,000 Speaker 3: give the Republicans an advantage in the midterms because Democrats 134 00:08:12,040 --> 00:08:16,680 Speaker 3: supposedly do better with mail in voting than Republicans. Or 135 00:08:16,760 --> 00:08:18,640 Speaker 3: is it a power grab or something else. 136 00:08:19,280 --> 00:08:22,000 Speaker 5: It's a little hard for me to speculate about, you know, 137 00:08:22,040 --> 00:08:25,760 Speaker 5: what exactly is going on. He's obviously had an issue 138 00:08:25,840 --> 00:08:29,440 Speaker 5: about mail in ballots for quite a while. He made 139 00:08:29,440 --> 00:08:31,080 Speaker 5: a big issue of this in the run up to 140 00:08:31,120 --> 00:08:34,680 Speaker 5: the twenty twenty election. I think the view is that 141 00:08:34,679 --> 00:08:37,800 Speaker 5: that ended up hurting him in the election because many 142 00:08:37,840 --> 00:08:41,960 Speaker 5: Republicans then decided not to vote by absentee ballot. And 143 00:08:41,960 --> 00:08:44,640 Speaker 5: whether those people voted in other ways or not. You know, 144 00:08:44,679 --> 00:08:47,960 Speaker 5: we don't know for sure. I'm sure that this statement 145 00:08:48,000 --> 00:08:52,520 Speaker 5: by him is causing consternation among other elected Republican officials 146 00:08:52,800 --> 00:08:57,080 Speaker 5: who probably think it's not in their interest to abandon 147 00:08:57,160 --> 00:09:00,280 Speaker 5: the absentee voting. But you know, for whatever reas in, 148 00:09:00,640 --> 00:09:03,920 Speaker 5: he has a being his bondit about this issue, and 149 00:09:04,240 --> 00:09:07,160 Speaker 5: he lacks the power to do anything directly about it. 150 00:09:07,520 --> 00:09:10,000 Speaker 5: But we'll see if Congress ends up doing anything. 151 00:09:10,640 --> 00:09:14,680 Speaker 3: Yeah, a federal judge has Trump issued an executive order 152 00:09:15,200 --> 00:09:19,160 Speaker 3: in March that would require proof of US citizenship to 153 00:09:19,320 --> 00:09:23,040 Speaker 3: vote and ban the counting of valid mail in ballots 154 00:09:23,080 --> 00:09:25,560 Speaker 3: that arrive after election day, and a federal judge has 155 00:09:25,600 --> 00:09:29,200 Speaker 3: already blocked that order, at least temporarily. So does that 156 00:09:29,360 --> 00:09:33,960 Speaker 3: indicate how other challenges might fare well. 157 00:09:34,080 --> 00:09:38,960 Speaker 5: I think there's little doubt that an executive order that 158 00:09:39,080 --> 00:09:41,360 Speaker 5: purported to tell the states that they could not use 159 00:09:41,360 --> 00:09:45,600 Speaker 5: absentee ballots would be blocked by the federal courts. Again, 160 00:09:45,640 --> 00:09:48,400 Speaker 5: I'm a little hesitant to speculate too much until we 161 00:09:48,440 --> 00:09:52,800 Speaker 5: see the actual order and what the order actually entails, 162 00:09:53,040 --> 00:09:56,520 Speaker 5: and how it's designed and what powers it asserts. But 163 00:09:56,920 --> 00:10:00,040 Speaker 5: he doesn't have the power to dictate the states that 164 00:10:00,080 --> 00:10:03,000 Speaker 5: they cannot use absentee ballots or can only use them 165 00:10:03,120 --> 00:10:07,640 Speaker 5: under certain conditions. So I don't have much doubt that 166 00:10:07,720 --> 00:10:10,760 Speaker 5: in order that did that would be struck down put 167 00:10:10,760 --> 00:10:12,760 Speaker 5: on hold by the court. 168 00:10:12,840 --> 00:10:18,240 Speaker 3: Trump and Republicans have tried to reshape elections in other 169 00:10:18,280 --> 00:10:23,200 Speaker 3: ways over the years, with tougher voter id laws, restricting 170 00:10:23,360 --> 00:10:26,800 Speaker 3: access to the polls, the fights over voter rolls and 171 00:10:26,840 --> 00:10:32,199 Speaker 3: accounting of ballots, and now pressuring Republican states to redraw 172 00:10:32,280 --> 00:10:36,600 Speaker 3: their maps, with Texas about to do that to get 173 00:10:36,679 --> 00:10:40,800 Speaker 3: five more Republican seats for the midterms. Does all this 174 00:10:41,000 --> 00:10:45,040 Speaker 3: cause the public to have less confidence in the integrity 175 00:10:45,240 --> 00:10:46,480 Speaker 3: of our elections. 176 00:10:47,720 --> 00:10:50,960 Speaker 5: I think that having a stable framework for our elections, 177 00:10:51,000 --> 00:10:53,320 Speaker 5: which is what we had and took for granted for 178 00:10:53,360 --> 00:10:56,680 Speaker 5: many years in the recent past, you know, certainly helps 179 00:10:56,720 --> 00:11:00,720 Speaker 5: promote confidence in the process. I think when the political 180 00:11:00,760 --> 00:11:06,640 Speaker 5: parties and the candidates are continually fighting over voting policy, 181 00:11:07,000 --> 00:11:09,920 Speaker 5: changing the rules in one direction or the other that 182 00:11:09,960 --> 00:11:12,160 Speaker 5: they think, you know, is in their partisan interests, I 183 00:11:12,200 --> 00:11:16,240 Speaker 5: think that certainly undermines public confidence in the process. It 184 00:11:16,440 --> 00:11:19,439 Speaker 5: creates a sense that the rules are being rigged by 185 00:11:19,480 --> 00:11:22,360 Speaker 5: one side or the other for their own self interested reasons, 186 00:11:22,720 --> 00:11:25,760 Speaker 5: and I don't think that's, you know, overall healthy for 187 00:11:25,800 --> 00:11:27,400 Speaker 5: the democratic process. 