Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every
Speaker 1: day we bring you insight and analysis into the most
Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more
Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud
Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. President Trump says
Speaker 1: he'll sign an executive order to stomp the separation of
Speaker 1: children from parents who are caught illegally crossing the US
Speaker 1: border with Mexico. We're going to be signing an executive order.
Speaker 1: We're gonna also count on Congress, obviously, but we are
Speaker 1: signing an executive order in a little while. We're gonna
Speaker 1: keep families together. But we still have to maintain toughness
Speaker 1: or our country will be over run. That's a reversal
Speaker 1: of Trump's insistence that only Congress could end his policy
Speaker 1: of separating families at the border. Joining me as David Beer,
Speaker 1: an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, David immigration
Speaker 1: was key in Trump's rise to power, and it's central
Speaker 1: to his image. So can he just back down from
Speaker 1: the zero tolerance policy without losing credibility with his base? Look,
Speaker 1: what's really losing him credibility with the American people on
Speaker 1: this is that he has been saying for weeks, the
Speaker 1: only reason I'm doing this is because the law requires
Speaker 1: me to do this. I cannot back down from this.
Speaker 1: This is the requirements of the law. I have to
Speaker 1: separate these families, have to take away these children. And
Speaker 1: now he's saying, well, actually, we can make changes in
Speaker 1: order to prevent this from happening. So that's what's really
Speaker 1: going to cost him credibility. I don't think his base
Speaker 1: is is that concerned one way or the other about
Speaker 1: whether the children are separated or not. What concerns those
Speaker 1: individuals is whether or not these um people are eligible
Speaker 1: for asylum and can apply through the legal process as
Speaker 1: to stay in the United States. They want them removed
Speaker 1: immediately and uh, you know, without without a process for
Speaker 1: them to apply to stay in the country. Trump said
Speaker 1: that he's going to sign something that's somewhat prep preemptive
Speaker 1: and ultimately will be matched by legislation. Any ideas what
Speaker 1: he might be signing well, reports are that he's considering, uh,
Speaker 1: requiring the Department of Homeland Security to detain all children
Speaker 1: with their parents while at the same time they are
Speaker 1: being prosecuted by the Department of Justice, and UM, it
Speaker 1: doesn't really address the problem fully because if any of
Speaker 1: those parents are sentenced to prison time, they would uh
Speaker 1: be separated from their children of course, and those children
Speaker 1: would have to go into foster care. We would take
Speaker 1: back to the exact same situation that we're at right now. Um.
Speaker 1: The other problem with it is that there is a
Speaker 1: court order that requires them to release children after twenty days.
Speaker 1: They cannot hold children in jails for more than three weeks.
Speaker 1: And we have said this before. It's a it's a
Speaker 1: court requirement, and so there is not an opportunity for
Speaker 1: him to ultimately detain them long enough to go through
Speaker 1: this entire process. So his executive order won't work. I
Speaker 1: think he's trying to portray himself as fixing this problem
Speaker 1: that he created, but it's really not going to resolve
Speaker 1: the issue. We have news from our Bloomberg DC team
Speaker 1: that about House members are heading to the White House,
Speaker 1: so there can be some type of perhaps public event
Speaker 1: there are the House Republicans said earlier today that they
Speaker 1: were going to go ahead with some immigration bills. Tell
Speaker 1: us about the various immigration bills and their chance of passage.
Speaker 1: There's really two bills that are being voted on probably tomorrow,
Speaker 1: and one is a extreme hard right bill that would
Speaker 1: slash legal immigration. That's legal immigration by about um overnight.
Speaker 1: It would kick millions of people who have been waiting
Speaker 1: in line for the opportunity to come to this country
Speaker 1: legally out of line and eliminate their applications entirely. Uh.
Speaker 1: It would provide some very limited temporary work status to
Speaker 1: the dreamers. Uh. The alternative on the other side, UH
Speaker 1: is this compromise bill that was a compromise between moderates
Speaker 1: and the Republican Party and conservatives, and that bill would
Speaker 1: do a lot of the same things. It would cut
Speaker 1: legal immigration by more than a million over the next
Speaker 1: two decades. It would provide some legalization for for mostly
Speaker 1: people who are in akka. Uh, those who were too
Speaker 1: old or uh you know, uh couldn't afford to apply
Speaker 1: for doctor will probably being left out of this legislation.
Speaker 1: And um, at the end of the day, you're talking
Speaker 1: about again banning nearly three million people who have waited
Speaker 1: in line for legal visas to come to the United
Speaker 1: States legally. All of those people's applications would be canceled.
Speaker 1: So it's really a compromise between the hard right and conservatives.
Speaker 1: But it's still a partisan bill and it's not something
Speaker 1: that is likely to make its way through the Senate.
Speaker 1: We have about a minute and a half year. David,
Speaker 1: now explain what what the position of the Senate is,
Speaker 1: the Republican and democratic position of the Senate if any
Speaker 1: of those bills happens to get to it. Well, the
Speaker 1: Senate already debated this issue, and they had their own proposals.
Speaker 1: Many of them were similar to the ones that we're
Speaker 1: adjusted right now that are coming up for a vote
Speaker 1: in the House. Uh. The one that's most similar to
Speaker 1: the hard right proposal only got forty votes. It needed
Speaker 1: sixty votes in order to make it through the Senate.
Speaker 1: It only got forty votes. Um. Some of the other
Speaker 1: bipartisan bills in the Senate received a majority of the senators,
Speaker 1: so more than fifty, but didn't get the threshold. So
Speaker 1: the Senate, as far as their concerned, tried to do
Speaker 1: something on this, they weren't able to do it. It's
Speaker 1: unlikely that they will do anything with these bills. Uh
Speaker 1: if they make it through UM the House. Well, thanks David.
Speaker 1: We will keep up to date with you on on
Speaker 1: what's happening in this issue that seems to be changing
Speaker 1: but doesn't look like there's any definite proposal in the
Speaker 1: off thing. That's David Beer. He's an immigration policy analyst
Speaker 1: at the Cato Institute. FBI Director Christopher Ray stood by
Speaker 1: Special Counsel Robert Mueller on Monday, as Republicans on the
Speaker 1: Senate Judiciary Committee asserted the Muller investigation was tainted by
Speaker 1: anti Trump bias from the start. Senator, as I said
Speaker 1: to you last month, and as I said before, I
Speaker 1: did not believe Special Counsel Mueller is on a witch hunt.
Speaker 1: Inspector General Michael Horowitz also testified at the hearings, which
Speaker 1: were focused on his report that was critical of former
Speaker 1: FBI Director James Comey's investigation into Hillary Clinton's email joining
Speaker 1: me as Jimmy Garula, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, Jimmy,
Speaker 1: how did Ray do in defending the FBI against the
Speaker 1: findings of the Inspector General's report? I think he was
Speaker 1: It was very straightforward. He was unequivocal in his support
Speaker 1: of A. Bob Moore, and I think in large part
Speaker 1: because he knows, he knows more, he's worked with him
Speaker 1: in the past. I think, uh, he is well aware
Speaker 1: of his integrity and his honesty, and he believes that
Speaker 1: that he's conducting this investigation in a proper manner. There's
Speaker 1: been an extraordinary amount of attention paid to about a
Speaker 1: dozen anti Trump text messages exchanged between an FBI agent
Speaker 1: an FBI lawyer who were having an affair, perhaps because
Speaker 1: the texts are so concrete in a massive ambiguity is
Speaker 1: has there been too much attention paid to this or
Speaker 1: are these really troubling? Well, they certainly create an appearance
Speaker 1: of impropriety. They create an appearance here of of unfairness
Speaker 1: because of the anti Trump sentiments that are included in
Speaker 1: these text messages. But at the same time, the d
Speaker 1: o J Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz concluded
Speaker 1: that there was no evidence, absolutely not that this bias
Speaker 1: affected the decision making in either the Hillary Clinton email
Speaker 1: scandal investigation or the investigation into possible collusion between the
Speaker 1: Russians and the Trump campaign. The Inspector General also testified
Speaker 1: on Tuesday at a joint hearing of the House Judiciary
Speaker 1: and Oversight Committees, where the rhetorics seem to be ramping
Speaker 1: up a bit. Do you think that he answered questions,
Speaker 1: particularly those raised by Republican Trey Gaudy who said that
Speaker 1: that anti Trump bias in the FBI couldn't be put aside. Well,
Speaker 1: it's interesting with the with the House Republicans. On the
Speaker 1: one hand, they praise the Inspector General in his report
Speaker 1: and findings regarding the anti Trump bias. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: they criticize an attack the same Inspector General in the
Speaker 1: same report with respect to his findings, and that that
Speaker 1: that that there's no evidence that the this bias had
Speaker 1: any effect in either the the Clinton investigation or the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign investigations. So it seems to me that the
Speaker 1: House Republicans can't have it both ways. I mean, either
Speaker 1: the Inspector General did a good job, these were findings
Speaker 1: that were based on concrete evidence, or not. I don't
Speaker 1: think you can have it both ways. Do you see
Speaker 1: any long term effects on the Mueller investigation of the
Speaker 1: I G. S Report or the testimony we heard. Oh,
Speaker 1: there's there's no question about it. And I think the
Speaker 1: hearings here, how the hearing cell before the House Oversight
Speaker 1: Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, they're political in nature.
Speaker 1: I think the objective is quite clear. This is an
Speaker 1: attempt to to taint, to undermine the credibility of the
Speaker 1: Muller investigations. So therefore, once the investigation is concluded, whatever
Speaker 1: the findings are, if they again are are negative, they
Speaker 1: they shed shed bad light or look badly on on
Speaker 1: on Trump or members of the Trump administration, that the
Speaker 1: Republics can conflain, well, it was ricked, you know, this
Speaker 1: was corrupt, it was there was biased. So so I
Speaker 1: think there's a long term objective here that the Houses
Speaker 1: is trying to to achieve and move towards and what
Speaker 1: But what we've seen in the past, which with everything
Speaker 1: that's come out, every new allegation, is that you have
Speaker 1: the Republicans on one side and the Democrats another. It's
Speaker 1: very very part is in doesn't would anything change that
Speaker 1: in the future. Well, I think perhaps depending upon the
Speaker 1: findings of the of the Oler investigation and the strength
Speaker 1: of the evidence to support those findings. I mean, if
Speaker 1: there if there's a smoking gun, you know, if there
Speaker 1: are are refuted regarding their credibility or or text messages
Speaker 1: or phone conversations, then it may be difficult for for
Speaker 1: the Republicans to to claim that this is a witch
Speaker 1: h to claim that this is a tain an investigation.
Speaker 1: Now we have it's about a week almost a week
Speaker 1: since Paul Manafort was sent to prison. There's been no
Speaker 1: movement there. Did do you think that it was expected
Speaker 1: that something would happen quickly after he was put behind bars. Well,
Speaker 1: it's hard to say. Clearly, he has not been willing
Speaker 1: to cooperate up to this point. And again he hasn't
Speaker 1: been in jail, and so perhaps the longer he's he
Speaker 1: spends in jail, I mean, that could influence his decision. H.
Speaker 1: The other importance event to keep in mind is that
Speaker 1: the trial is scheduled for his jury trial. Manforts jury
Speaker 1: trial is scheduled for September of two thousand and eighteen.
Speaker 1: So that's not that that far off. And so if
Speaker 1: he's going to agree to cooperate, he's gonna have to
Speaker 1: make a decision relatively soon. He's only got a few
Speaker 1: months left too before the trial begins. Jimmy explain how
Speaker 1: it's harder to prepare for trial when your client is
Speaker 1: in prison and you have to go see him all
Speaker 1: the time. Well, it does create some obstacles. I mean,
Speaker 1: with respect that you've got to take you know, the lawyer,
Speaker 1: the defense lawyer has to has to take the time
Speaker 1: and to travel to the attention facility, has to bring
Speaker 1: all of the relevant aisles and documents and so on
Speaker 1: along with him or her to to brief and to
Speaker 1: discuss the trial and trial strategy with the client. And
Speaker 1: and certainly that's much more cumbersome than than if Manaphort
Speaker 1: was was at his home and they could meet in
Speaker 1: a much more informal setting, kind of at their leisure.
Speaker 1: And that's clearly not the case. Now. Um, we are
Speaker 1: we are always happy to have you on the show,
Speaker 1: and thanks so much. That's Jimmy Grula. He is a
Speaker 1: professor at Notre Dame Law School. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to
Speaker 1: the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot
Speaker 1: com slash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg