WEBVTT - A Path Forward for New York City in the Migrant Crisis?

0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:08.240
<v Speaker 1>This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.

0:00:09.560 --> 0:00:13.160
<v Speaker 2>Never in my life have I had a problem that

0:00:13.280 --> 0:00:14.520
<v Speaker 2>I did not see an ended.

0:00:14.600 --> 0:00:17.040
<v Speaker 3>Two I don't see an ending to this.

0:00:17.680 --> 0:00:21.000
<v Speaker 4>New York City Mayor Eric Adams didn't mince words when

0:00:21.000 --> 0:00:24.480
<v Speaker 4>describing the crisis the city is facing because of the

0:00:24.480 --> 0:00:29.040
<v Speaker 4>more than one hundred thousand asylum seekers. The Adams administration

0:00:29.320 --> 0:00:33.240
<v Speaker 4>estimates that ten thousand asylum seekers are arriving each month

0:00:33.560 --> 0:00:36.199
<v Speaker 4>bust in from Texas and that it will cost the

0:00:36.240 --> 0:00:39.920
<v Speaker 4>city about twelve billion dollars over the next three years.

0:00:40.280 --> 0:00:43.880
<v Speaker 3>This issue will destroy New York City.

0:00:44.280 --> 0:00:47.240
<v Speaker 4>My guest is Leon Fresco, a partner at hollanden Knight.

0:00:47.680 --> 0:00:50.280
<v Speaker 4>He was the former head of the Justice Department's Office

0:00:50.280 --> 0:00:55.120
<v Speaker 4>of Immigration Litigation during the Obama administration. Leonn Adams says

0:00:55.280 --> 0:00:58.840
<v Speaker 4>the lack of support from the federal government is alarming.

0:00:59.200 --> 0:01:02.920
<v Speaker 4>He's reached out to the Biden administration. The bidy administration

0:01:03.000 --> 0:01:07.160
<v Speaker 4>has criticized what he's done, saying there's no exit strategy.

0:01:07.600 --> 0:01:11.040
<v Speaker 4>Why isn't the Biden administration stepping in to help out

0:01:11.040 --> 0:01:11.840
<v Speaker 4>in New York City?

0:01:12.360 --> 0:01:15.800
<v Speaker 3>This is a fascinating question, and this is where I

0:01:15.840 --> 0:01:21.680
<v Speaker 3>think there's been a major lack of congruent in some

0:01:21.800 --> 0:01:25.440
<v Speaker 3>things that's happened, and it's not really explainable, which is this,

0:01:26.160 --> 0:01:30.000
<v Speaker 3>Eric Adams has a problem with people arriving in New

0:01:30.080 --> 0:01:32.679
<v Speaker 3>York with no plan for what they're going to do,

0:01:33.120 --> 0:01:37.080
<v Speaker 3>and that problem isn't supposed to exist in the immigration

0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:40.800
<v Speaker 3>law in this sense. Technically, technically, there's a lot of

0:01:40.840 --> 0:01:43.160
<v Speaker 3>debate about whether you can even be led even to

0:01:43.240 --> 0:01:46.160
<v Speaker 3>the interior of the United States. Fund we can have

0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:48.080
<v Speaker 3>that debate. There's a lot of people who say, no, no, no,

0:01:48.200 --> 0:01:50.480
<v Speaker 3>you have to either be debained or made to way

0:01:50.560 --> 0:01:53.440
<v Speaker 3>to Mexico. You shouldn't be allowed in the interior. Well,

0:01:53.520 --> 0:01:56.280
<v Speaker 3>the Supreme Court I said that's permitted, so fine, people

0:01:56.320 --> 0:02:00.400
<v Speaker 3>are allowed in the interior. But there's another important points

0:02:00.400 --> 0:02:03.559
<v Speaker 3>to be made here, which is that Ice, even under

0:02:03.560 --> 0:02:07.640
<v Speaker 3>the Obama administration, used to have a policy that said,

0:02:07.800 --> 0:02:10.720
<v Speaker 3>if you don't have anywhere to go, you're going to

0:02:10.760 --> 0:02:13.520
<v Speaker 3>be a nice detention. And I don't know where that

0:02:14.440 --> 0:02:18.800
<v Speaker 3>ended up suddenly being swept under the carpet or being

0:02:18.840 --> 0:02:22.280
<v Speaker 3>eroded in the water. I don't know where that happened.

0:02:22.480 --> 0:02:25.360
<v Speaker 3>But I do think Eric Adams has an argument to make,

0:02:25.480 --> 0:02:28.280
<v Speaker 3>other than the fact that people don't like people being

0:02:28.320 --> 0:02:31.440
<v Speaker 3>placed in ice custody, that if you come to America

0:02:31.600 --> 0:02:34.919
<v Speaker 3>and you have no plan of any human being who

0:02:34.960 --> 0:02:38.440
<v Speaker 3>will care for you while you're here, a friend, a cousin,

0:02:38.560 --> 0:02:43.679
<v Speaker 3>an uncle, a grandparent, somebody who knows you, then yes,

0:02:43.880 --> 0:02:46.160
<v Speaker 3>you have to be places into ice custody. You can't

0:02:46.200 --> 0:02:49.800
<v Speaker 3>be in a hotel or on the street or something

0:02:49.840 --> 0:02:53.760
<v Speaker 3>of this nature. That's never what's supposed to happen. The

0:02:53.840 --> 0:02:58.160
<v Speaker 3>whole point of ICE releasing people from their custody was

0:02:58.200 --> 0:03:01.720
<v Speaker 3>because they had someone who is going to make sure

0:03:02.200 --> 0:03:05.919
<v Speaker 3>that these individuals would attend their court proceeding and would

0:03:05.919 --> 0:03:08.640
<v Speaker 3>move on to the next steps of their taste, not

0:03:08.880 --> 0:03:12.840
<v Speaker 3>that you would need city housing or you might sleep

0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:14.800
<v Speaker 3>on the street or something of this nature.

0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:18.560
<v Speaker 4>These migrants being shipped to New York City are here legally, right.

0:03:18.760 --> 0:03:22.760
<v Speaker 3>What happens is they come to the borders, they are

0:03:22.840 --> 0:03:26.600
<v Speaker 3>placed into expedited removal proceedings, meaning that you arived here,

0:03:26.639 --> 0:03:28.480
<v Speaker 3>why are you here? And they say, I don't have

0:03:28.520 --> 0:03:31.360
<v Speaker 3>a reason to be here other than I'm asking for asylum,

0:03:31.720 --> 0:03:34.400
<v Speaker 3>So then they get places to expedite the removal proceeding

0:03:34.800 --> 0:03:36.920
<v Speaker 3>They are then told the only way you can say

0:03:36.960 --> 0:03:39.760
<v Speaker 3>if you're asking for asylum is you have to establish

0:03:39.840 --> 0:03:42.680
<v Speaker 3>a credible fear that you will be persecuted on the

0:03:42.720 --> 0:03:46.960
<v Speaker 3>basis of your race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or

0:03:47.000 --> 0:03:51.920
<v Speaker 3>social group. They then meet this criteria, and when they

0:03:52.040 --> 0:03:56.000
<v Speaker 3>meet this criteria, they are then released from detension and

0:03:56.120 --> 0:03:59.520
<v Speaker 3>they are just put into the state of Texas, whereby

0:03:59.640 --> 0:04:03.119
<v Speaker 3>now what the new rental is. Greg Abbotson takes these

0:04:03.120 --> 0:04:06.280
<v Speaker 3>people upon relief from detension and puts them on a

0:04:06.320 --> 0:04:09.200
<v Speaker 3>bus and sends them to New York or Chicago or

0:04:09.240 --> 0:04:13.200
<v Speaker 3>Los Angeles and Philadelphia. That's the final rental. The previous

0:04:13.280 --> 0:04:16.320
<v Speaker 3>state of affairs was they just the door opens of

0:04:16.400 --> 0:04:20.440
<v Speaker 3>the detention facility and they're just sucked in Texas, and

0:04:20.520 --> 0:04:22.480
<v Speaker 3>that's what Texas said, Well, we don't want any more

0:04:22.520 --> 0:04:25.520
<v Speaker 3>of that. But now the door opens of the facility

0:04:26.040 --> 0:04:29.200
<v Speaker 3>and they are placed on a bus to some other locations.

