Transcripts For CSPAN Discussion On Reimagining The Rule Of Law 20240712

We do not participate in elections or endorse or oppose candidates in any way and we are very grateful to be producing with the nyu center that advocates for civil debate on politics and public policy, and nyu votes, which works to give every nyu eligible student the information they need to vote. I am especially grateful to be introducing an event with some of the countrys most important thinkers on what i think is one of the most urgent issues we face, and theres a lot of competition. Weve been witnessing a relentless and unprecedented series of attacks on the twin foundations of our democratic system. Free and Fair Elections and the rule of law. They are not unrelated. The president has made repeated threats to subvert the election, some with support from the attorney general, sending military to the polls, Voter Suppression, and perhaps most chillingly refusing to commit to abide by the election results. Some are worried the rule of law has been so eroded in this country, it may be possible to literally steal an election and we think there are strong legal and institutional safeguards against that, but the dramatic erosion of the rule of law in recent years is unmistakable. Weve seen Law Enforcement weaponized for partisan and political gain. From threats of politically motivated prosecutions against political adversaries to the actual interference in prosecution in favor of the president s political allies and friends. To the improper use of the military to respond to protests and create political theater. Weve seen politically motivated attacks on science and the scientific integrity of government institutions and the Brennan Center has been tracking the impact of that on the Health Response to covid19. We have seen the ministrations politicize neutral institutions in the federal government from the Census Bureau to the center of the Disease Centers for Disease Control to the weather service. More broadly we have witnessed cases,tless stream of many unpunished, of Police Violence against black and brown people in america. Brutalization of those communities by people who are charged with protecting them. In short, we are facing a rule of law crisis. Like other crises, this one has its roots in problems that predate this administration. Our country is reckoning with racial violence and systemic racism is long overdue. We have tolerated the injustices and lawlessness directed at black and brown communities too long. This stream of abuses at the federal level has been made possible by longer standing erosions of democratic and rule of law norms. And one thing this administration has made abundantly clear is that the guardrails that we have traditionally relied upon to check abuses of power in government are too flimsy. And thats why the Brennan Center convened the National Task force on rule of law and democracy, a group of eminent cross ideological and cross partisan individuals with experience working at the highest level of democratic and republican administrations, at federal and state levels. Their mission is to shore up guardrails against the abuse of federal government power. There other members include a former solicitor general who is also joining us, the former delaware governor, a former white house advisor and professor, a former secretary of defense, a former u. S. Attorney and a former director of the office of government ethics. The work of this task force has been to create legislative proposals to shore up limits on executive power, safeguarding the rule of law, enforcing ethics standards, preventing political attacks on science within federal government, all without undermining the proper functioning of the executive branch. Their proposals would put teeth into the unwritten rules both parties agreed to follow in the past and almost every single one of the proposals [indiscernible] that should be a priority for the next congress. Of course, there is much more we need to do to build a National Commitment to the rule of law in which every person is truly equal before the law, so to discuss these issues and more im delighted to turn this over to my colleague, the deputy srector of the Brennan Center election reform program. Thank you all for joining us. I needed to unmute. Thank you so much. The panelists we have joining us today need no introduction. Im going to keep it very brief, Preet Bharara was a prosecutor at the department of justice and also chief counsel to senator chuck schumer. Today of course he is the host andstay tuned with preet the cochair of our National Task force that wendy mentioned. The associate director counsel at the naacp Legal Defense and education fund. And a leading practitioner of civil rights. Litigation in the country. Prior to that, she was a professor at st. Johns law school and is a noted scholar of both constitutional and civil rights issues. Don was the 46th solicitor general of the United States. He is also a member of our National Task force, as wendy noted. Currently he is a partner at a renowned law firm and prior to partner whereso a i had the privilege of working under him briefly. Last but not least, Christine Todd whitman was the 50th governor of new jersey and also the ninth administrator of the United States Environmental Protection agency serving under president george w. Bush. She is currently the president of whitman strategies and as wendy noted the cochair of our National Task force. So with that, i would like to jump in with the first question. And im going to address that to our cochairs of our task force , and both of you have been speaking and writing about the issues that are on the front page from the president s tax returns to the politicization of Law Enforcement for years. Some would say you were a bit prescient on these issues. My question for you is theres a luck going on in the world right now, so maybe you could talk a little bit about why people should care and also why these issues should be a focus for policymakers. And, preet, if you want to go first, then we will turn to governor whitman. Preet its good to be with all of you, thank you for the introduction and its great to be with folks. We have a large online audience, so pleased to be with you on something so important. And my copanelists as well. You know, people have said from time to time, may you live in interesting times. Our times are a little bit too interesting and your question goes to this issue that we have of how many problems can we face as a nation . And obviously one of the most important things happening right now and one of the most devastating things the country has faced is this global pandemic. More than 200,000 people dead, so the spirit of your question, when people are dying, how do we have time and