1
00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:07,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law, with June grosseol from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:12,720
Speaker 2: The Trump administration has made deep reductions in foreign aid

3
00:00:12,880 --> 00:00:16,479
Speaker 2: one of its hallmark policies. In fact, early in his

4
00:00:16,600 --> 00:00:20,720
Speaker 2: second administration, Trump announced to hold on tens of billions

5
00:00:20,800 --> 00:00:24,120
Speaker 2: of dollars in foreign aid, and a few months later,

6
00:00:24,239 --> 00:00:30,880
Speaker 2: administration officials dismantled the US Agency for International Development, which

7
00:00:30,920 --> 00:00:36,360
Speaker 2: administered the funds. Nonprofits and international aid groups sued in

8
00:00:36,479 --> 00:00:40,879
Speaker 2: February over an estimated thirty billion dollars that Congress had

9
00:00:40,920 --> 00:00:45,600
Speaker 2: approved for programs spanning several years, arguing that the executive

10
00:00:45,640 --> 00:00:50,680
Speaker 2: branch can't unilaterally refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress

11
00:00:50,840 --> 00:00:54,280
Speaker 2: and that the cuts could have devastating effects in certain

12
00:00:54,400 --> 00:00:59,240
Speaker 2: areas of the world. Secretary of State Marco Rubio disputed

13
00:00:59,280 --> 00:01:02,080
Speaker 2: the effects last week, as we shut down AID because

14
00:01:02,080 --> 00:01:03,480
Speaker 2: it was a dysfunctional organization.

15
00:01:03,560 --> 00:01:05,520
Speaker 1: We moved in under the State Department Number two.

16
00:01:05,760 --> 00:01:07,800
Speaker 2: We are going to do more foreign aid than any

17
00:01:07,800 --> 00:01:09,880
Speaker 2: country in the world, than any country in the world,

18
00:01:10,240 --> 00:01:15,080
Speaker 2: And on Friday, the Supreme Court's conservatives, in an unsigned order,

19
00:01:15,480 --> 00:01:19,840
Speaker 2: ruled that the Trump administration could withhold four billion dollars

20
00:01:19,880 --> 00:01:24,479
Speaker 2: in congressionally approve foreign assistance funding poised to expire at

21
00:01:24,480 --> 00:01:27,240
Speaker 2: the end of the month. It lifted a lower court

22
00:01:27,400 --> 00:01:30,840
Speaker 2: order that would have required the administration to commit to

23
00:01:30,880 --> 00:01:36,120
Speaker 2: spending the money. My guest is constitutional law expert Suzanne Goldberg,

24
00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:39,800
Speaker 2: a professor at Columbia Law School. Russell Vopt, the White

25
00:01:39,840 --> 00:01:44,280
Speaker 2: House Budget director, said this decision was a major victory.

26
00:01:44,800 --> 00:01:46,880
Speaker 2: How important do you think this decision is.

27
00:01:47,520 --> 00:01:52,840
Speaker 3: I agree that the decision is significant and important, but

28
00:01:53,080 --> 00:01:57,000
Speaker 3: with completely disagree that this is a victory for the

29
00:01:57,000 --> 00:02:02,120
Speaker 3: American people. This decision puts even more at risk the

30
00:02:02,160 --> 00:02:06,560
Speaker 3: separation of powers by allowing the executive branche and the

31
00:02:06,600 --> 00:02:11,400
Speaker 3: President to refuse to spend money that Congress has authorized.

32
00:02:11,560 --> 00:02:15,400
Speaker 3: Congress has legislated against these kinds of efforts, and the

33
00:02:15,440 --> 00:02:19,680
Speaker 3: Court has simply allowed the executive branch to override the

34
00:02:19,680 --> 00:02:23,320
Speaker 3: will of Congress. Here temporarily, it's a provisional ruling, but

35
00:02:23,400 --> 00:02:26,720
Speaker 3: it's still a serious incursion on the separation of powers.

36
00:02:26,919 --> 00:02:30,640
Speaker 2: This was on the emergency docket and unsigned order. The

37
00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:33,079
Speaker 2: Court's conservatives in the majority, so it was a six

38
00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:37,800
Speaker 2: to three decision. There was a very little explanation from

39
00:02:37,840 --> 00:02:40,600
Speaker 2: the majority, but explain what they did say.

40
00:02:41,080 --> 00:02:47,559
Speaker 3: The Majority was faced with the question whether the Impowerment

41
00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:54,240
Speaker 3: Control Actus by Congress would prohibit organizations from doing the

42
00:02:54,280 --> 00:02:58,240
Speaker 3: government when the government executive branch the Trump administration refused

43
00:02:58,240 --> 00:03:02,680
Speaker 3: to provide foreign aid funding Congress had authorized to be provided.

44
00:03:03,200 --> 00:03:06,240
Speaker 3: And this is a new issue. No lower court has

45
00:03:06,320 --> 00:03:10,440
Speaker 3: rolled on the question, and the Majority, in barely a

46
00:03:10,480 --> 00:03:15,440
Speaker 3: sentence said the administration had made a sufficient showing that

47
00:03:15,520 --> 00:03:20,960
Speaker 3: this Impoundment Act barred the private organization's lawsuit. As Justice

48
00:03:21,040 --> 00:03:24,600
Speaker 3: Kagan points out in her dissent, that isn't what the

49
00:03:24,800 --> 00:03:27,840
Speaker 3: Act appears to say, it is not what the act

50
00:03:28,360 --> 00:03:32,160
Speaker 3: history would suggest, and everything is really to the contrary.

51
00:03:32,280 --> 00:03:36,360
Speaker 3: So the one sentence sort of shrug off of the

52
00:03:36,400 --> 00:03:41,480
Speaker 3: plaintiff's argument here is perplexing and really troubling. Chief Justice

53
00:03:41,560 --> 00:03:45,160
Speaker 3: Roberts emphasizes that this is a provisional ruling, meaning it's

54
00:03:45,200 --> 00:03:49,160
Speaker 3: not the final word on whether the executive branch can

55
00:03:49,360 --> 00:03:53,160
Speaker 3: refuse to spend money authorized by Congress. But for the

56
00:03:53,240 --> 00:03:55,680
Speaker 3: purpose of this four billion dollars in funds, it is

57
00:03:55,720 --> 00:03:59,120
Speaker 3: the final ruling because the funds will expire at the

58
00:03:59,200 --> 00:04:02,080
Speaker 3: end of the federal budgy jitary cycle. The Court in

59
00:04:02,160 --> 00:04:06,240
Speaker 3: its handful of sentences did not take on any of

60
00:04:06,280 --> 00:04:08,360
Speaker 3: the very serious issues that the case present.

61
00:04:08,600 --> 00:04:11,840
Speaker 2: The administration argued that being forced to spend the money

62
00:04:11,920 --> 00:04:15,920
Speaker 2: now would hurt its ability to carry out foreign affairs.

63
00:04:16,520 --> 00:04:18,960
Speaker 2: And in a lot of these cases where there's a

64
00:04:19,120 --> 00:04:24,359
Speaker 2: challenge to Trump administration actions, they seem to be raising

65
00:04:24,680 --> 00:04:29,360
Speaker 2: either foreign affairs or national security. Does the Supreme Court

66
00:04:29,440 --> 00:04:33,280
Speaker 2: just simply bow whenever the administration says national security or

67
00:04:33,320 --> 00:04:34,159
Speaker 2: foreign affairs.

68
00:04:35,000 --> 00:04:40,799
Speaker 3: No, the Supreme Court, up until recently, does not simply

69
00:04:40,920 --> 00:04:45,600
Speaker 3: bow when the administration refers to national security or its

70
00:04:45,600 --> 00:04:48,320
Speaker 3: authority and foreign affairs. Of course, the executive branch has

71
00:04:48,400 --> 00:04:53,200
Speaker 3: significant discretion in both areas and how it bends foreign

72
00:04:53,320 --> 00:04:57,320
Speaker 3: assistance in determining national security priorities. But we still have

73
00:04:57,360 --> 00:05:01,880
Speaker 3: a constitution, and the constitution requires the Court, when it

74
00:05:02,000 --> 00:05:06,240
Speaker 3: receives a challenge to administration actions, to review what the

75
00:05:06,600 --> 00:05:10,840
Speaker 3: executive branch is doing. In this case, which had to

76
00:05:10,920 --> 00:05:16,279
Speaker 3: do with a long standing, really foundational practice of the

77
00:05:16,279 --> 00:05:19,919
Speaker 3: way US government functions, which is that Congress authorizes funds.

78
00:05:20,880 --> 00:05:25,800
Speaker 3: The administration actions in saying we're not going to spend

79
00:05:25,800 --> 00:05:28,520
Speaker 3: your funds are startling, right. We haven't seen anything at

80
00:05:28,520 --> 00:05:32,640
Speaker 3: this level since Richard Nixon was the president, and Richard Nixon,

81
00:05:33,080 --> 00:05:36,960
Speaker 3: though he tried not to spend many funds that Congress

82
00:05:37,160 --> 00:05:42,360
Speaker 3: had authorized, ultimately pulled back and recognized that he was

83
00:05:42,400 --> 00:05:45,440
Speaker 3: standing in the way or really tried to disrupt the

84
00:05:45,640 --> 00:05:48,600
Speaker 3: balance of powers as between Congress and the executive branch.

85
00:05:49,240 --> 00:05:54,080
Speaker 3: But Congress, after Nixon tried to refuse to spend authorized funds,

86
00:05:54,760 --> 00:05:59,480
Speaker 3: passed a law specifically to say the president can't do that,

87
00:05:59,560 --> 00:06:03,200
Speaker 3: and if the President objects to how Congress is authorized

88
00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:06,599
Speaker 3: fund the President can voice those objections directly to Congress,

89
00:06:06,640 --> 00:06:10,720
Speaker 3: and Congress will consider those objections. There's not a special

90
00:06:10,960 --> 00:06:16,560
Speaker 3: national security or foreign affairs rule that gets the executive

91
00:06:16,600 --> 00:06:20,120
Speaker 3: branch out of having the legality of its actions reviewed.

92
00:06:20,839 --> 00:06:23,560
Speaker 2: Trump used what's called a pocket recision.

93
00:06:23,720 --> 00:06:23,960
Speaker 3: Here.

94
00:06:24,360 --> 00:06:25,400
Speaker 2: Can you tell us about that?

95
00:06:26,160 --> 00:06:30,560
Speaker 3: Yeah, so the president has, you know, at the outset

96
00:06:30,680 --> 00:06:36,719
Speaker 3: of his administration, President Trump issued in order saying all

97
00:06:36,839 --> 00:06:42,599
Speaker 3: foreign assistants would be paused while his administration reviewed whether

98
00:06:42,760 --> 00:06:48,560
Speaker 3: the spending was consistent with his priorities. Ultimately, after a

99
00:06:48,600 --> 00:06:52,760
Speaker 3: long pause, the administration did spend some of the money,

100
00:06:53,000 --> 00:06:56,600
Speaker 3: but it was held this four billion dollars in funding

101
00:06:56,600 --> 00:06:59,880
Speaker 3: authorized by Congress instead, essentially, we're not spending that, and

102
00:07:00,480 --> 00:07:03,320
Speaker 3: that is the nature of the so called pocket recisions.

103
00:07:03,839 --> 00:07:09,520
Speaker 3: But the Impowerment Act actually requires the President to submit

104
00:07:09,920 --> 00:07:14,520
Speaker 3: his position to Congress, which can review and make adjustments

105
00:07:14,560 --> 00:07:18,120
Speaker 3: if it so chooses. And that's not what happens here.

106
00:07:18,720 --> 00:07:22,840
Speaker 2: I mean, would anyone expect that this particular Congress would

107
00:07:22,920 --> 00:07:25,600
Speaker 2: go against what the president wants?

108
00:07:26,280 --> 00:07:34,360
Speaker 3: So, you know, in ordinary times, Congress zealously safeguards its authority,

109
00:07:34,480 --> 00:07:38,240
Speaker 3: and when it believes the President is encroaching on that authority,

110
00:07:39,200 --> 00:07:43,080
Speaker 3: contravening the separation of powers that our Constitution sets out,

111
00:07:43,520 --> 00:07:47,960
Speaker 3: Congress acts. Indeed, that kind of action is what led

112
00:07:48,400 --> 00:07:52,160
Speaker 3: to the Impoundment Act, passed by Congress many years ago,

113
00:07:52,240 --> 00:07:56,440
Speaker 3: to say, President, you cannot simply decide not to spend

114
00:07:56,560 --> 00:08:00,480
Speaker 3: money that we, the representatives of the people, have offerorized

115
00:08:00,520 --> 00:08:05,240
Speaker 3: for you to spend. Congress, since President Trump has taken office,

116
00:08:05,560 --> 00:08:09,800
Speaker 3: has not protected its authority and instead has seeded its authority,

117
00:08:10,360 --> 00:08:14,000
Speaker 3: leaving the Supreme Court to be the safeguard of this

118
00:08:14,160 --> 00:08:19,960
Speaker 3: separation of powers that under which Congress authorizes spending of

119
00:08:20,200 --> 00:08:24,080
Speaker 3: the American people's funds. Of course, consistent with the president's priorities,

120
00:08:24,080 --> 00:08:28,200
Speaker 3: but also consistent with the views of Congress. President Trump

121
00:08:28,280 --> 00:08:32,480
Speaker 3: has advanced a view that his branch, the executive branch,

122
00:08:32,760 --> 00:08:37,560
Speaker 3: should be able to override both the Congress and the

123
00:08:37,600 --> 00:08:41,640
Speaker 3: wishes of Congress and the Supreme Court, and in some

124
00:08:41,760 --> 00:08:45,200
Speaker 3: sense make the president more powerful than any other branch

125
00:08:45,240 --> 00:08:49,800
Speaker 3: of government. And unfortunately Congress seems to be agreeing to that.

126
00:08:49,840 --> 00:08:54,200
Speaker 3: The Court, in this provisional ruling, has let him pursue

127
00:08:54,280 --> 00:08:57,079
Speaker 3: that path as well, which is why the ruling is

128
00:08:57,120 --> 00:08:57,720
Speaker 3: so troubling.

129
00:08:58,520 --> 00:09:03,320
Speaker 2: There was this very very short majority explanation will call it,

130
00:09:03,720 --> 00:09:07,559
Speaker 2: and then a longer descent explain what Justice Kagan said

131
00:09:07,600 --> 00:09:08,120
Speaker 2: in descent.

132
00:09:09,240 --> 00:09:13,600
Speaker 3: Justice Kagan makes several points in her descent. First, she

133
00:09:13,840 --> 00:09:19,720
Speaker 3: says this case was not appropriate for an emergency ruling.

134
00:09:20,960 --> 00:09:22,959
Speaker 3: We have a high standard, she says, the court is

135
00:09:23,000 --> 00:09:27,959
Speaker 3: a high standard for deciding to grant emergency relief and

136
00:09:28,200 --> 00:09:33,560
Speaker 3: this case doesn't meet that standard. And then moving on,

137
00:09:33,760 --> 00:09:40,040
Speaker 3: she says, the court one sentence notation really that the

138
00:09:40,080 --> 00:09:44,640
Speaker 3: government is likely to win its argument on the marriage.

139
00:09:45,240 --> 00:09:48,920
Speaker 3: There's no basis for that. The law makes clear that

140
00:09:48,920 --> 00:09:52,160
Speaker 3: that's not correct. The history of the law makes clear

141
00:09:52,240 --> 00:09:55,760
Speaker 3: that that's not correct. And you know to sort of

142
00:09:55,760 --> 00:09:58,840
Speaker 3: boil it down. Her opinion says, to the majority, what

143
00:09:58,880 --> 00:10:02,160
Speaker 3: are you doing is into appropriate? This is not an emergency.

144
00:10:02,640 --> 00:10:06,000
Speaker 3: If you give the president the authority to withhold this

145
00:10:06,160 --> 00:10:10,120
Speaker 3: money that Congress has authorized, it's the end of the case.

146
00:10:10,200 --> 00:10:12,880
Speaker 3: The effect is to prevent the funds from ever reaching

147
00:10:12,920 --> 00:10:16,480
Speaker 3: their intended recipients, not just now, but for all time,

148
00:10:16,600 --> 00:10:21,040
Speaker 3: because the funds will expire. And she says the government

149
00:10:21,200 --> 00:10:25,840
Speaker 3: is completely utterly incorrect in its argument that the president

150
00:10:25,880 --> 00:10:29,320
Speaker 3: should be able to withhold these funds. The law passed

151
00:10:29,320 --> 00:10:34,079
Speaker 3: by Congress that says the president cannot impound, meaning hold

152
00:10:34,160 --> 00:10:38,240
Speaker 3: back funds authorized by Congress, doesn't have anything to say

153
00:10:38,800 --> 00:10:43,080
Speaker 3: about whether these organizations can file a lawsuit challenging the

154
00:10:43,120 --> 00:10:46,640
Speaker 3: governments withholding of those funds. Of course they can, and

155
00:10:46,720 --> 00:10:49,040
Speaker 3: the law, even when we look at its history, was

156
00:10:49,080 --> 00:10:53,200
Speaker 3: passed at a time that makes clear that organizations that

157
00:10:53,280 --> 00:10:56,880
Speaker 3: are anticipating these funds can file a lawsuit against the

158
00:10:56,920 --> 00:11:01,000
Speaker 3: government seeking the distribution of those funds. So she expresses

159
00:11:01,080 --> 00:11:05,679
Speaker 3: quite a lot of concern about the destabilizing effect that

160
00:11:06,000 --> 00:11:09,319
Speaker 3: the majority's ruling, even provisionally, will have.

161
00:11:09,760 --> 00:11:14,160
Speaker 2: Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with Professor Suzanne Goldberg,

162
00:11:14,679 --> 00:11:17,000
Speaker 2: will take a look at the emergency docket and where

163
00:11:17,040 --> 00:11:22,079
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court has come down on most Trump administration requests.

164
00:11:22,400 --> 00:11:27,080
Speaker 2: You're listening to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court is allowing the

165
00:11:27,120 --> 00:11:32,000
Speaker 2: Trump administration to withhold four billion dollars in congressionally approved

166
00:11:32,000 --> 00:11:35,640
Speaker 2: foreign assistance that's poised to expire at the end of

167
00:11:35,679 --> 00:11:40,040
Speaker 2: the month. The conservative justices lifted a lower court order

168
00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:43,680
Speaker 2: that would have required the administration to commit to spending

169
00:11:43,720 --> 00:11:47,040
Speaker 2: the money that was over the descents from the court's

170
00:11:47,040 --> 00:11:52,320
Speaker 2: three liberals. The unsigned order on Friday boasters President Trump's

171
00:11:52,320 --> 00:11:56,439
Speaker 2: effort to claw back funds that Congress approved. The money

172
00:11:56,480 --> 00:11:59,840
Speaker 2: is set to expire after the fiscal year ends on

173
00:12:00,080 --> 00:12:03,960
Speaker 2: September thirtieth, if the State Department and what's left of

174
00:12:04,000 --> 00:12:09,120
Speaker 2: the US Agency for International Development don't commit to spending it.

175
00:12:09,720 --> 00:12:13,160
Speaker 2: I've been talking to Columbia Law School professor Suzanne Goldberg.

176
00:12:14,520 --> 00:12:18,960
Speaker 2: This latest ruling by the Supreme Court follows a pattern

177
00:12:19,520 --> 00:12:24,840
Speaker 2: of lower courts holding back the Trump administration's actions, appellate

178
00:12:24,920 --> 00:12:28,440
Speaker 2: courts affirming that, and then the Supreme Court on the

179
00:12:28,480 --> 00:12:34,439
Speaker 2: emergency docket, coming in and reversing and allowing the administration

180
00:12:34,520 --> 00:12:37,720
Speaker 2: to go forward with its actions. We saw this with

181
00:12:38,080 --> 00:12:42,120
Speaker 2: allowing Trump to cancel nearly eight hundred million dollars in

182
00:12:42,280 --> 00:12:46,200
Speaker 2: National Institute of Health grants and up to sixty five

183
00:12:46,280 --> 00:12:50,720
Speaker 2: million dollars in teacher training grants, Allowing Trump to ban

184
00:12:50,880 --> 00:12:55,800
Speaker 2: transgender soldiers from the military, to carry out mass layoffs

185
00:12:55,800 --> 00:13:00,760
Speaker 2: of federal employees, to remove the heads of independent aid agencies,

186
00:13:00,800 --> 00:13:04,680
Speaker 2: and on and on. Why are the Conservative justices giving

187
00:13:04,720 --> 00:13:10,840
Speaker 2: this stamp of temporary approval but still approval to Trump's

188
00:13:10,840 --> 00:13:14,800
Speaker 2: actions on the emergency docket where there isn't full briefing

189
00:13:15,080 --> 00:13:18,120
Speaker 2: and we don't know what the explanation is most of

190
00:13:18,160 --> 00:13:19,920
Speaker 2: the time for their decisions.

191
00:13:20,640 --> 00:13:25,920
Speaker 3: This is utterly unprecedented to have the Supreme Court clear

192
00:13:26,000 --> 00:13:31,680
Speaker 3: a path for a presidential administration to, in essence, do

193
00:13:31,760 --> 00:13:35,040
Speaker 3: whatever would like, whether it's refused to spend money authorized

194
00:13:35,040 --> 00:13:39,800
Speaker 3: by Congress, or to pull a set of accomplished service

195
00:13:39,840 --> 00:13:45,959
Speaker 3: members out of military service, or to pull grant funding

196
00:13:46,160 --> 00:13:51,319
Speaker 3: from a range of institutions without going through well established,

197
00:13:51,320 --> 00:13:56,520
Speaker 3: long standing procedures, and not only to allow the executive

198
00:13:56,559 --> 00:14:01,719
Speaker 3: branch to pursue all of these aims. Been writing broughshawd

199
00:14:01,880 --> 00:14:05,800
Speaker 3: on well established law but to do that on the

200
00:14:05,840 --> 00:14:09,320
Speaker 3: so called emergency docket, which means that the Court has

201
00:14:09,360 --> 00:14:12,400
Speaker 3: not had a full hearing of the case and is

202
00:14:12,440 --> 00:14:16,360
Speaker 3: not issuing a full opinion after the benefit of argument. Indeed,

203
00:14:17,360 --> 00:14:20,480
Speaker 3: this case is a good example where in a handful

204
00:14:20,480 --> 00:14:24,800
Speaker 3: of senses, the Court allows the President to say, I'm

205
00:14:24,840 --> 00:14:28,040
Speaker 3: not spending money that's been authorized by Congress, even though

206
00:14:28,040 --> 00:14:30,440
Speaker 3: there is a law that says I have to spend

207
00:14:30,440 --> 00:14:33,920
Speaker 3: this money, and even though there is another set of

208
00:14:34,000 --> 00:14:36,440
Speaker 3: laws that says, if I'm not going to spend this money,

209
00:14:36,840 --> 00:14:38,960
Speaker 3: I have to go through a certain procedure which has

210
00:14:39,040 --> 00:14:44,840
Speaker 3: not been followed. So it's quite startling and should be

211
00:14:44,880 --> 00:14:51,040
Speaker 3: deeply disturbing to anyone, whatever ones use, who holds value

212
00:14:51,080 --> 00:14:54,560
Speaker 3: in the rule of law and in the Supreme Court

213
00:14:55,000 --> 00:14:58,520
Speaker 3: serving as a protector of the Constitution and doing that

214
00:14:58,640 --> 00:15:04,080
Speaker 3: not only by responding appropriately and promptly to serious national issues,

215
00:15:04,120 --> 00:15:07,960
Speaker 3: but also by explaining its reasoning. We just don't see

216
00:15:07,960 --> 00:15:11,960
Speaker 3: that here, and that is very very concerning. In fact,

217
00:15:12,160 --> 00:15:17,480
Speaker 3: Justice Kagan makes this point clear right saying that this case,

218
00:15:17,920 --> 00:15:20,720
Speaker 3: this application for a stay, was heard on a short use,

219
00:15:21,240 --> 00:15:25,640
Speaker 3: less than three weeks, scant briefing, no oral argument, no

220
00:15:25,760 --> 00:15:29,680
Speaker 3: opportunity to deliberate in conference, and she points out that

221
00:15:29,960 --> 00:15:34,400
Speaker 3: on the regular docket of the Supreme Court cases a

222
00:15:34,520 --> 00:15:38,560
Speaker 3: far less import with far more process and reflection. So

223
00:15:38,640 --> 00:15:43,640
Speaker 3: there are real reasons to be concerned about the use

224
00:15:43,720 --> 00:15:49,160
Speaker 3: of the emergency docket to allow this administration, or really

225
00:15:49,200 --> 00:15:54,720
Speaker 3: any administration, to step away from to ride roughshod over

226
00:15:55,240 --> 00:16:01,160
Speaker 3: longstanding laws that restrict the administration's authority. That should be

227
00:16:01,200 --> 00:16:02,760
Speaker 3: deeply troubling to all of us.

228
00:16:03,240 --> 00:16:06,720
Speaker 2: This is a test of presidential power. Why does the

229
00:16:06,760 --> 00:16:10,960
Speaker 2: Supreme Court want to give another branch of government so

230
00:16:11,120 --> 00:16:13,840
Speaker 2: much power? You would think that they would, you know,

231
00:16:13,880 --> 00:16:16,400
Speaker 2: at least guard their own power. Why give it to

232
00:16:16,440 --> 00:16:20,200
Speaker 2: another branch of government? It sort of seems counterintuitive to me.

233
00:16:20,760 --> 00:16:22,920
Speaker 3: I think it's the right question. I think it is

234
00:16:23,520 --> 00:16:30,720
Speaker 3: appropriate to ask why Congress and the Court seem to

235
00:16:30,840 --> 00:16:38,280
Speaker 3: be seeding power or authority to the executive branch. The

236
00:16:38,760 --> 00:16:43,960
Speaker 3: American system is designed, the premise, or the foundational premise,

237
00:16:44,640 --> 00:16:48,640
Speaker 3: is that each branch checks the other. They're mutually checking.

238
00:16:48,680 --> 00:16:51,440
Speaker 3: We talk about separation of powers, but part of what

239
00:16:51,480 --> 00:16:54,680
Speaker 3: we mean by that is that each serves as a

240
00:16:54,800 --> 00:16:59,840
Speaker 3: check on the other. And when that mutual checking stops

241
00:17:01,040 --> 00:17:05,480
Speaker 3: the foundation that holds up our system is at risk

242
00:17:05,520 --> 00:17:10,800
Speaker 3: of collapse. Why is the Supreme Court feeding so much

243
00:17:10,840 --> 00:17:15,639
Speaker 3: authority and also giving what seems in many cases to

244
00:17:15,680 --> 00:17:19,560
Speaker 3: be unfettered discretion to the executive branch. You know, there

245
00:17:19,560 --> 00:17:22,760
Speaker 3: are many theories out there. There are political theories, there

246
00:17:22,760 --> 00:17:27,879
Speaker 3: are sort of jurisprudential theories. But one true line I

247
00:17:27,920 --> 00:17:31,719
Speaker 3: think we can see is that at least some of

248
00:17:31,760 --> 00:17:36,239
Speaker 3: the justices in the majority of these opinions believe the

249
00:17:36,440 --> 00:17:39,600
Speaker 3: executive branch does have more authority, right, that there's this

250
00:17:39,720 --> 00:17:44,000
Speaker 3: idea of the unitary executive that really should drive the

251
00:17:44,200 --> 00:17:47,520
Speaker 3: country and its works, but the president as a unique

252
00:17:48,160 --> 00:17:52,040
Speaker 3: level of authority and basically shouldn't be impeded in exercising

253
00:17:52,080 --> 00:17:56,400
Speaker 3: that authority. The concern is, of course, you know, that

254
00:17:56,800 --> 00:18:00,560
Speaker 3: was a monarchy, right, and that's what the America system

255
00:18:00,640 --> 00:18:03,800
Speaker 3: moved away from, where there was one figure who had,

256
00:18:04,520 --> 00:18:08,200
Speaker 3: you know, essentially unfettered authority to the extent the other

257
00:18:08,280 --> 00:18:11,840
Speaker 3: branches are ceding authority to the one figure in the

258
00:18:11,920 --> 00:18:15,920
Speaker 3: name of the unitary executive theory. The risk is that

259
00:18:16,680 --> 00:18:22,359
Speaker 3: we get closer and closer to a return to a

260
00:18:22,440 --> 00:18:25,439
Speaker 3: kind of monarchy that at least at the time of

261
00:18:25,480 --> 00:18:28,000
Speaker 3: the revolution Americans had rejected.

262
00:18:28,160 --> 00:18:31,840
Speaker 2: And most of these Supreme Court decisions are being carried

263
00:18:31,880 --> 00:18:37,080
Speaker 2: out by the six conservative Republican appointed justices.

264
00:18:37,880 --> 00:18:43,120
Speaker 3: I think when we have judges who you know, district

265
00:18:43,160 --> 00:18:46,880
Speaker 3: court and appellate judges who have been appointed by all

266
00:18:46,960 --> 00:18:51,680
Speaker 3: sorts of presidents, you know, generally in many cases coming

267
00:18:52,240 --> 00:18:58,400
Speaker 3: to the same position that the administration's actions are unlawful,

268
00:18:59,240 --> 00:19:03,439
Speaker 3: one has to wonder at the five or more often

269
00:19:03,520 --> 00:19:09,560
Speaker 3: six members of the court who disagree repeatedly in every case.

270
00:19:09,760 --> 00:19:12,760
Speaker 3: You know, we would be linking reality if we were

271
00:19:12,800 --> 00:19:16,679
Speaker 3: to say something is wrong with all of the district

272
00:19:16,760 --> 00:19:20,640
Speaker 3: courts and all of the circuit courts that are saying

273
00:19:20,840 --> 00:19:25,760
Speaker 3: no to certain presidential actions, and yet five or six

274
00:19:26,080 --> 00:19:29,640
Speaker 3: justice majority on the Supreme Court continues to say yes

275
00:19:30,000 --> 00:19:33,320
Speaker 3: to the president, go ahead and disregard the law. I

276
00:19:33,359 --> 00:19:36,200
Speaker 3: think that that is another that is something that should give.

277
00:19:36,040 --> 00:19:39,280
Speaker 2: All of us pause. Well, the regular term starts next Monday.

278
00:19:39,320 --> 00:19:42,840
Speaker 2: We will see if there's any difference in the way

279
00:19:42,960 --> 00:19:46,600
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court handles the Trump cases on the regular

280
00:19:46,680 --> 00:19:50,240
Speaker 2: docket as opposed to the emergency docket. Thanks so much

281
00:19:50,280 --> 00:19:54,760
Speaker 2: for joining me today, Suzanne that's professor Suzanne Goldberg of

282
00:19:54,800 --> 00:19:58,720
Speaker 2: Columbia Law School. With the indictment of former FBI Director

283
00:19:58,800 --> 00:20:03,199
Speaker 2: James Comy, Resident Donald Trump advanced his push for legal

284
00:20:03,240 --> 00:20:07,679
Speaker 2: action against his perceived political enemies. The indictment appeared to

285
00:20:07,720 --> 00:20:11,000
Speaker 2: be a break from legal norms at the Justice Department,

286
00:20:11,680 --> 00:20:16,280
Speaker 2: secured by a new acting US attorney, an insurance lawyer

287
00:20:16,400 --> 00:20:21,159
Speaker 2: with no previous experience as a prosecutor, replacing the career

288
00:20:21,280 --> 00:20:24,760
Speaker 2: prosecutor who didn't think there was enough evidence to take

289
00:20:24,800 --> 00:20:28,440
Speaker 2: the case to a grand jury. It's heightening concerns about

290
00:20:28,480 --> 00:20:33,480
Speaker 2: the Justice Department's independence. But on Friday, Attorney General Pam

291
00:20:33,560 --> 00:20:37,880
Speaker 2: Bondi doubled down on the threats of prosecutions of Trump's

292
00:20:38,000 --> 00:20:39,639
Speaker 2: enemies on Fox News.

293
00:20:40,040 --> 00:20:43,439
Speaker 1: Whether you're a former FBI director, whether you're a former

294
00:20:43,480 --> 00:20:46,879
Speaker 1: head of an intel community, whether you are a current

295
00:20:47,040 --> 00:20:51,320
Speaker 1: state or local elected official, whether you're a billionaire funding

296
00:20:51,480 --> 00:20:54,719
Speaker 1: organizations to try to keep Donald Trump out of office,

297
00:20:54,840 --> 00:20:58,760
Speaker 1: everything is on the table. We will investigate you, and

298
00:20:58,800 --> 00:21:00,520
Speaker 1: we will end the web organization.

299
00:21:00,920 --> 00:21:04,760
Speaker 2: The American College of Trial Lawyers is warning that Trump's

300
00:21:04,760 --> 00:21:08,959
Speaker 2: demands to prosecute his political opponents are a blatant attack

301
00:21:09,040 --> 00:21:12,000
Speaker 2: on the rule of law and a road due process.

302
00:21:12,800 --> 00:21:17,400
Speaker 2: Joining me is the actl's president, Richard Dean Junior. He's

303
00:21:17,440 --> 00:21:21,120
Speaker 2: a former US attorney who served under both Presidents Bill

304
00:21:21,160 --> 00:21:25,960
Speaker 2: Clinton and George W. Bush. Were you surprised that the

305
00:21:26,080 --> 00:21:31,560
Speaker 2: Justice Department brought charges against James Comey after being urged

306
00:21:31,560 --> 00:21:32,360
Speaker 2: by the President.

307
00:21:32,640 --> 00:21:36,000
Speaker 4: It's difficult to say, because once I'd seen the announcement

308
00:21:36,040 --> 00:21:40,119
Speaker 4: from the President, like most other citizens, I suppose I

309
00:21:40,280 --> 00:21:43,640
Speaker 4: just paid attention to see what came next. To say

310
00:21:43,640 --> 00:21:45,960
Speaker 4: that I was surprised, I can't say. What I can

311
00:21:46,080 --> 00:21:51,879
Speaker 4: say is it was a very unusual process because the

312
00:21:51,960 --> 00:21:56,960
Speaker 4: news media was reporting that it appeared that the career

313
00:21:57,080 --> 00:22:00,280
Speaker 4: prosecutors in the office were of the view that the

314
00:22:00,320 --> 00:22:03,879
Speaker 4: case was not sufficient to be prosecuted. So when the

315
00:22:03,920 --> 00:22:08,119
Speaker 4: President's announcement was made, it really caught the attention of

316
00:22:08,320 --> 00:22:12,000
Speaker 4: many lawyers, especially because it seems so out of the ordinary.

317
00:22:12,480 --> 00:22:16,280
Speaker 2: Prosecutors are supposed to make decisions based on the evidence

318
00:22:16,520 --> 00:22:20,360
Speaker 2: and present cases to the grand jury only when they

319
00:22:21,040 --> 00:22:24,960
Speaker 2: believe they can prove the case at trial. If prosecutors

320
00:22:25,040 --> 00:22:29,720
Speaker 2: don't follow that, are they risking their bar licenses?

321
00:22:30,760 --> 00:22:33,919
Speaker 4: Well, I guess they could if there were to be

322
00:22:34,400 --> 00:22:37,960
Speaker 4: complaint raised, or if their bar itself were to initiate

323
00:22:38,000 --> 00:22:41,680
Speaker 4: an inquiry, that would be a legitimate concern because if

324
00:22:41,720 --> 00:22:45,879
Speaker 4: you're ethically, as a prosecutor, required to believe that you

325
00:22:45,960 --> 00:22:49,879
Speaker 4: have a credible factual basis to go forward with a case,

326
00:22:50,440 --> 00:22:53,560
Speaker 4: and as a matter of ethics, no lawyer should file

327
00:22:53,760 --> 00:22:57,600
Speaker 4: a pleading in court that they don't believe has a

328
00:22:57,600 --> 00:22:59,960
Speaker 4: factual basis then has factual support.

329
00:23:00,720 --> 00:23:04,280
Speaker 2: Is it rare for prosecutors, though, to face charges in

330
00:23:04,320 --> 00:23:05,280
Speaker 2: that circumstance.

331
00:23:05,880 --> 00:23:08,680
Speaker 4: I think it's somewhat rare that charges like that get

332
00:23:08,920 --> 00:23:12,600
Speaker 4: are allegations like that get filed because the Justice Department

333
00:23:12,760 --> 00:23:18,680
Speaker 4: has had historically a very strong reputation for ethical conduct,

334
00:23:19,359 --> 00:23:22,159
Speaker 4: and I think as a result of that, they have

335
00:23:22,320 --> 00:23:26,080
Speaker 4: what's known in the law as a presumption of regularity

336
00:23:26,800 --> 00:23:30,280
Speaker 4: that when the courts look at the Justice Department's operations,

337
00:23:30,359 --> 00:23:35,480
Speaker 4: they based on their history, the courts presume that they've

338
00:23:35,520 --> 00:23:40,359
Speaker 4: conducted themselves ethically and appropriately according to their history. That's

339
00:23:40,440 --> 00:23:43,440
Speaker 4: why there have been probably so very few of those

340
00:23:43,560 --> 00:23:47,320
Speaker 4: kinds of allegations or charges raised against the department.

341
00:23:47,720 --> 00:23:50,439
Speaker 2: Rick, tell us about the concerns of your.

342
00:23:50,359 --> 00:23:56,680
Speaker 4: Members, What has concerned us that whenever you're focusing proscatorial

343
00:23:56,760 --> 00:24:02,359
Speaker 4: attention and proscytorial authority on individuals rather than on conduct

344
00:24:02,400 --> 00:24:06,160
Speaker 4: and the possibility that persons have committed whatever the conduct

345
00:24:06,240 --> 00:24:11,400
Speaker 4: might be. That's problematic because prosecutors have such wide ranging

346
00:24:11,440 --> 00:24:18,240
Speaker 4: authority and wide ranging power, frankly to investigate cases. The

347
00:24:18,480 --> 00:24:23,680
Speaker 4: history has always been that prosecutorial authorities should be focused

348
00:24:23,720 --> 00:24:27,159
Speaker 4: on cases that should be brought and not focused on

349
00:24:27,480 --> 00:24:30,840
Speaker 4: people who should be prosecuted. Well, let me go back

350
00:24:30,880 --> 00:24:35,919
Speaker 4: to talking about one of our frankly more important Attorneys

351
00:24:36,000 --> 00:24:38,480
Speaker 4: general that has ever served in that office, and that

352
00:24:38,680 --> 00:24:42,920
Speaker 4: was Attorney General Jackson, who many many years ago, while

353
00:24:42,920 --> 00:24:47,199
Speaker 4: he was speaking to lawyers in the Justice Department, pointed

354
00:24:47,240 --> 00:24:50,680
Speaker 4: out the great authority that they had, the great discretion

355
00:24:50,840 --> 00:24:53,480
Speaker 4: that they had, and the ability they had to really

356
00:24:53,560 --> 00:24:58,040
Speaker 4: rehabit among an individual's life, and he pointed out that

357
00:24:58,520 --> 00:25:02,320
Speaker 4: they should use that as the to focus on cases

358
00:25:02,400 --> 00:25:06,479
Speaker 4: that should be brought rather than focusing on people that

359
00:25:06,520 --> 00:25:09,960
Speaker 4: should be and his words gotten. So I think that's

360
00:25:10,000 --> 00:25:13,119
Speaker 4: the distincsion that I'm talking about.

361
00:25:12,600 --> 00:25:16,320
Speaker 2: Speaking about the Attorney general. And you know, usually in

362
00:25:16,359 --> 00:25:20,640
Speaker 2: the past you usually didn't hear from US attorneys general

363
00:25:20,840 --> 00:25:24,879
Speaker 2: unless they were announcing, for example, charges being brought in

364
00:25:24,880 --> 00:25:28,240
Speaker 2: a huge case. But Attorney General Pam Bondi has been

365
00:25:28,280 --> 00:25:33,560
Speaker 2: making a lot of statements about prosecutions to come, and

366
00:25:33,600 --> 00:25:37,440
Speaker 2: she doubled down after the Coomy indictment. She said, whether

367
00:25:37,440 --> 00:25:40,480
Speaker 2: you're a former FBI director, whether you're a former head

368
00:25:40,480 --> 00:25:43,720
Speaker 2: of an intel community, whether you are a current state

369
00:25:43,880 --> 00:25:48,640
Speaker 2: or local elected official, whether you're a billionaire funding organizations

370
00:25:48,680 --> 00:25:52,359
Speaker 2: to try to keep Donald Trump out of office, everything

371
00:25:52,640 --> 00:25:57,760
Speaker 2: is on the table. Is that statement concerning well the.

372
00:25:57,720 --> 00:26:01,840
Speaker 4: Attorney General is going into the media making statements. You're

373
00:26:01,920 --> 00:26:06,360
Speaker 4: right to say that. Historically you don't see that very often.

374
00:26:06,880 --> 00:26:11,200
Speaker 4: The point of it that really matters, though, is again

375
00:26:11,560 --> 00:26:15,280
Speaker 4: the focus being on due process and the fact that

376
00:26:15,440 --> 00:26:20,520
Speaker 4: everybody is presumed to be innocent, and that these charges

377
00:26:20,600 --> 00:26:23,879
Speaker 4: and the prospect of charges should be brought only after

378
00:26:23,960 --> 00:26:28,600
Speaker 4: a full and fair investigation, and there shouldn't be announcements

379
00:26:28,640 --> 00:26:32,280
Speaker 4: and pronouncements in advance of all of that, that these

380
00:26:32,320 --> 00:26:36,840
Speaker 4: people are somehow guilty of a charge. That's violating principles

381
00:26:36,880 --> 00:26:40,760
Speaker 4: of due process. It violates the notion that people are

382
00:26:40,800 --> 00:26:45,200
Speaker 4: presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise, and proven beyond

383
00:26:45,200 --> 00:26:49,160
Speaker 4: a reasonable doubt and that their cases have to be

384
00:26:49,280 --> 00:26:54,359
Speaker 4: heard and evaluated by twelve ordinary citizens. And so until

385
00:26:54,400 --> 00:26:58,320
Speaker 4: all of that process takes place, these people are protected

386
00:26:58,359 --> 00:27:02,760
Speaker 4: by the Constitution. They have rights under the Constitution, and

387
00:27:03,000 --> 00:27:07,120
Speaker 4: courts of law are required to protect those rights. And frankly,

388
00:27:07,160 --> 00:27:10,360
Speaker 4: the Attorney General has taken an oath to protect those

389
00:27:10,480 --> 00:27:14,199
Speaker 4: rights as well, even as she's initiating a prosecution.

390
00:27:15,480 --> 00:27:20,800
Speaker 2: The reactions of several Republican lawmakers were, well, if he's innocent,

391
00:27:21,040 --> 00:27:23,679
Speaker 2: a jury will decide that. You know, he'll have a

392
00:27:23,760 --> 00:27:25,919
Speaker 2: chance to go to trial, and a jury will make

393
00:27:25,920 --> 00:27:30,800
Speaker 2: the ultimate decision. But that ignores what a defendant has

394
00:27:30,880 --> 00:27:35,359
Speaker 2: to go through and you know, the reputational damage and

395
00:27:35,400 --> 00:27:38,920
Speaker 2: the money spent on attorney's fees and all the rest,

396
00:27:39,040 --> 00:27:41,760
Speaker 2: the anxiety of going to trial.

397
00:27:42,160 --> 00:27:44,080
Speaker 4: Well, it could, and I think that's part of the

398
00:27:44,280 --> 00:27:47,640
Speaker 4: concerns that you would have in evaluating whether or not

399
00:27:47,840 --> 00:27:52,360
Speaker 4: these pronouncements, and frankly, the cases themselves have the appropriate

400
00:27:52,640 --> 00:27:58,000
Speaker 4: level of factual support. That's why ethically the Department of

401
00:27:58,160 --> 00:28:02,159
Speaker 4: Justice has always required that they're prosecutors have in fact

402
00:28:02,600 --> 00:28:07,640
Speaker 4: a sufficient factual basis so that they individually believe that

403
00:28:07,680 --> 00:28:10,680
Speaker 4: they are able to sustain a conviction, so that when

404
00:28:10,680 --> 00:28:14,480
Speaker 4: they bring a case, you could lose. And everybody understands

405
00:28:14,480 --> 00:28:16,520
Speaker 4: that you might try a case and a jury might

406
00:28:16,560 --> 00:28:21,560
Speaker 4: see it differently, but the individual prosecutors, as an ethical matter,

407
00:28:21,760 --> 00:28:25,600
Speaker 4: should have facts and evidence that convinces them that the

408
00:28:25,640 --> 00:28:27,200
Speaker 4: case should be brought.

409
00:28:28,480 --> 00:28:32,280
Speaker 2: The Washington Post is reporting that prosecutors pursuing the case

410
00:28:32,280 --> 00:28:36,720
Speaker 2: against John Bolton are being pushed by senior Justice Department

411
00:28:36,720 --> 00:28:41,440
Speaker 2: officials to get an indictment quickly. Could rushing a case

412
00:28:41,600 --> 00:28:46,320
Speaker 2: like that compromise the prosecution and perhaps what happens at trial.

413
00:28:47,040 --> 00:28:51,040
Speaker 4: Well, again not knowing the specifics of the Bolton investigation,

414
00:28:51,200 --> 00:28:54,800
Speaker 4: which frankly we should not know, because the investigation itself

415
00:28:54,840 --> 00:28:58,240
Speaker 4: should largely be a secret process if it's done through

416
00:28:58,280 --> 00:29:02,760
Speaker 4: the grand jury. The thing about potential cases such as

417
00:29:02,760 --> 00:29:06,760
Speaker 4: that is that they can be complicated, and the factual

418
00:29:06,840 --> 00:29:10,920
Speaker 4: basis to support them can be complicated. So prosecutors need

419
00:29:11,000 --> 00:29:14,480
Speaker 4: to take their time and be sufficient in their investigation

420
00:29:14,680 --> 00:29:18,760
Speaker 4: or thorough in their investigation, sufficient for them to have

421
00:29:18,840 --> 00:29:22,360
Speaker 4: the evidence in place that they're satisfied they can prove

422
00:29:22,440 --> 00:29:26,360
Speaker 4: the case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what our constitution

423
00:29:26,560 --> 00:29:30,600
Speaker 4: requires that's what due process of law requires. And again,

424
00:29:31,440 --> 00:29:35,520
Speaker 4: every prosecutor, frankly every lawyer has taken an oath to

425
00:29:35,600 --> 00:29:40,200
Speaker 4: support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and

426
00:29:40,280 --> 00:29:44,120
Speaker 4: that includes the notion of due process of law and

427
00:29:44,160 --> 00:29:48,320
Speaker 4: that people are innocent until proven guilty. The importance of

428
00:29:48,360 --> 00:29:53,040
Speaker 4: an independent judiciary becomes all the more important in cases

429
00:29:53,200 --> 00:29:56,960
Speaker 4: like this because the public will certainly be paying attention

430
00:29:57,160 --> 00:30:00,840
Speaker 4: and will want to see how the judicial process addresses

431
00:30:00,960 --> 00:30:03,760
Speaker 4: these cases, and so they will be looking to see

432
00:30:03,840 --> 00:30:06,520
Speaker 4: whether or not there are facts to support the case,

433
00:30:06,640 --> 00:30:10,600
Speaker 4: whether or not the case was properly initiated, and all

434
00:30:10,640 --> 00:30:13,880
Speaker 4: of the things that you're pointing out, where the court

435
00:30:13,920 --> 00:30:15,720
Speaker 4: will have to decide those issues.

436
00:30:16,600 --> 00:30:21,480
Speaker 2: Supreme Court held last year that presidents are largely free

437
00:30:21,520 --> 00:30:26,520
Speaker 2: from criminal liability for official actions they take. Does that

438
00:30:26,600 --> 00:30:31,080
Speaker 2: play any role in what's happening right now with Trump

439
00:30:31,160 --> 00:30:35,000
Speaker 2: calling for these prosecutions.

440
00:30:35,080 --> 00:30:37,840
Speaker 4: I don't think so. I think what the Supreme Court

441
00:30:37,920 --> 00:30:41,760
Speaker 4: was speaking to is a notion that a president can't

442
00:30:41,800 --> 00:30:46,600
Speaker 4: be criminally held accountable for various actions that they may

443
00:30:46,640 --> 00:30:50,760
Speaker 4: have taken as president. So the notion of saying that

444
00:30:50,880 --> 00:30:54,240
Speaker 4: a defendant is quote guilty as hell is likely not

445
00:30:54,400 --> 00:30:59,320
Speaker 4: criminal conduct. As we've pointed out, we believe it's inappropriate conduct,

446
00:30:59,720 --> 00:31:04,440
Speaker 4: but the Supreme Court's decision probably doesn't extend to that

447
00:31:04,520 --> 00:31:06,680
Speaker 4: kind of conduct by the president.

448
00:31:07,120 --> 00:31:13,000
Speaker 2: Is it a justification that administration officials are saying, we're

449
00:31:13,040 --> 00:31:18,240
Speaker 2: not weaponizing the Justice Department, we're responding to the weaponization

450
00:31:18,400 --> 00:31:21,000
Speaker 2: of the Justice Department against Trump.

451
00:31:21,360 --> 00:31:23,680
Speaker 4: I guess the point that I'll make is perhaps the

452
00:31:23,720 --> 00:31:25,720
Speaker 4: one that I tried to make earlier, and I go

453
00:31:25,840 --> 00:31:29,040
Speaker 4: back to Justice Jackson. You know, I've got the quote

454
00:31:29,080 --> 00:31:31,640
Speaker 4: that he shared with all of the lawyers in the

455
00:31:31,760 --> 00:31:34,800
Speaker 4: Justice Department in the Great Hall there at the Justice

456
00:31:34,840 --> 00:31:38,400
Speaker 4: Department that he was leading as Attorney General. In quoting him,

457
00:31:38,400 --> 00:31:42,600
Speaker 4: he said, the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power

458
00:31:43,040 --> 00:31:46,720
Speaker 4: comes from the pressure to go after somebody rather than

459
00:31:46,760 --> 00:31:50,200
Speaker 4: to go after a crime. And I think that's the

460
00:31:50,320 --> 00:31:55,480
Speaker 4: point here that everybody understands. I think that no one

461
00:31:55,640 --> 00:31:58,200
Speaker 4: is above the law, and if you've committed a crime,

462
00:31:58,720 --> 00:32:02,400
Speaker 4: people understand that you can be held accountable for that,

463
00:32:02,960 --> 00:32:06,200
Speaker 4: but they expect the process to be fair and that

464
00:32:06,480 --> 00:32:08,880
Speaker 4: the charge is to be brought on the basis of

465
00:32:09,400 --> 00:32:14,720
Speaker 4: sufficient facts and not just because there's political opposition. To

466
00:32:14,840 --> 00:32:16,560
Speaker 4: whoever that person might be.

467
00:32:17,040 --> 00:32:20,040
Speaker 2: And the American College of Trial Lawyers is a non

468
00:32:20,080 --> 00:32:21,280
Speaker 2: partisan organization.

469
00:32:21,840 --> 00:32:27,080
Speaker 4: The American College of Trial Lawyers, we represent trial lawyers

470
00:32:27,120 --> 00:32:31,000
Speaker 4: across the US and Canada, and our membership is composed

471
00:32:31,040 --> 00:32:35,360
Speaker 4: of some five thousand plus lawyers from all political perspectives,

472
00:32:35,800 --> 00:32:38,680
Speaker 4: So we don't speak out about the politics of any

473
00:32:38,720 --> 00:32:41,720
Speaker 4: of these matters. What we try to speak to is

474
00:32:41,800 --> 00:32:47,600
Speaker 4: the legal process, calling for an independent judiciary, calling for

475
00:32:47,880 --> 00:32:51,800
Speaker 4: honoring and respecting the rule of law, and calling for

476
00:32:52,160 --> 00:32:57,360
Speaker 4: people to simply respect the fact of the access to justice,

477
00:32:57,840 --> 00:33:01,600
Speaker 4: and for jury determinations that everybody has the right to

478
00:33:01,720 --> 00:33:04,640
Speaker 4: have their case if there is a case brought to

479
00:33:04,680 --> 00:33:06,560
Speaker 4: be decided in a quarter law.

480
00:33:07,000 --> 00:33:09,720
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me, Rick, That's Richard Dean,

481
00:33:09,880 --> 00:33:14,160
Speaker 2: Junior President of the American College of Trial Lawyers. And

482
00:33:14,200 --> 00:33:16,360
Speaker 2: that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show.

483
00:33:16,680 --> 00:33:19,040
Speaker 2: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

484
00:33:19,080 --> 00:33:23,360
Speaker 2: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

485
00:33:23,560 --> 00:33:28,600
Speaker 2: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,

486
00:33:29,000 --> 00:33:31,560
Speaker 2: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every

487
00:33:31,640 --> 00:33:35,520
Speaker 2: weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso

488
00:33:35,680 --> 00:33:37,280
Speaker 2: and you're listening to Bloomberg