0:04:29.560 --> 0:04:32.400
<v Speaker 3>And the point is they're supposed to attend their trial

0:04:32.520 --> 0:04:35.400
<v Speaker 3>quote unquote about whether they will win a fium or not.

0:04:36.040 --> 0:04:39.640
<v Speaker 3>But the point was, I just was never supposed to

0:04:39.680 --> 0:04:42.120
<v Speaker 3>release you from the tension if you didn't actually have

0:04:42.200 --> 0:04:46.520
<v Speaker 3>a plan of action. Of where you would say if

0:04:46.880 --> 0:04:49.760
<v Speaker 3>you were released from detension, and for some reason that

0:04:49.839 --> 0:04:54.680
<v Speaker 3>appears to have changed, and that I think is creating

0:04:54.720 --> 0:04:58.240
<v Speaker 3>a consequence that's completely different than anything we've seen before,

0:04:58.760 --> 0:05:01.599
<v Speaker 3>because the bear minimum of what used to happen with

0:05:01.800 --> 0:05:04.880
<v Speaker 3>migration into the United States if people have some sort

0:05:04.880 --> 0:05:07.200
<v Speaker 3>of plan of who they would stay with when they

0:05:07.320 --> 0:05:10.520
<v Speaker 3>arrived here. And it appears that for whatever reason, that

0:05:10.560 --> 0:05:13.440
<v Speaker 3>has broken down. And I do think to the extent

0:05:13.520 --> 0:05:16.440
<v Speaker 3>of a message is spend, don't come here unless you

0:05:16.520 --> 0:05:20.160
<v Speaker 3>have some plan, because otherwise you'll be placed in nice destension.

0:05:20.600 --> 0:05:22.839
<v Speaker 3>I do think that's a youthful Venturer's.

0:05:22.440 --> 0:05:25.799
<v Speaker 4>Defensive in your view, What has Adams done wrong?

0:05:26.520 --> 0:05:29.480
<v Speaker 3>Well, there's a couple of things. Number One, you have

0:05:29.720 --> 0:05:34.000
<v Speaker 3>to figure out when people are arriving in your city logistically,

0:05:34.200 --> 0:05:36.320
<v Speaker 3>person of all, and there are some cities. LA County's

0:05:36.320 --> 0:05:39.400
<v Speaker 3>doing this in an amazing passion. They're really handling this

0:05:39.560 --> 0:05:42.720
<v Speaker 3>with ease. When you compare this to New York. You

0:05:42.839 --> 0:05:44.840
<v Speaker 3>first have to figure out is there some place that

0:05:44.960 --> 0:05:47.560
<v Speaker 3>you can go to? And if you can go to

0:05:47.640 --> 0:05:51.000
<v Speaker 3>that location, it's much cheaper, even if it's an uber

0:05:51.160 --> 0:05:54.400
<v Speaker 3>ride of one hundred dollars put them in an uber

0:05:54.520 --> 0:05:57.120
<v Speaker 3>for one hundred dollars and send them there. Then have

0:05:57.279 --> 0:06:01.480
<v Speaker 3>them in a shelter or a hotel. That part logistically

0:06:01.640 --> 0:06:04.680
<v Speaker 3>has not been handled very well. So that's the first

0:06:04.760 --> 0:06:08.280
<v Speaker 3>that is identifying are there places people can be sent

0:06:08.400 --> 0:06:11.640
<v Speaker 3>to immediately send them there. I understand that that's the

0:06:11.760 --> 0:06:15.599
<v Speaker 3>drain on the city's resources, but it's a larger drain

0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:20.120
<v Speaker 3>to have shelters at hotels and things of the nagers.

0:06:20.200 --> 0:06:25.239
<v Speaker 3>That's number one. Then number two, if people are coming

0:06:25.320 --> 0:06:27.920
<v Speaker 3>to New York and they have no plan of any

0:06:28.040 --> 0:06:30.479
<v Speaker 3>kind of where they want to go, so that there's

0:06:30.520 --> 0:06:33.760
<v Speaker 3>nowhere you can transport them to, then that's where what

0:06:33.960 --> 0:06:35.800
<v Speaker 3>New York has to do is starts to work with

0:06:35.960 --> 0:06:39.160
<v Speaker 3>ICE in that situation. Because the problem is there's a

0:06:39.240 --> 0:06:42.400
<v Speaker 3>government statue, it's not even a regulations, the statutes that

0:06:42.520 --> 0:06:46.200
<v Speaker 3>says if you apply for asylum, you cannot work for

0:06:46.440 --> 0:06:49.040
<v Speaker 3>one hundred and eighty days. Your case has to be

0:06:49.160 --> 0:06:51.279
<v Speaker 3>tending for at least one hundred and eighty days before

0:06:51.360 --> 0:06:54.480
<v Speaker 3>you can work. And so for those one hundred and

0:06:54.560 --> 0:06:56.760
<v Speaker 3>eighty days, are you really going to be seeing people

0:06:57.240 --> 0:07:00.440
<v Speaker 3>in hotels? The whole point of this one hundred and

0:07:00.520 --> 0:07:04.640
<v Speaker 3>eighty day asylum rule was to prevent what was called

0:07:04.680 --> 0:07:07.560
<v Speaker 3>a magnet where people would come to the US to work.

0:07:07.880 --> 0:07:10.600
<v Speaker 3>But imagine if the magnet now is not only you

0:07:10.720 --> 0:07:13.280
<v Speaker 3>can't work, but you're in a hotel for one hundred

0:07:13.280 --> 0:07:17.800
<v Speaker 3>and eighty days. Well, that's the reverse effect of the

0:07:17.920 --> 0:07:20.800
<v Speaker 3>whole purpose of not letting people work in the first place. Now,

0:07:20.880 --> 0:07:24.600
<v Speaker 3>the problem Adams has is by the administration cannot change

0:07:24.640 --> 0:07:28.920
<v Speaker 3>a statue, and so they're stuck. Everybody's stuck here. Nobody

0:07:29.000 --> 0:07:31.240
<v Speaker 3>can work when they first come to the United States.

0:07:31.840 --> 0:07:34.080
<v Speaker 3>And so this is why the solution needs to be

0:07:34.240 --> 0:07:37.800
<v Speaker 3>one much more year towards sending the message to people

0:07:38.360 --> 0:07:41.200
<v Speaker 3>that it will not be tolerated. That people simply come

0:07:41.320 --> 0:07:43.880
<v Speaker 3>here and expect to stay in a hotel. That's not

0:07:44.000 --> 0:07:47.200
<v Speaker 3>going to be something that's tolerated. People will have to

0:07:47.240 --> 0:07:50.760
<v Speaker 3>be an immigration detention unless they have a sponsor that's

0:07:50.800 --> 0:07:52.480
<v Speaker 3>willing to take care of it.

0:07:52.920 --> 0:07:57.280
<v Speaker 4>They tried sending leaflets to Texas basically you're not welcome

0:07:57.320 --> 0:07:58.160
<v Speaker 4>in New York City.

0:07:58.560 --> 0:08:01.040
<v Speaker 1>That didn't work. Apparently, what should he do?

