Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court gave Democrats a short term win on
Speaker 1: congressional voting maps this week, but new long term concerns.
Speaker 1: The Justice is turned down Republican challenges to congressional maps
Speaker 1: drawn by state courts in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, which
Speaker 1: could help Democrats when a handful of races in November. However,
Speaker 1: four conservative justices indicating they want to consider a far
Speaker 1: reaching legal theory that would shift more federal election power
Speaker 1: to state legislatures that are now disproportionately controlled by Republicans.
Speaker 1: Joining me as elections law expert Rick Hassan, a professor
Speaker 1: at u C Irvine Law School, the maps in North
Speaker 1: Carolina and Pennsylvania had been drawn by Republican legislatures and
Speaker 1: replaced by the courts. Why did the courts replays them, Well,
Speaker 1: the states each have their own constitution, and just like
Speaker 1: the U. S Constitution, has phrases in it that are
Speaker 1: pretty vague, like equal protection of the laws that end
Speaker 1: up being developed into large scale doctrines that courts used
Speaker 1: to do different things. That's what's happened in these two states.
Speaker 1: Both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the North Kindline Supreme
Speaker 1: Court read provisions related to elections in their state constitutions
Speaker 1: to banned partisan jurymandrick. That's draw district lines to favor
Speaker 1: one side and hurt the other side. So the court
Speaker 1: left the maps in place. Was that an expected decision
Speaker 1: under current law? So the kinds of arguments that were
Speaker 1: being made against the two different states laws, So the
Speaker 1: court left the maps in place. Was that an expected
Speaker 1: decision under current law? So the kinds of arguments that
Speaker 1: were being made against the two different states laws or
Speaker 1: somewhat different. The claim in Pennsylvania was essentially punted. It
Speaker 1: was basically that a federal statute required that if the
Speaker 1: legislature didn't draw lines in a certain way, then you'd
Speaker 1: have to elect all the members of Congress from the
Speaker 1: entire state voting. And so that case just got punted
Speaker 1: and is going to be put before a three judge court,
Speaker 1: and we'll be back before the Supreme Court at some point.
Speaker 1: The more immediate interesting case is the North Carolina case,
Speaker 1: because there we've seen an argument raised that conservatives have
Speaker 1: been raising for twenty years, more than twenty years since
Speaker 1: Bush versus Gore, which is that state courts applying state
Speaker 1: constitutions have very limited powers to apply those state constitutions
Speaker 1: against state legislatures in federal elections. And that's because of
Speaker 1: a part of the Constitution that says the state legislatures
Speaker 1: get to set the rules for running congressional elections subject
Speaker 1: to congress is override. It's very complicated, called the independent
Speaker 1: state legislature doctrine, and so far no majority of the
Speaker 1: Court has accepted it, but there are a number of
Speaker 1: aicists who have expressed some interest in it. So we're
Speaker 1: waiting to see what happens ultimately with the resolution of
Speaker 1: this issue. So in the Carolina case, the courts three
Speaker 1: most conservative members, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil
Speaker 1: gorse It, said they would have blocked the state court
Speaker 1: from adopting a new map, and they use this independent
Speaker 1: state legislature doctrine. That's right, And Justice Kavanaugh said, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think we should take this independent state legislature doctrine seriously.
Speaker 1: I just think we're too close to the election, which
Speaker 1: is a point that he's been making in a number
Speaker 1: of cases recently, saying that federal courts, including the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: should not be changing election rules just before an election,
Speaker 1: But he suggests that if the case came back for
Speaker 1: a regular hearing, not on an emergency basis, that he'd
Speaker 1: be willing to hear the case. It only takes four
Speaker 1: of the nine justices to a pretty hear a case,
Speaker 1: so it seems pretty likely that this case will ultimately
Speaker 1: be back for the Supreme Court, maybe to be heard
Speaker 1: next year, and with the decision a year from June.
Speaker 1: Just to be clear, it's an unprecedented theory that basically
Speaker 1: a state judiciary can impose a map for congressional elections
Speaker 1: even though it finds a map violates the state constitution.
Speaker 1: The idea is that the state legislature has some kind
Speaker 1: of independent power, like it's not the state itself, it's
Speaker 1: the legislature as a body, and that the state legislature
Speaker 1: can trump even the state constitution as applied by the
Speaker 1: state legislature. The argument has been around for a while.
Speaker 1: In Bush versus Gore, which was the case that ended
Speaker 1: the two thousand election, the majority opinion for the court
Speaker 1: said that the recount that had been ordered by the
Speaker 1: Florida Supreme Court violated equal protection or to process guarantees,
Speaker 1: but there was a separate three justice concurren written by
Speaker 1: then Chief Justice William Rehnquist and joined by Justice Thomas
Speaker 1: and Scalia that advanced this theory and said that there
Speaker 1: was a separate problem with the order to do these recounts,
Speaker 1: which was that it was ordered in violation of what
Speaker 1: the state legislative statute said, and you can't do it
Speaker 1: in reliance on the state constitution. So that's really kind
Speaker 1: of the modern origin of this argument. The Court has
Speaker 1: rejected very similar arguments in other cases, including as most
Speaker 1: recently a case in involving whether Arizona voters could adopt
Speaker 1: a registricting commission to draw district lines for Congress rather
Speaker 1: than letting the legislature do it, and on a five
Speaker 1: to four vote, the Supreme courts that we don't read
Speaker 1: legislature as narrowly at the Arizona legislature was arguing that
Speaker 1: was a five to four decision two of the justices
Speaker 1: soon to be three of the justices, and that majority
Speaker 1: will have left the Court by the time that this
Speaker 1: issue returns to the Supreme Court, presumably in the North
Speaker 1: Carolina case, and Chief Justice Roberts, who was the chief
Speaker 1: dissenter in that two thousands fifteen Arizona case, could well
Speaker 1: find himself having to choose between following a precedent he
Speaker 1: doesn't like or agreeing with at least three or four
Speaker 1: of his colleagues, two of them were not in the
Speaker 1: court of the time, and who seemed to agree with
Speaker 1: the position he took back in this independent state legislature doctrine,
Speaker 1: if the Court were to adopt it, that would be
Speaker 1: contrary to precedent. Well, the issues are not exactly the same,
Speaker 1: because in that fifteen case, for example, the question is
Speaker 1: whether you could use the initiative process to displace the legislature.
Speaker 1: In this case, the question is whether state court supplying
Speaker 1: state constitutions can supplement what the legislature has done. There
Speaker 1: related questions, but they're not quite exactly the same. But
Speaker 1: there are precedents going back a hundred years where the
Speaker 1: court has rejected this kind of argument in different contexts,
Speaker 1: but it hasn't gotten a full airing in the modern
Speaker 1: period other than in that Arizona case. And we don't
Speaker 1: know if precedents is going to stick in that Arizona case.
Speaker 1: So let me ask you this, why are conservatives pushing
Speaker 1: it and why are the three at least the three
Speaker 1: dissenters seemingly in favor of it, and perhaps Kavana as well. Well.
Speaker 1: Now you're getting really interesting questions. So both Pennsylvania and
Speaker 1: North Carolina have the following political configuration. They have legislatures
Speaker 1: that are dominated by Republicans in part because of earlier
Speaker 1: Publican jerrymagers. They've got democratic governors, and they've got democratic
Speaker 1: majority Supreme Court, that is Supreme Court with justices who
Speaker 1: were either nominated or favored by the Democratic Party. And
Speaker 1: so in each of these dates, you have a Democratic
Speaker 1: Supreme Court saying that the Republican jerrymanager is no good.
Speaker 1: And now you have these conservative justices on the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court disagreeing with the Democratic States Supreme Court and agreeing
Speaker 1: with the Republican legislature and potentially allowing them to continue
Speaker 1: for another decade with a partisan cherry managing of district.
Speaker 1: And it's kind of builds on itself, right, because you
Speaker 1: end up adopting rules through a body that had been
Speaker 1: elected under rules that have been manipulated by the earlier body,
Speaker 1: and so it creates a kind of feedback. And so
Speaker 1: there's both kind of an ideological understanding of this like,
Speaker 1: let's read the word legislature very literally in the text
Speaker 1: of the Constitution. But there's also a political aspect of this,
Speaker 1: which is, let's give the Republican legislature a chance to
Speaker 1: do what it wants to do and not let the
Speaker 1: democratic state Supreme Court ring them in. The Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has all cut off certain ways to challenge election laws
Speaker 1: election districts, and in twenty nine when they close federal
Speaker 1: courts to claims of partisan gerrymandering, the Chief Justice wrote
Speaker 1: that those claims could get through state courts, right, right,
Speaker 1: So there's an inconsistency there in terms of In Rouco,
Speaker 1: the case you're referring to, the Court said, but you
Speaker 1: could always go to state court. Now, maybe you could
Speaker 1: reconcile that by saying, but that's only true as to
Speaker 1: preventing gerrymandering of state legislative districts and not congressional districts.
Speaker 1: But the congressional power is different when it comes to
Speaker 1: federal elections, and state power is different when it comes
Speaker 1: to federal election So it's sufficiently uncertain that I think
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court is going to have to resolve it,
Speaker 1: and likely in the North Carolina case and in a way.
Speaker 1: That would be a very good thing for it to
Speaker 1: be resolved one way or the other, because this issue
Speaker 1: did appear as well in the presidential election, and it
Speaker 1: would have been really a mess for the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: to adopt a new, very controversial doctrine that could have
Speaker 1: helped determine the outcome of the presidential election itself. So, Rick,
Speaker 1: does it mean that if there are claims of partisan gerrymandering,
Speaker 1: if they adopted this, there's no appeal to federal court
Speaker 1: and there's no appeal to state court either. As to
Speaker 1: a congressional district, there would be no appeal. Is that
Speaker 1: what the Framers would have wanted? Well, I don't know
Speaker 1: that that's the question, but I think you would argue
Speaker 1: that's not what the Framers want. Didn't The better historical
Speaker 1: evidence is that this independent state legislature theory is is
Speaker 1: something that is not in line with original understanding of
Speaker 1: the Constitution. And I'm sure that there's going to be
Speaker 1: a lot of arguments aimed at Justice Amy Coney Barrett,
Speaker 1: who is an originalist who has not weighed in on
Speaker 1: this question, and who might care about that historical record
Speaker 1: for textualists originalists on the Court which is the better
Speaker 1: interpretation according to your thinking. Well, I think that UM,
Speaker 1: the richer understanding of the constitution would reject this very
Speaker 1: strong independent state legislature doctrine and understand the state legislature
Speaker 1: is act within the context of their own UM state laws,
Speaker 1: including state Supreme courts supplying state constitutions, and the claim
Speaker 1: in North Carolina to me is exceptionally weak because the
Speaker 1: provision of the state constitution that guarantees these voting rights
Speaker 1: was actually one that the state legislature had approved in
Speaker 1: nine when it had amended its constitutions. So there's all
Speaker 1: kinds of reasons why, UM, the North Carolina General Assembly,
Speaker 1: that's the legislative body there should lose. In UM, this
Speaker 1: case shouldn't come back to the Supreme Court. But I'm
Speaker 1: not at all confident that they will lose. I just
Speaker 1: think that they should finally, so the Democrats win here
Speaker 1: in the short term, but now this is something that
Speaker 1: they should be concerned about in the long term. Oh,
Speaker 1: I think absolutely, yes. This is something that really could
Speaker 1: have impact beyond redistricting as well. It could apply anytime
Speaker 1: a state legislature's rule is challenged as violating a state
Speaker 1: constitutional provision. And it's going to be applied in the
Speaker 1: federal election. Thanks so much for lending us your expertise. Rick.
Speaker 1: That's Rick Casson, a professor at you see Irvine Law School.
Speaker 1: When I put my hand on the Bible and took
Speaker 1: the oath of office twenty two months ago, I knew
Speaker 1: this job would be hard, but I'll be honest, I
Speaker 1: never could have imagined anything like this. I want to
Speaker 1: start by saying thank you to our law enforcement. Thank
Speaker 1: you to the fearless FBI agents, and thank you to
Speaker 1: the brave Michigan State Police troopers who participated in this operation.
Speaker 1: That was Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer in October of last year,
Speaker 1: talking about the plot to kidnap her. Today, trial began
Speaker 1: for four men accused of conspiring to kidnap Whittmer and
Speaker 1: conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction. The focus
Speaker 1: of the trial quickly turned to the question of whether
Speaker 1: the FBI tricked and cajole the defendants into agreeing to
Speaker 1: the kidnap plot. Joining me is former u US Attorney
Speaker 1: for Eastern Michigan Matthew Schneider, a partner at Honigman So
Speaker 1: described the crime alleged here and the atmosphere in Michigan
Speaker 1: at the time, So the atmosphere in Michigan was of
Speaker 1: course COVID restrictions, and that was happening all across the country,
Speaker 1: and there were a number of different types of events
Speaker 1: that happened in Michigan that were very extreme, which were
Speaker 1: locked downs there. It started with people not being able
Speaker 1: to go to the store or go to work, and
Speaker 1: then eventually it became that you could stand out in
Speaker 1: your house, but you couldn't talk to your neighbors, and
Speaker 1: then even that shut off, and so there were a
Speaker 1: lot of restrictions and people felt very strongly about that.
Speaker 1: And as the course of these restrictions built, a lot
Speaker 1: of public sentiment built one way or the other, either
Speaker 1: in support of Governor Whitmer or against Governor Whitmer. And
Speaker 1: as we found out that at this time, these defendants
Speaker 1: in this case were on the very very supposed to
Speaker 1: Governor Whittmer's restrictions. And the allegations in this case are
Speaker 1: that they decided that they would take matters into their
Speaker 1: own hands, and instead of most Americans complaining about it,
Speaker 1: writing letters to the newspaper or talking to folks and
Speaker 1: being upset. The allegation here is that they put together
Speaker 1: a conspiracy plot and they thought the one way that
Speaker 1: we could do this is that we would kidnap the
Speaker 1: governor and we would take her hostage, and we would
Speaker 1: use weapons to do that, and they felt that that's
Speaker 1: the way that they would get their point across. Of course,
Speaker 1: they're innocent until proven guilty, and the trials just started,
Speaker 1: but that is the allegation in this case. So tell
Speaker 1: us if anything unusual happened during jury selection. You know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting because the jury pool is is from West Michigan,
Speaker 1: which is not necessarily a strong point for Governor Whittmer
Speaker 1: as it was, but I think at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, there should be a fair jury here. But
Speaker 1: we don't really know a lot about some of these
Speaker 1: jurors because they ended the jury selection without asking a
Speaker 1: lot of questions about some of them, just kind of
Speaker 1: their background and whether they could could do it, but
Speaker 1: not much detail. So some of this is a little unknown.
Speaker 1: One aspect of this jury selection that I found very
Speaker 1: concerning myself was people were asked, as with any other
Speaker 1: jury selection, can you be fair, And a number of
Speaker 1: people said, I can't be fair? In this case, because
Speaker 1: I really dislike Governor Whitmer, and I can't be fair. Well,
Speaker 1: you know that what that said to me is a
Speaker 1: lot of people dislike Governor Whittmer. That's fine, she's a
Speaker 1: political figure, and that's okay. But when somebody says I
Speaker 1: dislike her so much that maybe I'm sympathetic to somebody
Speaker 1: who wants to kidnap her, I found that to be
Speaker 1: quite disturbing, because in this country, we're not supposed to
Speaker 1: settle our political differences through violence. We're supposed to settle
Speaker 1: them at the ballot box. And at least some people
Speaker 1: on this or who were excused, tip their hands to
Speaker 1: the fact that they thought that violence in response to
Speaker 1: political disagreements might be okay, and that that's something that
Speaker 1: should trouble all of us. So let's talk about the
Speaker 1: opening statements. Let's start with the prosecution. It featured what
Speaker 1: sounds like some wild tales. Yes, the prosecution had a
Speaker 1: strong opening in my view, and they explained the time
Speaker 1: and the timeline and the chronology about what happened and
Speaker 1: how these defendants got together, and they started talking about
Speaker 1: different ways that they could rebel against the government and
Speaker 1: Michigan and then they started to train together and they
Speaker 1: started to use assault rifles. Some of them had been
Speaker 1: doing this for a while, but they started to take
Speaker 1: target practice, and the FBI infiltrated this group, and the
Speaker 1: discussion went more instead of here's the types of things
Speaker 1: we could do, here are the actions that we could take.
Speaker 1: And then the government alleges that they actually started to
Speaker 1: take these steps. So it's one thing to say, I
Speaker 1: think what we need to do is go to the
Speaker 1: governor's house and surveil it. In this case, the evidence
Speaker 1: is going to show that the defendants, some of them,
Speaker 1: actually did that. They went to the governor's house. And
Speaker 1: you know, it's another thing to say, well, we should
Speaker 1: buy some explosives so that we could detonate it near
Speaker 1: the governor's house. Talk is one thing, but the evidence
Speaker 1: in this case, the government says, is they're going to
Speaker 1: show that they tried to buy these explosives, and some
Speaker 1: explosives they did buy, and the point was they really
Speaker 1: wanted to put their money where their mouth was. And
Speaker 1: so that's the case that the government has laid out
Speaker 1: that they actually took some actions. They took these overt acts,
Speaker 1: these steps, and further into the conspiracy and that's why
Speaker 1: the government believes that they should be found guilty. So
Speaker 1: the defense raised the defense of entrapment. They said that
Speaker 1: the FBI tricked the defendants into agreeing to the plot
Speaker 1: to kidnap Witner, and the FBI drove the whole thing.
Speaker 1: So tell us about that defense. So what we know
Speaker 1: so far is that the defense, originally in the opening
Speaker 1: statements didn't really touch this entrapment. They just kind of
Speaker 1: nibbled around the edges. At some point in the openings
Speaker 1: it became clear that that's really what they were talking about,
Speaker 1: and an entrapment defense is saying, essentially, I'm not the
Speaker 1: one who came up with this idea, I'm not the
Speaker 1: one who really wanted to do this, and but for
Speaker 1: the government, I wouldn't have done this. I wouldn't have
Speaker 1: tried to put this plan into place except for the
Speaker 1: government goading me on. And some of these defendants have
Speaker 1: said that they really had no experience in tactical training
Speaker 1: and using weapons. But Dan, this undercover FBI informant, is
Speaker 1: the one who trained them, and he's the one who
Speaker 1: encouraged them. So that's the entrapment defense, and the government
Speaker 1: of course and is going to use the jury instruction
Speaker 1: for entrapment, and there are signs in there the government
Speaker 1: can point to to say that you weren't entrapped, And
Speaker 1: that's really based on the fact that the defendants were
Speaker 1: what they call predisposed to commit the crime. That means
Speaker 1: they already had this thought in their mind before the
Speaker 1: government introduced the undercover agents. And under the law, if
Speaker 1: you have that predisposition, then entrapment is not a valid defense.
Speaker 1: Is it a high risk strategy to defend based on
Speaker 1: entrapment because you're conceding that some crimes may have been committed.
Speaker 1: It is because it's an infirmative defense where you you
Speaker 1: have to admit to certain things, but say, similar to
Speaker 1: self defense, say I did this. However, now it's important
Speaker 1: to note that as this trial has played out, it's
Speaker 1: not as clear cut as the government has thought, in
Speaker 1: my opinion, because entrapment is not the only defense. There's
Speaker 1: a separate defense that is being laid out by at
Speaker 1: least one of the defendants to say that this is
Speaker 1: all really big talk. We did not intend this, but
Speaker 1: we talked really big and we came up with some
Speaker 1: wild ideas. And the defense is going to explain the
Speaker 1: fact that we talked about, what are some ways we
Speaker 1: could go and take out Governor Whitmer. Well, one way
Speaker 1: is we could all sneak over to her house and
Speaker 1: we could hide in the woods and we could bark
Speaker 1: like animals, and then she would come out, because she
Speaker 1: cares about animals. Another thing that they talked about was, well,
Speaker 1: we could cut all the trees down between Indiana and Michigan,
Speaker 1: because that would create a stir and would prevent people
Speaker 1: from getting into the state. Or we could tie a
Speaker 1: kite to the governor and flyer over Lake Michigan. Now
Speaker 1: that's all nonsense, right, that's not going to work. And
Speaker 1: the defense in this case is, look, they said all
Speaker 1: these things when they were drunken, when they were stoned.
Speaker 1: Another thing that they said was we're going to kidnap her,
Speaker 1: and so all of this is in one big pot.
Speaker 1: We didn't mean it, and it's all just a bunch
Speaker 1: of big talk, and therefore their strategy is we're big talkers,
Speaker 1: we didn't mean it, we couldn't actually accomplish this, and
Speaker 1: you should find us not guilty. The fact that there
Speaker 1: are four defendants here are their defenses. United You said
Speaker 1: that one of the defense attorneys brought up this crazy talk.
Speaker 1: So how does it play that there are four of them?
Speaker 1: So there's four defendants and each of them gets an
Speaker 1: opportunity to speak as questions, give their opening statements. That's
Speaker 1: how the openings played out. Now, let's see what happens
Speaker 1: in the closings. Right, are they all going to last
Speaker 1: on to that defense? Will they all be in the
Speaker 1: entrapment defense that we know all four of them have
Speaker 1: already said, well, we'll plead entrapment. But will they all
Speaker 1: argue these other kind of stoned, crazy delusions and that's
Speaker 1: why we did it? Will they argue that that really
Speaker 1: remains to be seen And we won't know for weeks
Speaker 1: because this trial will probably take at least four to
Speaker 1: six weeks to get through. But will the jury distinguish
Speaker 1: one defendant from the other for something like if they're
Speaker 1: sitting there and it's this wild talk plan to you know,
Speaker 1: put a kite on Whittner, whatever, will the jury really
Speaker 1: distinguish one from the other or will the defense is
Speaker 1: sort of bleed into one another. So normally juries do
Speaker 1: take the time and effort to go one by one
Speaker 1: through each defendant and find this defendant with these elements
Speaker 1: either did or did not commit this crime, and there
Speaker 1: will be plenty of time for jury deliberations to do that.
Speaker 1: Sometimes people fear that if you're if you're in a
Speaker 1: group of people who are committing crimes, and then there's
Speaker 1: guilt by association. I have found in my experience that
Speaker 1: jurors are are quite smart, they're quite intelligent, and they're
Speaker 1: able to parse out who did what and who did
Speaker 1: not do what. So I think we'll we'll be able
Speaker 1: to see a jury that is able to do that.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about some of the witnesses. Two insiders who
Speaker 1: turned state's evidence seem to be important for the government.
Speaker 1: That's true. So there are two defendants who were charged
Speaker 1: in this case, but they've pleaded guilty and now they're
Speaker 1: cooperating for the government, and they've committed crimes and they
Speaker 1: are going to admit that and explain what happened. And
Speaker 1: the government's theory in this is that the best way
Speaker 1: to know what happens in a secret conspiracy is to
Speaker 1: actually get one of the members of the conspiracy to
Speaker 1: come out and explain what happened. And these people were
Speaker 1: insiders who can say I was in that room. I
Speaker 1: was part of those conversations. I know what happened, and
Speaker 1: here's and here's what actually took place. The defense on
Speaker 1: these types of cases is always the same. You're a liar,
Speaker 1: and the reason why you're testifying is for one reason,
Speaker 1: and that's because you've been convicted of a crime. And
Speaker 1: if you testify and you give the government what they want,
Speaker 1: then they will give you a break, and they will
Speaker 1: cut your sentence and they will reduce the amount of
Speaker 1: time that you have to spend in prison, if you
Speaker 1: even go to prison. And so the defense will paint
Speaker 1: them as people who are opportunistic, only there for their
Speaker 1: own agenda, who already have a criminal history, and who
Speaker 1: were people who want to break and they're going to
Speaker 1: portray them as not truthful, and the government's going to
Speaker 1: have to come back and rehabilitate them and say that, look,
Speaker 1: you swar an oath to tell the truth, and that's
Speaker 1: what you're doing. Is that correct? And that's what they're
Speaker 1: going to rely on. There was an undercover in this.
Speaker 1: It was a former Wolverine watchman who got upset and
Speaker 1: he went to the FBI and agreed to go undercover.
Speaker 1: It does it seem as if the defense is going
Speaker 1: to try to put a lot of the blame for
Speaker 1: this on him, that he was leading them. Oh? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: and that's really universal that that came out from all
Speaker 1: of the defendants. They placed a lot of blame on
Speaker 1: the FBI informant named Dan is the person who's really
Speaker 1: responsible for this. And what they say is Dan was
Speaker 1: a paid informant from the FBI and was getting a
Speaker 1: paycheck from the FBI and was meeting with these folks
Speaker 1: and nothing was really producing. The defendants weren't committing any crimes.
Speaker 1: Dan wasn't getting in a result. And Dan realized, I
Speaker 1: need to up my game here because I'm going to
Speaker 1: get my paychecks cut off from the government. They'll stop
Speaker 1: paying me unless I produce. And so the defense argument
Speaker 1: is that's what Dan did. Dan kicked it into high year.
Speaker 1: Dan decided to have more meetings with the defendants. Dan
Speaker 1: brought the defendants into training, all this paramilitary training. Dan
Speaker 1: has a former military background, so he's the one who
Speaker 1: actually taught them. And Dan was okay with these people using,
Speaker 1: you know, using drugs and smoking marijuana and doing those things.
Speaker 1: And Dan is the one who really planted these seeds
Speaker 1: and got them going. That is exactly what their defense
Speaker 1: is in this case. So let's talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about domestic terrorism, which you know we see here, we
Speaker 1: see it in the January six insurrection. Is that a
Speaker 1: problem that the government is tackling? It is? In general?
Speaker 1: I think this case is much more about COVID restrictions
Speaker 1: than it is about any other type of extremism. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's what all of the sides have said in this case.
Speaker 1: They've said, Look, during the time of the pandemic, everybody
Speaker 1: was mad about the COVID restrictions. The government and the
Speaker 1: defense they all can agree about that. And the issue
Speaker 1: is really not about whether it happened. It's to what
Speaker 1: extent did the defendants take that restriction and and did
Speaker 1: they decide to instead of internalize it, to externalize it. Now,
Speaker 1: domestic extremism terrorism, as you say, that takes all different
Speaker 1: types of forms. But I think what is fair to
Speaker 1: say in this case, if there hadn't been a pandemic
Speaker 1: and there hadn't been COVID restrictions, this case might not
Speaker 1: have played out this way, because it really is based
Speaker 1: on that. As far as domestic extremism goes those cases
Speaker 1: are going to be going on in the future, whether
Speaker 1: or not there's a pandemic. When you hear militia too
Speaker 1: many of us, that sounds dangerous and a lot of
Speaker 1: these extremists are associated with militia. Is that an incorrect assumption.
Speaker 1: I think it is because in this jury pool, militias
Speaker 1: are often associated with firearms, and the questions were asked
Speaker 1: about firearms and association with militias and people with firearms.
Speaker 1: And I don't know how it is in other parts
Speaker 1: of the country, but it was fairly normal when this
Speaker 1: jury was asked, does anybody own a firearm? And virtually
Speaker 1: everybody in the jury pool said yes. And then they
Speaker 1: were asked, who owns more than five? Many people did,
Speaker 1: who owns more than ten? Some people did, who owns
Speaker 1: more than twenty? And people on the jury who were
Speaker 1: in the jury pool, maybe not actually selected, some of
Speaker 1: them owned more than twenty firearms. Michigan is a hunting state.
Speaker 1: It's a state that uses firearms for sport and for
Speaker 1: target shooting, and it's a state that we're militia type
Speaker 1: activities who also used firearms. It is part of the state,
Speaker 1: it's part of the culture. In many ways to have
Speaker 1: firearms here and so as opposed to some other locations.
Speaker 1: Really isn't too surprising that some of the jurors in
Speaker 1: this case actually would have fire arms of their own.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for being on the show, Matthew. That's
Speaker 1: former U S Attorney for Eastern Michigan Matthew Schneider, a
Speaker 1: partner at Honigmanton. And that's it for this edition of
Speaker 1: The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
Speaker 1: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get
Speaker 1: your favorite podcasts. And don't forget to tune into The
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street
Speaker 1: Time right here on Bloomberg Radio. I'm joom Brosso and
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg