1
00:00:03,200 --> 00:00:08,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law, with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:10,119 --> 00:00:12,720
Speaker 2: We did not, however, identify evidence that rose to the

3
00:00:12,800 --> 00:00:16,680
Speaker 2: level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the evidence

4
00:00:16,720 --> 00:00:20,000
Speaker 2: fell short of that standard, I declined to recommend criminal

5
00:00:20,079 --> 00:00:21,240
Speaker 2: charges against mister Biden.

6
00:00:21,880 --> 00:00:25,880
Speaker 3: Special Counsel Robert Hurr testified for more than four hours

7
00:00:25,920 --> 00:00:30,520
Speaker 3: before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, standing steadfastly by

8
00:00:30,520 --> 00:00:34,159
Speaker 3: the assessments of his year long investigation in his three

9
00:00:34,280 --> 00:00:38,040
Speaker 3: hundred and forty five page report that recommended no criminal

10
00:00:38,120 --> 00:00:41,600
Speaker 3: charges be brought against President Joe Biden for his handling

11
00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:46,520
Speaker 3: of classified documents, and Her insisted repeatedly that his description

12
00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:50,040
Speaker 3: of the eighty one year old president as a quote sympathetic,

13
00:00:50,240 --> 00:00:53,800
Speaker 3: well meaning, elderly man with a poor memory, a description

14
00:00:53,920 --> 00:00:57,200
Speaker 3: that set off a political firestorm, was necessary.

15
00:00:57,280 --> 00:01:01,240
Speaker 2: To include my assessment in the about the relevance of

16
00:01:01,280 --> 00:01:07,399
Speaker 2: the president's memory was necessary and accurate and fair. Most importantly,

17
00:01:07,440 --> 00:01:09,840
Speaker 2: what I wrote is what I believe the evidence shows,

18
00:01:10,040 --> 00:01:12,720
Speaker 2: and what I expect jurors would perceive and believe.

19
00:01:13,240 --> 00:01:16,480
Speaker 3: But Her faced aggressive questions, often in the form of

20
00:01:16,520 --> 00:01:20,920
Speaker 3: accusations from the members of both parties, with Republicans like

21
00:01:21,000 --> 00:01:25,680
Speaker 3: California Congressman Tom McClintock saying that the evidence for prosecution

22
00:01:25,959 --> 00:01:28,679
Speaker 3: was there and her gave Biden a pass.

23
00:01:29,000 --> 00:01:31,560
Speaker 2: All I have to do when I'm caught taking home

24
00:01:31,959 --> 00:01:35,560
Speaker 2: classified materials to say, I'm sorry, mister Herbert, but I'm

25
00:01:35,560 --> 00:01:36,080
Speaker 2: getting old.

26
00:01:36,120 --> 00:01:37,280
Speaker 4: My memory is not so great.

27
00:01:37,959 --> 00:01:41,000
Speaker 5: Yeah, Congressman, this is the doctrine that you've established in

28
00:01:41,040 --> 00:01:42,720
Speaker 5: our laws now, and it's frightening.

29
00:01:43,319 --> 00:01:47,960
Speaker 3: And Democrats like California Congressman Adam Schiff saying the language

30
00:01:48,040 --> 00:01:51,320
Speaker 3: characterizing Biden as an old man with a poor memory

31
00:01:51,800 --> 00:01:55,880
Speaker 3: was not only unnecessary, but against Department of Justice policy

32
00:01:56,200 --> 00:01:56,640
Speaker 3: that is.

33
00:01:56,680 --> 00:01:59,120
Speaker 2: Nowhere in the rules. I was to prepare a confidential

34
00:01:59,160 --> 00:02:02,279
Speaker 2: report was comprehensive and thorough of anything.

35
00:02:02,360 --> 00:02:04,400
Speaker 5: What is in the rules, mister Herr. What is in

36
00:02:04,480 --> 00:02:08,959
Speaker 5: the rules is you don't gratuitously do things to prejudice

37
00:02:09,280 --> 00:02:13,160
Speaker 5: this subject of an investigation where you're declining to prosecute.

38
00:02:13,639 --> 00:02:16,840
Speaker 5: You don't gratuitously add language that you'll know will be

39
00:02:16,960 --> 00:02:20,440
Speaker 5: useful in a political campaign. You were not born yesterday.

40
00:02:20,840 --> 00:02:25,119
Speaker 5: You understood exactly what you were doing. It was a choice.

41
00:02:25,360 --> 00:02:27,799
Speaker 5: You certainly didn't have to include that language.

42
00:02:28,080 --> 00:02:31,320
Speaker 3: Joining me is former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden, who also

43
00:02:31,440 --> 00:02:35,080
Speaker 3: served as a deputy independent counsel. I want to start

44
00:02:35,120 --> 00:02:39,600
Speaker 3: with HER's report itself. The conclusion of his report was

45
00:02:39,600 --> 00:02:43,840
Speaker 3: that no criminal charges were warranted against Biden. What's your

46
00:02:43,919 --> 00:02:47,320
Speaker 3: take on how he got to that decision and how

47
00:02:47,360 --> 00:02:50,120
Speaker 3: he reported on it.

48
00:02:50,120 --> 00:02:53,160
Speaker 4: It was very curious to me. The first sentence of

49
00:02:53,280 --> 00:02:58,600
Speaker 4: report says that yes, he did nothing that warranted indictment,

50
00:02:59,200 --> 00:03:04,800
Speaker 4: but he engaged in wilful conduct in retention and wilful

51
00:03:04,880 --> 00:03:10,040
Speaker 4: conduct in distribution, which would be you know, blocking and tackling.

52
00:03:10,120 --> 00:03:14,440
Speaker 4: Basics for a charge. But he walks away from charging

53
00:03:14,560 --> 00:03:18,760
Speaker 4: him because he says he would present himself to a jury,

54
00:03:19,200 --> 00:03:23,040
Speaker 4: probably as a sympathetic, well meaning elderly man with a

55
00:03:23,080 --> 00:03:27,680
Speaker 4: poor memory. So I found that incredibly confusing. One is,

56
00:03:28,040 --> 00:03:33,360
Speaker 4: if he willfully possessed and willfully distributed, then that's the

57
00:03:33,400 --> 00:03:38,240
Speaker 4: basis for a charge. If the evidence was soft and

58
00:03:38,320 --> 00:03:41,240
Speaker 4: it wasn't as clearly wilful, then he should have said

59
00:03:42,160 --> 00:03:45,720
Speaker 4: you could argue wilfulness, But in this case, totality of

60
00:03:45,800 --> 00:03:50,120
Speaker 4: the evidence would undermine a finding of wilfulness by a jury.

61
00:03:50,640 --> 00:03:53,920
Speaker 4: But this notion that he would likely present himself to

62
00:03:53,960 --> 00:03:57,320
Speaker 4: a jury in this way struck me as very difficult

63
00:03:57,440 --> 00:04:01,120
Speaker 4: to understand, because one, he has no idea how Biden

64
00:04:01,160 --> 00:04:03,720
Speaker 4: would present himself to a jewelry. Too, he doesn't even

65
00:04:03,720 --> 00:04:06,080
Speaker 4: know whether Biden would ever take the witness stand to

66
00:04:06,200 --> 00:04:08,560
Speaker 4: present himself to a jury. So it seemed to me

67
00:04:08,600 --> 00:04:12,840
Speaker 4: that he really should have limited his bindings to the

68
00:04:12,880 --> 00:04:18,920
Speaker 4: evidence presented, and if he felt that he willfully obstructed,

69
00:04:19,440 --> 00:04:23,800
Speaker 4: or wilfully retained or willfully distributed, then he should have

70
00:04:23,880 --> 00:04:26,440
Speaker 4: charged him. If he felt that the evidence was not

71
00:04:26,800 --> 00:04:31,720
Speaker 4: sufficiently wilful, then he should say there are extenuating circumstances

72
00:04:31,839 --> 00:04:34,719
Speaker 4: to undermine the notion of wilfulness, and therefore I didn't charge.

73
00:04:34,760 --> 00:04:38,400
Speaker 4: So I didn't like anything about the way he constructed

74
00:04:38,680 --> 00:04:42,200
Speaker 4: his evidence and the reporting of it, And.

75
00:04:43,080 --> 00:04:46,240
Speaker 3: After four hours of testimony, it wasn't any clear or

76
00:04:46,279 --> 00:04:50,719
Speaker 3: what he meant or what he intended. Fite prodding from

77
00:04:50,760 --> 00:04:55,120
Speaker 3: both sides, and Democrats were up in arms about his

78
00:04:55,200 --> 00:04:58,360
Speaker 3: description of Biden, as you mentioned, as a sympathetic, well

79
00:04:58,400 --> 00:05:02,120
Speaker 3: meaning elderly man with a poor memory. He said he

80
00:05:02,240 --> 00:05:05,800
Speaker 3: needed to say that it was necessary, accurate, and fair.

81
00:05:06,080 --> 00:05:09,080
Speaker 3: He had to explain why Biden's memory would make it

82
00:05:09,120 --> 00:05:12,000
Speaker 3: hard to prove to a jury that the president broke

83
00:05:12,040 --> 00:05:15,360
Speaker 3: the law. Did you buy his explanation or were those

84
00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:17,880
Speaker 3: just partisan words thrown in there?

85
00:05:18,520 --> 00:05:20,479
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know if I would call them partisan,

86
00:05:20,920 --> 00:05:25,480
Speaker 4: but they were certainly naives in failing to realize what

87
00:05:25,680 --> 00:05:28,800
Speaker 4: implications words like that would have. And I think Adam

88
00:05:28,839 --> 00:05:31,279
Speaker 4: Schiff sort of had it right when he said to

89
00:05:31,960 --> 00:05:36,680
Speaker 4: her during his five minutes, you could have said as

90
00:05:36,720 --> 00:05:40,640
Speaker 4: to this document, I found the evidence to be less

91
00:05:40,680 --> 00:05:43,239
Speaker 4: than convincing. As to that document, there was a little

92
00:05:43,240 --> 00:05:46,920
Speaker 4: bit more convincing, but they were extenuating circumstances because we

93
00:05:47,240 --> 00:05:50,680
Speaker 4: sort of quarreled about what the meaning of classified men.

94
00:05:50,880 --> 00:05:53,640
Speaker 4: Did it mean private? Did it mean classified in a

95
00:05:54,080 --> 00:05:57,800
Speaker 4: national security sense? Was it a diary entry like Reagan

96
00:05:58,520 --> 00:06:03,719
Speaker 4: or a national secure marked document like Trump possessed. He

97
00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:06,880
Speaker 4: could have explained all that stuff in very granular detail

98
00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:11,919
Speaker 4: without the need to say in this overarching sort of

99
00:06:11,960 --> 00:06:15,080
Speaker 4: prediction of how Biden would likely present himselves. So I

100
00:06:15,080 --> 00:06:17,400
Speaker 4: think Schiff had it right in that exchange, and that

101
00:06:17,800 --> 00:06:21,640
Speaker 4: her was I don't want to attribute to her partisanship,

102
00:06:21,920 --> 00:06:25,240
Speaker 4: but I will say that he did have a tear

103
00:06:25,600 --> 00:06:27,440
Speaker 4: for the implications of this, and I think that the

104
00:06:27,440 --> 00:06:31,080
Speaker 4: White House Counsel's Office recognize that in their efforts to

105
00:06:31,520 --> 00:06:35,640
Speaker 4: have them rethink this language. But of course they didn't prevail,

106
00:06:35,680 --> 00:06:39,719
Speaker 4: and Merrick Garland didn't dare change any of HER's language

107
00:06:39,720 --> 00:06:42,120
Speaker 4: for fear of cover up, and so it is as

108
00:06:42,120 --> 00:06:42,440
Speaker 4: it is.

109
00:06:43,320 --> 00:06:44,280
Speaker 1: And something else.

110
00:06:44,360 --> 00:06:48,280
Speaker 3: Adam Schiff said that you don't do things to prejudice

111
00:06:48,279 --> 00:06:52,200
Speaker 3: the subject of an investigation when you're declining to prosecute.

112
00:06:52,600 --> 00:06:54,320
Speaker 1: He said, that's that's the rule.

113
00:06:55,080 --> 00:06:58,120
Speaker 4: That is the rule. And you see this occur in

114
00:06:58,240 --> 00:07:01,480
Speaker 4: various contexts. So for example, but if you are going

115
00:07:01,560 --> 00:07:05,800
Speaker 4: to have somebody as an unindicted co conspirator, you list

116
00:07:05,880 --> 00:07:10,400
Speaker 4: them as unindicted co conspirator number one, because if you

117
00:07:10,480 --> 00:07:15,680
Speaker 4: say they are uninvited co conspirature by name, then that

118
00:07:15,880 --> 00:07:19,920
Speaker 4: person is named as a co conspirator with no forum

119
00:07:20,560 --> 00:07:22,760
Speaker 4: to clear their name to say I'm not a co

120
00:07:22,760 --> 00:07:25,400
Speaker 4: conspirator because they've not been charged and so there's no

121
00:07:25,720 --> 00:07:29,720
Speaker 4: way that they can come forward. Similarly, in this case,

122
00:07:29,920 --> 00:07:34,480
Speaker 4: he has essentially tarnished the president without giving him an

123
00:07:34,520 --> 00:07:38,400
Speaker 4: opportunity in a court of law to clear his names.

124
00:07:38,480 --> 00:07:41,440
Speaker 4: In some sense, in terms of clearing one's name. Biden

125
00:07:41,520 --> 00:07:45,320
Speaker 4: might have been advantage to be charged, and I mean seriously,

126
00:07:45,400 --> 00:07:47,440
Speaker 4: but because he then at least would have been able

127
00:07:47,480 --> 00:07:49,640
Speaker 4: to say, I am not an old man with a

128
00:07:49,680 --> 00:07:53,520
Speaker 4: bad memory. I am a vital eighty one year old

129
00:07:53,560 --> 00:07:57,120
Speaker 4: who is fully capable of responding to accusations against the

130
00:07:57,240 --> 00:07:59,240
Speaker 4: end of course running the country. So I thought it

131
00:07:59,280 --> 00:07:59,800
Speaker 4: was banned.

132
00:08:00,240 --> 00:08:03,280
Speaker 3: Now her tried to follow what I'll call Robert Muller's

133
00:08:03,320 --> 00:08:06,440
Speaker 3: style when he testified in twenty nineteen about the Trump

134
00:08:06,560 --> 00:08:10,480
Speaker 3: Russia findings, sticking to his report. You know, people would

135
00:08:10,560 --> 00:08:13,040
Speaker 3: question and me going, yes, that's what that page said,

136
00:08:13,160 --> 00:08:15,840
Speaker 3: not that's what I wrote, but that's what that page said.

137
00:08:16,200 --> 00:08:18,040
Speaker 1: Was that successful for him?

138
00:08:18,360 --> 00:08:22,080
Speaker 4: Well, it was successful in the sense that he didn't

139
00:08:22,240 --> 00:08:27,080
Speaker 4: get himself involved in lengthy what if types of conversations.

140
00:08:27,160 --> 00:08:30,840
Speaker 4: But I think he could have been more elaborate in

141
00:08:30,920 --> 00:08:33,520
Speaker 4: his answer. I think he could have said, look, I

142
00:08:33,640 --> 00:08:38,960
Speaker 4: wrote this this way because we were thinking along these lines.

143
00:08:39,120 --> 00:08:43,440
Speaker 4: So I think an explanation of the black letters on

144
00:08:43,559 --> 00:08:48,240
Speaker 4: his report would have advantaged him and would have allowed

145
00:08:48,360 --> 00:08:51,920
Speaker 4: the listening public as the members of Congress, to understand

146
00:08:52,120 --> 00:08:55,600
Speaker 4: better what his thinking was. I think it was smart

147
00:08:55,600 --> 00:08:59,480
Speaker 4: of him to not get trapped into hypotheticals. What if

148
00:09:00,080 --> 00:09:02,520
Speaker 4: this was a sixty year old man instead of an

149
00:09:02,520 --> 00:09:05,120
Speaker 4: eighty one year old man, what if it was tuesdays

150
00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:07,480
Speaker 4: that it wasn't. I don't think that would have behooved

151
00:09:07,559 --> 00:09:08,880
Speaker 4: him in any way, but I think he could have

152
00:09:08,880 --> 00:09:13,400
Speaker 4: been a little bit more forthcoming in letting us understand

153
00:09:13,720 --> 00:09:17,400
Speaker 4: the thought process that went into his written report.

154
00:09:18,040 --> 00:09:21,680
Speaker 3: So obviously there were different aims of the questioning, with

155
00:09:21,760 --> 00:09:25,240
Speaker 3: the Republicans trying to show that there was enough evidence

156
00:09:25,280 --> 00:09:29,000
Speaker 3: to prosecute Biden and he got a pass, the Democrats

157
00:09:29,000 --> 00:09:32,079
Speaker 3: trying to show that Biden was exonerated and his memory

158
00:09:32,160 --> 00:09:35,199
Speaker 3: was good. I mean, start with the Republicans. Did they

159
00:09:35,200 --> 00:09:37,640
Speaker 3: make a pretty good case that there was enough evidence

160
00:09:37,679 --> 00:09:38,920
Speaker 3: here to charge Biden?

161
00:09:39,679 --> 00:09:42,200
Speaker 4: Well, this was the problem that I had that we've

162
00:09:42,200 --> 00:09:46,880
Speaker 4: just been talking about. Her apparently believed that there wasn't

163
00:09:47,320 --> 00:09:52,360
Speaker 4: enough evidence to overcome a defense that Biden might put on,

164
00:09:52,960 --> 00:09:56,320
Speaker 4: and so the evidence of wilfulness had to have been

165
00:09:56,720 --> 00:10:01,240
Speaker 4: much weaker than the Republicans thought was, because if you

166
00:10:01,320 --> 00:10:04,400
Speaker 4: had very strong evidence of retention and wilfulness in terms

167
00:10:04,400 --> 00:10:08,559
Speaker 4: of sharing, then the idea that a prospective defendant might

168
00:10:08,559 --> 00:10:11,480
Speaker 4: present himself to the jury as sympathetic. It would be

169
00:10:11,520 --> 00:10:14,360
Speaker 4: of no moment. There's no prosecutor that I know of

170
00:10:14,360 --> 00:10:17,880
Speaker 4: who says, well, this is a likable old man, but

171
00:10:17,960 --> 00:10:21,320
Speaker 4: I've got overwhelming evidence, and therefore I'm not going to charge.

172
00:10:21,440 --> 00:10:24,640
Speaker 4: I think the evidence was weaker than the Republicans wanted

173
00:10:24,640 --> 00:10:28,599
Speaker 4: it to be. But because Her didn't explain the weaknesses

174
00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:33,160
Speaker 4: in his evidence of willfulness, it allowed, yes, the great

175
00:10:33,240 --> 00:10:35,240
Speaker 4: sound bites for them to say, let me see if

176
00:10:35,280 --> 00:10:38,439
Speaker 4: I understand just the elements of the crime he possessed,

177
00:10:38,679 --> 00:10:41,880
Speaker 4: he knew he possessed, he shared, he knew when he

178
00:10:41,960 --> 00:10:45,120
Speaker 4: shared it was classified. What am I missing here? Was

179
00:10:45,200 --> 00:10:48,360
Speaker 4: the question the Republicans asked, and Her said, because he

180
00:10:48,480 --> 00:10:52,120
Speaker 4: was a likable old man. And that's when Congressman like

181
00:10:52,200 --> 00:10:56,280
Speaker 4: Gates and others said, I'm sorry, are you creating a

182
00:10:56,800 --> 00:11:00,320
Speaker 4: forgetful old man defense of the Van Drew who are

183
00:11:00,320 --> 00:11:03,800
Speaker 4: creating a new precedent of that? If you're likable, forgetful

184
00:11:03,840 --> 00:11:06,679
Speaker 4: old man, Hell with the evidence, we're not going to

185
00:11:06,760 --> 00:11:09,760
Speaker 4: charge you. And Her was susceptible to that argument, and

186
00:11:09,880 --> 00:11:12,480
Speaker 4: I think the Republicans were, you know, sort of clever

187
00:11:12,920 --> 00:11:15,880
Speaker 4: to present it. I think also Jim Jordan, who I

188
00:11:15,880 --> 00:11:18,120
Speaker 4: thought did a very nice job all in all in

189
00:11:18,200 --> 00:11:22,600
Speaker 4: running this hearing, made a good point politically when he

190
00:11:22,720 --> 00:11:27,800
Speaker 4: talked about Biden's motive, the eight million reasons, the eight

191
00:11:27,840 --> 00:11:30,920
Speaker 4: million dollars he got paid for the book, and the

192
00:11:31,080 --> 00:11:36,960
Speaker 4: need for Biden to show his legacy, his historical significance

193
00:11:37,360 --> 00:11:42,720
Speaker 4: by saying he opposed the Afghanistan surge. So Jordan says, look,

194
00:11:42,840 --> 00:11:46,600
Speaker 4: you've got willful retentions, you've got willful sharing, and you've

195
00:11:46,600 --> 00:11:51,319
Speaker 4: got motive eight million dollars for a book legacy desires,

196
00:11:52,080 --> 00:11:55,120
Speaker 4: what more are you needing? Her? And I think that

197
00:11:55,320 --> 00:11:57,920
Speaker 4: you know, it's a depelling case unless Her says, look,

198
00:11:58,200 --> 00:12:01,600
Speaker 4: the evidence wasn't that good. It wasn't strong enough. When

199
00:12:01,720 --> 00:12:05,800
Speaker 4: Biden said to the biographer, this is a classified document

200
00:12:05,880 --> 00:12:08,840
Speaker 4: and then later goes to say, well, it's not really classified,

201
00:12:08,840 --> 00:12:11,800
Speaker 4: it's more sort of private. Her should have said that

202
00:12:12,200 --> 00:12:15,840
Speaker 4: undermines the notion of willful distribution, because he's tried to

203
00:12:15,880 --> 00:12:22,400
Speaker 4: explain how he defined classified. But Her didn't engage that way,

204
00:12:22,480 --> 00:12:25,720
Speaker 4: and therefore I think Republicans made wood point him coming up.

205
00:12:25,640 --> 00:12:29,199
Speaker 3: The Democrats take on her and a Georgia judge dismisses

206
00:12:29,240 --> 00:12:32,360
Speaker 3: three charges against Trump. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening

207
00:12:32,400 --> 00:12:34,920
Speaker 3: to Bloomberg is Bloomberg.

208
00:12:34,520 --> 00:12:38,120
Speaker 1: Law with June Grusso from Bloomberg Radio.

209
00:12:39,080 --> 00:12:42,640
Speaker 3: Through four hours of aggressive questioning from both Democratic and

210
00:12:42,679 --> 00:12:46,840
Speaker 3: Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee, Special Counsel Robert

211
00:12:46,880 --> 00:12:49,680
Speaker 3: Hurr tried to defend the conclusions of his year long

212
00:12:49,760 --> 00:12:53,199
Speaker 3: investigation and his three hundred and forty five page report

213
00:12:53,559 --> 00:12:57,280
Speaker 3: that recommended no criminal charges be brought against President Joe

214
00:12:57,280 --> 00:13:00,960
Speaker 3: Biden for his handling of classified documents. He tried to

215
00:13:01,000 --> 00:13:04,800
Speaker 3: confine his precisely worded answers to the exact words of

216
00:13:04,840 --> 00:13:08,719
Speaker 3: the report, despite questions and hypotheticals trying to get him

217
00:13:08,720 --> 00:13:11,720
Speaker 3: to say either that Biden was guilty or that he

218
00:13:11,760 --> 00:13:15,960
Speaker 3: had been exonerated. Ironically, it was the questioning from Democratic

219
00:13:16,000 --> 00:13:20,080
Speaker 3: representative from Milijaia Paul that brought out her his most

220
00:13:20,160 --> 00:13:22,000
Speaker 3: damaging statement about Biden.

221
00:13:22,640 --> 00:13:25,120
Speaker 2: Congressman, that is one statute that we analyzed. I need

222
00:13:25,120 --> 00:13:27,760
Speaker 2: to go back and make sure that I take take

223
00:13:27,840 --> 00:13:30,400
Speaker 2: note of a word that you used, exoneration.

224
00:13:30,640 --> 00:13:34,000
Speaker 1: That is I'm going to continue with my question. I'm

225
00:13:34,000 --> 00:13:35,240
Speaker 1: going to continue with my questions.

226
00:13:35,960 --> 00:13:39,760
Speaker 2: The term I ultimately reached. I know that evidence existed

227
00:13:39,800 --> 00:13:41,600
Speaker 2: such that the likely outcome.

228
00:13:41,280 --> 00:13:42,800
Speaker 6: You exonerate a conviction.

229
00:13:43,080 --> 00:13:47,480
Speaker 1: I know that as options. Mister hurts my time.

230
00:13:48,040 --> 00:13:51,640
Speaker 3: I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Michael Zelden. So, Michael,

231
00:13:51,679 --> 00:13:54,119
Speaker 3: you talked about how the Republicans did with their questioning

232
00:13:54,160 --> 00:13:54,480
Speaker 3: of her.

233
00:13:54,840 --> 00:13:55,960
Speaker 1: How did the Democrats do?

234
00:13:56,320 --> 00:13:59,720
Speaker 4: Some of them, like thoughing Offward, I think was terrific

235
00:13:59,760 --> 00:14:04,000
Speaker 4: when she said, let me understand something about this Afghanistan memo.

236
00:14:04,320 --> 00:14:08,280
Speaker 4: Was that not a handwritten memo that Biden wrote, Yes,

237
00:14:08,320 --> 00:14:12,920
Speaker 4: it was. Let's now talk about Reagan and his diaries.

238
00:14:12,920 --> 00:14:16,680
Speaker 4: Were they not handwritten memoranda? Yeah, they were diary entries.

239
00:14:17,000 --> 00:14:20,960
Speaker 4: Did the Justice woman not say that those types of

240
00:14:21,000 --> 00:14:25,120
Speaker 4: diary entries are not covered? Yes? They did, so ergo

241
00:14:25,280 --> 00:14:29,600
Speaker 4: the Biden memo was a diary? Could it not be said?

242
00:14:29,720 --> 00:14:29,800
Speaker 7: So?

243
00:14:29,960 --> 00:14:32,800
Speaker 4: I think that was a very good exchange. I think

244
00:14:32,840 --> 00:14:35,600
Speaker 4: Shift did a good job and trying to bet out

245
00:14:35,680 --> 00:14:39,640
Speaker 4: the ten ear that her had. But most of the

246
00:14:39,680 --> 00:14:44,440
Speaker 4: others were just making political speeches, and I thought that

247
00:14:44,440 --> 00:14:48,359
Speaker 4: that was unfortunate. You know, they did make some points

248
00:14:48,440 --> 00:14:52,200
Speaker 4: with respect to Trump and the obstruction part of the

249
00:14:52,240 --> 00:14:56,480
Speaker 4: indictment being nothing like the Biden part of the avitce,

250
00:14:56,520 --> 00:14:58,120
Speaker 4: and so I think it was important for them to

251
00:14:58,480 --> 00:15:01,600
Speaker 4: articulate that they're really is the difference. Even if there

252
00:15:01,640 --> 00:15:05,440
Speaker 4: is some similarity on willful retention and distribution, there is

253
00:15:05,440 --> 00:15:08,320
Speaker 4: a whole world of difference with respect to obstruction.

254
00:15:09,000 --> 00:15:13,280
Speaker 3: Her played no part in the investigation into Trump's handling

255
00:15:13,320 --> 00:15:17,120
Speaker 3: of classified documents? Did he make a mistake by discussing

256
00:15:17,200 --> 00:15:21,920
Speaker 3: the material distinctions between the Biden and Trump cases and

257
00:15:21,960 --> 00:15:22,600
Speaker 3: his reports?

258
00:15:22,600 --> 00:15:24,320
Speaker 1: Should he have just left Trump out?

259
00:15:24,640 --> 00:15:27,320
Speaker 4: I think he had no choice but to say, I

260
00:15:27,360 --> 00:15:30,520
Speaker 4: know this other indictment exists, and the facts of that

261
00:15:30,800 --> 00:15:34,640
Speaker 4: case are materially different from the facts of this case.

262
00:15:35,080 --> 00:15:38,160
Speaker 4: Because think of what this hearing would have been like.

263
00:15:38,800 --> 00:15:44,360
Speaker 4: If he didn't recognize the distinction, then you have Republicans

264
00:15:44,680 --> 00:15:48,720
Speaker 4: screaming apples to apples. Why did one get indicted? One

265
00:15:48,920 --> 00:15:53,360
Speaker 4: not get indicted with no opportunity for her to respond

266
00:15:53,520 --> 00:15:56,480
Speaker 4: to the differences between them. If he's going to stick

267
00:15:56,480 --> 00:15:58,480
Speaker 4: to his report, I think that had to be in

268
00:15:58,520 --> 00:16:01,200
Speaker 4: his report, because otherwise I think he's put in a

269
00:16:01,400 --> 00:16:03,920
Speaker 4: terrible position of not being able to answer the question

270
00:16:03,960 --> 00:16:06,040
Speaker 4: of why one got it and one didn't get it.

271
00:16:06,920 --> 00:16:12,160
Speaker 3: So the Justice Department released the transcript of HER's interview

272
00:16:12,200 --> 00:16:16,360
Speaker 3: with Biden before the hearing, which I'd say was not

273
00:16:16,640 --> 00:16:22,160
Speaker 3: coincidental timing, and the Democrats used that was HER's testimony

274
00:16:22,400 --> 00:16:27,920
Speaker 3: undercut by the excerpts from the transcript, which seemed to

275
00:16:27,960 --> 00:16:33,040
Speaker 3: show that Joe Biden was not as forgetful, his memory

276
00:16:33,120 --> 00:16:37,520
Speaker 3: was not as bad as her made it out to be, that's.

277
00:16:37,360 --> 00:16:41,239
Speaker 4: Right, and that the evidence of wilfulness was more equivocal

278
00:16:41,840 --> 00:16:44,960
Speaker 4: than the report seemed to make it. I think the

279
00:16:45,040 --> 00:16:48,920
Speaker 4: Justice Department should have released this long before this hearing.

280
00:16:48,960 --> 00:16:51,320
Speaker 4: I think it was a mistake for the Justice Department

281
00:16:51,360 --> 00:16:54,040
Speaker 4: to release this report so close to the hearing. I

282
00:16:54,040 --> 00:16:57,120
Speaker 4: think it would have been better if the committee had

283
00:16:57,160 --> 00:17:01,920
Speaker 4: this transcript earlier so that it could be fully evaluated

284
00:17:01,960 --> 00:17:05,520
Speaker 4: and that it could be factored more intelligently or more

285
00:17:05,560 --> 00:17:09,119
Speaker 4: meaningfully in the questioning. So yeah, I think it was

286
00:17:09,160 --> 00:17:12,159
Speaker 4: not coincidental, but I think it was unfortunate that we

287
00:17:12,200 --> 00:17:16,159
Speaker 4: didn't really get the benefit of that transcript fully in

288
00:17:16,240 --> 00:17:19,560
Speaker 4: the exploration with her about the nature of his evidence.

289
00:17:21,160 --> 00:17:25,760
Speaker 3: There was this almost comical back and forth between her

290
00:17:26,040 --> 00:17:31,040
Speaker 3: and Democrat Promila Jayapaul about whether her had exonerated by it,

291
00:17:31,040 --> 00:17:33,120
Speaker 3: and it was like you did, I didn't, you did,

292
00:17:33,560 --> 00:17:37,040
Speaker 3: and they talked over each other. What's the difference to

293
00:17:37,119 --> 00:17:43,160
Speaker 3: a prosecutor between exonerating someone and not charging someone.

294
00:17:42,520 --> 00:17:46,960
Speaker 4: Well, not charging someone is possibly I'm not going to

295
00:17:47,119 --> 00:17:50,200
Speaker 4: charge them even though I think they did something criminal

296
00:17:50,359 --> 00:17:52,880
Speaker 4: because I don't think I can prove this case beyond

297
00:17:52,960 --> 00:17:56,240
Speaker 4: a reasonable doubt because key pieces of evidence are missing

298
00:17:56,920 --> 00:18:02,760
Speaker 4: or key witnesses is not cooperating, and therefore, while I

299
00:18:02,840 --> 00:18:05,760
Speaker 4: believe the person is guilty of this, I can't prove

300
00:18:06,119 --> 00:18:08,800
Speaker 4: my case beyond reasonal doubt, and therefore I'm not going

301
00:18:08,800 --> 00:18:11,879
Speaker 4: to bring it. That's very different than saying the person

302
00:18:11,960 --> 00:18:15,600
Speaker 4: is innocent did nothing wrong. So it might seem like

303
00:18:15,640 --> 00:18:18,520
Speaker 4: a fine line, but not being able to prove a

304
00:18:18,640 --> 00:18:22,840
Speaker 4: case and saying the person is innocent are two different things.

305
00:18:22,880 --> 00:18:27,000
Speaker 4: And I thought when the congresswoman engaged in the conversation

306
00:18:27,200 --> 00:18:30,320
Speaker 4: with him about was this exoneration or was this not exoneration?

307
00:18:31,040 --> 00:18:33,960
Speaker 4: She didn't help the Democrat cause because the headlines I

308
00:18:34,040 --> 00:18:38,520
Speaker 4: saw effort hearing was her refuses to exonerate Biden. How

309
00:18:38,600 --> 00:18:42,560
Speaker 4: is that a helpful exchange? So I think that like

310
00:18:42,600 --> 00:18:45,800
Speaker 4: in the Muller Report, where Muller wrote, if we had

311
00:18:45,920 --> 00:18:50,080
Speaker 4: confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we

312
00:18:50,119 --> 00:18:53,040
Speaker 4: would have said So that for me was a terrible line.

313
00:18:53,080 --> 00:18:57,720
Speaker 4: That was very problematic because essentially it says he may

314
00:18:57,760 --> 00:18:59,760
Speaker 4: be a criminal, but we can't yet.

315
00:19:00,000 --> 00:19:00,080
Speaker 2: Oh.

316
00:19:00,760 --> 00:19:02,280
Speaker 4: I just don't think you do things like that. I

317
00:19:02,280 --> 00:19:06,560
Speaker 4: don't think that's what declination or non memos should be

318
00:19:06,720 --> 00:19:07,200
Speaker 4: all about.

319
00:19:08,400 --> 00:19:12,159
Speaker 3: Do you think the differences between the Biden case and

320
00:19:12,200 --> 00:19:16,440
Speaker 3: the Trump case were made clear during that four hours

321
00:19:16,520 --> 00:19:17,480
Speaker 3: or was it muddled?

322
00:19:18,200 --> 00:19:22,040
Speaker 4: Well, it was definitely made clear. With respect to obstruction,

323
00:19:22,560 --> 00:19:27,399
Speaker 4: It's quite clear that her was unequivocal, that Biden cooperated,

324
00:19:27,680 --> 00:19:32,320
Speaker 4: and that there was nothing that was obstructive by Biden.

325
00:19:32,520 --> 00:19:35,320
Speaker 4: It may be a little bit obstructive behavior by the

326
00:19:35,359 --> 00:19:39,480
Speaker 4: ghostwriter in the leting of an audio conversation, but with

327
00:19:39,520 --> 00:19:41,680
Speaker 4: respect to Biden, Biden cooperated.

328
00:19:42,000 --> 00:19:42,960
Speaker 7: Trump did not.

329
00:19:43,560 --> 00:19:47,280
Speaker 4: And I thought that was really brought home over and

330
00:19:47,359 --> 00:19:52,000
Speaker 4: over by everybody on the Democrat and even in HER's case.

331
00:19:52,040 --> 00:19:54,520
Speaker 4: But these they are two maturely different cases.

332
00:19:54,680 --> 00:19:57,480
Speaker 3: So, Michael, what do you think the average person should

333
00:19:57,520 --> 00:19:59,160
Speaker 3: get out of this testimony?

334
00:20:00,119 --> 00:20:03,359
Speaker 4: The average person should say this five minutes per person

335
00:20:04,200 --> 00:20:08,479
Speaker 4: round of questioning process is horrible. It doesn't lend itself

336
00:20:08,520 --> 00:20:12,320
Speaker 4: to coherence. And couldn't they just have one or two

337
00:20:12,400 --> 00:20:16,520
Speaker 4: people duct these conversations with these witnesses in a way

338
00:20:16,520 --> 00:20:18,639
Speaker 4: that we could get to the bottom of things. And

339
00:20:18,760 --> 00:20:22,800
Speaker 4: two congressmen, even if they were four federal proscuts or

340
00:20:22,880 --> 00:20:25,159
Speaker 4: film or state proscins, don't seem to know how to

341
00:20:25,200 --> 00:20:29,480
Speaker 4: ask a question. This was so scripted. Nobody listened to

342
00:20:30,320 --> 00:20:33,840
Speaker 4: the testimony. They asked their pre written questions, even though

343
00:20:33,880 --> 00:20:37,679
Speaker 4: the exact question was asked just before them, and the

344
00:20:37,720 --> 00:20:40,719
Speaker 4: exact answer was elicited that they elicited. I mean, it

345
00:20:40,760 --> 00:20:44,400
Speaker 4: was a horrible, horrible process. But in the bottom line,

346
00:20:44,400 --> 00:20:47,040
Speaker 4: I think people are going to not have their opinion

347
00:20:47,240 --> 00:20:50,080
Speaker 4: changed by this. I think that the notion that Biden

348
00:20:50,160 --> 00:20:54,240
Speaker 4: is an old man is baked in among Republicans and

349
00:20:54,840 --> 00:20:58,120
Speaker 4: some Democrats and independents. I think that the notion that

350
00:20:58,280 --> 00:21:01,919
Speaker 4: Trump is being treated differently worse is baked in within

351
00:21:02,240 --> 00:21:05,480
Speaker 4: the MAGA crowd, and that special prosecutors have a lot

352
00:21:05,520 --> 00:21:09,040
Speaker 4: of work to do in bringing clarity to their analysis.

353
00:21:09,080 --> 00:21:11,119
Speaker 4: When you look at the Mulla report, look at the

354
00:21:11,240 --> 00:21:15,120
Speaker 4: Durham report, you look at her report, all these reports

355
00:21:15,320 --> 00:21:18,960
Speaker 4: did was make things more confusing. They brought no clarity

356
00:21:19,000 --> 00:21:23,600
Speaker 4: whatsoever to the circumstances that they were designed to investigate

357
00:21:23,720 --> 00:21:26,119
Speaker 4: and report on. So I think people are going to

358
00:21:26,160 --> 00:21:29,280
Speaker 4: come away from this disappointed in building. You hear what

359
00:21:29,320 --> 00:21:31,800
Speaker 4: you want to hear, and disregard their way. As Paul

360
00:21:31,880 --> 00:21:34,000
Speaker 4: Simon saying in The Boxer, I.

361
00:21:33,920 --> 00:21:34,560
Speaker 1: Love that song.

362
00:21:34,920 --> 00:21:38,960
Speaker 3: So does this show that Attorney General Merrick Garland is

363
00:21:39,080 --> 00:21:43,639
Speaker 3: using special counsels too much? He's using special councils in

364
00:21:43,760 --> 00:21:44,920
Speaker 3: so many instances.

365
00:21:45,320 --> 00:21:50,879
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't know what Merrick Garland should do. It's

366
00:21:50,920 --> 00:21:56,520
Speaker 4: such a acrimonious time with this notion of the weaponized Justice Department,

367
00:21:56,560 --> 00:21:59,280
Speaker 4: that on the heels of the bar debacle with the

368
00:21:59,359 --> 00:22:03,320
Speaker 4: Mullor report, where Muller admits the report to bar Or,

369
00:22:03,520 --> 00:22:06,679
Speaker 4: sits on it for a while, then gives his own

370
00:22:07,000 --> 00:22:09,920
Speaker 4: summary of it, which Muller objects to, and it turns

371
00:22:09,960 --> 00:22:14,320
Speaker 4: out to be decidedly misleading. All Merrik Grong can really

372
00:22:14,560 --> 00:22:16,960
Speaker 4: say is I don't want to put the Justice woman

373
00:22:17,080 --> 00:22:20,560
Speaker 4: in that position, and the best way for me to

374
00:22:20,680 --> 00:22:24,880
Speaker 4: insulate the Justice woman from criticism is to use special counsel.

375
00:22:25,359 --> 00:22:27,320
Speaker 4: But I don't think it's working.

376
00:22:27,119 --> 00:22:29,920
Speaker 3: Very well, well, one of the Trump cases that has

377
00:22:29,960 --> 00:22:32,720
Speaker 3: nothing to do with the Justice Department is the Georgia

378
00:22:32,880 --> 00:22:37,080
Speaker 3: twenty twenty election interference case. Today, Judge Scott McAfee, the

379
00:22:37,080 --> 00:22:40,720
Speaker 3: trial judge, throughout three of the charges against former President

380
00:22:40,840 --> 00:22:44,280
Speaker 3: Donald Trump that have to do with soliciting public officers

381
00:22:44,280 --> 00:22:48,440
Speaker 3: to violate their oaths? What did the judge dismiss those counts?

382
00:22:48,720 --> 00:22:51,880
Speaker 4: So what I can gather from the eight page order

383
00:22:52,160 --> 00:22:57,359
Speaker 4: is that he said that while this conduct is probably criminal,

384
00:22:57,600 --> 00:23:02,360
Speaker 4: it wasn't pled meaning the diamond self, with enough specificity

385
00:23:03,000 --> 00:23:08,880
Speaker 4: so that the defendants could understand specifically what conduct they're

386
00:23:08,920 --> 00:23:13,520
Speaker 4: accused of having engaged in that would give rise to

387
00:23:14,400 --> 00:23:18,399
Speaker 4: unanimous jury. Very in cleaning your case, as a prosecutor,

388
00:23:18,440 --> 00:23:22,640
Speaker 4: in your indictment, you have to set forth clearly what

389
00:23:22,800 --> 00:23:28,040
Speaker 4: is the evidence and what is the statutes that evidence violates.

390
00:23:28,040 --> 00:23:30,800
Speaker 4: And the judge felt here that the way the case

391
00:23:30,960 --> 00:23:33,399
Speaker 4: was written, the way the case was pled, there was

392
00:23:33,440 --> 00:23:37,920
Speaker 4: a possibility of confusion by the defendants about what they

393
00:23:38,000 --> 00:23:41,520
Speaker 4: had to defend themselves against. And so he said, look,

394
00:23:41,560 --> 00:23:44,080
Speaker 4: unless you cure this, which I think they have the

395
00:23:44,359 --> 00:23:46,359
Speaker 4: authority to do, they can go back to a grand

396
00:23:46,440 --> 00:23:50,240
Speaker 4: jury and supersede this indictment to make these counts more

397
00:23:50,560 --> 00:23:54,040
Speaker 4: clear consistent with what the judge orders. Until then, the

398
00:23:54,119 --> 00:23:57,000
Speaker 4: judge says, look, it's disease defendants, they just don't know

399
00:23:57,040 --> 00:23:59,160
Speaker 4: how to defend this case because the way you wrote

400
00:23:59,200 --> 00:24:02,280
Speaker 4: it in less than Until you do that, I'm not

401
00:24:02,320 --> 00:24:05,040
Speaker 4: going to let you bring these charges before me, which

402
00:24:05,080 --> 00:24:08,200
Speaker 4: I think is a fine ruling in that I think

403
00:24:08,280 --> 00:24:12,560
Speaker 4: defendants are entitled to know specifically what crime they're accused

404
00:24:12,560 --> 00:24:15,520
Speaker 4: of and what conduct they engaged in that the prosecutors

405
00:24:15,520 --> 00:24:18,760
Speaker 4: believe gave rise to the indictment. So I've got no

406
00:24:18,760 --> 00:24:22,760
Speaker 4: problem with decision. And whether or not the prosecutors tweak

407
00:24:22,880 --> 00:24:25,840
Speaker 4: their language to satisfy him is up to them. But

408
00:24:26,280 --> 00:24:30,640
Speaker 4: I'm all for clarity in charging documents so that people's

409
00:24:30,680 --> 00:24:34,600
Speaker 4: constitutional rights to defend themselves can be fully achieved.

410
00:24:35,800 --> 00:24:39,520
Speaker 3: What's ironic about this is that one of the charges

411
00:24:39,560 --> 00:24:43,399
Speaker 3: relates to something that's been clear for how many years,

412
00:24:43,440 --> 00:24:47,320
Speaker 3: which is Donald Trump's call to the Georgia Secretary of

413
00:24:47,400 --> 00:24:51,640
Speaker 3: State asking him to find eleven thousand some odd votes.

414
00:24:52,280 --> 00:24:56,360
Speaker 4: Well, so there's a call between Trump and para State

415
00:24:56,440 --> 00:24:59,760
Speaker 4: Rastenberger where he says, all I need is eleven thousand

416
00:24:59,720 --> 00:25:04,600
Speaker 4: and seven Navy votes, one more than we have. But

417
00:25:05,080 --> 00:25:08,080
Speaker 4: that was a charge that said, you are asking the

418
00:25:08,119 --> 00:25:11,920
Speaker 4: Secretary of State to violate his oath to make sure

419
00:25:11,960 --> 00:25:15,240
Speaker 4: that there is election integrity, and what the court set

420
00:25:15,359 --> 00:25:18,880
Speaker 4: is explain to me a little bit more clearly how

421
00:25:18,920 --> 00:25:24,320
Speaker 4: that phone call specifically violated that statute. He said something like,

422
00:25:24,359 --> 00:25:27,399
Speaker 4: there's an abundance of evidence here, but the way it

423
00:25:27,480 --> 00:25:30,919
Speaker 4: was pled, you know, the specific way it was written

424
00:25:31,720 --> 00:25:35,040
Speaker 4: was just not clear enough. And so he's not saying

425
00:25:35,080 --> 00:25:40,960
Speaker 4: that's not necessarily innocent behavior. He's just saying, articulate it

426
00:25:41,320 --> 00:25:45,440
Speaker 4: more clearly so that Trump and company know exactly what

427
00:25:45,480 --> 00:25:50,840
Speaker 4: it is about that conversation that you think caused Rathenberger

428
00:25:51,359 --> 00:25:54,679
Speaker 4: to have to violate his oath of office where he

429
00:25:54,800 --> 00:25:59,280
Speaker 4: to have followed him. So it's just seeking clarity, I

430
00:25:59,280 --> 00:26:01,240
Speaker 4: mean as a problem for a long long time. I

431
00:26:01,280 --> 00:26:03,800
Speaker 4: started out as a defense attorney, and I always thought

432
00:26:03,840 --> 00:26:08,040
Speaker 4: that the tables are so stacked in favor of prosecutors

433
00:26:08,080 --> 00:26:10,480
Speaker 4: that when a court can sort of level the field

434
00:26:10,520 --> 00:26:14,520
Speaker 4: to make sure that defensial and defendants particularly have a

435
00:26:14,520 --> 00:26:17,160
Speaker 4: fair shot at understanding what they're being charged with and

436
00:26:17,160 --> 00:26:18,880
Speaker 4: how they can possibly defend themselves.

437
00:26:19,200 --> 00:26:22,320
Speaker 3: I'm all for it, Thanks so much, Michael. That's former

438
00:26:22,400 --> 00:26:26,399
Speaker 3: federal prosecutor Michael Zelden coming up a fight over a

439
00:26:26,520 --> 00:26:32,040
Speaker 3: national wildlife refuge in Georgia. This is Bloomberg. The Okefinoke

440
00:26:32,320 --> 00:26:36,000
Speaker 3: National Wildlife Refuge is a pristine six hundred and eighty

441
00:26:36,280 --> 00:26:40,679
Speaker 3: square mile wilderness in Georgia, an ecological wonder that's a

442
00:26:40,720 --> 00:26:44,720
Speaker 3: haven for threatened and endangered species and is world renowned

443
00:26:44,720 --> 00:26:48,440
Speaker 3: for its amphibian populations. It's one of the world's largest

444
00:26:48,480 --> 00:26:53,720
Speaker 3: intact freshwater ecosystems and was designated a Wetland of International

445
00:26:53,760 --> 00:26:57,280
Speaker 3: Importance by the United Nations in nineteen seventy one. And

446
00:26:57,359 --> 00:27:01,040
Speaker 3: now the federal government is making an unpressed sedented water

447
00:27:01,119 --> 00:27:04,760
Speaker 3: rights claim to try to prevent a mining company from

448
00:27:04,840 --> 00:27:08,520
Speaker 3: pumping so much groundwater for a proposed mind that it

449
00:27:08,520 --> 00:27:11,960
Speaker 3: could cut off part of the swamp's water source, imperiling

450
00:27:12,040 --> 00:27:15,920
Speaker 3: its biodiversity and its original purpose as a refuge from

451
00:27:15,920 --> 00:27:20,560
Speaker 3: migratory birds. Joining me is a water rights expert, Ryan Roeberry,

452
00:27:20,920 --> 00:27:24,800
Speaker 3: a professor at the Georgia State University Law School. Ryan

453
00:27:24,840 --> 00:27:27,640
Speaker 3: tell us about the facts, describe what's happening.

454
00:27:27,320 --> 00:27:30,479
Speaker 6: Here, sure, I mean the facts I mean, it's quite simple.

455
00:27:31,080 --> 00:27:35,119
Speaker 6: There is the ok Pinocchi Swamp, part of which is

456
00:27:35,160 --> 00:27:39,639
Speaker 6: a National Wildlife Refuge, obviously a very large swamp in

457
00:27:39,680 --> 00:27:42,840
Speaker 6: southern Georgia. About three miles away from that, in the

458
00:27:42,880 --> 00:27:48,480
Speaker 6: southeast section of the Okeo Swamp, mining company wants some

459
00:27:48,480 --> 00:27:53,960
Speaker 6: permits to some groundwater pumping permits because there's a water

460
00:27:54,040 --> 00:27:57,480
Speaker 6: mining is a water intensive process. They've applied for some

461
00:27:57,520 --> 00:28:04,399
Speaker 6: permits to mine titanium dioxide and that that process of

462
00:28:04,440 --> 00:28:08,040
Speaker 6: sort of using the groundwater and pumping the groundwater would

463
00:28:08,119 --> 00:28:12,080
Speaker 6: affect the water flow going through the Ok Phenochi National

464
00:28:12,080 --> 00:28:15,600
Speaker 6: Wildlife Refuge. So that is the challenge right now. It's

465
00:28:15,320 --> 00:28:19,760
Speaker 6: the water quantity issue that may happen because of these permits,

466
00:28:20,200 --> 00:28:20,919
Speaker 6: and would.

467
00:28:20,640 --> 00:28:23,760
Speaker 3: That lack of water be a hazard to the species

468
00:28:23,800 --> 00:28:25,600
Speaker 3: there that have been protected.

469
00:28:26,080 --> 00:28:29,840
Speaker 6: Absolutely so, I mean they I'm not a hydrologist, but

470
00:28:30,000 --> 00:28:33,080
Speaker 6: some hydrologists have studied this and they say that about

471
00:28:33,119 --> 00:28:36,760
Speaker 6: sixteen percent it could cause a diminution of water, about

472
00:28:36,760 --> 00:28:40,440
Speaker 6: sixteen percent of the recharge of the aquifer that sort

473
00:28:40,440 --> 00:28:44,440
Speaker 6: of naturally feeds the Ok Phenochi National Wildlife Refuge. If

474
00:28:44,480 --> 00:28:47,240
Speaker 6: that happens, that has a very big negative impact on

475
00:28:47,360 --> 00:28:51,440
Speaker 6: some endangered species, the ability of the swamp, and it's

476
00:28:51,600 --> 00:28:54,680
Speaker 6: the creatures inside the swamp, some of the trees, grasses,

477
00:28:55,040 --> 00:28:59,200
Speaker 6: some of the animals. It would negatively impact them if

478
00:28:59,200 --> 00:29:01,000
Speaker 6: that is, If that the case is that there's a

479
00:29:01,080 --> 00:29:04,480
Speaker 6: sixteen percent diminution, and that is what's an issue here

480
00:29:04,680 --> 00:29:08,560
Speaker 6: is what kind of damage, if any, would be groundwater

481
00:29:08,640 --> 00:29:13,320
Speaker 6: permits posed to the National Wildlife Refuge. And that's when

482
00:29:13,320 --> 00:29:14,920
Speaker 6: you get into the hydrology of it.

483
00:29:15,240 --> 00:29:17,920
Speaker 3: And I just want to clarify one thing. The Georgia

484
00:29:18,080 --> 00:29:23,320
Speaker 3: Environmental Protection Division issued a draft permit correct to build

485
00:29:23,520 --> 00:29:25,440
Speaker 3: to build this mine, and there was a public.

486
00:29:25,120 --> 00:29:30,120
Speaker 6: Hearing, correct, there was a public hearing, and there was

487
00:29:30,160 --> 00:29:33,440
Speaker 6: some complaints Lodge. They so this has been going on

488
00:29:33,480 --> 00:29:35,320
Speaker 6: for a couple of years now. This has not just

489
00:29:35,400 --> 00:29:39,120
Speaker 6: come out of the blue, and now they are in

490
00:29:39,160 --> 00:29:41,400
Speaker 6: the midst of the draft permit is sort of thing.

491
00:29:41,400 --> 00:29:43,960
Speaker 6: This is the permit we want to give the mining company.

492
00:29:44,200 --> 00:29:47,720
Speaker 6: They're accepting public comment on it, I believe up until

493
00:29:47,840 --> 00:29:51,600
Speaker 6: the early part of April, at which time they will

494
00:29:51,600 --> 00:29:54,840
Speaker 6: make a decision on whether to grant the permit to

495
00:29:54,920 --> 00:29:56,000
Speaker 6: the mining company or not.

496
00:29:56,920 --> 00:29:58,640
Speaker 3: I mean, do you know if the public's in favor

497
00:29:58,680 --> 00:30:02,280
Speaker 3: of the mining company or keeping the National Refuge clean.

498
00:30:03,120 --> 00:30:06,240
Speaker 6: I mean, the most people that I saw who are

499
00:30:06,760 --> 00:30:10,320
Speaker 6: far more concerned about the National Wildlife Refuge. We don't

500
00:30:10,320 --> 00:30:12,760
Speaker 6: have many spots like this in the East, particularly the

501
00:30:12,800 --> 00:30:16,800
Speaker 6: Eastern United States. I'm sure there are people on the

502
00:30:16,800 --> 00:30:18,440
Speaker 6: other side that would say, you know, of course the

503
00:30:18,440 --> 00:30:21,520
Speaker 6: mine would provide jobs, the economy, those kinds of things,

504
00:30:21,560 --> 00:30:23,640
Speaker 6: and so there's there's always going to be a built

505
00:30:23,680 --> 00:30:27,560
Speaker 6: intention between sort of preservation or economic development.

506
00:30:28,000 --> 00:30:31,280
Speaker 3: So the government and when I say the government, are

507
00:30:31,280 --> 00:30:33,640
Speaker 3: we talking about the Fish and Wildlife Service?

508
00:30:33,880 --> 00:30:35,640
Speaker 6: When we see yes, we're talking about the US Fish

509
00:30:35,640 --> 00:30:37,080
Speaker 6: and Wildlife So.

510
00:30:37,040 --> 00:30:39,600
Speaker 3: The US Fish and Wildlife Service made a claim in

511
00:30:39,760 --> 00:30:44,840
Speaker 3: January asserting its federal reserved water rights at Okafinoke.

512
00:30:45,440 --> 00:30:47,040
Speaker 1: Is that unusual?

513
00:30:48,280 --> 00:30:51,640
Speaker 6: Absolutely, this is highly unusual. In fact, I think it's

514
00:30:51,680 --> 00:30:55,200
Speaker 6: the first time that federal or reserve water rights have

515
00:30:55,280 --> 00:31:00,400
Speaker 6: been asserted east of the Mississippi River. And and four

516
00:31:00,480 --> 00:31:03,160
Speaker 6: that is, in the United States, we generally speaking have

517
00:31:03,240 --> 00:31:05,720
Speaker 6: two different water systems, one for the West, one for

518
00:31:05,800 --> 00:31:09,400
Speaker 6: the East. In the West, where it's very arid and dry,

519
00:31:09,480 --> 00:31:11,760
Speaker 6: where I grew up in Idaho and Colorado, you have

520
00:31:11,880 --> 00:31:15,840
Speaker 6: prior appropriation first, in time first, and right, there's sort

521
00:31:15,840 --> 00:31:18,280
Speaker 6: of the pecking order of who gets the water. The

522
00:31:18,800 --> 00:31:22,360
Speaker 6: government has asserted it's better reserved water rights, which is

523
00:31:22,360 --> 00:31:24,719
Speaker 6: as simply this, It's simply a claim that when the

524
00:31:24,720 --> 00:31:29,320
Speaker 6: federal government reserves the land, that it also implicitly reserves

525
00:31:29,320 --> 00:31:32,800
Speaker 6: the water necessary for that land to function as a reservation.

526
00:31:34,160 --> 00:31:36,600
Speaker 6: That has been asserted in the West. In the East,

527
00:31:36,640 --> 00:31:42,240
Speaker 6: we have a regulated Riparian system. Riparian system is predicated

528
00:31:42,360 --> 00:31:45,600
Speaker 6: on the premise that there's enough water for everybody, you

529
00:31:45,720 --> 00:31:48,800
Speaker 6: just have to share it reasonably. And I think one

530
00:31:48,840 --> 00:31:51,400
Speaker 6: of the challenges is is that with climate change, with

531
00:31:51,520 --> 00:31:56,080
Speaker 6: increased industrial use, we are seeing that there's not probably

532
00:31:56,120 --> 00:31:58,960
Speaker 6: might not be enough water for everybody anymore in the

533
00:31:59,040 --> 00:32:02,800
Speaker 6: riparian state. And so in this case, the US Fish

534
00:32:02,800 --> 00:32:04,120
Speaker 6: and Wildlife Service has.

535
00:32:04,040 --> 00:32:06,800
Speaker 7: Asserted its ce reserve water rights, which.

536
00:32:06,640 --> 00:32:08,800
Speaker 6: Again in a Riperian state. I believe this is the

537
00:32:08,800 --> 00:32:11,080
Speaker 6: first time this has happened, So yes, it is a

538
00:32:11,080 --> 00:32:11,560
Speaker 6: big deal.

539
00:32:12,320 --> 00:32:16,280
Speaker 3: The mining company claims a that the mind won't harm

540
00:32:16,440 --> 00:32:20,360
Speaker 3: the reserve and that federal reserve water rights is a

541
00:32:20,400 --> 00:32:24,040
Speaker 3: doctorate exclusive to Western water law. Where do you stand

542
00:32:24,080 --> 00:32:24,400
Speaker 3: on this?

543
00:32:25,800 --> 00:32:28,360
Speaker 6: I don't think it's exclusive to Western water law at all.

544
00:32:28,400 --> 00:32:31,200
Speaker 6: I mean, there is some argument that says, well, it

545
00:32:31,320 --> 00:32:34,200
Speaker 6: has to be land that was reserved in the public domain,

546
00:32:34,280 --> 00:32:36,680
Speaker 6: of which Georgia was not part of that because it's

547
00:32:36,720 --> 00:32:39,640
Speaker 6: part of the original thirteen colonies. But to me, the

548
00:32:39,680 --> 00:32:42,560
Speaker 6: doctrine of federal reserve water rights, it doesn't depend on

549
00:32:42,600 --> 00:32:45,720
Speaker 6: the status of the land that the government reserved. It

550
00:32:45,840 --> 00:32:49,640
Speaker 6: simply depends upon the reason for which the federal government

551
00:32:49,720 --> 00:32:52,480
Speaker 6: reserved the land. In the case of the Oki Finocchi.

552
00:32:52,560 --> 00:32:53,720
Speaker 7: It reserved the land.

553
00:32:53,520 --> 00:32:56,520
Speaker 6: To protect the water, the wildlife, the tree, et cetera.

554
00:32:57,040 --> 00:32:59,880
Speaker 6: And therefore the intent would have been to preserve enough

555
00:33:00,120 --> 00:33:05,560
Speaker 6: water for the congressionally congressionally recognized intent to take place.

556
00:33:05,600 --> 00:33:08,600
Speaker 6: So I am not of the opinion it's just a

557
00:33:08,720 --> 00:33:12,280
Speaker 6: Western issue that I think that the facts on the

558
00:33:12,320 --> 00:33:14,800
Speaker 6: ground have changed and that there's not enough water in

559
00:33:14,840 --> 00:33:18,480
Speaker 6: the East for everybody anymore, and this is a right

560
00:33:18,600 --> 00:33:21,200
Speaker 6: that the federal government can assert. There's no problem for

561
00:33:21,680 --> 00:33:22,200
Speaker 6: my opinion.

562
00:33:22,440 --> 00:33:25,360
Speaker 3: So the acting Regional Director of Fish and Wildlife Service,

563
00:33:25,760 --> 00:33:29,040
Speaker 3: Mike Boker, said that federal reserve water rights include all

564
00:33:29,080 --> 00:33:33,320
Speaker 3: the water needed to maintain the purpose of the Okefinoki Refuge,

565
00:33:33,520 --> 00:33:37,560
Speaker 3: which President Franklin Roosevelt created to protect migratory birds in

566
00:33:37,680 --> 00:33:41,240
Speaker 3: nineteen thirty seven with an executive order under the Migratory

567
00:33:41,280 --> 00:33:44,600
Speaker 3: Bird Conservation Act. Shouldn't that be enough that it's a

568
00:33:44,600 --> 00:33:47,360
Speaker 3: federal reserve and it has to be protected.

569
00:33:47,560 --> 00:33:50,600
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean the challenge here again is the groundwater.

570
00:33:51,360 --> 00:33:54,640
Speaker 6: The permits are not on the federal reserve right, they

571
00:33:54,680 --> 00:33:57,760
Speaker 6: are outside at the by about three miles. And so

572
00:33:57,920 --> 00:34:01,200
Speaker 6: the issue then is what kind of things can the

573
00:34:01,240 --> 00:34:06,440
Speaker 6: federal government regulate that don't actually take place on federal

574
00:34:06,520 --> 00:34:11,000
Speaker 6: lands but could impact federal lands. And so that's I

575
00:34:11,000 --> 00:34:14,960
Speaker 6: think the real nub of the issue here. And the

576
00:34:15,040 --> 00:34:17,719
Speaker 6: simple fact that federal reserve water rights has not been

577
00:34:17,760 --> 00:34:20,520
Speaker 6: asserted in the East has led some people to believe

578
00:34:20,560 --> 00:34:24,360
Speaker 6: that well, they aren't applicable in a ripe Aerian jurisdiction,

579
00:34:24,440 --> 00:34:27,040
Speaker 6: which again I think is wrong. It's just the fact

580
00:34:27,040 --> 00:34:29,640
Speaker 6: that probably we've had enough water in the past to

581
00:34:29,680 --> 00:34:32,880
Speaker 6: handle everything, and now that seems to be changing.

582
00:34:33,160 --> 00:34:37,800
Speaker 3: So tell us about this unanimous nineteen seventy six Supreme

583
00:34:37,880 --> 00:34:42,680
Speaker 3: Court opinion that the Fish and Wildlife Service is relying on.

584
00:34:43,560 --> 00:34:48,120
Speaker 6: Sure, that's the case of USB Caffert, and that was

585
00:34:49,800 --> 00:34:53,160
Speaker 6: an assertion of a federal reserve water right, I believe

586
00:34:53,280 --> 00:34:57,200
Speaker 6: for the Devil's hole to protect a certain a small

587
00:34:57,239 --> 00:34:59,200
Speaker 6: type of fish, So that would be in the Western

588
00:34:59,320 --> 00:35:03,360
Speaker 6: United States. Again, but this also expanded the notion of

589
00:35:03,440 --> 00:35:07,560
Speaker 6: federal reserve water rights not just to Native American reservations

590
00:35:07,680 --> 00:35:11,440
Speaker 6: or national parks, but to all federal reservations that includes

591
00:35:11,520 --> 00:35:17,280
Speaker 6: national wildlife refuges, et cetera. And that says simply simply

592
00:35:17,320 --> 00:35:21,680
Speaker 6: stated Cafrit says, the primary purpose of a federal reservation,

593
00:35:22,520 --> 00:35:24,920
Speaker 6: then that that primary purpose needs to.

594
00:35:24,880 --> 00:35:29,480
Speaker 7: Be served by the water that is allotted to it.

595
00:35:30,120 --> 00:35:33,640
Speaker 6: So it's really the protection of the primary purpose for

596
00:35:33,640 --> 00:35:36,279
Speaker 6: which a reservation was made. And in the case of

597
00:35:36,320 --> 00:35:40,200
Speaker 6: the Okpoki Swamp, clearly water is part of a swamp

598
00:35:41,280 --> 00:35:44,080
Speaker 6: and part of the national wildlife refuge and so fulfilling

599
00:35:44,160 --> 00:35:48,120
Speaker 6: that primary purpose, it's whatever that minimum amount is needed

600
00:35:48,440 --> 00:35:52,280
Speaker 6: to fulfill the primary purpose, and that minimum amount nobody knows.

601
00:35:52,480 --> 00:35:55,160
Speaker 6: Nobody knows what is the minimum amount needed, and so

602
00:35:55,200 --> 00:35:59,200
Speaker 6: that would require hydrologists to sort of get active and

603
00:35:59,200 --> 00:36:01,359
Speaker 6: get involved, and I'm sure there will be disputes over

604
00:36:01,400 --> 00:36:03,359
Speaker 6: what is the minimum amount necessary.

605
00:36:03,480 --> 00:36:08,520
Speaker 3: Do most water rights experts think that federal water rights

606
00:36:08,600 --> 00:36:11,360
Speaker 3: take precedence over state groundwater rights.

607
00:36:12,200 --> 00:36:15,200
Speaker 6: Absolutely, absolutely, the federal claim would take precedence.

608
00:36:15,280 --> 00:36:18,680
Speaker 7: That's that's pretty clear. If the federal reserve.

609
00:36:18,480 --> 00:36:22,520
Speaker 6: Water rights exist, it is, it is its supersedes state

610
00:36:22,560 --> 00:36:23,040
Speaker 6: water right.

611
00:36:23,320 --> 00:36:25,799
Speaker 1: So what what do experts disagree on?

612
00:36:26,520 --> 00:36:29,640
Speaker 6: Well, I think some experts disagree on whether federal reserve

613
00:36:29,680 --> 00:36:33,160
Speaker 6: water rights exist in Ritian states like Georgia and regulated

614
00:36:33,239 --> 00:36:37,279
Speaker 6: Riparian states. And then the question is is how do

615
00:36:37,320 --> 00:36:41,439
Speaker 6: you make it fit. You're essentially saying we should privilege

616
00:36:41,800 --> 00:36:46,120
Speaker 6: the water usage of the National Wildlife Refuge in the

617
00:36:46,120 --> 00:36:51,200
Speaker 6: Okefinoke over other competing claims from you know, mining companies

618
00:36:51,280 --> 00:36:54,480
Speaker 6: or municipal industrial use. How are you going to fit

619
00:36:54,560 --> 00:36:57,680
Speaker 6: that in to a system that for many times, for

620
00:36:57,760 --> 00:37:00,759
Speaker 6: many years has not really looked at who gets its

621
00:37:00,760 --> 00:37:03,319
Speaker 6: first who gets the second, but it's been based off

622
00:37:03,360 --> 00:37:07,040
Speaker 6: of are you using the water reasonably? And that's a

623
00:37:07,160 --> 00:37:08,640
Speaker 6: very different question than in.

624
00:37:08,560 --> 00:37:10,000
Speaker 7: The West, where you have a.

625
00:37:10,000 --> 00:37:13,359
Speaker 6: Pecking order that is clearly established on who gets the

626
00:37:13,400 --> 00:37:15,880
Speaker 6: first amount and how much they get, who gets the second.

627
00:37:16,400 --> 00:37:18,960
Speaker 6: We don't have those same systems set up in the East.

628
00:37:19,080 --> 00:37:21,440
Speaker 6: So how it fits in to a sort of a

629
00:37:21,560 --> 00:37:25,480
Speaker 6: reasonable use standard system, which is very sort of ambiguous

630
00:37:25,480 --> 00:37:27,960
Speaker 6: and opaque is still to be determined.

631
00:37:28,480 --> 00:37:33,719
Speaker 3: But this end with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division saying no,

632
00:37:33,880 --> 00:37:35,160
Speaker 3: we're not going to give you a permit.

633
00:37:36,960 --> 00:37:39,960
Speaker 6: It's possible, it's possible. I think what's going to happen

634
00:37:39,960 --> 00:37:43,400
Speaker 6: and what should happen, is that Georgia EPD and the

635
00:37:43,520 --> 00:37:46,560
Speaker 6: US Fish and Wildlife Service need to sit down and

636
00:37:46,680 --> 00:37:49,600
Speaker 6: talk about this at are reserved water right and more importantly,

637
00:37:49,640 --> 00:37:53,040
Speaker 6: how much water is necessary for the ok forn Ok

638
00:37:53,200 --> 00:37:56,720
Speaker 6: to actually fulfill its mandated purpose. I think that should

639
00:37:56,760 --> 00:37:59,960
Speaker 6: be the next step. I don't think it has to

640
00:38:00,160 --> 00:38:02,160
Speaker 6: be yes or no on the permit. I think it

641
00:38:02,200 --> 00:38:04,480
Speaker 6: should be We're going to have to wait until we

642
00:38:04,560 --> 00:38:07,520
Speaker 6: figure out these conversations with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

643
00:38:08,239 --> 00:38:09,680
Speaker 1: There is no legal case.

644
00:38:09,480 --> 00:38:13,439
Speaker 6: Yet, no correct there is no but it's been going on.

645
00:38:13,360 --> 00:38:15,120
Speaker 1: For years and still no legal case.

646
00:38:16,160 --> 00:38:18,960
Speaker 6: Well, the question about whether they were going to get

647
00:38:19,000 --> 00:38:21,760
Speaker 6: a permit, how much water would would they be pumping

648
00:38:21,800 --> 00:38:24,839
Speaker 6: out of the ground, et cetera. If and then once

649
00:38:24,880 --> 00:38:28,080
Speaker 6: you find out all that information, well does that harm

650
00:38:28,320 --> 00:38:31,440
Speaker 6: or could it harm the Ok Pinok Swamp or not

651
00:38:32,200 --> 00:38:33,160
Speaker 6: all of those questions.

652
00:38:33,200 --> 00:38:33,839
Speaker 7: That's what's been.

653
00:38:33,760 --> 00:38:35,600
Speaker 6: Going on over the several years, has been a lot

654
00:38:35,600 --> 00:38:38,919
Speaker 6: of fact finding and a lot of documents being put

655
00:38:38,960 --> 00:38:43,680
Speaker 6: together so that Georgia EPD would be able to assess

656
00:38:43,760 --> 00:38:46,640
Speaker 6: whether or not a permit was should be granted. So

657
00:38:46,719 --> 00:38:49,280
Speaker 6: that's what's been going on. And it takes takes years

658
00:38:49,280 --> 00:38:52,560
Speaker 6: for mining permits to happen, So this is not abnormal.

659
00:38:53,560 --> 00:38:55,919
Speaker 6: This is this is part of the process of any

660
00:38:56,040 --> 00:38:59,000
Speaker 6: sort of large mining operation, whether in the Western US

661
00:38:59,120 --> 00:39:01,799
Speaker 6: or the East. So it takes a lot of groundwork

662
00:39:02,280 --> 00:39:04,000
Speaker 6: to get your permits in order so that you can

663
00:39:04,239 --> 00:39:05,520
Speaker 6: bring a mind online.

664
00:39:05,560 --> 00:39:08,080
Speaker 3: Well, we'll have to keep track of this. Thanks so much, Ryan.

665
00:39:08,360 --> 00:39:12,440
Speaker 3: That's Professor Ryan Roberry of the Georgia State University Law School.

666
00:39:12,800 --> 00:39:15,480
Speaker 3: And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast.

667
00:39:15,840 --> 00:39:18,200
Speaker 3: Remember you can always get the latest legal news by

668
00:39:18,239 --> 00:39:22,080
Speaker 3: subscribing and listening to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

669
00:39:22,360 --> 00:39:26,200
Speaker 3: and at Bloomberg dot com, Slash podcast, Slash Law. I'm

670
00:39:26,280 --> 00:39:28,680
Speaker 3: June Grosso and this is Bloomberg