WEBVTT - Immigration Chaos at the Border

0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.640 --> 0:00:13.200
<v Speaker 1>Let me be clear, the Department does not tolerate any

0:00:13.240 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>mistreatment of any migrant and will not tolerate any violation

0:00:18.120 --> 0:00:23.200
<v Speaker 1>of its values, principles and ethics. Deputy of Homeland Security

0:00:23.320 --> 0:00:28.240
<v Speaker 1>Secretary Alejandro Majorcis said horse patrols have been suspended and

0:00:28.280 --> 0:00:32.320
<v Speaker 1>an investigation is underway after footage emerged of border patrol

0:00:32.440 --> 0:00:36.159
<v Speaker 1>agents using horses to block and move migrants on the

0:00:36.200 --> 0:00:40.080
<v Speaker 1>banks of the Rio Grande. A massive migrant camp sprouted

0:00:40.080 --> 0:00:43.080
<v Speaker 1>in the town of Del Rido, Texas, speaking at about

0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:46.640
<v Speaker 1>thirty thousand people, mainly Haitians, many of whom have been

0:00:46.640 --> 0:00:50.239
<v Speaker 1>in Mexico or other Latin American countries for years. The

0:00:50.320 --> 0:00:54.000
<v Speaker 1>camp has now been cleared. Some migrants have been deported,

0:00:54.040 --> 0:00:56.560
<v Speaker 1>others have been allowed to stay in the United States,

0:00:56.640 --> 0:01:00.320
<v Speaker 1>at least temporarily, to pursue their claims for asylum. However,

0:01:00.360 --> 0:01:04.080
<v Speaker 1>the controversy over the treatment of the Haitian migrants remains.

0:01:04.720 --> 0:01:07.920
<v Speaker 1>Joining me Is Leon Fresco, a partnered Hollanden Night, a

0:01:07.959 --> 0:01:11.720
<v Speaker 1>former immigration official in the Obama administration. Leon there's been

0:01:11.800 --> 0:01:16.440
<v Speaker 1>outrage over the conduct of these border patrol agents. So

0:01:16.640 --> 0:01:18.679
<v Speaker 1>it's clear that what they were doing was they were

0:01:18.680 --> 0:01:22.319
<v Speaker 1>taking the reins from the horses and using them to

0:01:22.520 --> 0:01:26.400
<v Speaker 1>try to restrain people trying to come into the country

0:01:26.400 --> 0:01:29.600
<v Speaker 1>and also to push people back into Haiti. But the

0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:33.560
<v Speaker 1>point is, regardless of what you're doing, a the opticks

0:01:33.560 --> 0:01:37.920
<v Speaker 1>of the situation are unfortunate. But all of this is

0:01:37.920 --> 0:01:41.000
<v Speaker 1>a result of a lack of planning on how to

0:01:41.120 --> 0:01:46.200
<v Speaker 1>address foreseeable surges into the southern border. And so this

0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:48.280
<v Speaker 1>is where I have a bit of frustration because I

0:01:48.320 --> 0:01:51.240
<v Speaker 1>had a lot of sympathy towards the Binden administration, but

0:01:51.440 --> 0:01:56.760
<v Speaker 1>this is now October basically, and you could have taken

0:01:57.160 --> 0:02:01.200
<v Speaker 1>the time period that existed due to the COVID crisis

0:02:01.240 --> 0:02:03.560
<v Speaker 1>and due to the fact that when you inherited the

0:02:03.600 --> 0:02:07.240
<v Speaker 1>border it was a closed border and say to the

0:02:07.280 --> 0:02:11.280
<v Speaker 1>immigration community, we need a few months to build the

0:02:11.360 --> 0:02:15.360
<v Speaker 1>plane first before we fly it. And the problem is

0:02:15.760 --> 0:02:18.680
<v Speaker 1>you haven't had that. You had them trying to hold

0:02:18.680 --> 0:02:22.760
<v Speaker 1>times to simultaneously fly the plane and build it, and

0:02:22.800 --> 0:02:28.160
<v Speaker 1>so you've never put the capacity there to have expedited processing,

0:02:28.639 --> 0:02:32.040
<v Speaker 1>to have sent adjudication of asylum, so that you would

0:02:32.040 --> 0:02:34.120
<v Speaker 1>never get to a position where you would have thousands

0:02:34.120 --> 0:02:38.240
<v Speaker 1>of people surging in any one location. Now we've heard

0:02:38.280 --> 0:02:42.400
<v Speaker 1>a million times and Secretary Majorcas said this, the immigration

0:02:42.480 --> 0:02:46.120
<v Speaker 1>system is broken. But do they have the ability to

0:02:46.280 --> 0:02:49.760
<v Speaker 1>do what you just suggested within the parameters of what

0:02:49.919 --> 0:02:53.440
<v Speaker 1>they're working with. Well, the point is you never have

0:02:53.600 --> 0:02:57.680
<v Speaker 1>the ability to do it instantaneously, but you have the

0:02:57.720 --> 0:03:02.720
<v Speaker 1>ability if you invest in a momentary pause to build

0:03:02.720 --> 0:03:06.560
<v Speaker 1>a system with your allies in the region that actually

0:03:06.639 --> 0:03:11.240
<v Speaker 1>has regional processing centers all around the region where people

0:03:11.280 --> 0:03:15.959
<v Speaker 1>can go and asked for asylum or refugee status. And

0:03:16.000 --> 0:03:18.840
<v Speaker 1>then if you try to get around them and go

0:03:19.080 --> 0:03:21.840
<v Speaker 1>to the southern border, you would tell people know there's

0:03:21.840 --> 0:03:25.119
<v Speaker 1>no entrance. That's a lot here. You're being excluded from

0:03:25.160 --> 0:03:27.919
<v Speaker 1>the country because you have to apply for asylum through

0:03:28.000 --> 0:03:32.239
<v Speaker 1>these regional processing centers in Mexico and in Central America.

0:03:32.360 --> 0:03:36.280
<v Speaker 1>There was a way to do this, and unfortunately this

0:03:36.360 --> 0:03:39.040
<v Speaker 1>time that could have been used during the COVID era

0:03:39.160 --> 0:03:41.800
<v Speaker 1>to say the people, look, we can't allow people to

0:03:41.840 --> 0:03:44.080
<v Speaker 1>come in through the southern border. During the COVID area,

0:03:44.680 --> 0:03:47.360
<v Speaker 1>we weren't allowing people to do this viasa the Europe

0:03:47.520 --> 0:03:50.880
<v Speaker 1>until November. You could have used that same time period

0:03:50.920 --> 0:03:55.440
<v Speaker 1>that we had with Europe and built a very solid

0:03:55.480 --> 0:03:59.360
<v Speaker 1>refugee system the process people abroad, and that was fair

0:03:59.680 --> 0:04:02.720
<v Speaker 1>and actually had a robust number of people that you

0:04:02.880 --> 0:04:05.720
<v Speaker 1>let in. You could have done that, but that wasn't done.

0:04:06.120 --> 0:04:11.520
<v Speaker 1>Maiorcas was asked if the administration policies are encouraging more immigration.

0:04:11.840 --> 0:04:14.360
<v Speaker 1>Is that true to a certain extent. Are some of

0:04:14.400 --> 0:04:19.280
<v Speaker 1>the migrants coming here because Biden is in office. Well,

0:04:19.320 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>there's always a factor here that's sensitive to what people

0:04:23.920 --> 0:04:26.640
<v Speaker 1>are hearing, and so what people are hearing sometimes can

0:04:26.640 --> 0:04:29.880
<v Speaker 1>be true, and what people are hearing can sometimes be false.

0:04:30.400 --> 0:04:34.400
<v Speaker 1>And so you can't control if smugglers are telling people

0:04:34.560 --> 0:04:37.920
<v Speaker 1>false narratives about coming to the United States. But in

0:04:37.960 --> 0:04:41.119
<v Speaker 1>this case, the narrative had some truth to it because

0:04:41.160 --> 0:04:45.600
<v Speaker 1>you had, For in the Haitian example, the temporary protective

0:04:45.600 --> 0:04:48.880
<v Speaker 1>status for Haitians in the United States was extended to

0:04:48.960 --> 0:04:52.240
<v Speaker 1>a larger group of Haitians than had already had that status,

0:04:52.240 --> 0:04:54.960
<v Speaker 1>and I agreed with doing that. The point is, if

0:04:54.960 --> 0:04:58.480
<v Speaker 1>you're going to do that, and then you have to say, well,

0:04:58.960 --> 0:05:02.320
<v Speaker 1>the foreseeable outcome of that is there's going to be

0:05:02.400 --> 0:05:06.120
<v Speaker 1>a desire from other Haitians to want to come into

0:05:06.120 --> 0:05:09.159
<v Speaker 1>the United States to see a Vaguan take advance of

0:05:09.200 --> 0:05:12.640
<v Speaker 1>both this program or maybe a later extension that would

0:05:12.680 --> 0:05:16.560
<v Speaker 1>happen for additional Asians. And so at that point, that's

0:05:16.640 --> 0:05:20.120
<v Speaker 1>where you have to say, these things don't happen in

0:05:20.120 --> 0:05:24.440
<v Speaker 1>a vacuum. We have to have a system that is compassionate,

0:05:24.720 --> 0:05:28.120
<v Speaker 1>but also it is stringent for people who don't want

0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:32.400
<v Speaker 1>to use the vehicles of compassion. And that's the place

0:05:32.440 --> 0:05:35.320
<v Speaker 1>where I think there will be an equilibrium on this.

0:05:35.440 --> 0:05:39.000
<v Speaker 1>You're starting to see it, but the equilibrium is going

0:05:39.040 --> 0:05:41.560
<v Speaker 1>to take some sing to develop. Man, what do you

0:05:41.600 --> 0:05:45.159
<v Speaker 1>think is likely to happen with the investigation into the

0:05:45.200 --> 0:05:49.240
<v Speaker 1>border agents. Well, the point is this, whenever there's any

0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:52.200
<v Speaker 1>use of force, which is essentially what this is, you

0:05:52.240 --> 0:05:54.640
<v Speaker 1>have to go through the protocols of a use and

0:05:54.720 --> 0:05:58.159
<v Speaker 1>force investigation and determine whether the use of force was

0:05:58.240 --> 0:06:01.719
<v Speaker 1>justified or not in a picular situation. And the problem

0:06:01.839 --> 0:06:05.560
<v Speaker 1>with a lot of these video footages if you don't

0:06:05.560 --> 0:06:08.640
<v Speaker 1>get the whole context of what was happening before, what

0:06:08.720 --> 0:06:12.880
<v Speaker 1>was happening after, nobody has any idea. Now, are the

0:06:12.960 --> 0:06:16.400
<v Speaker 1>videos that you saw in the sharp context that you

0:06:16.480 --> 0:06:19.040
<v Speaker 1>saw them in pleasant videos to look at. No, they

0:06:19.040 --> 0:06:22.920
<v Speaker 1>are not. But until you have all of the information

0:06:22.960 --> 0:06:25.200
<v Speaker 1>and all of the facts, it's hard to make a

0:06:25.240 --> 0:06:29.760
<v Speaker 1>determination that someone acted without cause or acted in the

0:06:29.760 --> 0:06:32.440
<v Speaker 1>wrong way because you don't know what they're trained to

0:06:32.480 --> 0:06:35.279
<v Speaker 1>do in that situation. You don't know what was happening,

0:06:35.279 --> 0:06:38.320
<v Speaker 1>you don't know what they did in the reality the

0:06:38.360 --> 0:06:42.200
<v Speaker 1>minutes before that, and so there's nothing that anybody can

0:06:42.279 --> 0:06:46.520
<v Speaker 1>say commenting on it that takes the place of an investigation.

0:06:46.680 --> 0:06:49.560
<v Speaker 1>That's what's required under the law, and so that's the

0:06:49.640 --> 0:06:52.360
<v Speaker 1>new pace that's that's necessary here. As far as the

0:06:52.440 --> 0:06:55.160
<v Speaker 1>numbers we've been given on the Haitians, about twelve thousand,

0:06:55.240 --> 0:06:57.800
<v Speaker 1>four hundred were released into the US waiting to have

0:06:57.880 --> 0:07:02.080
<v Speaker 1>their asylum cases heard by Immigrant Asian judges, five thousand

0:07:02.160 --> 0:07:07.960
<v Speaker 1>processed by DHS, three thousand in detention, eight thousand returned

0:07:08.000 --> 0:07:12.840
<v Speaker 1>to Mexico, and only about hundred were on flights to Haiti.

0:07:13.280 --> 0:07:16.000
<v Speaker 1>So my first question is what happened to the Biden

0:07:16.040 --> 0:07:20.800
<v Speaker 1>administration using Title forty two to turn the Haitians away.

0:07:20.920 --> 0:07:23.640
<v Speaker 1>Did they decide it wasn't a good idea. I think

0:07:23.640 --> 0:07:26.880
<v Speaker 1>they've been pretty consistent about the fact that they want

0:07:26.920 --> 0:07:31.680
<v Speaker 1>to use Title forty two in situations that it's single adults.

0:07:31.720 --> 0:07:36.120
<v Speaker 1>In situations where there are families or unaccompanied minors, they

0:07:36.120 --> 0:07:39.280
<v Speaker 1>are not wanting to use this title forty two authorities.

0:07:39.680 --> 0:07:42.960
<v Speaker 1>And so the reason you saw these dis joints that

0:07:43.040 --> 0:07:45.400
<v Speaker 1>outcomes is because there were some number of people in

0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:47.840
<v Speaker 1>families and they didn't want to use the title forty

0:07:47.880 --> 0:07:51.360
<v Speaker 1>two and families, and even with some single adults, you

0:07:51.480 --> 0:07:54.440
<v Speaker 1>can't use Title forty two if they have absolutely no

0:07:54.600 --> 0:07:59.000
<v Speaker 1>paperwork and Mexico isn't willing to accept them. So you

0:07:59.120 --> 0:08:01.960
<v Speaker 1>have to have some plan for once you send them

0:08:02.000 --> 0:08:05.280
<v Speaker 1>to Mexico, what's going to happen to them, because Mexico

0:08:05.480 --> 0:08:09.080
<v Speaker 1>is also a partner in the Title forty two efforts.

0:08:09.240 --> 0:08:11.320
<v Speaker 1>And so it's a lot easier to use Cital forty

0:08:11.320 --> 0:08:16.000
<v Speaker 1>two with mexict maginals or even with Central American nationals

0:08:16.000 --> 0:08:20.600
<v Speaker 1>that Mexico can have a plan for wek creating back

0:08:20.640 --> 0:08:23.680
<v Speaker 1>to their neighboring country. But with Haitians, it's a lot

0:08:23.720 --> 0:08:27.200
<v Speaker 1>more complicated to use Cital forty two because the Haitian

0:08:27.280 --> 0:08:31.240
<v Speaker 1>doesn't belong either in Mexico or Central America or the

0:08:31.320 --> 0:08:34.200
<v Speaker 1>United States or anywhere else they belong, either in Haiti

0:08:34.600 --> 0:08:37.160
<v Speaker 1>or some of them had gotten some permission to reside

0:08:37.440 --> 0:08:41.000
<v Speaker 1>in other parts of South America, and so Mexico would say,

0:08:41.000 --> 0:08:43.440
<v Speaker 1>why are you bringing these individuals here? They have no

0:08:43.640 --> 0:08:46.840
<v Speaker 1>jurisdiction to be here, and so that's why you saw

0:08:46.880 --> 0:08:51.000
<v Speaker 1>these disjointed outcome, he said. The Biden administration doesn't like

0:08:51.120 --> 0:08:54.480
<v Speaker 1>to use Title forty two to expel families, but they're

0:08:54.480 --> 0:08:59.400
<v Speaker 1>appealing a judge's order that forbids them from expelling migrant

0:08:59.440 --> 0:09:03.640
<v Speaker 1>family under Title forty two. Yes, and I think there's

0:09:03.640 --> 0:09:06.920
<v Speaker 1>two issues there. Number One, there's the issue of having

0:09:07.000 --> 0:09:10.160
<v Speaker 1>the tool in the tool box, and so they definitely

0:09:10.200 --> 0:09:12.559
<v Speaker 1>believe that they need to have the tool in the

0:09:12.559 --> 0:09:17.320
<v Speaker 1>tool box. But simultaneously, while they're in this litigation, they

0:09:17.400 --> 0:09:21.720
<v Speaker 1>don't want to have thousands of families being excluded under

0:09:21.760 --> 0:09:25.760
<v Speaker 1>Title forty two because a that weakens their litigation position

0:09:26.120 --> 0:09:29.199
<v Speaker 1>that they're only using this tool when it's absolutely needed.

0:09:29.800 --> 0:09:34.439
<v Speaker 1>But be they don't actually have a lot of desire

0:09:34.760 --> 0:09:39.120
<v Speaker 1>to use this tool for families, because there is some

0:09:39.280 --> 0:09:43.200
<v Speaker 1>sympathy for these children, especially sometimes when the children are

0:09:43.320 --> 0:09:46.200
<v Speaker 1>vulnerable ages and you're seeing them at the order and

0:09:46.280 --> 0:09:49.679
<v Speaker 1>you're seeing very sympathetic cases. It's hard to sympally just

0:09:50.080 --> 0:09:52.600
<v Speaker 1>turn those people back and say good luck to you.

0:09:52.600 --> 0:09:56.120
<v Speaker 1>You know, never come here, and whatever happens to you happen.

0:09:56.559 --> 0:09:59.240
<v Speaker 1>And so you have those factors. You have the sympathy factor,

0:09:59.600 --> 0:10:02.439
<v Speaker 1>you have fact that in the litigation you're trying to

0:10:02.520 --> 0:10:05.560
<v Speaker 1>keep the tool alive for when it's really needed. And

0:10:05.679 --> 0:10:08.640
<v Speaker 1>also though you don't want to have thousands and thousands

0:10:08.640 --> 0:10:10.640
<v Speaker 1>that in the cases, because it makes it a lot

0:10:10.640 --> 0:10:13.240
<v Speaker 1>easier for the platance to win than if you say

0:10:13.320 --> 0:10:17.440
<v Speaker 1>you're using it only for cases where it's absolutely needed. Now,

0:10:17.559 --> 0:10:21.120
<v Speaker 1>a notice to appear is typically the first step in

0:10:21.160 --> 0:10:25.520
<v Speaker 1>the deportation process, but the buying administration is handing out

0:10:25.679 --> 0:10:30.600
<v Speaker 1>notices to report. What's the difference. So we talked about

0:10:30.640 --> 0:10:34.440
<v Speaker 1>this in the past. There's been this litigation about that

0:10:34.559 --> 0:10:39.480
<v Speaker 1>your removal proceeding is totally nullified under the law. Now,

0:10:39.520 --> 0:10:42.280
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court has said this twice if you get

0:10:42.320 --> 0:10:44.960
<v Speaker 1>a notice to appear that doesn't have the exact time

0:10:45.040 --> 0:10:49.720
<v Speaker 1>they place and location of the hearing. And so what

0:10:49.800 --> 0:10:52.280
<v Speaker 1>happens is when you're having thousands and thousands of people

0:10:52.360 --> 0:10:54.839
<v Speaker 1>and you have no idea where the heck these folks

0:10:54.880 --> 0:10:58.440
<v Speaker 1>are going to how can you say, appear at the

0:10:58.559 --> 0:11:02.360
<v Speaker 1>U S Immigration Court in Chicago on October fourth at

0:11:02.520 --> 0:11:05.760
<v Speaker 1>at seven thirty a m. You don't know. It's it's

0:11:05.800 --> 0:11:09.080
<v Speaker 1>way too complicated. And so what they want to do

0:11:09.120 --> 0:11:11.960
<v Speaker 1>is try to get people to do an ICE check

0:11:12.040 --> 0:11:16.240
<v Speaker 1>in and only then issue the notice to appear that

0:11:16.360 --> 0:11:19.439
<v Speaker 1>has the data that's needed. Because if you issue the

0:11:19.559 --> 0:11:22.400
<v Speaker 1>data that's needs and usually the notice appear without the

0:11:22.480 --> 0:11:25.440
<v Speaker 1>data that's needed, and then the person either misses the

0:11:25.480 --> 0:11:28.200
<v Speaker 1>court date or never shows up or anything, then you

0:11:28.280 --> 0:11:33.240
<v Speaker 1>actually can't move forward with their removal because everything was void.

0:11:33.320 --> 0:11:36.000
<v Speaker 1>You never gave them the right process at the beginning.

0:11:36.280 --> 0:11:39.719
<v Speaker 1>So what they're trying to do is a range of

0:11:39.880 --> 0:11:42.360
<v Speaker 1>situation where the person doesn't show up to their ICE

0:11:42.440 --> 0:11:45.800
<v Speaker 1>check in, they can be detained and then you can

0:11:45.840 --> 0:11:49.240
<v Speaker 1>give them their notice to appear with their actual right

0:11:49.400 --> 0:11:52.560
<v Speaker 1>hearing day. And actually what you would do if you

0:11:52.559 --> 0:11:55.079
<v Speaker 1>would do it in the detention facility itself, as you

0:11:55.120 --> 0:11:58.280
<v Speaker 1>would say, here's your first hearing, and once you've given

0:11:58.280 --> 0:12:01.760
<v Speaker 1>them their first hearing from them on, you've complied with

0:12:01.840 --> 0:12:05.319
<v Speaker 1>the requirements under the law. The DHS Secretary also spoke

0:12:05.360 --> 0:12:09.800
<v Speaker 1>about the conditions for asylum, which we've talked about many times,

0:12:09.840 --> 0:12:12.679
<v Speaker 1>and it seems that when you you listen to the

0:12:12.720 --> 0:12:16.440
<v Speaker 1>stories that a lot of the Haitians are claiming asylum

0:12:16.559 --> 0:12:21.520
<v Speaker 1>for economic reasons, would economic reasons ever get you asylum?

0:12:21.840 --> 0:12:26.360
<v Speaker 1>Purely economic deprivation is not sufficient to get asylum. Now,

0:12:26.400 --> 0:12:29.760
<v Speaker 1>you can have a situation where if what you're suffering

0:12:29.880 --> 0:12:33.920
<v Speaker 1>is pure economic deprivation because of your political opinion. So

0:12:34.000 --> 0:12:37.760
<v Speaker 1>let's say they say people who supported this presidential candidate

0:12:38.040 --> 0:12:40.920
<v Speaker 1>will never be allowed to get a job or access

0:12:40.960 --> 0:12:44.960
<v Speaker 1>to banking, or access to food or anything else. Even

0:12:45.000 --> 0:12:48.160
<v Speaker 1>if you're not tortured or not placed in jail or anything,

0:12:48.520 --> 0:12:52.920
<v Speaker 1>that can be asylum. But if there's general economic deprivation

0:12:53.360 --> 0:12:58.360
<v Speaker 1>countrywide and it's not based specifically on your political opinion

0:12:58.520 --> 0:13:01.640
<v Speaker 1>or your social group, or your religions, or your race

0:13:01.840 --> 0:13:04.760
<v Speaker 1>or your national origin, then that's never going to be

0:13:04.800 --> 0:13:08.800
<v Speaker 1>sufficient to get asylum. Which is why many people who

0:13:08.800 --> 0:13:11.560
<v Speaker 1>apply for asylum don't end up qualifying, is because you

0:13:11.640 --> 0:13:14.520
<v Speaker 1>have to fit that very narrow group of people of

0:13:14.600 --> 0:13:18.160
<v Speaker 1>why they're suffering. Some people are predicting that this is

0:13:18.200 --> 0:13:21.240
<v Speaker 1>going to happen at the border again, is the Biden

0:13:21.240 --> 0:13:27.199
<v Speaker 1>administration doing anything right now to prevent this from happening again. Well,

0:13:27.240 --> 0:13:30.360
<v Speaker 1>the only thing that's happening right now under the Biden

0:13:30.360 --> 0:13:34.679
<v Speaker 1>administration is they're trying to get a new regulation out

0:13:35.520 --> 0:13:41.960
<v Speaker 1>that would make meritorious asylum claims easier to grant right

0:13:41.960 --> 0:13:46.360
<v Speaker 1>there at the border, so that the less meritorious asylum

0:13:46.360 --> 0:13:50.440
<v Speaker 1>claims are placed into a smaller pile of cases. The

0:13:50.600 --> 0:13:54.120
<v Speaker 1>problem is at the end right now, the current backlog

0:13:54.200 --> 0:13:57.319
<v Speaker 1>is in the millions, and no matter who you're placing

0:13:57.360 --> 0:14:00.480
<v Speaker 1>in this quote unquote smaller piles, and no matter who

0:14:00.520 --> 0:14:04.080
<v Speaker 1>you're prioritizing, you're seeing this already, for instance, in Boston

0:14:04.160 --> 0:14:09.120
<v Speaker 1>and in Los Angeles, these priority dockets quote unquote still

0:14:09.200 --> 0:14:13.960
<v Speaker 1>have dred people in cases for one judge, and so

0:14:14.080 --> 0:14:16.559
<v Speaker 1>that judgesn't go to get around to doing all of

0:14:16.600 --> 0:14:20.280
<v Speaker 1>those fifties hundred cases anytime soon. And so even if

0:14:20.320 --> 0:14:23.000
<v Speaker 1>you said, well, the goal was to get those done

0:14:23.000 --> 0:14:25.440
<v Speaker 1>in nine months, it's clear you're not going to get

0:14:25.440 --> 0:14:28.120
<v Speaker 1>those done in nine months. And so I just think

0:14:28.160 --> 0:14:31.760
<v Speaker 1>at some point we have to grapple with a system.

0:14:31.920 --> 0:14:35.280
<v Speaker 1>And neither side has done this, neither Trump nor Biden.

0:14:35.400 --> 0:14:38.880
<v Speaker 1>Because Trump in the end, didn't have the goal of

0:14:39.640 --> 0:14:44.920
<v Speaker 1>one thing, the meritorious cases in the United States. Their

0:14:45.040 --> 0:14:48.480
<v Speaker 1>approach was they didn't want any cases in the United States,

0:14:48.520 --> 0:14:53.440
<v Speaker 1>and the Biden administration hasn't wanted to be perceived as

0:14:53.560 --> 0:14:57.480
<v Speaker 1>overly insensitive to these cases, which is also a valid goal.

0:14:57.560 --> 0:14:59.720
<v Speaker 1>So both goals are valid depending on how you look

0:14:59.760 --> 0:15:01.960
<v Speaker 1>at it. But I just think we need to get

0:15:02.000 --> 0:15:05.360
<v Speaker 1>to an approach finally at some point where we have

0:15:05.440 --> 0:15:10.360
<v Speaker 1>regional processing centers in Mexico in Central America where people

0:15:10.400 --> 0:15:13.800
<v Speaker 1>can go and make those claims and actually have assistance

0:15:14.320 --> 0:15:16.520
<v Speaker 1>making those claims so they don't do it on their own.

0:15:16.560 --> 0:15:19.240
<v Speaker 1>They would have people from our government as that to

0:15:19.320 --> 0:15:23.320
<v Speaker 1>make these claims, and then those cases get adjudicated and

0:15:23.360 --> 0:15:25.960
<v Speaker 1>you either use that process and you get into the

0:15:26.040 --> 0:15:28.720
<v Speaker 1>United States, or if you don't use that process, you

0:15:28.760 --> 0:15:32.480
<v Speaker 1>are automatically excluded from the United States. And I think

0:15:32.560 --> 0:15:35.720
<v Speaker 1>that's the fairest thing we can do for this hemisphere,

0:15:36.320 --> 0:15:39.200
<v Speaker 1>is to give people with fair asylum claims a chance

0:15:39.240 --> 0:15:41.440
<v Speaker 1>to do it. But it doesn't have to be at

0:15:41.440 --> 0:15:44.480
<v Speaker 1>our southern border. And so this is what continues to

0:15:44.640 --> 0:15:49.000
<v Speaker 1>be the complicating practicer here. So the governor of Texas

0:15:49.080 --> 0:15:54.760
<v Speaker 1>has said that they're going to start arresting people for trespassing.

0:15:55.240 --> 0:15:57.520
<v Speaker 1>Is that the order that's being a challenge by the

0:15:57.520 --> 0:16:02.880
<v Speaker 1>Biden administration. Well, I'm first of all, that's the provision

0:16:02.960 --> 0:16:06.840
<v Speaker 1>that Jan Brewer in twelves during the Arizona and Law.

0:16:07.000 --> 0:16:09.800
<v Speaker 1>At all of those three court cases, she was trying

0:16:09.840 --> 0:16:12.520
<v Speaker 1>to do the same concept basically, which was to arrest

0:16:13.080 --> 0:16:16.760
<v Speaker 1>undocumented people for dress passing in Arizona. But yeah, Blue

0:16:16.840 --> 0:16:20.240
<v Speaker 1>being salad. It's one of many things being valid by

0:16:20.320 --> 0:16:25.280
<v Speaker 1>the by the administration. But the interesting question is they're

0:16:25.320 --> 0:16:28.680
<v Speaker 1>trying to pee up an issue that if you look

0:16:28.680 --> 0:16:31.960
<v Speaker 1>at who decided the Arizona decision, that was the six

0:16:32.120 --> 0:16:38.240
<v Speaker 1>three decisions, but the six justices who rules for the case,

0:16:38.840 --> 0:16:44.480
<v Speaker 1>the only ones who are left are Robert Prota, Major Kagan,

0:16:45.320 --> 0:16:49.880
<v Speaker 1>and and Roberts. And so you have five justices who

0:16:49.920 --> 0:16:53.720
<v Speaker 1>either ruled on behalf of Arizona or are news to

0:16:53.760 --> 0:16:57.000
<v Speaker 1>the court, which is having a Coney, Barrett and Dorsage.

0:16:57.080 --> 0:17:00.360
<v Speaker 1>And so the question is with those five justices end

0:17:00.440 --> 0:17:04.840
<v Speaker 1>up overturning the Arizona And so it's possible that with

0:17:05.080 --> 0:17:09.920
<v Speaker 1>these five justices who are not on the record or

0:17:10.000 --> 0:17:12.760
<v Speaker 1>on the record on the side of state enforcement of

0:17:12.800 --> 0:17:17.320
<v Speaker 1>immigration law, they may decide that the Arizona decision should

0:17:17.320 --> 0:17:22.280
<v Speaker 1>be overturned and that state can start doing immigration enforcements.

0:17:22.720 --> 0:17:26.240
<v Speaker 1>That would be similar to, for instance, states enforcing drug laws.

0:17:26.240 --> 0:17:30.679
<v Speaker 1>The federal government enforces drug laws and state enforced drug laws,

0:17:30.880 --> 0:17:33.879
<v Speaker 1>and so you might end up actually seeing that. And

0:17:33.960 --> 0:17:36.880
<v Speaker 1>I think that's not necessarily going to be decided this week,

0:17:37.280 --> 0:17:39.919
<v Speaker 1>but it's definitely something to be looking for during the

0:17:39.920 --> 0:17:43.120
<v Speaker 1>course of the Biden presidency. Okay, so now I want

0:17:43.160 --> 0:17:47.200
<v Speaker 1>to talk about the Biden administration released its proposed measure

0:17:47.480 --> 0:17:52.360
<v Speaker 1>to preserve and fortify DACO. Well, one of the criticisms

0:17:52.400 --> 0:17:55.160
<v Speaker 1>that has been given in this litigation about the legality

0:17:55.160 --> 0:17:58.480
<v Speaker 1>of DACCA was that DOCCA was not simply an issue

0:17:58.480 --> 0:18:04.160
<v Speaker 1>of prosecutorial disgray shion, but was actually a program. And

0:18:04.160 --> 0:18:06.040
<v Speaker 1>why it was with a program. It was a program

0:18:06.080 --> 0:18:08.800
<v Speaker 1>because it had requirements had to be under succeed, you

0:18:08.840 --> 0:18:13.120
<v Speaker 1>had to arrive priored at twelve, you had to have

0:18:13.600 --> 0:18:17.040
<v Speaker 1>not committed certain crimes. And so once you start putting

0:18:17.080 --> 0:18:21.760
<v Speaker 1>criteria on these lists of prosecutorial discretion, and it's not

0:18:21.960 --> 0:18:25.280
<v Speaker 1>just a case by case decision, but it's actually based

0:18:25.320 --> 0:18:28.280
<v Speaker 1>on criteria that that needed to be something that was

0:18:28.320 --> 0:18:31.440
<v Speaker 1>done through formal rulemaking. And so one of the things

0:18:31.440 --> 0:18:34.480
<v Speaker 1>that the court had said was that Doctor was illegal

0:18:34.560 --> 0:18:38.880
<v Speaker 1>because formal rulemaking has not been issued to actually implement

0:18:38.960 --> 0:18:42.400
<v Speaker 1>the program. And so now the Biden administration has finally,

0:18:42.440 --> 0:18:46.280
<v Speaker 1>after all of these years, decided to implement the formal

0:18:46.359 --> 0:18:49.720
<v Speaker 1>rulemaking for the program. Now that will shield it from

0:18:49.840 --> 0:18:53.400
<v Speaker 1>that attack. But then there will be the ultimate question,

0:18:53.520 --> 0:18:55.840
<v Speaker 1>which is the one that we've been at this for

0:18:55.920 --> 0:19:00.119
<v Speaker 1>ten years and nobody's ever ruled that definitively, which is

0:19:00.119 --> 0:19:04.520
<v Speaker 1>is data illegal? I mean, tim a president actually healed

0:19:04.920 --> 0:19:08.920
<v Speaker 1>a certain segment of the population from removal and then

0:19:09.000 --> 0:19:12.080
<v Speaker 1>actually allow them to work in the United States. That's

0:19:12.119 --> 0:19:16.320
<v Speaker 1>the question that hasn't been decided yet, and so that's

0:19:16.359 --> 0:19:19.159
<v Speaker 1>the question that will ultimately be set up to the

0:19:19.280 --> 0:19:22.160
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court as a result of this regulation. So they'll

0:19:22.160 --> 0:19:25.359
<v Speaker 1>be able to get all of the procedural reasons for

0:19:25.440 --> 0:19:28.960
<v Speaker 1>invalidating Doctor out of the way, and we will now

0:19:29.040 --> 0:19:34.359
<v Speaker 1>be finally peeing up this issue of is DOCTA at

0:19:34.400 --> 0:19:36.679
<v Speaker 1>the end of the day, something a president can or

0:19:36.760 --> 0:19:42.000
<v Speaker 1>can't move. So this rule will will answer the concerns

0:19:42.040 --> 0:19:46.120
<v Speaker 1>that that Texas judge had. Yes, it will. I will

0:19:46.200 --> 0:19:51.240
<v Speaker 1>answer the procedural complaints that the Texas judge had, which

0:19:51.240 --> 0:19:55.720
<v Speaker 1>is that the proper procedures were not followed in implementing DOCTA,

0:19:55.840 --> 0:19:59.439
<v Speaker 1>that there wasn't the formal rulemaking, and then notice and comment.

0:20:00.040 --> 0:20:02.000
<v Speaker 1>People can comment on the rule and say what they

0:20:02.040 --> 0:20:04.800
<v Speaker 1>don't like, and then you issue a final rule that's

0:20:04.840 --> 0:20:06.800
<v Speaker 1>going to take care of all of that, but it

0:20:06.880 --> 0:20:09.199
<v Speaker 1>won't take care of the judge's decision that in the

0:20:09.320 --> 0:20:12.120
<v Speaker 1>end DOCCA is illegal, that the laws have not forbid

0:20:12.640 --> 0:20:16.200
<v Speaker 1>the shielding of a certain group from deportation, followed by

0:20:16.320 --> 0:20:19.639
<v Speaker 1>then not just the shielding, but the implementation of work

0:20:19.760 --> 0:20:23.720
<v Speaker 1>rights and rights to travel abroad from this group. And

0:20:23.760 --> 0:20:28.040
<v Speaker 1>so with that that will finally be the substantive legal

0:20:28.080 --> 0:20:31.439
<v Speaker 1>issue beat up to the Supreme Court is whether DOCA

0:20:31.640 --> 0:20:35.600
<v Speaker 1>is actually legal or illegal. And so that's the issue

0:20:35.640 --> 0:20:39.080
<v Speaker 1>that finally no court is grappled with. Finally the Supreme

0:20:39.080 --> 0:20:41.840
<v Speaker 1>Court wild grapple with it at some point. That's Leon

0:20:41.880 --> 0:20:46.320
<v Speaker 1>Fresco of Hondon Knight. We have a lot to talk

0:20:46.359 --> 0:20:51.480
<v Speaker 1>about today. Let's get started with Apple TV plus One

0:20:51.520 --> 0:20:54.840
<v Speaker 1>thing CEO Tim Cook did not talk about the Apple

0:20:54.920 --> 0:20:57.679
<v Speaker 1>event was the injunction that will go into effect on

0:20:57.720 --> 0:21:01.480
<v Speaker 1>December nine, requiring Apple to make most significant change to

0:21:01.560 --> 0:21:05.280
<v Speaker 1>its app store business model since launching. In the antitrust

0:21:05.359 --> 0:21:08.480
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit brought by Epic Games, the judge ruled that Apple

0:21:08.560 --> 0:21:12.240
<v Speaker 1>must give developers the option of bypassing its commission on

0:21:12.400 --> 0:21:15.520
<v Speaker 1>in app purchases, a cut that runs as high as

0:21:15.560 --> 0:21:18.560
<v Speaker 1>thirty percent and could cost the tech giant a few

0:21:18.600 --> 0:21:23.080
<v Speaker 1>billion dollars annually. Joining me is antitrust law expert Harry First,

0:21:23.160 --> 0:21:26.119
<v Speaker 1>a professor at and Why You Law School? Harry. There

0:21:26.200 --> 0:21:28.679
<v Speaker 1>was a lot of talk after the decision about the

0:21:28.760 --> 0:21:31.359
<v Speaker 1>hit to Apple, but it was Epic that filed for

0:21:31.400 --> 0:21:35.320
<v Speaker 1>an appeal first. So who won this case? It was

0:21:35.640 --> 0:21:39.080
<v Speaker 1>pretty much a loss for Epic and a lot of

0:21:39.160 --> 0:21:42.800
<v Speaker 1>gain for Apple and your right. Epic filed the appeal

0:21:42.960 --> 0:21:46.600
<v Speaker 1>because they want to go further than the judges somewhat

0:21:46.680 --> 0:21:51.320
<v Speaker 1>limited but very interesting injunction which will stop to some

0:21:51.400 --> 0:21:56.000
<v Speaker 1>degree the requirement that you can't steer people to less

0:21:56.040 --> 0:22:00.159
<v Speaker 1>expensive payment system. Did the judges ruling leave enough m

0:22:00.240 --> 0:22:03.360
<v Speaker 1>for Apple to try to keep its app store revenue

0:22:03.440 --> 0:22:07.119
<v Speaker 1>stream largely intact? For example, it could still collect a

0:22:07.160 --> 0:22:11.840
<v Speaker 1>commission of up to despite the ruling. Yeah, there's nothing

0:22:11.880 --> 0:22:15.640
<v Speaker 1>that prevents Apple from collecting whatever it can collect. And

0:22:15.880 --> 0:22:18.680
<v Speaker 1>the mechanism that Apple chose, which is to run it

0:22:18.720 --> 0:22:22.040
<v Speaker 1>through its own payment system, is smart from Apple's point

0:22:22.040 --> 0:22:24.280
<v Speaker 1>of view. As she pointed out, it makes sure that

0:22:24.359 --> 0:22:28.200
<v Speaker 1>they track all the revenue that's generated through the app store.

0:22:28.240 --> 0:22:32.320
<v Speaker 1>Everything that flows through they get, and it doesn't say

0:22:32.320 --> 0:22:37.960
<v Speaker 1>they can't charge royalties to app developers in a different way,

0:22:38.520 --> 0:22:42.160
<v Speaker 1>using different formulas. You know, any party that's trying to

0:22:42.320 --> 0:22:45.320
<v Speaker 1>do something like what Apple's doing has to figure out

0:22:45.720 --> 0:22:48.640
<v Speaker 1>a way that will allow them to make the charges

0:22:48.760 --> 0:22:51.960
<v Speaker 1>and not too many people will escape. So it's not

0:22:52.080 --> 0:22:55.120
<v Speaker 1>clear even at this point how many people will escape

0:22:55.440 --> 0:22:59.120
<v Speaker 1>or whether consumers will bother to choose, because they still

0:22:59.200 --> 0:23:02.080
<v Speaker 1>have to have the option of paying through, you know,

0:23:02.119 --> 0:23:05.280
<v Speaker 1>an in app purchase, and I don't play video games,

0:23:05.280 --> 0:23:07.280
<v Speaker 1>and my guests, as consumers in the middle of the

0:23:07.400 --> 0:23:10.240
<v Speaker 1>video game, would prefer to click, then have to do

0:23:10.280 --> 0:23:14.320
<v Speaker 1>two clicks, which seems to be an impossible burden for people.

0:23:14.720 --> 0:23:19.200
<v Speaker 1>So it may not siphon off that much revenue. Epic

0:23:19.280 --> 0:23:22.920
<v Speaker 1>will have to give some sort of incentive to gamers

0:23:22.960 --> 0:23:25.480
<v Speaker 1>to do this to, you know, make the out of

0:23:25.520 --> 0:23:29.639
<v Speaker 1>app purchase of longer life for a wand or whatever

0:23:29.680 --> 0:23:32.560
<v Speaker 1>in the world people purchase for so much money, apparently

0:23:33.000 --> 0:23:36.800
<v Speaker 1>on the video games they own, like Fortnite. So not

0:23:37.000 --> 0:23:39.879
<v Speaker 1>clear how much of a difference it will make, and

0:23:39.920 --> 0:23:42.320
<v Speaker 1>if it does start to make a revenue stream difference,

0:23:42.440 --> 0:23:46.480
<v Speaker 1>certainly Apple configure out a different approach. The judges order

0:23:46.560 --> 0:23:50.239
<v Speaker 1>doesn't say that Apple has to keep Fortnite on the

0:23:50.240 --> 0:23:53.679
<v Speaker 1>App Store, so they could say, you know, unless you

0:23:53.760 --> 0:23:56.920
<v Speaker 1>pass X number of dollars, you're out of here. And

0:23:57.040 --> 0:23:59.640
<v Speaker 1>I don't see anything in the order that she entered

0:23:59.800 --> 0:24:03.680
<v Speaker 1>at forbids that, and in the main part of federal charges.

0:24:04.160 --> 0:24:06.720
<v Speaker 1>It seems to me it's pretty clear that they could

0:24:06.760 --> 0:24:09.720
<v Speaker 1>do that. So a lot yet to be written. And

0:24:09.800 --> 0:24:12.040
<v Speaker 1>of course this is just one case. You know, there

0:24:12.040 --> 0:24:16.360
<v Speaker 1>are cases elsewhere, and it's unclear what the federal government

0:24:16.520 --> 0:24:18.800
<v Speaker 1>might do. This maybe a little bit of a roadmap

0:24:18.800 --> 0:24:21.520
<v Speaker 1>in certain ways for the federal government. And of course

0:24:21.560 --> 0:24:24.640
<v Speaker 1>there are a non US government's Koreast in the process

0:24:24.680 --> 0:24:28.280
<v Speaker 1>of passing a statute dealing with app stores in the

0:24:28.400 --> 0:24:32.760
<v Speaker 1>fourth highest revenue jurisdiction in the world, which is South Korea.

0:24:33.400 --> 0:24:36.280
<v Speaker 1>The key part was the fight to define the market

0:24:36.640 --> 0:24:40.639
<v Speaker 1>in question. The judge disagreed with both sides about the

0:24:40.680 --> 0:24:44.159
<v Speaker 1>definition of the market. Tell us what she decided and

0:24:44.240 --> 0:24:49.639
<v Speaker 1>whether that will affect any future lawsuits by the Justice Department. Well,

0:24:49.840 --> 0:24:52.199
<v Speaker 1>first of all, one thing to keep in mind, I

0:24:52.240 --> 0:24:54.960
<v Speaker 1>think in terms of how it might affect future cases,

0:24:55.240 --> 0:24:58.480
<v Speaker 1>her decision was very much fact bound. In other words,

0:24:58.840 --> 0:25:02.920
<v Speaker 1>it depended a law on the evidence presented to her

0:25:03.040 --> 0:25:06.560
<v Speaker 1>by the parties. Now, these are very good lawyers, so

0:25:07.119 --> 0:25:09.560
<v Speaker 1>they tailored the case the way they thought it would

0:25:09.680 --> 0:25:13.000
<v Speaker 1>be best. But to some extent it didn't convince in

0:25:13.160 --> 0:25:17.120
<v Speaker 1>a number of different ways. It's not clear that that's irreparable. So,

0:25:17.200 --> 0:25:20.480
<v Speaker 1>for example, a big thing was that she didn't believe

0:25:20.520 --> 0:25:24.560
<v Speaker 1>that consumers were really locked into the Apple platform. I

0:25:24.600 --> 0:25:28.280
<v Speaker 1>am not an Apple user. You may be my view

0:25:28.280 --> 0:25:31.560
<v Speaker 1>of Apple users as they're fanatically locked in. So this

0:25:31.640 --> 0:25:33.760
<v Speaker 1>may be just a failure of proof that it wasn't

0:25:33.840 --> 0:25:36.240
<v Speaker 1>quite presented. She didn't say they weren't locked in. She

0:25:36.280 --> 0:25:39.040
<v Speaker 1>said Epic didn't prove they were. Now, if they're locked

0:25:39.080 --> 0:25:41.640
<v Speaker 1>in or they can't exit, I would prefer to think

0:25:41.640 --> 0:25:44.520
<v Speaker 1>of it that way. That means that if you want

0:25:44.520 --> 0:25:48.959
<v Speaker 1>to serve roughly half of the consumers of games or

0:25:49.000 --> 0:25:51.640
<v Speaker 1>any app, you've got to be on that platform. I mean,

0:25:51.680 --> 0:25:53.800
<v Speaker 1>you just can't give up that market. And if they

0:25:53.840 --> 0:25:57.520
<v Speaker 1>won't migrate over to Android or something else, you are

0:25:57.720 --> 0:26:00.360
<v Speaker 1>a subject to the power of Apple. So I think

0:26:00.359 --> 0:26:03.480
<v Speaker 1>a future case may look at the facts differently or

0:26:03.520 --> 0:26:06.480
<v Speaker 1>try to present them a little differently. So this does

0:26:06.560 --> 0:26:10.160
<v Speaker 1>not bind all future cases, and you're right. The leadoff

0:26:10.240 --> 0:26:12.639
<v Speaker 1>question is how do we define the market. That's very

0:26:12.720 --> 0:26:15.160
<v Speaker 1>unusual for a judge to pick a market that neither

0:26:15.280 --> 0:26:18.280
<v Speaker 1>party proposed, and that she has to sort of make

0:26:18.359 --> 0:26:21.679
<v Speaker 1>up market shares, which are sort of guesses because there

0:26:21.680 --> 0:26:24.840
<v Speaker 1>really wasn't all that much evidence about this market. And

0:26:24.880 --> 0:26:27.760
<v Speaker 1>the market share has turned out to be pivotal because

0:26:27.800 --> 0:26:31.040
<v Speaker 1>they're under six and for monopoly power in the US,

0:26:31.160 --> 0:26:33.920
<v Speaker 1>you're not going to find cases where the shares under six.

0:26:34.720 --> 0:26:37.280
<v Speaker 1>So that was a big deal. It could be different

0:26:37.320 --> 0:26:41.320
<v Speaker 1>next year, you know, Apple selling more iPhones, their markets

0:26:41.359 --> 0:26:44.360
<v Speaker 1>there might be higher. They might find themselves next year

0:26:44.400 --> 0:26:49.440
<v Speaker 1>as having monopoly, and so Apple dodged the worst case

0:26:49.440 --> 0:26:52.880
<v Speaker 1>scenario that the judge might determine that it was a monopolist,

0:26:53.600 --> 0:26:56.600
<v Speaker 1>right right, that was the first part, but that wasn't

0:26:56.920 --> 0:27:00.359
<v Speaker 1>She wasn't content to stop with that. She it up.

0:27:00.560 --> 0:27:04.919
<v Speaker 1>She said, okay, let's go on, because there's a different claim.

0:27:04.920 --> 0:27:07.560
<v Speaker 1>It counts. It doesn't depend on their being a monopolis.

0:27:07.840 --> 0:27:10.560
<v Speaker 1>Different number of counts. Just you know, that's just the

0:27:10.840 --> 0:27:15.159
<v Speaker 1>agreements and restraint of trade. And then she undercut the

0:27:15.240 --> 0:27:18.600
<v Speaker 1>case completely or not. Whether the conduct was anti competitive

0:27:19.680 --> 0:27:22.720
<v Speaker 1>very fair away, although she did indicate that it did

0:27:22.800 --> 0:27:28.000
<v Speaker 1>have some adverse effects on developers, on consumers and on innovation.

0:27:28.320 --> 0:27:30.320
<v Speaker 1>You know that the app store itself, it's sort of

0:27:30.960 --> 0:27:35.720
<v Speaker 1>sat there not you know, Appleton just milking it and

0:27:35.800 --> 0:27:41.400
<v Speaker 1>not really making it better despite complaints about various um

0:27:41.560 --> 0:27:44.760
<v Speaker 1>functionalities that it didn't have. Sort of reminds me of

0:27:44.760 --> 0:27:47.639
<v Speaker 1>what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer for so many years.

0:27:47.880 --> 0:27:50.440
<v Speaker 1>They used it as a gateway and it was a

0:27:50.520 --> 0:27:53.760
<v Speaker 1>terrible program. So there's that. But in the end, she

0:27:53.840 --> 0:27:57.440
<v Speaker 1>cut down the case in every which way and very thoroughly.

0:27:58.400 --> 0:28:01.960
<v Speaker 1>So do you think that in the future, either other

0:28:02.600 --> 0:28:06.760
<v Speaker 1>plaintiffs or the government can use her decision as a

0:28:06.840 --> 0:28:11.200
<v Speaker 1>roadmap for their case. Yes, I say, you know, people do.

0:28:11.680 --> 0:28:17.720
<v Speaker 1>As a teacher, I firmly believe that people learned. So yes,

0:28:17.920 --> 0:28:21.159
<v Speaker 1>I believe it's a belief. It's not necessarily true, but

0:28:21.240 --> 0:28:24.520
<v Speaker 1>it's a belief. So UM, I think you know, any

0:28:24.600 --> 0:28:27.840
<v Speaker 1>litigant UM still concerned with the app store, and there

0:28:27.880 --> 0:28:33.600
<v Speaker 1>are both with Google and UM and with Apple. UM,

0:28:33.760 --> 0:28:36.560
<v Speaker 1>we'll look at this and say, Okay, where where did

0:28:36.680 --> 0:28:40.240
<v Speaker 1>the case not work? And how can we do better

0:28:40.840 --> 0:28:43.280
<v Speaker 1>in the next case? What sort of facts would we

0:28:43.360 --> 0:28:47.240
<v Speaker 1>need to present better, um than in a way that

0:28:47.240 --> 0:28:51.520
<v Speaker 1>would convince the next judge, you know, different judge. And again,

0:28:51.560 --> 0:28:55.840
<v Speaker 1>these were factual determinations. She said Epic didn't carry the

0:28:55.960 --> 0:28:59.240
<v Speaker 1>burden approving some of these things, not that Apple showed

0:28:59.240 --> 0:29:02.800
<v Speaker 1>it was untrue, just that the plaintiff didn't carry its burden.

0:29:03.240 --> 0:29:06.480
<v Speaker 1>So yes, I think there will be some roadmap effect.

0:29:07.280 --> 0:29:11.440
<v Speaker 1>I think that the end of the case, the California part,

0:29:12.280 --> 0:29:15.680
<v Speaker 1>actually is the most interesting and maybe isn't getting as

0:29:15.760 --> 0:29:19.600
<v Speaker 1>much attention as it should because I think that's a

0:29:19.720 --> 0:29:24.120
<v Speaker 1>roadmap for the Federal Trade Commission to use UM, not

0:29:24.320 --> 0:29:27.240
<v Speaker 1>the Sherman Act, which is a normal thing, but unfair

0:29:27.280 --> 0:29:31.120
<v Speaker 1>methods of competition under the Federal Trade Commission Act. And

0:29:31.280 --> 0:29:35.200
<v Speaker 1>that's what she finally went for Harry, will you just

0:29:35.240 --> 0:29:37.320
<v Speaker 1>go back a bit and explain what she did in

0:29:37.400 --> 0:29:40.360
<v Speaker 1>that part of the case. So what what she did was,

0:29:40.400 --> 0:29:45.160
<v Speaker 1>after she pretty much eviscerated Epics case, she said, ah hah,

0:29:45.520 --> 0:29:48.640
<v Speaker 1>but you also do have a state claim under state law.

0:29:49.200 --> 0:29:52.400
<v Speaker 1>And there were two state laws. One is California state

0:29:52.400 --> 0:29:55.200
<v Speaker 1>anti trust law. So she threw out all those claims

0:29:55.240 --> 0:29:58.840
<v Speaker 1>as well under state anti trust law called the Cartwright Act.

0:29:59.160 --> 0:30:04.840
<v Speaker 1>But there's unfair competition law in California which just prohibits

0:30:05.120 --> 0:30:08.480
<v Speaker 1>unfair methods of competition. And she said, well, this is

0:30:08.480 --> 0:30:12.120
<v Speaker 1>a little different because that's broader than the way we

0:30:12.160 --> 0:30:15.760
<v Speaker 1>look at things under normally anti trust law. Um, we're

0:30:15.800 --> 0:30:20.000
<v Speaker 1>not confined two, Um, such a high standard of proof.

0:30:20.080 --> 0:30:23.440
<v Speaker 1>We can look at what she called incipient violations, not

0:30:23.600 --> 0:30:27.400
<v Speaker 1>quite violations. And that gave her the room to say,

0:30:27.440 --> 0:30:31.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, there's really some anti competitive effects. You know,

0:30:31.040 --> 0:30:35.840
<v Speaker 1>they're charging this huge commission rate four years which they

0:30:35.880 --> 0:30:39.600
<v Speaker 1>haven't adjusted, which there are no competitive pressure to have

0:30:39.720 --> 0:30:45.280
<v Speaker 1>them adjust. They're making huge profits. I mean, Plane showed

0:30:45.320 --> 0:30:49.760
<v Speaker 1>that she accepted that idea. Uh, and consumers are being

0:30:49.760 --> 0:30:54.000
<v Speaker 1>denied information so they can make choices, so they're not

0:30:54.080 --> 0:30:58.880
<v Speaker 1>told Hey, you know you could you could buy these

0:30:58.880 --> 0:31:02.000
<v Speaker 1>things outside the and and it would be cheaper. They're

0:31:02.040 --> 0:31:06.400
<v Speaker 1>not being told that, so she said, you gotta tell them. Uh.

0:31:06.560 --> 0:31:12.880
<v Speaker 1>And that lack of information, which he found important for

0:31:12.960 --> 0:31:16.720
<v Speaker 1>market markets needs information, could be an unfair method of

0:31:16.720 --> 0:31:21.360
<v Speaker 1>competition under federal law under Section five of the Federal

0:31:21.400 --> 0:31:26.680
<v Speaker 1>Trade Commission Act. If the FTC wants to use that route,

0:31:26.760 --> 0:31:29.280
<v Speaker 1>it's not quite this is a broader gives them a

0:31:29.280 --> 0:31:33.040
<v Speaker 1>little more power. Uh. And um, I think that's an

0:31:33.040 --> 0:31:38.040
<v Speaker 1>interesting roadmap for the Commission to look at. Harry Apple

0:31:38.080 --> 0:31:40.640
<v Speaker 1>said it's still too early to determine how or when

0:31:40.760 --> 0:31:43.480
<v Speaker 1>exactly it will implement the changes, and that it needs

0:31:43.520 --> 0:31:46.880
<v Speaker 1>to have conversations with the judge. Is that normal that

0:31:46.960 --> 0:31:49.720
<v Speaker 1>you'd have conversations with a judge who already issued a

0:31:49.840 --> 0:31:54.440
<v Speaker 1>ruling about what you're going to do. Well, there's always implementation.

0:31:54.840 --> 0:31:59.080
<v Speaker 1>And um, she did issue an injunction. I don't recall

0:31:59.160 --> 0:32:02.440
<v Speaker 1>whether there's a time within which they have to implement it,

0:32:02.480 --> 0:32:07.480
<v Speaker 1>and that could be subject to negotiation. They could um

0:32:07.520 --> 0:32:11.640
<v Speaker 1>take an appeal to the Court of Appeals to have

0:32:11.800 --> 0:32:16.680
<v Speaker 1>them stay the imposition of that injunction pending you know,

0:32:16.800 --> 0:32:21.320
<v Speaker 1>full review of the case. So that's a possibility. Um,

0:32:21.360 --> 0:32:24.800
<v Speaker 1>And you know the judge also could say, you know,

0:32:25.040 --> 0:32:26.800
<v Speaker 1>show me that you can't do it, but I don't

0:32:26.800 --> 0:32:30.880
<v Speaker 1>believe it, and you just remove this restriction, So just

0:32:31.120 --> 0:32:34.160
<v Speaker 1>follow this injunction. Let's see why it's so hard. So

0:32:34.480 --> 0:32:36.920
<v Speaker 1>it's hard for me to stay whether so you know

0:32:37.000 --> 0:32:40.680
<v Speaker 1>there's still some play in the joints on this. But um,

0:32:40.760 --> 0:32:43.600
<v Speaker 1>you know, judges, when they enter injunctions you usually want

0:32:44.040 --> 0:32:49.960
<v Speaker 1>the litigants to obey, and you know, as a litigant,

0:32:49.960 --> 0:32:52.080
<v Speaker 1>you you want to abet. You don't want to be

0:32:52.120 --> 0:32:56.960
<v Speaker 1>held in contempt. Uh. So Um, if the judge isn't,

0:32:57.920 --> 0:32:59.880
<v Speaker 1>I don't know whether she's scheduled any hearing, and we

0:33:00.000 --> 0:33:02.880
<v Speaker 1>already have appeals by Epic. I assume Apple is going

0:33:02.920 --> 0:33:08.880
<v Speaker 1>to appeal as well. Um, So hard to say exactly

0:33:09.400 --> 0:33:12.840
<v Speaker 1>when this will happen or if it will happen. It's

0:33:13.000 --> 0:33:18.160
<v Speaker 1>the Court of Appeals may simply, um, stop in position

0:33:18.200 --> 0:33:22.320
<v Speaker 1>of the injunction until until the appeals are fully heard.

0:33:23.040 --> 0:33:27.080
<v Speaker 1>Do any appeals issues you know, jump out at you. Oh.

0:33:27.640 --> 0:33:29.520
<v Speaker 1>The first thing I would say is I would read

0:33:29.560 --> 0:33:33.120
<v Speaker 1>that case from epics point of view is, oh, what

0:33:33.200 --> 0:33:36.840
<v Speaker 1>are we gonna do. So it's a pretty thorough opinion.

0:33:37.560 --> 0:33:39.680
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I think, frankly, there's some legal mistakes in it,

0:33:39.720 --> 0:33:43.000
<v Speaker 1>but are they critical legal mistakes. I'm not sure. You know,

0:33:43.240 --> 0:33:45.560
<v Speaker 1>it might be picking around the edges, but that's not

0:33:45.640 --> 0:33:49.440
<v Speaker 1>what epics about. And I think they have to attack

0:33:49.520 --> 0:33:53.960
<v Speaker 1>the fundamental way the court decided the case when a

0:33:54.000 --> 0:33:57.240
<v Speaker 1>lot of it is factual, and appellate courts don't sit

0:33:57.360 --> 0:34:00.600
<v Speaker 1>to review the facts. Although they do that, they don't

0:34:00.600 --> 0:34:03.280
<v Speaker 1>say they do. So. The appelate courts are there to

0:34:04.000 --> 0:34:08.680
<v Speaker 1>review matters of law, and it may be that they're

0:34:08.719 --> 0:34:11.600
<v Speaker 1>going to have to come up with an argument for

0:34:11.680 --> 0:34:17.200
<v Speaker 1>why her choosing this market, this nonprofit market by either side,

0:34:17.280 --> 0:34:22.320
<v Speaker 1>and this particular one why that is reversible and infects

0:34:22.320 --> 0:34:25.320
<v Speaker 1>the whole rest of the case. So I think, shall

0:34:25.360 --> 0:34:28.279
<v Speaker 1>we say it's not a slam dunk reversal to say

0:34:28.320 --> 0:34:31.480
<v Speaker 1>the least. People are pointing to this decision as proof

0:34:31.600 --> 0:34:36.320
<v Speaker 1>that the antitrust laws need to be updated. Do you agree? Well?

0:34:36.360 --> 0:34:38.640
<v Speaker 1>I do think the anti trust laws that there are

0:34:38.800 --> 0:34:41.480
<v Speaker 1>have to be legislative fixes to some of this, some

0:34:41.680 --> 0:34:44.360
<v Speaker 1>having to do with putting the burden of proof in

0:34:44.440 --> 0:34:48.920
<v Speaker 1>certain cases on defendants. I'm not a d certain what

0:34:49.040 --> 0:34:53.439
<v Speaker 1>the legislative fix would be for this opinion, and the

0:34:53.520 --> 0:34:57.600
<v Speaker 1>courts are generally conservative in the law. But I don't

0:34:57.640 --> 0:35:00.040
<v Speaker 1>read this so much as a judge whose conservative of

0:35:00.160 --> 0:35:02.879
<v Speaker 1>in the law, as a judge who's not quite convinced

0:35:03.400 --> 0:35:06.680
<v Speaker 1>by the case that's put before her. So as a

0:35:06.760 --> 0:35:10.440
<v Speaker 1>general matter, these cases are not faring well at the moment,

0:35:10.520 --> 0:35:12.960
<v Speaker 1>and they're going to take a long time, and this

0:35:13.080 --> 0:35:16.880
<v Speaker 1>is an argument for legislative change, maybe more so the

0:35:17.440 --> 0:35:23.000
<v Speaker 1>f TC's case against Facebook and the coming cases against Google.

0:35:23.320 --> 0:35:25.759
<v Speaker 1>You know, there's a good argument something should be done,

0:35:25.960 --> 0:35:28.919
<v Speaker 1>particularly with regard to the large platforms. But one thing

0:35:28.920 --> 0:35:31.000
<v Speaker 1>this case reminds us is that each of these high

0:35:31.040 --> 0:35:35.080
<v Speaker 1>tech platforms is a little different. They offer somewhat different products,

0:35:35.120 --> 0:35:39.359
<v Speaker 1>they present different competition issues. They're tied together because they're

0:35:39.360 --> 0:35:44.080
<v Speaker 1>such powerful companies and they're so ubiquitous in our lives

0:35:44.320 --> 0:35:47.320
<v Speaker 1>that people are concerned about them. It's always a delight

0:35:47.360 --> 0:35:50.200
<v Speaker 1>to speak to you, Harry, Thanks so much. That's Professor

0:35:50.239 --> 0:35:55.960
<v Speaker 1>Harry First of m y U Law School. An untraventional

0:35:56.080 --> 0:36:00.239
<v Speaker 1>audit of Maricopa County, Arizona, nearly two point one in

0:36:00.320 --> 0:36:04.360
<v Speaker 1>ballots by a company with no experience and election security

0:36:04.560 --> 0:36:07.880
<v Speaker 1>found the hand count of ballots largely matched the county's

0:36:07.880 --> 0:36:11.960
<v Speaker 1>certified election results, with Biden winning an extra three hundred

0:36:12.000 --> 0:36:15.839
<v Speaker 1>sixty votes under the audit ordered by Republican States senators.

0:36:16.320 --> 0:36:19.760
<v Speaker 1>Despite the results, Trump allies pointed to the report's claims

0:36:19.760 --> 0:36:24.160
<v Speaker 1>of malfeasance and errors by election officials, which county officials

0:36:24.200 --> 0:36:28.439
<v Speaker 1>said are easily debunked by anyone familiar with election processes,

0:36:29.120 --> 0:36:31.480
<v Speaker 1>and the stop the Steel movement is going forward with

0:36:31.560 --> 0:36:35.479
<v Speaker 1>election audits in other states, even Texas, which Trump won.

0:36:35.800 --> 0:36:38.480
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Liz Howard, senior counsel for the Brennan

0:36:38.560 --> 0:36:42.359
<v Speaker 1>Center for Justice. So letz tell us about the Maricopa

0:36:42.400 --> 0:36:46.000
<v Speaker 1>County audit. So, you know, one of the most important

0:36:46.040 --> 0:36:49.440
<v Speaker 1>things from from the report is that it provided additional

0:36:49.520 --> 0:36:52.640
<v Speaker 1>confirmation that Biden did, in fact win the election in

0:36:52.680 --> 0:36:57.560
<v Speaker 1>Maricopa County, you know. But unfortunately it also shows where

0:36:57.640 --> 0:37:02.960
<v Speaker 1>again these actors who have no experience in election administration,

0:37:03.600 --> 0:37:08.640
<v Speaker 1>simply took routine election administration practices and attempted to cast

0:37:08.680 --> 0:37:12.880
<v Speaker 1>what they don't understand as suspicious. And we've seen the

0:37:13.000 --> 0:37:18.040
<v Speaker 1>same captive characters use this playbook over and over and

0:37:18.239 --> 0:37:21.600
<v Speaker 1>over again, and really, you know, they're concerns that this

0:37:21.760 --> 0:37:25.400
<v Speaker 1>is just, you know, an effort to sabotage our election

0:37:25.480 --> 0:37:29.440
<v Speaker 1>officials in our election systems by store loosers. Trump and

0:37:29.520 --> 0:37:35.480
<v Speaker 1>his allies are using the report to say that there

0:37:35.520 --> 0:37:38.440
<v Speaker 1>were problems with the election in Arizona. What are they

0:37:38.560 --> 0:37:42.240
<v Speaker 1>using in the report? So times since one of the

0:37:42.400 --> 0:37:47.200
<v Speaker 1>um things that they're using is they have classified as

0:37:47.239 --> 0:37:52.320
<v Speaker 1>sucicius falsely that there are over two thousand Arizona voters

0:37:52.360 --> 0:37:56.719
<v Speaker 1>who share the same name and birth year. So this

0:37:56.880 --> 0:38:01.319
<v Speaker 1>is actually not suspicious, and they're full reasons that we

0:38:01.360 --> 0:38:04.919
<v Speaker 1>can explain this. So for instance, the birthday paradox, which

0:38:04.960 --> 0:38:08.160
<v Speaker 1>explains that in a group of about forty people, there's

0:38:08.200 --> 0:38:12.239
<v Speaker 1>a nine chance that who will share the same birthday,

0:38:12.280 --> 0:38:15.600
<v Speaker 1>which would just be months and day. Um. And here

0:38:15.640 --> 0:38:18.040
<v Speaker 1>they're talking about people that share the same name in

0:38:18.200 --> 0:38:22.759
<v Speaker 1>birth year. Obviously, especially when they're clustered around the same year.

0:38:22.920 --> 0:38:25.839
<v Speaker 1>You're gonna see where names, you know, rise and fall

0:38:25.920 --> 0:38:29.920
<v Speaker 1>and popularity. So for instance, Jennifer was the most popular

0:38:30.080 --> 0:38:34.520
<v Speaker 1>names for girls born in the nineteen seventies, so there

0:38:34.520 --> 0:38:37.600
<v Speaker 1>were about a hundred and sixty Jennifers born every day

0:38:37.680 --> 0:38:42.319
<v Speaker 1>in the USA between nineteen seventy and nineteen seventy nine, right,

0:38:42.400 --> 0:38:45.640
<v Speaker 1>and so facts like these mean that it's not unexpected

0:38:45.680 --> 0:38:48.600
<v Speaker 1>for there to be multiple voters in Arizona, which has

0:38:48.640 --> 0:38:51.880
<v Speaker 1>over three million voters who share the same name in

0:38:52.040 --> 0:38:55.480
<v Speaker 1>birth year. Do we know how much it cost Arizona

0:38:55.680 --> 0:38:58.920
<v Speaker 1>to do this audit? I think that they are still

0:38:58.920 --> 0:39:01.759
<v Speaker 1>working on total cost estiments. But what we know right

0:39:01.800 --> 0:39:06.440
<v Speaker 1>now is that UM the Senate costs are closing in

0:39:06.480 --> 0:39:09.200
<v Speaker 1>on half a million dollars. And one of the other

0:39:09.239 --> 0:39:13.400
<v Speaker 1>big costs that has been incurred in the Arizona partisan

0:39:13.480 --> 0:39:16.960
<v Speaker 1>review has to do with the costs required to replace

0:39:17.040 --> 0:39:21.920
<v Speaker 1>the voting equipment that was given over to the Cybern

0:39:21.920 --> 0:39:25.440
<v Speaker 1>Engine who again have no experience in election administration and

0:39:25.480 --> 0:39:30.600
<v Speaker 1>are not certified by the federal United States Election Assistance

0:39:30.640 --> 0:39:35.200
<v Speaker 1>commissioned to test voting equipment. The replacement costs for this

0:39:35.480 --> 0:39:38.520
<v Speaker 1>UM for the equipment Americopa County has been estimated at

0:39:38.600 --> 0:39:42.920
<v Speaker 1>two point eight million dollars. And those are just the

0:39:43.000 --> 0:39:46.160
<v Speaker 1>financial costs of this audit, you know, of course, that

0:39:46.200 --> 0:39:48.760
<v Speaker 1>doesn't begin to address the other costs of this audit

0:39:49.000 --> 0:39:51.960
<v Speaker 1>to the election officials who have had to spend you know,

0:39:52.080 --> 0:39:54.880
<v Speaker 1>an inordinate amount of time not only you know, just

0:39:55.000 --> 0:39:59.280
<v Speaker 1>transferring the ballots and the voting equipment um to the Senate,

0:39:59.360 --> 0:40:04.440
<v Speaker 1>but also debunking all of the false information that continues

0:40:04.480 --> 0:40:08.839
<v Speaker 1>to come out from the cyber ninjas and others associated

0:40:09.160 --> 0:40:12.200
<v Speaker 1>again with this partisan review in a Maricopa county. So,

0:40:12.280 --> 0:40:17.000
<v Speaker 1>despite that, Texas is now going to review results from

0:40:17.040 --> 0:40:20.879
<v Speaker 1>four large counties, three one by Biden. But this isn't

0:40:20.880 --> 0:40:24.440
<v Speaker 1>a state that Trump won. What is the governor saying?

0:40:24.480 --> 0:40:28.320
<v Speaker 1>Why are they doing this? So the governor's statement didn't

0:40:28.320 --> 0:40:32.000
<v Speaker 1>include any details. What he said he's going to do

0:40:32.360 --> 0:40:34.719
<v Speaker 1>or that the Secretary of State office is going to

0:40:34.719 --> 0:40:38.920
<v Speaker 1>do is a forensic audit. So first, the secretary of

0:40:38.960 --> 0:40:43.360
<v Speaker 1>State office is vacant right now, there is no Secretary

0:40:43.400 --> 0:40:47.239
<v Speaker 1>of State. Uh. Second, I am unaware of and of

0:40:47.320 --> 0:40:50.120
<v Speaker 1>what exactly a forensic goot it means. And he has

0:40:50.160 --> 0:40:52.960
<v Speaker 1>not provided any details that I'm aware of about what

0:40:53.080 --> 0:40:58.120
<v Speaker 1>exactly that means to him in Texas or for our

0:40:58.200 --> 0:41:03.440
<v Speaker 1>election officials. And then in Wisconsin, is there also an

0:41:03.480 --> 0:41:09.200
<v Speaker 1>audit in Wisconsin schedules? Yet? So again in Wisconsin, the

0:41:09.239 --> 0:41:13.600
<v Speaker 1>election results have already been audited, and the Trump campaign

0:41:13.760 --> 0:41:20.040
<v Speaker 1>already conducted a recount and multiple Wisconsin jurisdiction. The audit

0:41:20.200 --> 0:41:23.799
<v Speaker 1>conducted by election officials and the recount, which was done

0:41:23.840 --> 0:41:27.920
<v Speaker 1>in conjunction with campaign officials and led by election officials,

0:41:27.960 --> 0:41:33.080
<v Speaker 1>both provided confirmation that Biden won the election. Currently, there

0:41:33.400 --> 0:41:38.400
<v Speaker 1>is a legislator kind of established a separate entity led

0:41:38.400 --> 0:41:43.120
<v Speaker 1>by a gentleman named Gableman, that is tasked with reviewing

0:41:43.120 --> 0:41:46.839
<v Speaker 1>the election results. This process has already been marred with

0:41:47.160 --> 0:41:51.759
<v Speaker 1>concerning procedures. For instance, Gablements and out requests for information

0:41:51.800 --> 0:41:55.680
<v Speaker 1>to multiple clerks in the state of Wisconsin, and this

0:41:55.880 --> 0:41:58.880
<v Speaker 1>request was sent to the stand box and otherwise marked

0:41:58.920 --> 0:42:01.600
<v Speaker 1>as a concern in the inboxes of many of the

0:42:01.640 --> 0:42:05.359
<v Speaker 1>election officials because the email address from which it came

0:42:05.440 --> 0:42:08.239
<v Speaker 1>was a Gmail address, and the Gmail address wasn't for

0:42:08.600 --> 0:42:11.920
<v Speaker 1>Mr Gablement. You know, we have serious concerns about this,

0:42:12.080 --> 0:42:15.759
<v Speaker 1>and the process in Wisconsin is also costing Wisconsin tax

0:42:15.840 --> 0:42:19.960
<v Speaker 1>payers thousands and thousands of dollars. Liz, you were talking

0:42:19.960 --> 0:42:23.719
<v Speaker 1>about some of the election machinery having to be decommissioned

0:42:24.200 --> 0:42:28.800
<v Speaker 1>in Arizona. Explain why they have to do that. So

0:42:28.800 --> 0:42:33.920
<v Speaker 1>so far what we've seen in multiple states is right.

0:42:34.080 --> 0:42:37.280
<v Speaker 1>The equipment is handed over to these actors who again

0:42:37.480 --> 0:42:42.640
<v Speaker 1>do not are not federally certified and are not contractors

0:42:42.680 --> 0:42:46.920
<v Speaker 1>of the local election officials, subject to the various restrictions.

0:42:47.080 --> 0:42:52.120
<v Speaker 1>The Secretary of State in Arizona, after she spoke with

0:42:52.320 --> 0:42:57.320
<v Speaker 1>an in coordination with UM, the Cyber Security and Infrastructure

0:42:57.400 --> 0:43:01.800
<v Speaker 1>Security Agency at the US of Apartment of Homeland Security,

0:43:01.960 --> 0:43:05.239
<v Speaker 1>sent a letter to the Americopa County officials saying that

0:43:05.760 --> 0:43:08.319
<v Speaker 1>there was a significant concern because the voting machines have

0:43:08.440 --> 0:43:14.239
<v Speaker 1>been accessed by these people, and the voting machines were

0:43:14.680 --> 0:43:20.600
<v Speaker 1>UM decommissioned. And also you've seen in Pennsylvania where a

0:43:20.719 --> 0:43:24.960
<v Speaker 1>small county provided access to their voting machines to one

0:43:25.000 --> 0:43:28.319
<v Speaker 1>of the vendors that is also associated with the Arizona

0:43:28.680 --> 0:43:33.000
<v Speaker 1>partisan review. The Department of State's office, in conjunction with

0:43:33.200 --> 0:43:36.280
<v Speaker 1>the vendor said you may not use this equipment again.

0:43:36.560 --> 0:43:41.520
<v Speaker 1>And in Pennsylvania are they moving for more audits in Pennsylvania?

0:43:41.760 --> 0:43:45.640
<v Speaker 1>So to be clear, the election results in Pennsylvania have

0:43:45.719 --> 0:43:50.879
<v Speaker 1>already been audited twice. In Pennsylvania, there is a statutory

0:43:51.160 --> 0:43:54.360
<v Speaker 1>um what we think of as a traditional post election

0:43:54.440 --> 0:43:59.960
<v Speaker 1>tabulation audit where election officials in every jurisdiction in Pennsylvania

0:44:00.000 --> 0:44:04.239
<v Speaker 1>a review two thousand or two percent of the ballots

0:44:04.280 --> 0:44:09.040
<v Speaker 1>cast in their jurisdiction. And again, so that initial statutory

0:44:09.080 --> 0:44:13.799
<v Speaker 1>audit provided confirmation that Biden did win the election, and

0:44:14.239 --> 0:44:18.640
<v Speaker 1>UM sixty three out of the sixty seven jurisdictions in

0:44:18.760 --> 0:44:23.560
<v Speaker 1>Pennsylvania also voluntarily participated in a risk lemining audit, and

0:44:23.640 --> 0:44:27.720
<v Speaker 1>that audit again provided further evidence that Biden won the election.

0:44:27.840 --> 0:44:31.480
<v Speaker 1>So this election has already been audited multiple times. There

0:44:31.600 --> 0:44:34.920
<v Speaker 1>is really no need at all for an additional audit

0:44:35.040 --> 0:44:39.480
<v Speaker 1>at this juncture. So when initially UM, a legislator who's

0:44:39.480 --> 0:44:43.400
<v Speaker 1>been a very public stop the steal proponent, sent letters

0:44:43.520 --> 0:44:48.160
<v Speaker 1>to multiple local election officials in the state asking for

0:44:48.800 --> 0:44:53.600
<v Speaker 1>information very similar to what the subpoenas that the Arizona

0:44:53.800 --> 0:44:58.239
<v Speaker 1>legislators used when taking all of this the ballots and

0:44:58.360 --> 0:45:01.480
<v Speaker 1>the voting machines from er Copa. Any officials, the local

0:45:01.520 --> 0:45:04.279
<v Speaker 1>election officials who had seen what had happened in a

0:45:04.320 --> 0:45:08.000
<v Speaker 1>Maricopa county told that legislator that they were not going

0:45:08.040 --> 0:45:11.600
<v Speaker 1>to be responding to his requests. But we've subsequently seen

0:45:11.760 --> 0:45:17.360
<v Speaker 1>is is President Trump publicly identifying the Republican leadership in

0:45:18.080 --> 0:45:22.080
<v Speaker 1>Pennsylvania and demanding that they do something to audit the results.

0:45:22.560 --> 0:45:26.640
<v Speaker 1>So recently they sent a subpoena to the Secretary of

0:45:26.680 --> 0:45:31.240
<v Speaker 1>State asking for UM a variety of information about the election,

0:45:31.280 --> 0:45:34.360
<v Speaker 1>which would include the last four digits of the social

0:45:34.360 --> 0:45:39.080
<v Speaker 1>Security number of of some voters, which has been a

0:45:39.080 --> 0:45:43.200
<v Speaker 1>significant concern, and there is now UM litigation regarding the

0:45:43.960 --> 0:45:48.680
<v Speaker 1>regarding that subpoena. There's been so much reporting about the

0:45:48.800 --> 0:45:54.200
<v Speaker 1>number of legislatures that are changing election laws. Do you

0:45:54.280 --> 0:45:59.000
<v Speaker 1>have numbers on how many states? So generally, right like

0:45:59.080 --> 0:46:01.920
<v Speaker 1>the state legislatures are going to be the ones that

0:46:01.960 --> 0:46:07.520
<v Speaker 1>are determining state law. So law, of course doesn't UM

0:46:07.680 --> 0:46:12.040
<v Speaker 1>cover every situation. So UM, you know, local election officials

0:46:12.120 --> 0:46:15.040
<v Speaker 1>have some discretion. The amount of discretion that they have

0:46:15.320 --> 0:46:18.320
<v Speaker 1>is going to very state the state, which will depend

0:46:18.400 --> 0:46:22.080
<v Speaker 1>upon state law. So we put out the voting laws

0:46:22.200 --> 0:46:24.680
<v Speaker 1>round up periodically, and I think we just had one

0:46:24.719 --> 0:46:27.279
<v Speaker 1>that came out a couple of months ago and that

0:46:27.520 --> 0:46:31.960
<v Speaker 1>does categorize and numbers. Are most of these laws being

0:46:32.200 --> 0:46:38.719
<v Speaker 1>challenged in court. So my colleagues recently filed to in

0:46:38.960 --> 0:46:44.800
<v Speaker 1>Texas regarding UM. The bill that was just passed there,

0:46:45.280 --> 0:46:50.160
<v Speaker 1>which addresses some election administration practices. UM. And of course, uh,

0:46:50.480 --> 0:46:53.120
<v Speaker 1>you know what we just saw in Texas is the

0:46:53.160 --> 0:46:56.399
<v Speaker 1>governor just announced that the Secretary of State is going

0:46:56.480 --> 0:47:00.080
<v Speaker 1>to conduct the friends aboudit in four county. So the

0:47:00.160 --> 0:47:04.120
<v Speaker 1>states that are passing these laws, is it about more

0:47:04.280 --> 0:47:08.240
<v Speaker 1>than access to the ballot? Is it about giving county

0:47:08.520 --> 0:47:14.080
<v Speaker 1>officials control over election results at some point? So I

0:47:14.200 --> 0:47:17.560
<v Speaker 1>think there are a couple of things. So while in

0:47:17.719 --> 0:47:23.080
<v Speaker 1>multiple states we've seen some of the most concerning provisions

0:47:23.200 --> 0:47:26.960
<v Speaker 1>stripped out of the bills that were subsequently signed into law. So,

0:47:27.120 --> 0:47:30.440
<v Speaker 1>for instance, in Texas, one of the only provisions that

0:47:30.680 --> 0:47:34.960
<v Speaker 1>was struck from the voting bill that was recently passed

0:47:35.440 --> 0:47:41.200
<v Speaker 1>would have allowed the state legislature to basically overturn election results.

0:47:41.200 --> 0:47:43.520
<v Speaker 1>It would have been a manner given them the power

0:47:43.800 --> 0:47:48.640
<v Speaker 1>to certify um different election results than what the vote

0:47:48.680 --> 0:47:53.200
<v Speaker 1>counts indicated. And so while it didn't pass this year,

0:47:53.800 --> 0:47:56.919
<v Speaker 1>I have concerns that this is not the last time

0:47:57.000 --> 0:48:00.400
<v Speaker 1>that we're going to see bills like this in exists

0:48:00.560 --> 0:48:04.600
<v Speaker 1>and in other states across the country. Again, you know,

0:48:05.360 --> 0:48:08.359
<v Speaker 1>with what we're seeing across the country, I mean these

0:48:08.640 --> 0:48:12.640
<v Speaker 1>these appear to the efforts to sabotage our election officials, UM,

0:48:12.719 --> 0:48:15.960
<v Speaker 1>and to sabotage our election administration system. You know, we

0:48:16.239 --> 0:48:21.560
<v Speaker 1>we know that. UM. You know, what these UM part

0:48:21.600 --> 0:48:24.959
<v Speaker 1>of the election reviews are actually doing is costing tax

0:48:25.040 --> 0:48:30.040
<v Speaker 1>payers millions of dollars UM. And they are spurring on

0:48:30.960 --> 0:48:35.280
<v Speaker 1>UM death threats and other threats against our election officials.

0:48:35.840 --> 0:48:39.239
<v Speaker 1>And they're wasting the time of our election officials, UM,

0:48:39.840 --> 0:48:43.720
<v Speaker 1>which now in their normal calendar, they would be beginning

0:48:43.880 --> 0:48:48.640
<v Speaker 1>to plan and prepare for elections UM in which are

0:48:48.719 --> 0:48:52.440
<v Speaker 1>which are coming up. Because you know, one of the again,

0:48:52.560 --> 0:48:55.080
<v Speaker 1>one of the most concerning things about this is the

0:48:55.200 --> 0:49:01.560
<v Speaker 1>election that they are attempting to cast doubt on happened

0:49:01.760 --> 0:49:05.520
<v Speaker 1>almost a year ago. UM. Joe Biden was torn in

0:49:05.800 --> 0:49:09.560
<v Speaker 1>in January of this year, you know, nine months ago.

0:49:10.239 --> 0:49:13.960
<v Speaker 1>What they are endeavoring to do is not about increasing

0:49:14.040 --> 0:49:18.840
<v Speaker 1>voter confidence. Thanks Liz. That's Liz Howard, senior counsel for

0:49:18.880 --> 0:49:21.800
<v Speaker 1>the Brennan Center for Justice. And that's it for this

0:49:21.960 --> 0:49:24.720
<v Speaker 1>edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always

0:49:24.719 --> 0:49:27.320
<v Speaker 1>get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast.

0:49:27.560 --> 0:49:30.080
<v Speaker 1>You can find them on Apple Podcasts. Spotify and at

0:49:30.239 --> 0:49:35.120
<v Speaker 1>www dot Bloomberg dot com. Slash podcast slash Law, I'm

0:49:35.200 --> 0:49:37.080
<v Speaker 1>Jun Brosso. You're listening to Boomla