energy to focus on issues like rule of law or norms . Those seem to be luxuries in a democracy. I dont look at it that way. Obviously we need to care about science and science is one of the things the Task Force Governor whitman and i cochaired have been talking about. At the same time we are trying to stave off disease and trying to keep our country safe from the pandemic, we have to think not on the values of our country are. At some point were going to come out of the pandemic, and at what cost to our institutions . I also see a parallel between the issues that the challenges facing the Justice Department and challenges facing institutions dealing with the pandemic. It comes to an issue of independence, expertise, truth. All of those things i think factor into this issue of rule of law. The attacks on the department of justices independence, the attack on the department of justices rankandfile lawyers who have basic expertise in the cases that they bring and try and when appropriate, they dismiss. Those same challenges and attacks are happening with other institutions that are supposed to be independent and i think laypeople understand even more so, like the cdc or the nih. To me, theyre part of the same problem. If youre an administration who cares about politics over justice, or care about politics over medicine, and over epidemiology, then youre going to bring us to ruin. Respect to the department of justice and rule of law that sometimes can affect human lives and it is a matter of life and death, for george floyd was a matter of life and death. It is also fundamental to our values as a country. A country in which everyone is treated equally before the law or are we a country like some other nations around the world where the president gets to decide because he has the power of being the chief of the executive branch. We are going to bring the Law Enforcement on you if youre an adversary and we will take away the weight of Law Enforcement against you if youre an ally, and weve seen that in the flynn case, the stone case and so many others. So its very important for us as a country to not lose sight of the fact that we have traditions and norms that are being trampled and that could be really choked for a long time, even after the pandemic is gone. Im sure governor whitman has a lot to add that. You to then thank Brennan Center and the panelists for their dedication. This is a panel that has taken things seriously. We have discussed these issues on and on. It is a task force on the rule of law and democracy. The rule of law is not just limited to those departments that have the obvious responsibilities of enforcing the law. When were talking about the rule of law and democracy, we are also talking about institutionalizing those norms that have been the guardrails that have protected society and kept our government in bounds for so long. A brief mention of the pandemic. Obviously this is one of the most egregious or obvious examples of where we have gone off the guardrails, because it used to be that there was a very clear respect for pure science. That while policy always determined at the end of the day how you use that science, it wasnt politics and theres a difference between partisan politics and policy. And pure science has to be the basis of things. What we are seeing today, every day has been a dismissing of science and scientists. A looking the other way of false information going out to people so that they are confused, conflicting messages being sent to people so they dont know how to react. They dont know how to respond to this, and this virus is not just a medical emergency. Its an economic catastrophe as well, and not only have we lost over 210,000 individuals in this country alone, we have also seen the first of all the uneven impact on communities of color from this disease and the uneven impact on businesses for those communities as well as Small Business overall. And big business as well, when you see whats happening with the airlines and the people who are put on furlough. They dont know whether theyre going to have to job in another week or two or a month if congress cant move forward to get some bills through and you saw that our head economist basically, the head of the fed said today, jerome powell, that they in fact cannot spend enough money on this stimulus right now compared to what the damage that has been done to our economy. A lot of this is occurring is we have been ignoring those norms that we took for granted. That is one of the things are reports go to. Our reports go to. They go to common sense, bipartisan, nonpartisan ways to address these issues and to finally put some parameters around science. Transparency of science, so people can see it. Governing how the executive department, the white house actually intercedes the Justice Department. When is it appropriate, when isnt it . Putting some protections around the special prosecutors. And the Inspector Generals so that they can only be dismissed for cause and even then that should be reviewed. There are a lot of things here that speak to beyond what those departments that have to enforce the laws need to do, but are very much part of the rule of law and democracy, which is what this task force has been all about. Thank you, governor. Theres a lot there in both remarks i want to come back to, but we had a president ial debate last tuesday. 100 years ago. As may you live in interesting times, as preet said. You know, folks may have noticed that law and order was a bit of a theme particularly for the president although both candidates spoke to it. Im wondering if you can talk a little bit about these implications of the rule of law law reallye rule of means to you. And particularly i think it would be great if you could situate that also in whats obviously going on right now, which is a historic reckoning in the ongoing struggle for Racial Justice. Thanks for that question. First let me say thank you to you and Brennan Center and its just wonderful to be part of this discussion. Im very heartened were having a conversation about the rule of law because i dont think we as a society do it often enough, so i very much appreciate this opportunity to be in dialogue with such an esteemed group of speakers. Its funny, a week after the 2016 election, i gave a lecture at John Jay College in new york about the topic about rethinking the phrase law and order and examining the very visceral response that those words evoked for different segments of our society. And that term law and order really gained political salience in 1968 when president Richard Nixon and alabama governor George Wallace both campaigned on varying platforms of law and order. Some of us are old enough to recall president reagans use of very coded racial appeals about socalled welfare queens to galvanize the white vote to restore law and order. You saw president h. W. Bush famously run an ad on the revolving door, alluding to the Violent Crimes of an man. Anamerican that phrase has been used throughout our political history and as we just saw in last weeks debate, its used as a dog whistle. It is used to foment racial resentment by associating the recent protests against Police Violence with lawlessness and disorder. And i just want to be clear about what the invocation of law and order is. Its not limited to any one political party, so this is in no way a castigation of a single party. , thein the Brennan Center naacp Legal Defense fund is nonpartisan and does not endorse parties or candidates. And law and order has been used would say abusively by democrats and republicans alike. But what i want to point out is tacitlyt always referential of black people and other people of color and the perceived need for a greater Law Enforcement against them. And we have had nearly four years that have followed that call for law and order and in become anthere has increasingly fanatical appeal laden with nationalism, and white supremacist overtones, frankly. And the fact of the matter is in is law and order assumes a hierarchal racial order that uses law, and when that doesnt yield the desired result, it uses other means to preserve the status quo. But ill say this, at the same time, you also have a deafening crescendo voices in the streets of this country and around the world demanding in very important ways their own version of law and order. They are demanding a system of law that is protective of their lives or the lives of their neighbors and community members. In the same way that is protective of all lives in theory. They are demanding an order of justice where police can be held accountable. The rule of law is really central to this fight for Racial Justice because the rule of law is about consistency and fairness and accountability at all levels of government. Its the enforcement of laws to protect civil, human and constitutional rights. It is about preventing lawlessness in the form of Police Brutality and unchecked vigilante violence against africanamericans as we are seeing more often, and of course other groups. But if there were a true commitment to the true neutral concept of law and order, we wouldnt have witnessed the mobilization of the National Guard and other federal resources to use brutal force against protesters in dc and portland and other u. S. Cities over the objections of state and local officials. We would not have witnessed Law Enforcement actively supporting and even sympathizing with far right vigilante groups or the president of this country lioniz ing an illegally armed 17yearold who traveled to kenosha to commit heinous killings. And we wouldnt have seen the president use his part empowers to his pardon powers to reward political allies like Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio who engaged in blatant racial profiling. He lied about it in court and was held in contempt. We have seen other examples of abuse of that president ial authority. So ill just say in the end that this warped interpretation and application of law and order is diametrically opposed to the rule of law, and those of us who truly believe in the rule of law ignore that false equivalence at our own peril. Don, i want to bring it into the conversation and invite you to respond with everyone else. Another perspective actually is the experience of the attorney s and the other folks in the government who actually are doing the day to day work and by and large dedicated public servants. How is this affecting the institution . I know that is something youve spoken about before. Perhaps you can conclude that in your remarks. Its great to be able to participate in this panel with the governor and i commend the Brennan Center for the phenomenal work its doing on this vitally important set of issues. I do actually want to focus particularly on what is happening to the Justice Department and what has happened to the Justice Department since the start of president trumps term in office. We talk about the centrality of the rule of law and how it undergirds not just our own sense that we live in a just society and that the power of government is being exercised justly, but it permeates everything that the government does. Its really the Bedrock Foundation of the public sense that they can have confidence in their government. And its the destruction of that faith, as we see with the fda and the cdc and so many other organizations now at the time we most need them. It really is a devastating tragedy for our country. It really did start with the department of justice early in this presidency or really from the beginning of 2017 on. President trump essentially took a sledgehammer to the integrity of the department of justice. He was hammering at the fbi as being part of the deep state and untrustworthy, hammering at the mueller team as being partisan and not public servants. It was really taking a toll over time and it was really eroding the sense of mission of the career lawyers in the department. But now, weve got an attorney general who is hollowing the place out from the inside, which is an even more extraordinary thing to behold and even more of a tragedy. Likee career prosecutors the chief prosecutor for roger stone feel the need to resign after many years as a dedicated prosecutor, other career lawyers going up to congress and testify about their disquiet. Is on and on, really something. This is a small episode, but one that struck home with me because it involved my old office of solicitor general. The attorney general a month or so ago was trying to continue his campaign of discrediting the mueller special counsel investigation and its report. He talked about members of the special counsel team and he said following, he said to of those people two of those people who wrote briefs for the obama administration. He was talking about two lawyers who had worked in the solicitor generals office, one of whom was a legend who worked for republican and democratic residents and administrations. He was the consummate career public servant, looked up to by everybody at the department for his commitment to serving the United States, not serving any partisan agenda. To see him dragged through the mud like that so that the attorney general could score a cheap political point, it was just terrible. So when i was privileged enough to be running the s. G. s office, i made it a point to hire conservative republican career lawyers as well as liberal democrat career lawyers into that office because the whole point was it was supposed to be a Nonpartisan Office that served the interests of the people of the United States. That is the mission that housings and thousands of people who worked in the department, many career lawyers and everybody else understand their mission. When they had the president of the United States and now the attorney general basically telling them that what theyre doing isnt worth a darn, its just a devastating thing i think for our country and its going to take an enormous amount of work. You have to not only rebuild the publics confidence in the department of justice as an institution, we are going to need to rebuild the sense of confidence and integrity on the inside. Because its been so terribly, terribly damaged over the last three and a half years. It is a colossal tragedy. Add something to that . That is true throughout the federal government under this administration, particularly any part of the government that has anything to do with science. The epa, they lost over 900 scientists and those that have been replaced have been largely replaced by scientists who come from the very industry that are regulated by the Environmental Protection agency. You cannot expect them to be unbiased. You have to worry about the science. Rebuilding that Institutional Knowledge throughout the federal government is not going to happen overnight and we are the poorer for it. Morale is down. Those who want to bring forward something we should know are scared to do that, because if it doesnt comport with the political agenda of this administration, they will find themselves reassigned. They will find themselves to other parts of the country to work, to be put in fields where they have no basic Institutional Knowledge. Its just devastating to see whats happening. The undermining of people who have devoted their careers to trying to make our country safer, stronger, better. And being demonized for being told they are not worth anything, it doesnt matter, that everything is political it is mindboggling to me, particularly with justices who have the attorney general doing this is just extraordinary. I expected it with the science because the president doesnt believe in regulation, doesnt believe we need to touch the environment, it will take care of itself. I hope this coronavirus would have shown that in fact thats not the case, not to mention the fires and floods and storms from climate change, but this will take us a long time from which to recover, but we need to start right away. Can i mention one more institution that i think would have been a great surprise for anybody to think a few years ago would be politicized . We thought about the cdc, the fda, the department of justice. But the United States Postal Service. In what universe would someone have thought that the United States Postal Service, which i think is the most highly respected Agency Within government everyone loves their postal carrier. The idea that even that can become politicized and expertise can be taken away should be another example of why all this work jives with the work with respect to rule of law. Im glad you brought up the Postal Service because obviously the issues with the Postal Service are tied to the election, which as we know is ongoing right now. People started voting. We also talked about attorney bill barr, who has made some statements about things like voter fraud, or alleged voter fraud. Im wondering if you could talk a little bit about what we should make of these interventions and what that means for the broader integrity of our democracy. I think interventions is a polite word. [laughter] opportunity toe talk about it. Hopefully we will have a moment to talk about this, but the other institution we should be alarmed about becoming more politicized at least in the eyes of the public and by virtue of all of the machinations of the senate and Mitch Mcconnell in particular is the Supreme Court. For those of us who are litigators and who rely on the court for justice and as a check on other parts of government, that is deeply alarming and i hope we will have an opportunity talk about that. But i want to talk about what the attorney general barr has done in connection with elections along with the president. And we need to really name whats happening here. We heard the president say that he would be sending u. S. Marshals and attorneys, prosecutors, Law Enforcement and others. You heard bill barr float the idea of sending military and armed forces to the polls. This is the stuff of failing democracies that are descending towards authoritarianism and its the kind of stuff we ordinarily would be pushing back against if we heard any country abroad suggesting any of these tactics. But instead we have the president of this country who is also a candidate on the ballot with the eight and a veterans aid and abettance of the chief Law Enforcement officer of the country threatening to use armed forces to intimidate voters at the polls. And even if you simply take them at their word that theyre trying to deter voter fraud, they have made clear theyre willing to use intimidation tactics to do it. I first need to make it clear having armed forces at the polls is patently illegal. Unless there are armed enemies of the United States threatening a polling site or voters at a polling site, 18 usc section 592 has made it a crime to deploy the u. S. Military or any armed federal agents to a polling place since 1948. So to even suggest this tactic is a threat to our democracy from within. And whats more, as many have pointed out, including a very excellent reporting by the Brennan Center, the premise of this is entirely bogus. In person voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Its so rare that, in a study conducted that surveyed over 20 billion votes, only 31 votes cast were prosecutable for in person voter fraud. So the attorney general just like the president is peddling blatant falsehoods when they speak of rampant voter fraud. Whether they attempt to act on these ideas were not, these falsehoods are extremely dangerous and we should understand them as part of a form of Voter Suppression in a long and sordid history of voter intimidation that is as old as this democracy itself. Especially when you look at the intimidation of black voters, which stems back to the 15th amendment and black men being granted the right to vote in 1870. And jim crow laws and the people the upheaval that led to the passage of the Voting Rights act of 1965. All of these chilling messages that the ballot box is somehow forbidden ground for certain people. We dont even have to look that far back in our history. In the 1980s, the Republican National committee sponsored something called the National Ballot Security Task force which patroly purpose was to polls. The people on the task force, many of them were offduty Police Officers who were armed with loaded service revolvers and wore armbands. We basically had a militia at the polls. Thankfully there was a Consent Decree to prevent that sort of intimidation, but that expired in 2018. Now we see something called army for trump. We see a new Effort Campaign with militaristic overtones. It is unchecked not only because there is no Consent Decree in place, but we have a department of justice that is not willing to play any meaningful role in protecting the civil rights of voters in this election. It has failed to enforce the Voting Rights act in most instances. A Real Department of justice would be using its powers under the Voting Rights act to send reliable and neutral federal observers to document potential voter intimidation and obstruction at the polls, but instead we see this department of justice engaging in those tactics itself, and that is truly a threat to free and Fair Elections. To take the moderators privilege to note that all of that is very true, and the federal government is disgraceful. At the Brennan Center, the actual people administering the elections, most of whom are very dedicated public servants, so we hope everyone should vote. You shouldnt be intimidated from voting, but the behavior of the federal government in this context we can agree is disgraceful. Both about the lies about voter fraud and also the vote by mail, which we have documented is very safe and secure. You might have some thoughts, particularly if you could address the outlandish statements that another United States attorney in pennsylvania made in connection to vote by mail. Is whenaha the problem you use what are supposed to be neutral institutions, whether it is the cdc, Postal Service, or department of justice to promote ends,political and sometimes that can be advanced by a political narrative, and this president has made it clear all hands on deck to promote the narrative that absentee ballots are necessarily going to be rife with fraud a. The attorney general has done television. Asked if there is any evidence, he said there is no evidence. Hand, seeming to ignore actual election interference, both in 2016 and 2020. Has a divergent view he from the actual fbi director who was handpicked by the president of the United States. When you subvert what is supposed to be a neutral rule of law process to advance a problem. Case oute to this odd of pennsylvania were at one point it was nine ballots, than seven ballots, and theres an investigation of whether or not there is fraud. The bottom line is, Standard Operating Procedure in the Justice Department is not to talk about investigations, particularly if revealing details of investigations before they are they are concluded. If you dont make a charging decision, you keep your mouth shut, as jim comey has been made to understand with regard to what he did to hillary clinton. This attorney general made a public statements he had to revise because they were erroneous with respect to these seven out of nine ballots that were presumably cast for donald trump and didnt make their way to the right place. It may seem like a small thing, but its a signal to other people in the department or other people in other places that the normal rules of keeping your mouth shut about an Ongoing Investigation maybe dont apply, and maybe its the case if i exercise my discretion in a way to put my thumb on the scale a little bit for this thing, because we see the attorney general doing it, whether it is the molar report or voting by mail or roger stone, which caused the resignation of the career prosecutors on that case, then maybe that is something i should do, too. Maybe it will cause my career advancement. If i dont do those things, maybe im in trouble. Allep making the point that of these are of a piece. Jumping out of election mode, literally the only thing that i think is clearly the correct ethical move on the part of Jeff Sessions when he was in office was to recuse himself for the russia investigation, and thats the one thing this president didnt like about Jeff Sessions, and what did that lead to . That led to attorney general bill barr who broadcast this at his confirmation hearing. Unlike prior nominees confirmed to be attorney general who said they would not only seek out ethics advice and recusal, but they would follow the ethics advice given by career ethics people in the department. Bill barr said no. You have it coming from the white house. I think you start to undermine the culture when it comes to elections, and what the u. S. Attorney did in the district of pennsylvania was a dramatic departure from what is normally done. I want to pivot to a little bit of hope because i dont want to scare the folks at home too much. I want to return to atopic jenae alluded to, which is the Supreme Court. Knows more about the Supreme Court than you. I wonder if you could talk about the implications of what we are seeing there and the potential , for the Supreme Court to act as a guardian of the rule of law. Mr. Verrilli its a little bit like what i was saying with respect to the department of justice. It is vital to the health of our republic, constitutional system that the American People have faith in the Supreme Court as an institution, that they believe it is an institution about law, and that its not a political institution. That has been shaken really badly. One could go as far back as bush v gore to see that for half the country, that was a watershed moment that really caused many in thens to have doubt Supreme Court as an institution of law and not politics, but for democrats and people on the left, i think they reconciled themselves eventually to bush again score and got back to thinking they could have faith in the institution of the Supreme Court. Then you got to the Merrick Garland fiasco of 2016 where president obama nominated somebody in the early spring of 2016 who was as qualified as any nominee in the history of our country, a moderate, a beloved judge on the d. C. Circuit, and look what happened. Theres only one way to interpret what happened there, which is the republican majority in the senate wanted somebody on the court who is going to vote differently on issues they cared about than they anticipated Merrick Garland would vote. That is the only explanation, so they blocked it. I thought at the time that that was just going to have a devastating effect on half the country feeling that they could trust the Supreme Court, and i do think it has had a very serious adverse effect, and just in the last few weeks, look at what has happened. To go through what we went through with the garland nomination and to now have Justice Ginsburg pass away, a revered, beloved justice, have her pass away a few weeks before the election and have an effort made by the president with the support of the Republican Leadership in the senate to fill that seat on the people of the ofction right in the teeth the argument offered in 2016 as a reason why the garland nomination shouldnt be considered to, people should ask themselves, why would you think half the country would have any faith that this is a neutral institution related to the rule of law when you see this kind of shenanigans surrounding the process of who goes on the court . , think its a terrible problem and i think we are going to pay a price for it. Mr. Weiner do you want to jump in since you have raised this . Ms. Nelson i couldnt agree more with everything that was just said. Inritical amount of people our country see our judicial system as a potential avenue of relief, especially in a system like ours where the Supreme Court determines the law of the land. We are in extremely perilous terrain, and that feeling of arerust, and that is why we seeing sustained protest. Many like to quote dr. King. He was talking about the 1950s,s in the early but they leave off the next line. The next line is, what is it that america has failed to hear . Protesters are saying in no Uncertain Terms that there is a in our faithlessness system of justice. That is a delusion because of the antics we are seeing in congress and all of what was just described in terms of how the nomination process has become completely politicized. If we are honest, we always had to force our institutions to be accountable, and i think the circumstance will be no different. We will continue to see protests. I would be remiss if i didnt acknowledge any lou hamer. We are going to need that kind of agitation to force our institutions and elected leaders to serve all of the people, but it will not be an easy task. It is one we must commit to, and no administration is absolving of that responsibility. Mr. Weiner thank you. I think we are running up almost to the two thirds mark, so i would like to pivot to solutions. I want to get to the department of justice, but as you noted at the outset, this is not just about doj. It is not just about Law Enforcement. A pandemic that is disproportionately affecting people of color, particularly black americans, and that has come in no small part from the mishandling and abuses that have gone into the pandemic response. Could you talk a little bit about solutions . Im going to ask you a twopart question. One is to talk about some of the things we need to address. Right now, you are seeing democrats talk more about these issues, but they need to be bipartisan. We hoped they would be bipartisan. What are the prospects for getting some bipartisan agreement on some of these efforts to shore up the guardrails . Gov. Whitman i think what we relief,ng coming into its ripped a bandaid off a wound weve had a long time in this country, which is the disparate way communities of color have been treated, whether its where the money they can get from the federal government, whether its because they dont. Ave the political voice you have Environmental Justice issues that are rampant because companies were allowed to pollute in those areas because they didnt have a voice. Has beenomething that going on through multiple administrations. Way, thisy perverse might be a good time. You cant hide from it anymore. You have to recognize what is importance ofthe these peoples lives and their businesses, and hopefully, it will mean more attention is paid to how discriminatory weve been. , andve been discriminating thats a stain. That is a stain on this country. Theve some hope because virus has brought this so to the fore, and also because you have groups like the Problem Solvers Caucus in the house and senate, a Bipartisan Group even with republicans and democrats, and they are responsible for a lot of the Bipartisan Legislation the is coming forward, and first two reports that we did, this task force did, many of them are embodied in the legislation that has passed the house. Some have gone to the senate. They were all bipartisan. Its going to be very hard to , anbeyond this without that unbridled second term for this administration scares me to death, and ive never been so afraid for our democracy as i am today because the norms we have been talking about have been thrown out the window, but we do have decent public servants. We have a lot of them, and they do want to do the right thing. Given the tools and the types of things recommended in our report, they have the ability to do that. Hr one had a lot of what we offered, and it was bipartisan. The big pieces of legislation that have impacted the country, any of the major ones whether you are talking about social s medicare, medicaid, they have been bipartisan. If you have a bill solely voted for by one party, the next time in have a the other party power, they are going to retract it. We cannot continue like this. If you purport to be a christian, you have to think of what you would do to the least of the least among us you do to me. We have to remember those values of treating people equally, how the Republican Party was founded , as a party to free slaves. We seem to have left that behind. I do see in particularly young people today, coming together, saying weve got to make a change. Weve got to care about climate change. That is something that is going to impact us forever, quite frankly. We have to understand we are at a very perilous place right now, and what we have seen in eroding our basic values are longterm consequences that are going to be hard to really analyze. I do see now that we have to focus. We cant hide from the discriminatory practices of the past, and we are seeing more pressure put on companies and on local and state governments. That is where the changes are. Eally going to take place that is job number one before you get the economy back. For the states, that is important. They are the ones that can take the steps on the other parts of this equation and start to bring the kinds of change we want to see throughout the country and across the country. They cant ignore their constituents because they live with them every day. Mr. Weiner would you say in terms of corralling the virus, are there things we can do to protect the integrity of government science that will help us do that faster . Gov. Whitman absolutely. We have to stop denigrating science and pretending it doesnt matter. We need to have a leader who says this is the number one job. We are going to rely on the experts and scientists, and it has to be pure science, not directed by a political end. Not something because you wanted it to turn out this way, youre going to torture it into this. Like so many regulations at the Environmental Protection agency, you cant get up the next day and say, i dont think arsenic is a big deal. Im going to take away the regulations on the how much arsenic people can be exposed. You have to say, this is the new Scientific Evidence that tells me, we are in the wrong place with these regulations. When they start to disregard that part of the process, when it gets to the courts, even today, the courts are striking down the efforts to undermine the science, and we hope that is something that is going to continue because the regulations are pretty clear, and the enabling legislation is pretty clear on how you address these issues. It is going to take a directive from the top that this is important, that science is valued, and we need that transparency to understand that this is what the science is saying and let people have a look at that. Interpretations are going to be different depending on your bias, but they need to see that underlying science. Before we go to q a from our listeners or audience, maybe if you could talk about some of the reforms that would help us bring the department of justice back. Mr. Bharaha the first thing i will say, and this was the whole thrust of the book i wrote after i got fired by the president , policies are important. Codifying rules are important, but people are important, too. You could have the best constitution in the world, that if you dont have good judges and prosecutors and you dont have good public press, all of those go to hell. Abouty abuses people talk with respect to this administration or prior administrations, in the main, no law has changed. The totality of the constitution is the same. Most of the policies are the same. What has changed is the personnel involved in participating in all of those things, and if they choose to exercise their discretion in a way that doesnt do good for the public and eviscerates public , as was the rule of law said once, no constitution, no law, no court can save it. That has to come from people. As an initial matter, i know people dont love to hear this, but the leaders in the department and the leaders in the congress that oversee the department have to care about those values and have to care about what the spirit of those values are. Dore are some things you can. Whether its oversight by congress, and we used to do some in 2006,oversight 2007. It seems to me there are other themes here, which is the protection of people who are trying to do the right thing, whether they are assigned jobs like the special counsel to try to figure out from a neutral perspective who did what that was wrong, more protection for people like that, more protection for the inspectors general. In thathe provisions act would give a cause to fire inspectors general. For the first time in 11 years, an Inspector General was removed. I think there were five in told in total by the president of the United States that he lost on the grounds that he lost confidence. As some of you may famously know , the day before i was asked to resign, the president of the United States called me directly. I had never been called by any. Resident i never returned the call. I observed the norm that a political person like the president of the United States should not be engaged in a conversation with the attorney when among other things my office had jurisdiction over his home, his residence, all sorts of other things. No good could come of that. You need a contact policy. Theres been written guidance for some time that makes it clear that certain members, certain people in the white house cannot talk to anybody, but a small select number of people in the Justice Department. A president or Vice President shouldnt be calling a locally elected United States attorney. Things. E a couple of they dont replace the integrity of the people. They arent a substitute for the integrity of the people responsible for overseeing the system, but they are a start. Gov. Whitman the same protections should apply to scientists, too. When they find things the administration doesnt want to hear, we need to have protection for them. The scientific integrity act has a lot of that in it, and that is Something Else we need to do. It relies on the people ultimately, those who are going to enforce these things and watch these things. We can put those barriers in place, we can go for that transparency, but we have to have people willing to enforce it and to stand up. Mr. Verrilli if i could just add a quick note on that, we are going to be, i hope, in a moment like the postwatergate moment where congress enacted a lot of statutes to try to respond to the corruption and lawlessness that became wellknown out of the nixon administration, and as somebody in the executive branch, those laws like the privacy act made my life more difficult. They were frustrating, but they were really important, and they were symbolically really important. Preet havernor and said, you need to have people of integrity in these positions who believe in these norms, but it , whenatters, i think Congress Takes a step to enact laws, congress is saying, these are our values. I do think it is important, will be important for congress to do that again, and hopefully we will be in a position for that to happen in 2021. Mr. Weiner we are almost out of time. Before i go to the last question from the audience, want to take a quick moment to acknowledge that there are many Brennan Center staff who contributed to this event. They worked tirelessly. Also, our crack event staff. These events over resume are timeconsuming, and they worked very hard. I wanted to take a moment to acknowledge them. To finish, im going to leave you all with, hoping you can comment on one question we theres been is, some criticism of the Current Administration during this. We are a 501 c 3 organization. The impetus of this project has always been that these need to be bipartisan concerns. I would like to close out with may a thought about how it no matter who is president in january of 2021, we need to keep these issues front and center, and we need to make them a priority. Maybe i will start with you. Really glad we got that question. It suggests that the dysfunction and dystopia in which this country is engulfed is the fault of a single president or single , maybe credits them too much, and to dangerously oversimplify the complex history of racial cast in this country and how deepseated its roots are. Its a revolution of imagination that it will take for transforming this country into something truly deserving of being called a multiethnic democracy. We have an opportunity at this moment because of the confluence of issues facing our country, not just the frailties of this administration, but also because that theared suffering pandemic has imposed on all residents of this country, also because of the new illumination mass protests have provided to some of the deepest inequalities that plague our society, we have an opportunity for a third reconstruction that encompasses issues of Racial Justice, democracy, and many other ways to strengthen our society through science, looking at climate change, looking at all of the ways we have linked destinies. I think it is important we recognize that this is beyond party. This is beyond any factionalism. This is about our shared humanity, and if we dont see it that way, we will continue down this dangerous path, but i am rather hopeful. Often out of these times of tumult and struggle, we see some of the most promising transformation in our society as we continue to advance towards inhabiting the full potential of our democracy. I remain hopeful, and i look forward to continuing this discussion as we head in that direction. If anything, if there is a new administration in 2021, i think it is going to be more important to focus on the norms and values we have been talking about today. With a new administration, there is going to be enormous pressure on it. First of all, there is going to be enormous pressure on it for retribution against the old administration. Theres going to be enormous pressure to make fundamental changes very fast in ways that cantwmaking system accommodate under the constitution. Be a greating to temptation to embrace the argument, look with these other esso be sobs did. Why cant we take these steps ourselves when we are doing it to make things better . Think the problem with norms and values and rules is you can get into a downward spiral. One side sheets. Another side feels its ok to cheat. Worse and worse. I think that vigilance with respect to the administration, particularly in the early months and year is going to be quite important. Mr. Weiner governor, why dont we go with you . Gov. Whitman it would be nice and easy to blame it on one administration, but unfortunately what this has shown us is how deep these issues go. The dysfunction we have seen in congress can be laid at the feet of both parties. Weve allowed this to happen, also. Not participate in elections and primaries when they turnout is 10 or 12 . Candidatesgiving you for the fall that reflect the majority of people. It gives you candidates who reflect the party. We have to look in the mirror and have to understand its both parties and administrations over the past. Racism didnt just happen. This has unfortunately been a part of our history for a long time, and i dont believe theres been any administration that has fully faced at, republican or democrat, and tried to address it in the ways it should. This has been a gradual process. Its may be more highly illuminated and moving faster then we are use to. Party, and it one is not just one person. That is too easy, and it of ifves us of doing too much the administration changes in the fall. I couldnt agree more with what don was saying. What we have to be careful of is retribution. They did it, so its ok for us to do it. Somebody has to rise above that and show what the country is truly about and serve the country rather than the party. I am broadcasting from my home, and in my home, i never get the last word. Thank you. I am fairly optimistic. New administration, about bipartisan support. A lot of these abuses we are talking about, many of them have occurred before. Not to the degree we have seen in the last four years. There have been bad pardons before. Been lots of things that have happened before. In this timeframe, to a size and scale we havent seen before, but it is going to be true if human nature is what i think it is that once this administration ends, republicans who were prepared to keep their mouth shut are not going to want a future democratic president to be able to engage in these abuses that they know in their hearts and minds were abuses. Futureent going to want democratic billionaires or Reality Stars or whatever future populist you might imagine to be able to get away with having all sorts of financial entanglements or take advantage of emoluments, or be able to hire their daughter and soninlaw and keep them in the white house without the ability to hold them accountable because you dont pay them a salary, or all sorts of National Security abuses. Thats the thing everyone is going to care about when the shoe is on the other foot, so i think theres an opportunity in a new administration for both the democrats who i hope dont do what don worries about who say, now its our turn, and we should be able to do whatever we want, and understand in the postnixon era, its in everybodys interest to curb the these are a few quick things we need to fix. The exercise of the pardon power. It is not going to be true that republicans in the future will be fine if a democratic president starts pardoning members of his family. Once we get on the others of this, maybe its naive, but my hope is people will see the sensibility in all of this and get something done. Areweiner on that note, we out of time. On behalf of the Brennan Center for justice, i want to thank our outstanding panel, and i want to thank everyone journal,s washington every day we are taking her calls on the air of the news of the day and discussed policy issues that affect you. Coming up this morning, chris coons discusses the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearing for judge amy kony barrett. A look at senator Kamala Harriss record ahead of the debate. Author andrea neil will join us to talk about the record of Vice President mike pence. Also, the latest on the coronavirus count pandemic in response with the chief medical advisor. Watch cspan plus washington journal live at 7 a. M. Eastern this morning and join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, Text Messages and tweets. Here is a look at our live coverage wednesday. At 10 a. M. Eastern on cspan, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in google the oracle come a case concerning Software Code and copyright law. At 1 p. M. , politico with a preview of the Vice President ial debate with senator Kamala Harriss sister any former Senior Advisor to Hillary Clintons 2016 president ial campaign. P. M. , the first and only Vice President ial debate in salt lake city. Eastern, two at 9 a. M. A discussion on the future of the transatlantic economy followed by irs commissioner Charles Rettig testifying at a house subcommittee hearing about the agencys operations during the coronavirus pandemic and in the afternoon, u. S. Comptroller general and Congressional Budget Office director appear before a Senate Finance subcommittee to talk about u. S. Economic outlook. Up next, politico hosts a discussion with House Majority whip jim clyburn and former attorney general eric holder who now chairs the democratic redistricting committee. He looked at the 2020 election, male in pallets, voter access concerns in black and minority communities, and democratic priorities before and after the election. This is about 25 minutes