Latest / Bloomberg Law / Trump Sued Over Attempts to Remake DC Landmarks

Transcript

Trump Sued Over Attempts to Remake DC Landmarks · Bloomberg Law

• 0:02
  Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: The reflecting Pool at the Lincoln Memorial is one of
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: the most iconic spots in DC, and now it's become
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: another target of President Trump's attempts to remake some of
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: the Capital's historic landmarks. He's repainted the reflecting pool in
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: a shade of blue called American Flag blue.
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: And over the years as a developer, I have probably
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: built more than one hundred swimming pools.
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: A nonprofit filed a lawsuit on Monday to stop Trump
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: from altering the Lincoln Memorial without the consultations, environmental assessments,
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: and public comment required before altering a registered historic landmark.
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: It follows the pattern of Trump's other renovations, like tearing
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: down the East Wing to build a ballroom or closing
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: the Kennedy Center for two years, for renovation projects that
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: have drawn lawsuits from historical societies and nonprofits for similar reasons.
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: My guest is former federal prosecutor Nima Romani, president of
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: West Coast Trial Lawyers. Nima tell us what the Cultural
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: Landscape Foundation is arguing in its lawsuit. Nima tell us
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: what the Cultural Landscape Foundation is arguing in its lawsuit.
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: The lawsuit is alleging that the Trump administration didn't comply
• 1:31
  Speaker 2: with federal laws, specifically procedural law related to historic monuments
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: and environmental analyzes. This is similar to the Administrative Procedure
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: Act arguments that many other plaintiffs have been using to
• 1:44
  Speaker 2: slow down the Trump administration. Now, those laws essentially say
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: that when a monument is altered in any way, there
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: has to be the opportunity for public comment, consultation with
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: other federal agencies, assessment of environmental impacts. And again this
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: is all procedural. It doesn't mean that the administration has
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: to listen to any of this feedback. They can move ahead,
• 2:12
  Speaker 2: but it can slow down this process, which is what
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: the plaintiffs are trying to do. Because Congress, who would
• 2:19
  Speaker 2: probably be the best plainiff, is not stepping in because
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: obviously both houses are controlled by Republicans.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: And I mean, the Trump administration is well aware of
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: these requirements because they're being sued in other cases so
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: ignoring similar requirements. So it's not as if they're not
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: aware of it.
• 2:41
  Speaker 3: Oh, there's no question.
• 2:42
  Speaker 2: And this really raises the fundamental constitutional issue. What happens
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: if the executive branch that is tasked with enforcing the
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: law doesn't follow the law, who's going to compel.
• 2:53
  Speaker 3: Them to do so?
• 2:54
  Speaker 2: Now, obviously, you know, an Article three judge can step
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: in and issue some sort of order and injunction and
• 3:01
  Speaker 2: hopefully there is compliance with that. But yeah, this is
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: a persistent problem by this administration. I mean, there are
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: these laws in the books and they don't necessarily think
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: that it applies to them. And in this particular case
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: with the reflecting pool, the President is trying to get
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: this done before the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: our nation in just a couple months, so we're really
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: short on time, and that's why he's paying this company
• 3:28
  Speaker 2: a significant sum of money to get it done so quickly.
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: So the government awarded the firm a no bid contract
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: last month, and it's a firm that had worked on
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: swimming pools at his golf club in Virginia. So they're
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: bypassing the requirement to seek competing offers.
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: It is, and the administration is saying that there's a
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: timing issue and that's why they're doing it. They have
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: to get this done and that's why they're paying so much.
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: You know, From the Trump administration's perspective, the way they're
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: phrasing this for the litigation is that this is just
• 4:01
  Speaker 2: a necessary repair. This isn't an alteration because the executive
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: in their mandate to maintain these properties. Obviously they can
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: repair monuments, right, and there's certain areas of the law
• 4:14
  Speaker 2: where the executive has much more discretion, obviously national security issues.
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: I'm sure we're going to talk about that when we
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: get to the ballroom. The other is routine maintenance and repair.
