Murder, Senate, United States discussed on C-SPAN2 Book TV


Daylong series of conversations hosted by the Washington Post to talk about the opioid crisis surgeon general Jerome atoms in a conversation with Lenny Bernstein health and medicine reporter for the Washington Post a look ahead to next week in congress. Eric Larsen is with us. He's congressional reporter with Bloomberg news now that the president signed the two week extension of government funding not much time left. It's just two weeks. December twenty first before the house and Senate have to figure out how to resolve their differences and avoid a shutdown on the twenty-first. What are the key issues remaining that have to be worked out by far? The biggest one is President Trump's demand for a border wall funding. His demand is now sitting at five billion dollars in for the current fiscal year. Republicans have tried to talk him down to two point five billion this year and two point five next year. Chuck Schumer, the democratic leader has rejected that so all eyes are on Tuesday when Schumer and Nancy Pelosi the House Democratic leader. We'll sit down with President Trump around eleven thirty AM and try to come up with a deal crucial. Lawmakers are hoping to have a deal this week hammered out in principle, and then use the following week to pass it through the house and the Senate in order to meet that Christmas time deadline how much room does each side have to give the democratic leader Nancy Pelosi kind of saying this is a line in the sand. Where do they where do the Democrats stand in terms of flexibility on border wall funding? Yeah, it was a key comment from Nancy Pelosi at the end of the current week when she talked about the need to not have a trade off for Dhaka and the wall. This is the idea of protecting. Undocumented immigrants from deportation. There was a deal on the table in January in which they would be protected and twenty five billion dollars be provided for a wall over Trump backed off of that deal. Once conservative said, you need to make changes to legal immigration, the lack of trust between Democrats and the White House now on such a grand bargain. So that no longer seems to be an option other ways to skin. This cat would be to find ways to apply money for border security for fencing for for levies and other ways of preventing people from crossing the border without making concrete. Well, it's become very much a symbol of at least racism in the eyes of people on the left. Let's talk about another issue will certainly see on the Senator Senate side with Senator is expected to debate next week a Bill dealing with Yemen. A resolution I should say that would and a US support of Saudi forces against Yemen. Fact, Bloomberg dot com a piece of Bloomberg dot com. Reporting about that how that ties into the the murder of journalist Jamal kashogi. With the headline and Bloomberg saying Senator seek path to punish Saudi prince for kashogi killing. It seems like a bit of a standoff between where the White House stands on this issue, and where the majority of senators based on that first procedural vote in the Senate. There's a lot there's a lot of wrangling about this is the War Powers resolution. It only takes fifty one votes to get on the Bill as very likely they will get on the Bill and the coming week. However, there's a lot of concern about having what's called a vote a Rama and unlimited chance to debate. Gotcha amendments that are not germane to the Bill and Senator Bob corker, the head of the foreign relations committee was saying look the house is not going to pass the president's not gonna sign this. Let's come up with something that everyone can agree on that can actually have some teeth to it. So there's a debate about making an amendment that would perhaps advise some sanctions individuals from the Saudi Arabia team through limiting future arm sales. They're trying to find something that actually make it into law. This'll be a very much a question. There's also out there a sense of the Senate resolution, which is something of a cop out. It's just a statement by the Senate. That Mohammed bin Salman. They had the crowd prince of Saudi Arabia is responsible for Jamaica, showcase murder. This would put the Senate on record. But again doesn't really have much teeth on the farm Bill. The conferees for the farm Bill in the house and Senate conferees reported last week that there was agreement on that tell me where things stand on that. And is that likely to be passed before the end of the year? I think it's very likely, and it's even more likely it'll be put on the spending Bill if they run out of time, basically Republicans caved in on their demands make big massive changes the food stamp program to expand work requirements to shift money from beneficiaries into job training with this essentially the backing down the far Bill can proceed there's a lot of worry that when Democrats took over the house. They would try to expand food stamps and do other things that with bogged down a foreign Bill not provide that business assurance to the farm sector. So Republicans just say, let's get it done. Or would there still waiting on Congressional Budget Office scores, and maybe some issues of of deficit impact that need to be adjusted, but there's a lot of ways. To do that in the Bill. I'm really expecting it to pass before the end of the year one more item. And it seems like it's gotten a fair amount of bipartisan support and nowadays the effort on criminal Justice reform, it's generally over in the Senate where does that stand? I think the big question is Mitch McConnell. The Senate majority leader he does not appear to support the legislation, and it's pretty much stood in the way of it moving forward. President Trump is not really used his power here. His bully pulpit different president might be able to browbeat the Senate majority leader into putting this on the floor. There has been some talk of combining the spending Bill, I just don't really see a big policy change social policy change making it onto the spending Bill. So it's looking very dicey. For that Bill at the moment. Read more about all the issues we've talked about Eric Watson at Bloomberg dot com. That's where you can find his articles also on Twitter at E L Watson. Thanks so much. Thank you. Up next on C span radio was or argument before the supreme court case is gamble v. S argued before the court on Thursday, December sixth at issue in this case shepherd Szafrance is it double jeopardy. That's making one crime. And have it be tried by the state and by the federal courts, we should point out that this original case gamble be US began three years ago. We Karen Campbell was pulled over for a faulty headlight Justice. John roberts. We will hear arguments this morning in case seventeen six forty six gamble versus United States Chatan. Thank you, Mr. chief Justice, and may it please the court separate sovereigns exception to the double jeopardy clause is inconsistent with the text in original meaning of the double jeopardy clause. There is no dispute that the text of the clause was understood to incorporate English practice, and there was no practice of inter sovereign successive prosecutions in all of English history. We're in American history for the first century of this Republic after the framing. There's also a mountain of affirmative evidence than in England even a floor and acquittal by a court of competent in current Jewish concurrent jurisdiction bars assists, subsequent prosecution in England for the type. You're leading thority is a foreign prosecution. In England of the Spanish case. And the argument the other side, which has some traction. I think is that it would be quite unusual surprising for the new American Republic to look to Europe in a question like that. Because one concerning applies both in English situation as well is that it would be a significant intrusion on sovereignty of particular concern of the new. New American Republic to allow a foreign prosecution to limit the thority of. The United States. Frankly, it's surprising. Even in the English case. I mean the relations between Spain and England we're not exactly the best in why? I mean, if if it were a Spanish case involving the murder of Englishman with English court really of said, well, he's tried in Spain. So we're our hands are tied. Well, there's overwhelming evidence as I said that that is the English rule and no dispute that the framers were incorporating English practice into the double jeopardy clause. The world any country in the world as well. I'm sorry praying. Preceding even a conviction. Any anti anywhere with him. So so there are a few requirements on one it would have to be the same offense. So you would have to meet anguish standard, which is the standard of this court today isn't clear I mean, I thought when I read your brief. Well, you're absolutely right. But then I read the other side of the practice. And now, I not going to say, you're absolutely wrong. Three times. The court has considered your argument looked at those cases the English case Hutchinson. No report later cases referred to it. It was a complexity involving a special commission designed to try people who had committed murder outside the country. The king's bench didn't have the thirty the king's bench referred to that commission, and that commission said well, he was acquitted in Portugal, and therefore we will not try them in this special commission designed to Dada Justice. Steven Brier does that reflect a principle of law? Does it reflect something about the commission? Does it reflect something about the individual circumstances? So far, it seems to be no one has any idea. If you read gauge you'll discover the other sides, and the same is true of the early cases, I won't go through all of them here. Early cases we find some support you and some don't. So I say all support us all support you. Yes. I do believe they all support us in the one. The one case you mentioned that is potentially leans the other way is gauged, but it's a civil case in its analogize ING to Hutchinson for the purposes of of how rule about recognition of civil judgments, and there is no ancient rule rooted in Talmud and Roman law in Greek law and canon law in ancient English common law to have your civil judgments recognized by another court. By for a successor prosecution and the point is not back into complete your answer to my question. And ask you any country in the world. Any country? So if you're asking me what the English rule was. I would say yes that is. But there are three important qualifications on the rule. I it it does have to be the same offence. So there is no dispute in in the case of murder in Portugal and the trial in England or the murder in in the Cape of Good Hope in the trial in England that those were the same offense they were both murder, but sometimes that's a little more complicated because it has to be the same elements. That's the that's the meaning of same offence under this court stirs prudence, enter the original meaning Secondly, and this is very important. The second court has to recognize the competent incur concurrent jurisdiction to the first court that that's part of the English rule. And there's no dispute whatever may arise in the international context. There's no dispute that Alabama. In the federal government has competent in concurrent jurisdiction over the offense of being a felon in possession. So at least in this country. The answer seems pretty clear because the rule was concurrent jurisdiction rule. And there's no doubt that there is concurrent jurisdiction. I don't think the idea even at the framing that he would recognize a an acquittal in another country is of art across acution could possibly be so shocking because it was mentioned in furlong. It was discussed in furlong. What's the third requirement? Choir is that it can't be a sham prosecution or a collusive prosecution sham. So today, let's say a group of American tourists are murdered by terrorists in a foreign country. And there is a prosecution in the fine country for murder the same offense in a court of competent jurisdiction there, and it's not a sham prosecution fairly inept prosecution lack of prosecutorial investigative resources and a poor country and it results in an acquittal or conviction with a very light sentence. Justice Alito coarsening position is that there could be a prosecution here in the United States under the saturate enacted by congress to permit. The prosecution of individuals who murder Americans abroad. Let me address that in a few different ways. One. The original understanding was that implied between countries could you just answer? Whether that's correct or not. And if it's not correct wise under the original understanding, it would be up to the US court to determine whether it's going to recognize the competent and concurrent jurisdiction of that other country. What I'm saying is in the case of federal and state relations. There is no dispute about that. I don't think this is in surprise question or particularly difficult one. It is a court of competent jurisdiction. It is the court that in that in that country has jurisdiction to try census for murder. No question about that. What is your answer is can be prosecuted here where can they not be presi the answer? It's not just that the particular court is competent competent jurisdiction. It's that we're going to recognize jurisdiction of the other country over the crime. This was the point that for long was making about the murder of a British subject by a British subject on a British ship. And for a long says, it's pretty doubtful. That England would actually recognize a US acquittal in that case because England would say you have no basis for current jurisdiction over that crime. So that's the determination the US court when you don't have to reach that question in this case, our point is that if that was the rule at the F if that was the original understanding of the time, we do have we do have to reach that question because your position logically would extend to Justice Alito hypothetical, and if prosecution is part of the national security efforts of the United States federal prosecution in your position would substantially hamper those national security efforts..

Coming up next