WEBVTT - Illegal Immigration Crackdown & Hunter Biden Trial

0:00:03.120 --> 0:00:08.320
<v Speaker 1>You're listening to Bloomberg Law with June Grusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:10.320 --> 0:00:14.280
<v Speaker 2>Today, I'm announcing actions to bar migrants who cross our

0:00:14.320 --> 0:00:18.000
<v Speaker 2>southern border unlawfully from receiving astylum.

0:00:18.280 --> 0:00:22.200
<v Speaker 3>President Joe Biden unveiled plans to head off a surgeon

0:00:22.320 --> 0:00:27.120
<v Speaker 3>border crossings this summer by executive action, his most significant

0:00:27.120 --> 0:00:30.880
<v Speaker 3>action to address the migrant crisis that has threatened his reelection.

0:00:31.560 --> 0:00:35.760
<v Speaker 3>Biden said Republicans left him no choice but to act alone.

0:00:36.360 --> 0:00:41.400
<v Speaker 3>The long anticipated presidential proclamation would bar migrants from being

0:00:41.440 --> 0:00:45.760
<v Speaker 3>granted asylum when illegal border crossings reach high levels.

0:00:46.440 --> 0:00:49.720
<v Speaker 2>To protect America as a land that welcomes immigrants, we

0:00:49.840 --> 0:00:53.640
<v Speaker 2>must first secure the border and secure it now. The

0:00:53.720 --> 0:00:58.760
<v Speaker 2>simple truth is there is a worldwide migrant crisis, and

0:00:58.760 --> 0:01:01.480
<v Speaker 2>if the United States doesn't see QR border, there's no

0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:03.720
<v Speaker 2>limit to the number of people may try to come here,

0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:06.680
<v Speaker 2>because there's no better place than the planet than the

0:01:06.760 --> 0:01:08.120
<v Speaker 2>United States of America.

0:01:08.319 --> 0:01:11.920
<v Speaker 3>The ACLU has already said it will challenge Biden's action

0:01:12.080 --> 0:01:15.560
<v Speaker 3>in court, much as it did Trump's actions on the border.

0:01:16.240 --> 0:01:19.160
<v Speaker 3>Joining me is Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight.

0:01:19.520 --> 0:01:22.080
<v Speaker 3>He was the head of the Office of Immigration Litigation

0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:26.720
<v Speaker 3>at the Justice Department during the Obama administration. Leon tell

0:01:26.800 --> 0:01:28.280
<v Speaker 3>us about this new policy.

0:01:29.160 --> 0:01:35.480
<v Speaker 1>The policy is that starting now, if anyone tries to

0:01:35.560 --> 0:01:39.000
<v Speaker 1>cross the border illegally in between the ports of injury

0:01:39.480 --> 0:01:42.840
<v Speaker 1>and ask for asylum, they will be banned from doing

0:01:42.880 --> 0:01:45.640
<v Speaker 1>it unless they were a victim of human trafficking or

0:01:45.680 --> 0:01:49.640
<v Speaker 1>had some sort of urgent medical or humanitarian issue that

0:01:49.800 --> 0:01:53.600
<v Speaker 1>was immediately evident to the border patrol officials who apprehended

0:01:53.600 --> 0:01:56.440
<v Speaker 1>the person. There is a trigger that's being put in

0:01:56.600 --> 0:02:00.880
<v Speaker 1>by executive order that's using the travel ban authority under

0:02:00.960 --> 0:02:04.640
<v Speaker 1>Section two twelve f of the Immigration Code, which President

0:02:04.640 --> 0:02:07.920
<v Speaker 1>Trump used many times during his presidency, And what they're

0:02:07.960 --> 0:02:11.280
<v Speaker 1>saying is that if there's ever a situation where more

0:02:11.360 --> 0:02:14.760
<v Speaker 1>than twenty five hundred people per day on average are

0:02:14.800 --> 0:02:18.480
<v Speaker 1>crossing over any given week, that gives them the authority

0:02:18.600 --> 0:02:24.080
<v Speaker 1>to trigger this ban procedure until such time as the

0:02:24.200 --> 0:02:28.000
<v Speaker 1>daily crossings go down to fifteen hundred people a week,

0:02:28.280 --> 0:02:31.720
<v Speaker 1>which the last time that's happened was during COVID where

0:02:31.720 --> 0:02:35.800
<v Speaker 1>nobody was traveling anywhere, and at the moment, because we

0:02:35.880 --> 0:02:39.240
<v Speaker 1>have something around thirty five hundred to four thousand crossings

0:02:39.280 --> 0:02:43.160
<v Speaker 1>per day that exceeds the twenty five hundred person threshold,

0:02:43.520 --> 0:02:47.120
<v Speaker 1>which is why at midnight on June fifth, the border

0:02:47.160 --> 0:02:51.560
<v Speaker 1>will shut down and essentially people asking for asylum who

0:02:51.600 --> 0:02:53.920
<v Speaker 1>are crossing the border will not be allowed to do

0:02:54.000 --> 0:02:54.840
<v Speaker 1>that any longer.

0:02:55.320 --> 0:02:59.880
<v Speaker 3>Are they allowed to apply for asylum at the port

0:03:00.120 --> 0:03:00.760
<v Speaker 3>of entry.

0:03:01.200 --> 0:03:03.640
<v Speaker 1>So here is how this works with regard to the

0:03:03.680 --> 0:03:06.960
<v Speaker 1>ports of entry. There are appointments on an app on

0:03:07.000 --> 0:03:10.440
<v Speaker 1>your phone called CBP one, and there are about fifteen

0:03:10.520 --> 0:03:13.640
<v Speaker 1>hundred of those appointments every day, and so if you

0:03:13.680 --> 0:03:16.320
<v Speaker 1>look at that, that you know six hundred thousand or

0:03:16.360 --> 0:03:20.680
<v Speaker 1>five hundred thousand appointments a year. And what that does

0:03:20.840 --> 0:03:23.200
<v Speaker 1>is if you want to get one of those appointments

0:03:23.280 --> 0:03:27.000
<v Speaker 1>and apply for asylum, those will still be available and

0:03:27.080 --> 0:03:29.440
<v Speaker 1>people will still be allowed to do that because that's

0:03:29.480 --> 0:03:33.520
<v Speaker 1>an orderly process and one people can use without creating

0:03:33.600 --> 0:03:36.600
<v Speaker 1>chaos on the border. As opposed to they will not

0:03:36.680 --> 0:03:39.720
<v Speaker 1>be able to take matters into their own hands and

0:03:39.840 --> 0:03:42.880
<v Speaker 1>cross in between the ports of entry and ask for asylum.

0:03:42.920 --> 0:03:46.880
<v Speaker 1>They will be, according to this executive order, returned back,

0:03:47.200 --> 0:03:49.400
<v Speaker 1>which was the same thing that was being done with

0:03:49.520 --> 0:03:52.840
<v Speaker 1>COVID under the title forty two COVID authority.

0:03:53.760 --> 0:03:58.400
<v Speaker 3>He's tapping executive powers outlined in section two twelve F

0:03:58.520 --> 0:04:02.040
<v Speaker 3>of the Immigration and National Act. And that's the same

0:04:02.120 --> 0:04:05.400
<v Speaker 3>law that former President Trump used in the Muslim ban

0:04:05.560 --> 0:04:10.920
<v Speaker 3>of twenty seventeen and the twenty eighteen suspension of entry

0:04:10.960 --> 0:04:14.000
<v Speaker 3>of migrants between the ports of entry. Explain what that

0:04:14.080 --> 0:04:15.600
<v Speaker 3>law does so.

0:04:15.960 --> 0:04:18.520
<v Speaker 1>Years where this is going to get a little complicated, June,

0:04:18.520 --> 0:04:21.320
<v Speaker 1>and I want you and your listener to try to

0:04:21.880 --> 0:04:23.920
<v Speaker 1>stay with me here because it will all make sense

0:04:23.960 --> 0:04:28.320
<v Speaker 1>in a second. The statute, all it says is that

0:04:28.400 --> 0:04:30.960
<v Speaker 1>the President, if the President thinks it's not in the

0:04:31.040 --> 0:04:35.400
<v Speaker 1>national interests of the United States, may ban the entry

0:04:35.520 --> 0:04:39.359
<v Speaker 1>of any category of non citizens that the President deans

0:04:39.760 --> 0:04:42.120
<v Speaker 1>is not in the national interests of the United States

0:04:42.160 --> 0:04:46.680
<v Speaker 1>to let them enter. So that is simple when the

0:04:46.760 --> 0:04:49.960
<v Speaker 1>foreign national is outside the United States. So suppose you're

0:04:49.960 --> 0:04:52.800
<v Speaker 1>at a US embassy in India and you're applying for

0:04:52.880 --> 0:04:55.880
<v Speaker 1>a visa. If there's a ban on Indian immigration that

0:04:55.960 --> 0:05:00.440
<v Speaker 1>the President put in onna section two twelve F, simple

0:05:00.480 --> 0:05:03.159
<v Speaker 1>no visa can be issued. Or if you're at an

0:05:03.200 --> 0:05:05.839
<v Speaker 1>airport in Canada you're trying to fly to the United

0:05:05.880 --> 0:05:09.719
<v Speaker 1>States and there's a ban on flying from Canada to

0:05:09.760 --> 0:05:12.560
<v Speaker 1>the United States because we've banned Canadian from coming in.

0:05:13.000 --> 0:05:16.080
<v Speaker 1>That's a very easy band to enact too. Where it

0:05:16.120 --> 0:05:22.000
<v Speaker 1>gets complicated is when someone has already crossed the border,

0:05:22.080 --> 0:05:25.600
<v Speaker 1>the southern border, and has already entered the United States.

0:05:26.160 --> 0:05:29.640
<v Speaker 1>Because then this is a very important word entry. This

0:05:29.760 --> 0:05:33.120
<v Speaker 1>becomes a complicated issue because when you enter the United

0:05:33.160 --> 0:05:37.960
<v Speaker 1>States illegally, that's what makes you subject to prosecution for

0:05:38.240 --> 0:05:41.800
<v Speaker 1>illegal entry. Or if you get supported and you come

0:05:41.839 --> 0:05:44.919
<v Speaker 1>back in, that's what makes you subject to prosecution for

0:05:45.080 --> 0:05:48.240
<v Speaker 1>illegal re entry. You have to have an entry. It's

0:05:48.279 --> 0:05:52.040
<v Speaker 1>an element of the crime in order to be subject

0:05:52.040 --> 0:05:55.960
<v Speaker 1>to the crime. Here's where this is problematic. Biden is

0:05:56.000 --> 0:06:00.599
<v Speaker 1>saying that this power to restrict entry all also apply

0:06:00.839 --> 0:06:03.719
<v Speaker 1>to people who've already entered. And that's what's going to

0:06:03.760 --> 0:06:06.040
<v Speaker 1>be the debate in the courts is whether that's true

0:06:06.120 --> 0:06:09.520
<v Speaker 1>or not, because there's a very strong argument that if

0:06:09.560 --> 0:06:12.400
<v Speaker 1>Congress had meant that, it would have said that. But

0:06:12.880 --> 0:06:16.880
<v Speaker 1>it's said. What Congress provided was for the expedited Removal Authority,

0:06:17.200 --> 0:06:20.880
<v Speaker 1>which is where someone can come in and the government

0:06:20.880 --> 0:06:25.159
<v Speaker 1>can deport them immediately unless they apply for asylum and

0:06:25.279 --> 0:06:28.360
<v Speaker 1>in that case, when they apply for asylum, they get

0:06:28.440 --> 0:06:34.479
<v Speaker 1>to stay. And so that's the complication here is will

0:06:34.520 --> 0:06:40.000
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court ultimately give leeway to the Biden administration

0:06:40.240 --> 0:06:44.799
<v Speaker 1>to say that, yes, for this purpose, an entry doesn't

0:06:44.880 --> 0:06:47.799
<v Speaker 1>count as an entry. If we taught you ten minutes

0:06:47.839 --> 0:06:51.320
<v Speaker 1>after you entered, we will pretend that you still didn't enter.

0:06:51.920 --> 0:06:55.240
<v Speaker 1>But if that's true, then does that eliminate, by the

0:06:55.279 --> 0:06:59.480
<v Speaker 1>same token, the federal government's ability to ever prosecute anyone

0:06:59.480 --> 0:07:03.520
<v Speaker 1>again for illegal entry or illegal re entry? Because that's

0:07:03.560 --> 0:07:06.560
<v Speaker 1>why we prosecute people, because we got them ten minutes

0:07:06.560 --> 0:07:10.840
<v Speaker 1>after entering. And so this is quite a very interesting

0:07:11.040 --> 0:07:13.440
<v Speaker 1>thread that I don't know how courts can thread that

0:07:13.560 --> 0:07:16.080
<v Speaker 1>needle and try to have both sides of both of

0:07:16.120 --> 0:07:17.120
<v Speaker 1>these arguments.

0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:21.080
<v Speaker 3>I knew there was some kind of a complication here

0:07:21.600 --> 0:07:26.360
<v Speaker 3>when the ACLU successfully led the charge against the Trump

0:07:26.360 --> 0:07:30.480
<v Speaker 3>administration's attempt to block asylum in twenty eighteen. Was that the.

0:07:30.640 --> 0:07:34.240
<v Speaker 4>Argument, Yes, that was the exact argument, which is that

0:07:34.280 --> 0:07:38.280
<v Speaker 4>the asylum statues specifically says it doesn't matter how you

0:07:38.440 --> 0:07:41.720
<v Speaker 4>enter legally, illegally, anything else, it doesn't matter.

0:07:41.840 --> 0:07:44.360
<v Speaker 1>You can still apply for asylum. Now that is in

0:07:44.440 --> 0:07:47.840
<v Speaker 1>conflict with another statue, which says that the government can

0:07:47.880 --> 0:07:53.360
<v Speaker 1>add regulatory reasons why you don't get asylum, and so

0:07:53.440 --> 0:07:55.720
<v Speaker 1>they can add this one. Presumably you know that the

0:07:55.760 --> 0:07:58.400
<v Speaker 1>border crossings are too high, and so this is a

0:07:58.400 --> 0:08:01.120
<v Speaker 1>regulatory reason why you don't get a asylum. But the

0:08:01.240 --> 0:08:05.160
<v Speaker 1>problem is that only operates for not giving you asylum.

0:08:05.200 --> 0:08:08.120
<v Speaker 1>There are still two other reliefs that still allow you

0:08:08.160 --> 0:08:10.440
<v Speaker 1>to stay, because the thing with the asylum is that

0:08:10.480 --> 0:08:13.520
<v Speaker 1>gives you a path to citizenship. But there's two other

0:08:13.720 --> 0:08:16.600
<v Speaker 1>kinds of relief you can apply for which still come

0:08:16.680 --> 0:08:21.480
<v Speaker 1>up to work and prevent deportation. One is withholding of removal,

0:08:21.920 --> 0:08:24.600
<v Speaker 1>which just lets you stay while whatever problem in your

0:08:24.640 --> 0:08:28.880
<v Speaker 1>country exists, but doesn't let you stay permanently. And another

0:08:28.920 --> 0:08:32.640
<v Speaker 1>one is relief under the Convention against Torture, which says,

0:08:33.000 --> 0:08:36.120
<v Speaker 1>even if you're not being persecuted, if you're going to

0:08:36.160 --> 0:08:39.760
<v Speaker 1>get tortured, we won't let you go back against tortured. So,

0:08:39.840 --> 0:08:42.960
<v Speaker 1>for instance, a lot of Russian immigrants get this kind

0:08:43.000 --> 0:08:45.280
<v Speaker 1>of relief because if they show that they're going to

0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:48.800
<v Speaker 1>be imprisoned in Russia, the prison conditions in Russia are

0:08:49.040 --> 0:08:52.120
<v Speaker 1>our tent amounts to torture, as has been documented in

0:08:52.160 --> 0:08:54.880
<v Speaker 1>the the Bounty case, the Britney Grinder case than others.

0:08:55.360 --> 0:08:58.920
<v Speaker 1>And so what ends up happening is people can apply

0:08:59.040 --> 0:09:01.520
<v Speaker 1>for those reliefs and gum up the works. And so

0:09:01.559 --> 0:09:03.960
<v Speaker 1>what Biden is trying to say is no, no, no, this

0:09:04.080 --> 0:09:06.760
<v Speaker 1>executive order means you can't apply for anything. We're trying

0:09:06.760 --> 0:09:09.760
<v Speaker 1>to do exactly what COVID did. That lets you pick

0:09:09.840 --> 0:09:15.280
<v Speaker 1>people out. And the question is will this entry be

0:09:15.480 --> 0:09:19.280
<v Speaker 1>considered a fiction or not? And if it's considered a fiction,

0:09:19.440 --> 0:09:22.000
<v Speaker 1>then maybe the Supreme Court let's Biden get away with this,

0:09:22.520 --> 0:09:27.440
<v Speaker 1>But most probably if entry is treated like the way

0:09:27.440 --> 0:09:31.000
<v Speaker 1>it's treated in plain English, then the people have already entered.

0:09:31.040 --> 0:09:33.400
<v Speaker 1>It's too late to ban them from coming in once

0:09:33.440 --> 0:09:34.439
<v Speaker 1>they've already entered.

0:09:35.200 --> 0:09:38.720
<v Speaker 3>To affirm Biden's policy, would the Supreme Court have to

0:09:38.800 --> 0:09:41.840
<v Speaker 3>reverse how it ruled with Trump's policy.

0:09:42.720 --> 0:09:46.840
<v Speaker 1>Well, no, because Trump's policy with regard to the travel

0:09:46.880 --> 0:09:50.400
<v Speaker 1>ban was about who could be given travel bans. Could

0:09:50.480 --> 0:09:54.200
<v Speaker 1>you discriminate quote unquote on the basis of religion, or

0:09:54.440 --> 0:09:57.240
<v Speaker 1>was religion of prefects or all of that, And there

0:09:57.280 --> 0:09:59.920
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court said, look, as long as the reason

0:10:00.080 --> 0:10:03.640
<v Speaker 1>on his face is legitimate and bonified. We're not gonna

0:10:03.880 --> 0:10:06.319
<v Speaker 1>second guess and go behind that and say what did

0:10:06.320 --> 0:10:10.000
<v Speaker 1>the president really mean, etc. Now, there was an actual

0:10:10.120 --> 0:10:13.240
<v Speaker 1>travel band that said all Muslims are banned from the

0:10:13.360 --> 0:10:15.560
<v Speaker 1>United States. Come back to us with that case. We're

0:10:15.559 --> 0:10:18.959
<v Speaker 1>not deciding that case today because this case is about

0:10:19.080 --> 0:10:22.960
<v Speaker 1>objective factors of safety insecurity, and so the president gets

0:10:23.000 --> 0:10:25.920
<v Speaker 1>broad discretion to do that. That's going to be different

0:10:26.480 --> 0:10:31.880
<v Speaker 1>than this case, which will be about whether an entry

0:10:32.760 --> 0:10:36.080
<v Speaker 1>is involved in a case where a person is already

0:10:36.120 --> 0:10:39.160
<v Speaker 1>inside the United States. So Trump was about can you

0:10:39.200 --> 0:10:42.400
<v Speaker 1>ban people outside the United States? This is now going

0:10:42.480 --> 0:10:45.120
<v Speaker 1>to be about can you pretend that someone who just

0:10:45.320 --> 0:10:48.880
<v Speaker 1>entered minutes ago didn't really enter such that you can

0:10:48.960 --> 0:10:51.840
<v Speaker 1>kick them out like if they were applying in India

0:10:51.880 --> 0:10:52.480
<v Speaker 1>for a visa.

0:10:53.120 --> 0:10:56.920
<v Speaker 3>Did the Trump case where he suspended the entry of

0:10:57.040 --> 0:10:59.640
<v Speaker 3>migrants between the ports of entry, did that go to

0:10:59.679 --> 0:11:00.480
<v Speaker 3>the court?

0:11:01.120 --> 0:11:03.960
<v Speaker 1>That did not because by the time what happened was,

0:11:04.320 --> 0:11:07.080
<v Speaker 1>first the Northern District of California struck that down and

0:11:07.120 --> 0:11:09.480
<v Speaker 1>said you can't have this kind of ban. Then the

0:11:09.600 --> 0:11:13.120
<v Speaker 1>Ninth Circuit agreed, Then COVID happened, and then by the

0:11:13.200 --> 0:11:15.960
<v Speaker 1>time this would have gotten around to any kind of

0:11:16.160 --> 0:11:20.160
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court review the administration's change and the policy change,

0:11:20.160 --> 0:11:22.120
<v Speaker 1>and that was the end of it. So we never

0:11:22.200 --> 0:11:25.360
<v Speaker 1>got to see the actual final work. We know the

0:11:25.480 --> 0:11:28.600
<v Speaker 1>Ninth Circuit as finding president on this, So the Ninth

0:11:28.640 --> 0:11:33.160
<v Speaker 1>Circuit would actually have to go unbond and reverse itself,

0:11:33.200 --> 0:11:38.240
<v Speaker 1>which is very unlikely if they're going to overrule this

0:11:38.440 --> 0:11:42.200
<v Speaker 1>precedent on the issue of entry and asylum. So the

0:11:42.240 --> 0:11:44.840
<v Speaker 1>only hope that the Biden administration is going to have

0:11:45.679 --> 0:11:48.160
<v Speaker 1>is to go to the Supreme Court.

0:11:48.400 --> 0:11:51.000
<v Speaker 3>Stay with me Leon coming up, we're going to discuss

0:11:51.200 --> 0:11:54.199
<v Speaker 3>what happens next in the courts and why there may

0:11:54.240 --> 0:11:58.199
<v Speaker 3>be an injunction against this action before the weekend. I'm

0:11:58.280 --> 0:12:02.280
<v Speaker 3>June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomber. Today, President Joe

0:12:02.320 --> 0:12:07.320
<v Speaker 3>Biden unveiled plans to enact immediate, significant restrictions on migrants

0:12:07.360 --> 0:12:11.120
<v Speaker 3>seeking asylum at the US Mexico border as he tries

0:12:11.200 --> 0:12:15.240
<v Speaker 3>to neutralize immigration as a political liability ahead of the

0:12:15.240 --> 0:12:20.280
<v Speaker 3>November elections. But the ACLU has already said it intends

0:12:20.320 --> 0:12:24.120
<v Speaker 3>to sue to stop Biden's order, much as it argued

0:12:24.160 --> 0:12:28.560
<v Speaker 3>similar legal challenges against former President Donald Trump. I've been

0:12:28.559 --> 0:12:31.840
<v Speaker 3>talking to immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at

0:12:31.840 --> 0:12:35.120
<v Speaker 3>Hollanda Knight Lee on before the break. We were discussing

0:12:35.200 --> 0:12:38.800
<v Speaker 3>the word entry and how that will be important in

0:12:38.840 --> 0:12:42.360
<v Speaker 3>the legal arguments to come. So this is going to

0:12:42.360 --> 0:12:46.200
<v Speaker 3>be a very technical argument for Biden to win. Is

0:12:46.240 --> 0:12:49.000
<v Speaker 3>it going to be the Supreme Court justices or at

0:12:49.080 --> 0:12:54.000
<v Speaker 3>least five of them saying wink, wink, nod, nod, it's okay.

0:12:54.160 --> 0:12:57.480
<v Speaker 1>Correct, He's gonna need that. And then there's a second

0:12:57.520 --> 0:13:00.520
<v Speaker 1>rinkle we haven't even talked about yet. Then going to

0:13:00.559 --> 0:13:05.480
<v Speaker 1>need the cooperation of the Mexican government to repatriate people

0:13:05.480 --> 0:13:08.760
<v Speaker 1>who are not Mexicans into Mexico, which the Mexican government

0:13:08.840 --> 0:13:12.280
<v Speaker 1>has no obligation to do. They're doing it right now

0:13:12.320 --> 0:13:15.320
<v Speaker 1>as a favor to Americans at a rate of thirty

0:13:15.360 --> 0:13:19.240
<v Speaker 1>thousand per month, But this would require much more than that.

0:13:19.360 --> 0:13:22.120
<v Speaker 1>Remember we're talking about at the moment four thousand people

0:13:22.160 --> 0:13:25.000
<v Speaker 1>per day. So we do some amateur mathematics here, we're

0:13:25.040 --> 0:13:27.480
<v Speaker 1>talking about one hundred and twenty thousand people per month.

0:13:28.240 --> 0:13:31.960
<v Speaker 1>Is the Mexican government, especially after this election, likely to

0:13:32.000 --> 0:13:35.240
<v Speaker 1>do that? So we have two big issues. Number one

0:13:35.240 --> 0:13:37.679
<v Speaker 1>that there's going to be an immediate injunction that is

0:13:37.920 --> 0:13:41.520
<v Speaker 1>a one hundred percent thirty on this Biden policy. I

0:13:41.559 --> 0:13:43.520
<v Speaker 1>mean that injunction might be issued by the end of

0:13:43.559 --> 0:13:47.440
<v Speaker 1>this week. And then the second question is after that

0:13:47.520 --> 0:13:50.640
<v Speaker 1>injunction is issued, if it ever gets listed by the

0:13:50.679 --> 0:13:53.960
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court, Well, does the Mexican government allow you to

0:13:54.000 --> 0:13:55.000
<v Speaker 1>actually implement this?

0:13:55.440 --> 0:13:58.560
<v Speaker 3>Yeah, Biden mentioned the Mexican government in his in his

0:13:58.720 --> 0:14:03.520
<v Speaker 3>statement indicating that they will cooperate, but who knows. You

0:14:03.559 --> 0:14:08.959
<v Speaker 3>have a new president now. Administration officials said that individuals

0:14:09.000 --> 0:14:11.160
<v Speaker 3>will be removed to their country of origin in a

0:14:11.200 --> 0:14:15.240
<v Speaker 3>matter of days, if not hours. Does the Biden administration

0:14:15.520 --> 0:14:19.160
<v Speaker 3>have enough resources to quickly expel them?

0:14:19.520 --> 0:14:21.760
<v Speaker 1>So the answer to that question is going to be

0:14:21.840 --> 0:14:24.920
<v Speaker 1>it depends what country the person is from. For instance,

0:14:24.920 --> 0:14:28.600
<v Speaker 1>if they're from Venezuela, Venezuela is not accepting people who're

0:14:28.640 --> 0:14:32.000
<v Speaker 1>trying to deport, and Cuba is not really accepting people

0:14:32.080 --> 0:14:35.120
<v Speaker 1>we're trying to deport, and eighty has some very difficult

0:14:35.200 --> 0:14:38.200
<v Speaker 1>conditions right now, so it's difficult to support people in

0:14:38.320 --> 0:14:41.560
<v Speaker 1>large scale and so you start adding all of those up,

0:14:41.600 --> 0:14:44.360
<v Speaker 1>and you start getting significant chunks of people that you

0:14:44.400 --> 0:14:47.400
<v Speaker 1>cannot deport very quickly. China is another one. You can't

0:14:47.440 --> 0:14:49.960
<v Speaker 1>really deport people to China. What are you going to

0:14:50.000 --> 0:14:51.800
<v Speaker 1>be doing with all of those people who are crossing

0:14:51.800 --> 0:14:54.600
<v Speaker 1>the border. Nothing really is going to be changing there

0:14:54.720 --> 0:14:58.880
<v Speaker 1>other than unless Mexico lets you bring them back into Mexico.

0:14:59.280 --> 0:15:02.520
<v Speaker 1>But then they become Mexico's problem, and then the question is, well,

0:15:02.520 --> 0:15:05.320
<v Speaker 1>how long is Mexico willing to deal with such a

0:15:05.320 --> 0:15:09.800
<v Speaker 1>surge of people inside of Mexico. So that's the complication here.

0:15:10.360 --> 0:15:14.000
<v Speaker 1>But at the end of the day, that's where we're at.

0:15:13.720 --> 0:15:18.040
<v Speaker 3>Lea take us through what actually will happen when these

0:15:18.160 --> 0:15:21.320
<v Speaker 3>migrants are stopped. I mean, it's not just turn them

0:15:21.360 --> 0:15:25.160
<v Speaker 3>around and have them go back. They'll have to be processed.

0:15:24.640 --> 0:15:27.000
<v Speaker 1>Right, So it will depend what happens. Is if it'll

0:15:27.000 --> 0:15:29.880
<v Speaker 1>be a Mexican person, that will be very simple. The

0:15:29.960 --> 0:15:33.600
<v Speaker 1>Mexican person will come, they will be immediately banned, they

0:15:33.640 --> 0:15:36.640
<v Speaker 1>will be sent back into Mexico. That one's very simple.

0:15:37.080 --> 0:15:40.720
<v Speaker 1>Perhaps for some of the Central American migrants, that also

0:15:40.760 --> 0:15:46.320
<v Speaker 1>will happen. They will be immediately apprehended, they will be detained,

0:15:46.320 --> 0:15:48.760
<v Speaker 1>and they will be sent back into Mexico. They probably

0:15:48.800 --> 0:15:52.800
<v Speaker 1>won't be flown back to Central America, but sometimes that's

0:15:52.840 --> 0:15:56.280
<v Speaker 1>possible too, And so in those scenarios, if a flight

0:15:56.320 --> 0:15:59.120
<v Speaker 1>can be arranged and it's quick enough, they would also

0:15:59.200 --> 0:16:03.440
<v Speaker 1>be flown into Central America. For the others, this gets

0:16:03.520 --> 0:16:06.400
<v Speaker 1>more complicated because if Mexico doesn't let you bring them

0:16:06.440 --> 0:16:09.760
<v Speaker 1>into Mexico, then they will have to be detained. Because

0:16:09.800 --> 0:16:12.600
<v Speaker 1>if they're not detained, you'll never get them back. It'll

0:16:12.600 --> 0:16:16.400
<v Speaker 1>be impossible because they'll just be released for some future

0:16:16.400 --> 0:16:19.960
<v Speaker 1>immigration hearing. So you'll have to keep them detained. And

0:16:20.080 --> 0:16:23.840
<v Speaker 1>the question is do you have the sufficient detention resources

0:16:24.120 --> 0:16:26.800
<v Speaker 1>to be able to keep them detained while you're trying

0:16:26.800 --> 0:16:29.920
<v Speaker 1>to arrange for sometimes they don't have passports, and if

0:16:29.960 --> 0:16:32.600
<v Speaker 1>they don't have passports, you need their home country to

0:16:32.680 --> 0:16:35.640
<v Speaker 1>issue it in order to get them flown back or

0:16:35.680 --> 0:16:38.560
<v Speaker 1>for whatever arrangements are needed to get them to be

0:16:38.600 --> 0:16:41.360
<v Speaker 1>able to be flown back. But again, in cases where

0:16:41.400 --> 0:16:43.320
<v Speaker 1>you know you're not going to be able to deport people,

0:16:43.760 --> 0:16:48.560
<v Speaker 1>which are Chinese, Cuban, Venezuelan cases, some Haitian cases, some

0:16:48.680 --> 0:16:51.800
<v Speaker 1>Nicaraguan cases, those are going to be very tough. I

0:16:51.800 --> 0:16:55.480
<v Speaker 1>don't see what an executive order can change unless Mexico

0:16:55.560 --> 0:16:58.600
<v Speaker 1>is willing to let you remove those people into Mexico,

0:16:59.080 --> 0:17:02.160
<v Speaker 1>or as Trump starts doing, which the Bidens administration hasn't

0:17:02.160 --> 0:17:05.119
<v Speaker 1>announced yet. Trump was starting to get deals with certain

0:17:05.160 --> 0:17:09.320
<v Speaker 1>countries in Central America to actually deport people into those countries.

0:17:10.040 --> 0:17:15.640
<v Speaker 3>The initial criticism from immigration advocates and progressives is that

0:17:15.840 --> 0:17:18.760
<v Speaker 3>this is just what Trump did, But the administration has

0:17:18.800 --> 0:17:22.840
<v Speaker 3>said this is not comparable to Trump's system wide crackdowns.

0:17:23.200 --> 0:17:25.600
<v Speaker 3>What do you think It sounds a lot like it.

0:17:25.600 --> 0:17:28.919
<v Speaker 1>It is almost identical to what Trump did, with the

0:17:28.960 --> 0:17:32.800
<v Speaker 1>exception that they made some carveouts for unaccompanied children, which

0:17:32.840 --> 0:17:37.000
<v Speaker 1>is required under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and also

0:17:37.359 --> 0:17:42.200
<v Speaker 1>they made exceptions for people with urgent medical and humanitarian

0:17:42.280 --> 0:17:46.440
<v Speaker 1>claims and victims of human trafficking, whatever that may appear.

0:17:46.520 --> 0:17:48.720
<v Speaker 1>Because at the end of the day, all of those

0:17:48.760 --> 0:17:51.800
<v Speaker 1>screenings are going to be done very quickly by someone

0:17:51.800 --> 0:17:56.280
<v Speaker 1>who's a border patrol officer who may not necessarily that

0:17:56.400 --> 0:17:58.240
<v Speaker 1>might not be their top priority at the moment. They

0:17:58.280 --> 0:18:02.520
<v Speaker 1>may have a security agenda that they're trying to fulfill,

0:18:02.920 --> 0:18:06.199
<v Speaker 1>and so asking if someone's been human traffic may not

0:18:06.440 --> 0:18:09.119
<v Speaker 1>be at the moment's top of mind, and so what

0:18:09.200 --> 0:18:12.679
<v Speaker 1>ends up happening is in its implementation, it ends up

0:18:12.720 --> 0:18:15.080
<v Speaker 1>being almost identical to the Trump band.

0:18:15.960 --> 0:18:21.359
<v Speaker 3>The numbers of unauthorized crossings have continued to go down

0:18:21.400 --> 0:18:23.880
<v Speaker 3>in recent months from a high in December.

0:18:23.880 --> 0:18:26.680
<v Speaker 1>Correct there were days that we were at twelve thousand

0:18:26.720 --> 0:18:30.679
<v Speaker 1>people crossing per day, and now we're down to around

0:18:30.720 --> 0:18:34.639
<v Speaker 1>four thousand. And if you recall what they were talking

0:18:34.680 --> 0:18:38.240
<v Speaker 1>about the bill in Congress, they were actually talking about

0:18:38.240 --> 0:18:42.240
<v Speaker 1>five thousand crossings per day. So interestingly enough, now the

0:18:42.320 --> 0:18:45.359
<v Speaker 1>crossings are under four thousand, they're between thirty five hundred

0:18:45.359 --> 0:18:48.520
<v Speaker 1>and four thousand, and so the question is why has

0:18:48.560 --> 0:18:53.440
<v Speaker 1>the Biden administration decided that twenty five hundred is actually

0:18:53.480 --> 0:18:57.440
<v Speaker 1>the unacceptable number? Because in the legislation that was being

0:18:57.480 --> 0:19:01.160
<v Speaker 1>talked about before, it was actually sci fi, and now

0:19:01.160 --> 0:19:04.199
<v Speaker 1>we're talking about twenty five hundred. And what seems to

0:19:04.200 --> 0:19:07.760
<v Speaker 1>be happening is this number appears to be moving in

0:19:07.880 --> 0:19:12.359
<v Speaker 1>order to be able to justify an executive order, so

0:19:12.400 --> 0:19:14.320
<v Speaker 1>that what ends up happening is you can at least

0:19:14.320 --> 0:19:16.639
<v Speaker 1>implement it for now. But I do think the Night

0:19:16.680 --> 0:19:20.400
<v Speaker 1>administration understands because they have very smart lawyers that are

0:19:20.400 --> 0:19:23.320
<v Speaker 1>there that the actual sequence of events of the way

0:19:23.400 --> 0:19:26.159
<v Speaker 1>this is going to play out is they've written the

0:19:26.280 --> 0:19:30.280
<v Speaker 1>executive order. Now it's going to be implemented tonight. It

0:19:30.359 --> 0:19:34.159
<v Speaker 1>will be immediately sued. There will be an immediate injunction,

0:19:34.760 --> 0:19:37.840
<v Speaker 1>so the order goes away, and then they try to

0:19:37.880 --> 0:19:41.520
<v Speaker 1>appeal to the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court will

0:19:41.560 --> 0:19:43.960
<v Speaker 1>be very interesting to see if they try to take

0:19:44.000 --> 0:19:46.239
<v Speaker 1>a fast track or if they try to take a

0:19:46.280 --> 0:19:49.159
<v Speaker 1>slow track. That will be very indicative of whether this

0:19:49.320 --> 0:19:52.760
<v Speaker 1>was meant to be a political gambit or whether this

0:19:52.920 --> 0:19:57.000
<v Speaker 1>was meant to be a legitimate border operation and procedure.

0:19:57.480 --> 0:19:59.600
<v Speaker 1>If they take the slow road, then we know this

0:19:59.640 --> 0:20:02.520
<v Speaker 1>is all because nothing's gonna happen until the election. If

0:20:02.520 --> 0:20:05.800
<v Speaker 1>they take the fast road, I suppose the Supreme Court

0:20:05.920 --> 0:20:09.080
<v Speaker 1>pen within the next thirty days or so decide whether

0:20:09.160 --> 0:20:12.280
<v Speaker 1>they want to stay an injunction and allow this to

0:20:12.320 --> 0:20:16.400
<v Speaker 1>go into effect. But if that does go into effect,

0:20:17.000 --> 0:20:20.359
<v Speaker 1>then the question is going to be will you be

0:20:20.440 --> 0:20:23.439
<v Speaker 1>able to get those numbers down to the actual twenty

0:20:23.440 --> 0:20:26.240
<v Speaker 1>five hundred level that they're talking about. And we'll have

0:20:26.280 --> 0:20:28.480
<v Speaker 1>to wait and see how that ends up getting implemented.

0:20:28.880 --> 0:20:31.679
<v Speaker 3>And you seem pretty sure that this order won't to

0:20:31.840 --> 0:20:33.520
<v Speaker 3>even make it to the weekend.

0:20:34.359 --> 0:20:36.920
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, definitely, by the end of this week, this thing

0:20:37.000 --> 0:20:39.560
<v Speaker 1>is going to be enjoying just because it's binding Ninth

0:20:39.600 --> 0:20:41.960
<v Speaker 1>Circuit presidents already and we.

0:20:41.960 --> 0:20:43.960
<v Speaker 3>May be a long way away from that. But I mean,

0:20:44.080 --> 0:20:46.320
<v Speaker 3>what do you think the chances are at the Supreme Court?

0:20:46.480 --> 0:20:47.879
<v Speaker 3>It sounds like a technicality.

0:20:48.640 --> 0:20:51.080
<v Speaker 1>I think it would be very difficult. It's going to depend,

0:20:51.119 --> 0:20:53.960
<v Speaker 1>I think on how the advocates would argue this. But

0:20:54.040 --> 0:20:56.680
<v Speaker 1>the way I would argue it is this, be very

0:20:56.720 --> 0:21:00.159
<v Speaker 1>careful what you wish for by an administration or or

0:21:00.200 --> 0:21:03.280
<v Speaker 1>Trump administration or anyone else who thinks that you can

0:21:03.359 --> 0:21:06.840
<v Speaker 1>ban people on the border using this statute, Because if

0:21:06.880 --> 0:21:10.520
<v Speaker 1>what you're gonna say is we will not treat people

0:21:10.560 --> 0:21:14.600
<v Speaker 1>whose bodies are inside the United States as people who

0:21:14.600 --> 0:21:18.600
<v Speaker 1>have entered the United States, then you will have lost

0:21:19.359 --> 0:21:23.359
<v Speaker 1>your ability to prosecute people for illegal entry. That's gone.

0:21:23.400 --> 0:21:26.080
<v Speaker 1>You can't have it both ways, And so which one

0:21:26.119 --> 0:21:28.080
<v Speaker 1>do you prefer. Do you prefer to have a statute

0:21:28.359 --> 0:21:31.600
<v Speaker 1>to let you prosecute people for illegal entry or do

0:21:31.640 --> 0:21:36.320
<v Speaker 1>you prefer to have this travel band situation? And that's

0:21:36.359 --> 0:21:38.720
<v Speaker 1>what it's gonna come down to but entry either means

0:21:38.880 --> 0:21:41.320
<v Speaker 1>entry or it doesn't mean it. If you're gonna say

0:21:41.840 --> 0:21:43.800
<v Speaker 1>entry means, oh, you have to be here a certain

0:21:43.800 --> 0:21:46.199
<v Speaker 1>amount of time, well that would have had to have

0:21:46.240 --> 0:21:50.919
<v Speaker 1>been written in the executive order, and that's not written

0:21:50.920 --> 0:21:53.360
<v Speaker 1>in the executive order. So I don't know how they're

0:21:53.359 --> 0:21:56.680
<v Speaker 1>going to distinguish these two things, but I think that's

0:21:56.720 --> 0:21:59.840
<v Speaker 1>going to be where the Court gets hung up and says,

0:22:00.000 --> 0:22:01.720
<v Speaker 1>wait a second, I don't think we can do this.

0:22:02.600 --> 0:22:07.360
<v Speaker 3>Considering all that, it sounds more like Biden did this

0:22:07.400 --> 0:22:08.880
<v Speaker 3>for political reasons.

0:22:09.440 --> 0:22:12.760
<v Speaker 1>Well. I think the timing of it, obviously right after

0:22:12.800 --> 0:22:16.439
<v Speaker 1>the Mexican election, shows they were cognizant of that, and

0:22:16.480 --> 0:22:19.600
<v Speaker 1>I think they did feel they needed to have something

0:22:19.680 --> 0:22:23.080
<v Speaker 1>to speak about because they were being asked every day

0:22:23.720 --> 0:22:26.600
<v Speaker 1>in the press room, in the White House news conference

0:22:26.640 --> 0:22:29.480
<v Speaker 1>as well. I understand you keep blaming the Congress, but

0:22:29.560 --> 0:22:32.879
<v Speaker 1>what has the Biden administration done? And they said, we

0:22:32.920 --> 0:22:36.280
<v Speaker 1>can't do anything more? It's illegal, and that people say, well,

0:22:36.280 --> 0:22:38.960
<v Speaker 1>why don't you try prove it? And so they have

0:22:39.119 --> 0:22:42.920
<v Speaker 1>now succumbed to this argument and they're saying, okay, well

0:22:43.000 --> 0:22:45.400
<v Speaker 1>you claim that we haven't tried. Well, now, we've tried,

0:22:45.480 --> 0:22:47.960
<v Speaker 1>let's see what happened, and I think this is what's

0:22:48.000 --> 0:22:48.600
<v Speaker 1>happened here.

0:22:49.080 --> 0:22:53.240
<v Speaker 3>During his statement, Biden mentioned something that we've discussed before,

0:22:53.320 --> 0:22:57.560
<v Speaker 3>which is the hope that migrants will start to know

0:22:57.840 --> 0:23:00.600
<v Speaker 3>that they're going to be removed quickly and not be

0:23:00.680 --> 0:23:03.639
<v Speaker 3>able to stay in the US for years through their

0:23:03.640 --> 0:23:07.359
<v Speaker 3>immigration court process, and they perhaps just won't.

0:23:07.119 --> 0:23:08.520
<v Speaker 4>Make the trip, right.

0:23:08.560 --> 0:23:12.160
<v Speaker 1>I mean, that's the deterrent effect you're trying to instill.

0:23:12.880 --> 0:23:16.240
<v Speaker 1>And that does work, but it only works when people

0:23:16.240 --> 0:23:19.800
<v Speaker 1>are getting real time information that it's not working to

0:23:19.840 --> 0:23:22.760
<v Speaker 1>come across the border. So if there's a stream of

0:23:22.760 --> 0:23:26.240
<v Speaker 1>that kind of real time information, people will stop coming.

0:23:26.480 --> 0:23:30.160
<v Speaker 1>But the communication networks the smugglers, it's all way too

0:23:30.200 --> 0:23:35.040
<v Speaker 1>sophisticated now to simply say don't come. That doesn't work anymore.

0:23:35.520 --> 0:23:38.760
<v Speaker 1>So now the next step is can the Biden administration

0:23:38.880 --> 0:23:42.760
<v Speaker 1>actually build a resume of real time information that deters

0:23:42.760 --> 0:23:45.680
<v Speaker 1>people from coming. It's going to be difficult at the beginning,

0:23:45.720 --> 0:23:47.800
<v Speaker 1>because at the beginning this is going to be enjoyed,

0:23:48.320 --> 0:23:50.680
<v Speaker 1>So they will need the Supreme Court to help them

0:23:50.720 --> 0:23:53.480
<v Speaker 1>in order to have any hope of being implemented.

0:23:53.960 --> 0:23:59.399
<v Speaker 3>Does this rule still comply with our obligations under international treaties.

0:24:00.560 --> 0:24:02.400
<v Speaker 1>Well, this gets very complicated.

0:24:02.440 --> 0:24:05.000
<v Speaker 3>Again, complicated, yes.

0:24:04.720 --> 0:24:07.440
<v Speaker 1>Because at the end of the day. Number one, are

0:24:07.440 --> 0:24:10.320
<v Speaker 1>they going to let people who are saying they're going

0:24:10.400 --> 0:24:13.760
<v Speaker 1>to be tortured have a screening for that or are

0:24:13.760 --> 0:24:17.119
<v Speaker 1>they just going to ban people even if they are

0:24:17.560 --> 0:24:20.920
<v Speaker 1>in fear of torture. If they do ban those people,

0:24:20.960 --> 0:24:23.919
<v Speaker 1>that is indeed in violation of the Convention against Torture.

0:24:24.480 --> 0:24:27.800
<v Speaker 1>And that was happening during COVID. But that's because at

0:24:27.800 --> 0:24:29.639
<v Speaker 1>the end of the day, we had a statute that

0:24:30.119 --> 0:24:32.760
<v Speaker 1>when there's an international obligation, if you have a statute

0:24:32.800 --> 0:24:36.080
<v Speaker 1>that is intension with that, the statute actually wins in

0:24:36.080 --> 0:24:40.560
<v Speaker 1>one of those supremacy battles, and so Final forty two wins.

0:24:40.920 --> 0:24:44.920
<v Speaker 1>But here that wouldn't take into effects, and so that

0:24:44.960 --> 0:24:48.160
<v Speaker 1>would be one. And then secondly, with regard to what's

0:24:48.200 --> 0:24:52.000
<v Speaker 1>called non refuel ma, which just means you can't return

0:24:52.080 --> 0:24:55.879
<v Speaker 1>people without doing anything, without trying to actually screen them,

0:24:56.320 --> 0:24:58.600
<v Speaker 1>that's going to be another one. And so obviously the

0:24:58.640 --> 0:25:01.960
<v Speaker 1>bind administration will say say, well, we're doing this because

0:25:01.960 --> 0:25:04.920
<v Speaker 1>we have the CVP APP, we have a refugee program,

0:25:04.920 --> 0:25:06.959
<v Speaker 1>we have a bunch of other ways for people to

0:25:07.040 --> 0:25:10.520
<v Speaker 1>do it. But in the end, if you're pushing people out,

0:25:11.200 --> 0:25:15.000
<v Speaker 1>you are technically violating the rules. Now, you don't have

0:25:15.040 --> 0:25:18.720
<v Speaker 1>a duty to give people asylum, which is the past

0:25:18.720 --> 0:25:21.359
<v Speaker 1>the citizenship, but you do have a duty not to

0:25:21.359 --> 0:25:25.119
<v Speaker 1>push people out who might face persecution unless and until

0:25:25.160 --> 0:25:27.919
<v Speaker 1>you've given them due process, at least if you're going

0:25:27.960 --> 0:25:31.560
<v Speaker 1>to meet your international obligations. And so this is going

0:25:31.600 --> 0:25:33.560
<v Speaker 1>to be a very tough argument because there were no

0:25:33.720 --> 0:25:38.080
<v Speaker 1>exceptions to that based on quote unquote twenty five hundred

0:25:38.119 --> 0:25:41.280
<v Speaker 1>people coming across the border. That would be a new thing.

0:25:42.359 --> 0:25:46.159
<v Speaker 3>So many complications, which seems to be a constant in

0:25:46.280 --> 0:25:49.639
<v Speaker 3>immigration law. Thanks so much, Leon for taking us through it.

0:25:50.119 --> 0:25:53.719
<v Speaker 3>That's Leon Fresco, a partner Hollanden Knight. Coming up next.

0:25:54.240 --> 0:25:57.400
<v Speaker 3>Hunter Biden goes on trial. I'm June Grosso and you're

0:25:57.440 --> 0:25:58.480
<v Speaker 3>listening to Bloomberg.

0:26:01.920 --> 0:26:06.720
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:26:07.800 --> 0:26:12.560
<v Speaker 3>In opening statements today, federal prosecutors painted President Joe Biden's

0:26:12.600 --> 0:26:16.680
<v Speaker 3>son Hunter as deceptive and driven by addiction, a man

0:26:16.720 --> 0:26:20.280
<v Speaker 3>whose dark habits ensnared loved ones and who knew what

0:26:20.359 --> 0:26:22.960
<v Speaker 3>he was doing when he lied on federal forms to

0:26:23.000 --> 0:26:27.480
<v Speaker 3>purchase a gun in twenty eighteen. But Biden's defense attorney

0:26:27.560 --> 0:26:30.480
<v Speaker 3>said he didn't knowingly lie when he filled out the

0:26:30.560 --> 0:26:34.280
<v Speaker 3>form and checked the box saying he wasn't using drugs.

0:26:35.160 --> 0:26:38.080
<v Speaker 3>A jury of six men and six women will decide

0:26:38.080 --> 0:26:42.159
<v Speaker 3>whether Biden is guilty of three felonies stemming from the

0:26:42.160 --> 0:26:45.840
<v Speaker 3>purchase of the cult Revolver. Joining me is criminal defense

0:26:45.840 --> 0:26:50.040
<v Speaker 3>attorney Michael Huff. So, looking at the jury broadly, you

0:26:50.119 --> 0:26:54.720
<v Speaker 3>have a substitute teacher, a secret service for tiree, several

0:26:54.760 --> 0:26:58.560
<v Speaker 3>gun owners, a man whose father was killed by a gun,

0:26:59.119 --> 0:27:02.600
<v Speaker 3>and a number of jurors whose family and friends have

0:27:02.720 --> 0:27:05.440
<v Speaker 3>suffered from addiction. Does it sound like a better jury

0:27:05.480 --> 0:27:07.119
<v Speaker 3>for the defense or the prosecution.

0:27:07.920 --> 0:27:11.680
<v Speaker 5>It sounds like a fair jury and a reasonably seated jury,

0:27:11.760 --> 0:27:14.800
<v Speaker 5>to the extent that in order for one to be

0:27:14.880 --> 0:27:17.479
<v Speaker 5>judged by a jury of their peers, you have to

0:27:17.520 --> 0:27:21.080
<v Speaker 5>sort of look at other substantive issues, such as do

0:27:21.160 --> 0:27:24.879
<v Speaker 5>they have an understanding of, let's say, substance abuse, or

0:27:24.920 --> 0:27:28.560
<v Speaker 5>do they have an aversion or preference towards possession of

0:27:28.640 --> 0:27:31.919
<v Speaker 5>firearms and things of that nature. What's surprising is the

0:27:31.960 --> 0:27:35.840
<v Speaker 5>former Secret Service member. I'm a former member of law enforcement,

0:27:36.280 --> 0:27:40.320
<v Speaker 5>police officer and patrol supervisor from Houston, Texas. And as

0:27:40.400 --> 0:27:42.240
<v Speaker 5>much as I would love to serve on a jury,

0:27:42.280 --> 0:27:45.640
<v Speaker 5>I've never had the pleasure of being selected. So I'm

0:27:45.680 --> 0:27:48.800
<v Speaker 5>surprised about that selection, not so much on the others.

0:27:48.840 --> 0:27:51.879
<v Speaker 5>And I think it does give the defense. I wouldn't

0:27:51.920 --> 0:27:55.560
<v Speaker 5>say an upper hand necessarily, but I do think they'll

0:27:55.600 --> 0:27:58.080
<v Speaker 5>get a fair bite at the apple. And I would

0:27:58.160 --> 0:28:00.280
<v Speaker 5>say if I had to choose on you know who,

0:28:00.280 --> 0:28:03.719
<v Speaker 5>it benefits more. It leans towards the defense rather than

0:28:03.760 --> 0:28:04.480
<v Speaker 5>the prosecution.

0:28:05.080 --> 0:28:08.720
<v Speaker 3>So let's talk about the charges he faces three felony

0:28:08.840 --> 0:28:12.160
<v Speaker 3>charges related to a gun he purchased in twenty eighteen.

0:28:13.119 --> 0:28:18.800
<v Speaker 3>Is this overcharging to charge three felonies based on one transaction?

0:28:20.080 --> 0:28:25.119
<v Speaker 5>Not necessarily? You know the nexus of the occurrence, meaning

0:28:25.200 --> 0:28:28.919
<v Speaker 5>the factors that go into each offense just have to

0:28:28.960 --> 0:28:32.520
<v Speaker 5>be satisfied for the prima facial case, so you can have,

0:28:32.640 --> 0:28:37.400
<v Speaker 5>as we saw recently with President Trump, one interaction resulting

0:28:37.400 --> 0:28:40.640
<v Speaker 5>in thirty four So any charges right, so three, I

0:28:40.640 --> 0:28:44.080
<v Speaker 5>wouldn't say that that's overcharging. I think that there are

0:28:44.120 --> 0:28:48.480
<v Speaker 5>some issues with respect to his mental culpability. He had

0:28:48.520 --> 0:28:53.200
<v Speaker 5>to knowingly possess the firearm while understanding that he was

0:28:53.320 --> 0:28:56.560
<v Speaker 5>violating the prohibition, which means that he had to know

0:28:57.160 --> 0:29:00.800
<v Speaker 5>that misrepresenting that he was a drug use was a

0:29:00.880 --> 0:29:03.640
<v Speaker 5>violation of the prohibition, not just that he was a

0:29:03.720 --> 0:29:06.880
<v Speaker 5>drug user and possessed the weapon, but rather he knew

0:29:06.920 --> 0:29:08.959
<v Speaker 5>that he was not supposed to because he was a

0:29:09.040 --> 0:29:11.720
<v Speaker 5>drug user. And also there's the issue of whether or

0:29:11.800 --> 0:29:15.240
<v Speaker 5>not he actually considered himself to be a drug user

0:29:15.280 --> 0:29:17.760
<v Speaker 5>at the time that he completed that document. So I

0:29:17.760 --> 0:29:19.480
<v Speaker 5>went a couple steps ahead there, but.

0:29:19.600 --> 0:29:22.200
<v Speaker 3>No, it's okay, because that brings up the question if

0:29:22.200 --> 0:29:25.000
<v Speaker 3>he was a drug user, can you hold him responsible

0:29:25.080 --> 0:29:26.920
<v Speaker 3>for knowingly filling out a form?

0:29:27.640 --> 0:29:31.040
<v Speaker 5>Right, So that's where I started doing a little bit

0:29:31.080 --> 0:29:33.360
<v Speaker 5>more digging, and I came up with a case, and

0:29:33.360 --> 0:29:35.520
<v Speaker 5>that's out of the Eleventh Circuit. It went up to

0:29:35.560 --> 0:29:39.200
<v Speaker 5>the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court last term held

0:29:39.520 --> 0:29:43.240
<v Speaker 5>that knowingly here means that you knew both that you

0:29:43.360 --> 0:29:47.720
<v Speaker 5>possessed the firearm and that your actions violated the elements

0:29:47.720 --> 0:29:51.640
<v Speaker 5>of the prohibition. So how do you prove what he

0:29:52.080 --> 0:29:55.200
<v Speaker 5>knew or didn't know beyond a reasonable doubt? And to

0:29:55.320 --> 0:29:58.440
<v Speaker 5>your point, particularly if he is a drug user. So

0:29:59.040 --> 0:30:02.600
<v Speaker 5>the construct of this law may be found to be

0:30:02.720 --> 0:30:05.480
<v Speaker 5>too ambiguous and that might be an out for the dissent.

0:30:06.720 --> 0:30:10.560
<v Speaker 3>Today, the prosecutors spent hours on Biden's drug problem, and

0:30:10.600 --> 0:30:13.640
<v Speaker 3>they used his own words to show the depth of

0:30:13.720 --> 0:30:18.800
<v Speaker 3>his addiction from his memoir from messages. How far does

0:30:18.840 --> 0:30:20.120
<v Speaker 3>that get the prosecution.

0:30:20.680 --> 0:30:25.120
<v Speaker 5>They definitely need to put facts into evidence that demonstrates

0:30:25.120 --> 0:30:28.000
<v Speaker 5>that he satisfies the element of the prima facia case.

0:30:28.040 --> 0:30:32.160
<v Speaker 5>He has to be unlawfully using a substance controlled substance

0:30:32.480 --> 0:30:35.920
<v Speaker 5>Layman's terms of drug user basically, so they definitely have

0:30:36.000 --> 0:30:38.640
<v Speaker 5>to get that into evidence. As I understand that there

0:30:38.640 --> 0:30:42.880
<v Speaker 5>are also photos of him with known drug dealers, and

0:30:43.240 --> 0:30:45.960
<v Speaker 5>I don't know whether he was actually smoking using a

0:30:46.000 --> 0:30:49.360
<v Speaker 5>controlled substance believed to be crack cocaine, or it was

0:30:49.440 --> 0:30:51.800
<v Speaker 5>in the photo. So those are things that will be

0:30:51.960 --> 0:30:55.120
<v Speaker 5>very damaging if they in fact are entered into evidence.

0:30:55.280 --> 0:30:58.480
<v Speaker 5>But nailing down the timeline is what's going to be hard.

0:30:58.640 --> 0:31:02.720
<v Speaker 5>How close to the application was his drug use and

0:31:02.760 --> 0:31:06.160
<v Speaker 5>are they able through data mining or other sources able

0:31:06.200 --> 0:31:09.560
<v Speaker 5>to nail down the date of his usage. But again

0:31:09.720 --> 0:31:12.280
<v Speaker 5>you're still going to end up back at the knowingly

0:31:12.880 --> 0:31:16.320
<v Speaker 5>violating the prohibition, and most of us aren't, you know,

0:31:16.440 --> 0:31:19.160
<v Speaker 5>most of us out in the world aren't until now

0:31:19.640 --> 0:31:23.280
<v Speaker 5>aware of the fact that there are various prohibitions on

0:31:23.400 --> 0:31:26.840
<v Speaker 5>the application right and knowing that being a drug user

0:31:26.880 --> 0:31:29.800
<v Speaker 5>and buying a gun equal to felony. That's where the

0:31:30.440 --> 0:31:32.800
<v Speaker 5>law comes into the knowingly piece. And I just don't

0:31:32.840 --> 0:31:35.160
<v Speaker 5>know that the prosecution will be able to get there at.

0:31:35.040 --> 0:31:38.000
<v Speaker 3>The end, And that was the main thrust of the

0:31:38.080 --> 0:31:44.160
<v Speaker 3>defense opening statement. Hunter Biden didn't knowingly violate these laws.

0:31:43.960 --> 0:31:47.200
<v Speaker 5>And so that's where it turns. And this does not

0:31:47.280 --> 0:31:50.520
<v Speaker 5>look like it's a strict liability crime, meaning that you know,

0:31:50.560 --> 0:31:53.640
<v Speaker 5>if you run a red light but you didn't know

0:31:53.720 --> 0:31:56.720
<v Speaker 5>that you had to only go on green, that strict liability,

0:31:56.760 --> 0:31:59.280
<v Speaker 5>no one cares. You're getting the citation and that's a

0:31:59.320 --> 0:32:03.000
<v Speaker 5>done deal. But in this they're looking at a subjective intent,

0:32:03.160 --> 0:32:06.240
<v Speaker 5>not an objective intent. Well, it may be objective subjective,

0:32:06.320 --> 0:32:09.320
<v Speaker 5>but it's not strict liability, meaning that they have to

0:32:09.360 --> 0:32:12.280
<v Speaker 5>actually show that he knowingly did though, and there's so

0:32:12.440 --> 0:32:16.320
<v Speaker 5>much room to defend him on that because it ends

0:32:16.320 --> 0:32:19.760
<v Speaker 5>with a subjective analysis. And that's why they're looking at potentially,

0:32:20.440 --> 0:32:23.360
<v Speaker 5>which I've never done in my career, put my own

0:32:23.400 --> 0:32:26.000
<v Speaker 5>client on the stand, But in this instance, I can

0:32:26.080 --> 0:32:27.560
<v Speaker 5>see why they're considering it.

0:32:28.160 --> 0:32:31.120
<v Speaker 3>His attorneys are arguing, well, you had to be a

0:32:31.160 --> 0:32:33.600
<v Speaker 3>drug user at the time you're filling out the form,

0:32:34.040 --> 0:32:37.320
<v Speaker 3>and the prosecution is saying, no, you're just a drug user.

0:32:37.400 --> 0:32:39.080
<v Speaker 3>It doesn't have to be at the very moment you're

0:32:39.120 --> 0:32:40.080
<v Speaker 3>filling out the form.

0:32:40.400 --> 0:32:43.800
<v Speaker 5>That argument's going to fail June. That would be void

0:32:43.880 --> 0:32:48.640
<v Speaker 5>for overbreadth, meaning that in that case, anyone ever, whoever

0:32:48.800 --> 0:32:51.080
<v Speaker 5>used drugs could never own a weapon. And I don't

0:32:51.080 --> 0:32:54.120
<v Speaker 5>think that that was the framer's intent when they enacted

0:32:54.160 --> 0:32:56.080
<v Speaker 5>that statue. And I think that one's going to be

0:32:56.120 --> 0:32:58.120
<v Speaker 5>a tough hurdle. I don't think they get anywhere with

0:32:58.200 --> 0:33:01.320
<v Speaker 5>that argument, and folks in their own camp, like the NRA,

0:33:01.640 --> 0:33:04.880
<v Speaker 5>would have a field day lobbying against that. I don't

0:33:04.880 --> 0:33:07.280
<v Speaker 5>think they're going to get very far down that line.

0:33:07.440 --> 0:33:10.840
<v Speaker 3>So there's going to be some difficult evidence for the defense.

0:33:11.880 --> 0:33:17.280
<v Speaker 3>In Hunter Biden's own words in texts and emails. In

0:33:17.320 --> 0:33:20.160
<v Speaker 3>one text at the time, he wrote that he was

0:33:20.200 --> 0:33:24.400
<v Speaker 3>sleeping on a car smoking crack on Fourth Street, and Rodney,

0:33:24.440 --> 0:33:25.320
<v Speaker 3>and the defense.

0:33:25.000 --> 0:33:28.080
<v Speaker 5>Will have a tough time with that one, particularly if

0:33:28.120 --> 0:33:33.200
<v Speaker 5>they're having him testify that evidence gets in and can

0:33:33.240 --> 0:33:35.640
<v Speaker 5>be considered can get in as a state of then

0:33:35.720 --> 0:33:40.040
<v Speaker 5>state of mind admission, so that one the defense will

0:33:40.080 --> 0:33:42.920
<v Speaker 5>have a very tough time getting around. Now the question

0:33:43.080 --> 0:33:47.640
<v Speaker 5>then will become does drug use after the fact satisfy

0:33:47.880 --> 0:33:51.040
<v Speaker 5>the elements of the prima facia case? I think on

0:33:51.120 --> 0:33:54.400
<v Speaker 5>count one then it gets them there, but still not

0:33:54.560 --> 0:33:57.719
<v Speaker 5>on count three if I have them correct, which is

0:33:57.960 --> 0:34:01.400
<v Speaker 5>the knowingly violating the prohibition, if at the time he

0:34:01.480 --> 0:34:04.760
<v Speaker 5>filled out the application, they don't get one of the counts. Now,

0:34:05.200 --> 0:34:08.440
<v Speaker 5>that goes back to your question did they overcharge? They've

0:34:08.560 --> 0:34:11.800
<v Speaker 5>charged him with everything that they think could be viable

0:34:12.200 --> 0:34:14.520
<v Speaker 5>in the event that they have to dismiss one or

0:34:14.520 --> 0:34:17.000
<v Speaker 5>they lose on one, rather then they still have the

0:34:17.040 --> 0:34:18.680
<v Speaker 5>other two remaining fight with.

0:34:19.400 --> 0:34:23.719
<v Speaker 3>How often do you see someone being tried over statements

0:34:23.760 --> 0:34:27.480
<v Speaker 3>that they made when purchasing a gun when it's not

0:34:27.600 --> 0:34:29.480
<v Speaker 3>in connection with any other crime.

0:34:29.880 --> 0:34:33.280
<v Speaker 5>I think there's some four hundred or five hundred central

0:34:33.360 --> 0:34:35.799
<v Speaker 5>charges a year, and only I think it was two

0:34:35.880 --> 0:34:39.280
<v Speaker 5>hundred and ninety eight of those cases approximately are picked

0:34:39.360 --> 0:34:42.160
<v Speaker 5>up for these same types of charges, you know. So

0:34:42.239 --> 0:34:44.440
<v Speaker 5>then of course it lends to the question of is

0:34:44.520 --> 0:34:47.680
<v Speaker 5>he being singled out because of who his parents are

0:34:48.040 --> 0:34:52.759
<v Speaker 5>and because of his position in the public domain, or

0:34:52.960 --> 0:34:59.200
<v Speaker 5>under similarly situated circumstances, would another individual be facing three felony.

0:34:59.640 --> 0:35:03.719
<v Speaker 3>This is going forward because the plea deal that he

0:35:03.800 --> 0:35:06.799
<v Speaker 3>had reached with prosecutors collapsed.

0:35:07.360 --> 0:35:07.520
<v Speaker 1>Right.

0:35:07.880 --> 0:35:10.680
<v Speaker 3>Does that have any effect at all on the trial?

0:35:11.160 --> 0:35:14.160
<v Speaker 5>Well, it may have effect on the trial because up

0:35:14.239 --> 0:35:18.839
<v Speaker 5>until the verdict, he can accept a plea, and so

0:35:19.600 --> 0:35:24.080
<v Speaker 5>they may re enter into negotiations. If the prosecution determines

0:35:24.120 --> 0:35:27.839
<v Speaker 5>that their evidence is not as strong and on one

0:35:28.000 --> 0:35:30.880
<v Speaker 5>or all of the counts, they may offer a plea.

0:35:31.360 --> 0:35:34.359
<v Speaker 5>If the defense feels that they don't have as much

0:35:34.400 --> 0:35:37.200
<v Speaker 5>as they need to defend him on all three counts,

0:35:37.560 --> 0:35:41.120
<v Speaker 5>they may look to negotiate again. It'll be interesting to

0:35:41.160 --> 0:35:44.879
<v Speaker 5>see how the judge handles that, because, as I understand it,

0:35:45.640 --> 0:35:49.839
<v Speaker 5>the plea was reasonable to those who evaluated that, but

0:35:49.880 --> 0:35:51.160
<v Speaker 5>the judge shot it down.

0:35:51.800 --> 0:35:56.120
<v Speaker 3>There's going to be a lot of salacious evidence drugs

0:35:56.160 --> 0:35:59.160
<v Speaker 3>and guns and affairs. Is there any way to keep

0:35:59.200 --> 0:36:02.040
<v Speaker 3>this trial from being sort of sensational?

0:36:02.520 --> 0:36:05.280
<v Speaker 5>You know? From my journey from law enforcement to lawyering,

0:36:05.320 --> 0:36:08.000
<v Speaker 5>I've seen a lot in twenty seven years, and this

0:36:08.080 --> 0:36:12.680
<v Speaker 5>has all the ingredients to cook up a salacious, sensational

0:36:12.719 --> 0:36:16.000
<v Speaker 5>life story. And you know, and you're you're in the

0:36:16.040 --> 0:36:19.480
<v Speaker 5>business in terms of journalism, you know how things get

0:36:19.520 --> 0:36:22.239
<v Speaker 5>spun and take on a life of their own. And

0:36:22.280 --> 0:36:26.880
<v Speaker 5>so we ride on the coattails of our first president

0:36:26.920 --> 0:36:30.560
<v Speaker 5>in history being convicted of thirty four felonies but still

0:36:30.560 --> 0:36:33.360
<v Speaker 5>going on to be on the ballot, to now the

0:36:33.400 --> 0:36:36.239
<v Speaker 5>first first son facing felony. So it seems to be

0:36:36.239 --> 0:36:38.319
<v Speaker 5>a parade of felony is going on, and I think

0:36:38.360 --> 0:36:41.200
<v Speaker 5>it's going to be a free for all for bere for.

0:36:41.239 --> 0:36:44.680
<v Speaker 3>Worth hearing about these trials. The average person must think

0:36:44.760 --> 0:36:49.120
<v Speaker 3>every trial is equally exciting, and we know that that

0:36:49.280 --> 0:36:52.440
<v Speaker 3>is not the case at all. Thanks so much, Michael.

0:36:52.680 --> 0:36:55.840
<v Speaker 3>That's criminal defense attorney Michael Huff and that's it for

0:36:55.880 --> 0:36:58.879
<v Speaker 3>this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember you can

0:36:58.960 --> 0:37:01.880
<v Speaker 3>always get the latest lead news by subscribing and listening

0:37:01.920 --> 0:37:05.600
<v Speaker 3>to the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at Bloomberg

0:37:05.640 --> 0:37:09.719
<v Speaker 3>dot com Slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grosso and

0:37:09.840 --> 0:37:11.120
<v Speaker 3>this is Bloomberg,