0:08:02.440 --> 0:08:02.560
<v Speaker 4>Right?

0:08:02.680 --> 0:08:05.880
<v Speaker 3>He needs students, coordinate with a Department of Homeland Security

0:08:06.240 --> 0:08:10.600
<v Speaker 3>and get them to be much more active in Texas

0:08:11.280 --> 0:08:14.520
<v Speaker 3>to say to people, do you have a plan and

0:08:14.640 --> 0:08:17.840
<v Speaker 3>a sponsor for remaining in the United States, And if

0:08:17.880 --> 0:08:21.360
<v Speaker 3>they say no, then instead of putting them outside of

0:08:21.480 --> 0:08:23.680
<v Speaker 3>the facility where Texas can then place them on a

0:08:23.720 --> 0:08:26.480
<v Speaker 3>bus and take them to New York, those people get

0:08:26.520 --> 0:08:29.320
<v Speaker 3>placed into ice attention until they can get a work permit,

0:08:29.520 --> 0:08:31.720
<v Speaker 3>and then with the work permit they can be released

0:08:31.760 --> 0:08:34.560
<v Speaker 3>and they can work and pay for themselves. But there

0:08:34.640 --> 0:08:36.959
<v Speaker 3>should not be a scenario where people get to be

0:08:37.080 --> 0:08:43.000
<v Speaker 3>released from immigration custody in Texas unless they have a

0:08:43.600 --> 0:08:46.240
<v Speaker 3>US sponsor that's willing to take them. And I think

0:08:46.320 --> 0:08:49.599
<v Speaker 3>that's the policy thing that Eric Adams probably needs to

0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:52.800
<v Speaker 3>advocate for now. Whether he does that publicly where he

0:08:52.840 --> 0:08:57.880
<v Speaker 3>would get criticism from the immigration advocates or privately doesn't matter.

0:08:58.400 --> 0:09:00.720
<v Speaker 3>But I think that's the only thing that will bring

0:09:01.320 --> 0:09:04.480
<v Speaker 3>temporary release to New York. I don't think billions of

0:09:04.600 --> 0:09:08.400
<v Speaker 3>dollars to New York is fixing anything in terms of

0:09:09.040 --> 0:09:12.800
<v Speaker 3>the larger situation, because I think you have to come

0:09:12.920 --> 0:09:17.000
<v Speaker 3>back this new issue. This is not a long existing phenomenon.

0:09:17.160 --> 0:09:20.280
<v Speaker 3>This is a relatively new issue of people coming to

0:09:20.400 --> 0:09:24.160
<v Speaker 3>the United States with absolutely nobody that they know of

0:09:24.280 --> 0:09:28.079
<v Speaker 3>any kind saying that they expect to be housed in

0:09:28.679 --> 0:09:32.760
<v Speaker 3>some hotel or facility. That's something completely new, and so

0:09:33.000 --> 0:09:35.280
<v Speaker 3>the government needs to address this so that this doesn't

0:09:35.360 --> 0:09:37.679
<v Speaker 3>become a long standing phenomena.

0:09:38.400 --> 0:09:41.320
<v Speaker 1>Is this helping Texas sending all these people up here?

0:09:41.640 --> 0:09:45.520
<v Speaker 3>From Texas's perspective, this is getting everybody an equal skin

0:09:45.640 --> 0:09:48.199
<v Speaker 3>in the game, so that pressure gets placed on the

0:09:48.240 --> 0:09:52.240
<v Speaker 3>Body administration to adopt the remain in Mexico policy that

0:09:52.400 --> 0:09:57.240
<v Speaker 3>Trump has. That's essentially the endgame for Texas is if

0:09:57.320 --> 0:09:59.640
<v Speaker 3>you can then get Eric Odams of set In, the

0:09:59.720 --> 0:10:02.560
<v Speaker 3>mayor of Los Angeles and the mayor of Philadelphia at

0:10:02.600 --> 0:10:05.120
<v Speaker 3>the mayor of Chicago, and they all drew a bider

0:10:05.200 --> 0:10:08.320
<v Speaker 3>and say we give up, do something, and then Biden

0:10:08.400 --> 0:10:12.839
<v Speaker 3>has to do remain in Mexico. Then, from Texas's perspective, okay,

0:10:12.960 --> 0:10:15.800
<v Speaker 3>that's a big please, but is not going to happen.

0:10:15.960 --> 0:10:19.520
<v Speaker 3>I don't know, but certainly to the extense, that's the

0:10:19.760 --> 0:10:23.600
<v Speaker 3>solution that the cities are offering is give us billions

0:10:23.640 --> 0:10:26.280
<v Speaker 3>of dollars to put people in hotels. I don't know

0:10:26.400 --> 0:10:28.520
<v Speaker 3>that that's the best solution. I think you have to

0:10:28.559 --> 0:10:31.400
<v Speaker 3>put more onus on people coming here to the United

0:10:31.440 --> 0:10:36.680
<v Speaker 3>States to find their own housing solutions, and if they're

0:10:36.760 --> 0:10:39.559
<v Speaker 3>unwilling or unable to find their own housing solutions. That

0:10:39.760 --> 0:10:43.480
<v Speaker 3>was the entire reason the concept of immigration's attention was created.

0:10:43.800 --> 0:10:46.360
<v Speaker 4>Len I want to turn down to DOCA. For the

0:10:46.520 --> 0:10:50.640
<v Speaker 4>second time, a Texas federal judge has declared DOCA illegal.

0:10:51.160 --> 0:10:54.800
<v Speaker 4>It's a blow to the Biden administration, which issued regulations

0:10:54.920 --> 0:10:58.559
<v Speaker 4>to codify DACA in an effort to preserve the legality

0:10:58.640 --> 0:11:02.480
<v Speaker 4>of the program, which the young immigrants known as Dreamers

0:11:02.520 --> 0:11:06.920
<v Speaker 4>from deportation, but Texas and eight other Republican led states

0:11:07.080 --> 0:11:11.080
<v Speaker 4>continued to challenge DOCA in court. The issue will likely

0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:14.439
<v Speaker 4>be decided by the Supreme Court, the third time the

0:11:14.559 --> 0:11:16.920
<v Speaker 4>program's fate will be before the Court.

0:11:17.600 --> 0:11:18.600
<v Speaker 1>Seems like we've.

0:11:18.480 --> 0:11:22.599
<v Speaker 4>Been hearing about DOCA and court rulings for years and

0:11:22.760 --> 0:11:27.040
<v Speaker 4>years since it was first launched. Why so many hearings,

0:11:27.240 --> 0:11:28.160
<v Speaker 4>Why no resolution?

0:11:28.920 --> 0:11:32.319
<v Speaker 3>Well, this case has gone through several stages, and so

0:11:32.559 --> 0:11:35.719
<v Speaker 3>what happened and this might actually be something that the

0:11:35.760 --> 0:11:39.560
<v Speaker 3>Supreme Court touches upon even when it ends up finally

0:11:39.679 --> 0:11:43.560
<v Speaker 3>reviewing DACA is that for many years, the DOCCA program

0:11:43.679 --> 0:11:47.199
<v Speaker 3>itself was actually not challenged by the State of Texas.

0:11:47.480 --> 0:11:50.640
<v Speaker 3>The State of Texas only got involved in challenging things

0:11:51.040 --> 0:11:53.600
<v Speaker 3>when there was a second program at the very end

0:11:53.679 --> 0:11:57.240
<v Speaker 3>of the Obama administration called da FAV which would have

0:11:57.320 --> 0:12:00.880
<v Speaker 3>given legal stitus to the parents of undocta ment to children,

0:12:01.559 --> 0:12:04.080
<v Speaker 3>and that would have been about a four million person

0:12:04.559 --> 0:12:07.720
<v Speaker 3>legal status program. That's when the State of Texas gets

0:12:07.800 --> 0:12:10.800
<v Speaker 3>involved and they end up in joining the program. The

0:12:10.880 --> 0:12:13.679
<v Speaker 3>Obama administration ends, that's the end of it, and then

0:12:13.760 --> 0:12:16.880
<v Speaker 3>the question happens, well, what about dot CO, And this

0:12:17.040 --> 0:12:20.880
<v Speaker 3>is where Jeff Session and the Trump administration tries to

0:12:20.960 --> 0:12:26.040
<v Speaker 3>get the State of Texas to SEO to actually eliminate

0:12:26.200 --> 0:12:29.560
<v Speaker 3>doc CO, because the State of Texas actually wasn't interested

0:12:29.960 --> 0:12:32.839
<v Speaker 3>in eliminating DOCA because of the sympathetic nature of the

0:12:32.920 --> 0:12:36.400
<v Speaker 3>population and a lot of the problems that DOCTA faults.

0:12:36.440 --> 0:12:40.160
<v Speaker 3>But nevertheless, Attorney General Jet Sessions that's design convinces the

0:12:40.200 --> 0:12:44.040
<v Speaker 3>State of Texas to su and the Attorney General Jet

0:12:44.120 --> 0:12:47.559
<v Speaker 3>Sessions also tries to eliminate DACA on his own. The

0:12:47.679 --> 0:12:50.560
<v Speaker 3>Supreme Court says that the way he did it was illegal,

0:12:51.240 --> 0:12:55.520
<v Speaker 3>so it gets kicked back to the Department of Homeland Security.

0:12:56.120 --> 0:13:00.560
<v Speaker 3>In the meantime, this lawsuit then restarts because they were

0:13:00.600 --> 0:13:03.959
<v Speaker 3>waiting for the report to do their decision on what

0:13:04.120 --> 0:13:08.439
<v Speaker 3>Jeff Sessions had done. And this lawsuit restarts. But the

0:13:08.520 --> 0:13:12.000
<v Speaker 3>Trump administration then ends, which brings in the body of

0:13:12.000 --> 0:13:16.880
<v Speaker 3>the Administration, which brings in a new DOCTA rule. And

0:13:17.200 --> 0:13:21.480
<v Speaker 3>so now we're finally in September fourteen, twenty twenty three,

0:13:22.040 --> 0:13:24.559
<v Speaker 3>at the culmination of all of this, where we're now

0:13:25.200 --> 0:13:28.120
<v Speaker 3>at a direct shot to the Supreme Court about the

0:13:28.240 --> 0:13:33.080
<v Speaker 3>final choices nobody has ever analyzed, which is it DOCA

0:13:33.520 --> 0:13:35.000
<v Speaker 3>legal tell us.

0:13:34.920 --> 0:13:40.640
<v Speaker 4>About these Homeland Security Department regulations that the Buying administration

0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:42.240
<v Speaker 4>issued last year.

0:13:42.559 --> 0:13:46.960
<v Speaker 3>Sure, so here's the issue. So when DOCA was announced

0:13:47.000 --> 0:13:51.000
<v Speaker 3>originally in twenty twelve, it was done by a memo.

0:13:51.440 --> 0:13:54.800
<v Speaker 3>It was not a big long government regulation where there's

0:13:54.840 --> 0:13:58.280
<v Speaker 3>a notice of proposed rulemaking, there are sixty days of comment,

0:13:58.720 --> 0:14:01.360
<v Speaker 3>there's a lot of analysis. It wasn't done that way.

0:14:01.360 --> 0:14:03.920
<v Speaker 3>It was done as a memo, and that memo nobody

0:14:03.960 --> 0:14:07.600
<v Speaker 3>bothered it for many years. But then the Obama administration

0:14:07.760 --> 0:14:10.400
<v Speaker 3>did something called DAPA, which is what I just talked about,

0:14:10.640 --> 0:14:13.520
<v Speaker 3>and they did that by a memo also, and so

0:14:13.640 --> 0:14:15.719
<v Speaker 3>in the state of Texas food they said, hey, you

0:14:15.760 --> 0:14:19.400
<v Speaker 3>didn't do this by notice in comment rulemaking, and the

0:14:19.560 --> 0:14:22.360
<v Speaker 3>courts agreed, and that was the main reason that the

0:14:22.440 --> 0:14:26.560
<v Speaker 3>DAPPA program failed. So the idea was, well, if DAPPA

0:14:26.720 --> 0:14:29.600
<v Speaker 3>and DACA are essentially the same programs, just yeared toward

0:14:29.680 --> 0:14:32.800
<v Speaker 3>different people, then this needed to also be done by

0:14:32.880 --> 0:14:36.520
<v Speaker 3>a rule which had notice in comment rulemaking. And so

0:14:37.040 --> 0:14:41.760
<v Speaker 3>the Biden administration fixes this argument. So now there is

0:14:41.840 --> 0:14:45.680
<v Speaker 3>no more of an argument that DOACA is illegal because

0:14:45.680 --> 0:14:49.720
<v Speaker 3>there was no regulation with notice in comment rulemaking, because

0:14:49.800 --> 0:14:53.600
<v Speaker 3>in fact, there was a regulation issued by the Biden

0:14:53.600 --> 0:14:58.600
<v Speaker 3>administration on October thirty first, twenty twenty two, with notice

0:14:58.640 --> 0:15:01.800
<v Speaker 3>and comment and all the official rulemaking. But the question

0:15:02.000 --> 0:15:05.760
<v Speaker 3>then became for the court, well is that regulation doing

0:15:05.880 --> 0:15:09.920
<v Speaker 3>something but legal? And years where the Court comes down

0:15:10.000 --> 0:15:13.680
<v Speaker 3>and says, no, this regulation is not doing something that's legal,

0:15:14.120 --> 0:15:18.680
<v Speaker 3>because you cannot create a program for people who don't

0:15:18.760 --> 0:15:23.040
<v Speaker 3>have status and give them status, especially authorizations at work.

0:15:23.520 --> 0:15:27.000
<v Speaker 3>And so that's the issue that's left to be decided

0:15:27.080 --> 0:15:28.080
<v Speaker 3>by the Supreme Court.

0:15:28.800 --> 0:15:32.680
<v Speaker 4>The judge said the creation adoption of the final rule

0:15:32.840 --> 0:15:35.760
<v Speaker 4>took no steps to avoid any of the substantive pitfalls

0:15:35.800 --> 0:15:38.880
<v Speaker 4>that have been pointed out, perhaps because DHS did not

0:15:39.080 --> 0:15:42.120
<v Speaker 4>want to or perhaps because it was not possible to

0:15:42.280 --> 0:15:46.480
<v Speaker 4>do so and retain the DOCA program as currently constituted.

0:15:47.000 --> 0:15:48.920
<v Speaker 1>Do you think that either of those is true?