188 00:11:27,360 --> 00:11:30,680 Speaker 3: Rick, are there any persistent problems with mail in voting. 189 00:11:31,720 --> 00:11:36,040 Speaker 5: When we have had problems in the voting system with fraud, 190 00:11:36,160 --> 00:11:40,360 Speaker 5: it has been in the absentee ballot area. It's not 191 00:11:40,600 --> 00:11:42,960 Speaker 5: a huge number of cases, but we have had some. 192 00:11:43,280 --> 00:11:46,880 Speaker 5: Just recently in New Jersey in the twenty twenty two elections, 193 00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:51,120 Speaker 5: there were criminal convictions for fraud that some actually, I 194 00:11:51,120 --> 00:11:54,160 Speaker 5: think it was a city council member was engaged in 195 00:11:54,400 --> 00:11:57,040 Speaker 5: and pled guilty to. So I don't want to say 196 00:11:57,040 --> 00:12:01,840 Speaker 5: there's never fraud in the absentee ballot process. Does happen occasionally, 197 00:12:02,520 --> 00:12:06,960 Speaker 5: but it's very rare and there are safeguards against it 198 00:12:07,000 --> 00:12:09,960 Speaker 5: with the way ballots have to be validated and the like. 199 00:12:10,360 --> 00:12:13,120 Speaker 3: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue 200 00:12:13,120 --> 00:12:17,720 Speaker 3: this conversation with NYU law professor Rick Pildis. The Republican 201 00:12:17,800 --> 00:12:22,079 Speaker 3: controlled Texas legislature is poised to vote soon on that 202 00:12:22,360 --> 00:12:26,840 Speaker 3: redistricting plan you're listening to Bloomberg. I've been talking to 203 00:12:26,920 --> 00:12:31,720 Speaker 3: constitutional law professor Rick Pildis of NYU law school. Turning 204 00:12:31,760 --> 00:12:36,720 Speaker 3: to what's become a redistricting battle. The Republican controlled Texas 205 00:12:36,840 --> 00:12:41,320 Speaker 3: legislature is poised to vote soon on that redistricting plan 206 00:12:41,800 --> 00:12:45,640 Speaker 3: that resulted from President Trump asking them to get five 207 00:12:45,720 --> 00:12:50,240 Speaker 3: more GOP seats for the midterm elections. I take it that, 208 00:12:50,320 --> 00:12:56,920 Speaker 3: though it's very unusual, there's no legal impediment to mid 209 00:12:57,000 --> 00:12:58,280 Speaker 3: decade redistricting. 210 00:12:59,240 --> 00:13:02,800 Speaker 5: We've had very little mid decade redistricting in American history, 211 00:13:02,920 --> 00:13:06,920 Speaker 5: certainly in modern American history. The last time this happened 212 00:13:06,960 --> 00:13:08,839 Speaker 5: in a way that went to the Supreme Court actually 213 00:13:09,040 --> 00:13:11,840 Speaker 5: was also from Texas in the early two thousands. I 214 00:13:11,880 --> 00:13:14,320 Speaker 5: actually filed an amicust brief in that case, urging the 215 00:13:14,360 --> 00:13:18,640 Speaker 5: court to hold that the federal Constitution precluded mid decade redistricting. 216 00:13:18,920 --> 00:13:22,360 Speaker 5: The Supreme Court didn't agree with that position. But we're 217 00:13:22,360 --> 00:13:25,080 Speaker 5: in a world in which control of the House rests 218 00:13:25,080 --> 00:13:28,640 Speaker 5: on such a fine margin kind of election after election, 219 00:13:29,400 --> 00:13:31,719 Speaker 5: which is a very important part to understand as a 220 00:13:31,760 --> 00:13:34,360 Speaker 5: backdrop to all of this, and so it leads the 221 00:13:34,360 --> 00:13:37,960 Speaker 5: political parties to fight over every single inch of terrain, 222 00:13:38,880 --> 00:13:42,199 Speaker 5: and so various kinds of you know, norms that have 223 00:13:42,320 --> 00:13:44,319 Speaker 5: been around for a while, just you know, are breaking 224 00:13:44,400 --> 00:13:47,800 Speaker 5: under that pressure, which is what's happening with the constraints 225 00:13:47,840 --> 00:13:52,080 Speaker 5: against mid decade redistricting, and the Pandora's box that opens 226 00:13:52,160 --> 00:13:54,960 Speaker 5: up is not only you know, if state can do 227 00:13:55,040 --> 00:13:58,240 Speaker 5: it once, they could just adjust their districts every couple 228 00:13:58,280 --> 00:14:01,960 Speaker 5: of years to try to maximize partisan advantage throughout the decade. 229 00:14:02,240 --> 00:14:05,520 Speaker 5: And of course it's going to trigger you know, retaliatory 230 00:14:05,640 --> 00:14:10,800 Speaker 5: mid decade redistricting. And it's another example of the kind 231 00:14:10,840 --> 00:14:13,200 Speaker 5: of tactics that at the end of the day, really 232 00:14:13,280 --> 00:14:18,520 Speaker 5: undermine public confidence in the legitimacy of the process. Gerrymandering 233 00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:21,440 Speaker 5: is bad enough when it happens once a decade, but 234 00:14:21,520 --> 00:14:24,240 Speaker 5: if we move down a path towards sort of perpetual 235 00:14:24,360 --> 00:14:29,200 Speaker 5: redistricting for partisan advantage seeking, it's all the worse. So 236 00:14:29,680 --> 00:14:32,600 Speaker 5: none of these things really promote the integrity of the 237 00:14:32,640 --> 00:14:34,880 Speaker 5: process from the perspective of voters. 