35 Burst results for "Loyola Law School"
Former President Trump's legal problems continue after acquittal
"Beat impeachment once again, but he is still facing other legal troubles. Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson, former president Trump faces legal exposure on a whole host of fronts. On the federal level. President Trump could face legal exposure, not just because Of the January 6th insurrection, which frankly, seems unlikely, But President Trump could face federal legal exposure based on obstruction of justice. Campaign finance. Potentially financial crimes. There is
Trump acquitted in impeachment trial as 57-43 vote short of two-thirds majority
"President Trump has been acquitted by the Senate for inciting a riot at the Capitol Senate voted 57 to 43 that former president was guilty falling short, though of the two thirds majority needed. To solidify his impeachment. After the vote, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told the Senate that the president did incite the mob leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then fame surprised when people believe him and do reckless things. But he says he voted not guilty because he doesn't believe a president can be found guilty if not in office. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi took him to task by saying House managers were ready to deliver to the impeachment articles to the Senate. Ah, week after the insurrection, But McConnell shut down the Senate, so that couldn't happen. Mostly also lashed out at Senate Republicans for suggesting the president could be censured, saying they were afraid to defend their job. These cowardly senators who couldn't face up to what the president did. What was it stake for our country are now gonna have a chance to give a little slap on the wrist. We sent your people for using station average for the wrong purpose. We don't send your people for inciting insurrections that kills people in the capital. As far is when it comes to the former president's role in the GOP Republican campaign strategist Bob Gardner offers this. I think it's going to be a very diminishing as time goes on. He's still a force in the party. There's still he still has his base. But you know, it's really kind of out of sight out of mind. He's not even on Twitter anymore. And he will do rallies and Hill maybe have his own talk show or even his own network. But I just don't think that he's gonna have the same effect on the party that he has. For the last five years. There was plenty of back and forth during the impeachment trial, as we hear from KCBS is Jennifer Hodges. From a legal standpoint, I think the president's defense attorneys have really not done Even decent job. But despite that the Senate has voted to acquit. This is not the end of the president's legal troubles. Jessica Levinson is a professor at Loyola Law School, She says the trial has been a roller coaster. We started the day thinking that there would be a vote. To acquit by the end of the day, and I think we're gonna end the day with a vote to acquit, And that is what happened after initially deciding at least one witness would be called. It was announced The trial would continue with no witnesses, but rather statements would be submitted. Levinson says. More than likely the former president will be back in court. At some point on the state level. There could be investigations into the Trump Organization. His businesses and elections prod. Jennifer Hajis
State investigates Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
"Sherif al to be in a wave, and his department is facing yet another investigation this time from Sacramento. Today. California Attorney General Have Yerba Sarah announced he's starting a civil rights investigation into the sheriff's department. It's not completely unexpected Vienna Wave has had a contentious relationship with county leaders and his department has been plagued with deputy misconduct allegations and questionable fatal shootings. Watchdog groups like the County Civilian Oversight Commission claimed the department is shrouded in secrecy. Commissioners even called for being away his resignation last fall. One of those commission members is Sean Kennedy. He is the Kaplan and Feldman, executive director for Loyola Law School's Center for Juvenile Law and Policy, and he's here to talk more about all of this. I Sean. Hi, Larry. I got to start here. The attorney general will be looking into whether the policies and practices of the largest sheriff's department in the country has routinely violated people's constitutional rights. What's your take on that? And how unusual is this? I think it's long overdue. There have been allegations for decades about deputy gangs or cliques. Within the Los Angeles Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and Ah lot of county actors have really turned a blind eye to it. So the fact that the state is now investigating it, I think is a real step in the right direction. So you said. You said it's taken a long time. But is this unusual? It's fairly. It's fairly unusual, but when you have had such longstanding allegations about like internal gangs violating people's civil rights Using excessive force filing false reports. It's definitely in order and you know we're really gratified to see that the attorney general is looking into it. Speaking of the attorney general, what kind of power does he have over the department Because Sheriff Ian away the likes to say when other county officials challenge him that he only has to answer to the voters and to the state A G. Well, the Eiji is the top law enforcement officer in the state of California. And while sheriff being a waiver is an elected official, he and his deputies Obviously cannot violate the rights of others or obstruct justice. We know that because one of his predecessors Sheriff Lee Baca is serving time in federal prison for obstructing justice. Bezerra says the action has come in response to the absence of sustained and comprehensive oversight of the department operations. The board that you're on the civilian oversight Commission is supposed to keep an eye on the L. A sheriff's Department. Why has it escalated all the way to the state? Well, you know, we on the civilian oversight commission have the power of persuasion, but it's very difficult to get access to all the information that we need. The sheriff's department is a very close department very inward looking. It resists collaboration and oversight. And so it makes sense that the Department of Justice With all its law enforcement capabilities. Would step in and look into the matter. You mentioned gangs there has been reporting about gangs inside the department. Even from being away was younger deputies. You recently released a report on the impact of these sheriffs, gangs and what you find. Sheriff. Gangs have been in operation since the early seventies. And for 50 years, sheriff after sheriff has downplayed or ignored the problems that these internal Gangs and clicks pose. To constitutional policing in our community and how they really threaten the integrity of our justice system. And so it's just really important this investigation to get to the bottom of what is going on with the sheriff gangs in the department because they create a culture of violence. It increases the number of deputy shootings. And it really calls into question all of the convictions in which secret Deputy gang members have testified as prosecution witnesses. In criminal trials. You know, this is not a criminal investigation, but could what is unearthed in in this investigation become criminal, depending upon upon what Agent Sarah fines I'm sure as the investigation unfolds, will learn that but certainly in the past, I spoke of our prior sheriff Lee Bok. It evolved into a criminal investigation, and so many Allegations about the internal gangs. The executioners of the Bandidos described they gang like activity that results in criminal prosecutions every day. So it wouldn't be a surprise if it did evolve into that. But do you think the subject of these deputy gangs will be part of this investigation? Yes.
Trump pardons Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Charles Kushner and others
"President Trump has issued 29 new pardons and commutations. They include his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort is associate Roger Stone and Charles Kushner, the father of his son in law, Jared Jessica Levinson is with Loyola Law School. This latest round of pardoned shows that President Trump is really using his constitutional pardon power to brew Ward loyalists. Pardoning Stone and Manafort. He sending a very clear signal that people who essentially lied for him that people who tried to undermine the investigation into whether or not there were ties between The Russian government and the Trump campaign will get get out of jail free card. Mr Trump's actions come 2 49 people, the total that he's parted in just the last two days.
Trump pardons 15, including people convicted in Mueller probe
"Much, sir. Good morning, President Donald Trump issued a slew of pardons yesterday, including for two people convicted as part of former special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe and for two former Republican congressman convicted Of a range of financial crimes. Trump pardon former campaign aide George Papadopoulos, who was convicted of lying to the FBI, Trump also pardoned former representatives Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins of New York. Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson says This is a breathtaking list. The pardons that President Trump issued here really have nothing to do with the national interest or with trying to fulfill justice. They have to do with President Trump's personal proposals and personal game. Trump also pardoned four men who worked as security guards for Blackwater and had been convicted in relation to the
"loyola law school" Discussed on KCRW
"Top spot of attorney general and this still is a big job, and I think that what we've seen in the past is you don't always have somebody who has a medical background now. Of course, this is different. All we have to do is see your last segment because we're in the middle of pandemic and health and human services in the middle of pandemic obviously is a different Role, but it's not totally outside the norm. He's not totally outside of the model of who's pick for HHS. How does he compare to other state attorneys general when it comes to his proclivity for filing lawsuits against the White House? Well, you know, it's hard to say, because there's been so much more litigation in this administration. So you know, with respect to the Trump administration versus a state, it really is versus California. And so California has either filed suit against the Trump administration defended suits joined other states That's in part because we've tried to position ourselves again is the epicenter of the trump resistant in part because we have a huge Office. There are a lot of people who work for the A G in California. There's a lot of resource is there are a lot of money there. And so how do we compare? We're kind of like Texas under the Obama administration, in terms of how litigious we've been, and of course, I think that will change when we have a Democratic administration and D C Jessica Levinson, our legal eagle here on press play and also professor at Loyola Law School..
Biden projected winner, Trump not conceding yet
"President Trump has yet to concede the election and is promising to continue fighting in courts over alleged illegal ballots. We get the story from KCBS reporter Melissa Call Ross in a statement issued after Joe Biden was projected to have won, the president says this election is far from over. His campaign already has mounted legal challenges in several states. But Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levinson, Says the campaign's lawyers haven't offered any concrete evidence of fraudulent voting. The most. What they said is that this is irregular. But this is a new form of voting, where it's highly likely that there could be fraud. But everyone to appreciate why that may not be enough to overturn election Levinson ads that states take their election procedures very seriously. So when you have detective challenges, whether you're Republican or Democrat You're going after the state Legislature and the state of monitors, and they have really a stake in making sure they got it like regardless. Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, held a press conference today in which he attacked the election results. And Mr Trump himself repeatedly has said he wants to take his case to the U. S. Supreme
Supreme Court to hear case over congressional seat count
"In danger public health and they have become platform for him to spread medically inaccurate information. That put people's lives at risk Right here in Wisconsin, the Supreme Court will weigh in on the Trump administration's unprecedented bid to exclude undocumented immigrants from the federal counts used to award state seats in the House of Representatives. Loyola Law schools Laurie Levinson. Says the court will determine whether to uphold her overturn the lower court order never before in American history. Have we not counted every person who's in the United States in the senses, and that's important for new start allocating seats in the House of Representatives and in the Electoral College, A reversal today
The health status of those in Trump's orbit
"Has the number of White House staff members and GOP officials infected with the Corona virus grows. President Trump has tried to show strength in videos released during his stay at Walter Reed. But his medical treatment including a steroid typically reserved for more severe cases of Cove in 19 is raising questions about his health status and ability to govern also trumps SUV ride to way to supporters gathered outside the hospital is drawing criticism for risking the health. Of his security detail and potentially hospital staff. We look at the implications of all of this with Dr Ezekiel Emanuel, former Obama White House health policy advisor. And vice provost of global initiatives of the University of Pennsylvania. Thanks so much for joining us, Dr Ezekiel Emanuel Thank you for having me a pleasure also with us. Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School. Thanks so much for joining us as well discuss Levinson. Thanks for having me back. So, Dr Emanuel, I'll start with you. And I guess I'll just start with this SUV ride to supporters outside the hospital. I mean, you've called this decision shameful. Can you tell me why concerned you so much? A horse of all There was no need for it. No urgent need. Second of all, the president has got cove it and he should be recuperating. He is the leader of the Free world. On DH. Ah, he's sick, right? How do we know we think? Well, he's gotten the Regeneron Antibody cocktail. He's on run desert here is an ex amethyst so he should not be going out on the last thing is on may be. The most irresponsible thing he did is He is putting other people at rest the people who walked him down in the hospital, the secret Service in the car, just not a responsible thing to do. And it's sort of echoes to me the irresponsible behavior he demonstrated when he went to see off his potential donors in New Jersey knowing full well he had symptoms that were consistent. With a cove it and he probably knew he was covert infected on Thursday. What do you make of the fact then, since this is what his White House spokesman said that this ride was cleared by the medical team as safe to do. Wei have questions about that medical team and their judgment. They have not been forthcoming with the American public. That's putting it mildly. They've lied and evaded questions that are necessary for the public to make a decision about the president. On DH. Ah, many of us have some question about the wisdom of the therapeutic interventions that they're doing layering on decks, amethyst sewn onto the other medications that he's taking. So you know, I'm not. I don't have overwhelming confidence in their judgment. And even if the patient wanted to do it, you're the doctor. You're the expert in health care. You're also the supposed to be the expert in the spread of the disease and putting other people at risk. And none of it seems wise. Yes, I definitely want to talk more about the medications he's on. But first Jessica Levinson, I mean, Dr Emanuel is talking about the You know the reason that the public does need to know what his condition is. Can you talk more about that, in terms of what the public does have a right to know and why it's so important because you've mentioned national security concerns. Absolutely. And what a pleasure to be on with Dr Manual. And I will say that you if President Trump was Mr Trump than his medical history is really in his medical prognosis. It's really his own business. But he is somebody who's put himself in a position of enormous public trust. If the president has the sniffles, it's potentially A global issue and add to that the idea that the president has a potentially deadly disease in the middle of a pandemic dealing with that disease going right into an election. We're not before an election. We are in the election. Two million people have cast early votes were voting early in California. As of now, we're dealing with other serious National issues like wildfires and the idea that we would not have a full and fair accounting of the president's health. It's not just that it lacks transparency for the American public. It means that again. It's part of a consistent narrative that we don't know what to trust. We can't evaluate what's happening and again. This is not a private citizen. This is somebody who has enormous power over our lives. Enormous power on a not just the national but an international stage and It's deeply irresponsible that we would be kept in the dark about what is going on The fact that he would have doctors out there is aiding questions that they would say later. Oh, we just wanted to keep it. Upbeat tone instead of a truthful tone is something that the American public frankly should not have to stand for.
Los Angeles judge orders release of man who spent nearly 2 decades in prison after conviction at age 15
"The judge has ordered the release of a man who spent 19 years in prison for a gang related shooting thanks to the efforts of the Loyola Law Schools project for the Innocent 34 year old Iman Barnes is expected to be freed next week. Barnes was 15 when he was arrested for a shooting in Compton. He was tried as an adult and sentenced to 40 years to life for attempted murder. Barnes says he was home with his mother at the time of the shooting. The victim identified him has since recanted. His attorneys say they will try to have this conviction vacated.
Scott Peterson death penalty overturned by California Supreme Court
"California Supreme Court has overturned the 2005 death sentence for Scott Peterson in the slaying of his pregnant wife, Kay, CBS's Margie Schaefer reports. The nationally televised case was prosecuted in San Mateo County. This overturning of the death penalty comes more than 15 years after Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his pregnant wife, Lacey, a schoolteacher in Modesto. And their unborn son, Conner and dumping the bodies in the San Francisco Bay, the court, saying prosecutors may try again for the same sentence if they wish In the high profile case. Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levinson says she's not totally surprised by the ruling. There's substantial evidence that the jurors in this case already had their attitudes made up by the time they actually heard the evidence. And that's a problem, especially in a death penalty case. See an animus decision by the California Supreme Court, saying, We have to be extra careful that when jurors make this type of decision they're making it fairly. The court did uphold Peterson's conviction of murdering Lacy Peterson and their unborn son, Conner. If prosecutors up to not retry the penalty phase, Peterson's punishment becomes life in prison.
Trump administration urges SCOTUS to end the Affordable Care Act
"The trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to invalidate obamacare arguing parts of the affordable Care Act been done away with anyway Jessica Levinson is a professor at Loyola law school we're in the middle of a global pandemic it's hard to think of a worse time for anyone including the trump administration to say that we should ends health care coverage for millions of Americans the ACA has prohibited health insurers from denying coverage to those with pre existing health
Supreme Court rules 6-3 in favor of gay rights in workplace
"Continuing our in depth team coverage of the supreme court's gay rights ruling LA legal analyst and Loyola law school professor Laurie Levenson tells connects the ruling is raising eyebrows as the court has a conservative majority many people are surprised that justice Gorsuch who was appointed by president trump wrote this decision because he wrote in favor of gay rights in favor transgender rights but it's not a complete surprise you have to remember that justice Gorsuch clerked for justice Kennedy in another major decision the court refused to take a case from opponents of California's sanctuary state law Levinson tells us that's less of a surprise cream court takes a very small percentage of the petitions that are filed before them they certainly have taken their fair share of hot button issues this term and we never know exactly why they're declining cases only justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito voted to hear the administration's appeal family and friends of a black man found hanging from a tree in Palmdale are demanding answers about his death sure valid via way of us said to talk about the case later this morning they're not buying what sheriff's officials have said that Robert fuller's death appears to have been a suicide given the current climate with protests over police brutality and systemic racism some fear that something far more ominous took place dozens gathered for a March in Palmdale over the weekend this man told CBS
Wisconsin governor suspends in-person voting for primary
"Brand well because of current virus Wisconsin governor Tony Evers has suspended in person voting in tomorrow's presidential primary he's a Democrat and his order comes after nearly a week of back and forth with Republicans in the state legislature there they rejected a request from the governor to postpone the primary like other states have meanwhile the Supreme Court is weighing a lower court judge's order to extend Wisconsin's deadline to submit absentee ballots Jessica Levinson is here to talk about all this with us she's a law professor at Loyola law school in a regular legal legal hello hello well let's begin with even order it postpones in person voting and he did that unilaterally does he have the authority to do that I'm gonna give you everybody's least favorite law professor answer we're not sure and I actually think we're gonna be saying that a lot over the next few months I mean there's going to be a big issue of trying to secure elections and protect elections in the time of a global pandemic and so does the governor have the power to unilaterally change the election date spent a lot of I've been back in Wisconsin about that I hate to say it but we'll know when a judge rules on whether or not that's permissible right and Republicans have resisted that why have they resisted postponing in person voting right so there's no question that legally speaking if the Republican controlled legislature had decided that yes we will postpone the date of the election that that would have been permissible that they as a state as the representatives of the state could have done that what they've said is that we can't postpone for a couple reasons one they said it's not just the presidential primary that's on the ballot it's also a lot of state and local races and we don't want those to stand vacant now Inc in the governor's executive order he said they don't have to stand vacant I'm just going to extend the terms of the state and local officials what the Republicans have also said is that they don't want this huge change an influx of vote by mail because they're worried about issues of fraud and essentially that the election would lack integrity I think all of us frankly the studies on that indicate that those aren't real fears that we don't have to worry about voter fraud date what's much a much bigger worry is making sure that everybody who wants to vote actually camp out right and so along those lines there's also this dispute over absentee ballots a federal judge extended the deadline in Wisconsin and that was upheld by the federal by a federal appeals court but now the Republicans have appealed to the US Supreme Court what's going on there with the absentee ballot dispute yeah what's going on there is there's two parallel tracks one there's a legal track that we were just talking about which is this argument by Republican lawmakers that it really infringes on the integrity of the election to do things like increase vote by mail or route increase the amount of time that you would have to return your ballot and that's kind of the legal argument that's going up and back the second track is really a political one where for Democrats it's better if there's more time if more people show up for Republicans it's really a big game if we don't count those vote by mail if we don't extend the time there's a really big judicial action in the Wisconsin Supreme Court Republicans have I believe the reporting is openly said you know it might have been actually better to have the selection when it's a lower turnout so we're sure we can keep that particular seat this is really a preview of I think a lot of what we might see in the fall these parallel tract arguments on the one hand legal on the other hand political okay let's turn to another story in the news right now in the midst of this huge pandemic at least six conservative states of trying to restrict access to abortion a federal District Court judges blocks nearly all of those orders but not in Texas the fifth circuit court of appeals left aligned Texas go into a fact on a temporary basis so I know a lot of states are saying no to elective medical procedures right now but there seems to be at a time difference here rate when it comes to having an abortion is not considered an elective procedure but not by the American college of obstetricians and gynecologists in so it's gonna feel like deja vu all over again from about forty five seconds ago but what we're seeing in this case is also two different arguments one is the legal argument of whether or not you can basically prohibit and or postpone these abortions the other is really the political argument a lot of Republican controlled states trying to restrict access to an abortion so you know to your question is this really an elective procedure no it really my understanding is medically is not considered an elective procedure and of course there is a much different timeline when it comes to an abortion at a certain point out you've waited so long that it might be for instance illegal under the state's loss to happen abortion in so this brings up again this kind of Wu Ming fight at the Supreme Court at some point we'll have to take up about the contours of abortion rights what grounds on what grounds did the court of appeals let the Texas law go into effect yes so what the Texas court said and as you said this was really an out liar decision every other federal court that's taken the sap has said no you can't implement these types of prohibitions or restrictions Texas court said as the state has the power to do that looking at the states broad police powers to do things like limit the number of elective procedures you have to do other things like we talk about all the time like closing restaurants cook closing schools that it would fall within that power so I think the conservative fifth circuit really kind of went out on a limb and frankly I don't think the ruling is consistent with the current standard they Casey versus Planned Parenthood distinct standard so do you think the Supreme Court will take this one up when it convenes at when and if it reconvenes physically and or virtually it you know it depends on how long this particular prohibition is in place but I think it's gonna be really hard for the court to avoid this they may try and issue some very short opinion which basically says this isn't consistent with our current standard and then wait for a bigger case to come before them to really make the decision about whether or not states can essentially say there's an emergency exception to the current standard that there's an emergency
California - Juvenile hall officer has coronavirus, 21 youths quarantined
"Four more than twenty young people at a juvenile hall in Sylmar being quarantines after an LA county probation officer tested positive for covert nineteen yes there is a positive person staff person who works at probation Dr Barbara Ferrer is the county's public health director there might have been exposures are to young people and we're checking on whether or not there's any need for us to do more detailed investigations in any institutional settings the probation department says in a statement the twenty one young people are in quarantine and being closely monitored but have not shown any symptoms of the virus elevated cleaning of the entire housing unit is taking place to reduce any chance of additional exposure to youth and stuff cement the Buckingham the director of Loyola law school's juvenile justice clinic says she believes the probation department should release as many kids as safely possible really hard to social Boston if the Saudis they just weren't buckled fall for that and the attendance at the facilities of multiples of this form often involves isolation extreme isolation charge which is also really try the probation department said in a statement last month that it was working with the courts and legal partners on methods to safely reduce the juvenile
Barr faces "crisis of confidence" inside Department of Justice
"Today a group of federal judges held an emergency meeting to discuss Attorney General bill bars actions in a couple of high profile political cases cases involving Roger stone and Michael Flynn and on Sunday some twelve two thousand former federal prosecutors and DOJ officials released an open letter demanding that bar step down they admit that that's unlikely and so they're urging their colleagues in the justice department to report any suspected wrongdoing to the inspector general Jessica Levinson's here to talk about this crisis of confidence in the justice department she's a law professor at Loyola law school and a regular legal legal welcome hello well even though bill Barr complained about trump's tweeting he still added just today he tweeted that Roger stone deserves a new trial and that he might sue the people who prosecuted him how can he sue federal prosecutors this is such a weird law school hypothetical I mean I saw that and I thought wow this brings up so many issues let's start at the beginning which is this is not something we typically talk about this is I know this is an over used word but this really is unprecedented to think of a part of the federal government suing another part of the in federal government I think the short answer is this is unlikely to happen it's just a threat I think the longer answer is you have to look at how the federal government is structured how there's different divisions of the government and there's some independence between them but it would be really just in terms of constitutional design statutory framework and lack of any cause of action would be really challenging for the president to do sue these prosecutors I think this thread is more about the threat than an actual legal case right and so why would he keep tweeting about this after bar himself said stop doing this this is interfering with his ability to run the department well one I think the president has shown himself over the years to be an avid tweeter and stopping really for no one and no advice so I'm don't think that the fact that the Attorney General said this is making my job harder really moves the president into silence the other thing I would say about that and public disclosure by Attorney General Barr saying you know these tweets make it harder for me and kind of company putting its thumb on the scale and saying I wish the present when do that in a way it gives him some cover and he can say look I'm a crow I'm still a credible person I'm still who you thought I was going to be before I took this job and see I've openly criticize the president so I think actually that public criticism might give him a little more room to frankly do what he was already doing which is make decisions that are favorable for the present United States well let's talk a little bit more about the stone case he's asking for a re trial and someone who identified herself as the jury forewoman of said she can't stay silent anymore she said this on Facebook and she expressed support for the prosecutors who resigned on math last week after bill bar over turned their sentencing recommendation I her name is to make a hard on she was a one time congressional kept the candidate democratic congressional candidate and Tennessee so is this case complicated by her admission and her democratic party affiliation only politically speaking so if you think about members of the jury chances are really high almost everybody is going to have a political affiliation I mean the assumption behind the criticism of her is it your political affiliation is the most important thing you have when it comes to you viewing a legal case particularly political charge legal case so I do think it's important for us to take issue with that it's not always the case that Republicans will vote a certain way or Democrats with another way more to the point this is something that would have been revealed on a jury questionnaire a lot of your listeners are probably gone through jury service they go through a process of why dear they have to reveal where they work who they live with a lot of information there asked if they can do an impartial job if they can apply the facts to the law the fact that she saying I'm frustrated after the jury has already rendered its verdict I don't think undermines its verdict it certainly gives everyone have a political headache but she's not saying I wasn't able to impartially do justice I wasn't able to apply the facts of this case the law right so the judge says the sentencing will go ahead as planned on Thursday given everything that's happened what are you going to be looking for in the sentencing well I think I'm looking for what everybody else is looking for which is which range of that sentence will she be giving down so federal judges have enormous discretion she can decide to high fiber understand if she wants to she is not going to do that she can decide to give him a very heavy sentence I think the question will be will she do something within the original request by the federal prosecutors which was I believe seven to nine years or will she do something closer to what I was the second request by the federal prosecutor something much more lenient I think judge Jackson has that shown as much impartiality she possibly can and my guess is she's going to do something that is out well within the suggested guidelines okay so there's this group of federal judges holding an emergency meeting on this and fertile has that ever happened before not that I'm aware of federal judges tend to not like to do this type of thing they're small see conservative and I know we use this word before but it really is unprecedented to have a group of federal judges say there's something so important there something we're so worried about the we can't wait to our next conference because they do have regular conference but we don't know exactly what they discussed or what they talked about what could they possibly do besides wring their hands well I I think that's getting they'll wring their hands the wash their hands they'll they'll do some jazz hands no federal judges would never do that so you know I think frankly the act of calling the meeting itself is perhaps even more significant than whatever would come out of the meeting the fact that this is a association voluntary association of judges who are dedicated to the independence of independence of the judiciary to public and educational outreach explaining to people what judges do the fact that they're so alarmed in and of itself is useful what could they do they can do more educational outreach they don't want to get too involved in any of the politics of this for the reason that they're all lifetime appointees this is a group of all article three judges and the whole purpose behind lifetime appointment is that they stay out of politics so I would look to them to do something that looks like it's about education about out reach about explaining what they do and why it's important that they're independent alright and then you've got these former justice department officials many of them former prosecutors who served in both Republican and democratic administrations signing this letter calling on bar to resign and then they had met in the letter that is how not gonna do that but what kind of pressure could this letter put on bar well my guess is frankly not that much because I don't think that he's someone who susceptible to this type of pressure if we sorry what Attorney General Barr has done you beginning with the Muller report where he came out very quickly with his own summary summary that was in fact question by Robert Muller himself where we've seen what he's done and sad about the Michael Flynn case to Roger stone case I don't think he's someone who feels particularly awkward about this it is important that all these former federal prosecutors career attorneys who have dedicated themselves to public service have decided to come out on the record and say they're something that troubles us about the independence of the department of justice about the actions the Attorney General still is important to go on record about these
Trump Praises Barr ahead of Stone's sentencing
"President trump praised Attorney General William Barr for taking charge of the case against his top longtime confidante Roger stone while also saying this about the prosecutors who tried the case treated Roger stone very badly they traded everybody very badly it was after the highly unusual accidents of all four members of the prosecution team I head of stone sentencing CBS's Catherine Herridge his conviction is for serious offenses and the justice department feels on incarceration of seven to nine years was excessive but I think it's noteworthy that they're now saying we're leaving this up to the discretion of the judge in this case that happens next Thursday Loyola law schools Jessica Levin said it's important the department of justice not look like it is just an extension of the administration it is a political arm so what does it mean for the future I hope it's just a blip and that this is not precedent setting CBS news update all math
Theranos Trial's Judge Narrows Case Against Founder Elizabeth Holmes
"Prosecutors say Elizabeth homes allegedly defrauded doctors are customers who use their nose blood test that did not work as advertised a judge this week dismissed some of those charges because the tests were paid for by their insurance companies not by individuals he still faces wire fraud charges though Laurie Levenson is a professor of criminal law at Loyola law school it's always a victory when you get some charges thrown out but she didn't get all the charges thrown out and she is still facing felony federal charges where she could face many years in prison if she is convicted the case has gained national attention because Levinson says this was a healthcare company that sword because they claim to have revolutionized the blood testing you have somebody who had such a significant company everyone was paying attention the vice president was coming to see here and then it when all bust when it was founded on that her blood testing devices were a sham Holmes trial is set to begin in San Jose in August carried a sack
What Happens When A President Is Impeached?
"My name is evey. Im seven years. Old I live in Downers Grove Illinois. I my question is what happens when presidents get impeached. Have you been hearing about impeachment. It's been in the news because the US President Donald Trump trump has been impeached. And there's been a lot of news and conversation about whether he did something so bad that he should no longer be the US president as we're putting this this podcast episode out the trial to decide that is still going on. We thought you might appreciate having a little bit. More of an understanding of what impeachment actually is is how it works and when it has happened before in. US history so we called up. Jessica Levinson to help us with this. She's a professor or a teacher. Sure of law at Loyola Law School in California so she teaches people how to become lawyers. She also focuses on politics and government in her work so she looks at the rules around elections and she looks at government ethics. How people should behave in government so she really knows what's going on when it comes to impeachment? Here's Eve these question again. What happens when presidents get impeached? So impeachment is basically a way of removing one of our leaders in government. We have a couple of ways to remove people from their jobs so they don't get to keep doing what they already do and one of them is through elections and we can choose to vote somebody out of their current position. We can choose to say you. Don't get to keep your job. Somebody else's going to do your job now and we could also also decide to use a process called impeachment which means that people will basically decide. You did something. That is really bad in really problematic attic and that it's so bad that we might have to remove you from your job Before the next vote before the next election and so so. That's that's basically. What impeachment is a way so that people don't get to keep doing their job because they did something pretty? Bad impeachment is a process that was written into into our Constitution. The constitution is the document that was created to lay out the fundamental rules of what the United States was going to be. Here's our other guests to help explain lane the history. I am candidacy Davis. The author of don't know much about history. Impeachment is simply a term that was adopted by the men who drafted and wrote the United States constitution in seventeen eighty seven and the word comes from an old English term for how to remove an official if he somehow did something that was wrong. Corrupt criminal unethical ethical or some other form of needing to be removed. And so this was an idea that was important to the founders of with the country because they were getting a great deal of power to one man in particular the president does they finally decided on it as well as other federal officials and is important to remember. That impeachment isn't only for president. It's also for other high-ranking federal officials officials who might have to be removed from office including federal judges because our presidential elections only happen every four years the men who wrote the US Constitution thought there needed to be away to remove the president in between elections. If he had done something so wrong that he shouldn't be president anymore even before for an election happened. And I'm saying he here instead of he and she or her because back in the seventeen hundreds the founders couldn't imagine that a president or a judge judge or a person in that kind of power would be a woman one of the most important things about a democracy where the people choose their leaders is just that that the people choose so it needs to be a really big deal for a president to be removed from office by other elected officials instead of by the voters in an the election so the writers of the Constitution created rules around win and how a president can be impeached. The House of Representatives can bring bring charges against the president when they think he has done something wrong if a majority more than half of the members of the house votes to bring those charges to trial then a president has been impeached. That has happened three times so far in. US history and that's what happened to the current president. Donald Trump Andrew through Johnson in eighteen sixty eight was the first president to be impeached. The second one was Bill Clinton in nineteen ninety eight so it was more than a hundred thirty years between the first two impeachments Bill Clinton Andrew. Johnson were not removed from office now. There was one other career impeachment in that time. Richard M Nixon who was the president elected in nineteen sixty eight resigned from the office in Nineteen eighteen seventy four because he was going to be impeached and it was quite certain that he was going to be removed from office because of what he had done. In what we now know as Watergate so impeachment is pretty rare but it also might be a little confusing because being impeached. Doesn't doesn't mean that you're no longer. The president. Being impeached is kind of like being accused of doing something wrong. Here's how Jessica Levinson describes it just because because that first group of people the House of Representatives decides to impeach you nothing actually happens to president it might be that it's really embarrassing Maybe the people who don't like what happened. Use this against you. Think about something that happens at school where somebody does something. Like take a marker that wasn't theirs if the teacher tells the whole class look at this person they took the marker that's really bad that's kind of like impeachment if nothing thing happens other than the teacher just saying that's really bad but it's really what happens next which is called a trial in the Senate where you might be able to lose your job. The trial in the Senate is kind of like if the teacher says. That's so bad that you don't get to use markers for the rest of the day and so there's this consequences to that so it's up to the Senate to hold a trial and if enough of them. Two thirds agree that the president should be removed only then then what a president have to step down and that has so far never happened in. US history
"loyola law school" Discussed on KCBS All News
"By Giuliani's conduct regarding Ukraine they reported their concerns to an S. C. attorneys for a look at the legal side of things were joined live on the KCBS ring central news line by Laurie Levenson a professor at Loyola law school in Los Angeles thank you for talking to us tonight right click here when Rudy Giuliani's actions as personal attorney to president trump make their way into the national security arena are there any laws being broken or bent there Patty there are so many laws that could have been violated that it is certainly worth investigating I just took a look at this we have something called the Logan act which makes it illegal for a private citizen without authorization to get involved in these types the controversies with foreign powers now maybe Giuliani's gonna try to say that he's authorized but the private individual not a member of the government service and even if he gets out of that one there's something called the foreign corrupt practices act which makes it illegal to apply for an official then we have the actions to try to create some type of support for another politician whether it's a gift or something of value in other words lots of federal crimes that could apply but we don't know if they applied quite yet by way of a perspective these issues that you've raised how frequently have they come up in recent years well frankly the Logan act never been actually use the prosecutor although it's often mention but something called the Hobbs act which is an anti extortion act with is that all the time here we also have the foreign corrupt practices act now this case stamp on the song because it involves the White House and the president but the actual violations are not back now see can't say I was working for the president of the United States and exert privilege and and say that somehow the laws don't apply to him because of that the novel argument now we're seeing arguments that anybody who works for the White House is in Munich that's not appearing once in awhile before I do expect that there will be an argument that Giuliani was working under the direction of the president but the irony is right now the president is saying that nobody made a quid pro quo on my behalf and so there's some inconsistency there and how they're treating chili on could you we only get disbarred ultimately for all those so it's really only were convicted he would be subject being described could think they're serious crimes but even if you're not contracted if there's a violation of its moral ethics code I could subject him to discipline as well always appreciate your time more Levinson professor at Loyola law school in.
"loyola law school" Discussed on KCRW
"This is pressed play on KCRW I'm Madeline bramble Jeffrey up scene was facing sex trafficking charges so what happens now to that case it's Monday so that means just coincidence here she's a law professor at Loyola law school and our regular legal eagle here impressed by hi hi well prosecutors say they will continue to prove to pursue this right so having to do that well not against Jeffrey apps obviously so there is the potential of conspiracy charges which means conspiracy charges against co conspirator so the reason that prosecutors to put out a statement saying look if you're a victim we still want you to come forward we still want you to bring us information is because that could help to the extent that there's any one else who could be charged for related crimes essentially aiding and abetting what Jeffrey abstain was doing to someone like Elaine Maxwell who's been accused of being his madam exactly now there is a big question mark over that because if they had enough evidence about any of those co conspirators why did they wait why didn't we seen indictment prior to that so I think there's maybe some hope by prosecutors that one now that people one have any fear of retribution because abstinence died maybe more people come forward maybe they'll feel like we have to get justice in some way but that's the only way that a criminal case could go for right and so is there any way that the prosecution can now get any kind of evidence or communication between that happened between abstain and his lawyers so the attorney client privilege survives the death and so probably not with some exceptions I mean courts have allowed you to have a loud attorneys to provide information for instance if it's needed for a will contest or to prove what you meant in your trust but I don't think that that's likely what's likely is that there is evidence that was in a grand jury there's evidence that I think is subject to FOIA requests I don't know that the public will ever see all of the evidence that was going to be put forward in this case but there are other cases there are civil cases I'm have already started against Jeffrey up steam for instance for defamation there could be civil cases against as a state that's why some attorneys have said the state don't pay everybody out please freeze the assets because people might train get some vindication that way Brian we don't even know what his assets are everything has been shrouded in mystery we don't know but that could be a way to find out which is if there's money there it might ultimately have to be paid to some victims alright let's turn to another story now conservative activist group called judicial watch is suing California over its brand new law that requires at least one woman to sit on corporate boards of publicly traded companies that are headquartered here in California this is a first in the nation law I believe and so in the loss of this group is saying that using taxpayer money to enforce this law is illegal how is it illegal under their argument so first in the nation but not first in the world this at why was actually modeled after some loss in the European Union and so what they're saying is they basically have to say taxpayer dollars were misused because it's a taxpayer suing so that's the way they have standing essentially to say like here's a person who's hurt this is the right person to walk into court their argument boils down to this violates the equal protection clause because you're treating women different from men and essentially creating a different category and quota to ensure that a certain number of women will sit on these boards and what they're saying is the equal protection clause it doesn't just protect minorities it doesn't just protect women it goes both ways that says treat people equally how is this different from affirmative action so it in some ways it looks a lot like affirmative action affirmative action in the way that we've understood it when it comes to friends into universities or colleges is different in the sense that you don't really have these strict quotas or you get get a fine by the state government instead what it allows is for colleges and universities to have as one factor of their admissions process increasing diversity of the campus but certainly this has been hotly debated their other legal issues dealing with essentially whether or not the government can reach into private corporations even if they're publicly traded and if there's a corporation's code issue here in the sense can you reach in and say you are forced to have these people on your board if forced to have certain gender diversity on your board or else you face a fine now of course but they're all sorts of things that corporations are forced to do like it here to environmental laws minimum wage laws all sorts of labor laws so pay taxes now yes so the question when it comes to the government basically forcing private actors to do anything is whether or not when we're kind of balancing like government power versus private power is there a good reason to do it and is there any statute in place which would say the private corporation has essentially free reign over this like you as a private corporation are publicly traded corporation you've to pay taxes you have to give a certain amount of leave for people to care for either infants are so sick family members but you have control over who's on your board we don't tell you that that's part of the question here okay and finally California's effort to automate voter registration through the DMV the motor voter law is facing yet another scandal the LA times reporting that DMV offices produce more than eighty thousand duplicate records and that there were something like two hundred thousand documents with mistakes on them how did this happen oops is so well let's take a step back and say why do we have this law at all so where you have a lot of states in the nation that are kind of pulling back on voting rights saying we're going to reduce early voting we're not gonna have as many voting centers we're going to increase requirements like say the you need a voter ID in California were doing the opposite and we've been doing that for quite a while we were trying to essentially drac almost drag people to the polls in the this law is about automatically registering people to vote so that when you get your ID card from the DMV for your driver's license you have to opt out in order to not be registered to vote which of course means you're much more likely to be registered right and we also allow for pre registration when you're sixteen and seventeen and so the idea is well let's just make it simple you're already a San having an interaction with the state government so when you go in there why have this whole extra staff now the problems have obviously been numerous John Myers from the LA times has been reporting on this in great detail and essentially it sounds like the infrastructure just wasn't in place that there were too many different state agencies trying to talk to each other but talking in different languages and being in silos that didn't interact and so we have a situation where there were duplicate registrations where there were errors and registrations regarding party preference okay but nothing that can't be fixed nothing that can't be fixed and I think the key takeaway is absolutely no evidence that this made its way to the voter rolls and no evidence that this affected anyone's vote that anybody voted twice that there's any voter fraud okay thank you for that clarification just Levinson law professor at Loyola law school and our regular Monday legal legal here on press play thank you.
"loyola law school" Discussed on WHAS 840 AM
"Loyola law school in Los Angeles and says he embodied the court what it stood for Stevens is going to be looked at as sort of in the old fashion model of a Supreme Court justice who served out many decades was completely dedicated to public service and went out there even after he left the court full time and sent the message that people should follow the constitution that were in an era where rule of law is more important now than ever from there we had to Capitol Hill where the house of representatives passed a resolution condemning the president's tweets about four democratic house members the measure passed the democratic controlled house along party lines to forty to one eighty seven only four Republicans voted in favor of the resolution on Sunday the president roh did for democratic Congress woman of color should go back to where they came from they're all American citizens CBS news chief congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes fills them the Republicans who voted yes not all that surprising congressman heard of Texas has been very vocal the past couple of days he said point blank that the president's comments were racist and xenophobic and that he believes that that kind of language is going to hurt the Republican Party if it isn't hurting the party already and if you're a sprint customer your data was probably hacked the sprint customers learning their accounts are compromised to the Samsung website a report on ZD net says sprint sent letters to affected customers telling them about the breach that was found last month sprint confirming the breach saying credit card and social security numbers were not compromise because they're encrypted sprint telling customers they're not a sub your risk of becoming identity theft victims and says that it reset customers pin codes to make sure accounts are secure your next news update coming at six thirty I'm will Clark news radio eight forty WHAS Kentucky as breaking news weather and traffic station call me crazy but one of the things I think that this kind of protected.
"loyola law school" Discussed on NewsRadio 1020 KDKA
"Thirty. Hi, Paul Rasmussen. Two men are in critical condition after an accident on route fifty one a car left the road and hit the side of a building on fifty one near Woodruff screen around three thirty a m the driver and a passenger were rescued from the wreckage third person, they say was also taken to a hospital. A man was killed in a motorcycle accident on the Parkway north overnight state police say twenty eight year old Douglas regret of Wexford loss control of recycle near the I seventy nine to seventy nine split around one. A m regret was thrown from the bike and went over the guardrail. Three firefighters were injured Wednesday at the scene of a seven alarm fire at a warehouse in China. It happened at the store express facility on Hafner avenue. Katie k ATV's Lindsey ward has the latest could be literally days before people are allowed to go. Check on their cars and other valuables stored inside. This large warehouse did has two floors the ground floor was used for items such as household goods and construction materials the second floor, which. Unfortunately, partially collapsed house more than one hundred fifty vehicles and motorcycles, some considered antiques and extremely valuable fire. Marshall is investigating the cause of this fire. And also why the alarm failed to activate and the sprinkler system. Malfunctioned police have arrested a suspect in the fatal shooting of a tattoo artist. Install township early Wednesday. It happened inside a home on McKinney avenue. Authorities say twenty five year old tariffs. Murphy pulled out a gun in fired several shots after getting a tattoo. The unidentified thirty one year old victim died a short time later at a hospital. Police arrested Murphy last night at a home in amber beaver county, and he is being charged with criminal homicide. North Korea is launching missiles, again, this is the second time in less than a week that North Korea has conducted launches this time. It was two separate short range missiles fired moments apart a US on voi- is currently in Seoul, South Korea. Trying to move forward than ago, she ASICs with peon Yang North Korea showing. More frustration over the impasse in the nuclear talks. CBS Cami McCormick at the Pentagon, the legal battle between House Democrats and the Trump administration entered a new phase with the judiciary committee voting Wednesday afternoon to hold attorney general billion bar in contempt of congress. What's next Loyola Law School, professor Laurie Levenson after full of the house? The next step would frankly be to go to the courts and ask the courts to enforce the contempt order either by civil contempt or if there's compliance even possibly criminal contempt dispute over access to the special counsels Russia report, President Donald Trump invoked the principle of executive privilege for the first time police are reportedly about to make some arrests in last month's shooting at monroeville mall DA Stevens have Hal talked with Katie K ATV between monroeville the mall. Our cameras, we know who's responsible. So we'll take care of that shortly. We know where they're from. We get we understand why they did what they did to groups of men got into an altercation inside the mall, one group left the building. And then almost a dozen shots were fired toward the entrance of macysbackstage windows and glass doors were shattered. But no one was injured in sports Texas rallied past the pirates on Wednesday afternoon. Jim colony.
"loyola law school" Discussed on KCRW
"Tomorrow. The supreme court will hear arguments in one of the biggest cases of the year. Whether the Trump administration can add a question about citizenship to next year census. There are big stakes including the number of seats each state gets in congress. It's monday. So that means one thing only the legal eagle is here. Jessica Levinson law professor at Leyla Lasco high high. All right. So what's the argument there by the Trump administration? What are they saying? Why do they think questioned on citizenship is necessary? So what the Trump administration is saying is we talked to the department of Justice. And they said that knowing how many citizens are in the country is going to help us enforce the Voting Rights Act, and critics have said actually we've been enforcing the Voting Rights Act for seventy years without that question, which was last time in nineteen fifty when we asked the question about citizenship. Critics have also said that the idea that you need that citizenship information. To enforce the Voting Rights Act is undercut by when the department of Justice, frankly, said that might be helpful that this looks like a pretext for secretary Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary who really wanted to add this question, right? Okay. Let's get to him in just a sec. But just let's note that a bunch of states, including California, they're challenging this. Yes. So it will surprise everybody to know that this question has essentially lined blue states against red states. And the reason is as he said in the introduction, the two most important things that states can get from the federal government, basically money and people and by people we mean, how many members of congress, do you get and depending on how many people you count in a census that depends on how much federal funding you get how many members of congress. You get. Well, you know, it's interesting that you say that it's the blue-state red red-state thing because I would think Texas would also be interested in this because they have a big population of immigrants and. Undocumented immigrants. Yes. That is absolutely true. But I would say the areas where there's the greatest worry about under counting or the immigrant heavy districts, which typically are urban areas in democratic localities. And so what we have is on the one hand it looks like it's a partisan question. Democrats do not want you to add the citizenship question. Republicans do but then on the other hand it actually brings up questions about executive authority in the sense of does a federal agency the Commerce Department have the power to ask this question to the census. And can they do it in this way, and some conservatives and Republicans don't necessarily like that broad discretion by federal authorities? Well, let's talk about the Commerce Department now that you brought it up and we'll be Ross. So he's at the center of this dispute. The sort of a two part question the supreme court is answering one of which involves him and what a lower court found wore his Veritas. Able smorgasbord that is the quote of legal violations to get this question on the census in the first place. Yes. So one of the questions that the court is going to look at is basically Wilbur Ross whether or not he was lying when he said that the department of Justice told them there will be helpful to add this question about citizenship. And what are the questions? The lower courts doubt. With was could you basically take his deposition and ask him retelling the truth? How can it possibly be that you said that part of Justice said this would be useful question when we know there's evidence that you were thinking about wanting to include this question much earlier than those discussions with department of Justice. So basically, he kind of prodded the Justice department to say that it sounds like there was some reverse engineering happening where he was going to get cover for what he really wanted to do and say, but look the department of Justice said, it's really helpful to have this information for the Voting Rights Act when he had frankly one. Already made the decision. He wanted to add the question and to it's not at all clear, why that would be so helpful to enforcing the Voting Rights Act. When again, we've enforce it for seventy years without that information. So if the court finds that he was disingenuous what does that mean for the broader question of whether this question can be on the census? Well, it it basically answer two questions if he was disingenuous than it might mean going forward that you could take a deposition by somebody like Wilbur Ross, meaning a sec the secretary of commerce another cabinet level secretary and go outside and administrative record and two if he really was being disingenuous it may look like this big decision to add this isn't ship. Question was done arbitrarily. It was done without the proper study. And therefore it violated a federal law and potentially the constitution as well. And so therefore, no question and therefore no question for you. And the court has to decide quickly. Because the census questionnaires have to be printed in June. Oh my gosh. So time is of the time is of the essence we have about a month. Yes. So they're going to hear the case on Tuesday decision really should come out mid June. If they want to be at all helpful end of June. If they want to be not super helpful to the census bureau. Okay. Let's move on the court also said that they're going to take this case about whether people who ID as LGBT can be protected by anti-discrimination laws. This is one of the big questions. This left open. I think by particularly the same sex marriage decision a couple of years ago where there was this kind of macabre joke that you get to get married on Sunday night. And then go into office Monday morning, and you could be fired because technically under federal law. An employment discrimination laws LGBT status does not protect you. And there's currently a circuit split as to whether or not you are protected based on your sexual identity or your gender identity. There are state laws it in especially here in California that protect you. Absolutely. So federal on the federal level. It's an open question as to whether or not the federal law protects against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, there is not uniformity and the supreme court has to resolve that they have to tell us whether or not the federal prohibition against employment discrimination applies to people based on sexual orientation, and they're gonna take that up in the fall. Right. That's for next arm. That is not of this term case. All right. Well, thank you very much. Thank you just sent law professor at Loyola Law School and a regular legal legal. Coming up changing the narrative around migration that is the big issue that.
"loyola law school" Discussed on KCRW
"Brand tomorrow. The supreme court will hear arguments in one of the biggest cases of the year. Whether the Trump administration can add a question about citizenship to next year census. There are big stakes including the number of seats each state gets in congress. It's monday. So that means one thing only the legal eagle is here. Jessica Levinson law professor at Leyla Lasco high high. All right. So what's the argument there by the Trump administration? What are they saying? Why do they think questioned on citizenship is necessary? So what the Trump administration is saying is we talked to the department of Justice. And they said that knowing how many citizens are in the country is going to help us enforce the Voting Rights Act, and critics have said actually we've been enforcing the Voting Rights Act for seventy years without that question, which was last time in nineteen fifty when we asked the question about citizenship. Critics have also said that the idea that you need that citizenship information to enforce. The Voting Rights Act is undercut by when the department of Justice, frankly, said that might be helpful that this looks like a pretext for secretary Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary who really wanted to add this question, right? Okay. Let's get to him in just a sec. But just let's note that a bunch of states, including California, they're challenging this. Yes. So it will surprise everybody to know that this question has essentially lined blue states against red states. And the reason is as he said an introduction, the two most important things that states can get from the federal government, basically money and people and by people we mean, how many members of congress, do you get and depending on how many people you count in a census that depends on how much federal funding you get how many members of congress. You get. Well, you know, it's interesting that you say that it's a blue state red-state thing because I would think Texas would also be interested in this because they have a big population of immigrants and undocking. Rented immigrants. Yes. That is absolutely true. But I would say the areas where there's the greatest worry about under counting or the immigrant heavy districts, which typically are urban areas in democratic localities. And so what we have is on the one hand it looks like it's a partisan question. Democrats do not want you to add this is Chicago Republicans do but then on the other hand it actually brings up questions about executive authority in the sense of does a federal agency the Commerce Department have the power to ask this question to the census. And can they do it in this way, and some conservatives and Republicans don't necessarily like that broad discretion by federal authorities? Well, let's talk about the Commerce Department now that you brought it up and Wilbur Ross. So he's at the center of this dispute. This sort of a two part question the supreme court is answering one of which involves him. And what a lower court found were his VERA. Label smorgasbord that is the quote of legal violations to get this question on the census in the first place. Yes. So one of the questions that the court is going to look at is basically Wilbur Ross whether or not he was lying when he said that the department of Justice told them there will be helpful to add this question about citizenship. And what are the questions the lower courts doubt? With was could you basically take his deposition and ask him were you telling the truth? How can it possibly be that you said that part of Justice said this would be useful question when we know there's evidence that you were thinking about wanting to include this question much earlier than those discussions with department Justice. So basically, he kind of prodded the Justice department to say that it sounds like there was some reverse engineering happening where he was going to get cover for what he really wanted to do and say, but look the department of Justice said, it's really helpful to have this information for the Voting Rights Act when he had frankly one. Already made the decision. He wanted to add the question and to it's not at all clear, why that would be so helpful to enforcing the Voting Rights Act. When again, we've enforce it for seventy years without that information. So if the court finds that he was disingenuous what does that mean for the broader question of whether this question can be on the census? Well, it it basically answer two questions if he was disingenuous than it might mean going forward that you could take a deposition by somebody like Wilbur Ross, meaning a a sec the secretary of commerce another cabinet level secretary and go outside and administrative record and two if he really was being disingenuous it may look like this big decision to addresses and ship. Question was done arbitrarily. It was done without the proper study. And therefore it violated a federal law and potentially the constitution as well. And so therefore, no question and therefore no question for you. And the court has to decide quick. Because the census questionnaires have to be printed in June. Oh my gosh. So time is of the essence is of the essence we have about a month. Yes. So they're going to hear the case on Tuesday decision really should come out mid June. If they want to be at all helpful end of June. If they want to be not super helpful to the census bureau. Okay. Let's move on the court also said that they're going to take up this case about whether people who ID as LGBT can be protected by anti-discrimination laws. This is one of the big questions. This left open. I think by particularly the same sex marriage decision a couple of years ago where there was this kind of macabre joke that you get to get married on Sunday night. And then go into the office Monday morning, and you could be fired because technically under federal law, an employment discrimination laws LGBT status does not protect you. And there's currently a circuit split as to whether or not you are protected based on your sex. Choua identity or your gender identity of there are state laws it in especially here in California that protect you. Absolutely. So federal on the federal level. It's an open question as to whether or not the federal law protects against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, there is not uniformity and the supreme court has to resolve that they have to tell us whether or not the federal prohibition against employment discrimination applies to people based on sexual orientation, and they're going to take that up in the fall. Right. That's for next that is not of this term case. All right. We'll thank you very much. Thank you just sent law professor at Loyola Law School and our regular legal. Coming up changing the narrative around migration that is the big issue that of that has marked and we'll Mark our times. And I think that we have to learn and relearn and constantly relearn. How to discuss it? The author of lost children archive and experimental novel next on press play. Good afternoon. I'm Eric Roy with a quick.
"loyola law school" Discussed on 790 KABC
"Pardons. There could be I mean, the best time to figure out whether or not there's going to be a pardon. Is you know, if you look at the poll, and you figure out where Donald Trump is. And who he's running again. I mean, I think the pardon is going to be a very political decision. And I think that what Donald Trump can say is. Well, look, Robert Muller found nothing. So of course, I'm gonna pardon. When it comes to this witch on now, of course, the truth is that in order to pardon people were talking about you'd have to undo jury verdicts and guilty pleas of separate wrongdoing that has been proven in federal court sounds like a nightmare too much work going back to eating. Again, you know what I mean? And you said it, basically, what's the political upside downside mother sitting in his jail cell reading the papers. I mean Manafort reading the papers everyday going come on come on get the Thai Turkey the tide turning here. Get me out of here. So you're right. There's no it is there's nothing significant unless there's a political win. We gotta run. But I thank you for coming on in a busy day. Jessica professor of law at Loyola Law School, former president in the Los Angeles ethics commission, of course. And the website is LS dot EDU. The Twitter at Levinson. Jessica have a great rest of your evening. And we'll talk again soon. I'm sure because they're legal issues. Galore every day. And when we come back I'll start with Joe north hills. And Tony who wanna talk about my question. Did you change your mind to this change anybody's mind? Anybody switched sides and be switch teams president looks like a victim disappoint. Are you? So celeb- celebratory. Are you depressed? I mean a lot of live. We've lived with us for a long time. Everyday feels weird sitting here. We're doing the show and Muller reports over and again if you have to laugh, and it's so sad. The poor guy who died who sat up in bed. And his last words were I can't believe I'm not going to see the all report. But by the way, if you've lived in another couple of weeks, you would have sat up and going really this is what I waited for eight hundred two two two five two two two six continues. Right after this. ABC's dependable traffic.
"loyola law school" Discussed on KGO 810
"In the conservative think tanks that are essentially driving judicial appointments. Okay. So you so you you see where this is happening in a way that probably to be fair, even you would admit this Trump, Donald Trump isn't so much connected with this. But he's farmed this out to an entire arm of administration, which is just concerned with populating the bench with more conservative judges. So this ninth circuit which again stood in the way of the administration's DACA ruling, which they got too early in their run they are a priority. And so there may be changes in that ninth circuit, and they may be adding judges and changing the consistency of the ninth circuit. So we're going to get into that next. If you have questions for Jessica Levinson. She is a magnificent guest. She's from Loyola Law School, and she's a terrific on on just these questions about how the texture of the judicial. System is changing under the Trump administration. It may be the greatest legacy that this administration Elise. And if you feel as though thing too liberal, then it's a good thing. If you feel as though things have been about where you want them to be and that the appellate process can oftentimes overturn these what you would consider unethical and immoral statutes. Well, then you don't wanna see these changes. We'll get into that. With Jessica Levinson next. Mark Thompson hair cagey. Oh, eight ten. Mark Thompson.
"loyola law school" Discussed on Reasonable Doubt
"Some point at some, you know, the I've always found remember the Arizona case, which are where I couldn't get it public. I mean, literally had to we did everything we went all the way to the super Arezzo supreme court to get the tape out. And so, you know, it's a it's it always depends on whose ox is getting gored. Right. So the the homeless person walks into the pharmacy the ride Ed or Walgreens, sorry, we're not sure by appearances whether they're homeless are not correct. As a kind of first problem. Are so not. I'm not sure how you would know just by looking if somebody is gay. I the one person who's apparently transexual I'm not so sure either that that would be something that would be immediately obvious. Well, the argument would be any kind of prior experience he had with this person. So obviously, if I'm kung FU fighting Carl Douglas over here, I'm going to try to prove that there are other interactions like this guy came in multiple times, he said, hey, homo hurry up or get outta here. We don't want you in here. So obviously he's gonna look for any kind of interaction 'cause one with thank well, this is your turf, this is this is your this is the area you work. Right. I'm assuming he'd come into this Walgreens more than once over the past five months. You would assume that and so Mr. kung FU fight? Is probably going to try to prove that he knew him. He was familiar with him probably make some sort of claim that he made some sort of slur or something like that and that will establish he knew he was gay. And he knew he was homeless, exactly. Good. Southie? Former prosecutor adjunct professor at Loyola Law School, who by the way, you did you met one of your other fellow professors at Christmas. One of the funniest thing ever see is when Adam is sitting at Christmas dinner talking with the with professor Goldman who is a loyal law school, professor currently Adam as just an adjunct if that remember stands reaction when I said, hey here stand he's an adjunct professor, and he got very upset. Like calling him Paul blurt ball. Copper something if you refer to John professor, I. Cracks me up because I've had to episodes now in the lock and Yatta area. One is is I was getting out of my car at the animal lumber and a guy. So my piano tuning sign on the side of my car windows, piano. Tune that I had to tell them. I don't really do that. He was confused. And then later on Garrod's is house talk to law school, professor about what department I represented explain why don't do that. Either. Next year. I'm going to have Pollock nations of Forber of retired Rear Admiral to those for Christmas, and you can make it the try factor yourself. So I'm guessing that if there is no priors in terms of interactions with your client and the deceased then he Carl Douglas is gonna have a hard time pinning the gay part onto this. And maybe even the homeless part of it. I is calls as a civil case. So he's gonna just ride shotgun. So to speak excuse the pun on the DA's office, which is prosecuting this and the DA's office will go to preliminary hearing preliminary hearing is just a determination as to whether those a strong suspicion of guilt. Basically, my my favorite line. Now is the the judge holds anybody to answer on a preliminary hearing as long as the client is breathing. And so then it forces you go to trial, and then you're you know, we'll be once. Get in front of a jury because I will predict that no judge we'll have the guts to dismiss this thing beforehand. And once again, another murder case that the citizens in a jury will have to tell the prosecution. No you overreach. Just like the case that we had last month. Yeah. With the man was not speaking a manslaughter. So that was my next question. Do they go for murder and knock it down to murder two or manslaughter? Whatever they go for sort of the brass ring..
"loyola law school" Discussed on KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO
"Will then lie in state overnight and into Wednesday morning. News special report, I'm Jim shanavie eleven thirty two continuing our in depth team coverage, former California. Democrat congressman Tony Ed quite low tells KNX he has worn memories of George H W Bush. He says the former president was the key figure in getting the Americans with disabilities. Act passed against strong opposition and says the two joked about it in later years wheelchair and I come rolling in and show. I'm usually went to him, and he was talking to somebody. And he saw me and his is good up and he reached out to me. And he said, so I signed the ADA here. I am. What he calls them a wonderful human being who did not worry about two parties and could work across the aisle low. He's the founder of the center for disability law here in Los Angeles. At Loyola Law School, former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says he was a frequent visitor to Camp David will George H W Bush was president of the United States. He tells ABC news the two sledding on a toboggan. They lost control Ryan into a Barbara Bush, breaking her leg, Mr Bush, then sending Schwarzenegger signed photo of them on that sled with a note saying Arnold, turn turn was exhausting because we were doing sports from wanting tonight, we will bring skeet and trap shooting and shoes throwing and working out with the weights and doing Wally ball, which is volleyball against the wall with the marines. The dad went on and on and the bowling and stuff. But at that moment the bid at night I was exhausted. That's all I can tell you. He says he considers Mr Bush, both the father figure and a mentor. The city of Beverly Hills settles a multimillion dollar lawsuit by a now retired police captain who alleges he was denied probate promotion and discriminated against on the basis of his faith and his age KNX ten seventy s p Dimitrios life overseas outside superior court in downtown LA. The two point three million dollars settlement came just before the case with captain Mark Rosen. The highest ranking Jewish officer on the on the Beverly Hills police department was about to go to trial alleged, racial and other discriminatory. Comments and religious comments against him. Had been made by chief Sandra, spike, Noli or the last two years Rosen said while he was personally satisfied he and other concerns about the settlement on a professional level..
"loyola law school" Discussed on KNX 1070 NEWSRADIO
"You're listening to a special edition of KNX indepth White House in crisis with Mike Simpson. I'm Charles Feldman coming up after news and traffic at the bottom of the hour. We'll continue all this with President Clinton's former White House press secretary. Now, we are waiting to hear from Anthony Scaramucci who is President Trump's former White House communications director, and as he gets with us. We will talk with him. But we are also here with STAN Goldman who is in the studio with us for the entire our constitutional and criminal law expert from Loyola Law School, STAN the president went on this rant last night. Saying that the source of this writing the anonymous writer of the op-ed piece for the New York Times ought to be handed over to the government. He didn't say it, but presumably for some sort of prosecution is there sort of a criminal offence here. I can't find one and the reality is although forty nine. States have some sort of reporter source privilege. The feds do not it's been debated back and forth. Sometimes the Republicans oppose it. During the Valerie flame incentive for years ago. It was the Republicans who wanted it wanted to have a privilege, so it's gone back and forth. Obama went after leaks and sources and tried to get reporters potentially locked up to give the information. But those all involve potentially criminal cases in which there was a criminal subpoena requesting the evidence of somebody who didn't have a privilege not to give it. What's the what's the a criminal leak here, that's taken place? It is the opinion of somebody in the side who has a first amendment right to speak. Their mind is just they've done it anonymously. He'd been does mention national security reasons, I think that was the the phrasing. What could those be is it look I was elected and people are impeding me in some way. And that's not good. It is not a basis for a violation of national security to reveal what the president thinks or does. Or is said or even how he has acted that is simply not national security. It might be in his stand bowl. But it isn't in DC. It might not be. In fact, it isn't practical. But if he wanted to the president could he clean house and just say, you know, I've had it everybody here is against me. And apparently, according to the Washington Post, he's been telling some of his friends that the only people he can trust. Now are his kids could he simply fire everybody lock stock and barrel. First thing I thought when this came out was well, if nobody comes forward why not just fire everyone the reality is he may give him some real problems get replacements through the Senate at this point. Would you have the underlings to it? And we have Anthony Scaramucci on the line with us now, President Trump's former White House communications director Anthony, thanks for being with us on the show. Again, we were just talking about does the president's clean house after this. Do we do you see firings in the future? I think it's very tough for him. Because e you know, cleaning house, he's got a lot of things on his plate economic things. National security things to very calm. Situation inside the White House. Yes, I was only there for short period of time. But when you when you get there, you understand the layers and the density of what's going on. The notion of just letting everybody go is a physical and mental impossibility. But but but what's really happened here is that the culture that was set up by Ryan's previous in the beginning. And end the baton was passed to John Kelly has been a toxic culture. So I said that repeatedly people have been set with me because people in Washington, don't like the truth. But you have a very toxic culture, and that's was emanating all of the infighting. That's emanating all the leaking. And now, we've got some clown. Some ego Centric, megalomaniac, all cowardice clown. That's writing this article where they think that they're saving the country. And but they're really just self-serving narcissist. Whatever they're calling the president their way worse. So to me, someone would quit say, it's not treason, and I understand you have, you know, a constitutional expert on or we could debate whether or not it's treason, but what it is. It is a breach of trust with the president of the United States. That offered you the opportunity of a lifetime to come work inside the White House in the people's house and served a nation and serve the nation's people. So somebody that was a patriot who doesn't like the president would get to a microphone and say, hey, listen, I don't like the guy I wanted to invoke the twenty fifth. Amendment here. The twenty six reasons why we can have that rigorous debate out in the open, Anthony classic, Washington, nastiness and various behavior. But if it's the case as you put it that the anonymous writer is is I think you said a clown. Then there were a lot of clowns at this particular circus because this is just one now of many accounts. Bob Woodward's forthcoming book. There was the other book that came out earlier in the Trump presidency. There are several accounts. Now, one after another that paint, a very similar picture of what it's like inside the Trump White House. Are they all wrong are they all lying? No. I didn't say that. So let's let's talk about front. Stabbing versus backstabbing. Okay. It's classic Washington behavior that they're running out to talk to Bob Woodward or they're writing anonymous letters. Let's let's do a little bit of front. Stabbing ear get to a microphone and now it's yourself. Tell the American nation who you are. Explain what your lives dependencies against the president. And then let's litigated this out in the open. He is the democratically elected president of the United States. He won the electoral college, which is a system that has been put in place for two hundred and forty two years or since eighteen hundred when John Adams want it, and so we've gone with that system, successfully it became one of the most powerful most benevolent nations in the world if you don't like the president's personality, you don't like his style. Whatever the characteristics are that are being lambasted in the article or in the book, let's have an open litigation. And so the reason why these people are clowns is because they're cowards. Okay. They're the type of people that the American people absolutely despise, and they are a representation of Washington. And the reason why half of America who has felt left out by the economic experience caused by globalisation voted this man into office. So. If you want to neglect all those people in the sixty two point eight million votes, and you want to operate Sarah tissue Asli inside the White House with your cabal, creating a quiet coup because you have some self righteous justification because you're an intellectual or an elitist, and you think you're better than everybody. And you think you're better than the system that was put in place by our founding fathers. Okay. You're the miscreant in the room. You should definitely be someone's press secretary. Matterease get through. Remember how I got fired. Okay. I got fired by the king of the establishment. I got I got fired by the guy. That's calling the president in idiot. I got fired by the guy that's part of this machinery. Okay. But if you're really that MC MC Gallo maniac hall, and you think you're more important than the system more important than the democratically elected president and more important than the process. Then you're the worst guy in the system. All right. Muzi President Trump's former communications director and ran our special edition of KNX in-depth continues. White House in crisis backlash and chain-reaction store..
"loyola law school" Discussed on KGO 810
"Phone from loyola law school we're talking about all these supreme court decisions i wanted to address this for just another moment with you which is the idea that we have i split circuits right so we on the idea of gender orientation that as of today you are not protected in this country if you're if you're gay that is not recognised lgbtq community is not actually protected and i think here the bubble of san francisco in particular but but the bubbling of california well we don't really grasp that that we you leave our state you're not necessarily protected from workplace from places of business discrimination it's a real thing in our country and the supreme court has decided not to protect you yes and so you can get married tomorrow and then fire the next day as a result of being gay and that's something that i think people don't understand and the path to quality has we have not crossed the finish line yet at all and again you can come you can get married on sunday go to work on monday say guess what boss i married my girlfriend boyfriend fill in the blank and that can be grounds for firing yeah it's a dark time this is why our votes matter i mean i'm i'm serious i've been like sad and depressed and teary eyed this morning with these decisions and now this afternoon as well but professor lemon and this is why our votes matter and for whatever we're doing make sure that you show up and vote and i know that you're a big advocate of that as well i am and i'm sorry be on such a terrible no but i'm really thankful to talk to you it's always a pleasure professor java's jessica levinson loyola law school always a pleasure and we'll find out what happens with janice and hopefully we'll get a chance to check in with tomorrow as well thank you so much that'd be great always appreciate your time oh my goodness it is it's like it's really it's saddening today that well you minority lgbtq religious minority well our country's deciding not to protect you anymore well we're gonna take a lighter turned to wrap the show of course we got not the onion coming up next take central ethic just a heads up if you're on westbound four heading for westbound eighty the connector ramp is closed due to construction in oakland westbound five eighty roadwork is causing some heavy slow as you get close to oakland avenue southbound one more rushmore gambit has speeds a little under the limit between thirty five and paloma avenue in pacifica el cerrito no change westbound eighty will slow you down hard construction will once you get to cutting boulevard and that continues down to about central avenue i'm lee graham keiichiro places you visit and places you behold form of natural wonders that beckon would the promise of a feeling you haven't felt in a long time a food and you're in the right place immersed in a moment you never want to.
"loyola law school" Discussed on AM 870 The Answer
"To ninety nine this program was recorded in two thousand thirteen upon cash delano registers release from prison we go back to that program with this new settlement in mind tom hi everybody it's very nice of you to join us we certainly appreciate you okay dave dino i think we did it this time i will gave their i'm not giving them a first of all little bit of all lorry on a nor well she's dummy unbelievable job at loyola law school the students lover the faculty loves her and then the work she does is above and beyond what a normal professor would do this little project obviously uh take say unbelievable amount of time first of all to see those people that really can be helped that really may be innocent the matter has to be looked into it cetera and indeed this is such a great example we have today that this nice man sitting here not in jail to sitting here in the studio with thus after being freed you know we we saw this past week or so ago mandela articles and so forth how he was imprisoned for all that time and then rose to the presidency and so forth and did so much good but it's hard dave dino for anybody in the room even including lorry and amy took even think what it would be like to spend three decades more than three decades of your life incarcerated for something that you didn't do that we should say that we are joined in studio by two other gas one is adam grant use a lawyer with loyal law school project for the innocent and we are also joined in studio by lorries client as she likes to describe him describe him cash delano register cash i got a question it was quite an ordeal how this has been what do you think of project innocent cash in without the imo would be onto his agree organization and i think they do a tremendous model good work in a hip those in need help you know is dave dino was going through some of the facts of what really happened here it's pretty disgusting now they beano where you have the police knowing about and don't give a jarring in okay let's just go to trial and et cetera and i don't know who handle your case during the trial face but it seems me some of.
"loyola law school" Discussed on AM 870 The Answer
"To ninety nine this program was recorded in two thousand thirteen upon cash delano registers release from prison we go back to that program with this new settlement in mind tom hi everybody it's very nice of you to join us we certainly appreciate you okay dave dino i think we did at this time i we gave their i'm not kidding first of all a little bit about lorry and nor well she's dummy unbelievable job at loyola law school the students lover the faculty loves her and then the work she does is above and beyond what a normal professor would do this little project obviously uh take say unbelievable amount of time first of all to see those people that really can be help that really may be innocent that matter has to be looked into at center and indeed this is such a great example we have today of this nice man sitting here not in jail just sitting here in the studio with us after being freed you know we we saw this past week or so that mandela articles and so forth how he was imprisoned for all that time and then rose to the presidency and so forth and did so much good but it's hard dave dino for anybody in the room even including and amy to even think what it would be like to spend three decades more than three decades of your life incarcerated for something that you didn't do that we should say that we are joined in studio by two other gas one is adam grant use a lawyer with loyola law school project for the innocent and we are also joined in studio by lorries client as she likes to describe him describe him cash delano register calf i've got a question it was quite an ordeal her mrs is what do you think of project innocent cash move the i will be on think his agree organization and i think they do a tremendous model good work in a help those in need help you know is dave dino was going through some of the facts of what really happened here it's pretty disgusting no date dino where you have the police knowing about stuff.
"loyola law school" Discussed on 790 KABC
"To try and prevent the thirdlargest wild byron california history from burning more homes it's already destroyed over seven hundred fifty houses yesterday fire officials said the blaze was 45 percent contained the ninth circuit court of appeals is losing a judge who is accused of sexual misconduct judge alex kozinski is facing more than a dozen reports of sexual misconduct is moved to step down is not surprising to laurie levenson professor of law at loyola law school rate given the allegation creek in came in the ongoing investigation i don't think he would be able to be very productive goodness chambers don't forget that several of its clerk have already resigned and he would be very distracted the ninth circuit called for the investigation into reports of sexual harassment and assault james rowe haas kabc news president trump had harsh words for the previous administration that of a president barack obama while he was detailing his new national security strategy today in washington dc thing that elected a nuclear menace of north korea made a disastrous week an incomprehensively bad deal with iran and allow terrorists such as isis to gain control of vast parts of territory all across the middle east president trump's nominee for a federal judge sir ship matthew peterson who struggled the answer basic legal questions posed by republican senator john kennedy at his confirmation hearing he withdrew his nomination today and the exwife of former clipper lorenzen wright appeared in court today for an extradition hearing in riverside where she was arrested friday in connection with lorenzo sanz murder near memphis in 2010 38yearold cheryl right was arrested more than a week after a tennissee man was also take can into custody for lorenza nhs murder but today's extradition hearing was.
"loyola law school" Discussed on WNYC 93.9 FM
"Wall street journal he's the author of two books about threats to our voting system do you think voter impersonation is a problem of any scale i think in close elections were people know it's going to be closed and decisive i think they're temptation given how difficult it is the kachin detect the temptation and certain close elections is overwhelming and presents a real danger in some elections were people get desperate and will you any methods and by the way voter fraud happens in both political parties i can take you to counties and kentucky where republican voter fraud is rampant and by the way it's not ten dollars the vote if not twenty dollars vote it's a bottle of bourbon so one study from justin levitt at loyola at loyola law school on voting across the country between two thousand and to thank and and fourteen fourteen years found exactly thirty one instances of impersonation fraud out of 8 billion votes cast is that not a meaningful steady no because it's almost impossible to detect you know if you go to the securities and exchange commission and you ask them how many cases of insider trading violations do you have they will tell you we know there's a lot of them but we know it's almost impossible to effect unless we have an informant or somebody squeals so the you can go and ask people hamady insider trading convictions the sec has conducted the last few years and it's a small number know what a very small number though to the esi that eu researchers at wisconsin and stanford of noted that the number of reported reported incidence of voter impersonation is about equal to the number of reported incidents of alien abduction so what's going on to you do think that these political scientists and the many many others who studied this issue are deliberately misrepresenting the facts now what i'm saying is proving it showing it is very difficult because once you put the ballot in the box that the nonimmunised so the only way to stop voter impersonation is to stop it from happening in the first place do we know how much there is no because it's almost impossible to detect and catch i want to ask you about the national voter registration equiped with people usually call.