0:15:49.600 --> 0:15:52.160
<v Speaker 3>Well, I think it actually is true in the sense

0:15:52.200 --> 0:15:54.920
<v Speaker 3>that there are two parts to the backup program. The

0:15:55.040 --> 0:15:58.680
<v Speaker 3>first part is having a set of criteria for people

0:15:58.680 --> 0:16:01.920
<v Speaker 3>who cannot be deported, and that part is very important,

0:16:02.160 --> 0:16:04.480
<v Speaker 3>but it's not the only part, and it's not a

0:16:04.640 --> 0:16:07.640
<v Speaker 3>program that people would be happy with if that was

0:16:07.720 --> 0:16:10.080
<v Speaker 3>all that was led. So there's a second step to

0:16:10.160 --> 0:16:13.080
<v Speaker 3>the program, which is saying, once we've designated this group

0:16:13.520 --> 0:16:17.240
<v Speaker 3>that cannot be deported, this group also can work while

0:16:17.280 --> 0:16:20.920
<v Speaker 3>they're here legally in the United States. And so this

0:16:21.160 --> 0:16:25.240
<v Speaker 3>is the part that jo Jaanen really takes with saying, look,

0:16:25.720 --> 0:16:28.720
<v Speaker 3>you never get around the thing that these people can't work,

0:16:29.200 --> 0:16:31.760
<v Speaker 3>and so the fact that they can work is the

0:16:31.880 --> 0:16:35.560
<v Speaker 3>main problem I had with the program, and this is

0:16:35.800 --> 0:16:39.640
<v Speaker 3>what doesn't get fixed in the regulation. Nor is it

0:16:39.800 --> 0:16:42.280
<v Speaker 3>fair to say that DASS would want a program where

0:16:42.320 --> 0:16:46.760
<v Speaker 3>those pumps cannot work, because the whole sort of brilliance

0:16:47.040 --> 0:16:49.520
<v Speaker 3>of the doctor program visa VI that people in it

0:16:50.080 --> 0:16:52.240
<v Speaker 3>is that they can live a normal life. They have

0:16:52.400 --> 0:16:55.120
<v Speaker 3>this work permit. This work permit allows them to get

0:16:55.120 --> 0:16:57.800
<v Speaker 3>a driver's life, It allows them to get a Social

0:16:57.880 --> 0:16:59.960
<v Speaker 3>Security number, It allows them to get a bank account,

0:17:00.320 --> 0:17:02.720
<v Speaker 3>allows them to go to school, it allows them to work.

0:17:03.240 --> 0:17:05.520
<v Speaker 3>And so if you took away that and just said

0:17:05.600 --> 0:17:08.879
<v Speaker 3>this is a program of non deportation, it seems us

0:17:08.960 --> 0:17:12.680
<v Speaker 3>to be DACA as the docas young people know it

0:17:12.880 --> 0:17:13.800
<v Speaker 3>and experience it.

0:17:13.880 --> 0:17:17.480
<v Speaker 4>It. We've talked before about the executive branch and immigration.

0:17:18.160 --> 0:17:20.199
<v Speaker 4>Isn't this an executive branch function?

0:17:20.800 --> 0:17:22.879
<v Speaker 3>So that's what the court is going to have to decide.

0:17:22.920 --> 0:17:25.040
<v Speaker 3>They're going to have to decide to do components of it.

0:17:25.240 --> 0:17:28.280
<v Speaker 3>The first component, can you pick a group not to deport?

0:17:28.680 --> 0:17:31.920
<v Speaker 3>The Supreme Court has basically already decided this issue last

0:17:32.000 --> 0:17:35.639
<v Speaker 3>year in a case called Biden versus Texas about the

0:17:35.760 --> 0:17:39.119
<v Speaker 3>prosecutorial discretion guideline, where the Court said the State of

0:17:39.200 --> 0:17:44.440
<v Speaker 3>Texas doesn't have standing to look at these prosecutorial discretion guidelines.

0:17:44.720 --> 0:17:48.560
<v Speaker 3>And so that first part of DACA looks very very safe.

0:17:49.160 --> 0:17:53.200
<v Speaker 3>The second part about whether the people who are subjective

0:17:53.320 --> 0:17:56.680
<v Speaker 3>to non prosecution can then be given the ability to

0:17:56.840 --> 0:18:00.600
<v Speaker 3>work in the United States. That's really what the Court

0:18:00.720 --> 0:18:03.440
<v Speaker 3>is going to be looking at here, And so that's

0:18:03.520 --> 0:18:06.480
<v Speaker 3>just going to come down to one of two statues,

0:18:06.840 --> 0:18:09.639
<v Speaker 3>picking which one do you like. Do you like the

0:18:09.800 --> 0:18:14.680
<v Speaker 3>statue that says that if someone is undocumented, there's no

0:18:14.920 --> 0:18:18.840
<v Speaker 3>choice that the administration has other than encountering them and

0:18:19.000 --> 0:18:21.639
<v Speaker 3>removing them from the United States, Or do you like

0:18:21.760 --> 0:18:25.560
<v Speaker 3>the statutes that says that the Secretary of Homeland Security

0:18:26.080 --> 0:18:30.840
<v Speaker 3>has regulatory authorities for anyone work in the United States,

0:18:31.280 --> 0:18:36.399
<v Speaker 3>which would presumably include these young people. So that's the

0:18:36.560 --> 0:18:38.960
<v Speaker 3>choice the Supreme Court's going to have to make, is

0:18:39.240 --> 0:18:42.920
<v Speaker 3>which of those statues actually makes more sense in this

0:18:43.680 --> 0:18:48.080
<v Speaker 3>fact pattern. Can the Secretary of Homeland Security take a

0:18:48.280 --> 0:18:52.680
<v Speaker 3>slice of undocumented people and actually just out of thin

0:18:52.800 --> 0:18:56.320
<v Speaker 3>air or in this case of regulation, but nevertheless thin

0:18:56.440 --> 0:19:00.359
<v Speaker 3>air makes them legal enough so to seek they can

0:19:00.480 --> 0:19:01.679
<v Speaker 3>work in the United States.

0:19:02.240 --> 0:19:04.520
<v Speaker 1>Is the Supreme Court likely to take this case?

0:19:04.960 --> 0:19:07.520
<v Speaker 3>They don't have to take the case, but then that

0:19:07.560 --> 0:19:13.119
<v Speaker 3>would leave a nationwide injunction on new DOCA cases that

0:19:13.240 --> 0:19:16.239
<v Speaker 3>will be in place. Now what's fascinating is if they

0:19:16.320 --> 0:19:18.680
<v Speaker 3>then don't end up taking the case at all, then

0:19:18.760 --> 0:19:23.960
<v Speaker 3>that nationwide injunction expands to ending the program entirely, so

0:19:24.119 --> 0:19:28.040
<v Speaker 3>they can't be crafty and just say, well, we can

0:19:28.320 --> 0:19:30.400
<v Speaker 3>not take the case, and then only new cases won't

0:19:30.440 --> 0:19:33.920
<v Speaker 3>get taken. The way Judge Haynen's injunction is written is

0:19:34.720 --> 0:19:37.960
<v Speaker 3>until the Supreme Court does something, we will allow all

0:19:38.000 --> 0:19:40.640
<v Speaker 3>the people in the existing program to remain and keep

0:19:40.720 --> 0:19:43.840
<v Speaker 3>renewing their status, but we won't let any new people in.

0:19:44.320 --> 0:19:47.480
<v Speaker 3>But if the Supreme Court doesn't do anything, then the

0:19:47.600 --> 0:19:52.480
<v Speaker 3>nationwide injunction becomes permanent and doesn't allow anybody to even

0:19:52.560 --> 0:19:56.440
<v Speaker 3>renew their status. So whenever somebody's status expires, that's it

0:19:56.760 --> 0:20:00.160
<v Speaker 3>can't be renewed, and the DACA program ends gradually over

0:20:00.240 --> 0:20:01.120
<v Speaker 3>a course of years.

0:20:01.640 --> 0:20:05.040
<v Speaker 4>That Supreme Court case last year involving Texas that you

0:20:05.119 --> 0:20:07.960
<v Speaker 4>were talking about was kind of a surprise coming from

0:20:08.000 --> 0:20:11.399
<v Speaker 4>this Supreme Court. Do you have any inkling about the

0:20:11.680 --> 0:20:13.200
<v Speaker 4>Justice's feelings toward DACA.

0:20:13.640 --> 0:20:16.000
<v Speaker 3>Well, I mean, at the end of the day, we

0:20:16.280 --> 0:20:19.800
<v Speaker 3>know that there are three justices that are not going

0:20:19.880 --> 0:20:23.240
<v Speaker 3>to be on board in any way, shape or forb

0:20:23.400 --> 0:20:27.760
<v Speaker 3>with the program continuing, which is Alito, Thomas, and Gorss.

0:20:28.040 --> 0:20:31.400
<v Speaker 3>We know that from the prior cases. What we don't

0:20:31.520 --> 0:20:35.560
<v Speaker 3>know is Amy, Tony Barrett, and Tavanaughkavanaugh was trying to

0:20:35.600 --> 0:20:39.280
<v Speaker 3>read some compromise in the prior daca's decision, and by

0:20:39.320 --> 0:20:42.040
<v Speaker 3>the way, Roberts contains his mind also, so we don't know.

0:20:42.119 --> 0:20:45.200
<v Speaker 3>I mean, Roberts was pro keeping DACA the last time

0:20:45.280 --> 0:20:48.680
<v Speaker 3>around when the Trump administration tries to eliminate it. But

0:20:48.920 --> 0:20:51.320
<v Speaker 3>the real swing boat is going to be Tony Bears.

0:20:51.680 --> 0:20:55.080
<v Speaker 3>She has not opigned yet on where she is in DAKA,

0:20:55.560 --> 0:20:58.160
<v Speaker 3>and so maybe she will be sympathetic towards this group

0:20:58.280 --> 0:21:01.200
<v Speaker 3>and want to keep it in place. Some compromise will

0:21:01.240 --> 0:21:04.680
<v Speaker 3>be reached. What I'm hoping for where they miraculously say, hey,

0:21:04.720 --> 0:21:07.520
<v Speaker 3>look why did Texas state six years to file a

0:21:07.640 --> 0:21:10.800
<v Speaker 3>lawsuit on this, so many reliance interests came in place.

0:21:10.960 --> 0:21:13.480
<v Speaker 3>They don't get the right to food anymore, which is

0:21:13.560 --> 0:21:15.480
<v Speaker 3>what happened, And I would love for that to be

0:21:15.760 --> 0:21:19.639
<v Speaker 3>the decision here, because Texas originally didn't care about DACA

0:21:19.840 --> 0:21:22.760
<v Speaker 3>for so long and only came in when Jeff Sessions

0:21:22.800 --> 0:21:26.520
<v Speaker 3>forced them food. So to me, from that perspective, that

0:21:26.640 --> 0:21:29.600
<v Speaker 3>would be a wonderful way to end this. But it's

0:21:29.640 --> 0:21:31.880
<v Speaker 3>hard to know. Where she will ultimately come out.

0:21:32.160 --> 0:21:35.920
<v Speaker 1>Do the States even have standing to challenge.

0:21:35.560 --> 0:21:37.639
<v Speaker 3>DOC that's going to be enough. That's going to be

0:21:37.680 --> 0:21:41.240
<v Speaker 3>another question, because they don't have standing to challenge the

0:21:41.320 --> 0:21:45.960
<v Speaker 3>first part of DOCA, which is the prosecutorial decision not

0:21:46.119 --> 0:21:50.080
<v Speaker 3>to support a certain category that's already been decided. What

0:21:50.320 --> 0:21:53.480
<v Speaker 3>Ben Hainan says in this case, and he's correct, is

0:21:53.560 --> 0:21:57.080
<v Speaker 3>that in that decision by the Supreme Court, they specifically

0:21:57.280 --> 0:22:02.520
<v Speaker 3>exented programs that look like DOC not for saying that

0:22:02.680 --> 0:22:05.600
<v Speaker 3>there is standing, just for saying we don't know if

0:22:05.640 --> 0:22:09.120
<v Speaker 3>they're standing, get back to us on this. So that's

0:22:09.200 --> 0:22:11.920
<v Speaker 3>where we are right now. And then they literally use

0:22:12.040 --> 0:22:14.800
<v Speaker 3>the words, you know, we do not opign on whether

0:22:14.840 --> 0:22:16.879
<v Speaker 3>we have standing on a case where there's not just

0:22:17.040 --> 0:22:22.480
<v Speaker 3>proscutorial discression but prosecutorial discression plus the provision of benefits,

0:22:22.560 --> 0:22:25.920
<v Speaker 3>which is what happens here. And so that's not a

0:22:26.080 --> 0:22:29.560
<v Speaker 3>yes or no that they check with us later. And

0:22:29.800 --> 0:22:32.680
<v Speaker 3>so J Jayne says, well, that check with us later

0:22:32.840 --> 0:22:35.520
<v Speaker 3>means that there is standing and so we'll see, we'll

0:22:35.560 --> 0:22:37.040
<v Speaker 3>see if the Supreme Court agrees with.

0:22:37.080 --> 0:22:40.320
<v Speaker 4>That or I mean, should Congress be the one to

0:22:40.720 --> 0:22:44.720
<v Speaker 4>provide permanent protections to DACA recipients.

0:22:45.400 --> 0:22:48.440
<v Speaker 3>Well, for sure, that's the only way to actually provide

0:22:48.600 --> 0:22:52.040
<v Speaker 3>a country legal status that can't be taken away and

0:22:52.160 --> 0:22:56.159
<v Speaker 3>brought back and taken away and brought back. Absolutely, is

0:22:56.240 --> 0:22:58.800
<v Speaker 3>that going to happen anytime in the near future. Not,

0:22:58.960 --> 0:23:01.320
<v Speaker 3>Given what we're seeing on the border, and given what

0:23:01.480 --> 0:23:05.880
<v Speaker 3>that means for how Republicans ammigrates an issue, I find

0:23:06.000 --> 0:23:06.879
<v Speaker 3>it very unlikely.

0:23:07.280 --> 0:23:09.960
<v Speaker 4>So the next step is the Supreme Court. Thanks Leon,

0:23:10.480 --> 0:23:12.600
<v Speaker 4>that's Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight.

0:23:13.760 --> 0:23:20.080
<v Speaker 5>Republicans have uncovered serious and credible allegations into President Biden's conduct.

0:23:22.000 --> 0:23:26.920
<v Speaker 5>Taken together, these allegations paint a picture of a culture

0:23:27.200 --> 0:23:29.520
<v Speaker 5>of corruption. Now here's what we.

0:23:29.600 --> 0:23:30.280
<v Speaker 4>Know so far.

0:23:31.600 --> 0:23:34.920
<v Speaker 5>Through our investigations, we have found that President Biden did

0:23:35.080 --> 0:23:39.399
<v Speaker 5>lie to the American people about his own knowledge of

0:23:39.520 --> 0:23:41.560
<v Speaker 5>his family's foreign business dealings.

0:23:42.640 --> 0:23:46.680
<v Speaker 4>House Speaker Kevin McCarthy opened a formal impeachment inquiry into

0:23:46.800 --> 0:23:50.480
<v Speaker 4>President Biden for what the Republican leader called a culture

0:23:50.520 --> 0:23:55.600
<v Speaker 4>of corruption, saying there were serious and credible allegations against Biden.

0:23:56.200 --> 0:23:59.560
<v Speaker 4>The formal inquiry will focus on his son, Hunter Biden's

0:23:59.600 --> 0:24:03.280
<v Speaker 4>over these business affairs and whether the President was involved

0:24:03.320 --> 0:24:07.120
<v Speaker 4>in the dealings or benefited from them, and potentially other topics.