238 00:14:35,440 --> 00:14:41,200 Speaker 3: What's the argument that the constitution prohibits mid decade redistricting. 239 00:14:41,920 --> 00:14:46,480 Speaker 5: Well, the argument was that the Supreme Court has said 240 00:14:46,480 --> 00:14:52,640 Speaker 5: that partisan gerrymandering or excessive partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional, but 241 00:14:52,720 --> 00:14:56,760 Speaker 5: that the Court can't develop judicial standards that are appropriate 242 00:14:56,800 --> 00:15:00,360 Speaker 5: to manage that problem. That is a prophylactic measure against 243 00:15:00,400 --> 00:15:05,080 Speaker 5: partisan jerrymandering. A per se rule against mid decay redistricting 244 00:15:05,720 --> 00:15:10,240 Speaker 5: doesn't require the court to wrestle with you know exactly 245 00:15:10,320 --> 00:15:13,240 Speaker 5: how much jerrymandering is too much. It's a way of 246 00:15:13,280 --> 00:15:17,160 Speaker 5: imposing at least some constraint on partisan gerrymandering, and that's 247 00:15:17,160 --> 00:15:19,560 Speaker 5: sort of the argument. This is an area where you 248 00:15:19,640 --> 00:15:23,880 Speaker 5: can do something without having to address the difficulty of 249 00:15:23,920 --> 00:15:26,480 Speaker 5: coming up with standards for what a fair map is 250 00:15:26,640 --> 00:15:30,160 Speaker 5: just a per se rule that unless a court orders 251 00:15:30,280 --> 00:15:34,560 Speaker 5: mid decay redistricting, the constitution should limit it. But as 252 00:15:34,600 --> 00:15:38,120 Speaker 5: I said, that's not the law. And even more so, 253 00:15:38,200 --> 00:15:40,560 Speaker 5: the Supreme Court has said that partisan jerrymandering is not 254 00:15:40,680 --> 00:15:44,920 Speaker 5: something that the federal courts can address. So that's where 255 00:15:44,960 --> 00:15:45,840 Speaker 5: we are, and the. 256 00:15:45,800 --> 00:15:49,760 Speaker 3: Court is most likely going to address the issue of 257 00:15:50,520 --> 00:15:54,560 Speaker 3: racial gerrymandering in the next term. Thanks so much for 258 00:15:54,680 --> 00:15:58,840 Speaker 3: joining me, Rick, that's Professor Ric Pildus of NYU Law School. 259 00:16:00,120 --> 00:16:03,160 Speaker 3: You may remember the story, or you may have even 260 00:16:03,200 --> 00:16:07,480 Speaker 3: seen the viral video of the now famous DC resident 261 00:16:07,720 --> 00:16:11,800 Speaker 3: who through his subway sandwich at an ice officer, apparently 262 00:16:11,840 --> 00:16:15,720 Speaker 3: after cursing about the federal takeover of the city in 263 00:16:15,760 --> 00:16:18,560 Speaker 3: addition to being fired from his job in the Criminal 264 00:16:18,560 --> 00:16:22,480 Speaker 3: Division of the Justice Department. Shawn Charles Dunn, a decorated 265 00:16:22,600 --> 00:16:26,520 Speaker 3: Air Force veteran, has been charged with felony assault on 266 00:16:26,600 --> 00:16:30,760 Speaker 3: a federal officer for throwing the sandwich. You can now 267 00:16:30,880 --> 00:16:34,400 Speaker 3: also see a video of the rearrest of Dunn in 268 00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:38,000 Speaker 3: a swat style raid as more than a dozen federal 269 00:16:38,080 --> 00:16:42,040 Speaker 3: agents with guns drawn converged on his apartment, where he 270 00:16:42,120 --> 00:16:46,120 Speaker 3: peacefully surrendered. That's because the White House has posted a 271 00:16:46,160 --> 00:16:52,360 Speaker 3: professionally edited dramatic video of the arrest entitled Nighttime Routine 272 00:16:52,800 --> 00:16:57,160 Speaker 3: Operation Make DC Safe Again. Addition, joining me is national 273 00:16:57,200 --> 00:17:01,960 Speaker 3: security expert Bradley Moss, a partner at Mark Zaid brad 274 00:17:02,000 --> 00:17:05,560 Speaker 3: the White House is sending social media teams to go 275 00:17:05,640 --> 00:17:10,880 Speaker 3: along with law enforcement and videotape FBI rs. Does this 276 00:17:11,320 --> 00:17:14,560 Speaker 3: violate the suspect's constitutional rights? 277 00:17:15,000 --> 00:17:19,080 Speaker 1: The Supreme Court in about twenty something years ago, possibly 278 00:17:19,119 --> 00:17:22,159 Speaker 1: thirty something years ago at this point, had addressed the 279 00:17:22,320 --> 00:17:27,639 Speaker 1: idea of embedding media with law enforcement in the context 280 00:17:27,680 --> 00:17:32,160 Speaker 1: of doing work, and Supreme Court had basically overturned the policy, 281 00:17:32,280 --> 00:17:35,919 Speaker 1: saying it was violative of people's First Amendment Fifth Amendment 282 00:17:35,960 --> 00:17:39,760 Speaker 1: and Fourth Amendment protections. After all, you are presumed data 283 00:17:39,800 --> 00:17:42,800 Speaker 1: sit until proven guilty. I mean, there was no legitimate 284 00:17:42,840 --> 00:17:46,119 Speaker 1: basis to have news media embedded with law enforcement for 285 00:17:46,160 --> 00:17:50,600 Speaker 1: that purpose. What we're seeing here with these social media 286 00:17:50,760 --> 00:17:55,120 Speaker 1: influencers embedded with the FBI or whichever federal law enforcement 287 00:17:55,160 --> 00:18:00,560 Speaker 1: agency is conducting these particular raids is even greater abuse 288 00:18:00,720 --> 00:18:03,320 Speaker 1: of the process in the sense that it's not even 289 00:18:03,800 --> 00:18:08,680 Speaker 1: tending to be about news gathering or objective journalism. This 290 00:18:08,760 --> 00:18:13,400 Speaker 1: is straight up political hackery. These are social media influencers. 291 00:18:13,480 --> 00:18:17,920 Speaker 1: These are media players with a very explicit partisan agenda 292 00:18:18,280 --> 00:18:21,199 Speaker 1: designed not to gather facts, but to push the White 293 00:18:21,200 --> 00:18:27,640 Speaker 1: House's specific narrative about what is transpiring. This entire process, 294 00:18:27,640 --> 00:18:30,520 Speaker 1: as far as I'm concerned, is at least unethical, if 295 00:18:30,560 --> 00:18:32,160 Speaker 1: not likely also illegal. 296 00:18:32,560 --> 00:18:36,120 Speaker 3: What would be some of the possible legal challenges. 297 00:18:36,040 --> 00:18:39,760 Speaker 1: So you're almost certainly going to see at some point 298 00:18:39,920 --> 00:18:45,040 Speaker 1: various pre trial motions for you know, pretro publicity issues 299 00:18:45,520 --> 00:18:48,560 Speaker 1: tied to the inclusion of these social media influencers being 300 00:18:48,560 --> 00:18:52,159 Speaker 1: embedded and publicizing this. There's going to be various actions 301 00:18:52,240 --> 00:18:56,879 Speaker 1: taken by defense attorneys claiming their clients privacy rights and 302 00:18:56,920 --> 00:19:00,280 Speaker 1: constitutional rights were violated by use of these at it 303 00:19:00,320 --> 00:19:04,760 Speaker 1: in individuals. How that will play out remains to be seen. 304 00:19:05,200 --> 00:19:08,840 Speaker 1: I don't think the cases necessarily are thrown out simply 305 00:19:08,880 --> 00:19:12,560 Speaker 1: based off that, but it is entirely possible it will 306 00:19:12,640 --> 00:19:16,960 Speaker 1: cause some problems with prosecution of these cases. And if 307 00:19:17,000 --> 00:19:20,760 Speaker 1: that does start occurring, if the courts start pushing back 308 00:19:20,840 --> 00:19:23,760 Speaker 1: by way of these pre trial rulings, I think you'll 309 00:19:23,760 --> 00:19:27,800 Speaker 1: see a shift in the policy from most of the 310 00:19:27,840 --> 00:19:30,840 Speaker 1: agencies and from the White House. If for no other reason, 311 00:19:30,840 --> 00:19:33,800 Speaker 1: then it'd be undercutting their ability to do what they 312 00:19:33,880 --> 00:19:37,439 Speaker 1: say they're trying to do, which is to identify arrest 313 00:19:37,800 --> 00:19:39,560 Speaker 1: and convict criminals. 314 00:19:39,800 --> 00:19:43,159 Speaker 3: Could it also become part of the evidence of the 315 00:19:43,240 --> 00:19:49,320 Speaker 3: defense at trial, perhaps demonstrating, you know, bad conduct by 316 00:19:49,440 --> 00:19:54,679 Speaker 3: the arresting officers, or that the defendant was being targeted 317 00:19:54,680 --> 00:19:56,600 Speaker 3: in some way. 318 00:19:56,720 --> 00:19:59,440 Speaker 1: Yes, all of it would be discoverable, All of it 319 00:19:59,480 --> 00:20:02,439 Speaker 1: would be potentially exculpatory information that would have to be 320 00:20:02,480 --> 00:20:06,040 Speaker 1: turned over to the criminal defendants and their council. All 321 00:20:06,080 --> 00:20:08,920 Speaker 1: that could be brought up not only from a factual standpoint, 322 00:20:09,000 --> 00:20:12,679 Speaker 1: depending on what the you know various footage shows, but 323 00:20:12,760 --> 00:20:16,000 Speaker 1: also simply if there's a you know, political or vindictive 324 00:20:16,200 --> 00:20:19,720 Speaker 1: prosecution pre trial motion brought. This would all be information 325 00:20:19,840 --> 00:20:23,480 Speaker 1: that these defendants would be entitled to obtain and to 326 00:20:23,680 --> 00:20:27,240 Speaker 1: use in their own defense, which is why normally we 327 00:20:27,359 --> 00:20:29,919 Speaker 1: don't do this, you know, you especially don't do it 328 00:20:29,960 --> 00:20:35,240 Speaker 1: with these types of individuals following along in the cars, 329 00:20:35,320 --> 00:20:38,480 Speaker 1: because it opposes so many problems for the ultimate actual 330 00:20:38,560 --> 00:20:39,960 Speaker 1: prosecution of the crimes. 331 00:20:40,400 --> 00:20:45,359 Speaker 3: And also does it run against the Justice Department's policy 332 00:20:45,800 --> 00:20:50,840 Speaker 3: to insulate criminal investigations from political influence. 333 00:20:51,640 --> 00:20:53,919 Speaker 1: Yes, but of course, as we're seeing with everything in 334 00:20:53,920 --> 00:20:59,000 Speaker 1: the Trump administration, policies, norms, customs mean nothing. Those are all, 335 00:20:59,240 --> 00:21:02,760 Speaker 1: you know, the restrictions of the deep state and the 336 00:21:02,800 --> 00:21:05,600 Speaker 1: weak people who didn't really want to fight you know, 337 00:21:05,720 --> 00:21:09,280 Speaker 1: crime and swand and look, you know, politically correct, so 338 00:21:09,320 --> 00:21:13,760 Speaker 1: they don't care about any of that. The entirety of 339 00:21:13,920 --> 00:21:18,239 Speaker 1: these actions and the entire purpose for promoting it in 340 00:21:18,280 --> 00:21:23,120 Speaker 1: this way, is to push completely partisan propaganda and to 341 00:21:23,280 --> 00:21:27,960 Speaker 1: utilize these institutions of the state in order to push 342 00:21:28,000 --> 00:21:31,320 Speaker 1: that propaganda, not necessarily even for a particular political party, 343 00:21:31,560 --> 00:21:33,439 Speaker 1: but for one person, Donald Trump. 