Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: I'm ready to solve the problem. I really am massive changes,
Speaker 1: and I mean it's sincerely.
Speaker 2: The migration crisis at the border has become one of
Speaker 2: President Joe Biden's biggest political liabilities, and he appears ready
Speaker 2: to deal. Biden says he's opened to massive changes in
Speaker 2: US border policy, including to asylum laws, in order to
Speaker 2: secure a deal that would unlock Ukraine Aid. Biden expressed
Speaker 2: confidence the Senate could work out an emerging Bipartistan border
Speaker 2: compromise as soon as this week, and Republican senators like
Speaker 2: Lindsey Graham point to the Biden administration's concessions and say
Speaker 2: it's the best deal the GOP can get.
Speaker 3: To those who think that if President Trump wins, which
Speaker 3: I hope he does, that we can get a better
Speaker 3: deal you want, you've got to get sixty votes to
Speaker 3: the United States Senate, So to my Republican friends, to
Speaker 3: get this kind of border security without granting a pathway
Speaker 3: to citizenship is really unheard of yet.
Speaker 2: Even if the measure passes the Senate, it faces a
Speaker 2: rougher time in the House, where House Speaker Mike Johnson
Speaker 2: is facing intense pressure from ultra conservative Republicans, some who've
Speaker 2: threatened to oust him if he makes a deal with Biden.
Speaker 3: I told the President what I have been saying for
Speaker 3: many months, and that is that we must have change
Speaker 3: at the border, substantive policy change.
Speaker 2: And there's also been intervention by former President Donald Trump
Speaker 2: to quash any deal, leaving Biden questioning whether House Republicans
Speaker 2: would actually support immigration reform. That have to choose whether
Speaker 2: they want to solve a problem or keep weaponizing issue
Speaker 2: to square political points against the President. Joining me is
Speaker 2: Leon Fresco, the former head of the Office of Immigration
Speaker 2: Litigation at the Justice Department and a partner at hollanden Knight.
Speaker 2: So let's start with the negotiations. Okay, So okay, No,
Speaker 2: I was going to say, Biden said he is seeking
Speaker 2: massive changes to US immigration rules.
Speaker 4: So, but it's correct, the negotiations are proceeding and they're
Speaker 4: actually supposed to yield fruit. This week, Senator Schubert kept
Speaker 4: the Senate in session even though the House went away
Speaker 4: for recess, under the guys that this would be the
Speaker 4: legislation that would actually be brought to the floor for
Speaker 4: a vote. This week now. Having said that, no legislation
Speaker 4: has actually been introduced or distributed to other senators for reviews,
Speaker 4: but we do know certain things. We do know that
Speaker 4: asylum as we currently know it, where people can go
Speaker 4: across the border and ask for asylum, would be banned.
Speaker 4: They would be prohibited from here on.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 4: What would happen is that would be replaced with a
Speaker 4: system where if you don't get specific appointments at the
Speaker 4: ports of entry, and the negotiators are currently talking about
Speaker 4: five thousand appointments being available per day, then you're just banned.
Speaker 4: There's no ability to actually cross the border and get asylum.
Speaker 4: You get immediately removed back into Mexico if you try
Speaker 4: to do that. But plus, even for those five thousand
Speaker 4: people who would have appointments at the ports of entry,
Speaker 4: they would have a much higher standard to be in
Speaker 4: order to actually be admitted into the country from these
Speaker 4: port of entry interviews, they would actually have to show
Speaker 4: that they have a reasonable fear of being persecuted on
Speaker 4: the basis of their race, religion, national origin, social group,
Speaker 4: or political opinion. And right now there's an easier standard
Speaker 4: called credible fear, which is just a reasonable possibility of
Speaker 4: a meritorious claim. Here, you're going to have to show
Speaker 4: a significant likelihood that you have a meritorious claim, and
Speaker 4: so that's going to raise the threshold, and usually at
Speaker 4: their higher threshold like that, you're talking about moving from
Speaker 4: about an eighty percent success rate to about a twenty
Speaker 4: to thirty percent success rate for people who will even
Speaker 4: make those claims along the ports of entry, So it
Speaker 4: would be a significant change. The final question that still
Speaker 4: hasn't been decided is what will happen to the parole
Speaker 4: authority that President Biden currently has on their laws. And
Speaker 4: there's two kinds of parole authority, and this is what's
Speaker 4: kind of holding things up. There's the first kind, where
Speaker 4: President Biden has actually asked people from around the world
Speaker 4: to actually apply to enter legally here, so they have
Speaker 4: one right now for Ukraine, they have one for Venezuela, Cuba, Vicaragua, Haiti.
