1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,440 --> 00:00:12,160
Speaker 1: The January six Committee has been laying out a case

3
00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,000
Speaker 1: for the criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump, with

4
00:00:16,120 --> 00:00:19,840
Speaker 1: the last hear in detailing almost minute by minute, Trump's

5
00:00:19,880 --> 00:00:24,280
Speaker 1: refusal to stop his supporters from storming the US capital.

6
00:00:24,680 --> 00:00:29,360
Speaker 1: Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, a committee member, says Trump should

7
00:00:29,400 --> 00:00:34,600
Speaker 1: face charges by the Justice Department despite the uncomfortable optics

8
00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:37,960
Speaker 1: of indicting a former president. If there's the ability to

9
00:00:38,000 --> 00:00:41,520
Speaker 1: move forward on prosecuting and you don't, you've basically set

10
00:00:41,560 --> 00:00:44,280
Speaker 1: the floor for future behavior of any president. And I

11
00:00:44,320 --> 00:00:46,640
Speaker 1: don't think a democracy can survive that. So I certainly

12
00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:49,960
Speaker 1: hope they're moving forward. Joining me as former federal prosecutor

13
00:00:50,040 --> 00:00:54,040
Speaker 1: Kevin O'Brien, a partner with Ford O'Brien Landy, Kevin, I

14
00:00:54,040 --> 00:00:56,600
Speaker 1: want to look at this in two ways. Before the

15
00:00:56,760 --> 00:00:59,880
Speaker 1: riot and during the riot, it's pretty clear he did

16
00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:02,360
Speaker 1: nothing to stop the riot. He sat in a dining

17
00:01:02,440 --> 00:01:05,520
Speaker 1: room near the Oval office and watched Fox News. He

18
00:01:05,600 --> 00:01:08,440
Speaker 1: called senators to tell them they should object to the

19
00:01:08,440 --> 00:01:13,000
Speaker 1: election results. He fended off please from various White House

20
00:01:13,520 --> 00:01:19,320
Speaker 1: people to stop the violence. Is that enough not doing anything? Well,

21
00:01:19,360 --> 00:01:22,199
Speaker 1: it's not a crime to do nothing except in very

22
00:01:22,319 --> 00:01:28,280
Speaker 1: very unusual circumstances that I don't think apply here. In

23
00:01:28,360 --> 00:01:32,200
Speaker 1: some places, in some situations there are good Samaritan rules

24
00:01:32,280 --> 00:01:36,839
Speaker 1: that require actors to take action, and if they don't,

25
00:01:36,920 --> 00:01:40,960
Speaker 1: they can be charged or sued. We're not talking about

26
00:01:40,959 --> 00:01:44,520
Speaker 1: that situation here, But I think the significance of the

27
00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:47,319
Speaker 1: I think it was a hundred and eighty seven minutes,

28
00:01:47,560 --> 00:01:50,440
Speaker 1: wasn't it. They counted them up, in which he did nothing.

29
00:01:50,960 --> 00:01:54,560
Speaker 1: The significance is it shows what his state of mind was.

30
00:01:55,080 --> 00:01:57,800
Speaker 1: That's a chestnut. We hear a lot about state of mind,

31
00:01:58,040 --> 00:02:01,960
Speaker 1: and I think this makes even clearer than before that

32
00:02:02,320 --> 00:02:06,120
Speaker 1: Trump's state of mind was he was in favor of

33
00:02:06,200 --> 00:02:09,720
Speaker 1: what was going on, if he didn't want the violence,

34
00:02:10,160 --> 00:02:13,240
Speaker 1: which is a stretch. He wanted something to happen to

35
00:02:13,360 --> 00:02:17,120
Speaker 1: prevent the counting of the votes so he could continue

36
00:02:17,120 --> 00:02:21,120
Speaker 1: his term in office. He wanted Pence to be scared

37
00:02:21,160 --> 00:02:24,040
Speaker 1: out of his mind and have to leave the capital

38
00:02:24,080 --> 00:02:27,239
Speaker 1: before he could discharge his duties. He wanted the senators

39
00:02:28,080 --> 00:02:31,760
Speaker 1: and the congressman to disperse so they couldn't do their jobs.

40
00:02:32,360 --> 00:02:36,320
Speaker 1: He wanted something to happen to delay or prevent that

41
00:02:36,560 --> 00:02:42,120
Speaker 1: constitutional function from being fulfilled. And the eight seven minutes

42
00:02:42,760 --> 00:02:46,880
Speaker 1: kind of goes to that issue is seven minutes is

43
00:02:46,919 --> 00:02:50,600
Speaker 1: a long time. When you're watching the proceedings on television.

44
00:02:50,720 --> 00:02:54,600
Speaker 1: It's pretty eloquent testimony. And I think that's the legal

45
00:02:54,639 --> 00:03:00,680
Speaker 1: significance and probably also the moral and general significance. Representative

46
00:03:00,720 --> 00:03:04,480
Speaker 1: Adam Kinzinger said, the panel has proven a criminal case

47
00:03:04,680 --> 00:03:08,240
Speaker 1: against Trump, but it seems to me that the evidence

48
00:03:08,400 --> 00:03:12,560
Speaker 1: is less clear about whether he incided the attack on

49
00:03:12,600 --> 00:03:16,079
Speaker 1: the Capitol. I mean, there are the tweets and the speech,

50
00:03:16,600 --> 00:03:20,000
Speaker 1: but we also call for com at different points. It

51
00:03:20,040 --> 00:03:23,280
Speaker 1: doesn't seem very strong to me. I think there's some

52
00:03:23,480 --> 00:03:26,800
Speaker 1: softness there. I agree. I think this this would be

53
00:03:26,800 --> 00:03:31,280
Speaker 1: a difficult aspect in any criminal case. You can keep

54
00:03:31,320 --> 00:03:33,880
Speaker 1: in mind that the evidence gets pared down. A lot

55
00:03:33,919 --> 00:03:38,160
Speaker 1: of the stuff we hear and read about probably isn't admissible,

56
00:03:38,560 --> 00:03:43,520
Speaker 1: you know. For example, one of the commentator's favorite examples

57
00:03:43,920 --> 00:03:48,840
Speaker 1: is all the demonstrators and rioters who said we went

58
00:03:48,880 --> 00:03:52,200
Speaker 1: in because Trump told us to and wanted us to

59
00:03:52,240 --> 00:03:56,360
Speaker 1: go in. Now, unless there's evidence of a conspiracy between

60
00:03:56,440 --> 00:03:59,800
Speaker 1: Trump and the rioters and so far, we haven't seen

61
00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:03,640
Speaker 1: at it's pretty clear in the absence of a conspiracy,

62
00:04:03,800 --> 00:04:07,760
Speaker 1: none of those statements are admissible against Trump and a

63
00:04:07,800 --> 00:04:12,120
Speaker 1: criminal trial, they just wouldn't come into evidence. So just

64
00:04:12,280 --> 00:04:14,640
Speaker 1: taking that one example, you can see that the way

65
00:04:14,680 --> 00:04:18,040
Speaker 1: a trial would proceed under the rules of criminal procedure

66
00:04:18,040 --> 00:04:22,120
Speaker 1: and federal or even state court because there's the Georgia

67
00:04:22,560 --> 00:04:25,760
Speaker 1: case going on, which is in state court, the way

68
00:04:25,760 --> 00:04:28,120
Speaker 1: a trial would proceed is not the way you see

69
00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:32,320
Speaker 1: it unfolding on television with the benefit of everyone's commentary.

70
00:04:32,600 --> 00:04:35,160
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of examples of that stuff

71
00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:39,239
Speaker 1: that wouldn't come into evidence and jury wouldn't hear about

72
00:04:39,440 --> 00:04:42,440
Speaker 1: or see in a criminal trial. And that's one of

73
00:04:42,480 --> 00:04:45,440
Speaker 1: the drawbacks that people have to take in mind when

74
00:04:45,480 --> 00:04:49,360
Speaker 1: they consider what the Justice Department is doing and Merrick

75
00:04:49,400 --> 00:04:55,600
Speaker 1: Garland is doing in weighing these potential charges. It's very difficult.