0:24:07.359 --> 0:24:10.399
<v Speaker 4>According to a House official familiar with the plans, the

0:24:10.480 --> 0:24:15.080
<v Speaker 4>impeachment announcement quickly stirred praise from Republican hardliners and scorn

0:24:15.200 --> 0:24:18.840
<v Speaker 4>from Democrats. The process begins with an investigation by three

0:24:18.960 --> 0:24:22.840
<v Speaker 4>House committees as Republicans seek to amass evidence for an

0:24:22.880 --> 0:24:26.080
<v Speaker 4>impeachment vote by the full chamber. If the House votes

0:24:26.119 --> 0:24:28.680
<v Speaker 4>to impeach Biden, the case moves to a trial of

0:24:28.720 --> 0:24:32.920
<v Speaker 4>the President and the Democratic led Senate. If House Republicans succeed,

0:24:33.359 --> 0:24:37.159
<v Speaker 4>Biden would be the fourth impeached US President Trump. His

0:24:37.320 --> 0:24:41.320
<v Speaker 4>predecessor was impeached twice by the House, but not convicted

0:24:41.400 --> 0:24:45.479
<v Speaker 4>in the Senate. My guest is constitutional law professor Susan

0:24:45.560 --> 0:24:50.280
<v Speaker 4>low Block of Georgetown Law School. Trump was impeached twice.

0:24:50.800 --> 0:24:54.040
<v Speaker 4>Some House Republicans have been pushing for an impeachment of

0:24:54.119 --> 0:24:58.760
<v Speaker 4>Biden since they assumed their House majority in January. Is

0:24:58.880 --> 0:25:02.080
<v Speaker 4>this what the Framer envisioned for impeachment?

0:25:02.760 --> 0:25:06.840
<v Speaker 2>No, I don't think so. Impeachment should be a scarcely used,

0:25:07.480 --> 0:25:13.159
<v Speaker 2>drastic remedy for really bad behavior. I testified when the

0:25:13.480 --> 0:25:17.400
<v Speaker 2>House was considering impeaching Clinton in the nineties. The House

0:25:17.440 --> 0:25:20.639
<v Speaker 2>had no idea what an impeachment was because it hadn't happened.

0:25:20.920 --> 0:25:24.440
<v Speaker 2>Impeaching and president hadn't happened in more than one hundred years.

0:25:24.560 --> 0:25:27.760
<v Speaker 2>So they had this group of nineteen con law professors

0:25:28.119 --> 0:25:31.280
<v Speaker 2>come testify and try and educate them about impeachment. And

0:25:31.640 --> 0:25:34.840
<v Speaker 2>I was one of them, and we literally conducted a

0:25:35.040 --> 0:25:38.440
<v Speaker 2>constitutional law class to try and teach them what it

0:25:38.640 --> 0:25:42.280
<v Speaker 2>is and why it should be only used rarely. And

0:25:42.400 --> 0:25:44.200
<v Speaker 2>I think we all said, you know, it should be

0:25:44.440 --> 0:25:47.800
<v Speaker 2>very rare, should not be used often. But if you

0:25:47.920 --> 0:25:52.040
<v Speaker 2>start impeaching Clinton, now, they're going to open a Pandora's box.

0:25:52.359 --> 0:25:55.400
<v Speaker 2>And I think that's exactly what happened. It did unleash

0:25:55.960 --> 0:26:00.680
<v Speaker 2>this weapon that is now too readily used, being used

0:26:00.920 --> 0:26:02.880
<v Speaker 2>indiscriminately and much too often.

0:26:03.280 --> 0:26:06.399
<v Speaker 4>Going back to Trump, do you even think that he

0:26:06.480 --> 0:26:08.080
<v Speaker 4>should have been impeached twice?

0:26:08.840 --> 0:26:12.920
<v Speaker 2>I think the first impeachment was probably overkill. I think

0:26:12.960 --> 0:26:15.440
<v Speaker 2>the impeachment for January sixth is warranted.

0:26:16.359 --> 0:26:18.879
<v Speaker 4>So in the months that the House has been investigating

0:26:18.920 --> 0:26:23.200
<v Speaker 4>the Biden family business dealings, it has not found concrete

0:26:23.280 --> 0:26:28.639
<v Speaker 4>evidence that the President directly financially benefited from his son's

0:26:28.800 --> 0:26:34.480
<v Speaker 4>business dealings. Should an impeachment inquiries go forward without solid evidence?

0:26:35.200 --> 0:26:38.680
<v Speaker 2>I don't believe so. I think impeachment is just as

0:26:38.760 --> 0:26:42.720
<v Speaker 2>I said, a really drastic remedy, especially when you're talking

0:26:42.720 --> 0:26:46.680
<v Speaker 2>about impeaching the president. The threat of removing a president

0:26:47.119 --> 0:26:52.439
<v Speaker 2>is a very serious threat and should be used very cautiously,

0:26:53.320 --> 0:26:57.000
<v Speaker 2>and I think we have been using it a little

0:26:57.080 --> 0:26:58.159
<v Speaker 2>too indiscriminately.

0:26:58.840 --> 0:27:02.760
<v Speaker 4>They're investigating him for acts that were allegedly done while

0:27:02.840 --> 0:27:06.080
<v Speaker 4>he was vice president. Does that make any difference about,

0:27:06.160 --> 0:27:07.880
<v Speaker 4>you know, impeaching him as president.

0:27:08.480 --> 0:27:12.800
<v Speaker 2>Well, it's unusual, but I wouldn't suggest that there should

0:27:12.840 --> 0:27:16.440
<v Speaker 2>be a barrier if he did something as vice president

0:27:16.560 --> 0:27:21.200
<v Speaker 2>that warrant's impeachment. I do think it's relevant today, even

0:27:21.240 --> 0:27:24.760
<v Speaker 2>though he's now president. I just don't think that what

0:27:24.920 --> 0:27:26.359
<v Speaker 2>he did Warren's impeachment.

0:27:26.960 --> 0:27:32.280
<v Speaker 4>House Speaker McCarthy unilaterally directed House committees to open an

0:27:32.280 --> 0:27:37.040
<v Speaker 4>impeachment inquiry after vowing that an inquiry would be launched

0:27:37.160 --> 0:27:40.159
<v Speaker 4>only with a full House vote, and he blamed his

0:27:40.280 --> 0:27:44.199
<v Speaker 4>flip flop on Nancy Pelosi changing the rules, which she denied.

0:27:44.600 --> 0:27:46.719
<v Speaker 1>Is this unusual? The way he's doing it should there

0:27:46.760 --> 0:27:47.840
<v Speaker 1>be a full House vote.

0:27:48.359 --> 0:27:51.280
<v Speaker 2>I would say yes, yes, it's unusual, and yes there

0:27:51.320 --> 0:27:55.159
<v Speaker 2>should be a full House vote. It's a really serious step,

0:27:55.440 --> 0:27:58.280
<v Speaker 2>and we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that impeaching

0:27:58.359 --> 0:28:02.760
<v Speaker 2>a president and potentially removing him for her undoes the

0:28:02.880 --> 0:28:07.359
<v Speaker 2>national election. And it should really only be considered for

0:28:08.240 --> 0:28:12.280
<v Speaker 2>high crimes and misdemeanors and not for little things.

0:28:13.040 --> 0:28:17.800
<v Speaker 4>Let's just suppose that it was found that he benefited

0:28:17.960 --> 0:28:21.520
<v Speaker 4>from Hunter Biden's business deals. In your opinion, would that

0:28:21.720 --> 0:28:23.600
<v Speaker 4>be a high crime and misdemeanor?

0:28:23.960 --> 0:28:26.119
<v Speaker 2>I think I'd have to know more to answer that.

0:28:26.520 --> 0:28:29.240
<v Speaker 2>I think I'd have to know sort of what his

0:28:29.440 --> 0:28:30.200
<v Speaker 2>involvement was.

0:28:31.119 --> 0:28:35.480
<v Speaker 4>Now, McCarthy said, impeachment proceedings would give House Republicans quote

0:28:35.760 --> 0:28:38.600
<v Speaker 4>the full power to gather all the facts and answers

0:28:38.640 --> 0:28:41.680
<v Speaker 4>for the American public. Does it give them any more

0:28:41.840 --> 0:28:45.440
<v Speaker 4>power to get documents or testimony from the White House?

0:28:45.920 --> 0:28:49.120
<v Speaker 2>I am not sure. I think whether it legally does

0:28:49.240 --> 0:28:50.840
<v Speaker 2>or not, I don't know, But I think as a

0:28:50.920 --> 0:28:54.720
<v Speaker 2>matter of sort of political pressure, it probably gives a

0:28:55.160 --> 0:28:59.080
<v Speaker 2>little more weight and it might open up some potential

0:28:59.680 --> 0:29:02.360
<v Speaker 2>other remedies Congress could use. So I think it does

0:29:02.480 --> 0:29:04.840
<v Speaker 2>add some weight to their requests.

0:29:05.240 --> 0:29:09.200
<v Speaker 4>Former President Trump has been in contact with House Republicans

0:29:09.400 --> 0:29:13.120
<v Speaker 4>on the impeachment and suggested in a new interview that

0:29:13.680 --> 0:29:17.160
<v Speaker 4>if the Democrats hadn't impeached him during his time in office,

0:29:17.480 --> 0:29:20.880
<v Speaker 4>then the House Republicans might not have launched an impeachment

0:29:21.000 --> 0:29:26.480
<v Speaker 4>inquiry into President Biden. Should anyone be involved besides the

0:29:27.320 --> 0:29:29.520
<v Speaker 4>House members, I.

0:29:29.640 --> 0:29:33.800
<v Speaker 2>Think that we have lost sight of how drastic a

0:29:33.920 --> 0:29:38.600
<v Speaker 2>remedy impeachment is, and it should be very scarce. I

0:29:38.760 --> 0:29:41.800
<v Speaker 2>do think that Trump should stay out of it. I'm

0:29:41.840 --> 0:29:44.400
<v Speaker 2>not sure what his role in that he hasn't a

0:29:44.560 --> 0:29:47.400
<v Speaker 2>role in this, but I do think that the impeachment

0:29:47.480 --> 0:29:51.640
<v Speaker 2>remedy is being utilized injudiciously, if there is such a word.

0:29:52.640 --> 0:29:56.040
<v Speaker 4>But nearly two thirds of respondents in a CNN poll

0:29:56.160 --> 0:29:59.600
<v Speaker 4>last week said they believe the President had some involvement

0:29:59.600 --> 0:30:04.080
<v Speaker 4>in Hunt Biden's business dealings. So if they are able

0:30:04.200 --> 0:30:08.200
<v Speaker 4>to get enough Republicans to vote simple majority, I guess

0:30:08.320 --> 0:30:11.720
<v Speaker 4>for impeachment, then the Senate has to have a trial.

0:30:11.560 --> 0:30:14.120
<v Speaker 2>Right, Yes, so you need two thirds of the Senate,

0:30:14.240 --> 0:30:14.680
<v Speaker 2>and in our.

0:30:14.720 --> 0:30:17.160
<v Speaker 4>History there's never been two thirds of the Senate voting

0:30:17.240 --> 0:30:19.400
<v Speaker 4>for impeaching a president for convicting.

0:30:19.680 --> 0:30:23.040
<v Speaker 2>The House impeaches and the Senate tries and either it

0:30:23.160 --> 0:30:25.880
<v Speaker 2>has a conviction or doesn't, And you're right, there's never

0:30:25.960 --> 0:30:26.600
<v Speaker 2>been a conviction.

0:30:27.280 --> 0:30:32.080
<v Speaker 4>The Biden administration has been preparing for this in some sense.

0:30:32.640 --> 0:30:36.000
<v Speaker 4>Now they're fundraising off it. I'm wondering if you know

0:30:36.160 --> 0:30:39.280
<v Speaker 4>what their response should be. Is it just let the

0:30:39.360 --> 0:30:42.160
<v Speaker 4>House do what they want until we see if there's

0:30:42.200 --> 0:30:44.640
<v Speaker 4>going to be a trial, or are there some ways

0:30:44.720 --> 0:30:46.480
<v Speaker 4>for them to counter this.

0:30:47.640 --> 0:30:50.440
<v Speaker 2>The only way I can think of that the Biden

0:30:50.480 --> 0:30:55.720
<v Speaker 2>administration can counter this is to generate public opinion opposing

0:30:55.800 --> 0:30:59.680
<v Speaker 2>it and try and convince the House that it's going

0:30:59.720 --> 0:31:03.240
<v Speaker 2>down the wrong path. But there's no legal remedy, no

0:31:03.400 --> 0:31:07.600
<v Speaker 2>judicial remedy. It's just to convince the House that they're

0:31:07.640 --> 0:31:08.440
<v Speaker 2>making a mistake.

0:31:09.240 --> 0:31:10.200
<v Speaker 1>The way this has been.

0:31:10.120 --> 0:31:15.080
<v Speaker 4>Done, does it seem purely political for Kevin McCarthy, you know,

0:31:15.240 --> 0:31:18.680
<v Speaker 4>he's been pressured by some members on the far right

0:31:19.040 --> 0:31:22.200
<v Speaker 4>and threatened with being voted out as speaker. Is it

0:31:22.280 --> 0:31:24.640
<v Speaker 4>a political process more than anything else?

0:31:25.280 --> 0:31:27.720
<v Speaker 2>It is a political process, and it's designed to be.

0:31:28.120 --> 0:31:30.920
<v Speaker 2>I mean, it's not a judicial proceeding. It is in

0:31:31.080 --> 0:31:33.880
<v Speaker 2>the House and the Senate. So it is supposed to

0:31:33.920 --> 0:31:38.520
<v Speaker 2>be a political remedy, but it should be a remedy

0:31:38.600 --> 0:31:42.920
<v Speaker 2>of last resort, especially the standard's very high high crimes

0:31:42.960 --> 0:31:46.880
<v Speaker 2>and misdemeanors. You don't want to take out a nationally

0:31:47.200 --> 0:31:52.040
<v Speaker 2>elected president out of office for trivial reasons. And we

0:31:52.240 --> 0:31:57.120
<v Speaker 2>have cheapened the idea of impeachment. It should be very rare,

0:31:57.520 --> 0:31:59.880
<v Speaker 2>and it's gotten to be less rare.

0:32:00.520 --> 0:32:03.480
<v Speaker 4>I'm sure Chief Justice John Roberts would not be happy

0:32:03.560 --> 0:32:07.320
<v Speaker 4>with having to preside over a third impeachment trial.

0:32:07.840 --> 0:32:08.880
<v Speaker 2>I am sure that's right.

0:32:09.360 --> 0:32:11.520
<v Speaker 4>Thanks so much for being on the show, Sue. That's

0:32:11.560 --> 0:32:15.320
<v Speaker 4>Professor Susan Lowblock of Georgetown Law School. And that's it

0:32:15.440 --> 0:32:18.000
<v Speaker 4>for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you

0:32:18.040 --> 0:32:20.480
<v Speaker 4>can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg

0:32:20.600 --> 0:32:24.200
<v Speaker 4>Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

0:32:24.400 --> 0:32:29.400
<v Speaker 4>and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash.

0:32:29.200 --> 0:32:31.800
<v Speaker 1>Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg.

0:32:31.440 --> 0:32:34.840
<v Speaker 4>Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time.

0:32:35.440 --> 0:32:38.080
<v Speaker 4>I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg