17 Burst results for "cafe insider"

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

07:05 min | 4 d ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Supreme york centric podcast today. In which things. Okay because we're in new york. But you have this continuing controversy with spec to our governor andrew cuomo on two fronts front number one is the issue relating to the reporting of deaths in nursing homes from covid letitia. James the attorney general. The state of new york issued a scathing report in that in that report letitia james. Who by the way ran on the ticket with andrew cuomo and were supportive of each other's candidacies wrote org the attorney general is currently conducting investigations into more than twenty nursing homes across the state and they found that a larger number of nursing. Home residents died from covid nineteen than the department of health data reflected in fact they write quote. Our office found that nursing. Home resident deaths appear to be undercounted by the department of health by approximately fifty percent and so we know there has been a civil division main justice from out of washington investigation of these reported numbers and then more recently we have seen reports that the fbi and the eastern district. Us attorney's office eastern district of new york opened up an inquiry into these issues. Do you see a crime here. I think that there's sort of two aspects to to think about this. The first is just going back to march last march which is now astonishingly. A year ago when the cuomo administration they formed up this sort of corona virus taskforce. They for about two months required state nursing homes to accept cova positive patients from hospitals. And there's some language saying as long as they could provide for them safely. But there's also i think going to be a fair amount of evidence that the many of the nursing homes not all but at least some of the nursing homes had insufficient staffing insufficient p p no testing available and that bringing cova code positive patients back into the nursing homes actually ended up being a huge problem and endangering the lives and in fact leading to the deaths of many new yorkers and so that practice ended after about two months but but there were real concerns. That were raised. There's also there was a grant of immunity not not immunity from criminal prosecution but there was a pretty large of civil immunity that was given to healthcare providers nursing homes in last march or april when when the coronavirus numbers were surging. And so there's a lot that sort of going on there. What the ag found Letitia james found. Is that when you looked at the numbers that the state had reported. I think it was around. Eighty four hundred eighty five hundred deaths from nursing homes in the state but that what the was doing was that they were classifying. Only the deaths that had happened inside the nursing homes as cova deaths so individuals who had gotten sick at a nursing home and would have been taken to a hospital as is frequently the case and who may have passed away from cove it at the hospital. Those numbers were not being attributed to nursing home. Deaths they were counted as part of the larger number of people whose lives were tragically lost during this pandemic as part of covid but they were being counted as as coming from or relating to the nursing home. And that's a big deal for number of reasons including as you think about the percentage of deaths from of elderly americans in nursing homes or care facilities from it is. It's astonishing it's thirty or forty percent of all the deaths. It's really there are real. And i think fair questions about how the state of new york and other states handled what is very very vulnerable population and not providing accurate information until just recently it was. This information was actually disclosed after there was a sort of public records request that was made by a conservative group in new york and the cuomo administration was actually found in violation of that law for not disclosing this information at that point. That's when and this was after the ages report at that point. They reported that they're closer. To fifteen thousand deaths related to nursing homes so almost double the number and the other piece just like that. I feel really strongly about is that this was going on at a time that the state also forbid family members and loved ones and friends from being able to visit people in nursing homes. So you're talking about an incredibly vulnerable population that you're then cutting off like one of the few modes of accountability. Which is you know friends and visitors family who might come into a nursing home and then you're providing information debt is at best misleading right. I mean there's i think this is where the questions will be like were they intentionally misleading people so that they weren't called to task for their policies. So that's one piece of it and related. Is this question of the federal investigation which started last summer. The trump administration under the civil rights division kripa. Which is the civil rights of institutionalized persons they. They make sure that people who are in care facilities are treated appropriately in that their civil rights are honored. They start investigation to four democratic states so new york new jersey. I believe pennsylvania and michigan and the cuomo administration's push back was really this right. It was this really like this is a politically motivated investigation in some contexts. Here's the funny thing that happens in life that there is actually politicization with respect to some things and other folks who are in fact guilty of engaging in bad conduct. Try to get under that umbrella of Charges of participation so that they can sort of excuse there. I remember this happened with the firing of us attorneys back in two thousand and six that have mentioned a number of times and then i helped to lead an investigation of number of attorneys. Were fired under peculiar circumstances. Not 'cause had done a great job but there came a time when there had there was one us attorney who went to the senator of his state and claimed he was also a victim of this politically motivated firing season. And i remember talking to senator schumer about it and based on our analysis research and investigation. No that that one guy actually was terrible in actually was fired for causes for good reason. Yeah yeah he saw it as an opportunity. I'm not saying that's what's happening here. But he saw that guy. I'm not. I'm not i. I don't think. I don't think. I sure well let me tell you. That guy deserve to get canned in a big way and and shouldn't have been able to come under the tent of the folks whose firings were really questionable and so that could be some of this year. It's what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You know everyone shouts witch hunt. And it's true as you. And i have discussed week after week after week. There's lot of politicizing of investigations and other kinds of things in the trump administration especially the justice department. That doesn't mean it happened here. I also think depending on the facts it will be. it'll be tough to make obstruction. You'd have to show that there was the intent. To either falsify evidence astray evidence. Impede an investigation. That was already in existence. Maybe there's some argument that this civil investigation that you just described was being obstructed by the failure to give accurate information. But.

thirty letitia james andrew cuomo new york march last march Letitia james last march A year ago two thousand covid fifteen thousand deaths today forty percent new yorkers first last summer washington six two aspects more than twenty nursing homes
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

01:33 min | 2 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"So i think look i think it was a in some ways one of the worst days in modern times for american democracy but also a good day because power has shifted it will inevitably shift in a concrete way very soon. We had by the way we had a very strong statement. From joe biden who appeared. You know incredibly presidential said all the right things in the moment of a flourish. I think tweeted. It was his best and most important speech today and in some ways maybe it was and he was the president today not donald trump so we will be focusing on the aftermath. We'll be looking at what happens with the objections. Which are continuing into the night this evening. We'll be looking to see people get arrested and on what kinds of charges and talk a lot more about it on the cafe insider podcast next week. Xm thanks that's it for this week's cafe insider podcast. Your hosts are pre ferrara. Anne milgram the executive producer. is tamara. seper. The senior producer. Is adam waller. The technical director is david data. Shore and the cafe team is matthew. Billy david kerr lander. Sam oser ston. No not weiner jake kaplan calvin lord jeff eisenman chris boylan sean walsh and margot mealy. Our music is by andrew. Dost thank you for being a part of the cafe insider community..

joe biden donald trump Anne milgram seper adam waller david data ferrara Billy david kerr Sam oser ston tamara jake kaplan jeff eisenman chris boylan sean walsh margot mealy weiner matthew calvin Dost andrew
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

05:37 min | 2 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"In on the evening of after hours on the evening of january sixth wednesday and i'm joined by my friend and special guest and milligram and the reason we're taping his. It's been quite a day in american history. I think i'm antonoff. You'll agree with me but the the day started out pretty great. I was in a pretty good mood with the news out of georgia that seemed like both democratic candidates had won. That senate control was going to pass to the democrats. My former boss. Senator charles schumer was going to become the senate majority leader. Then we got news sort of mid morning or late morning. That are very close to your friend and friend of this podcast and podcast host in her own right for cafe lisa. Monaco is going to be nominated to be the next deputy attorney general of the united states so lots of good vibes lots of good feelings and then everything turned dark this afternoon as you. Well know with basically at insurrection at our nation's capital provoked by incited by the president of the united states. And by the way. Those aren't my words. Those are the words of the former president. George w bush who called it. An insurrection incited by donald trump and so went from feelings of euphoria elation and optimism to feelings of anger and sadness and disbelief over the course of three or four hours and i were texting each other and we thought we we may be partly to inform but also partly as therapy for us. We should get together remotely from our homes and talk about it for a few minutes. And and how angry are you. And it's it's hard almost put in words. How both angry and also heartbroken. I feel by what we saw today. And i would echo what you said pre this morning i woke up seeing the georgia win for warnock and then later today seeing the other as called for asaf And just having the sense of a lot of things that really matter in our country right now. Getting covert under control getting the vaccine to to all americans it helps those things enormously and just feeling just a real sense of relief in the morning from that and then and then seeing garland who will talk about this more. I know next week. Merrick garland who is a deeply deeply. Well respected a political thoughtful honorable lawyer. Who just a very honorable. Just a man of integrity and good judgment and you know there are so many other ways to say someone who who. I think. We both respect a great deal. Seeing him nominated to be attorney. General lisa monaco. Who i think is one of the most extraordinary lawyers and human beings in in the entire world become the deputy ag vanita gupta to be the associate attorney general. Mary yes. Amazement team team is amazing. Amazing team a great civil rights leader. Kristen car co. I worked with the doj also phenomenal and so it just made me feel really an i sort of stopped to mention that because it made me feel really good about the institutions of our government at about the rule of law. And like this feeling can take off for another few weeks. They can't take us. Yes times to happen. And yeah you. And i talked also on tuesday and i think one of the other things i wanted to ask you about. There's so much to cover. But on tuesday we both said just yesterday feels it feels like it was a million years ago but just yesterday i was four weeks ago talking about it like it was a million years ago Because it it feels that way we who said that. This was a stunt in some ways that this was. You know what josh hawley was doing. What ted cruz was doing what. Donald trump was calling on mike pence to do to disregard his his constitutional obligations that it wasn't going to work. And you and. I think we're working really hard to make sure that that listeners understood that joe biden will be president and so there was something about watching today. What is supposed to be just a symbol and the peaceful transfer of power turn violent and then watching the this and we should talk about the images in the united states congress but it it did make me angry and it also you know. It made me heartbroken. I think our country lost a. It's a it's a it's a. It was a very very sad and i think deeply disappointing day for our our country as look. We're not belarus. No offense to the people belarus. You see people you know breaking down the doors breaking windows windows to get into the capitol building which you and i have spent a lot of time. In in our prior lives. A woman was shot and killed. We don't all the details yet. There's a woman who's dead because this mob descended upon the capital and somehow were able to gain access. Not only to. The periphery of the capital. But they went to the house floor. They went to nancy. Pelosi all set floor and the senate floor. There's there's a picture. I took a screenshot took of cnn. I couldn't believe it. There's there's an armed standoff. I can't house the house of representatives floor and you know people engaging in all sorts of violence people carrying guns and into the united states congress where the united states congress by anyone other than forcement. Yeah i wanna come back to something that you and i have been texting about all day. Which is.

Senator charles schumer senate Merrick garland donald trump georgia united states lisa monaco vanita gupta Kristen car co George w bush asaf Monaco warnock josh hawley ted cruz lisa garland doj mike pence belarus
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

07:14 min | 5 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"To having you as part of the insider community. Vice Presidential. Debate. Happening tomorrow between Harrison Mike Pence and that so far as I know. Is still scheduled to happen. In Person. And the harass people. Have, asked that the the two candidates for vice president be placed farther apart than they would've otherwise been. And they WANNA plexiglas. Shield. In front of the podiums. To which the Mike Pence campaign and team responded derisively and said, well, you know if Senator Harris wants to build a fortress around her. That's her problem. While the president is in the hospital trying to recover from covid. The idea that you mock the other side for wanting to be more responsible and to be more protective when Mike Pence could very. Well it's unexpected thing he he has a decent chance of being positive for covid given who he's been around and given how many people he's been around who do have covid. I'd just. Drinking guaranteed medical advice right. If you drink every time I said, I, don't get it. You'd be hammered by now but I don't get it. Yeah and look I also I easing as we think it's bad politics I think that there was probably a way for the president to have if he had come out of this. Basically as a more empathetic human being I realized as I say that that there was never any chance at that was probably can happen just. Like you saw those reports right his team I think it was put in The Times I. Think. That this was a kind of an opportunity to have a reset to come out like Boris Johnson did in the UK to come out. came out with a lot more humility right an and basically saying like you know this is hard to you know take this seriously and you know he had a near death experience with covert and I think the president has done the opposite which is to double down to say you know, don't be afraid of Cove Ed like we can't let it ruin our lives and and basically like it's the like. I, be cove. It's just the exact wrong attitude to take at our country in a moment. There's economic devastation. There's. Incredible devastation with lives lost and people who have chronic illness now from being from being sick and recovering but they're still not one hundred percent, and so you know it's just so dismissive and. Just as regards human life. Well, here's the other proof that it's bad politics. One of the changes in his standing president trump standing has been among seniors. who think he? He beat Hillary. Clinton in two thousand sixteen with respect to seniors. By some percentage point I don't remember how much. He is now according to one recent poll. He's twenty seven. In the red is the twenty is twenty seven point deficit. Compared to Joe Biden with seniors, which has been a big change over the course of the pandemic, and that's because the people who who are left to suffer. In potentially die from this disease about which is so callous are those seniors Agreed and actually I was surprised early on, I expect those numbers to have switched to that point quicker than they did because I really felt that you know the language in the rhetoric that the president has put out about about covert and and you know remember there was that one Republican politician I don't remember his name I wanna say from Texas but I'm not sure who basically said look I think a lot of grandparents would be willing to you know sort of die in sacrifice for their kids have the economy open right it. was just this view of like of people's lives as being fungible in a way that they're not and so. So yes, I think that's that's your assessment is right on the politics. So pre, what do you think this means for Barrett I mean I I was thinking a lot this weekend two of the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee tested positive Mike Lee from the Republican from Utah Thom. Tillis Republican from North Carolina. Ron Johnson a Republican from Wisconsin is not on judiciary but he also tested positive I don't think it changes anything I don't think it changes anything and a lot of people been asking the question. And you know as people no I served on that committee staffer a number of years ago. Now maybe I was forgetting something. So I talked to a couple of people who still work in the Senate and because we're in the time of covid because there is a precedent. For conducting hearings, including judiciary hearings in which. Either the nominee or one or more senators are able to enter authorized to participate remotely. At least scheduled for the hearings, that's a week from yesterday October twelfth. The, schedule for the hearings does not have to be altered and Lindsey Graham can get away with that. They can even get away with the vote for the most part. in the committee because committee rules allow for proxy voting them even in ordinary times. If Senator Schumer could make it to the markup to could make it to the vote on bills were nominee. He could give his vote to Senator Durbin for example, back can obviously still happen it also the case. And we were having some debate earlier about whether or not the guidance was quarantined for ten days fourteen days Mike Lee Think has said. He's only going to quarantine for ten days, which gives him time to show up in person if he wants for the hearing. On October twelve so These guys can recover in time. These guys can participate remotely if they have to, and these guys will be available to vote by proxy if they have to. So it doesn't alter. The timeline. That's very rush obviously that I object to object to. But it doesn't alter that I guess what it can have an effect on if other people become sick. And have to quarantine. Your needs. You vote by proxy on the floor of the Senate. So in ultimate rate's GonNa say yeah yes that's not going to change the timeline for the hearing right to the what McConnell said is that he's going to halt the floor activity until October nineteen th. So obviously, Judiciary Committee is twelve to ten Republican Democrat assuming that those two Republican senators Lee until us will participate by remotely by by Zoom or by video that logos through she gets approved then you get to the floor on the nineteenth which would even be today being October six it. Would even you know we know that they were diagnosed last week it would be fourteen days since then that assumes though that they're not very ill right and and if you think about some of the guidances, you know ten days after you've had symptoms right and so you know we don't know what there's been zero transparency and so it really raises questions like why like I know why they're doing this? They want that seat they want that seat at whatever cost they have to do to get it, but it does feel to me like you are. The Senate has has been lax on safety measures and you are now talking about three diagnosed positive patients. Potentially, going to the floor of the Senate all in in the name of this prize, right which is what they see it as it just. So troubling to me, Ron Johnson one of the senators you mentioned he is on record as saying he would come vote in a moon suit if you had to ask. So that's how strongly feel about rushing through this conservative judge putting around the class I think we have to wait and see in nc what the optics are but.

president Harrison Mike Pence covid Mike Lee Senate Judiciary Committee Ron Johnson vice president Boris Johnson Joe Biden Senator Harris Senator Schumer Senator Durbin Lindsey Graham North Carolina UK Cove Ed McConnell Hillary
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

08:00 min | 5 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"In every time, you got news that she was ill that she was going to seek treatment you worried and thought. You know is this going to be okay in every single time it happened a lot it was. Until until it wasn't do you remember the scene Kobe show where he went to the she is due to the general trainer. So he went to with her and she was doing push ups and he was like I think he was on his knees to like why are you on your knees like come on like do a real push up you listen to music to get all jacked up before he work out. I, listen to mostly apper recording. Okay. Can I recommend workout song I think you might enjoy this one this. Never ask. I remember being so charmed by that, and also just a tribute to her fierceness in her tenacity to watch her, you know rocket out with her big personal trainer in the Supreme Court Jam. So there's some great memories echo what you said about. Would have profound impact she had even before she was on the court both on the Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. Another supreme. Court but obviously, she had a big role to play. On the court itself sometimes in the majority. But quite often. In the descent and it's commonplace these days. To always modify. Against dissent word fiery. Yeah. Although she she did not. Come across as a fiery person. Is Quiet and measured in very deliberate. The language was was often I guess. Appropriately described his fiery. She read some of them from the from the bench, which is really unusual in the Supreme Court. Usually they hear oral arguments in person, both sides will come and make arguments to the justices. When the opinions issued as a rule there just issued, right? They just come out as paper documents obviously online as well. But you know she took the opportunity on more than one occasion to actually take to to the bench in the supreme. Court. Basically, go out publicly and read and read her descents and to really sort of punctuate how strongly she felt how concerned she was that she would go out and do that. So. Before we start talking about. The controversy that follows from her passing because there's a lot to talk about there I think we should take a few minutes not just to talk about her personality in there I kind of status. But the impact she had on the law as you describe starting way back in the nineteen seventies. Yeah. I mean I think we all think about her is a Supreme Court justice and a really prominent liberal crusader but it's really important to go back to sort of I think the critical work of her career. She was his work in the seventies where she was one of the CO founders and leaders of the women's rights project at the ACLU and one. Of the first cases she worked on was a case called Reid versus Reid where a mother had sought to be the executor of her deceased son's state and the law that Oregon law at the time said, only men could be the executor of the estate, and so she challenged this and the court struck down struck down the law basically saying that women had a right to be under the fourteenth. Amendment Protection Laws that women had a right to be. Executors as well, and it's really important to understand that the language of the constitution is the language of equality equal rights for all the fourteenth amendment. Equal protection clause literally says that people have to be treated equally and yet there were countless examples across the United States of laws that didn't do that, and so that's one example wear it related to being an. Executor there are other examples and it was it was inch by inch, and so I think it's important for people to understand like sometimes you don't see the Ark of the importance of decisions and work at once it's kind of like there were countless cases that she brought and then we talked about this before but she argued these cases before the Supreme Court Frontier Hogan like there's a ton of cases in which she basically goes to the Supreme Court and says, women should be treated equally and some in which she says men should be treated equally right strategic decision. She made the people have been talking about antibiotics you talked about her whole life. She wanted to make the school male justices understand. That there was discrimination. And sometimes to get through to them, you had to explain that they were laws that discriminated on the basis of sacks against men. In fact, there's a, there's a whole movie which I watched I never got around to watching it before I watched it over the weekend. Have you seen on the basis of sex which is I haven't seen it yet I'd love to which is premised on one of these cases that she argued in which the the victim of discrimination was a man because he was a man he he wasn't allowed to tax deduction for the money he spent paying a caretaker for his eighty nine year old mother and that person was his dependent. A single woman in the same situation would have been entitled to the tax break so. The victim in that case of discrimination was a man. So she could make a point, but obviously, the victory in that case then was able to spearhead. Other claims for for women. The other interesting thing about that which had known before. That case merits was the first time. A provision of the irs code was declared unconstitutional. What makes it actually? Particularly lovely is she did the case with her husband Marty who was probably one of the premier tax lawyers in the country as well. The at such a great story that he argued the tax part of the case, and she argued that equal protection part, there's another case also where. There was a United States military spousal benefit that only the wives of members could get get fit. So if the man was member of the military, the wife could get benefits, but it wasn't available the opposite way. So if the woman was the member of the military, the husband spouse did not get the benefits and so it was really strategic and basically trying to make this argument that all people are. Equal and she was appealing to the fact that at the time it was an all male supreme court, and so she was appealing to the fact that like it can't be right that men don't have the same rights as women, and so it was a clever way of basically getting people to individually understand the perils of inequality and I think like you know her work when she started the equal protection clause. Discrimination based on sex on gender was seen was the lowest level scrutiny that the court would give meaning you had to be able to give a reason for it, but it wasn't a high hurdle to me. So discrimination was being allowed and there are countless ways in which the impacted women. We just gave a couple of those including unequal pay I. Mean. There's there's a lot of ways. In which was it's really hard in some ways for us to even imagine what the world was like even just fifty years ago. But you go forward to what Ginsburg did which is like she just chipped away slowly one case at a time to get the court to a higher level of scrutiny for sex discrimination until it became intermediate scrutiny that when cases go before the court, there's. A higher burden to prove you have to have a much greater reason to justify discrimination, which basically meant that a lot of the laws like overwhelmingly the laws got struck down because they couldn't make that argument that there is a strong reason to basically be doing something differently as it relates to men or women, and so that is a lasting like that is a huge change in in. constitutional. Law, and litigation that I think we take for granted today but the reason that you can't pass laws that discriminate against women based on sex overtly is justice GINSBURG and it really has changed the face of I think particularly of work for women and the ability of women to have equal opportunities in. America. Yeah. People have been making the parallel to the life and career Thurgood. Marshall. Long, before he came to the Supreme Court, he.

Supreme Court Court of Appeals United States Ginsburg Kobe ACLU Oregon Reid America Thurgood Marshall irs Marty Hogan DC
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

01:30 min | 5 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"From, Cafe Welcome, to cafe insider. I'm pre- BERRARA. melker. In. How are you? Good Morning. So there's there's one topic on everyone's mind and it's the passing of. Of the most influential people in the country when most important people in the country will find it how important? Soon. As we talk about the consequences of her passing, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer with us. Yeah. It was a it was a very sad day I think. Before we get into the life and times of Ruth. Bader, GINSBURG and. All the fall I WANNA make a couple of announcements at the top one is. You know it's an important story. About the law and about the country and so for that reason. There's no pay wall on this episode of caffeine insider because we want as many people's possible to hear what we have to say about the story. But of course, it's not a one week story we're going to keep covering it as it develops. There will no doubt be very contentious confirmation fight perhaps the most contentious until folks here future episodes. You can become a member as you know, a cafe dot com slash insider. And one more announcement. It'll be another opportunity for us to talk about. Not just the Supreme Court vacancy but also The election. Were doing a special thing next week. Aren't we? Yes we're doing a stay tuned live happy hour event with all the hosts from the different cafe insider shows that includes Lisa Monaco can Weinstein John Carlin L. E. Hoenig. Folks should know that the event.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Cafe Welcome Weinstein John Carlin L. E. Ho Lisa Monaco caffeine Supreme Court
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

07:11 min | 6 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Say. Yeah I'm sure it's true. I was having this problem when I read it and I was thinking about all the work. I did when I did sex crimes with DNA DNA stays on clothes for long periods of time I don't think it was. Not, a gap dress now but it exactly. But the whole thing was going through my my head as well. The sort of parallels. But yeah. So so look, there's the question of Wise Wise Doj doing this now I mean in part it's because the state court was heating up and and really what I think it is is that that the president's defense is basically said, look this is the best possible defense which is to walk in and say that the Federal Tort Claims, Act protects you and that you will be immune and just to let go A. Little Bit weedy on the law second because my initial reaction was exactly the same as yours. This is twenty five years ago. It relates to an incident that has nothing to do with the president's official duties, and essentially the only thing that the president did was make a you know a denial and criticism of miscarriage will while he was in office, there are two things to look at first is tort law and the second is a case that bill bar sites. The case law is very clear and there's a DC circuit case called Ballenger on the top. That says that because we are a representative democracy. Officials who are elected. And answer press questions while they're in office even if those questions relate to their personal activity and could bear upon their personal fitness. is in fact, in the course of federal employment and can be therefore certified under the Westfall. Act Ballenger related to a congressman who had made some statements about his wife didn't like living across the street from an organization that she'd like into being similar to Hezbollah, which is a organization that's on the terrorist watch list, and so he's sued for defamation and this goes in front of the DC circuit which found that the congressman was immune and pointed to the recruitment of. which is a law that defines the scope of an employee conduct. The restatement says that basically points out to potential areas that could be defined as within the scope of employment that could apply in this matter, which is one is the action. The kind that the person is employed to perform, and the other is whether or not the action is actuated at least in part by purpose to serve the master right basically like that, you're doing it in the course of your employment to serve your boss and so the question really here you sorta shorthanded as within the scope of the president's actions what I think is complicated. Is that and why this isn't exactly as I would have expected to be is that your gut is that this is a private matter relates to the president's conduct when he was not in office but as to the defamation claim and the statement made by the president, it is clear that there are cases that have found like you know Senator Kennedy was found immune when he had a conversation at one point about operation rescue talking about antiabortion activists and. So it's clear that like a politician scope of office like they talk about a lot of things and so there are definitely examples where there has been immunity that has been found. But I think here pre like I. Think the President May win this one but I don't think he should. But the reason I don't think he should win is that about it basically be saying that anything in the world is within the president's domain and anything he talks about. Is Part of his official job I mean it goes back to the president having this view of himself as this autocrat and the president being powerful. Like, there'd be no line if this could apply to his private conduct. Yeah we should be sure that we're distinguishing two things. One is whether or not he deserves taxpayer-funded defense. By the Justice Department. And separate from that is whether he deserves to prevail in the suit whether he's immune or not, and those those are two different questions and they have different standards. With respect to the first question that's that's the one on the table most directly at the moment. I'm you and I were talking about before we started taping. Often Bill Barca tasks to question they talked some smack and he makes passing references to. Fax Not in the record here. You know he was pretty strident and made specific reference to that case that you mentioned and to other areas of law and you got the sense that he was a little bit more prepared. To answer this question and look, and they do have a certification. From within the department saying this within the scope of the president's duties and you can argue about it but. When we think about the arguments made by the Justice Department and by the president's allies in by the president himself. It is useful sometimes. To put them on the spectrum and sometimes the arguments are ludicrous and ridiculous. Sometimes. They're arguable and sometimes they're strong that last last bit. Is Not. Often the case but sometimes they are there's other legal question. I don't know the answer to, but people have talked about it. With respect to the question of whether or not. The DOJ should be defending the president in what looks like a private suit and that is. The Federal Tort Claims Act applies only to an employee of the government. The case law crystal clear that the Westphal lacked applies to claims against the president, the vice president, as well as other federal employees and members of Congress. Is the president and employees of the government and I think that's a a little bit of an unclear question or the answer that is a little bit unclear. The act defines employees as officers or employees or persons acting on behalf of. A federal agency or members of the military. And one. Legal Scholarly is pointed out. It's not at all clear that the president is an employee of president is the head of government. And if he's an employee that implies that there's employer. And who would that be? Yeah I. Just. Sort of go back to the specifics of of the merits just as say it this way. I think that there's an argument that the tort immunity statute that the courts have had an expansive reading of the scope of what an elected officials office might be. But I think it's also really important to think about here we're talking about a rape allegation against him personally I think it's different if he were discussing a bill to outlaw rape of a victim's compensation bill like obviously he's going to be talking about this subject. But what's different is that this is about his personal conduct and there's no potential argument that a sexual assault would fall within the scope of the presidency and so I think that there's a really interesting. You know politicians have been given sort of wide. Berth on what statements can can be considered part of their official capacity. What cannot be, but this feels to me like it is beyond the line both potentially because the statute doesn't apply to the president and as everybody knows like if law doesn't say it applies to you then the court either has to read it in that it would apply to the president which it hasn't done before this has never come up or they have to follow the letter of the law as it's written, which is what most courts in my in my view when a law is clear on something most courts will follow the clear language of the law. You know you should make another point you know..

president official vice president Wise Wise Doj Justice Department Bill Barca Ballenger Westfall congressman rape representative assault DOJ Hezbollah Senator Kennedy DC Congress
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

02:34 min | 6 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Is going <Speech_Female> to do this. It feels to me <Speech_Female> more like a local us? <Speech_Female> Attorney's <SpeakerChange> office might <Speech_Male> look but what do you think? <Speech_Male> Yeah, I don't <Speech_Male> know that the Justice <Speech_Male> Department will to anything <Speech_Male> and they <Silence> can take the easy out. <Speech_Male> And say <Speech_Male> well, it's a political <Speech_Male> thing it's <Speech_Male> sensitive <Speech_Male> is close to the election <Speech_Male> and even <Speech_Male> on the face of the article, <Speech_Male> it looks like the <Speech_Male> conduct was over in two thousand <Speech_Male> fourteen in they <Speech_Male> might not be as aggressive <Speech_Male> as I've described I. think <Speech_Male> the good US <Speech_Male> Attorney's office would <Speech_Male> think about it and <Speech_Male> put politics aside <Speech_Male> then on the issue of the <Speech_Male> state, there's some <Speech_Male> reporting that state <Speech_Male> election officials look <Speech_Male> at it I <Speech_Male> there's an attorney general <Speech_Male> I don't know exactly what the <Speech_Male> parameters of an attorney <Speech_Male> general investigation are <Speech_Male> trained North Carolina I believe <Silence> happens to be a Democrat <Speech_Male> <Speech_Male> And then there's the <Speech_Male> potential counties. <Speech_Male> So lots <Speech_Male> of folks <Speech_Male> have the ability to take a <Speech_Male> look at this something i. <Silence> think it was Dan Goldman. <Speech_Male> WHO said in the <Speech_Male> ordinary course, <Speech_Male> you'd expect a turf <Speech_Male> battle to emerge <Speech_Male> over who gets to investigate <Speech_Male> with the Specter <Silence> US attorneys offices. <Speech_Male> Because <Speech_Male> it seems to be a substantial <Speech_Male> case that not only <Speech_Male> will there not be a turf <Speech_Male> battle I'm not sure that anybody's <Speech_Male> GonNa WanNa <Speech_Male> take a look and I think that's unfortunate. <Speech_Male> But <Speech_Male> do you have a <Speech_Male> review on the attorney general <Speech_Male> versus the DA's <SpeakerChange> office <Speech_Male> in North? Carolina <Speech_Female> you know it's interesting <Speech_Female> I. Think. <Speech_Female> The AG <Speech_Female> is elected <Speech_Female> in North Carolina <Speech_Female> and as <Speech_Female> I believe the DA <Speech_Female> and so I you <Speech_Female> know I. <Speech_Female> I. Think it's an interesting <Speech_Female> question I <Speech_Female> sort of <Speech_Female> and I can talk about <Speech_Female> we could talk about at some point <Speech_Female> some of the <Speech_Female> election <Speech_Female> campaign work <Speech_Female> that we did when I was <Speech_Female> a g I think <Speech_Female> the ages often politically <Speech_Female> insulated <Speech_Female> a little bit <Speech_Female> more than the <Speech_Female> local Da's <Speech_Female> who feel more pressure <Speech_Female> from the local <Speech_Female> political <Speech_Female> folks that that <Speech_Female> may not be. <Speech_Female> <Speech_Female> The case here <Speech_Female> because AG <Speech_Female> north. Carolina's <Speech_Female> a statewide office <Speech_Female> in politically elected, <Speech_Female> and so I <Speech_Female> don't know what the <Speech_Female> jurisdiction <Speech_Female> is either frankly. So <Speech_Female> I think <Speech_Female> I. Think they have some <Speech_Female> criminal jurisdiction, but <Speech_Female> I'm not positive. <Speech_Female> So my instinct <Speech_Female> is the DA will do it <Speech_Female> over <Speech_Female> the G.. But <Speech_Female> again, New <Speech_Female> Jersey has full criminal <Speech_Female> jurisdiction most <Speech_Female> agencies don't, <Speech_Female> and they have fairly <Speech_Female> limited criminal jurisdiction <Speech_Female> and I don't <Speech_Female> off the top of my head what North <Speech_Female> Carolina has. So <Speech_Female> I would expect that. <Speech_Female> It would be sort of <Speech_Female> a local <Speech_Female> DA type <Speech_Female> of case, and I'll tell <Speech_Female> you one challenges <Speech_Female> that they don't do <Speech_Female> a lot of them, right? <Speech_Female> So Doj does <Speech_Female> a lot more <Speech_Female> campaign. They do the federal <Speech_Female> campaign finance <Speech_Female> cases <Speech_Female> <hes> the <Speech_Female> late local state <Speech_Female> folks they. <Speech_Female> You know they do a handful <Speech_Female> but again, <Speech_Female> you know I'm <Speech_Female> not saying they won't be able to <Speech_Female> do this. It's just <Speech_Female> it's not gonna be something <Speech_Female> is not the bread and butter of <Speech_Male> what they do every day. <Speech_Male> Congress. <Speech_Female> What about <SpeakerChange> Congress? <Speech_Female> Yeah. That's <Speech_Female> what I was gonNA. Say. So <Speech_Female> the House Oversight <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> Committee Representative <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> Carolyn <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> Maloney said that <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> she's she wants <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> Detroit. <Speech_Music_Female> A Cup testifies you <Speech_Music_Female> hearings

Attorney Carolina North Carolina AG US Congress. Dan Goldman. Specter Jersey Maloney Representative
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

11:35 min | 7 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Having you as a part of the insider community. But something we haven't done awhile, which is have guessed. We were very special guests on. So there has been a lot of discussion and debate and controversy over some of the tactics. Being used. By the Department of Homeland Security with respect to protesters in Portland and other places, and there is yet additional controversy surrounding some of the things that the is doing. and. We have a real life I. Guess you could say. Victim of some of that activity with us. It's our friend. Ben Widows whose the editor in chief of l'affaire senior fellow at Brookings does all sorts of other stuff that we? Crib from. The the we we re to educate ourselves and recommend everything that he does offered to all of our listeners I ben Hey. Thanks for joining us. Sorry you were up at three in the morning. Thanks for having me. Well, you know when I ponder the universe. How are you? Oh, I'm just you know sitting out on my porch making obscene gestures at the DHS surveillance drones that are circling overhead. How many are there? I have lost count are the in some kind of formation you know they're flying they're doing little contrails, dances and. Spelling. Out The letters Da Chess I and hey. So Ben, it seems the. Subdivision of DHS. was targeting you. What did you do? You must have done something. something, Bad ben what did you do? Well. So first of all, they figured out that I am in fact, the secret leader of Antiga and this whole law fair thing has been an elaborate cover where I kind of pretend to be interested in protecting national security to divert attention from my secret role as the. Like scarlet pimpernel thing you know. no, the answer is I've I, really did I guess the best word for it is journalism I received some information from inside of D H s about their surveillance activities with respect to Portland. In the first instance I, analyzed it and wrote about it on l'affaire with my colleague Steve. VLADECK. And in two ladder instances, I, simply screen shotted the. Documents that had come my way and tweeted them with a little description of what they were and some snarky in one case. Some snarky. Commentary on it, and each of these tweets appears to have provoked the creation of what DHS calls an open source intelligence report, which course it being the federal government has to have a acronym which is an Ozier, which always reminds me of the Egyptian God Cyrus I. Think they should figure out two more characters to lead words so that they can get all of. Cyrus in there. Just to just to sort of put this in context for the folks who are listening and may not have followed the underlying documents that were sent to you. They were essentially leaked to you by D. H. S. what was in those documents, the things that you tweeted out and posted. Three relevant documents the first of which I did not tweet out, but we wrote about, which is actually the most significant document is a document that describes the an expansion of DHS's intelligence gathering authority to include from all the things that we think of as traditional homeland security missions to include the protection of federal property, as well as the protection of monuments whether they are state or federal union or confederate, or otherwise, or even privately owned. So this is a document that. DESCRIBES DHS's new authority to collect in intelligence and analyze intelligence in support of the important homeland security mission of protecting monuments. The second document was a internal e mail complaining about the leak of the first document. and. The third document was a internal e mail that described a change of terminology. Regarding the violent actors in Portland and it was a a change from the previously vhs had been calling them violent opportunists but in this document, it was that was changed to. And I'm forgetting the exact language violent and Tika inspired. Something Right Antifa Anarchists Inspire yes and also used some rhetoric that was reminiscent of kind of counterterrorism missions in Iraq particularly referring to kind of dossiers that had been created on possible suspects as baseball cards. which is a terminology directly imported from the Iraq conflict. So those were the three documents and. The latter two of which I tweeted and those two tweets produced these intelligence reports. So even if you don't know anything else. About. What proper policies with proper activities? To gauge whether or not what the was doing was wrong or not. To me, all you have to know is That even though Chad Wolf who is the head of the address at the moment? Let's a lot of stuff. Go allows a lot of activity that gets criticized and I think rightly so and defense it I think ineffectively with respect to this episode relating to you ban another reporter, Mike Baker, The New York Times, he took immediate action. Why was what D- adjusted? So bad I mean they they weren't wire tapping your phone joking aside they were not actually drones surveilling put together report what was so what's so bad about that explained the first of all the no drowns thing that's what they want you to think. I actually don't know what the differences between this and some of the other stuff that they're doing and Mayak. was. Completely First Amendment protected but a lot of protesters activity is completely first amendment protected and so why why Chad Wolf made such a distinction between what they did with respect to me and Mike Baker of the New York Times and a whole lot of other stuff that they're doing is actually a little bit of a head Scratcher to me that said look I think it almost certainly violated several rules and I can identify some of them I'm not sure I can identify all of them but first of all the first most basic rule is that the intelligence community and DHS. Is, part of the intelligence community is not allowed to collect information solely to monitor purely first amendment protected activities right and so this activity that I was engaged in was collecting information that is not classified information from a government agency about its conduct of its responsibilities and making that information available to the public it could not be more molten core first amendment protected activity, and there is no other component of it. Right you're not going to learn about who's threatening to blow up a monumental knock it down by collecting my twitter feed. So. The first component is that. The sudden component is that DHS actually has a set of missions against which it is is allowed to collect and those missions. And I listed a bunch of them on law fair this morning. In fact I think I listed all of them on law fair this morning they include things like counter-terrorism. Preventing Major Homeland Security threats preventing weapons of mass destruction, proliferation, major organized crime, right. These are these are things that justify intelligence collection by ianna leaks are not one of them and a leaks particularly of unclassified information just aren't among them, and even if you believe that maybe leaks are incorporated into some of the because leaking information stopping leaks. Dhs Do these other functions that is not something that the guidelines at least not explicitly contemplate. The final thing that I think is pretty clear that these rules forbid is the dissemination of the material dhs. This intelligence report was authorized to be sent to foreign governments. It was authorized to be sent to tribal governments, state governments, local governments, other agencies of the federal government. None of these entities has a legitimate or lawful need to pursuant to some law enforcement intelligence or counter terrorism objective or homeland security objective to know. What's going what I tweeted? It is pretty clearly in violation of the rules and I think that's why when Chad will found out about it, he stepped in pretty quickly even while tolerating apparently similar activity with respect to protesters. Yeah. I mean I think one of the reactions I had was that I mean, no government department likes leaks rate and we have seen leaks out of the administration and and honestly we always see them. Out of administrations right doesn't we've seen a lot lately but it's common but the reaction to a leak to make that basically opening in intelligence investigation into journalist. Israeli troubling and I think you're it is absolutely against DHS rules and it is against rules because it's not something we do with the First Amendment. It also feels very odd when you read through these tweets band and I don't know if you have a view. On this. But first of all, it feels like they spent more letters on your to tweets. You just attached these documents and you debt. There's something about by by an order of magnitude. Yeah. I mean if we if we did it they like they spent you basically just attached these leaked documents and then they go on to do this in this intelligence product, which again as you said, and I think people should understand this. We used to get a lot of intelligence products when I was ag right, they share them in the intelligence community and they're they're provided as sort of validating in a way that that homeland security thinks it's important to conduct intelligence on this, and so it really is.

DHS. Portland Chad Wolf Department of Homeland Securit federal government Ben Widows Mike Baker New York Times Iraq Cyrus twitter Antiga baseball Steve Tika Brookings editor in chief Mayak.
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

02:32 min | 8 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"You go through <Speech_Male> some of them because <Speech_Male> I I could ask the question <Speech_Male> and people <Speech_Male> say well. <Speech_Male> Why are you all freaking <Speech_Male> out now? <Speech_Male> There's another bad pardons. <Speech_Male> Anything that <Speech_Male> well first of all for some of these, <Speech_Male> I was pretty young, not <Speech_Male> the position to comment. <Speech_Male> But Bill Clinton <Speech_Male> probably <Speech_Male> was the was the worst <Speech_Male> user <Speech_Male> of clemency in <Speech_Male> recent history, he <Speech_Male> pardoned <Speech_Male> his half brother <Speech_Male> Roger Clinton, <Speech_Male> which I don't think it should be pardoning <Speech_Male> family members. <Speech_Male> He pardoned <Speech_Male> Marc Rich. <Speech_Male> Who that <Speech_Male> financier <Speech_Male> see who would who is <Speech_Male> being prosecuted by the <Speech_Male> Southern District of New, York my old <Speech_Male> office <Speech_Male> and I make this point frequently <Speech_Male> I wanna make it again <Speech_Male> with respect to independence <Speech_Male> prosecutor's office. <Speech_Male> That <Speech_Male> was at the end of his <Speech_Male> term. He prosecuted <Speech_Male> Marc Rich. WHO's <Speech_Male> a fugitive from? Justice? <Speech_Male> Didn't go through the proper <Speech_Male> process with the pardon attorney. <Speech_Male> I don't believe <Speech_Male> consulted with the <Speech_Male> attorney. The time Mary Jo <Speech_Male> White. Who <Speech_Male> Upon <Speech_Male> the pardon, did <Speech_Male> what opened up <Speech_Male> an investigation <Speech_Male> of the president who <Speech_Male> appointed her, and <Speech_Male> he also pardoned <Speech_Male> Susan. McDougal, <Speech_Male> <SpeakerChange> who was <Speech_Male> in a position, but involved <Speech_Female> in Whitewater, which is <Speech_Female> also by the way it's, <Speech_Female> it goes to the same <Speech_Female> thing of like <Speech_Female> people who were close to <Speech_Female> the president were investigated <Speech_Female> they were. <Speech_Female> Dealings <Speech_Female> touched on the presidency <Speech_Female> right <Speech_Female> that touched Bill <Speech_Female> Clinton when he was governor <Speech_Female> of Arkansas. <Speech_Female> And then to <Speech_Female> give that part, and basically <Speech_Female> makes it seem <Speech_Female> like the president <Speech_Female> is above the law. The president's <Speech_Female> allies have <Speech_Female> special protection. <Speech_Female> They're they're able <Speech_Female> to commit crimes and <Speech_Female> engage in activity that the <Speech_Female> rest of Americans aren't <Speech_Female> and so <Speech_Female> those were bad. We <Speech_Female> were not. We were too young, <Speech_Female> but I like <Speech_Female> to think we would <SpeakerChange> have criticized <Speech_Male> them if we weren't <Speech_Male> part of the institution <Speech_Male> that was very critical <Speech_Male> Suny as a young <Speech_Male> prosecutor. The time <Speech_Male> that office took issue <Speech_Male> with the Marc rich pardon. <Speech_Male> Then you have the <Speech_Male> first Bush <Silence> pardoning. <Speech_Male> Casper Weinberger, <Speech_Male> so there have <Speech_Male> been then you have <Speech_Male> the part of the the the <Speech_Male> clemency <Speech_Male> that was given to scooter <Speech_Male> libby, so <Speech_Male> there have been examples <Speech_Male> of this before, <Speech_Male> but I don't think anybody <Speech_Male> has <Speech_Male> been so cynical <Speech_Male> in the use of <Speech_Male> clemency <Speech_Male> pardons for people <Speech_Male> close to them, or in <Speech_Male> a position to protect them <Speech_Male> as Donald. <SpeakerChange> Trump, and that <Speech_Male> that's what makes it different <Speech_Female> also. <Speech_Female> We're still sort of <Speech_Female> litigating in <Speech_Female> real time. <Speech_Female> During the past <Speech_Female> now three years, <Speech_Female> the president's <Speech_Female> involvement in <Speech_Female> brushes interference <Speech_Male> in the two <SpeakerChange> thousand sixteen <Speech_Male> election <Speech_Music_Male> Roger Stone <Speech_Music_Male> was treated very <Speech_Music_Male> unfairly. <Speech_Music_Male> Roger <Speech_Music_Male> Stone was brought <Speech_Music_Male> into this switch <Speech_Music_Male> on this <Speech_Music_Male> whole political <Speech_Music_Male> witch hunt then the muller <Speech_Music_Male> scam <Speech_Music_Male> scam <Speech_Music_Male> because it's been proven <Speech_Music_Male> false. <Speech_Music_Male> Had, he was treated <Speech_Female> very <SpeakerChange> unfairly. <Speech_Female> There's <Speech_Female> something that feels very <Speech_Music_Female> like pertinent <Speech_Female> to this moment as we <Speech_Female> approached the next election <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> and were watching <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> the president. <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> Do it and <Speech_Music_Female> <Advertisement> it's sort of like <Speech_Music_Female> I. Don't know if you feel this <Speech_Music_Female> way. I sort of I <Speech_Music_Female> knew it was going to happen, <Speech_Music_Female> but I still felt <Speech_Music_Female> like

president Marc Rich Bill Clinton Roger Clinton prosecutor pardon attorney Marc Rich. Roger Stone Casper Weinberger Suny Mary Jo attorney McDougal York Bush Susan Whitewater libby Arkansas.
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

05:35 min | 8 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"This is like what does this mean for? Democracy the rule of just it feels to me. You know not only did stone ask for? The president tweeted out that he was proud of him. Remember this was going on same time. Michael Cohen where Michael Cohen flipped and cooperated against the president stone didn't and so the president was tweeting nasty things about Michael Cohen. And good things about you know initially Paul Manafort. who wasn't cooperating at the beginning initially Roger Stone? Who refuse to cooperate and then what's the prize for basically refusing to turn against the president, refusing to cooperate no jail Jill exactly? Yeah, because if you things to make clear. Number one the pardon power is pretty much absolute pressure. United States and we talked about this before. In the Constitution has basically unfettered. Authority to issue clemency to people for good reasons. Bad reasons, no reason at all. There is a pardon attorney office and they're supposed to be processed. Insulate the president and make sure that looks like it's fair. Not Required to follow those recommendations not required to go through that process at all. There's really nothing anybody can do about it. I even think this legislation that Nancy Pelosi is suggesting. I haven't looked at it closely. I don't see how it's constitutional I agree the short of a sort of a constitutional amendment. The one thing that I think most legal scholars will agree he cannot do, and he disputes. It is pardon himself, and we may see him do that on the way out of office, so people complaining about the use of the pardon power very difficult. We'll get to the potential of a crime in a minute, but the other thing is. For one second because I think you make a good point, people agree. I agree with this that the president can't part in themselves right. It's seen as like the ultimate sort of like self delay, so what some people are arguing is that pardoning stone is basically the same as pardoning himself, because stone could've cooperated against the president. Provide information, and instead of doing that so gets deal. I don't think that's going to be found to be the case. I think you know the constitution says the the implication that the president can pardon himself. It doesn't. Doesn't extend to not being able to pardon other people who may have criminal evidence against the president, and so may I mean the argument. The argument that you put forward the would play out is is as follows right. There's an opinion that I. think comes from the Nixon era that doesn't have a lot of legal analysis constitutional analysis, but says a president cannot pardon himself based on the age old premise that no man can be a judge in his own case, and so if you understand that principle of jurisprudence in this country and in England. Then you cannot pardon yourself I guess argument would be well to the extent that Roger. Stone was doing something in connection with a case involving the president to pardon. That person would be being a judge in your own case. I don't know if that's. Fetched or not, but I guess that would be the argument, but I agree with you. It probably doesn't fly. Yeah, the reasons why the pardon is bad, even though it's. Constitutional and legal and wise distinguished from other bad pardons, and there've been bad pardon before. Is it, not only is he engaging in a pardon for close associate confidante, a person who has been advisor to him, but he's doing as we've mentioned he's doing it with someone who committed the crime to protect the president lied to protect the president and the reputation of the president, and it's ton in a case where there many many many other more deserving people in the country who might merit a pardon or clemency of some sort, but time and time again it's not just the president's also the attorney general reach their hands in and get past it professionals. And provide selective justice for people who are close to the president. If Roger Stone, you get benefit. If you're Michael Flynn, you gonNA benefit by the way if you're Michael, Cohen and you used to be close to the president, but you betrayed him. You get a punishment. Yeah, we should talk about this whole thing and I. Don't you know it's horrifying I? Mean I don't think there's any other way to say it and in my view, it's. It's not what the pardon powers is intended to be. And so what you see is basically the president thinking that he is above the law right basically feeling like he gets to decide, and we should talk about the president, the White House statement that was issued, which was literally if they'd like cut out letters from bunkers if they could other letters from like newspapers and magazines and put it on like it's like a crazy ransom demand. From cartoon. It's like you can't even believe it's true. I read it and I was like you actually put that on official White House stationary because it seems. Like, it's it's. It's like it reminds me dowse. Sometimes people have this in their in their. I finally dictated, but not read. Exactly exactly the exclamation mark at the end and the word hoax is in there. He attacks the jury. He Attacks Muller. He attacks all of his nemeses. It's a political statement. Yeah, and we should we talk about the jury just for a second, because one of the things I think is really important here and it's different than Michael Flynn Michael Flynn pled guilty. He plead guilty multiple times etcetera, but but Roger Stone fought the case the he'd asked the judge to dismiss upfront. Upfront, the judge said now it went to a trial. There was a jury that was selected. He had very able defense counsel with him. He was convicted. He then asked the judge to dismiss the case against the judge said now. This is the way the criminal justice system works. You're charged with something. The government has to prove that you've done it beyond a reasonable doubt, and then if you're convicted as a rule, you're held accountable, and so there is something that's really. That is so problematic about this instance of the president, using the pardon power and again look, there have been other examples presidents using the pardon power in bad ways right Bill Clinton with his brother Roger. Clinton like it's different than here a little more than we would..

president Roger Stone pardon attorney Michael Cohen Michael Flynn Nancy Pelosi United States Paul Manafort. Jill Bill Clinton Nixon White House Muller Michael advisor England official attorney
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

06:42 min | 8 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Having you as a part of the insider community. All right, so shall we start with? What was kind of expected? But still upsetting for people who still care about. non-selective application of the law. And that is the commutation of Roger Stone. People should recall Roger Stone close associate the president. But was charged by a grand jury employed by the Special Counsel's Office Robert Muller's office. Convicted at trial of seven counts including. OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO CONGRESS And witness tampering and a very serious way you'll remember. The bill bar got involved. In the sensing recommendation. The line prosecutors in the case down from the case, so it's been controversial for a while Roger Stone's been hinting to the president that he would re more than hinting I guess he would really like to be saved. Trump dangling the possibility of clemency for a long time, he was set to report to prison today actually. Yeah and last Friday. Forty months, which is which by the way bill? Bill Bar said and we'll get to this in more detail. When asked about it last week I thank. The prosecution was righteous and I. Think the sentence that the judge ultimately gave was fair. That's an attorney, General. Who in other cases. Has Pressed the department to dismiss something against an associate of the president, like in the case of Michael Flynn and related to the Russia investigation so right I think that's important that the stone piece relates completely to the Russia investigation. It goes back to. You'll remember the wikileaks getting access to the DNC server releasing Hillary Clinton's emails and there were questions about stone had tweeted out had made public statements about that there were there were a lot of. Of things coming and he'd also, as we now know had a lot of conversations back and forth with people like Steve Bannon and the president of the United States about what was happening and what emails we're going to potentially be released, and so it really does fall within the heartland of the Russia investigation. So that's a that's a very interesting I think important point, so the first question people have is when the president decided on Friday evening. To. Put out a statement that he was commuting. The sentence people wondered will y a commutation versus partner. I gets the first question is what is the difference? Pardon basically expunges that conviction. It doesn't take away the guilt, but it basically takes away the consequences of conviction and the slightest kind of wipe clean it's it's an official act of forgiveness. Whereas commutation is something different, it's merely the wiping away of a certain portion of the sentence reduction in the sentence. Right, so somebody you could have your sentence commuted, and we see it a lot. When people who have been incarcerated for a period of time where the president or governor state will commute their sentence, and then basically say you can be released now so they may have served five years or ten years, and then the rest of the sentence commuted, and so it's worth thinking about as sort of it relates to the punishment, not the conviction piece of what's happening whereas the pardon again. You're right in saying with a pardon. Pardon. It's an acknowledgment of guilt in some ways, right? It's sort of your. There's nothing about a pardon that says the person is not guilty. It's actually sort of to the contrary which is I think white, Roger still didn't want that. He wants the ability to continue to litigate whether or not he was fairly convicted by jury, and so he didn't want the president. Say I pardon new, which then would have basically been? You've done something wrong I'm pardoning you for that wrong. Right and absolving you of of of. Anything that goes with it. What's important? The distinction also just for a moment between the pardon and the commutation pardon. Everything that goes along with the criminal conviction gets washed away so restrictions on voting. Get washed away. Fines get washed away with the commutation the president for stone. He waved supervised any sort of supervision. He waved fines. He waved the criminal sentence. He didn't touch the criminal conviction and the criminal convictions still carries with it. Things like restrictions on voting for felony convictions so pairing. Carrying firearms exactly so it's different but. Here I think it was very political. We should discuss for a second. Why it is that he did the one rather than the other one reason is. The Roger Stone told a reporter. That that's what he wanted, and you alluded to it a second ago. What are you? What do you make that? Yeah, I think he definitely wanted it. Remember the harden I think it was one of the sheriffs that trump had pardoned him, and then on national. Exactly Jar Pyo national TV. Someone basically said so. You know you're admitting you did something wrong. Right? When you accept the pardon from the president, you're acknowledging like I did something wrong and the president is forgiving you and basically saying you know this is the power of the executive is. is to basically say like I'm going to absolve you of this, but it doesn't take away the guilt essentially and our pile basically has this look on his face. He's being asked like what so it's clear that stone was thinking. If I take the pardon, then I'm essentially leading into I did the conduct. I'm just asking for forgiveness and to have this sort of swept off my record, and he wants to litigation court. He's already litigated this a lot, but he wants to litigate whether he was lawfully convicted there things you want he wants. He wants to get out of the. Jail sentence he wants to get a jail free card from trump when he wants to do yeah, and then he wants vindication from the courts, and he thinks that puts them in a better position later to say. There was nothing going on here, but it's interesting. Sort of ordered up what he wanted he did. He totally basically and we. We should talk about this just for a second, because what what we see happening here with stone and with trump is like. We've talked about them. As Griffin's right is legal drifters, they'll do anything that they can do to basically get an advantage to commit any crime. They want to commit to lie. Cheat and steal. What's fascinating about is that there have always been some check some accountability on people like the president from doing something like this from essentially commuting the sentence of someone who was going to potentially testify against him, who chose not to testify against him, but who was complicit in what looked like it was a conspiracy upfront. Upfront potentially and so, what's fascinating? Is You take away all that accountability and it's like they're just free to do whatever they want. It's like the equivalent of stone walking into a Deli, and like being like all of a Turkey and cheese on Rye. Hold the Mayo and he's like ordering exactly what he wants. And the president is giving it to him and this lack of accountability. It's like I can't begin to say it's like it's like basically saying like like extortion with aside of lying to Congress. And I'd like to get away with it if you don't buy an and they're getting it and there's like no check and balance here so I think the biggest question I have for you on..

president Roger Stone Trump CONGRESS Robert Muller Bill Bar Special Counsel witness tampering Russia Hillary Clinton wikileaks attorney partner Steve Bannon United States extortion official Congress Michael Flynn DNC
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

06:00 min | 8 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Why is she charged with one thousand, nine hundred, and not the two thousand pieces so there two other counts in the indictment as well. That are council perjury. which can be a little bit easier to prove, but they're kind of interesting. They stem from a civil deposition. That gylain gave. In April of two thousand sixteen that arose from a from a lawsuit against her based on some of these same allegations in charge, perjury, charge, making a false statement under eighteen AC-, thousand and one. You have to plead with particularity in the indictment. What the statements were that you're alleging? Were false and material and count five. They actually list the QA. d'alene was asked. Digest Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages. If you know by the way that's never good practice to say if you know, I don't know why people do that. Obviously, you only say if you know the answer was. From Gylain, I don't know what you're talking about. Question lists all the people under the age of eighteen that you interacted with any of Jeffries properties answer. I'm not aware of anybody that I. Interacted with other than obviously the plaintiff who was seventeen at this point. They alleged that that's that's perjury. then. There's count six. There's a little bit of a longer. Excerpt from deposition which. Does warning to some folks if you're listening with your kids, question, were you aware of the presence of sex toys or devices used in sexual activities Mr Epsteins Palm Beach House. Answer No, not that I recall. And then there's more questions about the sex toys or devices. And then she gets asked about other sexual activities, Mr Epstein, and then the question is. Is it your testimony that in the nineteen nineties and two thousands? You were not aware that Mr. Epstein was having sexual activities with anyone other than yourself. And the Blonde Brunette on those few occasions when they were involved with you, answer, that is my testimony. That is correct. Question is it your testimony? You've never given anybody a massage. It's kind of a broad question I. that's I was Gonna say that's a very very broad question answer. Yeah I have not given anyone massage anyone. Question you never gave Mr Epstein massage massages testimony answer, that is my testimony. Then question. You never gave minor victim to massage your testimony. Answer I never did minor victim to massage. Detail and That means that minor victim to will testify at a trial that in fact Max. Maxwell yes, it's what it must mean, but also we're talking about timeframes and yeah, the particular I four accounts that relate to sex trafficking and enticement and coercion of a minor. Relate to a particular time period ninety four to ninety seven. But you see with respect to this, these charges of perjury, these falsehoods. The timeframe for the activity that's being asked about is much broader, ninety four to ninety seven. Yeah the one thing I'd say so there. There are a couple points about ninety four to ninety seven charges. It's clear that they have witnesses victims who will testify and it's clear there are some pretty specific allegations is older though you're talking things that happened ten years before you know the sort of two thousand two allegations from the two thousands. You're also talking about laws that I'm not saying that they're hard to prove. I personally favored the human trafficking statute, which basically say for victims under the age of eighteen that. That if there's a commercial sex, act that the individuals involved at the people who profit are can be held liable for federal sex trafficking, so I think there's got to be reason that they didn't charge it as sex trafficking, either they intend to, or they're. They're hoping to, or they're always looking for additional victims, or they've made a decision that they're strongest case and the victims on which they can rely to prove that maxwell was involved directly the strongest cases from the nineteen nineties, so they've they've got with that. What do you make of the arguments, preet? This relates to Berman being fired recently. Jeff Berman was the US attorney until recently now his first assistant has has taken over, and it's really less than two weeks later that these charges were filed I mean when I was fired in March of twenty seventeen. There were some cases including a very prominent one that we were investigating with respect to the mayor, the city of New York which was close to conclusion. And it's always going to be the case. There's always in an office I guess and why? In the course of any given year there are probably. A dozen or more very significant case any given time. There's going to be living in case that's about. To Be announced or read about to be made and so. When someone leaves is always going to be some significant thing that happens shortly thereafter, and people are always going to say well maybe. Not a coincidence or some reason why? The case wasn't brought before I. Don't I don't by? August rouse. was handpicked by. Audrey sauce was handpicked by Jeffrey Berman I'm sure they were on the same page with respect to how they were deciding to pursue various cases. And now it's just the time. Yeah, and in your case I'm pretty sure that the president wouldn't have fired you to protect built blasio the Democratic Mayor York. I'm just saying that's just my view. What do you make of the fact that this is being handled? As the Epstein case was in the public corruption unit not in the human trafficking unit of the US Attorney's office. Know some. People have commented on it. And it could be for number reasons it could be that as an initial matter, there were at least one or more targets or subjects of the investigation who were public figures. Maybe they were looking at the sweetheart deal that you were talking about. Between the US Attorney's office in the Southern District of Florida led then by Alex Kosta public official, and maybe they thought they were irregularities air. Air and that's what they were looking at. Maybe they were looking at some other prominent public officials who seem to have been caught up in a sex trafficking against him. Charges have not been brought, but there are, there are people including certain prince that has been implicated in all of so maybe they decided because of the sensitivity of the matters and the possibility that there would be some..

perjury. Mr. Epstein US attorney Jeff Berman Maxwell Mr Epstein Mr Epsteins Palm Beach House Epstein Gylain QA. d'alene Jeffries New York Alex Kosta August rouse. Florida president Audrey sauce Jeffrey Berman
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

01:30 min | 10 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Baroni and BARONI chief of Staff David Wildstein concocted a little bit of and that was on the twelve lanes of the George Washington Bridge for decades and decades. Nine lanes have been dedicated. And this might go over the heads of some people familiar with the tri-state area. But let me just try to explain it? So you understand what issue of the twelve nine lanes have always been dedicated to the various highways and byways as they say Coming out of that area but three lanes were always dedicated to the town of Fort Lee. 'cause it's a small town and that's where the mouth of the. George Washington Bridge is and so people who are trying to get across the bridge to go into the city from Fort Lee would not be piled up and traffic for our after hour after hour and that is generally very well and then under the guise of to engage in a traffic. Study the people that I mentioned orchestrated a scheme in which they reduced the three lanes for Fort Lee to one lane and they did it for multiple days and it had the effect of clogging traffic in Fort Lee in causing unbelievable amount of heartache and headache for the mayor and the citizens of Fort Lee. Traffic backed up. You know well back into the town. There's some famous emails in the case. Brought forward in the trial that we're bridget. Anne Kelly rights to David Wildstein after the endorsement was not forthcoming quote. Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee. This was all terrible behavior. The Supreme Court actually said the evidence. The jury heard no doubt shows wrongdoing deception corruption.

Fort Lee George Washington Bridge Baroni David Wildstein chief of Staff Supreme Court Anne Kelly
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

06:52 min | 11 months ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Happy Easter? Yeah yes and to you and how to celebrate exactly so. We opened up the entire economy. The country's back to work on as AVISTA is the president. It was it was not actually. Yeah it was very. It was a very interesting day we We saw my parents and we sat about twenty feet away from them and we took a walk and it was a really quiet quiet day. So you're twenty feet open. You do what you want an extra margin of fourteen very careful lawyer. No I'm guessing. It was about twenty feet. We just sort of you know. We sort of sat at a distance and Did a little Easter egg hunt but I feel like one of the things. It's complicated confusing about this I it was. You know six feet than it's maybe people's spit can go beyond six feet. And so I just you know we were just being cautious. Have out. How's eastern you? Should you should probably stick to each consonant spitting contests to avoid that problem. Exactly it's like stop it. Yeah we got a quiet weekend and we had a we had a small Seder over Passover and You know waiting for the country reopen. I guess we should talk about that. There continues to be all. We've talked about it before this. Lingering question people's minds because the president causes a lot of confusion as to WHO has intimate authority to quote unquote reopen the country. The president said yesterday. It's hard to believe that you could be more honest by pronouncements. He makes but he said yesterday and it's gotten a lot of attention when asked about reopening the country he said when somebody's the president of the United States the authority is total. And that's the way it's gotTa be is. That true is. Your is your authority total. If you're the president know and you know what's fascinating about it is that I sort of feel like from everything. The president has done since the day. He came into office in two thousand sixteen like that. That is in fact what he believes. I think it's the first time he's ever said it so bluntly but all of his policies all the way he makes decisions the way he refuses to provide information to Congress is completely consistent with that view and it's completely inconsistent with the truth of the United States of America where we have the tenth amendment to the Constitution that says specifically all powers not enumerated in this in the constitution are reserved to the states and the people and so it is very clear that the president while having vast powers has limited powers and so it was just an astonishing thing to hear. And what was your reaction? It's sort of like an alternate reality moment of you're watching something and you can't even believe that you're listening to the president of the United States. Say something that's so untrue right but you keep thinking that's not going to happen again and again that does not look. My reaction was what I posted on twitter last night. 'cause someone reminded us at a month ago in response to a question about the inadequacy of testing. The president was asked. You Take Responsibility Says No. I don't take any responsibility at all. So you put those two things together and the president basically saying my authorities total but my responsibility zero switches which is kind of an odd combination totally. It's even like I was jarred by the fact that the president does have some really important powers in a in this crisis and we've talked about it. The Defense Production Act. That isn't stashing amount of authority for the president to basically save a private business. I am commanding you to make personal protective equipment and make ventilators. And yet he was very slow to use it. He's only used it in. Really Limited way is right. He's got these use it a couple times for ventilators. Mpp But nothing like neither as quickly as early as I would've expected at the president to use it and so it's like the power he does have. He has not really us then. He's going out and and really this is about and we talked about this a couple times. The point is at the end of the day. The governors are the ones who have put the emergency declaration. Stay in place. Orders in in effect in different cities and states mayors have put them in cities governors put them in states and so ultimately. The governor's hold the power to really decide when they're states reopen and so the president can reopen airports. He can reopen international travel. He can do a number of things but when it comes to people going out and going to work unless there are federal government employees. It really is GonNa depend on and even then the governors if they have order saying you can't be on the streets then that prevails. What did you make yesterday pre of this thing that we saw in and I'm surprised we haven't seen it earlier. Which is that. We now have ten governors who joined together a few on the west coast and I think six or seven on the East Coast including New York New Jersey and California Obviously Oregon Washington Massachusetts Rhode Island. So there's at least one Republican Governor Charlie. Baker Massachusetts is in there and they represent almost forty percent of the economy and they've essentially banded together. It's like it's kind of like the articles of Confederation in Twenty Twenty where you've states agreeing to work together. Basically so as not to be competing against one another and so as to make decisions about schools and when people are allowed out in connection with one another you know look. I think that's an interesting thing. I think the governor Cuomo keep saying at a minimum. You have to do these things regionally and here in the Tri State area where you and I live in record that New York Connecticut New Jersey and people live in one of those states and work in one of the other states and people crossing the borders all the time. So you can't have one policy for New York and a different one for Connecticut or New Jersey and is going back to what you were saying earlier with. Who GETS TO REOPEN. And who's in charge of that everything? The governors are the ones who put in the stay at home orders in the first place. They're the ones who wound us down. They're going to be naturally the ones not just as a matter of the Tenth Amendment and Constitutional Law but also as a pragmatic matter. They're going to be the ones who wind us back up. I'm offended by so much of what the president has done. And I really. That's not even a strong enough word. I think I think that the fact of the matters that all of us should be voting like our lives depend on it because they literally do and the president has just failed in every possible way. But this is yet another example. Where even now in the stark reality we have more than twenty thousand Americans who died. We have countless tens of thousands of others who are in hospitals many In critical care and the president is still worried about being able to to say that. He's the boss worried about his ego in my view. And that is just. It's just not acceptable. Yes I look at the TV screen. I think the current figures were recording on Tuesday. Morning is close to twenty four thousand Americans dead so the toll keeps keeps rising and the president has put together at least so far and maybe there will be additions. A guess reopening. The Country Council opened the country council and it has in a lot of notable health. Experts like.

president United States AVISTA New York Twenty Twenty twitter Governor Charlie Congress Country Council Baker Massachusetts Cuomo Connecticut New Jersey East Coast America Massachusetts Rhode Island New Jersey
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

09:27 min | 1 year ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Folks the historic news cycle continues as the impeachment managers and president. Trump's defense team wrap up their arguments and move onto the next stages at the impeachment trial meanwhile leaked revelations from John Bolton's manuscript of fuel to push for allowing impeachment witnesses including him potentially upending the Republican strategy swift trial. Lots of issues of surface. This week that will continue to dominate the national conversation in the days and weeks to come and and Milliman I rake it all down on the cafe insider podcast today. We are making a clip from the most recent episode available in the stay tuned feet to listen to our full conversation and access. All other cafe insider content try the membership free for two the weeks. You can do that at cafe. Dot Com slash insider that's cafe dot com slash insider. So the breaking news from. I guess yesterday is that the New York Times published a story. They have access to a manuscript of John. Bolton by that guy writes really fast longer right book scheduled to come out hero fast because his publishers want him to get it out while the news is still timely. The book is scheduled to come out on Saint Patrick's Day. Oh I love Saint Patrick's day double the hangover for some people or you can drink and read at the same time. I think they'll be required. So it's kind of a bombshell. Because the Times reports that one of the thrusts book John Bolton says in his book that he had direct right conversations with the president in which the President tied the three hundred ninety one million dollars in military aid to Ukraine to the announcement of an investigation of the Biden's sad is the central premise of the impeachment case of the trial. It's a central defense uttered by multiple of the of the president's lawyers on the Senate floor that no one testified that the president resident told them there was a linkage between those two things all apparently ripped asunder by this manuscript that is known to us because someone leaked Bolton Bolton says he did not but the manuscript has been submitted to the White House and it sitting in some National Security Council staffers drawer because he obtained pre publication review view in an abundance of caution to make sure that there's nothing classified in there that the administration could object to so multiple people. Have this manuscript. Outside of John Bolton and presumably publisher so Bolton's lawyer said they sent one copy to the White House for pre publication review. We should talk about this in relation to the yearbook in your experience with this. If you've been through this but apparently it's common practice that people who are writing about their experience when they worked in the federal government that they often will put it through you. You know. I was curious about whether they really needed to or not. But I could see with Bolton at the level that he was at that it would make sense just to to do it to make sure that you weren't a problem. He says that in his lawyers sent a letter. I sent a similar letter to Department of Justice. There's a you know if you were in the White House there's a particular office you send to and if you work in the Justice Department there's a different office within the department you send to say you sent the DOJ. Yeah but so I had the same view. My Book is much more innocuous than I wasn't taking shots anybody. Although I've been a critic of the prominent justice lately nothing classified nothing sensitive and so the way I read the statute and the regulation and the way my lawyers didn't where the publisher did was there was no need to submit. Thought you know what you're a careful person. You're careful lawyer. You don't want anybody to say later that you didn't submit. I would let her very similar to. What Bolton's law wrote? which is we? Don't think there's anything here too. Great care to avoid sensitive material in here but in abundance of caution we're sending for review. We expect it to be done within thirty days. which is what the policy is and one of the reasons that I felt comfortable submitting? It is assured by lots of people. Notwithstanding political things have gotten in the administration that this review is done by a really crack team of career folks and they really don't let politics get involved even if you've been critical of the administration and I got a letter back twenty seven or twenty twenty eight days later saying always fine. Thank you for submitting a good luck with your book. I don't know if that will happen with John Bolton because so much at stake in by the way that three day period expires in the next couple of days. Yeah Yeah Yeah. So let's let's go high level and this for one second. which is I agree that it is incredibly important? It's not evidence yet in the trial. Obviously but I think it's very important but I will say that I was not surprised in the least and I suspect you either. It's a little bit like you know there's gambling in Atlantic city. There's prostitution in Vegas like there are certain things that are just GonNa Happen. And John Bolton saying given the conversations that people feel a hill and Tim Morrison had when they testify publicly about Bolton telling them to go paper themselves to tell Josh Eisenberg in the White House counsel's Office to basically make sure that they had a record of their objections and what had happened and also. Oh the just the reference to Giuliani's drug deal so I think they knew that Bolton wasn't on board and it would have been impossible to believe that the national security adviser did not have a conversation changed with the president about this issue given what we know about how much was happening behind the scenes and how much you know there were senators calling the Department of Defense was concerned about it. There were questions whether it was violating the impoundment act. which is that it did so it would have been impossible for them not to have spoken about? And he's the Guy Olympic Mulvaney who has a direct relationship to the president. It presents not talking to lieutenant. Colonel Women Casket ethical question. Would you if you knew about the Bolton manuscript and even without the bold manuscript because you knew generally what was being being described about conversations between Bolton and the president would you think it was appropriate to make the arguments that other people have been making on behalf the president including my former colleague. Michael Pure where he he says the Democrats entire quid pro quo theory is based on nothing more than the initial speculation of one person ambassador son. That speculation relation is wrong. Despite the Democrats hopes the ambassadors mistaken belief does not become true merely because he repeated many times times and apparently too many people first of all. That's also not true right and so your former colleague Michael Pura. He did a whole thing to try to discredit Gordon Jordan. Sunlen and I have a problem with that in many ways because Solomon is their Guy Saad. Lynn was not given all of his text messages and emails. And I think there are issues around the president's lawyers ways efforts to discredit. Don't get me wrong. I think online has a lot of issues but fundamentally Sunlen is you know. He says that he believed it was connected and he believed it because of conversations he'd had Giuliani and others. So there's maybe not the direct conversation on everything with island but there is a conversation after he leaves with David Holmes. He's sitting in the restaurant. And here's the president talking so so I actually don't even think I first of all would would question whether that's actually a fair characterization of the evidence but second of aw even if we accepted that as true they basically set up there and made these really bold arguments about the facts and the evidence which they knew to be factually inaccurate correct. Now there's a question about whether or not these lawyers and others knew about the allegation in the manuscript. It's such a sensitive thing that Mitch McConnell. Oh I think through a spokesperson has said flatly on the record that they had no heads up about it and that he's angry about it and annoyed. They might change their arguments. have have to think that McConnell who is just running this with military. He's running the discipline of his group. And I know he may lose him. Centers we'll talk about it but he is. He pushes hard to maintain discipline amongst Republican senators and by and large he is very disciplined with his group. The president and his lawyers are the exact opposite of that right. And so like you have to believe that. McConnell is scratching his head at you know McConnell could be very wall saying to the president and I don't know if he has but it wouldn't be crazy for McConnell saying look I'm about to acquit year of these charges every day. You do something to put us in a harder position. We don't know who leaked the information. It was done in a very interesting. What do you think sensitively time time away? I don't know it could be somebody who realizes that the president had bad things and it's putting it I don't know how widely disseminated so going back to what I was saying before about. How professional that's supposed to be John Bolton and his famous much much much bigger deal than than my book that was mostly about what I didn't? Sdn Y and goes to a central question of impeachment when folks at the white so this and they know that there's a potential argument of executive privilege that they might want to assert about. This very stuff seems to me. It's probably above the pay grade in the mind of somebody who's supposed to be analyzing using this and they might have disseminated shackles. Myth former guest on stay tuned has said in his experience even though manuscripts like this are supposed to be tightly reviewed. And we're in a tight circle of folks. They travel they travel. I would be surprised if that wasn't travels far as Senate but they probably traveled through the that'd be important to know and might you know we can predict a little bit even though supposed to be professional process only designed to make objections to things that are classified in the book. I tend to believe that John Bolton was careful not to do that. 'cause he wants to be widely widely read and the people that have this booking skiff and have security clearance. He's waiting for them to get back to him the moment they give him the blessing to publish the book. And say there's nothing. I think that we need to take out to me. That's what it works a waiver of the executive privilege. Because you're saying some people made the argument. I think I oversee the little bit on twitter. The fact that he shared this manuscript probably with a publisher and an editor means that executive privilege is way. There's an argument against that because I overstated. But we're really getting at is if and when the White House office says okay. We bless the book. Then I think you're out of luck..

Bolton Bolton president John Bolton White House publisher Mitch McConnell Senate New York Times Giuliani Saint Patrick executive Trump twitter Department of Justice Atlantic city National Security Council DOJ prostitution Department of Defense Vegas
"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

Stay Tuned with Preet

10:46 min | 1 year ago

"cafe insider" Discussed on Stay Tuned with Preet

"Hey Stay tuned listeners the whistleblower scandal surrounding trump and Ukraine is a big story and for good reason as many of you know I'm a co host with an milligram of the cafe insider podcast and is the former Attorney General of New Jersey. Doj Alum and a dear friend who joins me every Monday to break down politically charged legal news making making the headlines. Some stories are so big that we take down the paywall or as we like to say unseal or declassify it so that everyone can make sense of what's happening in this country last week as you may know. The Washington Post reported that a whistle blower from the intelligence community alleged in a formal complaint that trump made a troubling promise to a foreign leader then on Thursday the Post reported that the complaint centres on Ukraine and the New York Times reported the whistleblower complaint was quote related to a series of actions that goes beyond any single discussion with a foreign leader close quote the Wall Street Journal followed up with a report on Friday that during the July twenty fifth call just one day after Bob Muller testified before Congress trump repeatedly urged the new crane president to investigate Joe Biden and business deals involving his son Hunter Biden. It's also been widely reported that trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani pressured the Ukrainian government to investigate the administration was withholding two hundred fifty million dollars military aid from Ukraine. What follows there's a sample of my conversation with an about all these issues? If you want to hear the rest of our discussion go to cafe dot com slash preet and sign up to receive an email with a free link to the full episode. Where do we stand at this moment in. Maybe that's the facts and we can run through them. Yeah the facts I now. Let's be a little rosier conjecture. We'll get there but faxes taxes. Let's go back and just give us a couple of minutes okay so let's go back to you. Remember July twenty fourth Robert Mueller testified before the House the following day Thursday July twenty fifth. There's a call between president trump and the pretty pretty newly elected Ukrainian President Zilenski and the call is apparently to congratulate trump calls Lansky to congratulate him on his election now a more extensive readout basically notes that they also spoke about investigation into corruption cases and talk about what comes after that but I think this is the genesis of the conversation. We're having today on Monday. August twelfth a whistle blower from the intelligence community filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community Michael Atkinson very high level. The Intelligence Committee has a separate whistleblower because so much of the materials classified so it doesn't go through the normal practices and procedures cheers and there's actually a separate law to address what happens when there's somebody in the intelligence community who wants to make an allegation against wrongdoing against the government or someone in government and when such the person doesn't want to just go straight to Congress doesn't want to leak to the press like sometimes happens and we'll discuss this over and over again before you continue with overview. There's a lot of T- crossing being an iding yeah a lot of people here which I think makes it different from other kinds of cases right and it's a very formal process that set out in the statute and and what the Inspector General has to consider the decisions at the Inspector General has to make that happens on August twelve. There's a complaint filed fourteen days after receiving the complaint the Inspector General sends it to the Acting Director of National Intelligence Head of DNA by a guy named Joseph McGuire McGuire. He was member. Dan Coats was the head of DNA. He left recently. The person who has his deputy was pushed out by the president and now we have Joseph Maguire so that goes to him he has by law seven days in which to transmit that complaint to the Intelligence Committee that seven calendar days and he doesn't transmit and the standard for having to transmit such a thing hiring is whether or not the allegation made is of urgent concern and when the inspector general sent it to the acting head of the deny he basically said it's credible and it's urging in concern at which point the acting head of the DNC had seven days to transmit it to the intelligence committees in Congress. He did not do so at that point on Monday September nine so basically a week later three House committees launch an investigation into reports that for nearly two years the president and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani were pressuring the Ukrainian Ukrainian government to investigate Joe Biden son Hunter Biden for politically motivated reasons and so that's ongoing this same day. The first letter comes from the inspector factor general and by the way that's separate. We don't know how they got information to open those investigations but that starts literally the same day the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community Michael Michael Atkinson sends a letter to the Intelligence Committee and says that there's a whistleblower complaint that he's deemed credible and to be an urgent concern the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff then sends a letter to Maguire the acting deny saying give us the full complaint. You're required under law. It's worth noting that the statute it says shall provide meaning must doesn't always work. It doesn't always work. It doesn't hasn't worked with the president's tax returns either. That's her eight so basically a few days later shift sends subpoena to the acting deny and says we want everything by September seventeenth or you have to testify before the full committee a few days go oh by on September seventeenth a second letter comes from the Inspector General Atkinson to the House Intel Committee and what comes out in that letter. Is that the Acting Indiana has made this determination that no disclosure to Congress is necessary and he basically does it onto grounds one. He says it's not an urgent concern at it doesn't impact impact the person who it relates to is not a member of the intelligence community and this doesn't relate to conduct covered and were covered by the director of National Intelligence and basically saying that deny is saying it's not an urgent concern and we'll talk about whether that's legitimate in a second the second part is he says that there are things things that are potentially privileged and confidential that are related to the whistleblower complain the Inspector General says he disagrees with that determination but that he's going to respect eh and he's trying to figure out a way to get the information to basically let the complain it. The whistle blower provide the information directly to Congress so now we're impasse. Yes missile blower or whoever it was is. It sounds like it's not a whistle blower. You can't have that happen to a president of the United States and you can't have people doing false along so we're gonNA get into each component of that. We're GONNA talk about the impasse between the DNA. I am the House Intelligence Committee and the Inspector General. We're GONNA talk about congressional reaction. We're going to talk about the underlying allegations made by Rudy Giuliani and president trump the bottom line based on a combination of reporting and also admissions made by the president himself about the phone call he made is this the president had states after having caused the country for two years to go through a process us of coming to grips with whether or not a foreign power interfere with an election and whether his campaign had anything to do with it literally on the day after as you point out. Bob Bob Mueller testifies in Congress and some people thought maybe you know it landed kind of thud the very next day the President United States calls up a foreign leader and for the purpose of because I don't see any other legitimate purpose and we'll talk about it for the purpose of hurting the leading rival in the twenty twenty election action right calls upon that president to do something with respect to an investigation of his potential opponent Joe Biden's son Hunter and Joe Biden himself according to the Wall Street Journal said no fewer than eight times. You need to do this in the backdrop. The question is is whether or not as pressure he was withholding two hundred and fifty fifty million dollars in aid to Ukraine badly needed that Congress had already approved and so there are questions of whether or not that's bribery. That's extortion is campaign finance violation but let me say something nothing else here because you and I are former prosecutors are businesses up largely during our lives has been to figure out the details of criminal statutes and whether or not the elements of crime have been made and you and I have both been on television some of the stuff broke and I wanna make a point that I made then I wanna make it here and we should make it throughout so here we go again. I want to be very careful that even though our main professions have been criminal prosecution that the country doesn't one more time go down the road of thinking the only thing that matters here here is whether or not a criminal statute violated you know go on TV. You could ask the question based on our background. Well was this bribery to violate a law. Is it extortion. It may be some all those things it'll take a long time I think to unfold and figure out all the details and the facts but if these things are true and if there was pressure brought to bear and if the intent was to hurt a political opponent and if he was doing that by having a conversation of forsell conversation with a much smaller weaker poor country then that's an abusive authority. It's a it's an abuse of power and we shouldn't have to wait for some. We shouldn't have to wait for some prosecutor a special prosecutor to be able to make the case chapter and verse attach. It was violated which by the way now everyone knows as you would. I have been saying for a couple of years you can indict is sitting president anyway so we will get to whether or not laws related but I think the terms of the debate on this question I think in some ways it's much more serious than what was going on it with the two thousand sixteen election because because trump was then a candidate. He's now the president United States I agree. We need to be clear that the question here is whether or not it was an inappropriate and completely ridiculous over the top abuse of his authority which based on what I see so far lar- we're always very careful to see what the facts are but based on what we see so far. It absolutely was yeah I think the facts as reported related to Ukraine are true in one fact just to point out is that the allegation is and trump seemed yesterday to confirm that there was a conversation about investigating a hunter Biden while they were discussing money. How does he describe that conversation because the president doesn't just have a conversation in his remarks arcs he spoke with reporters Sunday morning and he was asked if he would release the transcript of his call with the Ukrainian president trump describes the call as perfect reiterated needed that he would talk about releasing the details of the call and then says you have to be a little bit shy about releasing at what with all of that being said we had a very great conversation very straight very honest conversation. I hope they can put it out. My conversation conversation with an continues head to cafe dot com slash prete where you can sign up to receive an email with a link to listen to the full episode for free..

president trump Hunter Biden Congress Intelligence Committee Joe Biden Ukraine Rudy Giuliani House Intelligence Committee Michael Michael Atkinson Acting Director of National In Robert Mueller Intelligence Community Wall Street Journal United States Joseph Maguire Washington Post bribery Doj