76
00:04:56,560 --> 00:04:59,440
Speaker 1: There was evidence time and time again that he especially

77
00:04:59,440 --> 00:05:02,840
Speaker 1: with the takes, that he didn't accept the fact that

78
00:05:02,920 --> 00:05:07,880
Speaker 1: the election was over. That was no surprise because it's

79
00:05:07,880 --> 00:05:11,120
Speaker 1: still going on to this day. Apparently a week and

80
00:05:11,120 --> 00:05:13,279
Speaker 1: a half before the hearing, he called the speaker of

81
00:05:13,320 --> 00:05:17,760
Speaker 1: the Wisconsin legislature to demand he retroactively take the states

82
00:05:17,800 --> 00:05:21,400
Speaker 1: electors away from Joe Biden. Right. I think again, it's

83
00:05:21,520 --> 00:05:26,800
Speaker 1: used to show a motive for doing wrong on January six,

84
00:05:27,160 --> 00:05:30,279
Speaker 1: and immediately before and immediately after. But you're right, in

85
00:05:30,320 --> 00:05:33,359
Speaker 1: a way, it proves too much because he's still of

86
00:05:33,520 --> 00:05:36,039
Speaker 1: that state of mind. It's hard to argue that the

87
00:05:36,080 --> 00:05:40,160
Speaker 1: criminal scheme is continuing to the president and not. Of course,

88
00:05:40,200 --> 00:05:43,720
Speaker 1: he's not in a position to influence anything now once

89
00:05:43,760 --> 00:05:46,920
Speaker 1: he stood down from office, which he had to do finally,

90
00:05:47,040 --> 00:05:49,960
Speaker 1: and he lost that ability. And that's why January six

91
00:05:50,160 --> 00:05:52,760
Speaker 1: was so important to him, because that was really the

92
00:05:52,880 --> 00:05:55,880
Speaker 1: last opportunity to try to throw a wrench in the

93
00:05:55,960 --> 00:06:00,760
Speaker 1: gears and prevent the succession that put O Biden in

94
00:06:00,880 --> 00:06:03,960
Speaker 1: the White House. But you're right, his state of mind,

95
00:06:04,080 --> 00:06:07,479
Speaker 1: for what it's worth, has not changed. Still there and

96
00:06:07,600 --> 00:06:11,400
Speaker 1: seems to be almost a permanent feature of his mental makeup,

97
00:06:11,440 --> 00:06:15,120
Speaker 1: probably will be forever. He's never going, I would hazard

98
00:06:15,200 --> 00:06:17,880
Speaker 1: to predict, he's never going to admit that there was

99
00:06:17,960 --> 00:06:22,880
Speaker 1: no fraud, the election was legitimate. I've heard conflicting opinions

100
00:06:22,920 --> 00:06:27,080
Speaker 1: from former federal prosecutors. One is that it's taking the

101
00:06:27,160 --> 00:06:30,440
Speaker 1: Justice Department too long to indict Trump or to decide

102
00:06:30,440 --> 00:06:33,400
Speaker 1: whether or not to indict him. That the January six

103
00:06:33,400 --> 00:06:37,599
Speaker 1: committee is obviously out in front of the Justice Department.

104
00:06:38,080 --> 00:06:41,000
Speaker 1: The other is that it takes time to build a case,

105
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:46,440
Speaker 1: a precedent setting case against a former president. Which side

106
00:06:46,480 --> 00:06:49,120
Speaker 1: do you want? I think both those things can be true.

107
00:06:51,480 --> 00:06:55,880
Speaker 1: That's not fair, even if they started from day one whenever,

108
00:06:55,920 --> 00:06:58,800
Speaker 1: that is I guess when they started building cases against

109
00:06:58,880 --> 00:07:02,520
Speaker 1: these lesser pete. Building a case against the president does

110
00:07:02,600 --> 00:07:05,080
Speaker 1: take a lot of time, and they have to take

111
00:07:05,080 --> 00:07:10,880
Speaker 1: into account this enormous range of actors in the Justice Department,

112
00:07:11,400 --> 00:07:16,160
Speaker 1: in the White House, in the demonstrators, the people that

113
00:07:16,240 --> 00:07:21,000
Speaker 1: attended the speech, in Trump's inner circle. All these people

114
00:07:21,200 --> 00:07:26,840
Speaker 1: have roles to play in the scheme as it's apparently unfolded.

115
00:07:27,560 --> 00:07:31,440
Speaker 1: And we're not talking about people who are unsophisticated. These

116
00:07:31,480 --> 00:07:35,560
Speaker 1: people know how to find good lawyers. There are funds

117
00:07:35,600 --> 00:07:39,440
Speaker 1: being created by various right wing groups that would enable

118
00:07:39,480 --> 00:07:44,480
Speaker 1: them to hire good ones, approaching these people, negotiating with them,

119
00:07:44,520 --> 00:07:46,880
Speaker 1: getting them to see the light and to tell the truth.

120
00:07:47,200 --> 00:07:50,320
Speaker 1: And we're talking about dozens of people. Again, it takes time,

121
00:07:50,600 --> 00:07:54,800
Speaker 1: and the theory of the case also is subtle, because

122
00:07:54,800 --> 00:07:57,360
Speaker 1: as you said, you know, he wasn't out there with

123
00:07:57,520 --> 00:08:02,640
Speaker 1: a Confederate flag bang down the door of the Capitol

124
00:08:02,680 --> 00:08:06,600
Speaker 1: Building as usual. He's so good at this. He he

125
00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:12,600
Speaker 1: works by indirection. He makes little hints, he drops little lines,

126
00:08:12,760 --> 00:08:16,000
Speaker 1: little nuggets that his followers take, you know, as a

127
00:08:16,080 --> 00:08:19,800
Speaker 1: signal to go forward and storm the Capitol building. But

128
00:08:19,840 --> 00:08:23,080
Speaker 1: he doesn't say that outright. Many people have said, beginning

129
00:08:23,080 --> 00:08:25,840
Speaker 1: with Michael Cohen, he's like a mafia dot. He doesn't

130
00:08:25,840 --> 00:08:28,280
Speaker 1: have to say it. He knows his followers would do

131
00:08:28,360 --> 00:08:32,080
Speaker 1: just about anything, the famous line about standing in Fifth Avenue,

132
00:08:32,720 --> 00:08:35,880
Speaker 1: and so he just he just does the minimum necessary

133
00:08:35,920 --> 00:08:39,840
Speaker 1: to motivate them. And then later when the stuff hits

134
00:08:39,880 --> 00:08:44,400
Speaker 1: the fan, he has plausible deniability. Oh I never meant

135
00:08:45,000 --> 00:08:48,280
Speaker 1: dot dot dot, And that's what he's doing now. So

136
00:08:48,400 --> 00:08:52,080
Speaker 1: that to take into account all these subtle e's, and

137
00:08:52,160 --> 00:08:55,439
Speaker 1: there are, as we've been discussing, weaknesses in the case

138
00:08:55,600 --> 00:08:59,040
Speaker 1: that need to be addressed, if not overcome. There is

139
00:08:59,080 --> 00:09:03,800
Speaker 1: no core conspiracy involving the riot itself, as far as

140
00:09:03,840 --> 00:09:07,920
Speaker 1: I can see, clearly fomented it. He clearly wanted it

141
00:09:07,960 --> 00:09:11,400
Speaker 1: to happen. But there's no evidence that he conspired with

142
00:09:11,440 --> 00:09:13,920
Speaker 1: any of the planners or leaders of the riot to

143
00:09:14,000 --> 00:09:17,120
Speaker 1: go into the Capitol building that day. Of course, you

144
00:09:17,120 --> 00:09:19,800
Speaker 1: can argue he didn't have to. He had other means

145
00:09:19,840 --> 00:09:23,360
Speaker 1: at his disposal. And that's where the the subtlety of

146
00:09:23,400 --> 00:09:27,040
Speaker 1: the guy comes into play makes it very difficult. People

147
00:09:27,080 --> 00:09:32,320
Speaker 1: keep pointing to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding as

148
00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:35,960
Speaker 1: being the easiest to charge, were the most likely. You

149
00:09:36,000 --> 00:09:39,360
Speaker 1: think there isn't any evidence of conspiracy. No, I think

150
00:09:39,360 --> 00:09:41,800
Speaker 1: there is. I think you know, you've got to define

151
00:09:41,960 --> 00:09:46,000
Speaker 1: what conspiracy you're talking about. I think it's pretty clear

152
00:09:46,040 --> 00:09:49,640
Speaker 1: there was a conspiracy within the White House with Eastman

153
00:09:50,080 --> 00:09:54,079
Speaker 1: and all these so called legal intellectuals that he surrounded

154
00:09:54,160 --> 00:09:58,600
Speaker 1: himself with, Clark in the Justice Department. All these people

155
00:09:58,640 --> 00:10:01,800
Speaker 1: came up with these crazy theory areas that are blatantly

156
00:10:01,840 --> 00:10:07,560
Speaker 1: illegal and unconstitutional to satisfy and serve him, and then

157
00:10:07,600 --> 00:10:11,080
Speaker 1: they tried to enact them. That's a conspiracy. That was

158
00:10:11,120 --> 00:10:14,520
Speaker 1: a plan that was hatched and steps were taken towards it,

159
00:10:15,160 --> 00:10:18,440
Speaker 1: and that's the definition of a conspiracy. Conspiracy doesn't have

160
00:10:18,559 --> 00:10:22,800
Speaker 1: to succeed legally to be charged with conspiracy. You just

161
00:10:22,880 --> 00:10:26,520
Speaker 1: have to agree to an unlawful end and then take

162
00:10:26,720 --> 00:10:30,880
Speaker 1: some steps towards that end. But that's not the conspiracy

163
00:10:30,920 --> 00:10:35,120
Speaker 1: that excites people. I mean, it's a conspiracy on paper.

164
00:10:35,200 --> 00:10:38,800
Speaker 1: It may technically be a crime, and as I think

165
00:10:38,800 --> 00:10:41,600
Speaker 1: I've said before, it it's not one that has a

166
00:10:41,640 --> 00:10:44,680
Speaker 1: great deal of jury appealed because it's it's a bunch

167
00:10:44,800 --> 00:10:48,560
Speaker 1: of half cocked intellectuals sitting around, Gee, what can we

168
00:10:48,600 --> 00:10:51,880
Speaker 1: do to keep this guy in power? Not that exciting.

169
00:10:51,960 --> 00:10:56,040
Speaker 1: It maybe a crime technically. The bigger conspiracy is the

170
00:10:56,040 --> 00:10:59,440
Speaker 1: one that involves against storming the capital. When you reach

171
00:10:59,559 --> 00:11:05,400
Speaker 1: the point where you're taking steps under a conspiracy theory,

172
00:11:05,480 --> 00:11:09,480
Speaker 1: under an agreement. Again, if Trump had taken steps based

173
00:11:09,520 --> 00:11:12,200
Speaker 1: on an agreement with Proud Boys and those folks to

174
00:11:12,360 --> 00:11:16,040
Speaker 1: get together, get all excited and worked up over the speech,

175
00:11:16,720 --> 00:11:19,800
Speaker 1: get their troops in formation, and then storm the Capitol

176
00:11:20,000 --> 00:11:24,760
Speaker 1: and and go to routs, abc D, Nancy Pelosi's office,

177
00:11:24,840 --> 00:11:27,599
Speaker 1: and so on and so forth. Now that's a conspiracy

178
00:11:27,720 --> 00:11:33,000
Speaker 1: worth getting excited about. Also patently illegal, and more importantly,

179
00:11:34,120 --> 00:11:38,200
Speaker 1: is dangerous to the country and the constitution, a very

180
00:11:38,320 --> 00:11:42,800
Speaker 1: very serious crime that would be a great centerpiece for

181
00:11:42,840 --> 00:11:47,600
Speaker 1: a criminal case. But unfortunately, again there is no evidence

182
00:11:47,640 --> 00:11:51,200
Speaker 1: so far that Trump ever agreed with the leaders of

183
00:11:51,320 --> 00:11:56,600
Speaker 1: Proud Boys, or Roger Stone or any of those intermediaries

184
00:11:56,600 --> 00:12:00,640
Speaker 1: he had working for him, never agree ead with any

185
00:12:00,679 --> 00:12:04,120
Speaker 1: of those folks to do that. Again, he stood back,

186
00:12:04,320 --> 00:12:09,319
Speaker 1: He made oblique references. He incited them with phrases it's

187
00:12:09,360 --> 00:12:12,840
Speaker 1: going to be wild, you know, stand back and stand by.

188
00:12:13,200 --> 00:12:17,560
Speaker 1: Those are signaled to the cognizanti in these groups which

189
00:12:17,600 --> 00:12:20,880
Speaker 1: are hanging on his every word. But there's no agreement

190
00:12:21,160 --> 00:12:24,400
Speaker 1: based on those kinds of statements that you could prove

191
00:12:24,960 --> 00:12:28,960
Speaker 1: to actually lead an insurrection and take over the Capitol building.

192
00:12:29,600 --> 00:12:32,560
Speaker 1: So the way I would summarize it, there is a

193
00:12:32,640 --> 00:12:37,640
Speaker 1: legal case which is rather dry and rather I wouldn't

194
00:12:37,679 --> 00:12:41,439
Speaker 1: say it's not worthy of consideration because it's plainly contemplates

195
00:12:41,440 --> 00:12:44,880
Speaker 1: the illegal action. But it was an idea that was

196
00:12:45,720 --> 00:12:50,440
Speaker 1: you know, tried on for size and ultimately not carried out.

197
00:12:51,160 --> 00:12:55,400
Speaker 1: And that that's criminal because again, a conspiracy doesn't require

198
00:12:56,280 --> 00:12:59,080
Speaker 1: many more than a few steps. But not a very

199
00:12:59,160 --> 00:13:03,480
Speaker 1: interesting case for a jury, and one that you can

200
00:13:03,800 --> 00:13:08,280
Speaker 1: genuinely doubt should be the subject of a prosecution involving

201
00:13:08,280 --> 00:13:11,960
Speaker 1: a former president. I think that's troubling Garland. On the

202
00:13:12,000 --> 00:13:17,800
Speaker 1: other hand, you've got this outrageous riot which caused loss

203
00:13:17,800 --> 00:13:20,720
Speaker 1: of life and very nearly shut down the government and

204
00:13:20,880 --> 00:13:24,960
Speaker 1: overthrew our constitutional processes. But there you don't have a

205
00:13:25,000 --> 00:13:27,720
Speaker 1: link to Trump. You don't have Trump as a member

206
00:13:27,960 --> 00:13:33,560
Speaker 1: of that conspiracy. It involves other people so far, so

207
00:13:33,840 --> 00:13:36,080
Speaker 1: you know, pick your poison. So I think these are

208
00:13:36,080 --> 00:13:38,960
Speaker 1: the kinds of questions that may be troubling the attorney channel.

209
00:13:39,040 --> 00:13:41,600
Speaker 1: He's got a lot on his plate and these are very,

210
00:13:41,679 --> 00:13:46,080
Speaker 1: very difficult questions. Do you think that in order to

211
00:13:46,240 --> 00:13:49,160
Speaker 1: pursue a case, in order to prosecute the a G

212
00:13:49,360 --> 00:13:52,800
Speaker 1: would want a witness from the inner circle to flip

213
00:13:52,800 --> 00:13:55,440
Speaker 1: a witness from the inner circle. And then the question

214
00:13:55,559 --> 00:14:00,160
Speaker 1: is is their attorney client privilege? Is their executive privilege? No,

215
00:14:00,320 --> 00:14:02,640
Speaker 1: I don't think any of those privilege claims hold water.

216
00:14:02,679 --> 00:14:07,560
Speaker 1: And right now these claims have some traction because the

217
00:14:07,679 --> 00:14:11,680
Speaker 1: January six Committee really doesn't have the power to force

218
00:14:11,760 --> 00:14:15,679
Speaker 1: people to testify in the face of an assertion of privileges.

219
00:14:15,880 --> 00:14:19,000
Speaker 1: They do, but it takes forever and their time is limited.

220
00:14:19,000 --> 00:14:21,360
Speaker 1: They've got to move forward. Have these hearings right, or

221
00:14:21,360 --> 00:14:24,480
Speaker 1: report they don't have time to dawdle with these individual

222
00:14:24,640 --> 00:14:28,760
Speaker 1: assertions of privilege. The Justice Department, though, could you know,

223
00:14:28,840 --> 00:14:33,160
Speaker 1: there's something called the crime fraud exception, which states, and

224
00:14:33,240 --> 00:14:39,080
Speaker 1: it's well established that even attorney client communications in furtherance

225
00:14:39,160 --> 00:14:44,720
Speaker 1: of a crime or a fraud are not protected because

226
00:14:44,840 --> 00:14:50,280
Speaker 1: essentially you're trying to cloak criminal statements and criminal conversations

227
00:14:50,320 --> 00:14:52,840
Speaker 1: and furtherance of a crime, and that shouldn't be allowed.

228
00:14:53,360 --> 00:14:56,520
Speaker 1: But that requires a showing. You have to go into court,

229
00:14:56,720 --> 00:15:00,240
Speaker 1: someone asserts the privilege, you move to compel comply ends

230
00:15:00,280 --> 00:15:02,720
Speaker 1: with the subpoena, and you try to tell the judge

231
00:15:03,000 --> 00:15:07,040
Speaker 1: the reason why the subpoena should be enforced notwithstanding the

232
00:15:07,080 --> 00:15:11,240
Speaker 1: claims of privilege, is we believe these communications were in

233
00:15:11,360 --> 00:15:14,760
Speaker 1: further into a crime. See the following. You've got to

234
00:15:14,760 --> 00:15:18,840
Speaker 1: cite transcripts and documents. You have to have evidence, and

235
00:15:18,880 --> 00:15:22,800
Speaker 1: they have the manpower and the expertise and the powers

236
00:15:22,880 --> 00:15:27,040
Speaker 1: under the law to enforce decisions of that kind. So far,

237
00:15:27,040 --> 00:15:28,600
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm not aware of any case in

238
00:15:28,600 --> 00:15:31,640
Speaker 1: which they've done that, which sort of tells you that

239
00:15:32,040 --> 00:15:35,240
Speaker 1: they're probably not as far along as one would like.

240
00:15:35,640 --> 00:15:38,440
Speaker 1: I mean, these are These are again high level decisions.

241
00:15:38,560 --> 00:15:43,200
Speaker 1: They require a good deal of legal sophistication. You've got

242
00:15:43,200 --> 00:15:47,240
Speaker 1: to pick your battles carefully. I mean, someone like Roger Stone,

243
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:52,200
Speaker 1: for example, or General Flynn or Mark Meadows could be

244
00:15:53,000 --> 00:15:57,480
Speaker 1: vulnerable in these terms under the crime of fraud exception,

245
00:15:57,600 --> 00:16:01,280
Speaker 1: and undoubtedly these people Meadows. It's pretty obvious from the

246
00:16:01,520 --> 00:16:05,760
Speaker 1: hearing so far. These people obviously have important evidence against

247
00:16:05,760 --> 00:16:08,880
Speaker 1: Trump and could provide that link that we've been talking

248
00:16:08,920 --> 00:16:13,320
Speaker 1: about with the violent conspirators trying to attack the capital.

249
00:16:13,560 --> 00:16:15,840
Speaker 1: But you'd have to go into court with a careful

250
00:16:15,880 --> 00:16:19,120
Speaker 1: plan and write the briefs and persuaded judge, and then

251
00:16:19,120 --> 00:16:21,760
Speaker 1: there's an appeal. You get the idea. So far, that

252
00:16:21,760 --> 00:16:24,560
Speaker 1: work hasn't been done, and that's a little troubling to

253
00:16:24,640 --> 00:16:27,360
Speaker 1: people who think the Justice Department should be on the

254
00:16:27,440 --> 00:16:30,240
Speaker 1: verge of indicting after all this period of time. It

255
00:16:30,240 --> 00:16:32,720
Speaker 1: doesn't look that way, but it would. It would have

256
00:16:32,800 --> 00:16:34,600
Speaker 1: to be done to have the kind of case that

257
00:16:34,680 --> 00:16:39,360
Speaker 1: you're talking about June, where you have inside testimony linking

258
00:16:39,400 --> 00:16:43,280
Speaker 1: the president to some of these outrageous actions at the

259
00:16:43,360 --> 00:16:47,640
Speaker 1: Capitol that day. Trump is obviously going to run for

260
00:16:47,720 --> 00:16:51,120
Speaker 1: president again. He's the current front runner for the Republican nomination,

261
00:16:51,720 --> 00:16:56,800
Speaker 1: Will that in any way insulate him from prosecution if

262
00:16:56,800 --> 00:16:59,400
Speaker 1: he runs for office. No, it shouldn't. It has no,

263
00:17:00,400 --> 00:17:03,040
Speaker 1: it has no legal bearing. You know, there is a

264
00:17:03,120 --> 00:17:06,960
Speaker 1: sort of policy of the Justice Department that you've probably

265
00:17:07,000 --> 00:17:11,520
Speaker 1: read about in prior contexts that says you shouldn't conduct

266
00:17:11,520 --> 00:17:16,199
Speaker 1: a political prosecution close to election season. But this has

267
00:17:16,240 --> 00:17:21,159
Speaker 1: been brewing since the last election, Right, it's time to

268
00:17:21,200 --> 00:17:24,200
Speaker 1: bring this to ahead. Those policies are really just rules

269
00:17:24,280 --> 00:17:27,080
Speaker 1: of thumb there for internal guidance. They don't have the

270
00:17:27,119 --> 00:17:31,440
Speaker 1: force of law. Someone marked Meadows, for example, couldn't go

271
00:17:31,480 --> 00:17:33,800
Speaker 1: to court and say, hey, you can't indict me because

272
00:17:33,800 --> 00:17:36,479
Speaker 1: it's too close to an election season. It's not how

273
00:17:36,520 --> 00:17:40,280
Speaker 1: it works. It's just a policy he meant to guide

274
00:17:41,080 --> 00:17:44,640
Speaker 1: practice within the Justice Department, and and in certain cases

275
00:17:44,720 --> 00:17:50,280
Speaker 1: that policy can be um overturned or not followed, and

276
00:17:50,320 --> 00:17:52,600
Speaker 1: that would probably be the case is here. No, there's

277
00:17:52,640 --> 00:17:56,399
Speaker 1: no legal impediment at all to proceeding with a case

278
00:17:56,440 --> 00:18:01,240
Speaker 1: against a former and would be press in the United States.

279
00:18:01,760 --> 00:18:04,000
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for being on the show, Kevin. That's

280
00:18:04,040 --> 00:18:08,879
Speaker 1: former federal prosecutor Kevin O'Brien. Partner with Ford O'Brien Landy.

281
00:18:10,480 --> 00:18:14,439
Speaker 1: Immigrants are increasingly turning to the courts for solutions because

282
00:18:14,440 --> 00:18:18,080
Speaker 1: of protracted weight times for benefits like work permits and

283
00:18:18,119 --> 00:18:23,440
Speaker 1: travel authorization. The number of immigration related lawsuits over administrative

284
00:18:23,480 --> 00:18:27,240
Speaker 1: delays filed as rits of men dames has spiked in

285
00:18:27,280 --> 00:18:30,680
Speaker 1: the past two years. Plaintiffs are projected to file more

286
00:18:30,720 --> 00:18:33,720
Speaker 1: than six thousand, two hundred such cases by the end

287
00:18:33,720 --> 00:18:38,160
Speaker 1: of this year, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse.

288
00:18:38,520 --> 00:18:41,919
Speaker 1: Joining me is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner

289
00:18:41,920 --> 00:18:45,320
Speaker 1: at Hollanden Night Leon what are some of the complaints

290
00:18:45,359 --> 00:18:48,920
Speaker 1: being raised in these lawsuits? The lasses that are being

291
00:18:48,960 --> 00:18:51,920
Speaker 1: filed are based on a number of factors. Yes, they

292
00:18:51,960 --> 00:18:55,560
Speaker 1: are being filed mostly because of delays in the agency,

293
00:18:55,640 --> 00:18:57,920
Speaker 1: and mostly because of the delays and the issue with

294
00:18:58,040 --> 00:19:02,040
Speaker 1: the green card applications. But really they're being filed because

295
00:19:02,040 --> 00:19:05,639
Speaker 1: there's delays all over the system. There's delays and the

296
00:19:05,680 --> 00:19:09,240
Speaker 1: issuances of work permits, there's delays in the issuances of

297
00:19:09,320 --> 00:19:13,680
Speaker 1: travel permits, there's delays in the issuances emotions to reopen,

298
00:19:14,040 --> 00:19:17,080
Speaker 1: there's delays in the issuances of green cards. There's delays

299
00:19:17,119 --> 00:19:20,200
Speaker 1: in the issuances of visas abroad by the state's department,

300
00:19:20,440 --> 00:19:23,000
Speaker 1: and so all of this is leading to a record

301
00:19:23,040 --> 00:19:27,200
Speaker 1: amount of litigation. Plus there's also people doing for review

302
00:19:27,320 --> 00:19:32,080
Speaker 1: of denials of cases because the adjudicatory framework is still

303
00:19:32,080 --> 00:19:34,840
Speaker 1: pretty much the one put in place by the Trump administration,

304
00:19:34,880 --> 00:19:38,399
Speaker 1: where the scrutiny being requested in any given case is

305
00:19:38,480 --> 00:19:41,399
Speaker 1: much much higher than it has previously been under the

306
00:19:41,400 --> 00:19:45,720
Speaker 1: Obama administration. That scrutiny hasn't changed under the Biden administration,

307
00:19:45,800 --> 00:19:47,960
Speaker 1: and so there are still many cases that are being

308
00:19:48,000 --> 00:19:51,239
Speaker 1: denied that shouldn't have been denied, and so all of

309
00:19:51,240 --> 00:19:54,399
Speaker 1: that is leading to this record number of litigation that

310
00:19:54,520 --> 00:19:57,480
Speaker 1: you're seeing in the federal court. I don't ever remember

311
00:19:57,480 --> 00:20:00,240
Speaker 1: a time when people weren't complaining about the delay is

312
00:20:00,480 --> 00:20:05,480
Speaker 1: in processing, you know, immigration related requests. Is this much

313
00:20:05,520 --> 00:20:09,000
Speaker 1: worse than it was? And if so, why I would

314
00:20:09,000 --> 00:20:11,359
Speaker 1: say that the answer to that question is yes, it

315
00:20:11,520 --> 00:20:15,840
Speaker 1: is materially worse than it was. And it's basically a

316
00:20:16,000 --> 00:20:18,199
Speaker 1: case of you don't know what you have until you

317
00:20:18,240 --> 00:20:21,280
Speaker 1: don't have it. So people, it is correct j to say,

318
00:20:21,320 --> 00:20:24,280
Speaker 1: have always complained that the immigration system is too slow

319
00:20:25,040 --> 00:20:29,399
Speaker 1: but they were complaining back then on a state of

320
00:20:29,440 --> 00:20:32,640
Speaker 1: affairs where for a work permit it took three months

321
00:20:33,160 --> 00:20:36,160
Speaker 1: and for a green card it took a year. Now

322
00:20:36,240 --> 00:20:38,920
Speaker 1: we have for a work permit it takes nine months

323
00:20:38,960 --> 00:20:41,879
Speaker 1: and for a green card it takes up to three years.

324
00:20:42,000 --> 00:20:46,560
Speaker 1: And so because of that delay, that is materially worse.

325
00:20:46,640 --> 00:20:49,199
Speaker 1: And the problem is we're now a year and a

326
00:20:49,200 --> 00:20:53,280
Speaker 1: half into the Biden administration, so it's hard to say, oh, well,

327
00:20:53,320 --> 00:20:56,840
Speaker 1: we've been felt this terrible hands. Yes, that may be true,

328
00:20:57,400 --> 00:20:59,720
Speaker 1: but a year and a half end at this point,

329
00:21:00,160 --> 00:21:03,040
Speaker 1: one would have hoped that the delays we're starting to

330
00:21:03,119 --> 00:21:06,480
Speaker 1: peek on a downward scale, and we're not really seeing that.

331
00:21:07,240 --> 00:21:12,120
Speaker 1: The American Immigration Lawyers Association has encouraged members to bring

332
00:21:12,200 --> 00:21:16,879
Speaker 1: man dam as actions when their clients encounter excessive delays.

333
00:21:17,480 --> 00:21:21,320
Speaker 1: Doesn't that cause more delays by having another action and

334
00:21:21,400 --> 00:21:25,280
Speaker 1: having to have government attorneys fight that. Well. The problem

335
00:21:25,440 --> 00:21:30,040
Speaker 1: is if every single person who has an application files

336
00:21:30,160 --> 00:21:33,760
Speaker 1: also a man Damous application, then you're just recreating the

337
00:21:33,840 --> 00:21:37,240
Speaker 1: same line again. So there's no doubt about that. But

338
00:21:38,000 --> 00:21:41,600
Speaker 1: the idea is that by filing the man Damous litigation,

339
00:21:41,720 --> 00:21:46,600
Speaker 1: what you're essentially doing is you are saying, hey, remember me,

340
00:21:46,880 --> 00:21:51,520
Speaker 1: I exist, And when that happens, then the immigration authorities

341
00:21:51,560 --> 00:21:55,200
Speaker 1: get around the deciding your case because otherwise they didn't

342
00:21:55,200 --> 00:21:58,520
Speaker 1: remember necessarily that you existed. So if the delay is

343
00:21:58,560 --> 00:22:01,960
Speaker 1: truly long, it is not a bad strategy to file

344
00:22:02,000 --> 00:22:06,000
Speaker 1: a mandamus kate. But if everybody files a man davious case,

345
00:22:06,080 --> 00:22:08,840
Speaker 1: then you do have the same problem of sort of

346
00:22:08,840 --> 00:22:13,960
Speaker 1: a tragedy of the common situation where everybody recreates the

347
00:22:14,000 --> 00:22:17,440
Speaker 1: same backlog, and now you have even worse backlog because

348
00:22:17,480 --> 00:22:19,960
Speaker 1: the agency is not only dealing with the backlog but

349
00:22:20,080 --> 00:22:22,719
Speaker 1: all of the lawsuits. But we're not seeing it at

350
00:22:22,760 --> 00:22:26,720
Speaker 1: that level obviously, because we're seeing something along the order

351
00:22:26,760 --> 00:22:29,960
Speaker 1: of six or seven thousand man Damous cases as opposed

352
00:22:30,000 --> 00:22:33,399
Speaker 1: to millions of applications that are in the backlog. So

353
00:22:33,800 --> 00:22:37,760
Speaker 1: it's not really a problem that would actually exist that

354
00:22:37,880 --> 00:22:40,760
Speaker 1: everybody in the backlog would be filing a man Damous case.

355
00:22:41,480 --> 00:22:43,760
Speaker 1: Do you get a more favorable outcome if you file

356
00:22:43,800 --> 00:22:47,399
Speaker 1: a mandamus case? So this is an interesting question. A

357
00:22:47,440 --> 00:22:49,879
Speaker 1: lot of people, when you discussed this, are very afraid

358
00:22:49,960 --> 00:22:52,720
Speaker 1: to sue the government because they think that the government

359
00:22:52,840 --> 00:22:56,520
Speaker 1: will retaliate against them and say, well, if you suit me,

360
00:22:56,560 --> 00:22:58,879
Speaker 1: I'm going to just deny your case because I'm upset.

361
00:22:59,280 --> 00:23:02,200
Speaker 1: But that actually it doesn't happen in practice and practice,

362
00:23:02,680 --> 00:23:05,119
Speaker 1: what will happen is if you truly have a case

363
00:23:05,200 --> 00:23:09,040
Speaker 1: that's delayed and you file a mandamus case, the government

364
00:23:09,080 --> 00:23:11,080
Speaker 1: will usually try to work with you to each of

365
00:23:11,200 --> 00:23:16,160
Speaker 1: you a decision, and that decision, I would say, undred

366
00:23:16,240 --> 00:23:20,360
Speaker 1: times is the exact decisions that would have been issued anyway.

367
00:23:20,400 --> 00:23:23,440
Speaker 1: I'm not personally known of a case of retaliation that's

368
00:23:23,480 --> 00:23:26,920
Speaker 1: happened because of amenda damous case, and so I wouldn't

369
00:23:26,960 --> 00:23:31,000
Speaker 1: fear filing it because of a fear of retaliation. So

370
00:23:31,080 --> 00:23:35,359
Speaker 1: has the agency taken some actions to resolve these backlogs, Well,

371
00:23:35,520 --> 00:23:38,480
Speaker 1: they have done as many things as they can figure

372
00:23:38,520 --> 00:23:40,760
Speaker 1: out to do at the moment. And so what they've

373
00:23:40,800 --> 00:23:44,360
Speaker 1: done is for work permit renewals, they've tried to make

374
00:23:44,400 --> 00:23:48,520
Speaker 1: those longer so that people have to do less renewals

375
00:23:48,520 --> 00:23:51,280
Speaker 1: than the future. And that's a good thing, but that

376
00:23:51,400 --> 00:23:53,800
Speaker 1: sort of needs to cycle through the system. So they

377
00:23:53,800 --> 00:23:57,120
Speaker 1: have to grant all of these applications with longer renewal

378
00:23:57,359 --> 00:24:00,160
Speaker 1: before they can reach the benefit of having that at

379
00:24:00,280 --> 00:24:03,480
Speaker 1: so that's the first problem. They fan it in some

380
00:24:03,640 --> 00:24:07,199
Speaker 1: of these green card marriage cases that are take up

381
00:24:07,200 --> 00:24:10,520
Speaker 1: a lot of their ties to extend the period of

382
00:24:10,560 --> 00:24:14,240
Speaker 1: time whereby someone has a green card while they're waiting

383
00:24:14,400 --> 00:24:18,080
Speaker 1: for their final permanent green cards to be issued. So

384
00:24:18,119 --> 00:24:21,520
Speaker 1: they're doing things on the margins to lessen their case.

385
00:24:21,880 --> 00:24:25,720
Speaker 1: But the problem is as an agency, they're also dealing

386
00:24:25,800 --> 00:24:30,399
Speaker 1: with record numbers of asylum cases and record numbers of

387
00:24:30,840 --> 00:24:34,080
Speaker 1: cases where people are trying to fill gaps in the

388
00:24:34,119 --> 00:24:37,720
Speaker 1: fact that they can't find American workers. And so really

389
00:24:37,760 --> 00:24:40,960
Speaker 1: what's happening is they're not getting anywhere because even if

390
00:24:41,000 --> 00:24:45,359
Speaker 1: they can trim down a number of cases, they're still

391
00:24:45,440 --> 00:24:49,280
Speaker 1: having to get excess cases from all kinds of other sources,

392
00:24:49,359 --> 00:24:52,560
Speaker 1: and so they're not really making a dent in their

393
00:24:52,600 --> 00:24:56,240
Speaker 1: overall workload. That was interesting. So why do green card

394
00:24:56,600 --> 00:25:00,760
Speaker 1: marriage cases take up so much time? Well, because in

395
00:25:00,760 --> 00:25:04,199
Speaker 1: the marriage context, it's not like a normal green card application.

396
00:25:04,320 --> 00:25:07,320
Speaker 1: When you marry a US citizen, there's a two year

397
00:25:07,440 --> 00:25:11,399
Speaker 1: conditional green card you get first, and then you have

398
00:25:11,480 --> 00:25:13,720
Speaker 1: to come back after two years and prove you see,

399
00:25:13,760 --> 00:25:16,280
Speaker 1: this wasn't a fraudulent marriage. We're still in a real

400
00:25:16,320 --> 00:25:19,719
Speaker 1: marriage and only then you get your permanent green card,

401
00:25:20,119 --> 00:25:22,920
Speaker 1: and so you've got to basically recreate the process why

402
00:25:23,800 --> 00:25:28,000
Speaker 1: and typically that green card was only good when you

403
00:25:28,119 --> 00:25:32,720
Speaker 1: filed that recreation process for a year extensive and so

404
00:25:32,800 --> 00:25:36,800
Speaker 1: that created work because if the agency didn't grant the

405
00:25:36,840 --> 00:25:39,679
Speaker 1: new green card within a year, then you'd have to

406
00:25:39,720 --> 00:25:43,560
Speaker 1: file for another one, etcetera. So now they've extended the

407
00:25:43,600 --> 00:25:47,320
Speaker 1: period that they have to decide that by extending how good,

408
00:25:47,480 --> 00:25:50,639
Speaker 1: how valid the green card is while they're waiting, but

409
00:25:50,720 --> 00:25:54,200
Speaker 1: they actually haven't gotten to the next step of adjudicating

410
00:25:54,240 --> 00:25:57,480
Speaker 1: the second stepani past Or. In fact, it's the slowest

411
00:25:57,520 --> 00:26:00,280
Speaker 1: it's ever been. But this is an example there trying

412
00:26:00,280 --> 00:26:03,000
Speaker 1: to build in these cases where they don't there will

413
00:26:03,040 --> 00:26:06,359
Speaker 1: be renewals necessary. They're trying to build it so that

414
00:26:06,440 --> 00:26:10,600
Speaker 1: they don't need to do renewals because they said the

415
00:26:10,680 --> 00:26:14,080
Speaker 1: validity of the first benefits that you get, whatever that is,

416
00:26:14,080 --> 00:26:16,920
Speaker 1: whether it's a Greek Card or a work permit. So

417
00:26:16,920 --> 00:26:19,080
Speaker 1: I want to turn to a couple of other immigration

418
00:26:19,600 --> 00:26:25,120
Speaker 1: related issues. The DOCTA case before the Federal Appeals Court

419
00:26:25,160 --> 00:26:30,280
Speaker 1: in New Orleans. What is the issue there? It's in

420
00:26:30,320 --> 00:26:34,320
Speaker 1: a very strange posture right now, because the real debate

421
00:26:34,480 --> 00:26:37,480
Speaker 1: that was sucking up sort of all of the energy

422
00:26:37,520 --> 00:26:40,199
Speaker 1: and the oral argument had to do with standing, and

423
00:26:40,320 --> 00:26:43,440
Speaker 1: that is that originally the State of Texas, when it

424
00:26:43,560 --> 00:26:46,640
Speaker 1: was challenging all of these DOCTA and DAPPA laws, had

425
00:26:46,680 --> 00:26:48,640
Speaker 1: said that the problem was that they had to give

426
00:26:48,720 --> 00:26:53,520
Speaker 1: drivers licenses to people who had deferred action and that

427
00:26:53,640 --> 00:26:56,919
Speaker 1: that ended up costing the money. But they didn't end

428
00:26:57,000 --> 00:26:59,600
Speaker 1: up pursuing this argument. This is not the argument they

429
00:26:59,680 --> 00:27:03,520
Speaker 1: used are standing now now they use arguments related to

430
00:27:03,640 --> 00:27:09,280
Speaker 1: sort of economic population analysis, but basically just saying that literally,

431
00:27:09,320 --> 00:27:12,160
Speaker 1: the more human beings they have in Texas, the more

432
00:27:12,280 --> 00:27:15,879
Speaker 1: it caused Texas. And because of the sort of debulous

433
00:27:16,000 --> 00:27:19,280
Speaker 1: economic analysis, it leads it up some more of a

434
00:27:19,359 --> 00:27:22,560
Speaker 1: debate about whether that's true, whether that actually is a

435
00:27:22,680 --> 00:27:28,159
Speaker 1: concrete and specific harm that gives state effectives standing to sue.

436
00:27:28,680 --> 00:27:31,320
Speaker 1: And so there were debates between the State of Texas

437
00:27:31,359 --> 00:27:35,399
Speaker 1: and the Department of Justice and the intervening parties who

438
00:27:35,480 --> 00:27:37,800
Speaker 1: were the states who are kind of the more liberal

439
00:27:37,840 --> 00:27:42,320
Speaker 1: states and also mild that the Immigrants Rights Organization. All

440
00:27:42,359 --> 00:27:44,439
Speaker 1: of these folks got to speak in the oral argument,

441
00:27:44,480 --> 00:27:47,720
Speaker 1: and we're all making arguments regarding this issue of whether

442
00:27:47,840 --> 00:27:52,240
Speaker 1: Texas had actually shown concrete heart. There was also another

443
00:27:52,320 --> 00:27:56,200
Speaker 1: discussion in the argument about whether even if the government

444
00:27:56,400 --> 00:28:01,440
Speaker 1: could differ someone's deportation, well, could they do the next

445
00:28:01,440 --> 00:28:04,879
Speaker 1: step and give them a work permit? And here the

446
00:28:04,920 --> 00:28:09,199
Speaker 1: Department of Justice was actually not so strongly willing to

447
00:28:09,320 --> 00:28:13,159
Speaker 1: defend the second concept that a work permit was permissible

448
00:28:13,200 --> 00:28:17,400
Speaker 1: to give the people who previously didn't have any immigration status.

449
00:28:17,480 --> 00:28:20,840
Speaker 1: And so I wonder where that's going to lead in

450
00:28:20,960 --> 00:28:23,280
Speaker 1: terms of a future argument in the Supreme Court. But

451
00:28:23,359 --> 00:28:26,560
Speaker 1: for now, what everybody's just looking at is whether the

452
00:28:26,600 --> 00:28:31,080
Speaker 1: case will be remanded great trial on the issue of standing,

453
00:28:31,520 --> 00:28:34,040
Speaker 1: or whether the case will be allowed to proceed to

454
00:28:34,160 --> 00:28:37,240
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. So it's going to the Supreme Court

455
00:28:38,200 --> 00:28:42,720
Speaker 1: any which way. Eventually it will, but there may need

456
00:28:42,760 --> 00:28:46,320
Speaker 1: to be a trial about whether the jury actually thinks

457
00:28:46,360 --> 00:28:49,320
Speaker 1: to stay. The Texas is armed by having sort of

458
00:28:49,360 --> 00:28:53,440
Speaker 1: an increased population of Baku people in the state, because

459
00:28:53,480 --> 00:28:55,720
Speaker 1: one could say, hey, you know, depending on how you

460
00:28:55,760 --> 00:28:59,760
Speaker 1: do this economic analysis, more people has always led some

461
00:28:59,800 --> 00:29:03,560
Speaker 1: more d DP. That's just a a rule. People equals

462
00:29:03,640 --> 00:29:07,200
Speaker 1: higher GDP, it may not equal higher per capitative DDP,

463
00:29:07,640 --> 00:29:09,600
Speaker 1: But the question is, okay, so the government's going to

464
00:29:09,680 --> 00:29:13,959
Speaker 1: get certain revenue increases by having more DDP, but it's

465
00:29:14,000 --> 00:29:16,560
Speaker 1: not going to be offset by certain expenses that they have,

466
00:29:17,400 --> 00:29:21,000
Speaker 1: and it's unclear whether Texas actually met its burden here.

467
00:29:21,240 --> 00:29:26,760
Speaker 1: The next immigration issue is in Texas, where there seems

468
00:29:26,760 --> 00:29:30,720
Speaker 1: to be an escalation with Texas Governor Greg Abbott. He's

469
00:29:30,800 --> 00:29:36,800
Speaker 1: authorizing state officials and National guardsmen to arrest migrants who

470
00:29:37,000 --> 00:29:41,120
Speaker 1: enter the US unlawfully and transport them to federal ports

471
00:29:41,120 --> 00:29:45,200
Speaker 1: of entry along the border with Mexico. Is he allowed

472
00:29:45,240 --> 00:29:49,480
Speaker 1: to do that? Well, the first step is what's the

473
00:29:49,600 --> 00:29:52,280
Speaker 1: actually doing, So that's the first step that needs to

474
00:29:52,280 --> 00:29:56,640
Speaker 1: be determined. He's obviously not allowed to pay a human

475
00:29:56,720 --> 00:30:00,479
Speaker 1: body and move it into the country of Mexico. And

476
00:30:00,520 --> 00:30:02,640
Speaker 1: I don't think the State of Texas is claiming that

477
00:30:02,680 --> 00:30:06,760
Speaker 1: they're doing that. They're just claiming that they're basically pushing

478
00:30:06,840 --> 00:30:10,840
Speaker 1: the person back to the point A of entry so

479
00:30:10,880 --> 00:30:13,000
Speaker 1: that it makes them harder for them to get the

480
00:30:13,080 --> 00:30:16,120
Speaker 1: point B of wherever they were trying to go when

481
00:30:16,120 --> 00:30:19,760
Speaker 1: they entered into America visa v. Point a. So the

482
00:30:19,800 --> 00:30:24,480
Speaker 1: goal is just the sort of sifle the ability for

483
00:30:24,520 --> 00:30:27,600
Speaker 1: people to make it to wherever they're trying to make

484
00:30:27,640 --> 00:30:29,400
Speaker 1: it suit to sort of adds to the costs an

485
00:30:29,440 --> 00:30:34,000
Speaker 1: inconvenient um doing this so that people might be deterred

486
00:30:34,040 --> 00:30:36,560
Speaker 1: from coming into the United States, I don't know how

487
00:30:36,600 --> 00:30:39,120
Speaker 1: effective that's going to be. But then the second issue

488
00:30:39,240 --> 00:30:44,120
Speaker 1: that gets analyzed is when any government entity, federal, state,

489
00:30:44,280 --> 00:30:48,000
Speaker 1: or local, is taking custody of a human body against

490
00:30:48,000 --> 00:30:51,360
Speaker 1: that person's will and doing something to it, whether it's

491
00:30:51,400 --> 00:30:54,520
Speaker 1: putting it on a bus or whether it's detaining that

492
00:30:54,720 --> 00:30:58,440
Speaker 1: person or whatever it's doing, the question is what authority

493
00:30:58,560 --> 00:31:01,400
Speaker 1: is that acting under in order to do that, And

494
00:31:01,480 --> 00:31:04,880
Speaker 1: so you'd have to show that the person is breaking

495
00:31:04,960 --> 00:31:09,120
Speaker 1: some laws that allowing the State of Texas to do this,

496
00:31:09,200 --> 00:31:12,240
Speaker 1: And I don't know what law the State of Texas

497
00:31:12,480 --> 00:31:15,520
Speaker 1: is going to say is being broken, especially in cases

498
00:31:15,800 --> 00:31:19,760
Speaker 1: where the person has already been processed by the border patrols,

499
00:31:20,120 --> 00:31:22,680
Speaker 1: as opposed to a case where maybe Texas caught the

500
00:31:22,720 --> 00:31:25,280
Speaker 1: person but they never made it to the attention of

501
00:31:25,280 --> 00:31:30,000
Speaker 1: the border patrol. So along those lines, I don't see

502
00:31:30,040 --> 00:31:32,880
Speaker 1: how there's a case that Texas can make that they

503
00:31:32,920 --> 00:31:37,040
Speaker 1: have lawful authority to detain a human being and put

504
00:31:37,080 --> 00:31:39,720
Speaker 1: them on a bus against their will and take them

505
00:31:39,760 --> 00:31:41,960
Speaker 1: to a location they don't want to be taken to.

506
00:31:42,160 --> 00:31:44,400
Speaker 1: I mean, you have to have do process to challenge

507
00:31:44,480 --> 00:31:48,280
Speaker 1: some detention like that, and so there I just see

508
00:31:48,320 --> 00:31:51,160
Speaker 1: that failing for that preason. Would it be the Biden

509
00:31:51,160 --> 00:31:53,920
Speaker 1: administration who Susana? Would it be you know, the A

510
00:31:54,000 --> 00:31:56,640
Speaker 1: C l U or something, right, it could be anybody.

511
00:31:56,680 --> 00:31:58,880
Speaker 1: It could be the Biden administration doing it as a

512
00:31:58,880 --> 00:32:02,040
Speaker 1: matter of preempsion that what Texas is doing is pre

513
00:32:02,080 --> 00:32:05,240
Speaker 1: empted by federal immigration law. Or it could be any

514
00:32:05,360 --> 00:32:09,400
Speaker 1: organizations doing on behalf of the people who are the

515
00:32:09,440 --> 00:32:13,000
Speaker 1: immigrants going through this process, or it could be a

516
00:32:13,000 --> 00:32:15,640
Speaker 1: group of immigrants who have had the sunt of them

517
00:32:15,680 --> 00:32:19,960
Speaker 1: potentially suing for injunctive relief or for money damages, even

518
00:32:20,040 --> 00:32:23,040
Speaker 1: depending on if they were armed in some way by

519
00:32:23,160 --> 00:32:27,560
Speaker 1: the tension and relocations of the board of Entry. So

520
00:32:28,080 --> 00:32:32,440
Speaker 1: US officials on the southern border have processed migrants over

521
00:32:32,600 --> 00:32:35,640
Speaker 1: one and a half million times so far this year,

522
00:32:36,200 --> 00:32:40,200
Speaker 1: and they're on track to surpass the record one point

523
00:32:40,240 --> 00:32:45,920
Speaker 1: seven million migrants. When they say they've processed them, does

524
00:32:45,960 --> 00:32:50,560
Speaker 1: that mean that they're processed into the country or you

525
00:32:50,600 --> 00:32:53,360
Speaker 1: know some of them are deported. What does that mean?

526
00:32:54,360 --> 00:32:59,320
Speaker 1: What that number from one point seven millions is apprehending?

527
00:32:59,760 --> 00:33:02,840
Speaker 1: What that means a person has tried set for the

528
00:33:02,920 --> 00:33:06,360
Speaker 1: United States in one way or another. Our border patrol

529
00:33:06,400 --> 00:33:10,040
Speaker 1: has encountered that human being, and it's made a decision

530
00:33:10,040 --> 00:33:12,400
Speaker 1: after that human being. It doesn't mean that the decision

531
00:33:12,440 --> 00:33:15,240
Speaker 1: that's been made has been to allow that human being

532
00:33:15,320 --> 00:33:19,440
Speaker 1: to proceed into the United States. In fact, a large

533
00:33:19,560 --> 00:33:23,520
Speaker 1: number of these individuals were expelled back into Mexico under

534
00:33:23,560 --> 00:33:26,760
Speaker 1: Title forty two, and then they tried again, and then

535
00:33:26,760 --> 00:33:29,160
Speaker 1: they weren't spelled again, and then they tried the third side,

536
00:33:29,360 --> 00:33:32,240
Speaker 1: and then they were spelled again. So those numbers may

537
00:33:32,280 --> 00:33:37,160
Speaker 1: not represent or in fact do not represent unique numbers.

538
00:33:37,200 --> 00:33:41,480
Speaker 1: They're not exactly one point seven million different individuals who

539
00:33:41,480 --> 00:33:44,719
Speaker 1: have had encounters with the border patrol. But it's in

540
00:33:44,760 --> 00:33:48,880
Speaker 1: fact one point seven millions total encounters of which some

541
00:33:49,120 --> 00:33:52,560
Speaker 1: number has been allowed to enter, especially in cases like

542
00:33:52,680 --> 00:33:56,920
Speaker 1: Venezuelans at Cubans, where Mexico has not accepted those people

543
00:33:56,960 --> 00:34:00,000
Speaker 1: back into Mexico, and those people can't be the poor

544
00:34:00,040 --> 00:34:03,479
Speaker 1: it back into Venezuela or Cuba because those countries are

545
00:34:03,520 --> 00:34:08,359
Speaker 1: simply not accepting American deport datas, and so it's a

546
00:34:08,400 --> 00:34:10,840
Speaker 1: lot of those cases, those individuals have been able to

547
00:34:10,920 --> 00:34:13,440
Speaker 1: enter the United States, but in a lot of other cases,

548
00:34:13,800 --> 00:34:16,600
Speaker 1: people have been pushed back into Mexico of their Title

549
00:34:16,680 --> 00:34:20,120
Speaker 1: forty two and Title forty two. What's the status of

550
00:34:20,120 --> 00:34:22,560
Speaker 1: Title forty two right now? I mean, there wasn't an

551
00:34:22,680 --> 00:34:26,600
Speaker 1: order that the Biden administration had to keep using Title

552
00:34:26,640 --> 00:34:29,560
Speaker 1: forty two. Where does that stand, right? I mean that

553
00:34:29,719 --> 00:34:32,879
Speaker 1: Title forty two cases moving its way very slowly through

554
00:34:32,880 --> 00:34:37,640
Speaker 1: the court, and the administration is still using Title forty two,

555
00:34:38,160 --> 00:34:43,120
Speaker 1: but it's basically using it to expel almost exclusively Mexican

556
00:34:43,280 --> 00:34:47,919
Speaker 1: nationals back into Mexico, which still are the largest percentage,

557
00:34:48,160 --> 00:34:51,640
Speaker 1: you know, of any specific country. They're not a majority,

558
00:34:51,920 --> 00:34:55,319
Speaker 1: but they're the largest percentage of any specific country coming in.

559
00:34:56,040 --> 00:34:59,879
Speaker 1: And then they're about expelling about half of the sent

560
00:35:00,239 --> 00:35:04,279
Speaker 1: American migrants who are being encountered in the border. But

561
00:35:04,800 --> 00:35:08,040
Speaker 1: if if people from any country other than Mexico or

562
00:35:08,120 --> 00:35:11,840
Speaker 1: the Central American country, we're seeing about twelve percent of

563
00:35:11,880 --> 00:35:16,520
Speaker 1: those individuals being expelled un their Title forty two. Thanks Leon,

564
00:35:16,960 --> 00:35:20,440
Speaker 1: that's Leon Fresco of Hollandon Knight. I'm June Grasso and

565
00:35:20,480 --> 00:35:21,840
Speaker 1: you're listening to Bloomberg