Speaker 4: So the Republicans want to get rid of that kind
Speaker 4: of parole. But there's also the parole that happens when
Speaker 4: you ask for asylum at the port of entry, which
Speaker 4: is if you ask for asylum and you actually show
Speaker 4: that you now have this significant likelihood, what's going to
Speaker 4: be your status while you're waiting here to actually have
Speaker 4: your final trial. And so the Biden administration says, well,
Speaker 4: that has to be a parole. There's the only way
Speaker 4: you can let someone legally in. And I think this
Speaker 4: is where they're getting caught up as the Republicans don't
Speaker 4: really have a good answer for what's that is somebody
Speaker 4: who cloes legally through the board and asked for asylum
Speaker 4: and meets the standard, how would they be allowed to
Speaker 4: remain here? I think the Republicans want those people to
Speaker 4: be in detention the whole time. And I think that's
Speaker 4: the current logjam.
Speaker 2: Is the Biden administration really opposed to closing that because
Speaker 2: that's a significant number of people that are coming in.
Speaker 5: Addition to everyone else.
Speaker 2: Republican centators Lindsay Grahm and John Thune held a press
Speaker 2: conference last week complaining that the number of immigrants paroled
Speaker 2: into the United States has gone up dramatically under President Biden.
Speaker 4: And so the answer is, there's discussions about allowing those
Speaker 4: things to exist, but capping them. And I think they're
Speaker 4: trying to determine what is an appropriate cap is at
Speaker 4: one hundred thous and paroles like that a year. Is
Speaker 4: it fifty thousand, is it two hundred thousand, and so
Speaker 4: they continue to debate that number. But I do think
Speaker 4: they're probably going to end up with some sort of
Speaker 4: cap there, or if not a cap, then something where
Speaker 4: the Congress has to vote on exceeding the cap something
Speaker 4: like that. So those are the areas where they're going
Speaker 4: to have that discussion. So I think the answer is
Speaker 4: it's not where it's dead and they're not negotiating, but
Speaker 4: it's just a matter of trying to reach the correct
Speaker 4: answer there.
Speaker 5: Tell me if this is correct.
Speaker 2: I read that the Venezuelan migrants, unlike other migrant groups,
Speaker 2: they don't have ties to friends or family here, so
Speaker 2: they're arriving without resources or a sponsor.
Speaker 4: Well, that's correct. The newest problem for almost everybody arriving
Speaker 4: at the border now is that people arriving at the
Speaker 4: border used to have some sort of plan for what
Speaker 4: to do when they arrived in America, and now those individuals,
Speaker 4: many of them arriving at the border, don't have a plan,
Speaker 4: which is why cities are having to spend a lot
Speaker 4: of resources on shelters and other things that it's needs
Speaker 4: for these individuals. The deal with these paroles is those
Speaker 4: are for people who have some sponsor or ties, and
Speaker 4: the question is is that actually replacing illegal immigration, which
Speaker 4: would be a good thing, or is it just extra
Speaker 4: people that wouldn't have come, And so it's not doing anything,
Speaker 4: it's just adding extra people. And so the Democrats believe
Speaker 4: that those legal parole programs are actually causing illegal immigration
Speaker 4: to go down because it's having people who would otherwise
Speaker 4: have come illegally come legally. But the Republicans are saying, no, no, no,
Speaker 4: The people who are coming are people without ties, and
Speaker 4: so these extra people coming with ties are just people
Speaker 4: who wouldn't have come but are now coming because there's
Speaker 4: a legal pathway for this. And so that's why we're
Speaker 4: seeing this debate.
Speaker 2: Oklahoma Senator James Langford, who is the lead GOP negotiator,
Speaker 2: said it will be by far the most conservative border
Speaker 2: security bill in four decades, and Lindsey Graham said something
Speaker 2: similar like this is as good as we're ever gonna get.
Speaker 5: Do you agree with that?
Speaker 4: Correct? I think if there is a desire to actually
Speaker 4: get Democrats to actually vote for a bill that dramatically
Speaker 4: changes the way people can have paid asylum in the
Speaker 4: United States, this is the last and only chance for
Speaker 4: Republicans to get it, because you have the right atmospherics
Speaker 4: in play, where it's always that expression only Nixon can
Speaker 4: go to China, and so you want the other side.
Speaker 4: So you know, just like Clinton did welfare reform, or
Speaker 4: just like President Bush, did you know, no Child Left Behind?
Speaker 4: Sort of always it's the opposite. And here you would
Speaker 4: want to buy an administration to actually be the one
Speaker 4: who would curtail asylum because of its Trump. Then all
Speaker 4: the Democrats will just oppose whatever Trump was gonna do.
Speaker 4: And so this is your best chance to actually get
Speaker 4: a sylum reform. And so that's why you hear Senator
Speaker 4: like for Senator Graham saying.
Speaker 2: However, let's say this does pass the Senate, then it
Speaker 2: goes to the House. And already we're hearing Trump pressuring
Speaker 2: the House Speaker not to reach a bipartisan deal. He
Speaker 2: sat on social media last week, I do not think
Speaker 2: we should do a border deal at all unless we
Speaker 2: get everything needed to shut down the invasion of millions
Speaker 2: and millions of people.
Speaker 5: And he's been talking to the House Speaker.
Speaker 4: Yes, I think there's a different calculation in place for
Speaker 4: President Trump than there is with regard to the people
Speaker 4: at the border, which is for President Trump, he's sort
Speaker 4: of got these big votives, which is one, yes, obviously
Speaker 4: there's a desire to secure the border, but there's also
Speaker 4: a desire to put oneself in the best position possible
Speaker 4: to win election. And so if the border is not fake,
Speaker 4: President Trump would have that calculation, then it would be
Speaker 4: the best possible situation for him to win. And so
Speaker 4: this is the problem, and this is where you're going
Speaker 4: to have a lot of dispute. And what I think
Speaker 4: is very interesting is you have Governor Greg Abbit of
Speaker 4: Texas and Senator John Cornyan, who are usually not people
Speaker 4: who come to the final deal on immigration. They're saying, look,
Speaker 4: as much as we'd like to give an advantage to
Speaker 4: President Trump an election in twenty twenty four, the problem is,
Speaker 4: how are we going to keep it so that another
Speaker 4: three million people cross the border this year. Why wouldn't
Speaker 4: we actually take the effort to actually close that down.
Speaker 4: And so this is going to be quite the skirmish.
Speaker 4: And so if it passes the Senate, I think it's
Speaker 4: going to be very very difficult for the House to
Speaker 4: just ignore this, because then the House and the Republicans
Speaker 4: will start getting blamed for everything that's happening on the
Speaker 4: border rather than President Biden. So if the Republicans really
Speaker 4: wanted President Biden to be the ones that would be blamed,
Speaker 4: that they would just shut this all down. But if
Speaker 4: something passes in the Senate, no doubt, the Republicans are
Speaker 4: going to be blamed in the House that they don't
Speaker 4: actually at least even give a vote for what the
Speaker 4: Senate produced.
Speaker 2: Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue
Speaker 2: this conversation with immigration law expert Leon Fresco, and we'll
Speaker 2: talk about the escalating battle between Texas and the Biden
Speaker 2: administration over the border. The Biden administration won one fight today,
Speaker 2: as the Supreme Court said it can remove parts of
Speaker 2: a fence along the southern border built by Texas. The
Speaker 2: vote was five to four, with the Chief Justice John
Speaker 2: Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett voting with the liberals.
Speaker 5: In the case, I'm.
Speaker 2: June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. A divided Supreme
Speaker 2: Court has sided with the Biden administration, allowing US Border
Speaker 2: Patrol agents to remove razor wire fencing put up by Texas.
Speaker 2: Along the southern border, Texas officials installed twenty nine miles
Speaker 2: of barriers using barbed wire in the escalating fight between
Speaker 2: the state and the administration over illegal immigration at the border.
Speaker 2: The sharp barriers have been a particular source of tension,
Speaker 2: with federal agents saying they have maimed and bloodied migrants
Speaker 2: and pose a hazard to US agents. Here's Texas Democratic
Speaker 2: Congressman Joaquim Castro back in July.
Speaker 6: As far as the razor wire goes, not only is
Speaker 6: it in umade on the face of it, but it's
Speaker 6: also placed along the water in such a way that
Speaker 6: at times it's invisible to the people who are trying
Speaker 6: to cross.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court's emergency order vacates a ruling from the
Speaker 2: Fifth Circuit that said border patrol could only cut down
Speaker 2: the razor wire in an emergency. It was a five
Speaker 2: to four decision, with the Chief Justice and Justice Amy
Speaker 2: Coney Barrett siding with the Court's liberals. I've been speaking
Speaker 2: with immigration law expert Leon Fresco of Hollanda Knight. Are
Speaker 2: you surprised that the Supreme Court sided with the Biden
Speaker 2: administration here?
