Latest / Bloomberg Law / Afghan Reprieve & Democrats Storm Out

Transcript

Afghan Reprieve & Democrats Storm Out · Bloomberg Law

0:02
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
0:08
Speaker 2: A reprieve for nearly twelve thousand Afghans. An appeals court
0:13
Speaker 2: stepped in to keep protections in place that have prevented
0:16
Speaker 2: the Trump administration from deporting them. That's at least until Monday,
0:21
Speaker 2: while both sides file legal briefs and the Fourth Circuit
0:24
Speaker 2: Court of Appeals makes a decision. The Trump administration has
0:28
Speaker 2: moved aggressively to remove Temporary protected status from Afghans and
0:34
Speaker 2: hundreds of thousands of people from six other countries as
0:37
Speaker 2: part of the administration's effort to ramp up deportations. Joining
0:42
Speaker 2: me is Samuel Siegel, Senior counselor at the Institute for
0:45
Speaker 2: Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law along with the
0:50
Speaker 2: Washington Lawyers Committee. It's representing KASA, a non profit immigrant
0:55
Speaker 2: advocacy group that sued the administration over the TPS revocation
1:00
Speaker 2: for Afghans as well as for people from Cameroon. So
1:04
Speaker 2: before the appeals court stepped in, the Trump administration had
1:08
Speaker 2: planned to end Temporary Protected Status for Afghans. Tell us
1:14
Speaker 2: about that.
1:15
Speaker 1: So, the Trump administration had announced that it was ending
1:18
Speaker 1: temporary Protective Status for Afghanistan. This week, it announced that
1:23
Speaker 1: the conditions that initially led to the designation of that country,
1:27
Speaker 1: the ongoing on conflict between Taliban and other insurgent groups,
1:31
Speaker 1: and the extraordinary humanitarian conditions, were essentially no longer so
1:36
Speaker 1: severe that it merited that designation. I guess to take
1:39
Speaker 1: a step back and talk a little bit about TPS.
1:42
Speaker 1: TPS is a status that the Secretary of Homeland Security
1:45
Speaker 1: can designate a particular country for based on certain conditions
1:50
Speaker 1: in those countries, particularly if the country's experiencing an ongoing
1:53
Speaker 1: armed conflict, if there's a natural disaster, or if there's
1:56
Speaker 1: another extraordinary condition in the country. If the Secretary makes
2:00
Speaker 1: that conclusion, then he or she will designate the country
2:04
Speaker 1: for TPS, which allows individuals from those countries to live
2:08
Speaker 1: and work in this country for a particular set period
2:12
Speaker 1: of time. Secretary of ma Orcus concluded that Afghanistan merited
2:16
Speaker 1: that determination back in twenty twenty two and extended in
2:19
Speaker 1: twenty twenty three based on those conflicts and the conditions
2:23
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan, and Secretary norm at least purported to say
2:26
Speaker 1: that those conditions no longer existed now. Of course, our challenge.
2:30
Speaker 1: One of our arguments is, in fact, that purported rationale
2:34
Speaker 1: for the decision is not the one that's actually motivating
2:38
Speaker 1: the actions here. Our argument is that this is a
2:40
Speaker 1: preordained decision as part of the Trump administration's broader effort
2:44
Speaker 1: to reduce the number of non white immigrants in this country,
2:48
Speaker 1: and that's the basis on which we have asked the
2:51
Speaker 1: Fourth Circuit to pause the GPS determination while the appeal
2:56
Speaker 1: plays out.
2:57
Speaker 2: Are you also arguing in this that what the Homeland
3:01
Speaker 2: Security Secretary determined that you know, there are improvements in
3:05
Speaker 2: security and economic situations, and that Afghan nationals can return.
3:10
Speaker 2: Are you arguing that that's factually incorrect.
3:13
Speaker 1: We're not making that specific argument, in part because of
3:16
Speaker 1: some jurisdictional bars on what the courts are allowed to consider.
3:20
Speaker 1: I think what we are as pointing to that the
3:22
Speaker 1: conditions in the country are not good, and this further
3:25
Speaker 1: supports the argument that the purported rationales that things have
3:30
Speaker 1: improved are not the actual one. So it's that mismatch
3:33
Speaker 1: between what's actually going on in Afghanistan and the actions
3:36
Speaker 1: here that support our argument that even if things might
3:40
Speaker 1: have improved a little bit, and that's not really the
3:42
Speaker 1: reason that she's doing that. And I will just note
3:44
Speaker 1: to this effect. You know, as part of the litigation here,
3:49
Speaker 1: the administration had to produce an administrative record, which is
3:52
Speaker 1: all the things that were in front of the Secretary
3:55
Speaker 1: when she made her decision. And in November of twenty
4:00
Speaker 1: twenty four, the US Customs and Immigration Service, which is
4:03
Speaker 1: one of these that typically consults on these, concluded that
4:07
Speaker 1: and I'm going to quote here quote Afghanistans civilian population
4:11
Speaker 1: faces dire challenges, including a collapsing economy and healthcare system,
4:16
Speaker 1: ubiquitous food and security exacerbated by drought, and widespread in
4:20
Speaker 1: security due to decades of armed conflict and insurgency that
4:23
Speaker 1: are entering a new danger phase. It also stated that
4:27
Speaker 1: the Caliban authorities violently target citizens and foster continued armed
4:31
Speaker 1: conflict and in your ethnic strife, and that it imposed
4:34
Speaker 1: the vitrictions on education, employment in other areas on women
4:39
Speaker 1: that foreclose their ability to meaningful participate in their country.
4:43
Speaker 1: So again, we're not necessarily challenging the underlying factual conclusion
4:48
Speaker 1: of what's going on here, but we're saying that these
4:50
Speaker 1: kinds of statements from the federal government itself demonstrate that
4:53
Speaker 1: there's really something else going on here.
4:56
Speaker 2: So Maryland Federal Judge Theodore Will Judge Schwang allowed your
5:01
Speaker 2: challenge to TPS to go forward, but he declined to
5:06
Speaker 2: halt the administration's policy and preserve GPS protections. He found
5:11
Speaker 2: that your group hadn't established sufficient likelihood of success on
5:15
Speaker 2: the merits. Will you explain why he thought that you
5:19
Speaker 2: wouldn't succeed on the merits here?
5:22
Speaker 1: I think Judge Swang issued a well considered and balanced opinion.
5:26
Speaker 1: He concluded, as you said, that our challenge can go ahead,
5:28
Speaker 1: notwithstanding a couple of jurisdictional arguments that the defendants had raised.
5:32
Speaker 1: And he also concluded, by pointing to things like the
5:36
Speaker 1: US Custom and Immigration Service report that I just quoted,
5:40
Speaker 1: that we had plausibly alleged that the action taken with
5:43
Speaker 1: respect to Afghanistan is part of a broader policy to
5:46
Speaker 1: reduce the number of non white immigrants in this country
5:49
Speaker 1: and to effectively terminate almost all TPS designations. But then
5:54
Speaker 1: he said, we had not yet introduced enough evidence to
5:57
Speaker 1: sort of get over that likelihood of the success on
6:00
Speaker 1: the merits hump, And so there's some delta there in
6:02
Speaker 1: his mind that we hadn't yet demonstrated that we could
6:06
Speaker 1: get there, and he said, look, I'm going to allow
6:09
Speaker 1: this claim to go forward. You all can go into
6:12
Speaker 1: discovery and try and identify additional evidence that will support
6:15
Speaker 1: your claim here, but at this point I'm not going
6:19
Speaker 1: to enter relief. So we respectfully disagree with that part
6:23
Speaker 1: of Judge Chwang's ruling. We think that the allegations that
6:26
Speaker 1: we made here and the evidence before the court was
6:29
Speaker 1: sufficient to at a minimum temporarily pause the termination of
6:35
Speaker 1: Afghanistan's PPS designation while we get that discovery while things
6:40
Speaker 1: play out. And that's sort of the similar request that
6:42
Speaker 1: we've made of the Fourth Circuit is just to postpone
6:44
Speaker 1: this agency action while the appeal plays out. And one
6:48
Speaker 1: thing I'll just note here, you know, Judge Chwang noted
6:51
Speaker 1: that other courts have entered preliminary relief of some sort
6:55
Speaker 1: in response to similar claims and similar amounts of evidence
6:58
Speaker 1: in the past and the first administration and said, well,
7:02
Speaker 1: we hadn't produced enough evidence here. I think it's important
7:05
Speaker 1: to note that in those cases, the time between when
7:09
Speaker 1: the end of the TPS designation was announced and when
7:13
Speaker 1: it took effect was in most cases more than a year,
7:16
Speaker 1: so those parties had much more time to produce the
7:19
Speaker 1: kind of evidence that Jige Chwang is asking for. When
7:23
Speaker 1: we're asking for just this sort of temporary relief while
7:26
Speaker 1: things are playing out to the merits, we think that
7:28
Speaker 1: first of all, the evidence that we have produced and
7:30
Speaker 1: the things that we've pointed to, like the thing from
7:32
Speaker 1: USCS that I pointed you to, like some other statements
7:35
Speaker 1: from President Trump and Secretary Nome, demonstrate that this is
7:39
Speaker 1: part of a preordained effort and demonstrate that we will
7:43
Speaker 1: likely succeed on the merits when we get there, especially
7:46
Speaker 1: as we get into discovery and produce more evidence in
7:48
Speaker 1: support of our argument.
7:50
Speaker 2: So the Fourth Circuit gave you an administrative stay for
7:54
Speaker 2: a week. What's happening in that week?
7:57
Speaker 1: Right so for right now, as you mentioned at the
7:59
Speaker 1: out said, the Afghan PPS designation was set to expire
8:03
Speaker 1: on Monday. By virtue of the Fourth Circuits decision, it
8:07
Speaker 1: postpones that action for at least that week, which means
8:10
Speaker 1: that Afghans who are facing the possibility of either having
8:12
Speaker 1: to leave this country or exist in some legal limbo
8:16
Speaker 1: and not be able to work or able to do
8:17
Speaker 1: so for at least this week. In the interim, the
8:21
Speaker 1: Court has asked us to brief our request, formally called
8:24
Speaker 1: a postponement of agency action pending appeal. The federal government's
8:27
Speaker 1: brief is due by eleven to fifty nine pm Eastern tonight,
8:30
Speaker 1: and then we have twenty four hours to return around
8:32
Speaker 1: a reply, and then we'll get a decision, presumably at
8:35
Speaker 1: some point before next week Monday at eleven fifty nine pm.
8:40
Speaker 2: Is this a losing battle in the end, because if
8:43
Speaker 2: and when it reaches the Supreme Court, you're not likely
8:46
Speaker 2: to find a receptive audience, at least among the conservative justices.
8:51
Speaker 2: At the end of May, the Supreme Court allowed the
8:54
Speaker 2: Trump administration to immediately strip the legal right to temporarily
8:59
Speaker 2: live in war work in the US from as many
9:02
Speaker 2: as half a million people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
9:07
Speaker 2: And that followed another order in May that allowed the
9:09
Speaker 2: administration to end TPS protections for three hundred and fifty
9:14
Speaker 2: thousand Venezuelans. So is the Supreme Court likely to end
9:19
Speaker 2: TPS protections for Afghans as well?
9:22
Speaker 1: So I don't want to make too many predictions about
9:23
Speaker 1: exactly what the Supreme Court is going to do here.
9:25
Speaker 1: I will say that we're very confident in our case,
9:28
Speaker 1: and I'd just like to parse out those prior grants
9:31
Speaker 1: of I think stays of lower course orders. So with
9:34
Speaker 1: respect to the cubanations, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans, that was actually
9:37
Speaker 1: with respect to a parole program that had been adopted
9:41
Speaker 1: by the Biden administration, so it didn't involve temporary protected status,
9:45
Speaker 1: and I think, you know, sort of trying to extrapolate
9:48
Speaker 1: what the court said they are and apply it here,
9:50
Speaker 1: I think is a very difficult thing. Similarly, with respect
9:52
Speaker 1: to the Venezuelan program, that was respect to the temporary
9:55
Speaker 1: Protected status, but in that case, the arguments that were
9:58
Speaker 1: being made were different from the ones that are are
10:00
Speaker 1: being made here. There, for example, the plaintiffs argued that
10:04
Speaker 1: Secretary Mayorkists who had extended the TPS designation for Venezuela
10:09
Speaker 1: for about eighteen months at the end of the Biden administration,
10:13
Speaker 1: and then Secretary Nome had revoked that extension. The plaintiffs
10:17
Speaker 1: there argued that Secretary Nome doesn't have that sort of authority. We,
10:21
Speaker 1: by contrast, here are arguing that the reasons that we're
10:25
Speaker 1: given were pretextual that this was a preordained effort. Also,
10:28
Speaker 1: you know, I think there are extremely strong equities here,
10:32
Speaker 1: as Judge Swang recognized in his decision. I mean with
10:35
Speaker 1: Afghans in particular, we're talking about individuals who served our country.
10:40
Speaker 1: One of the members of COSTA who's our client here
10:44
Speaker 1: is a person named Bs who faced death threats due
10:47
Speaker 1: to her work as an interpreter for international and United
10:50
Speaker 1: States agencies, and she's fearful that if she's returned, she's
10:54
Speaker 1: going to be targeted by the Taliban if she goes
10:56
Speaker 1: back to Afghanistan. So again, I think it's always a
10:59
Speaker 1: little bit of azus proposition of guessing what the Supreme
11:02
Speaker 1: Court might do if we get there. But we think
11:04
Speaker 1: that we've got a very strong case and that what
11:07
Speaker 1: the Court did with respect to Venezuela and with respect
11:10
Speaker 1: to the parole program doesn't shed all that much light
11:12
Speaker 1: on what it might do here.
11:14
Speaker 2: So can some of the Afghans that you're representing apply
11:18
Speaker 2: for special immigrant visas or asylum?
11:23
Speaker 1: Some may be able to, you know, but I think
11:25
Speaker 1: it's important to emphasize here that TPS is, you know,
11:28
Speaker 1: the bird in the hand. It guarantees them the ability
11:32
Speaker 1: to be in this country. It guarantees them the ability
11:34
Speaker 1: to work in this country. It guarantees them under the statute,
11:38
Speaker 1: they cannot be put in detention on the basis of
11:41
Speaker 1: their immigration status. Things that may not apply to everyone
11:45
Speaker 1: that is securing or in the process at least of
11:48
Speaker 1: securing relief through other means. So there might be other
11:52
Speaker 1: things that are available. Whether or not they will ever
11:55
Speaker 1: be able to take advantage of those status, you know,
11:57
Speaker 1: who knows, especially as this administration has assiduously worked to
12:01
Speaker 1: make those kinds of relief further out of reach.
12:04
Speaker 2: One of the things the White House Press Secretary said
12:06
Speaker 2: was that temporary protected Status was never intended to be
12:10
Speaker 2: a de facto asylum program and that it's not supposed
12:14
Speaker 2: to be renewed over and over again.
12:17
Speaker 1: And I think that's certainly right. I mean, it's baked
12:19
Speaker 1: into the name temporary protected status, But there are specific
12:24
Speaker 1: criteria that the Secretary is supposed to analyze in good
12:27
Speaker 1: faith in determining whether or not to designate a country
12:30
Speaker 1: in the first place and to extend, including for example,
12:33
Speaker 1: whether or not there's an ongoing armed conflict there, and
12:37
Speaker 1: when the Secretary offers reasons that are contrary to one
12:41
Speaker 1: or offers reasons that are protextual. We just don't think
12:45
Speaker 1: that that's the basis for being able to terminate a
12:48
Speaker 1: TPS protection. If she makes a good faith assessment, then
12:52
Speaker 1: this can be terminated. And TPS designations have been terminated
12:55
Speaker 1: in the past. Just hasn't done what the statue requires
12:58
Speaker 1: in this instance.
13:00
Speaker 2: Thanks so much for joining me. That's Samuel Siegel, Senior
13:03
Speaker 2: counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at
13:07
Speaker 2: Georgetown Law.
13:09
Speaker 3: I will now go to voting because we have competing
13:13
Speaker 3: markups and other committees and people have to leave here soon.
13:17
Speaker 1: We'll go to Bovi's nomination.
13:19
Speaker 4: The clerk will call the rule as the chairman, Mister chairman,
13:22
Speaker 4: point of personal privilege.
13:24
Speaker 5: Chairman, mister Chairman, according to Rule four of the Committee,
13:29
Speaker 5: we have the right to continue to debate this nomination.
13:33
Speaker 5: I'm invoking Rule four of the Committee. We have the
13:35
Speaker 5: right to debate this nomination.
13:38
Speaker 3: Seconding Senator Booker's demand for a vote on his request
13:42
Speaker 3: to hear from the wistle ble.
13:43
Speaker 5: Mister Chairman, you should at least acknowledge my rule for
13:48
Speaker 5: point of order. You're out of it. I don't understand this.
13:51
Speaker 5: What are you afraid of about even debating this, putting
13:55
Speaker 5: things on the record, hearing from every senator. Dear God,
13:58
Speaker 5: that's what our obloations are.
14:01
Speaker 2: It was an unusual scene in the Senate Judiciary Committee
14:04
Speaker 2: today as Republican chair Chuck Grassley called the role over
14:09
Speaker 2: the protests of Democratic Senator Cory Booker that Grassly was
14:14
Speaker 2: violating the rules of the committee by cutting off debate
14:17
Speaker 2: on the controversial nomination of Emil Beauveat, President Trump's former
14:22
Speaker 2: criminal lawyer to a lifetime appointment on the Third Circuit
14:26
Speaker 2: Court of Appeals. The Democratic senators stormed out of the
14:30
Speaker 2: room as the Republicans unanimously voted to advance Beauvet's nomination
14:35
Speaker 2: to the full Senate. Since January, Beauvet has been serving
14:39
Speaker 2: as the principal Deputy Attorney General, overseeing dozens of firings
14:44
Speaker 2: of prosecutors who worked on January sixth connected cases and
14:48
Speaker 2: the dismissal of bribery charges against New York City Mayor
14:52
Speaker 2: Eric Adams, which prompted the resignation of seven veteran prosecutors
14:57
Speaker 2: in New York. Democrats had wanted to hear from a whistleblower,
15:01
Speaker 2: a former Justice Department lawyer who alleged that Beauvet encouraged
15:05
Speaker 2: lawyers to defy court orders using foul language, something Beauvet
15:10
Speaker 2: denied when asked by Democratic Senator Adam Schiff during his
15:14
Speaker 2: confirmation hearings.
15:16
Speaker 1: Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that
15:18
Speaker 1: kind to the extent I you sure.
15:20
Speaker 3: Recall, mister Bob, if you said or suggested during a
15:23
Speaker 3: meeting with Justice Department lawyers, maybe they should consider telling
15:27
Speaker 3: the court for you. It seems to me that would
15:30
Speaker 3: be something you'd remember, unless that's the kind of thing
15:32
Speaker 3: you say frequently.
15:34
Speaker 2: Joining me is Dave Ahrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney.
15:38
Speaker 4: Dave.
15:38
Speaker 2: The Democrats just wanted to hear from this whistleblower who's
15:42
Speaker 2: backed up his allegations with text messages. Why are the
15:46
Speaker 2: Republicans even refused to call him, leading to this showdown,
15:49
Speaker 2: which is probably getting more attention than his testimony would have.
15:53
Speaker 4: Elections have consequences, is what's going on. Donald Trump ran
15:57
Speaker 4: to be everyone's retribue, the people who want to get
16:01
Speaker 4: back at other people in government, to go after the
16:03
Speaker 4: deep state, to fire people at the DOJ and Emil
16:07
Speaker 4: Beauveat has been his henchmen. And now he's going to
16:10
Speaker 4: get a lifetime appointment to a prominent appellate court. And
16:14
Speaker 4: there's been some buzz that Trump ultimately wants him to
16:17
Speaker 4: be on the Supreme Court. But first things first, shouldn't
16:20
Speaker 4: be surprised at the process is not up to snuff,
16:23
Speaker 4: because when it comes to doing favors for the Boss,
16:27
Speaker 4: the Republicans will roll over. If you're going to bet
16:29
Speaker 4: on Republicans to stand up to President Trump or to
16:34
Speaker 4: follow the traditional rules and norms like they do, like
16:37
Speaker 4: it's been done for hundreds of years in the Senate,
16:40
Speaker 4: you'll be waiting a long time and you'll be disappointed.
16:42
Speaker 2: There's been a lot of opposition from different camps to Bovey. Yesterday,
16:46
Speaker 2: more than nine hundred former Justice Department lawyers signed a
16:50
Speaker 2: letter to the Judiciary Committee urging the Senate to reject
16:55
Speaker 2: his nomination. Do you think this means that Republicans will
16:58
Speaker 2: advance every judicial nomination that Trump makes.
17:02
Speaker 4: Well, Boba is different than the others because Bobat was
17:05
Speaker 4: Trump's personal lawyer, and he's Trump's personal pick. This is
17:10
Speaker 4: not someone that was recommended to him by the Federalist
17:12
Speaker 4: Society or some outside group. This is someone Trump wanted
17:15
Speaker 4: because Trump believes he will give Trump loyalty and he resents,
17:19
Speaker 4: meaning Trump resents the Federalist Society and the old school
17:23
Speaker 4: Conservatives who promise him that these judges would be constitutionalists
17:28
Speaker 4: and good judges. Trump interpreted that to me loyal to him.
17:32
Speaker 4: And so that's why Trump says, all right, he doesn't
17:34
Speaker 4: like Leonard Leo anymore of the Federal Society. He's just
17:37
Speaker 4: going to nominate people who'll be loyal to him and
17:39
Speaker 4: do his bidding and help him weaponize not just the DOJ,
17:45
Speaker 4: but also the bench.
17:47
Speaker 2: And this is the reason why judges, even Republican judges,
17:53
Speaker 2: are not retiring recently, because you know, it was one
17:55
Speaker 2: thing when Trump was appointing judges in the classic mode
17:59
Speaker 2: of conservatives judges, but now he's appointing loyalists.
18:03
Speaker 4: Well, because Trump's not a traditional Republican. Trump only became
18:07
Speaker 4: a Republican later in life. He's he's a Trumpean, He's
18:10
Speaker 4: a Maga. It's different. And you're seeing the split within
18:14
Speaker 4: the Republican Party now based on Jeffrey Epstein when it
18:17
Speaker 4: comes to Maga turning on Donald Trump. A MAGA is
18:21
Speaker 4: not loyal to the Republican Party. If Trump tells MAGA
18:24
Speaker 4: to start its own party, they will. And so he
18:28
Speaker 4: doesn't care about judges who are there as strict constructionalists
18:32
Speaker 4: or are going to be good for traditional Republican and
18:34
Speaker 4: business interests. No, he wants people who are loyal to him,
18:37
Speaker 4: and that's why he wants a Milpa van in the court.
18:40
Speaker 4: And that's why he's slow in nominating judges this time around.
18:44
Speaker 4: Remember in the first term he was like a house
18:46
Speaker 4: on fire. He nominated a ton of judges early on,
18:49
Speaker 4: with the help of Mitch McConnell. But now he doesn't
18:51
Speaker 4: want those judges. He wants people who are loyal to him,
18:55
Speaker 4: and that's why it's harder to find folks who are
18:58
Speaker 4: qualified who meet that's standard.
19:01
Speaker 2: Let's turn to Attorney General Pam Bondi, who's been in
19:04
Speaker 2: the news a lot lately, and a case that I
19:08
Speaker 2: find startling stunning. There's a plastic surgeon who is accused
19:12
Speaker 2: of conspiracy to defraud the government, among other things, selling
19:16
Speaker 2: about nineteen hundred fake COVID vaccination cards for nearly ninety
19:22
Speaker 2: seven thousand dollars, destroying more than twenty eight thousand dollars
19:26
Speaker 2: of government providing COVID vaccines. So he's on trial in Utah.
19:32
Speaker 2: The prosecution is presenting its witnesses. Five days into the
19:36
Speaker 2: prosecution's case, Bondi decides to drop the case. So she
19:41
Speaker 2: orders the prosecutors to drop the case and dismiss the charges.
19:45
Speaker 2: Have you ever heard of an instance where an attorney
19:49
Speaker 2: general in mid trial dismissed charges.
19:53
Speaker 4: I can't think of one instance other than this. This
19:57
Speaker 4: was a cause celeb on the far right, the MAGA world.
20:00
Speaker 4: Marjorie Taylor Green was lobbing for him, and someone got
20:04
Speaker 4: the attorney general's a year and made her believe this
20:06
Speaker 4: was the political prosecution, that this guy is targeted because
20:10
Speaker 4: he was helping parents have a choice of whether or
20:13
Speaker 4: not to vaccinate their kids. Instead he was inject named
20:15
Speaker 4: with saline. He was deceiving authorities and helping parents in
20:21
Speaker 4: that way who wanted to buck the rules at the time.
20:24
Speaker 4: So on the far right, this Sky is seen as
20:28
Speaker 4: a hero. And since he is being prosecuted, not others
20:31
Speaker 4: like this, I don't think there's any other case we
20:33
Speaker 4: know of like this that was used as sac He's
20:35
Speaker 4: being singled out even though others did the same thing.
20:38
Speaker 4: That's questionable, but being singled out and with all the
20:41
Speaker 4: pressure from the Marjorie Taylor Greens of the world, especially
20:43
Speaker 4: when you have everything going on, when Marjorie Tayler Green
20:46
Speaker 4: and others in the MAGA world are turning on the
20:49
Speaker 4: Trump a ministration because of Epstein, well, this was perhaps
20:53
Speaker 4: the right time to do them a solid.
20:56
Speaker 2: What's also stunning is that Bondie credited Congressman Marjorie Taylor
21:01
Speaker 2: Green and Senator Mike Lee on social media. So the
21:05
Speaker 2: Attorney General giving credit to political leaders for dropping a case.
21:12
Speaker 2: Does this show that the Justice Department is not maintaining
21:15
Speaker 2: a division between politics and its prosecutorial decisions.
21:20
Speaker 4: Remember what I said at the beginning of this interview,
21:23
Speaker 4: elections have consequences. The voters chose a person who said
21:27
Speaker 4: that I will be a retribution, and they made it
21:29
Speaker 4: clear that he was going to turn the dj into
21:33
Speaker 4: an agency that did his will, his bidding. And so
21:36
Speaker 4: we shouldn't be surprised now that if he wants to
21:39
Speaker 4: help a political supporter, especially one that's starting to turn
21:43
Speaker 4: on him because of Epstein, that he's going to do it,
21:46
Speaker 4: and ultimately he makes the decisions, and it shouldn't be
21:50
Speaker 4: a surprise. This is what they campaigned on. Whenever someone
21:53
Speaker 4: says we're going to stop the weaponization of the Department
21:56
Speaker 4: of Justice, generally that means we're going to weaponize the
21:58
Speaker 4: Department of Justice.
22:00
Speaker 2: By the way, that case, the Utah surgeon case, had
22:03
Speaker 2: gone through the weaponization group and passed the weaponization group.
22:08
Speaker 4: Right, They had this whole group as designed to root
22:10
Speaker 4: out cases motivated by politics, and that group, that committee
22:14
Speaker 4: said now this is okay, this is legit, and then
22:17
Speaker 4: the decision was made to undo this case. Anyway, So
22:21
Speaker 4: this was the type of thing that Trump ran on,
22:23
Speaker 4: and it wasn't something that was out of totally out
22:28
Speaker 4: of the ordinary. I mean, we have seen presidents be
22:31
Speaker 4: very close to their attorney's general in the past. JFK
22:34
Speaker 4: appoint his brother to be attorney general. Barack Obama had
22:38
Speaker 4: his so called wingman, Eric Holder, is his attorney general.
22:41
Speaker 4: It happens, but we haven't seen are decisions that are
22:44
Speaker 4: at least obviously made because of politics. Now does it
22:48
Speaker 4: happen anyways, Yes, But this is just like saying the
22:51
Speaker 4: quiet part out loud.
22:52
Speaker 2: By the way, the Defense attorney said that she thought
22:56
Speaker 2: that the prosecutors were joking when they called her on
22:59
Speaker 2: Saturday to say we're dropping the charges in the middle
23:02
Speaker 2: of trials. So that shows how unusually is you mentioned
23:05
Speaker 2: the Epstein files, and Bondi is coming under fire. She's
23:10
Speaker 2: facing increasing anger from the GOP bass and calls for
23:15
Speaker 2: her resignation over her handling of the Epstein files. Why
23:20
Speaker 2: do you think she went out upfront and said I
23:23
Speaker 2: have the list. It's on my desk.
23:26
Speaker 4: Well, to be fair, June, she didn't say I have
23:29
Speaker 4: the list. It was asked of her on Fox News,
23:32
Speaker 4: said that there's a list, right, and then she said
23:36
Speaker 4: I have it on my desk. So the implication is
23:38
Speaker 4: it's the list. But she then correct herself afterwards to
23:42
Speaker 4: say that I meant I had his file on my desk,
23:45
Speaker 4: And actually I believe that's what she meant. But at
23:49
Speaker 4: the time, when you're on TV and you get caught
23:52
Speaker 4: up in the moment with Fox News, you want to
23:54
Speaker 4: please people, and people in the far right were clamoring
23:58
Speaker 4: for the list, and you say something that was inexact,
24:01
Speaker 4: and it's come back to Bier. But in the end,
24:03
Speaker 4: there is no list. I mean, I was a state
24:04
Speaker 4: attorney in Palm Beach County, six years after the Epstein
24:08
Speaker 4: stuff was over. And it's clear based on everyone I've
24:14
Speaker 4: spoken to and everything I've read outside the office, I
24:18
Speaker 4: had no access to any inside information the grand jury
24:21
Speaker 4: reports that were all kept by the clerk, not by
24:23
Speaker 4: our office, but talking to prosecutors and reading about journalists.
24:28
Speaker 4: If there is no list and Epstein did kill himself,
24:31
Speaker 4: now that's different than the question of are the third
24:34
Speaker 4: parties involved who should be prosecuted? Well, that's a different question,
24:38
Speaker 4: and the DJ is saying no, We're going to end
24:39
Speaker 4: it here. And I have thoughts about that. But in
24:42
Speaker 4: the end, I think Bonnie was telling the truth that
24:44
Speaker 4: there is no list and he did kill himself.
24:46
Speaker 2: Coming up next, most Americans think the government is lying
24:50
Speaker 2: about the Epstein files. This is Bloomberg.
24:56
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law.
24:57
Speaker 5: With June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
25:03
Speaker 2: It's hard to put the genie back in the bottle.
25:06
Speaker 2: While campaigning last year, President Donald Trump promised to release
25:10
Speaker 2: files relating to Jeffrey Epstein, but this month, the Justice
25:14
Speaker 2: Department said that Epstein did not maintain a client list
25:19
Speaker 2: and said there was no additional information on the case
25:22
Speaker 2: to release that sparked a furious reaction from many of
25:26
Speaker 2: Trump's supporters and repeated calls to release the files. Trump
25:30
Speaker 2: has attempted to tamp down the uproar with explanations like this.
25:35
Speaker 1: It's all been a big hoax.
25:36
Speaker 2: It's perpetrated by the Democrats, and some stupid Republicans and
25:40
Speaker 2: foolish Republicans fall into.
25:42
Speaker 3: The net, and so they try and do the Democrats work.
25:46
Speaker 2: But pressure continues to build on the Trump administration to
25:50
Speaker 2: release the Epstein files, and according to a new Reuter
25:54
Speaker 2: Zipsis poll, about sixty nine percent of Americans think the
25:58
Speaker 2: federal government is hiding details about Epstein's clients. That compares
26:04
Speaker 2: to just six percent who believed the government. I've been
26:07
Speaker 2: talking to Dave Ahrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney.
26:11
Speaker 2: Dave not releasing the files seems to be feeding into
26:14
Speaker 2: the conspiracy theories that there's something there to hide, and
26:18
Speaker 2: it doesn't look like it's going to die down, so
26:21
Speaker 2: why not just release the files.
26:23
Speaker 4: That's where they aired. They really did try to placate
26:28
Speaker 4: the conspiracy theorists in their base, of which there are many.
26:32
Speaker 4: In fact, Dan Bongino and Cash Bottel came to power
26:35
Speaker 4: based on conspiracy theories. In fact, Donald Trump came to
26:38
Speaker 4: power based on conspiracy theories. He ran on Barack Obama
26:42
Speaker 4: being from Kenya. He then said the twenty twenty election
26:45
Speaker 4: was stolen. Both of them were false, both conspiracy theories,
26:49
Speaker 4: and then the third one on Jeffrey Epstein, and that
26:53
Speaker 4: one is coming back to bite them because the alligator
26:57
Speaker 4: is always hungry, and you can try to feed it,
27:00
Speaker 4: eventually it's going to bite your face off. And that's
27:02
Speaker 4: what they've learned. They over promised, and now the MAGA
27:04
Speaker 4: base is churning on them and the facts are what
27:07
Speaker 4: they are. As far as why aren't they releasing the
27:09
Speaker 4: whole file, well, a few reasons. It is standard practice.
27:13
Speaker 4: It is the norm that you don't release the names
27:15
Speaker 4: of individuals unless you're going to charge them within the DOJ.
27:18
Speaker 4: Of course, at the same time, this is the same
27:21
Speaker 4: VOJ and Trump administration that has been breaking norms, so
27:24
Speaker 4: this is the one norm they're adhering to. But I
27:26
Speaker 4: do think the real reason is that President Trump's name
27:30
Speaker 4: is caught up and it's not as doing anything illegal
27:34
Speaker 4: or involved with human trafficking or illicit sex rings, but
27:38
Speaker 4: just by being friends with this person of which a
27:40
Speaker 4: lot of people were on Palm Beach. I don't think
27:43
Speaker 4: he wants and his people don't want his name to
27:45
Speaker 4: be out there and wants the story to end. But
27:47
Speaker 4: by blocking the release of all the documents, it keeps
27:51
Speaker 4: it going.
27:52
Speaker 2: We've been talking about politically motivated dismissals of cases. Let's
27:57
Speaker 2: turn to politically motivated pross secutions of cases. Trump on
28:02
Speaker 2: Truth Social has accused Senator Adam Schiff of mortgage fraud
28:07
Speaker 2: and demanded that he'd be brought to justice. Schiff has
28:11
Speaker 2: flatly denied that he falsely designated his Maryland home as
28:15
Speaker 2: his primary residence. The request for the information on Schiff
28:20
Speaker 2: apparently came from the fahfa's inspector General. It's also similar
28:26
Speaker 2: to the allegations that have been made against New York
28:29
Speaker 2: State Attorney General Letitia James. Does this chain of events
28:33
Speaker 2: seem unusual or troubling.
28:36
Speaker 4: Well, it's easy to send something to the FBI and
28:40
Speaker 4: just say look at this wrongdoing, especially if it involves
28:42
Speaker 4: an elected official. So we've seen this before about investigations
28:47
Speaker 4: of that are politically motivated. The Russia probe of the investigators,
28:52
Speaker 4: the probe that John Durham and Bill Barr conducted to
28:56
Speaker 4: investigate the investigators that eventually blew up in their face
28:59
Speaker 4: because they are built in safeguards, built in guardrails for
29:02
Speaker 4: out of control prosecutors. If you go ahead and you
29:04
Speaker 4: start charging people without evidence, that case, first off should
29:09
Speaker 4: get thrown out by the grand jury. Will not be
29:10
Speaker 4: indicted by the grand jury. And if it does, if
29:13
Speaker 4: it meets that standard of evidence, which is relatively low,
29:16
Speaker 4: then a judge could throw it out. And then if
29:18
Speaker 4: it does ever get to a jury, the jury can
29:20
Speaker 4: do what it did in a John Durham cases and
29:22
Speaker 4: quickly acquit and then the prosecutor's egg all over his
29:26
Speaker 4: or her face. So that's a cautionary tale. I've always
29:29
Speaker 4: said that Pam Bondi is a twenty year prosecutor. She
29:32
Speaker 4: will not cross the red line and Trump up to
29:35
Speaker 4: use a term of fake evidence to bring bogus charges
29:38
Speaker 4: against Trump's political enemies like Matt Gates would have. That's
29:41
Speaker 4: why Matt Gates was the first Attorney general appointed by
29:45
Speaker 4: Donald Trump before he had to back out because Gates
29:48
Speaker 4: promised to blow the place up. Bondy knows better and
29:51
Speaker 4: she's not going to do that and cross the red line.
29:53
Speaker 4: And if that happens, have me on and I'll eat
29:55
Speaker 4: some crow.
29:56
Speaker 2: I will remember that, Dave. There seems to be a
29:59
Speaker 2: continuing per urged by Bondie of Justice Department lawyers. Federal
30:03
Speaker 2: prosecutor Maureen Comy, who worked on the criminal case of
30:08
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein and Glaine Maxwell, was the prosecutor in the
30:13
Speaker 2: Sean Diddy Comb's case, was fired yesterday. Comy is also
30:18
Speaker 2: the daughter of former FBI Director James Comy. It seems
30:22
Speaker 2: too coincidental.
30:25
Speaker 4: Oh, it's not. If you have the last name of
30:28
Speaker 4: Komy and you work for this administration, you should prepare
30:33
Speaker 4: the boxes to remove the stuff from your desk. Same
30:36
Speaker 4: thing if you have the last name of Fauci or
30:39
Speaker 4: anyone else on Trump's target list. He hates Komy. He
30:42
Speaker 4: wants Comy prosecuted. So isis gonna allow his daughter to
30:46
Speaker 4: continue in her prominent role at the SDNY, especially after
30:49
Speaker 4: they lost the prominent case and Diddy. Now I know
30:52
Speaker 4: they got the lesser charges, but they lost, so yeah,
30:55
Speaker 4: so this was the time for them to do it.
30:57
Speaker 4: Do I agree with it? Do I like it?
30:59
Speaker 5: No?
30:59
Speaker 4: No, I think prosecutor should be judged based on their
31:02
Speaker 4: work product, not based on their last name. But again,
31:04
Speaker 4: this is the kind of stuff Trump campaigned on being
31:07
Speaker 4: your retribution.
31:08
Speaker 2: I mean, would a prosecutor be fired after losing one
31:13
Speaker 2: of the most high profile trials since probably the most
31:18
Speaker 2: high profile trial since Trump was elected.
31:21
Speaker 5: No?
31:22
Speaker 4: Did Chris Darden and Marshall Clark get fired because they
31:25
Speaker 4: lost the O. J. Simpson case. No, that doesn't happen
31:28
Speaker 4: unless you're just incompetent at your job, and none of
31:32
Speaker 4: those people were incompetent. So the only one fired is
31:35
Speaker 4: the one who has the last name Comy.
31:37
Speaker 2: In another Justice Department move that's already drawing fire from
31:41
Speaker 2: some California lawmakers, including Nancy Pelosi. Attorney General Pam Bondi
31:48
Speaker 2: this morning went on a tour of Alcatraz because President
31:53
Speaker 2: Trump is thinking of turning it back into a prison now.
31:57
Speaker 2: Alcatraz is currently a profit maker for the federal government.
32:01
Speaker 2: As a tourist attraction. It earns about sixty million dollars
32:06
Speaker 2: a year. I didn't think they were really serious about this,
32:09
Speaker 2: but maybe they are. Why.
32:11
Speaker 4: It's about the show. Trump loves performative art, and this
32:14
Speaker 4: is right up his alli. Remember the movie Escape from Alcatraz,
32:17
Speaker 4: and it's a symbol of being a great movie, right, Clinticewood.
32:22
Speaker 4: So Alcatraz is a symbol, it's the rock. It's just
32:26
Speaker 4: a symbol of a government that was probably a little
32:29
Speaker 4: too obsessed with visuals being tough on crime, when in
32:34
Speaker 4: reality it wasn't all that. And it's now a tourist site. Well,
32:37
Speaker 4: this is right up Trump's sally, all these other images
32:40
Speaker 4: of him being tough on crime, telling police to hit
32:44
Speaker 4: the suspect on the way and the car let him
32:46
Speaker 4: bump the head on the car door on the way in.
32:49
Speaker 4: If that isn't enough, well why not have the symbol
32:51
Speaker 4: of Alcatraz no matter what the costs. After all, our
32:54
Speaker 4: government can just print money, right, And it's not like
32:56
Speaker 4: we're in massive deficits, are we.
32:59
Speaker 2: The cost of refurbishing the island and building a new
33:03
Speaker 2: prison has been put at a quarter of a billion
33:05
Speaker 2: dollars at a minimum. Let's turn to the other Alcatraz Alligator.
33:11
Speaker 2: Alcatraz controversial, to say the least, immigration detention facility in
33:16
Speaker 2: your neck of the woods in Florida. The detainees are
33:20
Speaker 2: suing the Trump administration alleging inhumane conditions and unlawful confinement.
33:26
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's going to take time to wind through the courts.
33:28
Speaker 4: Maybe we'll get an injunction and then the Supreme Court
33:30
Speaker 4: has curtailed injunctions, but they could get one for this facility.
33:34
Speaker 4: And from what I hear, they're right, it's not something
33:37
Speaker 4: that should be there that This is again about show,
33:40
Speaker 4: not the go. This is about imagery. They're selling swag
33:43
Speaker 4: for Alligator Aclatraz swag. Oh yeah, it's on the Republican
33:47
Speaker 4: Party's website. Governor Santis is pushing it. This is performative
33:52
Speaker 4: art and it plays into exactly Trump's strength, which is
33:57
Speaker 4: immigration and criminal mindagrants, even though the people they are
34:01
Speaker 4: largely are not criminals. There are people who may have
34:03
Speaker 4: overstayed their visas, but they didn't commit crimes in the
34:05
Speaker 4: United States, at least not most of them were hearing.
34:08
Speaker 4: The conditions are reportedly inhumane. The conditions may not even
34:13
Speaker 4: survive a low level tropical storm, of which unfortunately Florida
34:17
Speaker 4: gets this time of year. It's already flooding even before
34:21
Speaker 4: there's ever been a tropical storm in the area. So
34:24
Speaker 4: is this something that we should be doing? No, No, Again,
34:27
Speaker 4: though it is about a symbol it's the same reason
34:30
Speaker 4: why they're trying to pay two hundred and fifty million
34:33
Speaker 4: dollars to restore the original Alcatraz. But at some point
34:36
Speaker 4: you got to believe that voters, they just say, what
34:39
Speaker 4: about substance? Is this kind of country we are where
34:42
Speaker 4: it's all about symbolism, It's about showing people how overly
34:48
Speaker 4: tough and harsh and punitive we are. Like maybe at
34:51
Speaker 4: some point we can just go back to our roots
34:53
Speaker 4: and just try to be that shining city on the hill.
34:56
Speaker 2: A state representative, Angie Nicks, and a Democratics representative in Florida,
35:02
Speaker 2: is filing a separate suit against DeSantis challenging the legality
35:07
Speaker 2: of the site's construction on protected land. Is that protected
35:11
Speaker 2: land where it is?
35:12
Speaker 4: Native Americans say it is? But I mean again, these
35:15
Speaker 4: lawsuits will take some time. And is she filing in
35:17
Speaker 4: state court or federal court?
35:19
Speaker 2: State court?
35:20
Speaker 4: If it's in state court, the appellate judges were all
35:22
Speaker 4: appointed by Republicans and many of them are appointed by
35:25
Speaker 4: DeSantis and the Supreme Court of Florida six out of
35:28
Speaker 4: seven conservative majority. And so if it's a state court lawsuit,
35:31
Speaker 4: that ain't going anywhere. If it's a federal lawsuit. Perhaps
35:34
Speaker 4: they could get an injunction, but this is going to
35:37
Speaker 4: wind its way through the courts, and the win here
35:41
Speaker 4: is not in keeping people there. That's not really the
35:44
Speaker 4: concern of DeSantis and Trump. They just want the imagery,
35:48
Speaker 4: and they like the imagery of having Democrats fight this
35:53
Speaker 4: because the Democrats are fighting this on the Republicans' terrain.
35:57
Speaker 4: It's much better for them to go to war on
35:59
Speaker 4: this than to go to war on Epstein or on tariffs,
36:04
Speaker 4: all notoriously unpopular.
36:05
Speaker 2: It's hard to get away from the Epstein files though.
36:08
Speaker 2: Thanks so much, Dave. That's Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach
36:12
Speaker 2: County State Attorney. And that's it for this edition of
36:15
Speaker 2: the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the
36:18
Speaker 2: latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can
36:21
Speaker 2: find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot
36:26
Speaker 2: Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and remember to
36:30
Speaker 2: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten
36:33
Speaker 2: pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening
36:37
Speaker 2: to Bloomberg