• 4:24
  Speaker 2: So you see the plaintiffs in these cases arguing that
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: any of these it could be the reflecting pool, it
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: can be the Kennedy Center of the White House, that
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: these are fundamental changes and alterations that would require approval
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: of Congress or others potentially, not just routine repairs. And
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: of course the government is arguing in their papers that
• 4:46
  Speaker 2: this is just a repair in the case of the
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: reflecting pool, that there are cracks, there's allergy, and that
• 4:53
  Speaker 2: this isn't a fundamentally different paint job changing the monument.
• 4:57
  Speaker 2: It's simply just a repair in preparation for this big celebration.
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: And what do you think of their argument that the
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: urgency is the country's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, and
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: that warrants an exemption from the law's procedural requirements.
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: I don't think it's a particularly good argument, because the
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: President himself has come out and said that he wants
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: to paint an American blue, So, you know, it seems
• 5:22
  Speaker 2: like he backtracked a little bit from that statement, but
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: it seems like it's an aesthetic change, and a significant
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: one at that.
• 5:29
  Speaker 3: So obviously, time is.
• 5:31
  Speaker 2: An issue, and we know that some of these government
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: contracts can take some time. In the case of the
• 5:36
  Speaker 2: Kennedy Center, we're talking about two years. This has to
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: happen in two months, So that's something that I think
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: should be taken into consideration. But if it's a fundamental change,
• 5:46
  Speaker 2: and this is something that is really within Congress's authority
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: and they haven't delegated this to the executive, then we
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: also have the separation of powers issue here.
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: Talking about the Kennedy Center, which was great by Congress
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: as a living memorial to President Kennedy after his assassination.
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: So the closure is supposed to be for renovation, but
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: the plaintiffs who are suing are also worried that the
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: renovation will actually end up in a demolition like the
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: East Wing. Is it the same issues or is it
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: different with the Kennedy Center.
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: It's similar issues.
• 6:22
  Speaker 2: The Kennedy Center is slightly different in terms of how
• 6:25
  Speaker 2: it's structured. It does get its authority from Congress, but
• 6:28
  Speaker 2: it's essentially a nonprofit with a board, and there's some
• 6:32
  Speaker 2: board issues. There's labor issues as well, if you're shutting
• 6:35
  Speaker 2: something down, and there's you know, government employees that are
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: going to be essentially let go. So it's a little
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: bit more complicated than the Reflecting Pool, but it does
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: raise the same issues. So you see again in their
• 6:48
  Speaker 2: filing papers, the Department of Justice, which is representing the
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: government in this case, saying that, look, these are necessary
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: repairs because the Kennedy Center was falling apart. There's cracks,
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: you know, the ceiling was going to collapse. This is
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: dangerous and judges are going to be obviously a lot
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: more liberal when it comes to the government making repairs
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: necessary repairs if it's a safety issue. And I think
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: a little bit different the Reflecting Pool extent that the
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: repairs were made. I don't think anyone was arguing that
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: it was for safety, but I think in the Kennedy Center.
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: And again that case is going to come down to
• 7:22
  Speaker 2: is this an aesthetic redesign, a fundamental you know, alteration
• 7:27
  Speaker 2: of this historic building, or is it just necessary repairs
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: because attendees, you know, could get hurt, and obviously we
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: know if they get hurt and the government can.
• 7:36
  Speaker 3: Be sued in the Federal Toward Claims Act.
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: So I think that's the biggest issue in the case
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: and where the judges in those cases fall.
• 7:47
  Speaker 3: I think it's going to determine who wins.
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: He already renamed the center after himself, and he has
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: this you know, this board hand pick board that just
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: rubber stamps whatever he wants to do. In all these cases,
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: it seems like there's no analysis done whatsoever. There's no
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: consultation with any agency or historic group. It's just Trump saying,
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: let's do it.
• 8:11
  Speaker 3: Well.
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: I mean, no question if you look at the executive
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: branch just across the board, I mean, trump monson loyalists.
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: Doesn't matter if it's the DOJ or you know, FDA
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: or the Kennedy Center board. One of the arguments is,
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: of course, the Trump renaming the Kennedy Center the Trump
• 8:26
  Speaker 2: Kennedy Center is a fundamental change. So you see in
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: their papers the government arguing that, you know, things are
• 8:34
  Speaker 2: going to be the same, right that the bust of
• 8:37
  Speaker 2: John F. Kennedy will remain, the quotes on the walls
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: will remain. So they're trying to now potentially either backtrack
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: or argue to the court that the changes are for
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: repair purposes only. The design of the center will not change. Obviously,
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: the devil is in the details here, So it's going
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: to be interesting to see. Clearly, if it's a demolition,
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: I think the plainiffs are going to win. If it's
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: something less than that, then we're going to see how
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: the judge rules on it.
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: Stay with me. Nima coming up next. The Justice Department
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: raises Trump derangement syndrome in one of its filings. In
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: the ballroom case, I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg.
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: We're building one of the great I think maybe the
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: greatest ballroom.
• 9:28
  Speaker 3: We needed it for one hundred and fifty years. They've
• 9:30
  Speaker 3: been asking. You see that the.
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: Trucks and cranes and excavators in the background, and you
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: hear them, and every time I hear.
• 9:36
  Speaker 3: Them, I love the sound.
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: Trump may have loved the sound of the East wing
• 9:41
  Speaker 1: being excavated for his ballroom, but he's in the minority.
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: According to a Washington Post poll, it found that fifty
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: six percent of Americans opposed the ballroom and only twenty
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: eight percent support it. When Trump first announced his plans
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: to build a ballroom at the White House at the
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: end of lie he said construction would not impact the
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: existing structure, did.
• 10:05
  Speaker 3: Won't interfere with the current building. I won't be It'll be.
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: Near it, but not touching it, and pays total respect
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: He might have been a fan, but three months later
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: he demolished the entire East wing of the White House,
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: which was built more than a century ago. Trump originally
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: said the ballroom would cost two hundred to four hundred
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: million dollars and be paid for by private donations. Now
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: the cost has ballooned to one billion dollars to be
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: paid for by taxpayers, and the administration is now trying
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: to use the shooting incident outside of the White House
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: correspondence dinner as demonstrating that a new White House ballroom
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: is essential for national security.
• 10:52
  Speaker 3: Saturday night, it was good for one thing. People are
• 10:55
  Speaker 3: loving my ballroom. Now that's the only one. I love
• 10:59
  Speaker 3: my ballroom.
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: The administration is currently appealing or ruling by DC Judge
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: Richard leon who found that Trump didn't have authority to
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: tear down the East Wing and build a new structure
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: on White House grounds. I've been talking to former federal
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: prosecutor Nima Romani. Lawsuits were eventually filed to stop the construction.
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: Tell us some of the issues.
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: Here, and so the ballroom raises a few issues. The
• 11:27
  Speaker 2: first is the appropriation right. Congress hasn't appropriated funds for
• 11:31
  Speaker 2: the ballroom. So you see the executive branch trying to
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: move funds related to the Secret Service, for instance, saying
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: that this is a security issue. Obviously the Cole Allen
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: case and the White House Correspondent Center is now being
• 11:48
  Speaker 2: used for that purpose. But you know, again, is this
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: a repair the executive branch can do it? Is this
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: a security issue for the president? Again, that is something
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: that is within the authority of the executive branch. Is
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: this building a ballroom in a way that has not
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: been authorized by Congress with funds that have not been
• 12:10
  Speaker 2: appropriated by Congress, Then in that case, the executive branch loses.
• 12:15
  Speaker 3: So what you're seeing.
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: Now is the government and the DGA is trying to
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: couch this argument that this is a security project, this
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: is not something that is for other purposes. And you
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: even see senators sort of catching on right in terms
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: of coordinating and others that want this project to move forward.
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: They are now trying to again fit the facts of
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: the case in the ballroom construction, demolition of the East
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: Wing into this sort of national security protecting the president
• 12:48
  Speaker 2: type box.
• 12:49
  Speaker 3: So it's interesting to see how that particular judge rules.
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: On it when they're using the correspondence dientner and what
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: happened there. That's not the kind of event that would
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: be held at the White House. That's a private event.
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: So I don't even see the correlation.
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: In talking points immediately after the shooting that this is
• 13:07
  Speaker 2: why we need the presidential Walter, But you're absolutely right.
• 13:10
  Speaker 2: The White House Correspondence Center is a private event. It's
• 13:13
  Speaker 2: held at the Washington Hilton, one of the few venues
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: in Washington, DC that can accommodate a crowd of two
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: thousand or more people. I mean, obviously famously where Ronald
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: Reagan was also shot. The ballroom is for a different
• 13:27
  Speaker 2: purpose altogether. It's to host heads of state. It's not
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: like the White House Correspondence can call and rent it
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: or any other private organization or group, so it wouldn't
• 13:41
  Speaker 2: necessarily solve the problem.
• 13:43
  Speaker 3: But of course, you know, politically.
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: It makes for a great talking point, so you see
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: it parroted by a lot of talking heads.
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: Let's discuss this motion by the government asking Federal Judge
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: Leon to dissolve his own ruling against the Ballroom project
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: in light of the attempt to attack at the White
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: House Correspondent's dinner. This was a very unusual filing in
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: so many respects, including that it talked about Trump derangement syndrome.
• 14:15
  Speaker 3: You can see people the DOJ.
• 14:17
  Speaker 2: They are jocking for position to appiece of their boss,
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: the President of the United States, the way Acting Attorney
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: General Todd blanche has handled the Comy case, for instance,
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: right eighty six forty seven. I don't think that's a
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: meritorious case at all, and I think most former DOJ.
• 14:34
  Speaker 3: Lawyers would agree.
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: But I think that's probably something that was done because
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: Donald Trump dislikes Comy, and I understand why he dislikes Comy,
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: and I understand why Democrats dislike Comy A lot of
• 14:45
  Speaker 2: people dislike Holly, But if you want to prosecute and
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: prosecute him for what he actually did, which is leak
• 14:51
  Speaker 2: information allegedly to the Wall Street Journal and compromise their
• 14:54
  Speaker 2: national security and involve themselves in elections, you know they're
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: prosecuting for Instagram posts.
• 14:59
  Speaker 3: But I digress.
• 15:00
  Speaker 2: Now you have another DOJ official, high level who's filing
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: emotion which reads likely was written by Donald Trump on
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: truth Social It was bizarre, something I had never seen
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: to talk about Trump derangement syndrome. It's writing in caps.
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: I mean, it was really surreal. And when I talk
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: about legal cases, you know, and I do a lot
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: of TV, I alwauls say this is unprecedented, but this
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: one was even for me.
• 15:25
  Speaker 3: I mean, I was just blown away.
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: But it was clearly something that was an attempt, in
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: my opinion, to pander to the president as opposed to
• 15:33
  Speaker 2: arguing the.
• 15:34
  Speaker 3: Facts and the law.
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: And it was signed by three political appointees. No career
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: attorneys signed that. I guess I didn't want their name
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: on that. So tell us about Judge Leon's ruling and
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: the appeal.
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: And so the judge issued an order putting the demolition
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: and the construction on hold. But that order was stayed,
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: which means put on in a legal sense, while it
• 16:01
  Speaker 2: went up on appeal. So it allowed the construction to
• 16:04
  Speaker 2: move forward while the DC Circuit Court of Appeals here's
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: this issue. So once that appeal is filed, then there's
• 16:13
  Speaker 2: nothing really the district Court can do. And what the
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: DJ did after col Allen is under a very specific
• 16:19
  Speaker 2: procedural rule, ask the judge to rule essentially when the
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: case comes back from appeal and find that this is
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: now a national security issue and therefore the construction should
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: move forward on that basis.
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: I mean, Judge Leon found that Trump didn't have the
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: authority to tear down the East Wing and build this
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: new structure. Why wouldn't the appeals court leave that in
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: place so that the status quo can remain while it's
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: being appealed. Now the construction's going ahead.
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: I agree, And the problem is this, it's one thing
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: that stop construction or stop painting or or.
• 17:00
  Speaker 3: Renovations once it's done.
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: I don't think a court is gonna tell the government
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: to tear it down. That's a very different kind of order.
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: So I agree, while this is all sorted out, I mean,
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: it's a big issue is being litigated in multiple places,
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: may end up before the US Supreme Board.
• 17:21
  Speaker 3: I think the.
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: Prudent course of action, setting aside the centennial celebration and
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: all that, is to just issue the injunctions, keep things
• 17:30
  Speaker 2: as is, because again I don't see it being tore down.
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: And then that's part of the strategy. I'm sure what's
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: gonna happen with the reflecting pool. You know, Jud's gonna
• 17:40
  Speaker 2: say we got to paint it back, or you know,
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: the Kennedy Center. Once those renovations are being done, you
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: can't restore it. It doesn't make any sense legally or
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: you know, practically. So I think this is part and
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: parcel of the government strategy let's move forward, sort of
• 17:57
  Speaker 2: a ask for forgiveness than asking for permission type argument.
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: Well, he paved over the Rose Garden before anyone could
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: even turn around, it was paved over. So now the
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: other part of this is that Trump originally said it
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: would be two hundred to four hundred million dollars paid
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: for by private donations. Now it's a billion dollars paid
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: for by tax payers. And this is really according to
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: a Washington Post poll, and this is after the shooting
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: it's really unpopular with Americans. Opposed by fifty six percent,
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: supported by only twenty eight percent. So now the question
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: is politics, whether the House and the Senate are going
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: to give him what he wants.
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: You know, I think they will, you know, with the
• 18:41
  Speaker 2: exception of Epstein, and I think that's a very sort
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: of narrow and unique exception. I think members of Congress
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: have really sort of been locked up with the president.
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: I don't know if they necessarily agree with everything, but
• 18:54
  Speaker 2: he has an ironclad, really fist and control over the
• 18:58
  Speaker 2: Republican Party and any of the individuals except for like
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: a you know, Massy or someone like that that have
• 19:06
  Speaker 2: really stepped up against the president. They've been primary or
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: you know, because of his tremendous influence on social media,
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: they've really been forced to sort of step down and
• 19:17
  Speaker 2: retire and move away from politics. I mean, he's a
• 19:20
  Speaker 2: very powerful individual. When he focuses his attention on someone
• 19:25
  Speaker 2: that he deems disloyal, they're going to be out of
• 19:29
  Speaker 2: the job. If they're in the executive branch. The exception
• 19:32
  Speaker 2: of maybe like a Jerome Powell or some individuals who
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: have managed to keep their jobs, and if they're in Congress,
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: they're going to face a primary challenger with the President's support,
• 19:43
  Speaker 2: and there's a decent chance that that primary challenger will
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: be successful.
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: The Trump administration raises national security for just about every issue,
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: even the tariffs, national security. Explain why that's the argument
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: they always go for.
• 20:01
  Speaker 2: National security is the best argument because the courts, especially
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: the Supreme Court, has given the president very wide difference
• 20:09
  Speaker 2: when it comes to matters of national security. So for instance,
• 20:13
  Speaker 2: the Muslim band, you know, that's a perfect example of
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: something that was upheld on.
• 20:18
  Speaker 3: National security grands.
• 20:19
  Speaker 2: Courts are not inclined to second guests the executive. They
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: don't have all the information right that law enforcement has,
• 20:27
  Speaker 2: that State Department CIA. So when it comes to matters
• 20:30
  Speaker 2: of national security, if it's truly a bona fide national
• 20:33
  Speaker 2: security issue, courts are very.
• 20:37
  Speaker 3: Hesitant to get involved.
• 20:38
  Speaker 2: I mean could they How could a judge, for instance,
• 20:41
  Speaker 2: even though it's also widely unpopular, tell the president, you know,
• 20:44
  Speaker 2: to pull out of Iran and the straight up horn moves.
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: It's just not something that courts do. So as soon
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: as it falls into that bucket, it's essentially a win
• 20:53
  Speaker 2: for the executive branch, and the president can do what
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: he wants.
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: The Appellate Court is going to hear arguments in the
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: Ballroom case in June, but I'm not sure what the
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: remedy can be since the East Wing has been demolished already.
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining me. Nima. That's former federal
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: prosecutor Nima Romani, and that's it for this edition of
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law, and remember to
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: to Bloomberg