Speaker 4: Well, it's not surprising from a purely legal personective, which
Speaker 4: is that at the end of the day, it would
Speaker 4: have been very tough to say that a stake can
Speaker 4: actually erect a razor wire fencing barrier along the Mexico
Speaker 4: border that the border patrol wouldn't be able to access
Speaker 4: only in the highest of emergencies. So from that standpoint,
Speaker 4: that is not surprising. But it's interesting that it was
Speaker 4: a five to four decision and that if simply Justice
Speaker 4: amy Cony Barrett had switched to the other side, then
Speaker 4: this injunction would have remained in place, and Texas basically
Speaker 4: could have walled off a twenty nine mile wire square
Speaker 4: there along the Rio Grande River that the federal government
Speaker 4: wouldn't have been able to go in. And the idea
Speaker 4: was that Texas wanted to wire that off to deter
Speaker 4: foreign nationals from crossing the border.
Speaker 2: So that means that four justices thought that Texas should
Speaker 2: have the authority to do this, or could it be
Speaker 2: that four justices thought the government didn't make out a
Speaker 2: strong enough case.
Speaker 5: I mean, we don't know, because it's just an order, right.
Speaker 4: The decision is just an order which says that the
Speaker 4: injunction that Texas had sought in the fifth circuit to
Speaker 4: prevent the federal government from coming in and cutting down
Speaker 4: the wire. That injunction was vacated, and we know that
Speaker 4: justice is Thomas, Alito, Gorsich, and Kavanaugh would have kept
Speaker 4: that injunction in place. Now, if you're going to keep
Speaker 4: an injunction in place, you're technically saying that you believe
Speaker 4: that that injunction was rightfully issued. Otherwise you have some
Speaker 4: duty to vacate that injunction. And so from that standpoint,
Speaker 4: I do think it's fair to say that those four
Speaker 4: justices thought that because the fence was built on private land,
Speaker 4: that the federal government wouldn't have any authority to be
Speaker 4: able to cut down that fire fencing. But at the
Speaker 4: end of the day, that's very hard argument to make
Speaker 4: when it's really controlling. I mean, if the intentive defence
Speaker 4: is to control the border, then you have to say, Okay,
Speaker 4: if that's the incentive defense, then that's the jurisdiction of
Speaker 4: the Border patrol. You can't have it both ways. And
Speaker 4: it had been a fence to deal with livestock or something,
Speaker 4: then you could have that debate, well, can the Border
Speaker 4: Patrol arbitrarily say they need it for the border, But
Speaker 4: if the whole point of defense is to control the border,
Speaker 4: then you start having this problem of well, why is
Speaker 4: it the ultimate arbiter of that, the border patrol and.
Speaker 5: Leon is the case continuing below.
Speaker 4: Yes, this is the injunction phase of the case. Now
Speaker 4: we have to have sort of the merit part of
Speaker 4: this case, and so you got to go through it.
Speaker 4: It's always the case gets decided before it gets decided,
Speaker 4: and so in the first round, which is the turbo round,
Speaker 4: the government wins. But now we have the longer briefing
Speaker 4: where the district court has to decide who's right is
Speaker 4: it the state of Texas or is it the federal government.
Speaker 4: The Fifth Circuit has to decide who's right is it
Speaker 4: the State of Texas or the federal government. And if
Speaker 4: the federal government wins in the Fifth Circuit, I don't
Speaker 4: think you'd see this case get to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 4: But if the State of Texas wins in the Fifth Circuit,
Speaker 4: then you would see this case come back to the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court for a final decision.
Speaker 2: And LeAnn remind me, how did the Chief Justice rule
Speaker 2: in the Arizona case where was decided that states can't
Speaker 2: implement their own immigration laws.
Speaker 4: The Chief Justice ruled in favor of the federal government,
Speaker 4: so he's been remarkably consistent there that states cannot take
Speaker 4: immigration laws into their own hands. So there's four votes
Speaker 4: for that. The question is who's the fifth vote in
Speaker 4: any of these given cases, And at least for this
Speaker 4: particular case, Justice Cony Barrett was the one who came
Speaker 4: along with Chief Justice Roberts and said, the State of
Speaker 4: Texas can't do this.
Speaker 5: Does this cover the buoys too, or is it separate?
Speaker 4: No, this does not cover the movie. So this is
Speaker 4: a specific case where the State of tech Texas actually sued.
Speaker 4: In this case, the State of Texas actually sued to
Speaker 4: get an injunction to prevent the Border Patrol from cutting
Speaker 4: the wire that the State of Texas was putting in.
Speaker 4: In the Booiz case, the federal government sued under the
Speaker 4: Maritime and Rivers Act to get the Booies out. So
Speaker 4: that's a separate case which the Fifth Circuit actually just
Speaker 4: decided to rehear on Bank also where the Fifth Circuit
Speaker 4: panel had said that the water barriers were illegal, and
Speaker 4: that one is now going on Bank to the Fifth
Speaker 4: Circuit to decide whether the buoys can remain on the
Speaker 4: Rio Grande River or whether they have to be taken out.
Speaker 2: Is it the same principle, so we'd see the same majority.
Speaker 4: I think at the end of the day you probably will,
Speaker 4: because the buoys quite frankly, more than the fencing one,
Speaker 4: they're actually closer to the border because they're on the border,
Speaker 4: they're in the Rio grand River, so they're actually affecting
Speaker 4: our relations with Mexico, which is a very important fact.
Speaker 4: But secondly, they are governed by this very clear Rivers
Speaker 4: and Maritime Act, which actually really places the jurisdiction there
Speaker 4: on the federal government to decide what kinds of barriers
Speaker 4: you can create in these areas, so states really can't
Speaker 4: take matters into their own hands. So I would expect
Speaker 4: at some point you would see these moooies be able
Speaker 4: to be eliminated from the Rio Grande River.
Speaker 5: And lee on.
Speaker 2: The Biden administration asked for this emergency order earlier in
Speaker 2: the month, so we've been waiting for it and waiting
Speaker 2: for it. I'm wondering what was going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 4: I definitely think that perhaps the events that happened recently
Speaker 4: with the drowning in the river played some role here
Speaker 4: in getting Justice Cony Barrett to come across the finish
Speaker 4: line and join the liberal group to lift this injunction
Speaker 4: because the Border Patrol says that they couldn't get to
Speaker 4: the individuals, and the debate about whether the individuals whatever
Speaker 4: wouldn't have drowned had the Border Patrol been able to
Speaker 4: get to them. I definitely think those events really played
Speaker 4: a role here. I can't imagine that wasn't the case,
Speaker 4: because otherwise we might have had a decision earlier.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the Solicitor General did tell the Justices in
Speaker 2: a filing that the limited exception that the Fifth Circuit
Speaker 2: gave to Border Patrol that it could only cut down
Speaker 2: the razor wire fencing in an emergency, posed a serious
Speaker 2: threat to human life because it didn't give border agents
Speaker 2: enough time to respond to medical emergencies such as the
Speaker 2: one where a woman and her two children had drowned
Speaker 2: on January twelfth.
Speaker 5: So that was part of the argument.
Speaker 2: And this is just one of several legal fights the
Speaker 2: administration is having with Texas. The federal government is suing
Speaker 2: Texas over a criminal law on immigration that the state
Speaker 2: has passed. It hasn't gone into effect yet. Tell us
Speaker 2: about that.
Speaker 4: So then there's another law, which was called Senate Bill
Speaker 4: foro in Texas, which is trying to overturn what was
Speaker 4: the decision in twenty twelve in Arizona versus the United
Speaker 4: States which said that states couldn't take immigration enforcement into
Speaker 4: their own hands, but that was preended by federal law. Well,
Speaker 4: Texas is saying, well, maybe that could change it. I'll
Speaker 4: give it the new composition of the Supreme Court. And
Speaker 4: so they passed the law that said that if they
Speaker 4: uncover some undocumented foreign nationals crossing into Texas or recently
Speaker 4: arrived in Texas, they could basically take that foreign national
Speaker 4: to the border and they would then be able to say,
Speaker 4: if you don't cross back into Mexico, we're going to
Speaker 4: prosecute you for a misdemeanor. And if the person refused
Speaker 4: to do that, it either re entered or something, they
Speaker 4: could be prosecuted for a felony. And so that is
Speaker 4: basically prosecuting people for undocumented immigration, which is currently illegal
Speaker 4: under Arizona versus United States. And so the question is
Speaker 4: will this Supreme Court allow Texas to do that?
Speaker 5: As a federal judge even ruled in that case yet.
Speaker 4: Correct, there's been no decision on any request for an
Speaker 4: injunction yet on this.
Speaker 2: Case, but we can sort of guess what's going to
Speaker 2: happen there. It's in Texas, so a Texas judge and
Speaker 2: then the Fifth Circuit.
Speaker 4: I mean, we're going to end up with the Supreme
Speaker 4: Court deciding one way or another on this injunction. But
Speaker 4: until we get there with it's going to be quite
Speaker 4: a rollercoaster.
Speaker 2: So leon we've talked over the years about the drastic
Speaker 2: measures that Governor Greg Abbott has taken, and he proudly
Speaker 2: announced on January ninth that the state had sent over
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand migrants to sanctuary cities across the United States.
Speaker 5: And while that.
Speaker 2: Action seems wrong on so many levels, he sort of
Speaker 2: made his point by forcing Northern City Ease to deal
Speaker 2: with an overwhelming number of migrants, because now we're dealing
Speaker 2: with the problems that that Texas border communities have dealt
Speaker 2: with for many, many years.
Speaker 4: It was a very effective technique, especially once the people
Speaker 4: that were being sent were people who did not have
Speaker 4: a plan for what they were going to do in
Speaker 4: the United States. It was one thing to send people
Speaker 4: to other cities if they had a plan because then
Speaker 4: the cities could simply get a boss or an uber
Speaker 4: or something else and take them to their relatives. So
Speaker 4: that really would have just been a mild inconvenience. But
Speaker 4: now that there's this new group of foreign nationals that
Speaker 4: has no plan of any kind of what they're going
Speaker 4: to do when they arrive in the United States, it
Speaker 4: is that group that when they get put on these
Speaker 4: buses by the State of Texas, it really makes a
Speaker 4: huge impact on whatever city they're arriving to. Is that
Speaker 4: those individuals are either going to be homeless or they're
Speaker 4: going to need somebody in the city to take care
Speaker 4: of them, and that creates a huge use of gistical
Speaker 4: problem for those cities.
Speaker 2: There's been a lot of talk about how long it
Speaker 2: takes for the migrants to get work authorizations.
Speaker 5: Have they been speeding up that process any So there.
Speaker 4: Is a speedier process for people once they've actually either
Speaker 4: been given a parole or if they've been given temporary
Speaker 4: protective status. But for the normal people who are thinking asylum,
Speaker 4: the problem is there's a rule which is that you
Speaker 4: have to have a pending asylum application for one hundred
Speaker 4: and eighty days before you're permitted to get a work permit,
Speaker 4: and so that's a satutory problem, and there is some
Speaker 4: discussion that that would be changed as part of this
Speaker 4: Langford Chris Murphy Senate deal, that if you did manage
Speaker 4: to meet that higher asylum standard, and you did come
Speaker 4: legally through the port of entry, that you would get
Speaker 4: a work permit right there on the spot, rather than
Speaker 4: having to apply or anything else. That would be a
Speaker 4: dramatic change. But that's not what we have right now,
Speaker 4: and so because of that, you have people that are
Speaker 4: down for at least one hundred and eighty days that
Speaker 4: are just wards of the faith. I can't do anything.
Speaker 2: There are so many problems with the immigration system. Thanks
Speaker 2: so much for helping us understand them.
Speaker 5: Leon.
Speaker 2: That's Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight. Coming
Speaker 2: up next, allegations against Fulton County DA Fannie Willis take
Speaker 2: a detour to divorce court. I'm June Gross. When you're
Speaker 2: listening to Bloomberg for once, the complications in a criminal
Speaker 2: case against Donald Trump have nothing to do with the
Speaker 2: former president misconduct. Allegations against Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis,
Speaker 2: who brought the election conspiracy prosecution against Trump and eighteen
Speaker 2: others have taken center stage, and things seem to be
Speaker 2: getting more sensationalized with each new motion and now extend
Speaker 2: to the divorce proceedings of the special prosecutor in the case,
Speaker 2: Nathan Wade. It began when Trump's co defendant, Michael Roman
Speaker 2: filed a motion to have the District Attorney's office disqualified
Speaker 2: from the case because of an alleged romantic relationship between
Speaker 2: Willis and Wade. The latest was a Georgia judge in
Speaker 2: the Wadees divorce proceedings releasing dozens of formerly sealed documents
Speaker 2: joining me Is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakiz who's been
Speaker 2: following it all. David, to put today's hearing in context,
Speaker 2: let's discuss the original allegations against Willis. There are a
Speaker 2: lot of different facets to the motion by Trump's co
Speaker 2: defendant Michael Roman.
Speaker 5: It's not only that she.
Speaker 2: Appointed her romantic partner to lead the investigation. So tell
Speaker 2: us what the allegations are.
Speaker 1: The allegations are that Fannie Willis hired Nathan Wade, who's
Speaker 1: a private attorney in neighboring Cobb County, to oversee her
Speaker 1: investigation which spread over two and a half years, and
Speaker 1: that he was not for qualified for the job when
Speaker 1: she hired him, that he didn't have the relevant experience
Speaker 1: in investigating complex criminal matters, that Fannie Willis did not
Speaker 1: go through the county commissioners in Fulton County as she
Speaker 1: was supposed to do, and that he was wildly overpaid
Speaker 1: for the work that he did, and that he then
Speaker 1: used the money that he earned from the taxpayers to
Speaker 1: carry on an extramarial affair that included trips, cruises and
Speaker 1: plane trips as well. I should say that Fannie Willis
Speaker 1: has not acknowledged that they had an affair. These are
Speaker 1: only allegations, and she has steadfastly said that she won't
Speaker 1: respond to this until she files a court motion on
Speaker 1: February second.
Speaker 2: You spoke to some attorneys in Atlanta about the allegations
Speaker 2: that he's not qualified to be prosecutor in this huge,
Speaker 2: complex case. One said, Megan Graut, He's not the first
Speaker 2: person who had come to mind to handle a complex
Speaker 2: reco case against the former president of the United States.
Speaker 2: What kind of legal work has he done before? In
Speaker 2: were Atlanta attorney's surprise that he was appointed to this position.
Speaker 1: Nathan Wade had worked for about ten years as a
Speaker 1: part time municipal judge in Marietta, Georgia. He also had
Speaker 1: done a lot of divorce cases himself, and he had
Speaker 1: done sort of small criminal matters, but he had not
Speaker 1: appeared in federal court doing complex white collar cases. And
Speaker 1: the attorneys in the Atlanta area, and there's quite a
Speaker 1: few very talented defense attorneys, didn't really know him well
Speaker 1: and were surprised that Fannie Willis tapped him for such
Speaker 1: a complicated investigation.
Speaker 2: How much was he paid compared to the two other
Speaker 2: prosecutors that she hired prosecutors outside her office.
Speaker 1: Nathan Wade was hired at a rate of two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty dollars an hour, which is the same rate
Speaker 1: as another private attorney who was hired, Anna Cross. And
Speaker 1: there was a third private attorney who was hired, John Floyd,
Speaker 1: who's an expert on the Georgia Rico law, and he
Speaker 1: received somewhere between one hundred and fifty and two hundred
Speaker 1: dollars an hour. But in the aggregate, Nathan Wade was
Speaker 1: paid more than six hundred and fifty thousand dollars over
Speaker 1: two years, whereas John Floyd was paid somewhere in the
Speaker 1: neighborhood of about seventy thousand dollars, and Anna Cross was
Speaker 1: paid I believe fifty thousand dollars or less. His total
Speaker 1: compensation was a good deal higher than Fannie Willis herself made.
Speaker 1: And you know she earns the most in the office
Speaker 1: by far. The assistant district attorneys in that office earned
Speaker 1: somewhere in the neighborhood of one hundred to one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty five thousand dollars, I believe.
Speaker 2: And is the complaint about a conflict of interest depriving
Speaker 2: the citizens of honest services? I mean, what exactly is
Speaker 2: the legal claim here.
Speaker 1: Roman's attorney, Ashley Merchant, is alleging that there's a Georgia
Speaker 1: law that requires local county commissioners to approve the hiring
Speaker 1: of outside attorneys, and that Fannie Willis didn't do that
Speaker 1: in this case. She's also alleging that there was an
Speaker 1: undisclosed conflict of interest because they were involved in a
Speaker 1: romantic relationship at the time that he was hired, so
Speaker 1: that his judgment was essentially clouded by that relationship. And
Speaker 1: she's also alleging that there's a possible on a services
Speaker 1: fraud where rather than analyzing just what he makes in
Speaker 1: his income and spends it on he's earning taxpayer money
Speaker 1: and then spending some of that money on her and
Speaker 1: that that could be a fraud. Now, I should say
Speaker 1: that all of this still has to be proven, and
Speaker 1: these are merely allegations. We haven't had fact finding discovery
Speaker 1: on that. I should also say that the Georgia Prosecutor's
Speaker 1: Advisory Council has said that local prosecutors have the discretion
Speaker 1: to hire who they want. So it's not a slam
Speaker 1: dunk case by any means. It's certainly powerful and sensational
Speaker 1: allegations that have captured a lot of attention, and in
Speaker 1: a way it's helping Donald Trump in his allies because
Speaker 1: Fannie Willis is on her backfoot now having to respond
Speaker 1: to allegations of impropriety financial misconduct that have nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the racketeering indictment against Donald Trump and his allies.
Speaker 2: And there have been even more headlines because of Fannie
Speaker 2: Willis's involvement in the divorce between Wade and his wife,
Speaker 2: and she's sort of being dragged into that. Tell us
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 1: Joycelyn Wade wants to depose Fannie Willis because she believes
Speaker 1: that Fannie Willis has unique knowledge of whether Nathan Wade,
Speaker 1: her husband, engaged in an adulterous relationship. Under Georgia divorce law,
Speaker 1: that's relevant because it could go to the amount and
Speaker 1: the nature of the financial settlement. In this case, they
Speaker 1: have grown children, so the question is not about childcare
Speaker 1: or visitation or custody. It's more of financial matter. On Monday,
Speaker 1: the judge in Cobb County had a hearing on Fannie
Speaker 1: Willis's motion to quash her subpoena, and basically the question
Speaker 1: was whether her subpoena was relevant to the divorce proceeding.
Speaker 1: On January eighteenth, she filed an emergency motion to block
Speaker 1: that subpoena because she said it wasn't relevant to the
Speaker 1: question of a marriage that had been irreconcilably broken, that
Speaker 1: it didn't matter whatever she had to say. And then
Speaker 1: she also proceeded to say in that filing that Joycelyn
Speaker 1: Wade had had an affair herself in twenty seventeen which
Speaker 1: led to the breaking of this marriage. On January nineteenth,
Speaker 1: Joycelyn Wade's lawyer responded to say that in fact, Fawnie
Speaker 1: Willis did have unique knowledge about the details of this
Speaker 1: marriage that she should testify to, including intimate details about
Speaker 1: the nature of the relationship between Joycelyn Wade and Nathan Wade,
Speaker 1: her husband. So she also adamantly denied that she had
Speaker 1: an affair in twenty seventeen, and she said that Fawnie
Speaker 1: Willis should give a deposition in the case. And the
Speaker 1: judge decided that he would defer a decision on whether
Speaker 1: Fanni Willis's deposition was necessary to resolve the divorce case.
Speaker 1: He said that what mattered here was the size of
Speaker 1: the marital estate, how much Nathan Wade should pay, and
Speaker 1: whether there should be any alimony and attorney fees, and
Speaker 1: that first Nathan Wade should give a deposition in the
Speaker 1: case because he has unique knowledge about how much money
Speaker 1: he made, how he spent it, and whether he had
Speaker 1: an affair with Fannie Willis.
Speaker 2: So the judge released dozens of documents in the divorce case,
Speaker 2: unseal them after a hearing today. But you'd actually seen
Speaker 2: some of these documents before.
Speaker 1: Those papers, which Bloomberg has gotten access to, show that
Speaker 1: Nathan Wade and his wife, Joycelyn have had a very
Speaker 1: contentious time in divorce court in the last two years,
Speaker 1: and that Nathan Wade was cited for contempt by the
Speaker 1: judge in the same week that Donald Trump was indicted
Speaker 1: by the way, and the contempt citation was because Nathan
Speaker 1: Wade was not being forthcoming with financial information that his
Speaker 1: wife sought as they are trying to reach a financial
Speaker 1: settlement to end their marriage. The papers also show that
Speaker 1: Joycelyne Wade claims that she was in great need of
Speaker 1: money even as he was traveling widely, and as she
Speaker 1: claims having an affair with Fannie Willis.
Speaker 2: And David Though Willis has not specifically affirmed or denied
Speaker 2: the relationship, she did address it in comments at a
Speaker 2: church service.
Speaker 1: Fannie Willis appeared at a Black church in Atlanta and
Speaker 1: gave a special sermon on Martin Luther King Day, and
Speaker 1: she said that Nathan Wade, without mentioning him by name,
Speaker 1: is a superstar prosecutor, and she also praised the other
Speaker 1: two special prosecutors that she's hired. She did not address
Speaker 1: the allegations that they had engaged in an affair, but
Speaker 1: she also said that she was a flawed human being
Speaker 1: and that she had made mistakes She said that her
Speaker 1: critics are playing the race card and that they are
Speaker 1: singling out Nathan Wade for criticism because he's the only
Speaker 1: black special prosecutor that she's hired. I should say that
Speaker 1: Fannie Willis has come under a lot of criticism for
Speaker 1: those comments, and her critics say that questions about her
Speaker 1: relationship with Nathan Wade and the money the county taxpayers
Speaker 1: have spent to pay for his work have nothing to.
Speaker 2: Do with race, and the prosecutors on this case actually
Speaker 2: seemed to have scored several points.
Speaker 1: Fannie Willis's office has secured four guilty please of the
Speaker 1: nineteen defendants, and they've developed a very comprehensive, far reaching
Speaker 1: indictment that if Trump were re elected, he would not
Speaker 1: be able to pardon those defendants or pardon himself because
Speaker 1: it's state charges brought under Georgia election law and other
Speaker 1: Georgia criminal laws.
Speaker 2: It's a long way to go. Thanks so much, David.
Speaker 2: That's Bloomberg Legal reporter David Voriakis, and that's it for
Speaker 2: this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.
Speaker 5: Remember you've can always get the latest legal.
Speaker 2: News by subscribing and listening to the show on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 2: Spotify and at Bloomberg dot Com Slash podcast, slash Law.
Speaker 5: I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg