Latest / Bloomberg Law / Menendez Brothers to Be Resentenced & Musk Gets Warned

Transcript

Menendez Brothers to Be Resentenced & Musk Gets Warned · Bloomberg Law

0:03
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
0:10
Speaker 1: Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon is recommending that Eric
0:14
Speaker 1: and Lyle Menendez be resentenced for the nineteen eighty nine
0:18
Speaker 1: murders of their parents.
0:20
Speaker 2: I have to tell you that after a very careful
0:23
Speaker 2: review of all the arguments that were made for people
0:27
Speaker 2: on both sides of this equation, I came to a
0:33
Speaker 2: place where I believe that under the law, resentencing is appropriate.
0:38
Speaker 1: He's recommending a sentence of life with the possibility of
0:41
Speaker 1: parole instead of their current life sentences without parole. The
0:45
Speaker 1: brothers will be eligible for parole immediately if a judge
0:49
Speaker 1: and the parole board agree. Joining me is Palm Beach
0:52
Speaker 1: County State Attorney Dave Ahrenberg. Dave tell us why the
0:56
Speaker 1: district attorney said he's going to recommend having Menendez brothers resentenced.
1:02
Speaker 3: Well, first, you have a reform minded district attorney there
1:05
Speaker 3: who has done other resentencing. He's been criticized for his
1:08
Speaker 3: approach to the criminal justice system. He has an election
1:11
Speaker 3: in two weeks against a challenger who's running on a
1:13
Speaker 3: tough on crime platform, but he is true to who
1:16
Speaker 3: he is this district attorney is someone who believes in rehabilitation,
1:22
Speaker 3: and he made a big point of saying that the
1:24
Speaker 3: Menendaz brothers were model prisoners, even though they got life
1:27
Speaker 3: in prison and had nothing to live for, that they
1:29
Speaker 3: were model prisoners. But he also stressed that there was
1:32
Speaker 3: new evidence that showed that the brothers were subjected to
1:36
Speaker 3: sex abuse in the hands of the father. So he
1:39
Speaker 3: is not supporting the downfiling of the charge to manslaughter.
1:43
Speaker 3: He's saying it should be resentenced as murder, but that
1:47
Speaker 3: since the two brothers committed this horrible crime while they
1:52
Speaker 3: were under the age of twenty six they were twenty
1:54
Speaker 3: one and eighteen at the time, that they would be
1:57
Speaker 3: eligible for parole. And so he's recommending that they be
2:03
Speaker 3: resentenced to murder fifty to one hundred years with parole,
2:06
Speaker 3: essentially to be re sentenced with parole as opposed to
2:10
Speaker 3: life without parole, and then the parle would be eulitible immediately.
2:15
Speaker 3: So conceivably, if a judge agrees, and the judge still
2:17
Speaker 3: must agree, the Menendez brothers would be resentenced, go before
2:22
Speaker 3: the parle board and possibly released.
2:24
Speaker 1: So did it seem as if he was backing into
2:27
Speaker 1: it like that. He set it up so that they
2:29
Speaker 1: could be released immediately if a judge agrees.
2:32
Speaker 3: You know, it's interesting. I think he did it this
2:34
Speaker 3: way so that he was involved in it. But it's
2:37
Speaker 3: not his decision to release it. Ultimately, it was going
2:39
Speaker 3: to be the judge's decision, but he added an additional
2:41
Speaker 3: layer on top of that. Not only will it be
2:43
Speaker 3: the judge's decision, will also be the parole boards decision.
2:47
Speaker 3: So for those who say, hey, you release the Menenda's brothers,
2:50
Speaker 3: he can rightfully say that, no, I just recommended something,
2:54
Speaker 3: but it was the judge and then this parole board
2:56
Speaker 3: that made that decision.
2:58
Speaker 1: So he talked about the two trials of the Menandez brothers,
3:02
Speaker 1: explain what happened at the two trials and the sexual
3:06
Speaker 1: abuse allegations.
3:09
Speaker 3: The two trials took place in the first one ended
3:12
Speaker 3: in a mistrial, hung jury, and then there was a
3:14
Speaker 3: second trial and the second trial, the judge did not
3:17
Speaker 3: allow the claim of sexual abuse to come in for
3:20
Speaker 3: the defense. The defense wanted to go into the issue
3:23
Speaker 3: of sexual abuse. There wasn't as much evidence of it
3:27
Speaker 3: back then. Plus it was a different time and these
3:31
Speaker 3: issues were not as prevalent in these types of cases,
3:36
Speaker 3: and so the judge said, no, you can't bring it up,
3:39
Speaker 3: you can't bring it in, and the brothers were found guilty.
3:42
Speaker 3: You remember, during the first trial there was an outcry
3:44
Speaker 3: because people thought this these brothers were just vicious killers
3:49
Speaker 3: who were doing it because they didn't want to get
3:51
Speaker 3: written out of their father's will. And then once they
3:54
Speaker 3: slaughtered their parents, who were eating ice cream in front
3:57
Speaker 3: of the TV, where their backs turned to these others
4:00
Speaker 3: who premeditated all this, who planned this, that they were
4:05
Speaker 3: dressed at the trial in these soft sweaters that made
4:08
Speaker 3: them look like mister Rogers, and there was a hung jury.
4:13
Speaker 3: But then on the second trial, with the new instruction
4:15
Speaker 3: from the judge that they could not use the abuse excuse,
4:19
Speaker 3: then the jury found them guilty. They were sentenced to
4:22
Speaker 3: life in prison without parole. And here we are today.
4:26
Speaker 1: How much of this do you think can be attributed
4:29
Speaker 1: to the Me too movement and the different way we
4:33
Speaker 1: have of looking and accepting allegations of child abuse and
4:38
Speaker 1: sexual abuse.
4:39
Speaker 3: There's some of that, It's a different time, but also
4:43
Speaker 3: social media. You had celebrities way in on the Menena's brothers.
4:46
Speaker 3: They caught on the social media circuit, where you had
4:50
Speaker 3: people say, hey, these brothers were abused, especial when the
4:54
Speaker 3: new evidence came out, and they're so interesting and they
4:57
Speaker 3: should be talked about. And then the pressure increased and
5:01
Speaker 3: family members even got involved on their side, and eventually
5:05
Speaker 3: it came to this. And so yes, when you add
5:07
Speaker 3: that we're living in a different time and you had
5:09
Speaker 3: more understanding of sexual abuse, and you have the social
5:15
Speaker 3: media aspect in it all and celebrities, it culminated into
5:20
Speaker 3: the DA recommending that they be resentenced. Normally is the
5:24
Speaker 3: DA that resists it. Remember, this is a motion filed
5:27
Speaker 3: by the defense lawyers a while ago in front of
5:29
Speaker 3: the judge and was penning in front of the judge.
5:31
Speaker 3: The DA did not have to give this recommendation, but
5:34
Speaker 3: he did. That's what's so interesting about this is that
5:37
Speaker 3: normally the DA is the one who says, no, let's
5:40
Speaker 3: keep it behind bars. Now, my issue as a sitting
5:42
Speaker 3: prosecutor is not with the DA's recommendation. When it comes
5:46
Speaker 3: to the murder of the father Jose he was apparently,
5:49
Speaker 3: according to the evidence that has come out, he was
5:54
Speaker 3: accused of sexual abuse not just against the sons but
5:58
Speaker 3: against one of the members of Menudo who came out
6:02
Speaker 3: and said that this guy sexually abused him. So I
6:06
Speaker 3: understand how they prosecutor here could try to resentence the
6:11
Speaker 3: brothers because this perhaps is more of a manslaughter case
6:15
Speaker 3: than a murder case because of the abuse allegations that
6:19
Speaker 3: now have credence. But what about the mother. There is
6:23
Speaker 3: no credible allegation that the mother was sexually abusing the children,
6:27
Speaker 3: and yet they slaughtered the mother. Not only they murdered
6:29
Speaker 3: the mother lyle Menendez shot the mother, and the mother
6:34
Speaker 3: did not die, and she was crawling away desperately trying
6:37
Speaker 3: to save her life when he ran outside to reload
6:40
Speaker 3: and then ran back into the house to finish off
6:43
Speaker 3: her mother. And it did so in such a bloody, calculated,
6:47
Speaker 3: brutal way that law enforcement thought it was a mob hit.
6:51
Speaker 3: It was a mafia that did this, and that boys
6:54
Speaker 3: lied about it and lied repeatedly about what happened, and
6:58
Speaker 3: then went on a shopping spree and then traveled and
7:01
Speaker 3: got tennis lessons and through parties and lived the high life,
7:05
Speaker 3: living off their famili's money until they're eventually caught.
7:08
Speaker 1: The prosecutor mentioned that after Netflix began streaming the true
7:14
Speaker 1: crime drama Monsters the lylent Eric Menendez story. His office
7:19
Speaker 1: was inundated with calls from the public, and that's why
7:23
Speaker 1: he says he decided to move up this decision. How
7:26
Speaker 1: much of this decision do you think is because so
7:28
Speaker 1: many people watch those documentaries and saw a different side
7:32
Speaker 1: of this, and it's been the subject of debate once again.
7:36
Speaker 3: Well, that's the culture in today.
7:39
Speaker 4: You know.
7:39
Speaker 3: We're so divided on everything, it seems like, and we're
7:41
Speaker 3: divided on this as well. And there are people who
7:45
Speaker 3: are years removed from the situation who now look at
7:48
Speaker 3: the brothers as victims themselves, when a lot of us
7:51
Speaker 3: who were around when this happened, a lot of them
7:54
Speaker 3: is spoiled, entitled brutal killers who plan this murder, lied
7:58
Speaker 3: about it, and then joyfully spent the money that was
8:03
Speaker 3: their parents on themselves. I guess people grieve in different ways,
8:07
Speaker 3: but in this case, it was not a good look
8:09
Speaker 3: for them. And years have passed and the one thing
8:14
Speaker 3: that a couple of things that have come up in
8:15
Speaker 3: their favor that first they have been model prisoners that
8:19
Speaker 3: they have been. I don't think anyone disagrees with that,
8:21
Speaker 3: and they there is now new evidence that shows that
8:27
Speaker 3: looks like jose the father did engage in sexual abuse
8:30
Speaker 3: against the brothers. Now is that enough to release them?
8:34
Speaker 3: I don't think so, but I'm up the DA there.
8:38
Speaker 1: They have served thirty five years though.
8:41
Speaker 3: Well, for murder you can get life, and you should
8:43
Speaker 3: a pre first agree pre meditated murder gets you life
8:46
Speaker 3: or the death penalty. That's what they're convicted for. First agree,
8:49
Speaker 3: premeditated murder and not just murder, double murder. So, although
8:53
Speaker 3: I do understand reducing the sentence for the father's murder
8:57
Speaker 3: because that could be more of a manslaughter case, saying
9:00
Speaker 3: getting parole for that, I still would not have supported
9:03
Speaker 3: that for the mother because the way the mother was
9:06
Speaker 3: killed was unnecessary and was particularly brutal, and it was
9:09
Speaker 3: clear to me the reason why they killed the mother
9:11
Speaker 3: was to eliminate the witnesses so they could claim that
9:15
Speaker 3: they were innocent, they had nothing to do with this,
9:16
Speaker 3: and they'd go on their spending spree. But they were
9:20
Speaker 3: convicted of both murders and now looks like they're going
9:23
Speaker 3: to get out.
9:24
Speaker 1: Well, you feel that way, and apparently a lot of
9:27
Speaker 1: people in the prosecutor's office feel that way. Do you
9:32
Speaker 1: think that the judge or parole board will say, no,
9:36
Speaker 1: we're not going to do this.
9:38
Speaker 3: I think when the prosecutor's office recommends resentencing, then the
9:43
Speaker 3: judge and the pro board would probably go along. I
9:46
Speaker 3: think if they would expect the prosecutor's office to resist it,
9:49
Speaker 3: and when they're in favor of it, I do think
9:51
Speaker 3: that the chants are likely. They will go free now
9:54
Speaker 3: and then I guess they could try to monetize their
9:56
Speaker 3: experience and sell books and movies, reality show and so
10:01
Speaker 3: that that could happen. But you know, they'll never be
10:04
Speaker 3: able to escape what they've done. And the DA did
10:08
Speaker 3: say that it's not condoniate, not excusing it. There's a
10:10
Speaker 3: brutal murder, and even if you're the victim of abuse,
10:13
Speaker 3: you should report it to authorities. You don't get to
10:16
Speaker 3: take the law on your own hands. But I do
10:19
Speaker 3: think that they're getting out if they do get out
10:22
Speaker 3: too early for this double murder. Again, maybe it would
10:26
Speaker 3: it be justified for the murder of the father to
10:28
Speaker 3: get out after thirty five years, but the murder of
10:31
Speaker 3: the mother, I think the life sentence was appropriate.
10:34
Speaker 1: Do you think that there'll be some questioning of this
10:37
Speaker 1: decision because of the timing so close to a close
10:42
Speaker 1: election for the district attorney.
10:44
Speaker 3: Yeah, there are going to be questions about that that
10:48
Speaker 3: this took place two weeks before the election and the
10:52
Speaker 3: das on the ballot. But you know, the DA is
10:55
Speaker 3: within his rights to do it now when this motion
10:58
Speaker 3: has been pending for a while, and he perhaps wants
11:01
Speaker 3: it to be done now before the November election takes
11:05
Speaker 3: up all the oxygen in the room, and before the
11:08
Speaker 3: Dodgers are in the in the World Series before the
11:11
Speaker 3: first game, because that will take up all the aucygen
11:14
Speaker 3: in the room as well in southern California. So praps,
11:16
Speaker 3: he thought today was the best day to make his announcement.
11:20
Speaker 1: We'll see what happens with the judge and the Parole Board.
11:23
Speaker 1: Thanks so much, Dave. That's Palm Beach County State Attorney
11:27
Speaker 1: Dave Arenberg. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.
11:32
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is ramping up calls to carry out mass
11:35
Speaker 1: deportations of immigrants if he returns to the White House
11:39
Speaker 1: by dusting off part of the Alien and Sedition Acts
11:42
Speaker 1: of seventeen ninety eight, I will.
11:45
Speaker 5: Invoke the Alien Enemies Act of seventeen ninety eight.
11:49
Speaker 6: Think of that.
11:51
Speaker 5: Seventeen ninety eight. This was put there seventeen ninety eight.
11:55
Speaker 5: That's a long time ago right to target and dismantle
11:59
Speaker 5: every migrant criminal network operating on American soil.
12:03
Speaker 1: The law allows the US government to detain and remove
12:07
Speaker 1: non citizens of hostile nations during wartime. It's the same
12:11
Speaker 1: law which was infamously used to justify the confinement of
12:15
Speaker 1: Japanese Americans and others during World War Two. Joining me
12:19
Speaker 1: is immigration law expertly on Fresco, a partner at Honden Knight.
12:23
Speaker 1: Leon Trump is promising to carry out mass deportations by
12:28
Speaker 1: using this two hundred and twenty six year old law.
12:32
Speaker 1: Is what he's suggesting legal using that act.
12:35
Speaker 4: Well, here's what it's going to come down to. Like
12:37
Speaker 4: everything else, it's going to come down to a matter
12:40
Speaker 4: of fagitatory interpretation, because the Alien Enemies Act of seventeen
12:44
Speaker 4: ninety eight actually has a provision in it that says
12:48
Speaker 4: that the quote unquote invasion that's happening as a result
12:52
Speaker 4: of the Alien Enemies Act has to be sanctioned by
12:56
Speaker 4: a country, meaning there has to be a country that's
12:59
Speaker 4: actually involved in sending these people invading into the United
13:04
Speaker 4: States as opposed to people taking matters into their own
13:07
Speaker 4: hands and crossing into the United States. So what the
13:11
Speaker 4: Trump administration is going to say is we are being invaded,
13:15
Speaker 4: especially by gang members of certain countries, and the one
13:19
Speaker 4: he's most concerned with is Venezuela. And what he's going
13:24
Speaker 4: to say is that these gangs from Venezuela are actually
13:27
Speaker 4: being sent to the United States in quote unquote some
13:31
Speaker 4: sort of acts of hostilities here as a matter of
13:36
Speaker 4: them trying to clear out their gang members and cause
13:40
Speaker 4: instability in the United States and trying to add gang
13:44
Speaker 4: members into the United States. So that's what's going to
13:47
Speaker 4: be up to the court to figure out. And so
13:51
Speaker 4: I very much doubt that this statute will be applied
13:55
Speaker 4: to basically permit this kind of don't do process deportation
14:00
Speaker 4: where you don't pass go, you don't collect two hundred dollars,
14:03
Speaker 4: you just can immediately be round up and send out.
14:06
Speaker 4: But I do expect the Trump administration to try, and
14:10
Speaker 4: I do expect this case to get to the Supreme Court,
14:13
Speaker 4: and then it'll just be a very interesting question of
14:15
Speaker 4: what will the Supreme Court say, Are there five votes
14:18
Speaker 4: on the Supreme Court to say that the people who
14:21
Speaker 4: are coming here, who are gang members, are in some
14:24
Speaker 4: way being sent here. And so I do think if
14:26
Speaker 4: the Trump administration gets into power, it will actually have
14:30
Speaker 4: to try to build a record of this before it
14:33
Speaker 4: enters this order, and it will actually have to say,
14:36
Speaker 4: here's all the evidence we have that the people from
14:39
Speaker 4: Venezuela who are the gang members, or let's say from
14:42
Speaker 4: some other country who are the gang members, are actually
14:46
Speaker 4: being sent here by a foreign nation.
14:49
Speaker 1: And an operation like this would be incredibly expensive.
14:53
Speaker 4: Well, that's another story in terms of yes, how much
14:56
Speaker 4: would it cost to do it? Because at the end
14:58
Speaker 4: of the day, you have two problems. One, you have
15:01
Speaker 4: the due process problem of can you actually do the
15:04
Speaker 4: deportation legally? But second you have the problem of okay, now,
15:09
Speaker 4: what does Venezuela actually let the plane's land of the
15:14
Speaker 4: people we're trying to deport And if they don't let
15:17
Speaker 4: the planes land, then what then what are you doing
15:20
Speaker 4: with this? Are you going to try to deport them
15:22
Speaker 4: to some other country? Will you have to pay for
15:24
Speaker 4: some other country to let you do this? Will you
15:27
Speaker 4: have to pay for Venezuela to let you do this,
15:30
Speaker 4: that's a big problem logistically, that's number one. But then
15:34
Speaker 4: the second issue is, Okay, where are these people waiting
15:37
Speaker 4: while you're doing this? Are they waiting in detention? Then
15:40
Speaker 4: the detention will cost somewhere, Let's say the bare minimum
15:44
Speaker 4: will be sixty seventy dollars a day per person detaining them.
15:48
Speaker 4: And then they're the cost to the economy of what
15:50
Speaker 4: happens when you take all of these people out of
15:52
Speaker 4: the economy where they're currently working. So you're losing all
15:56
Speaker 4: of that revenue. And on the other side, now you're
15:58
Speaker 4: paying government revenue to detain them. So yes, it ends
16:02
Speaker 4: up being very costly what the Trump administration would say
16:06
Speaker 4: as well. But we're going to get that all back
16:08
Speaker 4: with higher wages to the remaining people who remain in
16:11
Speaker 4: the workforce and advanced economic opportunity for the remaining people
16:15
Speaker 4: that remain in the workforce without jobs, or that have jobs,
16:19
Speaker 4: but now their jobs will pay them more because there's
16:21
Speaker 4: fewer workers in the pipeline. But we will have to
16:25
Speaker 4: wait and see. I mean, the typical economic studies that
16:28
Speaker 4: have been done in this regard say that when you
16:31
Speaker 4: take workers out of the economy, especially workers like this
16:35
Speaker 4: who don't qualify for government benefits because all the main
16:38
Speaker 4: government benefits boot stamps, welfare, and medicaid and Medicare and
16:43
Speaker 4: all of that all require legal status to get it.
16:47
Speaker 4: And so all these people that you'd be taking out
16:49
Speaker 4: of the economy who are working and taxes are being
16:54
Speaker 4: paid either through the rent that they pay or sometimes
16:57
Speaker 4: they pay actual income tact and withholding is happening. The
17:02
Speaker 4: Congressional Budget Office, when it does these studies, always says
17:05
Speaker 4: that when you take people out of that scenario, you
17:08
Speaker 4: cause massive government deficits.
17:11
Speaker 1: I just want to note that the highest number of
17:13
Speaker 1: removals under Donald Trump's watch occurred in twenty nineteen, with
17:19
Speaker 1: more than three hundred and forty seven thousand non citizens removed.
17:24
Speaker 1: Compare that to former President BarackObama, who oversaw the removal
17:30
Speaker 1: of more than four hundred thirty thousand non citizens in
17:33
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen. Now let's turn to some election lawsuits where
17:38
Speaker 1: immigration is now coming up. A series of Republican states,
17:42
Speaker 1: including Texas and Florida, are suing the Department of Homeland Security.
17:48
Speaker 1: They claim they're moving to purge their voter rolls and
17:52
Speaker 1: they need information about immigration status. For example, Texas wants
17:57
Speaker 1: the federal government to turn over the immigration status of
18:01
Speaker 1: four hundred and fifty thousand potential voters in the state.
18:05
Speaker 1: What's going on.
18:06
Speaker 4: Here, Leon, So what happens is there's a database called
18:09
Speaker 4: the SAVE database, the Systematic and Alien Verification for Entitlement Program,
18:15
Speaker 4: And what basically happens there is when a state has
18:19
Speaker 4: to do something that depends on the person's lawful status. So,
18:23
Speaker 4: for instance, under the real ID Act, if a state
18:26
Speaker 4: wants to comply with real ID, it has to check
18:29
Speaker 4: the immigration status of someone so that it's not giving
18:32
Speaker 4: a license to someone who's undocumented. And so what the
18:35
Speaker 4: federal government does is it's given the state access to
18:39
Speaker 4: the database called the SAVE database, which allows you then
18:42
Speaker 4: to check if the person actually has lawful status visa
18:46
Speaker 4: visa federal government. So now what the states are saying is, well,
18:50
Speaker 4: let us check this STAVE database to see if the
18:53
Speaker 4: person can vote so that we can take them off
18:55
Speaker 4: of our voter rolls. And what the federal government is
18:58
Speaker 4: saying is, look, this is a data that tells you
19:00
Speaker 4: about a person's lawful status. But what happens when people
19:04
Speaker 4: actually naturalize is sometimes people change their name. They didn't
19:09
Speaker 4: want to change it during the immigration process because they
19:12
Speaker 4: didn't want to create a problem. But now the naturalization
19:15
Speaker 4: process gives them the opportunity. A lot of times that
19:17
Speaker 4: happens because somebody will marry a US citizen. They'll go
19:21
Speaker 4: through the current process of getting a green card with
19:24
Speaker 4: the name they already had pre marriage, but you know,
19:27
Speaker 4: once they get to the citizenship part, they want to
19:29
Speaker 4: finally take the name of the spouse, and so all
19:32
Speaker 4: of those people won't show up in the SAVE database
19:35
Speaker 4: as having naturalized because the name will be different. And
19:39
Speaker 4: what they don't want is a situation where Texas or
19:42
Speaker 4: some other state then wipes that person off the role
19:45
Speaker 4: because there was a misunderstanding of what the database told them.
19:49
Speaker 1: And also now we're in that ninety day quiet period
19:53
Speaker 1: where states are not supposed to be doing mass purgeings
19:56
Speaker 1: of their roles. I believe it was Alabama that a
20:00
Speaker 1: court recently told the Secretary of State he couldn't purge
20:04
Speaker 1: the voter roles at this point.
20:06
Speaker 4: That's another excellent point there. And so in addition to
20:11
Speaker 4: whether they get the data and what they can use
20:13
Speaker 4: it for, then there's the ultimate question about election law,
20:16
Speaker 4: which is a different question than the immigration law about
20:19
Speaker 4: whether they can even be doing this at all. Even
20:21
Speaker 4: if they get the data and you're correct, they can't
20:23
Speaker 4: be doing this at all anyway, So that's a larger problem.
20:27
Speaker 4: But just from the immigration standpoint, the government is essentially saying, look,
20:31
Speaker 4: this is going to be a garbage in, garbage out
20:33
Speaker 4: problem because you're going to get information that's not fully
20:37
Speaker 4: up to date with all the people's exact names about
20:41
Speaker 4: whether they are actually citizens or not, and whether they
20:44
Speaker 4: can vote or not.
20:46
Speaker 1: So now that we've solved that problem, let's move on
20:48
Speaker 1: to the temporary protected status program. More than eight hundred
20:52
Speaker 1: and sixty three thousand people currently have been granted temporary
20:56
Speaker 1: protected status as of this fall, and that's more then
21:00
Speaker 1: double the numbers four years ago, and about twice as
21:03
Speaker 1: many people are eligible and tens of thousands are awaiting approval.
21:08
Speaker 1: Strap by explaining what the purpose of the Temporary Protected
21:12
Speaker 1: Status program.
21:13
Speaker 4: Is, well, the original statute as it was constituted, was
21:19
Speaker 4: the following. Let's say, as an example, we had a
21:22
Speaker 4: bunch of people here from Japan in the country. They
21:26
Speaker 4: were always intending to go home. They came to visit,
21:28
Speaker 4: they came to work, temporarily or do something else, study
21:32
Speaker 4: or something, and then like what happened in Japan where
21:35
Speaker 4: there was that nuclear reactor situation, and suppose the nuclear
21:40
Speaker 4: reactor had gone off and it just wouldn't be safe
21:43
Speaker 4: to go back to Japan until they solved their nuclear
21:45
Speaker 4: reactor situation. The point of TPS temporary protected status is, look,
21:50
Speaker 4: get this status so that you don't fall out of status,
21:55
Speaker 4: so that you are considered someone who is complying with
21:58
Speaker 4: the law and whatever. You know, the nuclear situation is resolved,
22:02
Speaker 4: then you can go back home. So it was always
22:04
Speaker 4: for something like that, or a hurricane or an earthquake
22:09
Speaker 4: or a war or some other natural disaster. But the
22:12
Speaker 4: idea was that's why it's called temporary most of the
22:16
Speaker 4: for eighteen months, and then hopefully after the eighteen months,
22:20
Speaker 4: whatever crisis that caused the need for temporary status will
22:24
Speaker 4: go away. But what's happened is that in America, you know,
22:28
Speaker 4: we're a very nice country. We'll have a lot of
22:31
Speaker 4: nice people who don't like to do mean things to people.
22:34
Speaker 4: And so what happens is that once people get PPS,
22:38
Speaker 4: then they have legal status, and people then get very
22:41
Speaker 4: sad about revoking legal status. Because people start working, they
22:46
Speaker 4: start building roots, they start potentially having children here who
22:50
Speaker 4: are US citizens, and they start building more and more
22:53
Speaker 4: and more equities. And so, for instance, you have a
22:56
Speaker 4: lot of people here who have been on temporary protective
22:59
Speaker 4: status since literally nineteen ninety six because of various natural
23:03
Speaker 4: disasters that have happened. You know, they keep being redesignated,
23:07
Speaker 4: so every eighteen months they get renewed, and those are
23:09
Speaker 4: people from Central American countries like Honduras and El Salvador. Now,
23:14
Speaker 4: having said that, during the Biden administration, many many more
23:19
Speaker 4: countries have been added, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen, Afghanistan, Cameros, Haiti.
23:27
Speaker 4: And so the question is what's going to happen to
23:30
Speaker 4: all of these people if former President Trump is elected
23:34
Speaker 4: to become the president again. Because during the Trump administration
23:37
Speaker 4: he tried getting rid of CPS for the people that
23:41
Speaker 4: had it, and then there were lawsuits and those lawsuits
23:43
Speaker 4: should it ultimately, But the question is could Trump within
23:47
Speaker 4: his term be able to survive all those lawsuits, provoke
23:51
Speaker 4: everybody and start getting people out and would he do it?
23:54
Speaker 4: Would he do it for Venezuelans because most of the
23:57
Speaker 4: Venezuelan American citizens are Trumps and they may not like
24:01
Speaker 4: it if Venezuela gets yanked from TPS, or they may
24:05
Speaker 4: like it. Who knows. These are all tough questions to determine,
24:09
Speaker 4: but that would be a very interesting one. Ukraine is
24:11
Speaker 4: another interesting one. What will happen with the fate of
24:14
Speaker 4: the Ukrainians who came here? Will they all be forced
24:17
Speaker 4: to go home? So those are going to be challenging
24:19
Speaker 4: questions for Trump. But yeah, we're at nearly a million
24:22
Speaker 4: people with this status. One of the more famous groups
24:25
Speaker 4: is Haiti where we had that issue with Haiti and Springfield, Ohio.
24:29
Speaker 4: As the point is that the Haitians in Springfield, Ohio
24:32
Speaker 4: all have PPS, and so that's why President Trump is
24:36
Speaker 4: harping on this PPS status to say, look, I want
24:40
Speaker 4: to fight for you and get rid of this and
24:42
Speaker 4: send all of these people home. So really that real people,
24:46
Speaker 4: their faiths are at fake in this election.
24:49
Speaker 1: According to the Migration Policy Institute, there are more than
24:52
Speaker 1: three point three million migrants with a temporary status that
24:57
Speaker 1: currently doesn't lead to long term residency. That's under a
25:01
Speaker 1: lot of different programs, and when those programs end, I mean,
25:05
Speaker 1: what happens.
25:08
Speaker 4: Well, So That's what's going to be the question for
25:10
Speaker 4: the president. If Trump comes back into office, if he
25:13
Speaker 4: ends all of those programs, a lot of those people,
25:16
Speaker 4: what they're gonna end up doing is applying for asylum,
25:19
Speaker 4: and then they're going to have millions of more cases
25:23
Speaker 4: on top of the millions of cases they already had
25:25
Speaker 4: in the program, plus whoever else the president wants to
25:29
Speaker 4: actually add. By, you know, starting to do immigration enforcement actions,
25:33
Speaker 4: you could very shortly have ten to twelve million cases
25:37
Speaker 4: in the immigration court. And the question for Trump is
25:40
Speaker 4: is he going to want that and is he going
25:43
Speaker 4: to want to take all of those people out of
25:45
Speaker 4: the game from the economic employment they have now and
25:48
Speaker 4: cause economic instability, or is he going to start using
25:53
Speaker 4: a more scoutful like approach and maybe only start focusing
25:56
Speaker 4: on people with criminal issues. I would hope that that's
25:59
Speaker 4: where he go because that would be enough where he
26:02
Speaker 4: could placate his base by saying, look, there's too many
26:05
Speaker 4: people to go after. I need to go after the
26:08
Speaker 4: public safety threats. He'd be more than busy for the
26:11
Speaker 4: next four years just trying to deport the people with
26:14
Speaker 4: criminal issues. And so I would hope and imagine that
26:18
Speaker 4: that's where he would prioritize. But you know, we will
26:21
Speaker 4: have to wait and see if he's elected and what
26:23
Speaker 4: they will be doing.
26:24
Speaker 1: I mean, how many people who get removal orders actually
26:30
Speaker 1: you know, remove themselves from the country.
26:32
Speaker 4: I mean, well, very few people do it for themselves.
26:35
Speaker 4: And the larger problem is can a country actually let
26:39
Speaker 4: you remove people? So that's the problem is at the moment,
26:42
Speaker 4: we can't remove people to Cuba. At the moment, we
26:45
Speaker 4: can't remove people to Venezuela. The moment, we can't remove
26:48
Speaker 4: people to Haiti, we can't remove people to Nick the Ragua.
26:52
Speaker 4: And the question is does the Trump administration have sufficient
26:56
Speaker 4: levers to reopen up those countries for removal purposes? And
27:00
Speaker 4: that's going to be the real question here. What levers
27:03
Speaker 4: can it pull? Will it actually declare war against these countries?
27:07
Speaker 4: What will it do to actually force these countries to
27:11
Speaker 4: allow our planes to land and to the board people,
27:14
Speaker 4: And that's really going to be the question here.
27:17
Speaker 1: A lot of questions there, Leon, thanks so much. That's
27:20
Speaker 1: Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight.
27:23
Speaker 6: Register to vote, okay.
27:27
Speaker 7: And get everyone you know and everyone you don't know,
27:32
Speaker 7: you drag them to register to vote and is.
27:37
Speaker 1: Elon Musk's one million dollar voter giveaway just a disguised
27:42
Speaker 1: way of registering voters in swing states.
27:46
Speaker 6: Every day from now until the election, We're giving out
27:49
Speaker 6: a million dollar prize, that is, and all you have
27:52
Speaker 6: to do is sign a petition in support of a constitution.
27:56
Speaker 6: It's it's very straightforward. You don't even have to vote.
27:59
Speaker 6: You don't have to vote, You just have to sign
28:01
Speaker 6: a petition saying you believe in the constitution.
28:04
Speaker 1: Musk announced the giveaway in the battleground state of Pennsylvania
28:07
Speaker 1: last Saturday, but didn't mention that to be eligible for
28:11
Speaker 1: the drawing, you must be a registered voter in one
28:14
Speaker 1: of the swing states of Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
28:20
Speaker 1: or Wisconsin. Now, the Justice Department has sent a letter
28:24
Speaker 1: to musk super pac warning that his million dollar giveaway
28:27
Speaker 1: to registered voters may violate federal law. Joining me is
28:32
Speaker 1: Aaron Klopak, Senior director of campaign Finance at Campaign Legal Center.
28:38
Speaker 1: Aaron start by telling us about the law that's an
28:40
Speaker 1: issue here.
28:42
Speaker 8: Sure, so, there's a federal statue Section one zero three
28:46
Speaker 8: to zero seven C of Title fifty two of the
28:49
Speaker 8: US Code, and that statue says that payment for registering
28:55
Speaker 8: to vote and payments for voting itself are illegal. More specifically,
28:59
Speaker 8: it's as whoever knowingly or willfully pays or offers to
29:03
Speaker 8: pay or accept payment for registration to vote or voting
29:08
Speaker 8: shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars or
29:11
Speaker 8: imprisoned for not more than five years or vote. So
29:14
Speaker 8: the law makes it explicitly clear that it is illegal
29:18
Speaker 8: to pay people to register to vote.
29:22
Speaker 1: Now, in this case, Elon Musk says that you know,
29:26
Speaker 1: what he's doing is getting people to sign this petition
29:30
Speaker 1: that supports the first and second Amendment. But to sign
29:33
Speaker 1: a petition you have to be a registered voter. Is
29:36
Speaker 1: that a violation of the federal law?
29:38
Speaker 8: I think it. What Musk is doing through this petition
29:42
Speaker 8: pretty clearly does violate federal law. And in fact, it's
29:46
Speaker 8: been reported that the Department of Justice has actually issued
29:50
Speaker 8: a letter to the pack that must have funded to
29:55
Speaker 8: warn them that this activity may well be a lot full,
30:01
Speaker 8: which is a step the Justice Department may take when
30:03
Speaker 8: when there's activity that seems to violate the laws, to
30:07
Speaker 8: give the person doing it, you know, an opportunity to
30:10
Speaker 8: correct their behavior and basically establish a record that you know,
30:15
Speaker 8: there may be real legal issues there. And I think
30:19
Speaker 8: what's crucial here, as you noted June, is that this
30:22
Speaker 8: particular sort of sweep stake, first of all, is only
30:28
Speaker 8: available to people who have registered or are registering to vote.
30:33
Speaker 8: I believe that the petition itself includes, you know, a
30:36
Speaker 8: link to voter registration site. Initially it had an expiration
30:41
Speaker 8: date of October twenty first, which was I think not
30:46
Speaker 8: coincidentally the voter registration deadline for Pennsylvania and I think
30:50
Speaker 8: Michigan as well. That date has now been extended. But
30:53
Speaker 8: again to you know, I think telling state of election
30:58
Speaker 8: day and a number of this states that must appears
31:01
Speaker 8: to be seeking to get people to register to vote
31:04
Speaker 8: in to have registration deadlines that you know, go on
31:08
Speaker 8: through election day. So the fact that this sweepstake is
31:12
Speaker 8: only available to registered voters, that in fact it provides
31:16
Speaker 8: an opportunity for people to get registered so they can participate,
31:19
Speaker 8: I think is a pretty taling indication that the purpose
31:22
Speaker 8: of this is indeed to persuade and pay people to
31:28
Speaker 8: to vote. And frankly, the petition itself doesn't seem to
31:31
Speaker 8: have any meaningful effect. You know, it's not a ballot measure,
31:35
Speaker 8: it's not some other situation where the petition has some
31:38
Speaker 8: independent function. So the petition really seems to be almost
31:43
Speaker 8: a pretext to the real purpose here, which is to
31:46
Speaker 8: get people to register to vote in swing states.
31:49
Speaker 1: The argument from the other side of the case, let's say,
31:54
Speaker 1: is that it's not only for people who register now,
31:58
Speaker 1: but also for people who are registered in the past.
32:02
Speaker 1: So does that make the issue a little fuzzier murkier?
32:06
Speaker 8: I don't really think so. I mean, I don't think
32:08
Speaker 8: the issue is murky, particularly because the goal appears to
32:12
Speaker 8: be to get people to register to vote. And again
32:15
Speaker 8: it's being offered as a sweep steak, so you know,
32:18
Speaker 8: you may not win it. But the effect of this opportunity,
32:22
Speaker 8: you know, seems quite clearly intended to get people to
32:26
Speaker 8: register to vote, you know, regardless of who some of
32:30
Speaker 8: the recipients are and whether some of them have already
32:34
Speaker 8: been registered.
32:37
Speaker 1: How unusual is it to have the Justice Department's Public
32:42
Speaker 1: Integrity Section send out a letter like that.
32:46
Speaker 8: I don't have specific sort of historical data. I do
32:50
Speaker 8: believe that there was at least one example in the past.
32:53
Speaker 8: I think back in twenty ten, where I think the
32:57
Speaker 8: Justice Department sent a similar letter to Been mcman, who
33:01
Speaker 8: owned the World Wrestling Entertainment organization, who I believe was
33:06
Speaker 8: offering clothing to voters. So, you know, it's certainly not unprecedented,
33:11
Speaker 8: and I think just confirms the fact that, you know,
33:15
Speaker 8: this clearly raises serious legal issues.
33:18
Speaker 1: How often does the Justice Department bring charges with these
33:21
Speaker 1: kinds of issues?
33:22
Speaker 8: So the Justice Department has criminal jurisdiction over campaign finance violations,
33:29
Speaker 8: and we certainly have seen a number of times, particularly
33:33
Speaker 8: in recent years, where the Justice Department has stepped in
33:37
Speaker 8: to pursue criminal enforcement of campaign finance violations. And I think,
33:42
Speaker 8: you know, one reason that's happening is because there's a
33:45
Speaker 8: real lack of civil enforcement by the Federal Election Commission,
33:50
Speaker 8: which is the independent federal agency that has exclusive jurisdiction
33:55
Speaker 8: over civil enforcement of campaign finance laws.
33:58
Speaker 1: Do you think it's likely that you'll be prosecuted?
34:01
Speaker 8: I think it's too early to speculate about, you know,
34:05
Speaker 8: what may happen in this particular situation. And obviously, given
34:10
Speaker 8: how close we are to the election, nothing is going
34:13
Speaker 8: to happen before then. So you know, I think it's
34:15
Speaker 8: quite concerning that this is even happening.
34:18
Speaker 1: Also, on the second day of the sweepstakes, the super
34:21
Speaker 1: Pack reframed its messaging around the giveaway and describe the
34:25
Speaker 1: money as payment for a job, so that these people
34:28
Speaker 1: will be spokespeople for America Pack. And subsequently we saw
34:33
Speaker 1: that there were some testimonials from the two winners online.
34:38
Speaker 1: Does that help Musk's argument?
34:40
Speaker 8: What I would say is that, well, I can't kind
34:42
Speaker 8: of get into or speculate about all of the ways
34:45
Speaker 8: in which the investigation might unfold. I think it's really
34:49
Speaker 8: telling that the change happened itself. The foop stakes wasn't
34:53
Speaker 8: presented that way in the first place, So it seems like,
34:56
Speaker 8: you know, kind of a telling admission that there was
34:59
Speaker 8: this effort to reframe what was happening. And you know,
35:02
Speaker 8: at the end of the day, the fine print on
35:05
Speaker 8: the packs website about the petition didn't seem to change.
35:08
Speaker 8: So it doesn't strike me as a particularly effective way
35:11
Speaker 8: to render this attempt to pay people to register to
35:15
Speaker 8: vote legal.
35:16
Speaker 1: Any final thoughts, I.
35:18
Speaker 8: Do think it's where it's just sort of putting this
35:21
Speaker 8: in a larger context of efforts by Elon Musk, is
35:26
Speaker 8: the world's wealthiest person to.
35:31
Speaker 4: Use his.
35:33
Speaker 8: Vast massive resources to influence the outcome of this election.
35:39
Speaker 8: And you know, this seems to be perhaps the most
35:41
Speaker 8: egregious example, but it's certainly not the only one. And
35:45
Speaker 8: as you know, the source of more than seventy million
35:50
Speaker 8: dollars of spending of this super pack that is spending
35:55
Speaker 8: large amounts of money to influence this election. There are
35:59
Speaker 8: a variety of ways in which must is using his
36:04
Speaker 8: outside resources and ability to amplify his voice in ways
36:09
Speaker 8: that you know, dramatically, you know, outweigh the voice of ordinary,
36:19
Speaker 8: everyday Americans. And you know, another example is that the
36:22
Speaker 8: superpack has spent I think as much as eighty million
36:27
Speaker 8: dollars on canvassing efforts on behalf of the Trump campaign,
36:31
Speaker 8: essentially allowing the campaign to outsource the substantial piece of
36:36
Speaker 8: the you know, work that it does to get people
36:39
Speaker 8: to go out and vote for them. And that's something
36:42
Speaker 8: the Pack is now able to do legally as a
36:45
Speaker 8: result of a decision by the Federal Election Commission to
36:48
Speaker 8: effectively deregulate the law in a way that's completely contrary
36:52
Speaker 8: to what the Supreme Court promised would happen. In the
36:56
Speaker 8: citizens United's decision.
36:58
Speaker 9: Just explain what the Federal Election Commission is there, So
37:01
Speaker 9: taking it set back for a minute and the City
37:02
Speaker 9: Business United decision fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court said
37:06
Speaker 9: that corporations are basically people and have a right to
37:10
Speaker 9: speak through.
37:11
Speaker 8: Their pockets by spending unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.
37:16
Speaker 8: But an important condition on that decision was that that
37:20
Speaker 8: spending would be independent, though not coordinated with the candidates
37:23
Speaker 8: that were being supported. And the Court assured us that
37:26
Speaker 8: since that spending would be independent, there would be no
37:28
Speaker 8: concerns about corruption or the appearance of corruption, or you know,
37:32
Speaker 8: any other concerns. And so, you know when the Federal
37:36
Speaker 8: Election Commission a few months ago issued a decision saying, well, actually,
37:41
Speaker 8: when we talked about coordination, we don't mean efforts to
37:45
Speaker 8: go out in canvas and talk to voters face to
37:48
Speaker 8: face and even hand out literature. And in the context
37:51
Speaker 8: of those types of activities, the Federal Election Commission, whose
37:55
Speaker 8: job is to protect voters not donors, said it's perfectly
38:00
Speaker 8: buying for groups like superpacks and outside entities to coordinate
38:04
Speaker 8: with the candidates that they're supporting on the messages that
38:07
Speaker 8: they're delivering face to face to voters and again the
38:11
Speaker 8: literature they're handing out, and so the consequence of that
38:15
Speaker 8: is now super packed like Elon Musk's pack, and other
38:18
Speaker 8: outside groups can spend unlimited amounts of money that dates
38:23
Speaker 8: as a result of fundraising from people who can donate
38:27
Speaker 8: unlimited amounts of money to them to carry out the
38:31
Speaker 8: messages that are approved by the candidates that they're supporting
38:34
Speaker 8: and basically allow the candidates to offload all of the
38:39
Speaker 8: expenses associated with those kinds of activities to these outside
38:44
Speaker 8: groups that are not subjects to contribution limits that apply
38:47
Speaker 8: to candidates and their campaigns or to parties. And this
38:51
Speaker 8: is a giant loophole in the rules about coordination, and
38:55
Speaker 8: like I said, completely contrary to what the Supreme Court
38:58
Speaker 8: said would happen. That has been united.
39:01
Speaker 1: Thanks Erin. That's Aaron Colpak, senior director of Campaign Finance
39:05
Speaker 1: at the Campaign Legal Center. Coming up next, the prosecutor
39:09
Speaker 1: recommends resentencing the Menandez brothers. This is Bloomberg and that's
39:14
Speaker 1: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Podcast. Remember
39:17
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news by subscribing
39:20
Speaker 1: and listening to the show on Apple podcasts, Spotify and
39:23
Speaker 1: at Bloomberg dot Com Slash podcast, slash Law. I'm June
39:27
Speaker 1: Grosso and this is Bloomberg