WEBVTT - Transgender Military Ban & LA Prosecutors Resign 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:08.600 --> 0:00:12.160 Transgender people have been serving openly in the military for 0:00:12.200 --> 0:00:15.720 nearly a decade, but this week the Supreme Court said 0:00:15.760 --> 0:00:20.560 that President Trump could begin executing his ban on transgender 0:00:20.600 --> 0:00:24.919 military service. The conservatives on the court, over the descents 0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:28.640 of the three liberal justices, have paused a federal judges 0:00:28.840 --> 0:00:32.760 order blocking the ban, allowing the Trump administration to start 0:00:32.760 --> 0:00:39.360 discharging thousands of transgender service members, including experienced, decorated officers 0:00:39.600 --> 0:00:44.360 who've served openly for years. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said 0:00:44.520 --> 0:00:48.239 the military is leaving wokeness and weakness behind. 0:00:48.920 --> 0:00:54.840 No more pronouns, no more climate change obsession, no more 0:00:56.360 --> 0:01:02.280 emergency vaccine mandates, no more dudes in dresses. We're done 0:01:02.320 --> 0:01:02.520 with that. 0:01:02.960 --> 0:01:05.840 The lead plaintiff in the case is Emily Shilling, a 0:01:05.959 --> 0:01:09.240 Navy commander in combat pilot with nearly twenty years of 0:01:09.319 --> 0:01:13.399 service who's flown more than sixty combat missions in both 0:01:13.440 --> 0:01:17.720 the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. My guest is constitutional law 0:01:17.800 --> 0:01:22.120 expert David super, a professor at Georgetown Law. This is 0:01:22.160 --> 0:01:25.520 a one paragraph order, so we have no idea what 0:01:25.600 --> 0:01:28.920 their reasoning was. We just know that the three liberal 0:01:29.120 --> 0:01:32.319 justices dissented. What's your take on this decision. 0:01:33.000 --> 0:01:39.920 I think it's disappointing because the plaintiffs made a compelling case. 0:01:40.480 --> 0:01:46.520 This looks like a classic equal protection claim. The executive order, 0:01:46.600 --> 0:01:51.360 as plainiffs say, is dripping with consent or transgender people. 0:01:51.640 --> 0:01:55.440 So this is big a treat not military preparedness, and 0:01:55.800 --> 0:01:59.040 I would have hoped the Court would have treated it accordingly. 0:01:59.360 --> 0:02:03.160 But that doesn't mean that they've resolved on the merits. 0:02:03.360 --> 0:02:07.120 A federal judge in Washington State had blocked the ban. 0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:12.519 Actually two federal judges have blocked it. Judge Benjamin Settle said, 0:02:13.040 --> 0:02:16.840 it's not an especially close question. Will you tell us 0:02:16.919 --> 0:02:21.160 about the claims of the transgender troops in this case? 0:02:21.600 --> 0:02:23.960 There, I think most central claim is that they're being 0:02:23.960 --> 0:02:27.680 denied equal protection of the law. The Supreme Court is 0:02:27.720 --> 0:02:32.359 long held that the Fifth Amendment's requirement of due process 0:02:32.440 --> 0:02:36.680 implicates equal protection of the law, and that the federal 0:02:36.720 --> 0:02:40.640 government may not deny people equal protection, particularly if it 0:02:40.720 --> 0:02:45.799 is discriminating on the basis of a historically sensitive category. 0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:50.360 The soldiers are alleging that they're being discriminated against both 0:02:50.440 --> 0:02:54.480 because of sex and because of their transgender status, and 0:02:54.880 --> 0:02:59.240 that the government has nowhere near enough adequate justification for doing. 0:02:59.280 --> 0:03:02.920 This is a one paragraph order, so we have no 0:03:03.040 --> 0:03:06.080 idea what their reasoning was. We just know that the 0:03:06.120 --> 0:03:09.600 three liberal justices dissented. But in a case like this, 0:03:09.800 --> 0:03:13.760 shouldn't they have allowed the status quo to remain in place. 0:03:14.280 --> 0:03:16.440 Now the Trump administration is going to be able to 0:03:16.520 --> 0:03:18.520 discharge thousands of troops. 0:03:19.360 --> 0:03:24.639 That certainly would be the usual practice and the practice 0:03:24.720 --> 0:03:28.640 the Court has insisted on in many cases involving the 0:03:28.639 --> 0:03:33.040 Biden administration, where they prohibited the change from taking place 0:03:33.200 --> 0:03:37.760 until it was properly litigated. This opinion from the District 0:03:37.800 --> 0:03:42.760 Court in Washington is quite long, quite detailed, quite careful. 0:03:43.200 --> 0:03:45.200 You can agree with it or not. That it is 0:03:45.280 --> 0:03:51.960 certainly not a casual opinion, and one would expect that 0:03:52.760 --> 0:03:57.000 it would stand and preserve the status quo unless there 0:03:57.080 --> 0:04:00.960 was a compelling reason otherwise. It's disappointing that the Supreme 0:04:01.000 --> 0:04:04.880 Court was unable or unwilling to state any compelling reason 0:04:04.960 --> 0:04:06.480 for this change of the status quo. 0:04:06.840 --> 0:04:10.160 At the Supreme Court, what the Trump administration argue was 0:04:10.200 --> 0:04:15.320 that judges are required to show substantial deference to the 0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:20.080 Defense Department's judgment on military issues, even though the lower 0:04:20.120 --> 0:04:25.160 courts didn't find any backup for the Trump administration's claims 0:04:25.200 --> 0:04:29.760 that the presence of transgender people in the armed services 0:04:29.880 --> 0:04:34.680 undermines military effectiveness. Do you think that deference is the 0:04:34.720 --> 0:04:39.440 main reason why the Supreme Court decided to lift the injunction? 0:04:40.240 --> 0:04:43.839 Only suspect it is. The President has been asking for 0:04:43.960 --> 0:04:49.360 deference on many military and foreign affairs matters. The Court 0:04:49.600 --> 0:04:54.400 denied him that deference on his efforts to use the 0:04:54.480 --> 0:04:59.839 Alien Enemies Act. And my guess is the the Court 0:05:00.040 --> 0:05:02.839 trying to balance the scales in that regard. 0:05:03.480 --> 0:05:07.040 And as far as whether irreparable injury will be suffered, 0:05:07.480 --> 0:05:11.880 the order requires the transgender troops to voluntarily separate from 0:05:11.920 --> 0:05:16.440 the military or face quote involuntary separation, which is a 0:05:16.480 --> 0:05:20.080 stain on their records that could deny them veterans' benefits, 0:05:20.200 --> 0:05:23.320 So that scenario seems like irreparable injury. 0:05:24.320 --> 0:05:30.480 In principle, the administration could be ordered to restore their 0:05:30.520 --> 0:05:34.640 prior status if it ultimately loses this litigation. But the 0:05:34.680 --> 0:05:40.679 whole point of irreparable injury is that litigants are forced 0:05:40.720 --> 0:05:46.760 to suffer circumstances that can't be fully corrected, and in 0:05:46.800 --> 0:05:52.120 the best case scenario, having one's military service interrupted, having 0:05:52.160 --> 0:05:57.680 to gamble ones the a benefits away. All of that 0:05:58.360 --> 0:05:59.960 is classic irrepriabend. 0:06:00.560 --> 0:06:04.280 In Chump's first term, the Supreme Court allowed an earlier 0:06:04.440 --> 0:06:08.520 transgender military band to take effect, but that first ban 0:06:09.360 --> 0:06:12.680 exempted current troops, so it was more like a ban 0:06:12.760 --> 0:06:16.480 on enlistment. This goes further because it's going to allow 0:06:16.600 --> 0:06:21.680 them to discharge people who are currently serving. I mean, 0:06:21.720 --> 0:06:25.800 the lead plaintiff is a decorated Navy pilot with over 0:06:25.880 --> 0:06:28.160 sixty combat missions. 0:06:28.320 --> 0:06:31.440 Yes, this is very different than what we saw before, 0:06:31.839 --> 0:06:35.240 and that's I think the core of what the lower 0:06:35.320 --> 0:06:38.760 court found is that there simply was no evidence to 0:06:38.839 --> 0:06:43.520 support this. If the government had an important reason for 0:06:43.640 --> 0:06:48.400 an action, then deference would owe, and the lower court 0:06:48.880 --> 0:06:54.600 firmly upheld that. But it found that this was not 0:06:54.800 --> 0:06:59.400 a military judgment but a political judgment by the president 0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:03.640 that the Secretary of Defense carried out without gathering any 0:07:03.680 --> 0:07:08.640 evidence that these people are not able to serve their 0:07:08.640 --> 0:07:12.560 country effectively. And what's striking about the plaintiffs in this 0:07:12.720 --> 0:07:15.480 case is that we know a lot about them. They've 0:07:15.480 --> 0:07:20.680 been serving, they've been performing, and if they weren't, they 0:07:20.720 --> 0:07:24.120 could certainly be thrown out on an individual basis. But 0:07:24.280 --> 0:07:26.800 throwing them out on the basis of prejudice when we 0:07:26.840 --> 0:07:30.680 have ample evidence that they're effective soldiers and service people 0:07:31.240 --> 0:07:33.200 is disturbing and it's ignorant. 0:07:33.640 --> 0:07:36.360 I'm surprised that one of the three liberals didn't write 0:07:36.360 --> 0:07:36.840 a descent. 0:07:37.360 --> 0:07:39.040 Are you not? 0:07:39.120 --> 0:07:43.480 Necessarily if the liberals write a descent, then either the 0:07:44.120 --> 0:07:49.720 majority or some justice in the majority write an opinion 0:07:49.800 --> 0:07:54.040 defending what was done, and that would tend to lock 0:07:54.160 --> 0:08:00.120 in positions. This is such a disturbing and difficult to 0:08:00.360 --> 0:08:05.600 justify action that I think the liberals may have decided 0:08:05.760 --> 0:08:08.160 that it's best that no one put pen to paper 0:08:08.240 --> 0:08:11.400 any more than necessary right now, and hope that this 0:08:11.480 --> 0:08:15.120 can be reversed when it's heard on the errants tell me. 0:08:15.120 --> 0:08:18.280 What happens now. So this was about the order from 0:08:18.440 --> 0:08:22.640 the judge in Washington State. A judge in Washington, DC 0:08:22.840 --> 0:08:28.480 has also blocked the policy nationwide, and the Court of 0:08:28.520 --> 0:08:32.120 Appeals for the DC Circuit put that on hold temporarily 0:08:32.200 --> 0:08:35.080 while it heard oral arguments. I mean, how does that 0:08:35.160 --> 0:08:38.200 case work out when you have the Supreme Court lifting 0:08:38.240 --> 0:08:41.000 the injunction of the Washington State Judge. 0:08:41.160 --> 0:08:46.480 That's precisely why the absence of opinions is so significant 0:08:46.559 --> 0:08:50.040 and so telling here. They're going to be oral arguments 0:08:50.400 --> 0:08:54.200 in the Ninth Circuit and the DC Circuit. Panels in 0:08:54.280 --> 0:08:58.480 each of those courts will write opinions about this, and 0:08:58.880 --> 0:09:01.480 it will almost certainly come back to the Supreme Court 0:09:01.559 --> 0:09:05.400 on the merits. So it's really wide open. There are 0:09:05.400 --> 0:09:10.480 many grounds for denying a stay or granting a stay, 0:09:11.040 --> 0:09:14.160 and precisely because the Court didn't write an opinion, we 0:09:14.240 --> 0:09:16.640 don't know which of those it is. It could be 0:09:16.679 --> 0:09:23.640 something as technical as concerns about the standing of plainiffs 0:09:23.760 --> 0:09:28.040 or concerned about whether they made a proper demonstration of 0:09:28.120 --> 0:09:33.080 irreparable injury. So there's nothing about this action that prejudges 0:09:33.120 --> 0:09:38.560 the merits. They have lifted injunctions in other cases saying 0:09:39.080 --> 0:09:42.160 we don't think the plaintiffs are likely to prevail on 0:09:42.200 --> 0:09:43.839 the merits. They didn't say that here. 0:09:44.200 --> 0:09:45.840 So if this could come back to the Court and 0:09:45.880 --> 0:09:48.920 the justices could have a different opinion. 0:09:49.000 --> 0:09:50.960 Well it would come back to the Court in a 0:09:51.000 --> 0:09:56.960 different form, and they could very well be inclined on 0:09:57.160 --> 0:09:59.880 the merit to find for the plaintiffs, even if they 0:10:00.080 --> 0:10:03.880 didn't think an injunction pending litigation was appropriate. 0:10:04.480 --> 0:10:08.439 As you know, the Supreme Court heard a major transgender 0:10:08.520 --> 0:10:13.720 rights case in December over Tennessee's ban on gender affirming 0:10:13.760 --> 0:10:17.280 medical care for transgender miners. It did seem like the 0:10:17.520 --> 0:10:21.000 justices we're going to uphold that ban. I mean, together 0:10:21.080 --> 0:10:26.760 with this, does it show hostility towards transgender rights? 