344 00:21:33,960 --> 00:21:36,879 Speaker 3: The White House is owning it. A White House spokesman 345 00:21:37,000 --> 00:21:41,040 Speaker 3: told Reuters that this is not a standard law enforcement 346 00:21:41,080 --> 00:21:44,760 Speaker 3: posture because this is action directed by the president deeming 347 00:21:44,800 --> 00:21:47,480 Speaker 3: what is necessary and appropriate under the law. 348 00:21:47,880 --> 00:21:51,360 Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, unfortunately for Donald Trump, he doesn't decide what 349 00:21:51,400 --> 00:21:54,359 Speaker 1: the law is, at least not in our current form. 350 00:21:54,400 --> 00:21:57,280 Speaker 1: We'll see what the courts ultimately decided to just completely 351 00:21:57,480 --> 00:22:00,840 Speaker 1: bend the knee and succumb to him at the moment 352 00:22:01,000 --> 00:22:04,760 Speaker 1: in this constitutional republic, he is not the law. The 353 00:22:04,760 --> 00:22:06,679 Speaker 1: courts decide what the law is. 354 00:22:07,280 --> 00:22:10,320 Speaker 3: I mean, the FBI has allowed the media to do 355 00:22:10,440 --> 00:22:12,840 Speaker 3: ride along. When I was a local news reporter, I 356 00:22:12,880 --> 00:22:15,040 Speaker 3: did a ride along with police, but you were always 357 00:22:15,119 --> 00:22:20,879 Speaker 3: careful to obscure the video of the suspect's face. 358 00:22:21,640 --> 00:22:23,639 Speaker 1: Correct. And there have been TV shows, you know, you 359 00:22:23,680 --> 00:22:26,640 Speaker 1: think of the infamous show Cops that's been around forever. 360 00:22:27,119 --> 00:22:30,639 Speaker 1: Those shows did have some kind of media embedded within it, 361 00:22:30,680 --> 00:22:34,080 Speaker 1: but there were very strict protocols and procedures. There were 362 00:22:34,160 --> 00:22:37,320 Speaker 1: waivers that had to be signed by anybody whose identity 363 00:22:37,440 --> 00:22:40,760 Speaker 1: was shown, anybody whose information was made public, and of 364 00:22:40,800 --> 00:22:45,360 Speaker 1: course that footage was always then had to be made 365 00:22:45,400 --> 00:22:49,600 Speaker 1: available to those defendants when they went to trial. And 366 00:22:49,640 --> 00:22:52,560 Speaker 1: so this is why there were always those limitations foot 367 00:22:52,560 --> 00:22:55,840 Speaker 1: of place, because while it makes for great TV, while 368 00:22:55,880 --> 00:22:59,160 Speaker 1: it looked cool on social media with the hype music 369 00:22:59,680 --> 00:23:02,200 Speaker 1: and the you know, the raw rah, you know, beating 370 00:23:02,240 --> 00:23:05,199 Speaker 1: their chest machismo that the White House is doing, that 371 00:23:05,320 --> 00:23:08,040 Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be helpful when it 372 00:23:08,080 --> 00:23:11,760 Speaker 1: comes to actual trial. And that's what we're waiting to 373 00:23:11,800 --> 00:23:16,320 Speaker 1: see is does this backfire from a legal standpoint by 374 00:23:16,400 --> 00:23:21,960 Speaker 1: undercutting law enforcements ability to actually prosecute successfully these criminals. 375 00:23:23,240 --> 00:23:27,360 Speaker 3: Last week, the White House posted a highly produced promotional 376 00:23:27,440 --> 00:23:32,679 Speaker 3: on its x account documenting the rearrest of Sean Charles Dunn, 377 00:23:32,800 --> 00:23:36,679 Speaker 3: the now former Department of Justice employee who threw a 378 00:23:36,720 --> 00:23:39,920 Speaker 3: subway sandwich at a federal agent. Do you have all 379 00:23:39,960 --> 00:23:44,800 Speaker 3: these police, FBI agents and federal marshals in full gear 380 00:23:44,880 --> 00:23:49,240 Speaker 3: with guns drawn and carrying bulletproof shields to get this 381 00:23:49,280 --> 00:23:52,840 Speaker 3: guy whose weapon was a subway sandwich and they converge 382 00:23:52,880 --> 00:23:56,200 Speaker 3: on his apartment and he just opens the door. And 383 00:23:56,440 --> 00:23:59,239 Speaker 3: it took about eight minutes. And it ends with a 384 00:23:59,640 --> 00:24:03,880 Speaker 3: black screen showing the White House and the words the 385 00:24:03,920 --> 00:24:08,080 Speaker 3: White House President Donald J. Trump. I'm not sure why 386 00:24:08,119 --> 00:24:12,200 Speaker 3: they would want to promote using all these federal agents 387 00:24:12,800 --> 00:24:16,000 Speaker 3: to re arrest the guy who'd already been caught after 388 00:24:16,040 --> 00:24:17,440 Speaker 3: he threw the sandwich. 389 00:24:17,840 --> 00:24:21,119 Speaker 1: The way they're approaching this, the hype videos they're doing 390 00:24:21,280 --> 00:24:24,760 Speaker 1: it would make you know, Nazi propaganda blush, because this 391 00:24:24,840 --> 00:24:29,600 Speaker 1: is just gross abuse of you know, a vital entity 392 00:24:29,640 --> 00:24:33,080 Speaker 1: and institution in government, which is law enforcement, which is 393 00:24:33,119 --> 00:24:36,680 Speaker 1: necessary to the survival of any state. But it is 394 00:24:36,800 --> 00:24:39,800 Speaker 1: turning it into not an arm of government, not an 395 00:24:39,920 --> 00:24:42,560 Speaker 1: arm of the law and the constitution, but an arm 396 00:24:42,680 --> 00:24:46,840 Speaker 1: of a political entity in a particular political official, namely 397 00:24:46,880 --> 00:24:50,200 Speaker 1: the president himself. And that is not what the Justice 398 00:24:50,200 --> 00:24:53,480 Speaker 1: Department is supposed to be. That is explicitly not how 399 00:24:53,520 --> 00:24:56,120 Speaker 1: this is supposed to be handled. But as far as 400 00:24:56,160 --> 00:24:59,480 Speaker 1: Donald Trump is concerned, he was vindicated in twenty twenty 401 00:24:59,520 --> 00:25:02,119 Speaker 1: four with his victory, and the public is ready to 402 00:25:02,200 --> 00:25:04,919 Speaker 1: let him just do whatever he wants on that front, 403 00:25:05,240 --> 00:25:07,960 Speaker 1: and that's why he's doing it. He got an immunity ruling, 404 00:25:08,000 --> 00:25:11,560 Speaker 1: he got everything he wanted, he overcame convictions, and he 405 00:25:11,640 --> 00:25:14,200 Speaker 1: got back to the presidency. And as far as he's concerned, 406 00:25:14,560 --> 00:25:17,720 Speaker 1: he's going to push this envelope as far as the 407 00:25:17,840 --> 00:25:19,640 Speaker 1: law will allow him to do. 408 00:25:19,640 --> 00:25:24,720 Speaker 3: Doesn't it also erode confidence in the FBI and federal agents. 409 00:25:25,320 --> 00:25:27,160 Speaker 1: That's got to be one of the bigger confers somebody. 410 00:25:27,200 --> 00:25:29,800 Speaker 1: So we've seen this for the last ten years, ever 411 00:25:29,840 --> 00:25:34,280 Speaker 1: since Trump came on the scene, ever since cross Fire, Hurricane, 412 00:25:34,440 --> 00:25:38,520 Speaker 1: the Muller probe, all this, there's been these bipartisans food 413 00:25:38,560 --> 00:25:43,120 Speaker 1: fights over you know, the integrity of law enforcement. Republicans 414 00:25:43,119 --> 00:25:46,800 Speaker 1: basically assume anybody in the intel community who doesn't tow 415 00:25:46,880 --> 00:25:49,800 Speaker 1: the Trump line is a deep state operative out to 416 00:25:49,840 --> 00:25:52,480 Speaker 1: get him. And for you know, people on the left, 417 00:25:52,560 --> 00:25:55,679 Speaker 1: they're basically assuming everyone who's getting urged, anyone who's left, 418 00:25:56,080 --> 00:26:00,520 Speaker 1: are all just toties of Trump's propaganda or you know, 419 00:26:00,680 --> 00:26:04,560 Speaker 1: getting off on basically beating up everyone they want and 420 00:26:04,600 --> 00:26:07,080 Speaker 1: walking around with masks and grabbing people off the street. 421 00:26:07,280 --> 00:26:12,200 Speaker 1: The fundamental problem that you have that underlies every collapsing 422 00:26:12,400 --> 00:26:16,719 Speaker 1: governmental institutions they're out history, is when people lose trust 423 00:26:16,720 --> 00:26:20,200 Speaker 1: in the basic functions of the state. And the greatest 424 00:26:20,280 --> 00:26:23,240 Speaker 1: threat there is from Donald Trump right now is that 425 00:26:23,560 --> 00:26:28,000 Speaker 1: the public may never fully regain that trust in the FBI, 426 00:26:28,280 --> 00:26:32,120 Speaker 1: in CIA, in the intelligence community at large. We've had 427 00:26:32,160 --> 00:26:34,879 Speaker 1: moments in history in this country where that trust has 428 00:26:34,920 --> 00:26:37,920 Speaker 1: been eroded. This is now getting to the point people 429 00:26:37,920 --> 00:26:40,320 Speaker 1: are thrown with sandwiches, like you said, you know, at 430 00:26:40,359 --> 00:26:43,240 Speaker 1: the cops, they're calling them Nazis. And it's because of 431 00:26:43,280 --> 00:26:45,600 Speaker 1: these raw emotions tied to both sides of this, where 432 00:26:45,640 --> 00:26:48,600 Speaker 1: no one trusts anyone anymore, and it's becoming the point 433 00:26:48,600 --> 00:26:51,080 Speaker 1: where no one can trust that anybody acts in good faith. 434 00:26:52,000 --> 00:26:56,840 Speaker 3: And talk about overcharging. The US Attorney Janine Pireau is 435 00:26:56,960 --> 00:27:01,120 Speaker 3: charging him with a felony forcibly assaulting, resisting, or impeding 436 00:27:01,160 --> 00:27:04,719 Speaker 3: a federal officer, which you know the maximum is up 437 00:27:04,720 --> 00:27:08,160 Speaker 3: to eight years in prison. But what jury, what DC 438 00:27:08,400 --> 00:27:12,000 Speaker 3: jury would convict him on those charges. 439 00:27:12,640 --> 00:27:16,000 Speaker 1: It'll be interesting to see one if that stuff gets 440 00:27:16,000 --> 00:27:19,680 Speaker 1: reduced in pre trial motions, but two, even if somehow 441 00:27:19,720 --> 00:27:22,080 Speaker 1: even one aspect of this does get to a jury, 442 00:27:22,560 --> 00:27:25,000 Speaker 1: whether or not they can find a jury that would 443 00:27:25,040 --> 00:27:28,400 Speaker 1: convict this guy based off that kind of evidence. It's 444 00:27:28,560 --> 00:27:31,640 Speaker 1: laughable right now to assume that would happen, But it's 445 00:27:31,800 --> 00:27:35,200 Speaker 1: entirely plausible. It's entirely possible that people would simply look 446 00:27:35,240 --> 00:27:37,840 Speaker 1: at it from a strictly legal standpoint and saying, do 447 00:27:37,920 --> 00:27:40,240 Speaker 1: I think this is a ridiculous case? Yes, did his 448 00:27:40,359 --> 00:27:44,680 Speaker 1: conduct meet the scope of the statutory provision? Yes, Okay, 449 00:27:45,200 --> 00:27:48,000 Speaker 1: you know guilty. I don't if foresee that whole case 450 00:27:48,040 --> 00:27:50,639 Speaker 1: going through the end with the original charges. This is 451 00:27:50,680 --> 00:27:54,080 Speaker 1: all a media spectacle right now. We're seeing the US 452 00:27:54,080 --> 00:27:58,000 Speaker 1: attorney Pierro having problem getting invitements from grand juries because 453 00:27:58,000 --> 00:28:00,760 Speaker 1: they can see how ridiculous this is. I fully expect 454 00:28:00,760 --> 00:28:02,119 Speaker 1: this to be just another case of that. 455 00:28:02,560 --> 00:28:04,760 Speaker 3: Yeah, and his lawyer says she was trying to arrange 456 00:28:04,760 --> 00:28:08,359 Speaker 3: his voluntary surrender. Tell us about the problems Piro has 457 00:28:08,359 --> 00:28:09,240 Speaker 3: been having lately. 458 00:28:09,480 --> 00:28:12,359 Speaker 1: So there have been problems lately with prosecutors going to 459 00:28:12,400 --> 00:28:15,760 Speaker 1: the grand juries trying to get indictments based off these 460 00:28:15,800 --> 00:28:18,800 Speaker 1: various arrests, and the grand juries are refusing to indict, 461 00:28:19,040 --> 00:28:21,200 Speaker 1: you know, in the old standings, inde, a ham sandwich. 462 00:28:22,000 --> 00:28:24,560 Speaker 1: Apparently you can't even indict a ham sandwich at the 463 00:28:24,560 --> 00:28:28,680 Speaker 1: moment because the grand juries are seeing how preposterously stupid 464 00:28:28,720 --> 00:28:31,040 Speaker 1: some of these arrests are, you know. I mean, look, 465 00:28:31,920 --> 00:28:35,240 Speaker 1: there is a clear and explicit need for law enforcement 466 00:28:35,280 --> 00:28:37,840 Speaker 1: to operate in any functioning society. There's a clear and 467 00:28:37,920 --> 00:28:41,240 Speaker 1: explicit need for prosecutors to be able to prosecute cases. 468 00:28:41,680 --> 00:28:46,160 Speaker 1: There's also recognition of the preposterously stupid when it comes 469 00:28:46,160 --> 00:28:50,560 Speaker 1: to some of these cases, which is why objective, rational 470 00:28:50,720 --> 00:28:54,440 Speaker 1: adults normally don't bring them. It makes for great TV, 471 00:28:54,600 --> 00:28:58,680 Speaker 1: it makes for great outrage bait on social media. It's 472 00:28:58,720 --> 00:29:00,720 Speaker 1: not how a functioning society he operates. 473 00:29:01,080 --> 00:29:05,760 Speaker 3: The Justice Department is investigating whether DC falsified crime data, 474 00:29:06,440 --> 00:29:08,600 Speaker 3: but I'm wondering about the data the White House is 475 00:29:08,640 --> 00:29:13,040 Speaker 3: handing out on these arrests in d C. Because the 476 00:29:13,080 --> 00:29:14,560 Speaker 3: details have been hidden. 477 00:29:14,920 --> 00:29:16,800 Speaker 1: You know, we were speaking to the idea of people 478 00:29:16,840 --> 00:29:20,520 Speaker 1: losing trust. The biggest concern coming now is that people 479 00:29:20,520 --> 00:29:22,640 Speaker 1: are going to lose trust in the data. You know, 480 00:29:22,760 --> 00:29:25,920 Speaker 1: the Bureau Labor Statistics. Now their data might get suspended 481 00:29:25,960 --> 00:29:29,920 Speaker 1: because there's quote unquote mistrust from the White House and 482 00:29:30,000 --> 00:29:32,760 Speaker 1: its political allies because data didn't show what they wanted 483 00:29:32,760 --> 00:29:35,720 Speaker 1: it to show. The data from the Justice Department and 484 00:29:35,760 --> 00:29:38,600 Speaker 1: from DC police about crime in DC is now under 485 00:29:38,680 --> 00:29:41,560 Speaker 1: question because it doesn't show what the President wanted to show. 486 00:29:41,960 --> 00:29:46,560 Speaker 1: He wanted to portray a city in chaos, a city 487 00:29:47,160 --> 00:29:49,560 Speaker 1: like the battle days of the eighties and the early 488 00:29:49,680 --> 00:29:52,360 Speaker 1: nineties in DC when it was the homicide capital of 489 00:29:52,400 --> 00:29:55,920 Speaker 1: the world. Those days are long gone. Does DC have crime? 490 00:29:55,960 --> 00:29:58,479 Speaker 1: Of course DC has crime. It's a city you're going 491 00:29:58,560 --> 00:30:02,360 Speaker 1: to have crime. Is Trump is stuck in that eighties 492 00:30:02,440 --> 00:30:05,600 Speaker 1: nineties mindset. That's how he's always viewed BC. It's a 493 00:30:05,720 --> 00:30:09,760 Speaker 1: very scary place to him, and he's trying to reconfigure 494 00:30:10,000 --> 00:30:12,880 Speaker 1: facts in the truth to fit his narrative. 495 00:30:13,480 --> 00:30:16,920 Speaker 3: I also wanted to ask you about Tulsea Gabbard. She's 496 00:30:17,120 --> 00:30:22,880 Speaker 3: beginning anew to revoke the clearances of national security officials 497 00:30:22,920 --> 00:30:27,040 Speaker 3: who President Trump, I guess, in some respect teems political enemies. 498 00:30:27,400 --> 00:30:30,400 Speaker 1: Telfy Gabbert is on a mission to destroy the intelligence 499 00:30:30,440 --> 00:30:34,040 Speaker 1: community and to basically try to rewrite history. It goes 500 00:30:34,080 --> 00:30:37,320 Speaker 1: back to Trump's original readents. You know, the original sin, 501 00:30:37,400 --> 00:30:40,800 Speaker 1: which was the Russia investigation. You know, it doesn't matter 502 00:30:40,840 --> 00:30:44,600 Speaker 1: what Muller found, doesn't matter the charges Muller brought, doesn't matter, 503 00:30:44,640 --> 00:30:46,880 Speaker 1: what the Muller reports said, doesn't matter the extent to 504 00:30:46,880 --> 00:30:51,240 Speaker 1: which the Durham Report vindicated the Mueller's reports findings. In 505 00:30:51,320 --> 00:30:56,040 Speaker 1: various ways. He wants to rewrite history to say that 506 00:30:56,160 --> 00:30:59,920 Speaker 1: twenty sixteen never should have been investigated, that there was 507 00:31:00,200 --> 00:31:03,840 Speaker 1: never any coordination or anything with Russia. That mattered to 508 00:31:03,840 --> 00:31:07,520 Speaker 1: be investigated, and that's the original sin. And now he's 509 00:31:07,560 --> 00:31:11,120 Speaker 1: got art blanche, you know, discretion from Congress as far 510 00:31:11,160 --> 00:31:13,479 Speaker 1: as he's concerned, and from the spring Court, from the community, 511 00:31:13,600 --> 00:31:16,800 Speaker 1: Rulin to just throw out anybody who was ever tied 512 00:31:16,840 --> 00:31:20,280 Speaker 1: to it. He doesn't care about the impact of national security. 513 00:31:20,480 --> 00:31:23,760 Speaker 1: Telsey Gabbard is having the time of her life, just 514 00:31:23,840 --> 00:31:27,440 Speaker 1: wrecking political havoc because she knows she'll never be held 515 00:31:27,440 --> 00:31:30,760 Speaker 1: accountable for anything, because she'll be long gone by the 516 00:31:30,800 --> 00:31:35,320 Speaker 1: time the real damage shows up. She can have fun, 517 00:31:35,680 --> 00:31:37,640 Speaker 1: she can be a power player. She can go on 518 00:31:38,040 --> 00:31:42,000 Speaker 1: you know, podcasts and joke around with Megan Kelly. He 519 00:31:42,200 --> 00:31:46,200 Speaker 1: has no sense of the amount of damage she's doing here. 520 00:31:46,560 --> 00:31:49,280 Speaker 1: And the firings of these people and the revocations and 521 00:31:49,320 --> 00:31:52,880 Speaker 1: security clearances has nothing to do with anything other than 522 00:31:53,280 --> 00:31:55,440 Speaker 1: pursuing Trump's condictive agenda. 523 00:31:56,280 --> 00:31:59,680 Speaker 3: Well, apparently these latest ones seem to be a directive 524 00:31:59,680 --> 00:32:04,240 Speaker 3: from far right activist Laura Lumer, who posted three weeks 525 00:32:04,280 --> 00:32:08,080 Speaker 3: ago urging dozens of officials from the CIA and National 526 00:32:08,120 --> 00:32:14,480 Speaker 3: Security have their clearances revoked. Her influence is really concerning. 527 00:32:16,080 --> 00:32:20,000 Speaker 1: You know, they always said idiocrisy was, you know, just 528 00:32:20,040 --> 00:32:22,520 Speaker 1: the movie, but no, we continue to be reminded it 529 00:32:22,560 --> 00:32:27,360 Speaker 1: was simply foreshadowing reality because the idea the Laura Lumer 530 00:32:27,440 --> 00:32:29,520 Speaker 1: is having this kind of influence not just on the 531 00:32:29,520 --> 00:32:32,280 Speaker 1: OD and I, but across the federal government, all this 532 00:32:32,400 --> 00:32:35,719 Speaker 1: influence on who Trump hires and fires someone who has 533 00:32:35,720 --> 00:32:38,600 Speaker 1: absolutely no qualifcation of being you know, chiming in on 534 00:32:38,720 --> 00:32:41,120 Speaker 1: any of it, say nothing. Effect that she's not even 535 00:32:41,160 --> 00:32:44,160 Speaker 1: a federal employee, not even advisor to the President in 536 00:32:44,200 --> 00:32:48,680 Speaker 1: the White House is obscene and ridiculous. But this is 537 00:32:48,680 --> 00:32:51,760 Speaker 1: the reality. He loves the Laura Lumers of the world. 538 00:32:51,920 --> 00:32:54,600 Speaker 1: They do his dirty work and he can just you know, 539 00:32:54,840 --> 00:32:57,680 Speaker 1: use power like he's a mafia don. The only damage, 540 00:32:57,680 --> 00:33:00,160 Speaker 1: of course, is the damage to the national security, but hey, 541 00:33:00,200 --> 00:33:01,600 Speaker 1: who cares about that anymore? 542 00:33:01,920 --> 00:33:05,880 Speaker 3: Thanks for joining me. Brad. That's Brad Moss, national security 543 00:33:05,960 --> 00:33:09,400 Speaker 3: expert and partner at Mark Zaid. That's it for this 544 00:33:09,560 --> 00:33:12,280 Speaker 3: edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always 545 00:33:12,320 --> 00:33:15,240 Speaker 3: get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. 546 00:33:15,520 --> 00:33:18,560 Speaker 3: You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at 547 00:33:18,680 --> 00:33:23,720 Speaker 3: www dot Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast Slash Law, and 548 00:33:23,800 --> 00:33:26,880 Speaker 3: remember to tune into the Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight 549 00:33:26,960 --> 00:33:30,400 Speaker 3: at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and 550 00:33:30,480 --> 00:33:31,920 Speaker 3: you're listening to Bloomberg