Ok, mccarthy report. I guess rivers larry discuss with Danny Mccarthy the latest legal and nash. A security issues this week. What else the late Down the durham investigation, you are, of course, listening to and ask for your summaries, you not already following us on a stream service you can find us everywhere has spotify to fighter itunes. Please give this podcast an animal Aren't you the glowing, indeed gushing five star review, they deserve on item. and now without further ado, I well to this very podcast through the miracle of zoom, none other than any mccarthy rachel got any hurry up your challenge. You went on yeah, it's cold here

it's cold everywhere. I hear I understand it was even colder in new jersey this morning, so I can't complain too much, but you know the mets mets have won fifteen out of the first twenty one, so I'm like really whipped up for that, but just doesn't feel like baseball season. The last two weeks or so I'm hoping to have went to bed on a cold. It's been a cold spring, so we got more durham action, so I guess the way to do this. First of all, that's explain. That means you watch what dirhams theory is now which has become clearer and you ve you ve written about it and then we'll get into the court court action. But what? What is? What is termed theory, the case rick,

Jordan is basically saying that the false statement to the fbi that he has charged against Michael sus man, who is the lawyer formally further perkins Kui law firm, who represented the Clinton campaign and represent that other people that will get into a relevant to this investigation the false statement according to durham, takes place within the broader framework of what he is called the joint venture and what I have called the big scheme. Just distinguish it from the smaller narrow charge. Ilities brought a basic What are you saying is the Hillary Clinton campaign concocted the trump russia collusion?

The narrow and some of its operatives came up with this angle of collusion that involved alpha bank. This allegation that trump and the kremlin had a communications back channel into. At communications through servers at trump tower and an important russian financial institution known as alpha bank. They put that information together from internet records that they had privileged access to in part, because they there were contractual relationships with the government which were designed to protect american cyber security, but they exploited for purposes of doing campaign. position research on behalf of Hillary Clinton. They shared this information through the spring and summer of twenty. Sixteen, with top officials in the Clinton campaign,

Mainly. The main connection here would be the law firm, because such men, who is the defendant here, is representing one of the tec executives who actually compile this tonight. Data and sussman has also represented the Clinton campaign directly on cyber issues, his partner at the time at the law, was marked Elias as the main lawyer for the Clinton campaign and for the day and city Such men had also represented the Dnc in connection with the alleged russian hack on their servers earlier in twenty sixteen. So in the course of all this in connection with trying to build this narrative that trump had a corrupt relationship with the kremlin Elias

so recruited, the opposition research firm fusion gps, which was darted by one of its co founders, is glenn simpson and he read take them for this anti russia project and simpson who brings in? If you recall, Christopher steel, who is the one who who makes the infamous steel dossier this? it's kind of a sideline not completely, but it's kind of a sideline here, but I would just noticed. Loans were going through the up the timeframe that Elias brings in fusion and simpson simpson recruits steel and steal ends up recruiting this guy gordon genco, who is his source for much of the stuff in the year. The nonsense in the steel dossier I mentioned and shank o in this connection only because the other case the dorm has brought is a false statements case against and check out, so he's got one against such men and one against dense

go so during the spring and summer of twenty. Sixteen there are meetings between the heck executive who compiled all this information was name is rodney jaffee, saucepan Elias and simpson such men also meet with steel at at a certain point. and one of the ways we reached this goes to show how health sinister This is in its way. There are basically concocting this alpha bank back channel communications, back channel story

and part of what sussman has, and I mean what durham has in the sussman Indictment- is all these communications between the internet researchers, where it's clear that they know that this is nonsense, that there's nothing to it and what joffrey basically tells them is look. It doesn't need to be bullet proof. It just needs to be something that we can stir up. You know it needs to be plausible enough that we can stir up as a story out of it, so he doesn't fray. He doesn't out now say to them. It's ok to be false. What he basically says is we have to be able to where you pick information enough, that we can create some smoke, that we can create an impression that there might be something bad going on here. The reason I mention this in the in this connection is the whence they put together this alpha bank part of the collusion narrative.

Jaffe shares it with sussman sussman shares it with steel and and and fusion gps. Steel ends up writing it into the dossier and that's what ends up going to the f b I, which they use to get pfizer warrants. On the guy connected trumps campaign, so you can see that this is. This is more than just a political dirty trick its having, actual real world. Legal consequences just so. People have a have a framework for where, where I'm going with this, this is like a classic dirty trick. Type of thing. Where one side, you know one side in a political campaign, comes up with a name the koran option about the other side tries to get the media interested in it tries to get law enforcement interested in it and if they succeed,

it is getting law enforcement into the interested in it. Then they go back to the media, saying that it so serious, but long foresman is actually investigating it so in the camp fire of political campaign. It almost doesn't matter whether its true or not. All they are trying to do is get law enforcement to pay attention to it so that they can convince the electorate that them be something there, otherwise, the f b, I wouldn't be looking at it. So that's! Basically this game, such men, Elias, jaffe, fusion, all meet with the meat over the de alpha bank angle during the spring and summer.

I have twenty sixteen and eventually, when they're ready, they have sussman reach out to his old friend James baker. A baker at that point in time is the general counsel for the f b I but sussman was Normally, for a number of years, a cyber security lawyer at the justice department- and he knows baker for years, because they both then a government lawyer is working in the national security room. Most people who wanted to report misconduct potential crime to the fbi would have to call the fbi and go through whatever case agent was on duty saucepan. By contrast, because he's a very connected guy in washington and because he's trading on his former law enforcement credentials happens to have Jim beggar

his number in his phone. So he texts him on a sunday night and says to him. I look lemme lemme exactly quotas cause. I don't want to get this wrong. He says in a text this is on September nineteenth two thousand and sixteen jim, it's michael suspicion. I have something time sensitive and sensitive. I need to sk us. Do you have availability for a short meeting tomorrow, I'm coming on my own, not on behalf of a client or company, wanna help the bureau thanks. So that's the that's the text and what dorm detailed else extensively in the indictment is that at the time that he sends this tax, such as is representing jaffe representing jockeys company, which is new star in

presenting the Clinton campaign had represented the Clinton campaign as its cyber security lawyer, and all this work is doing on the alphabet angle. At the alpha bank angle, he is billing. His time to perkins clarice Clinton campaign account oh he's representing both the Clinton campaign and jaffe when he call and when he texts and tells of baker that he's not representing any company or any client, and I should also point out that Jaffe is expecting to get a big cyber security job in the government if Hillary Clinton wins the election so and there there are people who have you know both political interest in self interested that are deeply involved here. So bottom line is based

gives him the meeting the next day. I think I said that the text was sitting for ninety. Actually that's wrong. The meeting was September. Nineteen. The text is sunday night september. Eighty, The next morning, at the f b, I headquarters, baker give suspend the meeting, it's a one on one meeting between the two of them, which would make it a very tough false statements case. If that's all, there was yunkers, there's no transcript. There's no, courting, it's just the two guys there, it's not even a normal fbi meeting where you'd have to agent stare, so the two people could testify in one is taking note of what has been said. This is just these two lawyers who know each other for a million years,

having a one on one meeting, but now because we have the text, we have a direct statement from suspend himself assuming and have no reason not to assume this that the text is our scented. That's a pretty clear statement by suspicion that he was claiming not to be representing anyone in connection with this. At the meeting such men gives baker. I think it's three white papers, analyzing this internet data and a couple a thumb drives that have raw internet communications data on it, and it's been sculpted to make it look like there's something nefarious in the communications between the server at what I think it's too servers. Actually the bank and one that date that the internet researchers connect to trump, because trumps name is in the domain name. The rest

I'm making a distinction, which is when the f b I ultimately investigates this. Bottom line here by the way is the f b. I does open this investigation. That's the reason that they wanted to attract them. The whole idea was to get them to be curious and investigate, But when the f b, I does investigate this they learn is that what the internet researches assumed was a trump server is, in fact, a mass marketing come these server and they send out tons of emails basically to to sell deals at You know things like hotels like if people a people who do business travel who stay in the tree hotels around the world, there's a lot of that. There's a lot of that kind of traffic, but what the f b I finds out, and they and obviously the internet researchers could easily have have found this out and

we have pointed out what the f b I learned is that this server is neither. Paraded nor administered by the trunk campaign? What by trump, what the trump organisation and, of course, obviously, if the internet researches had pointed that out to the fbi, there would be nothing to the alpha bank story, so they did so Now, that's the scheme and just to just to play it out a little bit more and the Clinton people get very upset. Ultimately, because the f b I ends up leaking to the new york times that they've looked at the alfa bank thing in particular trunk collusion claims in general and that there's nothing there, and I think the fbi leak that, in response to the clinic pain, leaking that the f b. I believe that there was something nefarious going on between trumpet russia and

Later after hilary loses, the election sussman goes back to the government. This time to the CIA? This is in february of twenty. Seventeen after trump has been in office for three weeks and he brings them an update. It of this information, and that's relevant, and even though the door and hasn't charges in his indictment, he wants to prove it in the trial its relevant because the cia analyzes the data that suspend brought them and they make a determination that the FBI never reached, which is that the information is fraudulent, that its bogus spoofed its fabricated And now, when I say the f b, I didn't reach that conclusion. I'm not saying the f b I reached a contrary conclusion. I think would happen.

with the fbi is they looked at this and they decided there was insufficient evidence to predicate a full blown investigation and they didn't go into whether the information that they had been provided was fabricated. They just decided that it wasn't enough to make a case. I think they made it. something that this was over exuberance on the on behalf of young people who didn't like trump, and they just dismissed it at that they didn't investigate the information to see whether Someone tried to commit fraud on the government to see I did. and the cia looked at. It decided it was completely bogus. So that's the big scheme and that's what this is, what dorm we'd like to prove at the trial, and he what he really liked approve is the part of the scheme that right

sin. The top people in the Clinton campaign, including Hillary Clinton, herself, so on halloween on October thirty, first, like eight days before the election Clinton, Hillary Clinton tweets, Donald trump has a secret server. It was set up to communicate privately with Putin tied russian bank. on the same day, she tweets computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert surfer linking the trump organization to a russian based bank and Clinton's, basically Clinton's top national security spokesmen for her campaign, Jake Sullivan, who was now a binding national security advisor also tweets out a statement that basically says this could be the most direct link. Yet between donald trump and moscow.

The secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of trumps ties to russia and he finally ed we can only assume that federal what priorities will now explore this direct connection between trump and russia and I think it was that series of announcements rich that probably induce the fbi too late that they had investigated in and found that there was that there was nothing there which they did by the way to the new york times, which fully expected that hilary was gonna win? The election and has done the work of shame ever since that they publish this thing before the election, because it really kind of tor peter this hall, at least at that time. The whole trump collusion thing, so durham wants to prove this big

scheme in order to basically to say that to understand why sussman allegedly lied to the f b, I you have to understand the big scheme and you have to understand what it was that he was trying to accomplish, and this goes to it's. It's common in There are a lot to prove evidence of a common scheme if its relevant to the to the climate issue. Even if the crime is not conspiracy,. Prosecutors are always entitled to prove boat. In answer to the extent that goes to motive and intent, it relevant for that reason as well, and what durham would like to prove is everything from

and how this hold collusion. Narrative got started through the trump, but the Hillary campaign tweets in october of two thousand and sixteen and even into twenty seventh game when Sussman tries to bring this information to the cia spell as we've been discussing on the I cast rich and not in the last couple of weeks. What's going on now, which is common in none in criminal trial practice. Is that having these motions in lenity we're both sides are trying to limit what each can do in the trial and durham has been trying to argue that he should be able to get these tweets in from him. Ray and from solomon, and that was part of what they litigated this waiting and at the end of a very long hearing in kind of a throwaway way,

which is interesting because on, but with respect to other, not as consequential items. The judge in this case its name is christopher. They call him casey cooper, judge cooper has written opinions in with respect to other crops, instead of come up about, why evidence is going to be allowed in and why it's kept out here at the end of a couple of our hearing as he's? Basically, leaving the ban she does. A throwaway line says the tweets around any says: look they're here. day anyway, and their duplicate. It's an numb, I'm keeping amount. So he- I'm going to paper on that- maybe he will, but he hasn't up until now. I I suspected won't because they know it's not. we can get into this. But his legal reasoning on this is not very compelling but anyway he has kept the this out, and I I don't want to. I don't drawn on much longer here, but I think this is the,

issue that I try to highlight in a couple of columns of the last week, because it's a complicated port of Of a prosecution where you have a crime and its charged that takes place within the framework of a big, your scheme that I charged there's a lot of federalism. we're already case law. Rules of evidence, cetera for the proposition that prosecutors should be able to get in. Relevant evidence, especially when, like here goes to motives and scheme, but there is always a hesitant on the port of federal judges. When they worry that the scheme that hasn't been charged at the prosecutor is trying to prove is actually more.

regis then the crime- that's that's charged in the indictment, and I think this is what dorm has to wrestle with here. If he had wanted to get all this hilary proof in the big skiing proof in the best way to do that would have been to charge people who involved in it with fraud on the united states. Dorm didn't do that and I think I'll bet a close with this. I think what judge cooper is basically saying to durham is this? Is the Michael sussman, false statements trial you want not turning you didn't the Hillary Clinton fraud on the government and trial. If you want to indict Hillary Clinton for fraud on the government, then indict her for fraud on the government, but we're not trying Hillary Clinton in this case we're trying sussman. Yes, so that's what exactly? What I was going to ask next is, as what effect does

between being in her out, have on the actual case against someone. Well, here's here's. What cooper says rich ah he's gonna again he's got to grounds that he says he keeps the south and the second ground I think, goes to exactly your question, but let me deal with both of them since willing, since we brought them up first round, he says, is he's not letting the tweets and because their hearsay now that probably resonate with people when they hear that, because everybody thinks hearsay is just, you know something that happens outside a court, some conversation that happens at the outside court, so I'm an fbi, agent and John tells me that Jim rob the back. I am that's hearsay out that Jim rob a bank right. But I beg you evidence of Jim robbing the banks, not here say I'm sorry, but but you have black white evidence of the bank robbery does not hearsay

stay by the sight. Someone told me Hillary Clinton, tweeted stuff about about from being connected the fbi. That would be hearsay right, but if we have, we a tweets themselves house! That's not hearsay! While they're still outer court statements, rattle outer court statements and began presumptive Lee peoples, the output statements they think they're here said, but that's not your say well so dear. So here you see here is the young. The technical, legal definition of hearsay is an out of court statement or a few lawyer finland's out there one a really go crazy, an extra judicial.

Well stated- and that is offered for the truth of the matter asserted so in other words, John- tells me that Jim robbed the bank, if my purpose of entering that into evidence, is to prove the fact that Jim rob the bank, then it's hearsay, because it's offered for the truth of the matter asserted, but what, if I'm proving it in order to prove that John light In other words, we know Jim didn't rob a bank, and what I want to prove is not that you brought robbed the bank, but that John told me, Jim, rob a bank so that I could show that John is a liar in that incidents, even though it still an outer court statement. I'm not

watering it for the truth of the matter asserted. I monitoring it because of the fact that it was made, because it helps me prove the john to lie. That's allow cause. It's not here, say you have a proper purpose to to put it in. So with that in mind, I think casey coopers, ruling that this is hearsay is proper asterisk, because durham wants to put these tweets out precisely for because they are false. Dorm is not trying to prove that their actually. What is a corrupt relationship between trump in russia, which alice

bank was the facility for purposes of communication he's trying to prove the opposite, he's trying to prove that this was a big concoction, that it was all false from the beginning and that these tweets are false and that they were put out in connection with a scheme that was designed to smear trump as having this corrupt relationship with russia. So how cooper gets that? That's hearsay is beyond me and I think you know you can tell by the fact that he said it so dismissively. He didn't go to paper on. He doesn't want to write an opinion that says that I'm sure you know a published opinion with his name on it, and so I think that ground is just wrong. The second ground which goes to the question that you asked me in the first place, is more defensible and I think more interesting, and that is he says that it would be duplicative of other evidence that will come into the case and what I think, if

you know that if you can properly not trying not to over interpret what he said, because he didn't write an opinion and really explain himself, but what I glean him to mean by that is. He is going to give door rum latitude to prove that such men was representing the cliff. In the campaign when he lied to the f b, I allegedly about whether he was representing anyone. So what I take? What I take and cooper to be saying here is look you haven't. a ledge of fraud on the government here, so the only relevance of the tweets why the relationship between the Clinton campaign and supplement- and I am going to look you prove in the trial that suffer was working for the campaign because you have all these billing records from the law firm- and you have a number of other things that he can show that he

prove in order to show that sustain was representing the Clinton campaign at the time he told baker. He wasn't representing anyone and for purposes of weapons, charged in this case, as opposed to the big scheme. That's the relevant thing. Did such men lie to the fbi? So I think when dorm, when cooper says he's not going to, let him proof the tweets, because their duplicative, what he sang is going to let other residents in showing that cooper was I'm sorry that suspend was working for the Clinton campaign and therefore durham does it need the tweets now this as a former prosecutor, it always drove me not when a judge said you don't need it because

I'm, like I'm proving the case here, I'll decide what I need. What you have to decide is whether what I think I need come comes within the four corners of the rules of evidence is that as they ve been interpreted by the courts, if they do you're supposed to but it in and not? Let me worry about whether I need it or not, but I think would cooper is basically saying is look. You dont need the tweets and we're not turning this. To the Hillary Clinton trial. You want to try Hillary Clinton than going died. Hillary Clinton, but we're not doing that year, and that's not crazy. I have to say and which is a matter, did durham if ye, end game here, as, as you argued repeatedly, is to write a big report. Why do you need a name

Helps you in a case against assessment, will be the end of the day. You gonna write a big big report that gets all this stuff in. Let me treat this more is a political question than illegal question and in turn it on you, which is how much do you care about two rooms? All report if he can't convicts sussman or more broadly, not you personally rich, but how much will people that scarce was asked as another crush us thinking of asking you what I asked you first so What happens if someone gets off well discredit his report. I have to say it, be pretty big bluff. Someone gets off right. This is that this might the signature prosecution of this investigation, and niceties tend to get lost in its weather,

you put a w or l on on the board, so I think you would it would hurt him yeah. I I think so now I I think you know this is why I thought, when he first indicted the case, I was like man. And because all we know what that point was that it was a one on one meeting between baker and servicemen, and you know durham had this thing where he based we said as soon as the meeting was over. Baker went back and briefed the head of the counter intelligent section at the fbi and that guy took

notes and wrote down that dirt. You know sussman said that he's not here on behalf of a client or not, and I remember thinking at the time you know it's really iffy whether a judge should let that in because that is. You know that that is hearsay because he's he would. This would be an out of court statement by baker which is offered for the truth of the matter asserted, namely at the suspend was not representing a client. Durham would be trying to get it in because of the fact that it was made not for the truth of the matter asserted. In other words, what will happen at the trial is- and this is what I thought before we knew about the tweet baker would say presumably that stuff than indicated to him, that he was not representing any client or not, and then he would. cross examined by suspends council to try to pull calls and whether bakers recollection was was accurate or not. So, then. What dorm would try to do is call this other fbi agent to say

right after the meeting when his recollection was most fresh. Baker said that such had said that he was representing a client and what durham we not argue is. This is offered not for the truth of the matter asserted but offered to prove that when his memory was freshest, baker set it to this other agent manage judge would have to decide whether the letter in or not, and you could see, That would go either way right, but now that we know we have the tweet, I'm sorry the text for rum such men to baker. I'm really curious about this, because it seems to me that door had had the text when he was writing the indictment,

he had imagined that he wouldn't put it in the indictment, and I also you can imagine that he wouldn't charge it straight up, maybe by itself as a false statement. But it's it's. Certainly you no part of the pattern that leads to this false statement that he's alive, so he should be able to get that in when I say get that in I mean it should be able to get it admitted as evidence in front of the jury. But the reason I do this discussion on on the tweet is, I thought you don't it's it's risky for durham to be bring these prosecutions if his if his goal is or or if his idea of accountability ultimately is to write this report, because if he loses cases. I think the interest in his report is going a wayne significantly and they're, not that import

In an of themselves. I mean, if you think about it, the idea of trying to do a massive political dirty trick where you not only spear your opponent, but you get the fbi to investigate him as a clandestine jen of russia. You get the you? U funnel this information into the state department, you finally information into the cia: that's pretty serious stuff and compared to that these small. These false statements of you know, I said I wasn't representing anyone when I was actually representing Hilary yeah, that's bad, but you know compared to the big scheme, it's kind of small potatoes, so he's taking a big risk in terms of the cook with the young,

how seriously people take the ultimate report by bringing these cases, so he better win them. If he wants to the report to be taken seriously- and I now think the false statements cases a lot stronger than I thought it was when he indicted it, because you have the text- and you also have these people- I actually think door has something of a wicked sense of humour? And this, where he's he's actually subpoenaed you'd, know Clinton for america, the hilary campaign and an jaffe and some other relevant fusion gps. So they can all come in and say I am not going to answer questions because of the attorney client privilege that we have with sussman when the whole cases about him saying that he didn't have an attorney, client relationship with them, and so I think it's a pretty strong, false statements case and I think, unfortunately, for durham in terms of wanting to prove the big scheme, if judge cooper thinks it's his,

on false statements case he's going to be leery about giving him a lot of latitude to prove the big scheme. I think he'll. Let him do some things, but he's not gonna. Let him get into Hillary too much yet so, let's, let's head to another hot button topic, which is the border we had my orcas in front of congress, this week we have this title forty two revocation looming and now have this argument in this port about remain in mexico, which was highly successful trump air policy to have signed. seekers pursue their asylum claims or have their silent games adjudicated. While they stayed in mexico, not in the united states, because this there in the united states are not living in their asylum. Claim is rejected. I didn't reverses this policy I'd state sue actually when

our old friend, the a p a grounds. This is appealed, but the that the stay from the court lower down is is not an overturned by an appeals court or the spring board. Now it's back up. And in spring court, and we had oral arguments. One is that summary accurate to what? What were the issues that surfaced in these arguments Summary is accurate, rich. The only thing I would add to it is that in the interim, the Biden administration has tried to beef up their a b, a p, a The aim is for doing this. I mean basically, they yet again ignored the eighty eight we discussed in it that, in the context of another case last week, this is another instance where they just decided to strike a trump policy without doing any and the supreme court? Actually you know too to charlie these that he's made a number of times. The supreme court

We cited the dhaka case in saying you don't just get to you: don't cancel the policy so that that's what brings us up to date and I thought the most interesting statement, which was posed as a rhetorical question in the oral argument was with chief justice roberts. Looked at the lawyer for the for the site, I think, the solicitor general of texas and said to him. Why is this our problem and which I imagined the supreme court wants to to say that quite a bit, but in this instance I thought it was a a very interesting comment, because you know the the court can be very muscular and aggressive in a number of areas, as we frequently criticized

him for being too aggressive for getting into areas that they that they shouldn't get into, but immigration and border security are like one of these areas. Where what can the court do about it, and I think that the tell behind what,

I and I I've been like a broken record on this, but I'm going to I'm going to do it again anyway, that the tell behind what chief justice roberts observed. There is the fact that we're under a congressional statute that could not be clearer. That says that people who try to enter the united states without authority- and this is a quote- shall be detained until they get a determination of their hearing. What ends up happening, of course, is they. You know they speak asylum and the whole problem that we're dealing with down there, which is more of a catastrophe than a problem, is that we give people no matter. How frivolous the claim is the right to to claim asylum when they come in even know, generally speaking, their basis,

I mean asylum is frivolous. They just want to be in the united states, cause it's a better place right, which is not the basis for an asylum claim, and so in probably ninety eight ninety nine plus percent of the cases where there is really no viable asylum claim The law of the united states is very clear. This is an issue that is given to congress by the constitution. To regulate congress has passed a statute that says that these people shall be detained, and administrations of both parties have rationalize that they don't have to follow the law, so I think, would judge, judge real justice roberts chief justice, Robert saying here is suppose we issue an opinion because it- and he quoted more-

a rebirth, madison here, yeah they d. The time was wisdom of John Marshall that, but you know, the duty of this frame court is to say what the law is. Robert said, what We could issue an opinion that says what the law is: an ally The law is that these people must be the tang, because congress has the authority to say that, and they said that so congress has already said it. What? How does it help you we say it. The court has meant that is in no position to do anything about the executive branch. They can't make them followed the law, the branch that could make them follow the law

Why is congress and they've already spoken up about as clearly as they could speak about what the law is, and they haven't done anything about the fact that multiple administrations have refused to follow it? So that's what that's? What the case is about? Does the executive branch have a right or have have some plausible authority for not following the law, and They don't, then, who can do anything about it. So you know they claim that they have a couple of bases that the Biden administration, to my mind, are absurd bases to depart from the law and they point to the on sub section of the same statute, were congress says that these people are supposed to be detained.

which says that if somebody is arrested or somebody else, an alien, I don't wanna insulted migrant here, and I want to I'm sorry if I yeah, I heard anyone's feelings there- Irregular migration is what what were the phenomenon we're talking about, Oh man, that's is they're alive. Is the latin for that? Actually, It's happening. All time is regular migration right exactly right, but but but this other sub section of the of the statute says that if, if one of the irregular migrants is caught in a contiguous country, which means obviously, mexico or Canada, the administration or the the homeland security department may- and this is the term of the word- that the Biden administration

this course may allow them to remain in the contiguous country, while the proceedings are under way. So the bite administration sites that word may and they say It shows the congress actually meant to give the president discretion here and it doesn't say that at all what it says is if you will allow to stay what it says. You may allow them to stay in mexico or canada, in which case they're gonna, be under whatever the legal restrictions are in mexico in canada, but that doesn't change the fact that if you bring them into the united states to wait for their proceedings, they must be detained because that would congress says so. No contradiction there and the by demonstration is trying to suggest that there is Discretion, where does not, then here's my favorite one, there's another provision of immigration law which says that the executive branch

in its discretion can allow on a case by case basis. an illegal alien to come into the country at liberty, if doing so presents a significant public benefit. So I became somewhat familiar with prevent this provision and provisions, get me immigration law. When I was a prosecutor, because every now and then you will want to bring somebody in from the outside who doesn't have any right to be in the united. It's what has relevant information that can be used in a trial which will help the government prosecute, say terror in which case you can see why they wouldn't be a significant public benefit to allowing the person to come into the united states, but the

I administration with the Biden administration is doing, has nothing to do with a case by case basis. They don't let people get they're, not studying every one of these cases on a case by case basis and deciding does this person give us a significant public benefit, they're, letting hundreds of thousands of people they have like over two million people into the country in less than two years, there's been eight hundred thousand since the beginning of the sheer yeah. This argument, such a travesty, when obama was making enough for dhaka as well yeah and the part I've gotten the case by case basis. That's only the

part of it. Here's the kicker guess what they say that the significant public benefit is in the end. This was just as cabin. I had to ask him about this a couple of times and try to like articulated himself, because because he trying to rapids had around it what their basically saying it is on the basis of records that we get that or not at all, reliable, because their criminal justice records from other countries whose who knows whether their accurate or not? On the basis of a cursory interview and whatever paper trail, we get from the other country their concluding that these people are in that bad and therefore the public benefit that we get by letting them into the country is it clears the the prison space that they would all day would be taking up, so that the binding administration can lock up and detain the people who were

really bad, which you know. Not only is that insane in terms of like logic, but none of the other thing here is: there are only thirty four thousand. There was only space for thirty three thirty, four thousand people to be detained, and just last month we had two hundred and two one thousand people come which is what's happening every month, so they don't have space to detain, wilfully, bad people anymore and I would also point out here which I didn't notice until I did some research on this yesterday. Do you know that we have? We now have like two hundred and twenty thousand people a month coming to the border. They have thirty, four thousand they of space, the thirty four thousand detainees in their last budget. They sought took

the space from thirty four thousand to thirty thousand and they're, not at all surf their class they're here they're, not at all serious about this at all. So you know I look. I I think Biden may well win the case in part, because the supreme court doesn't really see anything that they can do about this. But in part, because the court interjected this and there's really not a good answer to it from the saves, which is. Remain in mexico. Is a policy be that required diplomacy between the united states and mexico, the plum? see foreign relations. The conduct of foreign relations is a pre plein every power of the executive branch in our seas. The only exception to that or where the constitution gives congress well like with with treaties. other than that. In its opinion,

every power and the court has no authority over, so the court can't tell Biden to negotiate. mexico, and the court is powerless to tell mexico to do anything. So I think what the justices may ultimately say is look our job is to say what the law is. The law the united states is people who are who are not authorized to be here is supposed to be detained. That's what the law says where sympathetic to the fact that if congress wants to make the law work, they should they should the appropriate more resources to make to make detention less illusory. By the way, I think that's itself absurd, because to my mind, if you have thirty four thousand spaces to keep detained p, then you can't let any more than thirty four thousand people when you close the border until you can, until you can free up the space, the idea that they have to that a more has to be broken. So the law that gets broken is the. Can

general mandate that that illegal aliens be detained rather than you know what they imagine. Their obligations are when somebody sets foot on the united states is, is just absurd. I mean we tackles so yes, I am sympathetic to the idea that congress should appropriate more resources, especially now that we have a complete friggin disaster down there. But the idea that you know we can't do anything about it, because two hundred thousand people want to come and we only of thirty four thousand spaces for detain people, so we have to let everybody in but will save After what everybody in I mean what what on earth yeah I mean this is this goes to keep thirty of title. Forty two: why are we relying on an edict to the cdc to make it possible turn around? illegal migrants at our own border? It makes zero sense No, they haven't really even then enforcing total forty two that robustly anyway

I saw the time we have the sweet spot gas been produced by the incomparable Sarah. Should he thinks I'm one for listening and thank you. Animal earthy thanks, rich.