0:10:27.000 --> 0:10:31.520 These are different cases. The Supreme Court in Bosstok a 0:10:31.559 --> 0:10:37.520 few years ago held that the prohibition on discrimination on 0:10:37.559 --> 0:10:40.360 the base of sexts in Title seven of the Civil 0:10:40.440 --> 0:10:46.800 Rights Act is applicable to gay, lesbian, and transgender people. 0:10:47.520 --> 0:10:52.400 So it has done much of the analytical heavy lifting 0:10:53.040 --> 0:10:59.240 required to understand the rights of trans people. The Tennessee case, 0:10:59.280 --> 0:11:03.320 we obviously don't know how it'll be resolved, but that's 0:11:03.480 --> 0:11:10.920 a much narrower set of restrictions and justified in ways 0:11:11.040 --> 0:11:14.520 that are particular to those I hope the Court strikes 0:11:14.559 --> 0:11:19.040 down the Tennessee law, but if it doesn't, I don't 0:11:19.080 --> 0:11:23.280 think that tells you a great deal about how any 0:11:23.600 --> 0:11:25.800 non medical cases would be decided. 0:11:26.480 --> 0:11:30.440 I also want to ask you about a controversial comment 0:11:30.600 --> 0:11:36.200 by President Trump on Meet the Press on Sunday, don't 0:11:36.200 --> 0:11:38.720 you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States's press. 0:11:38.920 --> 0:11:39.600 I don't know. 0:11:40.360 --> 0:11:44.080 I have to respond by saying again, I have brilliant 0:11:44.160 --> 0:11:47.560 lawyers that work for me, and they are going to 0:11:47.880 --> 0:11:50.120 obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. 0:11:50.880 --> 0:11:53.120 I mean, in the past he has talked about his 0:11:53.280 --> 0:11:55.480 Article two powers under the Constitution. 0:11:56.240 --> 0:11:59.280 Well, the Constitution has many things in it. It has 0:11:59.440 --> 0:12:02.480 articles which I'm sure he feels the need to uphold. 0:12:02.880 --> 0:12:06.160 Then those pesky Article one and Article three and Bill 0:12:06.200 --> 0:12:09.679 of Rights. Perhaps he's less enthusiastic about those. I think 0:12:09.760 --> 0:12:12.120 that the people that need to hear his remarks on 0:12:12.200 --> 0:12:17.120 Sunday are the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has, 0:12:17.160 --> 0:12:22.600 in a variety of ways all spring been kicking the 0:12:22.679 --> 0:12:26.320 can down the road and hoping the administration will come 0:12:26.360 --> 0:12:31.120 around to acting lawfully. Arguably, the action we were discussing 0:12:31.400 --> 0:12:35.880 concerning the transgender ban in the military is another example 0:12:35.960 --> 0:12:38.920 of the court kicking things down the road. But a 0:12:39.000 --> 0:12:45.960 president who has harshly criticized judges, called some judges that 0:12:46.040 --> 0:12:52.400 he appointed communists, and has expressed great indifference about whether 0:12:52.920 --> 0:12:56.640 to comply with Supreme Court decrees, and it's not complied 0:12:56.679 --> 0:13:00.720 with several Supreme Court at lower court decrees is not 0:13:01.240 --> 0:13:06.520 going to voluntarily change his too, and the Supreme Court 0:13:06.679 --> 0:13:08.920 is going to have to decide whether they are going 0:13:09.000 --> 0:13:11.080 to insist upon compliance with the law. 0:13:11.440 --> 0:13:14.840 They'll certainly have opportunities to do that considering all the 0:13:14.880 --> 0:13:19.720 emergency petitions from the Trump administration. Thanks so much, David. 0:13:20.160 --> 0:13:24.200 That's Professor David super of Georgetown Law. Coming up next. 0:13:24.559 --> 0:13:29.880 Los Angeles federal prosecutors resign after the US Attorney gives 0:13:29.920 --> 0:13:34.440 a plea deal to a convicted felon. This is Bloomberg to. 0:13:34.600 --> 0:13:39.880 The defendant, Please rise and face the jury. What is 0:13:39.920 --> 0:13:42.720 your verdict? We find it? 0:13:42.800 --> 0:13:44.400 Defendent guilty is charged. 0:13:45.480 --> 0:13:49.040 The next step after a jury finds a defendant guilty 0:13:49.720 --> 0:13:54.520 is sentencing by the judge. But in a completely unorthodox move, 0:13:54.800 --> 0:13:58.280 the new US Attorney in Los Angeles is stepping in 0:13:58.640 --> 0:14:02.440 trying to stop the set of a convicted felon and 0:14:02.559 --> 0:14:06.720 moving to strike the jury's verdict. After a three day trial, 0:14:06.880 --> 0:14:11.480 a jury convicted former La County Sheriff's deputy Trevor Kirk 0:14:11.960 --> 0:14:15.840 of a felony for using excessive force when he assaulted 0:14:15.840 --> 0:14:19.640 a black woman outside a supermarket two years ago, throwing 0:14:19.680 --> 0:14:22.680 her to the ground, holding her down, and pepper spraying 0:14:22.680 --> 0:14:26.840 her while responding to a reported robbery. He's facing a 0:14:26.880 --> 0:14:30.600 ten year prison sentence for that conviction, but now, in 0:14:30.640 --> 0:14:35.840 an extraordinary move, US Attorney Bill Esseli is giving Kirk 0:14:36.000 --> 0:14:39.560 a plea deal and asking the trial judge to throw 0:14:39.640 --> 0:14:43.119 out the jury's verdict. Joining me is former federal prosecutor 0:14:43.200 --> 0:14:47.120 Jimmy Garoule, a professor at Notre Dame Law School. So, Jimmy, 0:14:47.160 --> 0:14:51.640 this former sheriff's deputy, is supposed to be sentenced this month, 0:14:51.920 --> 0:14:55.680 facing ten years for the felony conviction, and then suddenly 0:14:55.720 --> 0:14:58.760 the new US attorney comes in and gives him a 0:14:58.840 --> 0:15:02.760 deal to please guilty to a misdemeanor, with the government 0:15:02.880 --> 0:15:06.840 recommending a year's probation and asking the judge to strike 0:15:06.960 --> 0:15:10.000 the jury's finding that he injured his victim, which made 0:15:10.000 --> 0:15:10.600 it a felony. 0:15:10.680 --> 0:15:14.120 Well, it's an extraordinary action and it doesn't appear to 0:15:14.160 --> 0:15:16.840 be justified based on the facts or the law. And 0:15:16.920 --> 0:15:19.200 when I say that, what I mean is that if 0:15:19.440 --> 0:15:23.040 the claim was that he had not received a fair trial, 0:15:23.320 --> 0:15:26.320 well that's the purpose of a direct appeal. The defendant 0:15:26.320 --> 0:15:29.800 would appeal the conviction and highlight the heirs or alleged 0:15:29.840 --> 0:15:32.480 airs that were conducted during the jury trial. But there 0:15:32.720 --> 0:15:35.600 doesn't appear to be any allegation by the state or 0:15:35.640 --> 0:15:38.080 the defendant that his trial was not fair, did not 0:15:38.200 --> 0:15:41.960 comport with due process of law. Alternatively, if the claim is, oh, 0:15:42.000 --> 0:15:45.040 we have newly discovered evidence that proves his innocence, well 0:15:45.040 --> 0:15:48.000 there's a whole set of post conviction procedures that deal 0:15:48.040 --> 0:15:51.040 with that process to petition the court through a petition 0:15:51.080 --> 0:15:53.920 for post conviction relief to vacate the conviction. And there's 0:15:53.960 --> 0:15:57.280 no claims or allegations made to that effect that, oh, 0:15:57.360 --> 0:15:59.800 you know, he's actually innocent and we just learned after 0:15:59.840 --> 0:16:02.720 the conviction of this new evidence that proves his innocence. 0:16:02.920 --> 0:16:05.880 And so then the question is, well, what is a justification. 0:16:06.200 --> 0:16:10.040 What's changed? What's a justification for this extraordinary action basically 0:16:10.080 --> 0:16:13.280 to override the verdict of the jury. And it appears 0:16:13.400 --> 0:16:16.760 that it's simply that there's been a change of administration. 0:16:17.280 --> 0:16:21.640 There's a new US attorney, and he was prosecuted under 0:16:21.760 --> 0:16:25.800 the previous Biden administration. At least the initial indictment was 0:16:25.840 --> 0:16:28.840 brought at that time, and the charges were filed and 0:16:29.040 --> 0:16:31.320 the new sheriff in town wants to undo what the 0:16:31.400 --> 0:16:35.480 jury did, which suggests me that the motivation or justification 0:16:35.680 --> 0:16:36.600 is purely political. 0:16:36.800 --> 0:16:40.680 The judge in the case denied emotion from the defense 0:16:40.760 --> 0:16:43.920 for a quitt last month and said that Kirk acted 0:16:43.960 --> 0:16:46.640 aggressively towards the woman from the outset, and then the 0:16:46.680 --> 0:16:50.080 footage of the incident was sufficient evidence for a jury 0:16:50.120 --> 0:16:53.640 to find that he'd had used objectively unreasonable force. 0:16:54.040 --> 0:16:56.000 Yeah, so as a matter of fact, you know that 0:16:56.040 --> 0:16:58.760 the court is finding that there was sufficient evidence presented 0:16:58.800 --> 0:17:01.320 a trial to justify the case, and as a result, 0:17:01.480 --> 0:17:05.480 the defendant received the full panoply of due process protections. 0:17:05.520 --> 0:17:08.879 I mean, he was represented by counsel. Prosecution had to 0:17:08.920 --> 0:17:11.200 prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury had 0:17:11.200 --> 0:17:15.480 to find him guilty unanimously. And so there again does 0:17:15.560 --> 0:17:19.600 not appear to be any factual basis justification or legal 0:17:19.760 --> 0:17:23.040 justification for overturning the conviction. And what it suggests to 0:17:23.119 --> 0:17:26.400 me is that this is another example of the Trump 0:17:26.480 --> 0:17:31.560 administration kind of ignoring or evading the rule of law 0:17:31.880 --> 0:17:35.480 in the case of undocumented immigrants. In the claim is well, 0:17:35.640 --> 0:17:38.840 they're not entitled to do process. In this particular case, 0:17:38.880 --> 0:17:43.480 with respect to Deputy Trevor Kirk, he received full due process, 0:17:43.680 --> 0:17:46.679 but the administration, the Trump administration, didn't like the result. 0:17:46.840 --> 0:17:49.320 And because they didn't like the result, then they're seeking 0:17:49.359 --> 0:17:54.040 to somehow vacate the jury conviction, which I think undermines 0:17:54.080 --> 0:17:57.480 the rule of law and undermines the public's confidence in 0:17:57.480 --> 0:18:01.040 the criminal justice system and the validity of convictions. 0:18:01.720 --> 0:18:06.480 Besides that, for federal prosecutors who handle the case, including 0:18:06.520 --> 0:18:09.280 the chief of the Public Corruption and Civil Rights Section, 0:18:10.119 --> 0:18:13.399 refuse to sign the plea agreement and withdrew from the case. 0:18:13.880 --> 0:18:15.480 And then three of them resigned. 0:18:15.920 --> 0:18:18.240 Yeah, they stepped down, I mean, which is an expression 0:18:18.320 --> 0:18:23.800 of their disagreement with this result and their perception understanding 0:18:23.840 --> 0:18:27.200 that this was just an unfair, unjustified action by their 0:18:27.200 --> 0:18:31.879 supervisor and again is not justified by any legal principle 0:18:31.960 --> 0:18:35.439 and any legal president, any legal authority. And you know, 0:18:35.680 --> 0:18:38.440 there's kind of a parallel here, I mean with respective 0:18:38.480 --> 0:18:41.159 plea bargains. For example, if a defendant enters into a 0:18:41.160 --> 0:18:45.679 plea bargain, he may withdraw the plea bargain after the fact, 0:18:46.200 --> 0:18:48.960 but only based upon a finding of by the court 0:18:49.359 --> 0:18:51.800 that withdrawing the Guilly plea would be in the interests 0:18:51.800 --> 0:18:54.920 of justice. And so what's the standard here if the 0:18:55.040 --> 0:18:59.359 judges ultimately to decide whether or not a valid jury 0:18:59.440 --> 0:19:03.639 verdict should be overridden for political considerations. I mean, that 0:19:03.680 --> 0:19:07.080 doesn't strike as advancing the interests of justice. In fact, 0:19:07.119 --> 0:19:11.320 it's just the opposite. It's ignoring justice. Justice was done 0:19:11.359 --> 0:19:14.359 in this case. And the absence again of any claims 0:19:14.359 --> 0:19:18.440 of wrongdoing, unfair trial, and effective assistance accounts any of 0:19:18.520 --> 0:19:21.439 those types of legal arguments. This was a valid conviction 0:19:21.760 --> 0:19:26.560 and it shouldn't be ignored and disregarded by the Department 0:19:26.560 --> 0:19:29.800 of Justice, apparently the only reason being that they just 0:19:29.840 --> 0:19:31.040 didn't like the end result. 0:19:31.359 --> 0:19:34.160 Yeah. Well, there was sort of a social media campaign 0:19:34.160 --> 0:19:38.160 of support for Kirk, and a spokesperson for the LA 0:19:38.320 --> 0:19:43.040 Sheriff's Professional Association wrote a letter to Trump urging him 0:19:43.040 --> 0:19:45.520 to intervene before the case went to trial. 0:19:46.200 --> 0:19:49.240 That's the political reason. That was a political influence that 0:19:49.280 --> 0:19:52.320 apparently caused the US attorneys to seek to override the 0:19:52.400 --> 0:19:55.160 jury's conviction. And that's not a legitimate basis. I mean, 0:19:55.320 --> 0:19:58.840 conviction should be based on the facts and the evidence, 0:19:59.240 --> 0:20:04.440 not on issues political influence political affiliation with one party 0:20:04.560 --> 0:20:08.880 or another. That's not democracy in the United States. That's 0:20:08.960 --> 0:20:12.920 not the way democracy works in this country. This type 0:20:12.920 --> 0:20:16.200 of outcome is going to serve to undermine the public's 0:20:16.240 --> 0:20:19.439 confidence in the rule of law and the criminal justice system. 0:20:19.480 --> 0:20:21.480 And they're going to say, well, how come this guy 0:20:21.560 --> 0:20:25.080 got such favorable treatment and resolved? What about the other guy? 0:20:25.160 --> 0:20:28.720 You know, what about somebody who wasn't a political favorite, 0:20:28.880 --> 0:20:31.480 What about someone who wasn't a law enforcement officer, what 0:20:31.560 --> 0:20:35.160 about someone who's an ordinary citizen. Would the ordinary citizen 0:20:35.720 --> 0:20:39.080 receive this type of outcome a guilty verdict being overturned 0:20:39.160 --> 0:20:41.480 for political reasons highly unlikely? 0:20:41.960 --> 0:20:43.960 And why should I serve on a jury if you're 0:20:44.000 --> 0:20:47.119 going to take my verdict in my time exactly? 0:20:47.200 --> 0:20:51.880 I mean, it has so many negative, corrupting implications. I'm 0:20:51.960 --> 0:20:57.960 really hopeful that the judge rejects this motion to withdraw 0:20:58.160 --> 0:21:02.040 the guilty vertict and permit Kirk to plead gilly to 0:21:02.080 --> 0:21:04.639 a misdemeanor. I mean, he's convicted of a felony and 0:21:04.680 --> 0:21:07.600 now they want him to plead to a misdemeanor and 0:21:07.680 --> 0:21:10.840 then they're going to give him probation. It's just shocking. 0:21:10.960 --> 0:21:14.240 It's shocking. It's shocking action by the Department of Justice. 0:21:14.440 --> 0:21:16.200 Is the final decision the judges? 0:21:16.840 --> 0:21:18.840 Well, it's a good question, because I think it's such 0:21:18.840 --> 0:21:23.119 an extraordinary action. I really strain to come up with 0:21:22.560 --> 0:21:27.400 the legal authority. What's the legal authority for the judge, 0:21:27.440 --> 0:21:31.840 the trial judge or presiding judge to vacate a valid 0:21:32.320 --> 0:21:35.240 jury conviction, And I'm not aware of any I'm not 0:21:35.280 --> 0:21:37.960 aware of any statute. I'm not aware of any case 0:21:38.000 --> 0:21:42.520 precedent that would afford the trial judge to that authority. 0:21:42.680 --> 0:21:45.639 So that's clearly an issue. The problem here is is 0:21:45.680 --> 0:21:47.679 that who's going to appeal? I mean, if the judge 0:21:47.720 --> 0:21:51.840 does this and vacates the jury conviction, who's going to 0:21:51.840 --> 0:21:54.680 appeal it? Because the parties are in agreement. The defense 0:21:54.680 --> 0:21:57.920 certainly would like this outcome, and the Prosecutor's office, US 0:21:57.920 --> 0:22:01.200 Attorney's Office is proposing this result, and so there would 0:22:01.240 --> 0:22:05.960 be no way to review judicially review the trial court's decision, 0:22:06.440 --> 0:22:07.760 and so I think it would be final. 0:22:08.240 --> 0:22:11.200 Also, if he's allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor, 0:22:11.640 --> 0:22:13.640 that means he could continue to work as a law 0:22:13.680 --> 0:22:16.600 enforcement officer, and he could retain his right to own 0:22:16.600 --> 0:22:17.280 a fire run. 0:22:17.640 --> 0:22:19.479 Yeah, I think that's part of it. I think that's 0:22:19.560 --> 0:22:21.959 part of the justification, at least from the US journeys 0:22:22.000 --> 0:22:23.679 of it. Oh, we don't want him to have the 0:22:23.720 --> 0:22:27.600 stigma of a felon and all of the implications that 0:22:27.640 --> 0:22:31.119 are associated with that, with being a convicted felon, you know, 0:22:31.160 --> 0:22:35.280 which again would prohibit him from possessing a firearm. So 0:22:35.320 --> 0:22:38.600 that's a federal crime for a felon to possess a firearm, 0:22:38.640 --> 0:22:42.000 and so he couldn't work in any capacity that would 0:22:42.240 --> 0:22:45.440 require him to carry a firearm. But you know, that's 0:22:45.440 --> 0:22:49.080 what happens to defendants every day. You know, thousands of 0:22:49.080 --> 0:22:52.920 defendants are convicted of felonies and that's one of the implications. 0:22:52.960 --> 0:22:56.359 They're prohibited from possessing a firearm. So what's so unique 0:22:56.400 --> 0:22:59.240 about this guy? Why does he get a pass? Why 0:22:59.280 --> 0:23:03.840 should he bemitted to avoid that consequence of a felony conviction? 0:23:04.119 --> 0:23:05.720 I can think of none other than political. 0:23:06.080 --> 0:23:10.359 It's reminiscent of all the federal prosecutors who are resigned 0:23:10.760 --> 0:23:16.040 when the Manhattan US Attorney's Office was told to drop 0:23:16.080 --> 0:23:19.880 the charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams so 0:23:19.920 --> 0:23:24.480 that he could help the Trump administration in its immigration arrests. 0:23:24.720 --> 0:23:29.080 Right. I think it's another instance where the line prosecutors 0:23:29.119 --> 0:23:31.560 that are doing the heavy lifting in these cases are 0:23:31.600 --> 0:23:36.760 just outraged by the political influence that the Trump administration 0:23:36.880 --> 0:23:39.840 is having on the performance of their duties and obligations. 0:23:39.960 --> 0:23:42.479 You know, they know, and I know, having served as 0:23:42.480 --> 0:23:46.600 a former federal prosecutor, that these convictions should be based 0:23:46.600 --> 0:23:49.359 solely on the facts and the evidence, limited by the law, 0:23:49.680 --> 0:23:53.520 and they shouldn't be influenced by political actors, by political parties, 0:23:53.520 --> 0:23:57.080 by political administrations. That's not justice. That's not how democracy 0:23:57.400 --> 0:24:00.199 supposed to work and operate in the United States of America. 0:24:00.359 --> 0:24:02.840 But it is, and we're seeing it, and not simply 0:24:02.960 --> 0:24:05.600 one case, you know, the mayor at Eric Adams case, 0:24:05.640 --> 0:24:08.399 but you know, this is another incident where that's happened, 0:24:08.760 --> 0:24:11.240 and who knows if they will be more of these 0:24:11.280 --> 0:24:14.440 types of cases. And here in addition, you know, we're 0:24:14.480 --> 0:24:17.199 seeing you know, the Trump administration saying we want the 0:24:17.240 --> 0:24:20.760 Department of Justice, the Attorney General's a target this particular individual. Well, 0:24:20.760 --> 0:24:22.720 that's not how it works either. You don't go after 0:24:22.840 --> 0:24:26.320 individuals by name because of who they are. You go 0:24:26.400 --> 0:24:29.920 after individuals based upon what they did, what the facts are, 0:24:29.960 --> 0:24:33.600 what the evidence is, not on their political affiliation or 0:24:33.640 --> 0:24:37.120 their political opinion or actions that they taken that political 0:24:37.160 --> 0:24:41.639 party views unfavorably. That's not how justice should work in 0:24:41.680 --> 0:24:42.240 this country. 0:24:42.560 --> 0:24:45.719 US attorneys are political appointments. But do you think that 0:24:45.760 --> 0:24:49.439 Trump's picks are even more charged politically? I mean, he 0:24:49.640 --> 0:24:53.879 just withdrew the controversial nomination of Ed Martin to be 0:24:54.280 --> 0:24:56.160 the DC US Attorney. 0:24:56.480 --> 0:24:58.639 Well, I think the problem is is that we know 0:24:58.720 --> 0:25:05.040 that this particular presence that values loyalty, perhaps above all things, loyalty, 0:25:05.320 --> 0:25:09.600 and so whatever he wants done, he expects the persons 0:25:09.640 --> 0:25:13.560 that he has placed in those positions through political appointment 0:25:13.600 --> 0:25:16.120 presidential appointment, to do what he wants them to do, 0:25:16.600 --> 0:25:20.640 with no questions asking. I mean, when I was a prosecutor, 0:25:21.160 --> 0:25:25.000 I never ever was looking over my shoulder thinking, oh, 0:25:25.040 --> 0:25:28.400 I better not decide this matter this way, or take 0:25:28.440 --> 0:25:32.960 this particular action because of political concerns or political retaliation, 0:25:33.920 --> 0:25:36.320 or I'm going to be demoted if I do this 0:25:36.440 --> 0:25:40.199 or I do that. That never entered my mind. You know, 0:25:40.400 --> 0:25:44.600