Most urgent issue we face and theres a lot of competition. Weve been witnessing a relentless and unprecedented seriesta of attacks on the twin foundations of our democratic system, free and Fair Elections and the rule of law. They are not unrelated to the president has made repeated threat to separate the election, some with support from the attorney general, suggesting he will military to the polls which is illegal, Voter Suppression of perhaps most chillingly refusing to commit to abide by theab election results. Some are worried that the rule of law has been so eroded in this country that it may be possible to literally steal the 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. We you see Law Enforcement weaponized arew partisan and political gain come 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. We have 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 Public Health response of covid19. And weve seen the administration politicized neutral institutions in the federal government from the Census Bureau to the center for Disease Control to the weather service. And more broadly we had witnessed a relentless stream of cases, many unpunished, of Police Violence against black and brown people in america. Brutalization of those communities by people who are charged with protectingge them. In short, were facing our rule of law crisis, but like other crises this and haske its roots and problems that predate this administration get our country is reckoning with violence and systemic racism, is i long overdue. We havent tolerated the injustices and lawlessness directed at black and brown communities too long. This train of abuses at the federal level has been made possible by longer standing erosions of democratic and rule of law norms. One thing this administration has made abundantly clear is that the guard rails that would traditionallyre relied upon to check abuses of power in government are too flimsy, and thats why at the Brennan Center convene a National Task force on rule of law and democracy, which is group of imminent cross ideological and cross partisan individuals with experience working at the highestth level f democratic and republican administrations, at the federal and state levels. Shore up aon is to guard rails against the abuse of federal government power. They are cochaired by former u. S. Attorney general Preet Bharaha and governor Christine Todd whitman are with us today and other members include former solicitor general don verrilli who is also joining us, former delaware governor mike hassett, for white house advisor and professor edley, former security of defend chuck hagel, former u. S. Attorney captain david iglesia, former director of the office of government ethics, amy comstock. The work of this task force is been to create legislative proposals to shore up limits on executive power, safeguarding the rule of law, enforcing ethics standards, preventing for political tax on science within federalpr government, all withot undermining the proper functioning of the executive branch. Their proposals would put real teeth into the guard rails and unwritten rules that both parties have agreed to follow in the past and almost every single one of their proposals is [inaudible] legislation pendingls before congress that should be a priority for the next congress. Of course there is much, much more that 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 i am delighted to turn this over to my colleague, dan weiner, Deputy Director of the Brennan Center election reform program. Thank you all for joining us. I needed to unmute there. Thank you so much, wendy. The panelists we have joining us today really need noo introduction time going to keep it very, very brief, but Preet Bharaha was the United States attorney for the Southern District of new york from 20092017 year prior to that he was prosecutor at the Department Justice and also chief counsel to senator chuck schumer. And today of course he is the host of stay tuned with preet, and the culture of our National Task force that wendy mentioned. Janai nelson is 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 verrilli was the 46th solicitor general ofci the unitd states turkey is also a member of our National Task force, as we noted. Currently, he is a partner at every now to law firm, prior to that is also a partner at jenner and block where i had the privilege of working under him briefly. And finally last but definitely not least Christine Todd whitman with a 50 is dash that was of new50th governor of jersey and also the night administrator of the United States Environmental Protection agency serving under president george w. Bush. She skirted the president of whitman w strategies and as we d noted the culture of our National Task force. So with that i would like to jump in with the first question. Im going to address that you are cochairs of our task force preet and governor whitman. Both the given speaking and writing about some off the issus that are on the front page from the president s tax returns to the politicization of Law Enforcement for years. Some might say you were a bit prescient on these issues. But my question for you is, theres a lot going on right now. Maybe you could talk ain little bit about why people should care, and also why these issues should be a focus for policymakers. Preet, if you want to go first and then we will turn to governor whitman. Sure. Its good to be with all of you. Thank you for the introduction andee its great to be with fol. I see we have a large online audience so please to be with you on something so important. And my copanelists as well. People are set from time to time may you live in interesting times. Our times are little bit too interesting. Your question goes to this issue that we have of how many problems can we face as a nation . One of the most important things happening rightpo now and the mt devastating things the country is ever face is this global pandemic. The whole world has been facing it. More than 200,000 people dead. I take the spirit of your question to be when people are dying how to be a time in energy to focus on issues like rule of law or norms . Though seems to be luxuries in a democracy. I dont look at it that way. We need to care about science, and sites is one of the things the task force that governor whitman and i cochair has been talking about. But at the same time were kind to stave off disease and try to keep our country safe from the pandemic we have to i think keep an eye on with the values of her country are. At some point were going to come out of the pandemic, and at what cost to our institutions . I also see a pillow between issues and thefa challenges facg the justicest department and the challenges facing institutions that arend dealing with the pandemic. It comes to the issue of independence, expertise, truth. All of those things i think factor into this issue of rule of law. This sort of attacks on the department of justice is independence, the attack on the rankandfile lawyers who have basic expertise in the cases that they bring and try, and when appropriate they dismiss. But those same things and attacks and challenges are happening with other institutions that are also supposed be independent at a fake laypeople understand it more so like the cdc or the nih. To meet their part of the same problem. An idea that if youre at an administration who cares about politics over justice or care about politics overe, medicine, and over epidemiology, then youre going to bring this to ruin. In the matter of the pandemic that brings us to ruin with respect to human lives. With respect to the department of justice and rule of law it sometimes can affect human lives. It is a matter ofum life and death. For george floyd it was a matter. Are we a country in which everyone is treated equally before the law or are we country like some of nations around the world with the president gets to decide because he has the power of being the chief of executive branch, were going too bring te weight of Law Enforcement upon if youre an officer and will take away the weight of Law Enforcement against you if youre an ally. Weve seen it in the flynn case, the stone case, and so many others. 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 can be really choked for a long time, even after the pandemic is gone. Im sure governor whitman has a lot to add to that. Governor . Thank you, preet, and thanks anto the Brennan Center as alwas to bring this task was to get all the Panel Members for their dedication. This is the panel that is taken things very seriously as you all know. We discussed these issues on and on. Whats important toce remember,f the tassel from the rule of law and democracy. The rule of law is not just limited to those departments that have thehe obvious responsibility of enforcing the law. When we are talking about rule of law, were talking about institutionalizing those norms that up in the guard rails that have protected society and kept our government within bounds for so long. 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 at science has to be the basis of things. What were 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 theyre confused, conflicting messages 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. Not only have we lost over 210,000 individuals in this country alone, we have also seen, first of all, the uneven impact on communities of color from this disease and uneven impact on these communities, small business, big business as well when you see what happens in the airlines and people who are put on furlough. They dont know whether theyre going to have a job in another week or two or month if congress cant move forward to get some bills through. And you saw that the that our head economist basically, the head of the fed today, jerome powell, that, in fact, they cant spend nuture money on this stimulus right now, compared to what the damage thats being done to our economy. And a lot of this is occurring because we have been ignoring those norms that we took for granted, and thats one of the things that our reports, there are two of them, 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 of the white house, actually, intercedes with the Justice Department and when is it and putting some protections around the special prosecutors. And the Inspector General. 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 the actual, those departments that have to enforce the law need to do, but are very much a part of the rule of law and democracy, which is what this task force has been all about. Thank you, governor. There are a lot in your remarks that id like to get to, but id like to bring janay into the conversation. We had a president ial debate last tuesday, it seems like it was 100 years ago. We live in these times as we said. But folks may have noticed that law and order was a bit after theme, particularly for the president , although both candidates spoke to it. And im wondering if you can talk a little about, you know, these indications that the rule of law and what the rule of law really means to you and particularly, i think it would be great if he you could situate that also in whats obviously going on right now, which is a historic reckoning in the ongoing struggle for Racial Justice. Sure, i think that that question, first of all, let me say thank you to you and the Brennan Center and its just wonderful to be part of this decision, and i know youre heartened that were having a conversation about the rule of law because i dont think that we as a society do it often enough though i very much appreciate this opportunity to be in dialog with such esteemed speakers. Its funny, a week after the i gave it lecture at john Jacobs College in new york about this topic, rethinking the phrase law and order, and examining the very viceral response that those words evoke for different segments of our society. And that term law and order really gained salience when Richard Nixon and george wall ran on law and order and some of us remember reagans socalled welfare queens, and the white vote to restore law and order. We saw president h. W. Bush run an ad on the revolving door, alluding to the Violent Crimes of an africanamerican man Willie Horton and also to invoke a call to law and order. And that phrase has been used in our political history and in last weeks debate, its used as a dog whistle for racial resentment, the recent protests against Police Violence with lawlessness and disorder. And i want to be clear about 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 and like the Brennan Center, the naacp Legal Defense fund is not partisan, and law and order has been used by republicans and democrats alike. Its often, if not always, tacitly referential of black people and other people of color and the perceived need for greater Law Enforcement against them. And weve had, you know, nearly four years that have followed that call for law and order and in that time it has become an increasingly fanatical appeal laden with nationalism and white supremacist overtones, frankly. The fact of the matter is law and order resumes a hierarchical racial order that uses law and that doesnt yield the desired results, it uses other means to preserve the status quo. But also, at the same time, you have a deafening crescendo around the world demanding in very important ways their own version of law and order. Theyre demanding a system of law, you know, that is protective of their lives or the lives of their neighbors and community members, in the same way that its protective of all lives in theory. And theyre demanding an order of justice where police can be held accountable. And the rule of law is really central to this fight for Racial Justice because, you know, at bottom, the rule of law is about consistency and fairness, and accountability, at all levels of government. Its the enforcement of laws to protect the civil human and constitutional rights. Its about preventing state sanctions, lawlessness in the form of Police Brutality and, you know, unchecked vigilante violence against africanamericans in which were seeing more often and of course, against other groups. But if there were a true commitment to the rule of law and to a neutral concept of law and order, we wouldnt have witnessed the localization. National guard and other federal resources to use brutal force against protesters in d. C. And portland and other u. S. Cities over the objections of state and local officials. We would not have written as Law Enforcement actively supporting and sympathizing with far right vigilante groups or the president of this country lionizing a 17yearold in kenosha to commit heinous killings and the president that hes alluded to to reward political allies like arizona sheriff joe arpaio, who engaged in racial profiling, he lied about it to a court. He was held in contempt for refusing to follow court orders and weve seen other abuse of that president ial authority. Ill say in the end this warped interpretation and application of law and order is die metr diametrically opposed. Thank you, i want you to respond and another perspective is that actually you and preet can speak to is the experience of the attorneys and the other folks in the government who actually are doing the daytoday work and are by and large, you know, the department of justice dedicated Public Servants and how is this affecting the institution . I know its something youve spoken out before. So perhaps you can include that in your remarks. Thanks, dan, good to see you again, its great to be able to participate with this panel, for the phenomenal work its doing on this vitally important set of issues. I do want to focus whats happening to the Justice Department and whats happened really to the Justice Department since the start of President Trumps term in office. You know, its an institution. We talk about the centrality of the rule of law and how it undergirds not just our sense that we give in a just society and our government is exercised justly, but permeates everything that the government does and 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, c. D. C. And and so many other organizations at a time we most need them that its a devastating tragedy for our country. And it really did start, i think, with the department of justice, very early in this presidency, 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 and hammering at the mueller team as being partisan and not Public Servants. Hammering at the department and it was really taking its toll over time and it was really eroding the sense of mission of the career lawyers in the department. Now youve got an attorney general who is hollowing the place out from the inside, which is even more extraordinary thing to behold and more of a tragedy to see where prosecutors like jonathan cravens, 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 testifying about their disquiet, and you know, on and on. It really is something and the episode, but one that struck home with me, because it involved my old office, solicitors general office. The attorney general a month or so ago was trying to continue his campaign of discrediting the mueller special counsel investigation and his report. He talked about members of the special Councils Team and he said the following, he said, you know, who are those people two of those people trying to prove partisanship, two of those people were from the obama administration. He was talking about two lawyers who worked in the solicitor generals office, one is a legend, preet knows him well, worked for republican and democratic president s and administrations a lot. He was the consummate career Public Servant looked up to everybody in the department for his commitment to the Public Interest and to serving the United States and not serving any partisan agenda. And to see him dragged through the mud like that so the attorney general could score a cheap political point. It was just terrible. When i was privileged enough to be running the sgs office, i made it a point to hire conservative republican career lawyers as well as local democratic career lawyers into that office because the whole point of it, it was supposed to be a Nonpartisan Office that served the people of the United States. And thats the mission, that thousands and thousands of people who work in the department, the many career lawyers, fbi agents, everybody else. Thats how they understand their mission, when they have the president of the United States, now the attorney general basically telling them that what theyre doing isnt worth a darn, its thats because a devastating thing for our country and its going to take an enormous, enormous amount of work, not only to rebuild the publics confidence in the department of justice as an institution, were going 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. Its a colossal tragedy. Can i add something to that . You know, thats true throughout the federal government under this administration. Particularly, any part of the government has anything to do with science. Certainly the epa, theyve lost over 900 scientists and those that have been replaced have been largely replaced by scientists who come to the very industries 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 were for it, the morale is down. Those who want to bring forward things that they think are really important that we should know around science scared to do that, if it doesnt comport with the political agenda of this administration, theyll find themselves reassigned and to other parts of the country to work and to be put in the fields where they have no basic Institutional Knowledge. So, 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 that they werent worth anything, it doesnt matter. That everything is political, is just its mindboggling to me, particularly with justice to have the attorney general doing this is just extraordinary. I expected it with the science because the president doesnt believe in regulation, doesnt believe in any that we need to touch the environment outside that it will take care of itself. I would have hoped that this coronavirus would have shown thats not the case, not to mention the fires, floods and storms that weve had from climate change. This will take us a long time from which to recover, but we need to start right away. And you mentioned one more institution that i think would have been a great surprise for anybody to think a few years ago would have politicized talking fda, department of justice which had issues in the past and scandals in the pass, none like weve seen this time around. But the United States Postal Service, in what universe would someone have thought that the United States Postal Service, i think is the most highly respected Agency Within government. Everyone loves their postal carriers and rely on them less than they use today, but the idea that even that can become politicized and expertise taken away should be another example of why all of this work, you know, jibes with the work that were talking about with respect to rule of law. Im actually, im glad you brought up the Postal Service because obviously the issues with the Postal Service are tied to the election, which is, you know, as we know, actually ongoing right now. And people have started voting. And we also talked a little about attorney general barr who has made some statements about the election and about things like voter fraud, or alleged voter fraud. Janay, im wondering if you could talk a little about what we should make of these interventions and you know, what that means sort of for our broader integrity of our democracy. Yeah, i think interventions is a very polite word. And i appreciate the opportunity to talk about it and i just want to pile on the last part of the discussion and hopefully one of them to talk about this as well. The other institution that we should be deeply alarmed about becoming more and more politicized at least in the eyes of the public and by virtue of all of the machinations of this senate and Mitch Mcconnell in particular is the Supreme Court and for those of us who are litigators and who rely on the courts for justice and as a check on other parts of government, that is deeply, deeply alarming and i hope that well have an opportunity to talk about that. But i do want to talk about what attorney general barr has gone in connecti done in conn with elections along with the president and we need to name whats happening here. We heard the president say that he would be sending u. S. Marshals and, you know, attorneys prosecutors Law Enforcement and others and would he heard bill barr, idea of sending military and armed forces to the polls. And you know, this is the stuff of failing democracies that are, you know, descending toward authoritarianism and its the kind of stuff that we normally would be pushing back again if we heard any country abroad suggesting any of these tactics. Instead we have the president this have country also a candidate on the battle with the aid and abetting of the chief Law Enforcement, installing constitutional rights, threatening to use armed forces to intimidate voters at the polls. Even if you simply take them at their word that theyre trying to deter voter fraud, theyve made clear theyre willing to use intim intimidation tactics, and if there are threatening at polling sites or voters, 18usd592 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 you know, many have put it out. Including very excellent reporting by the Brennan Center, the premise of this is entirely bogus, inperson voter fraud is exceedingly rare. Its so rare that in a study that professor Justin Levitt conducted, only 31 votes of those cast were prosecutable for inperson voter fraud. So the attorney general, just like the president , is pedalling blatant falsehoods when they speak of rampant voter fraud. Whether they attempt to act on these ideas or 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, thats 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 upheaval of the Voting Rights act of 1965. All of these chilling messages that the ballot box is somehow forbidden grounds for certain people. We dont have to look at that far back, in the 1980s, the Republican Committee had the ballot security passport, which its very purpose was to patrol polls and the people are on the task force, many of them were off Duty Police Officers who were armed with loaded service revolvers and they wore arm bands and you know, 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 and now we see something called army for trump. We see a new effort that is a very concerning campaign with deeply militaristic overtones and its unchecked not only because theres no Consent Decree in place, but because we have a department of justice thats not playing any meaningful role in protecting the constitutional and civil lights of voters in this election. Its failed to enforce the Voting Rights act in most instances of the Real Department of justice that was not captured bipartisanship, using its powers under the voting right, section 3a to send neutral observers to document potentially voter intimidation and obstruction at the polls, but instead we see this department of justice engaging or at least threatening to engage in those sorts of tactics itself and that is that its truly a threat to free and Fair Elections to our borders. I just want to take the moderators privilege briefly to note that all of that is very true and the federal governments the Brennan Center, that the actual people head of the elections around the country most of whom are very dedicated Public Servants. So we hope everyone should vote. You shnt shouldnt be intimidated from voting, but i think the behavior of the federal government in this context i think we can agree is disgraceful. And voting by mail which weve documented a very, very safe and secure. And i want to give the others a chance. Preet, if you could outline the statements that another in pennsylvania made particularly by mail. The problem is when you use what are supposed to be neutral institutions, whether its the c. D. C. , the Postal Service or i think most compellingly the department of justice, to promote some political end, and sometimes political ends can be advanced by a political narrative and this president has made very clear that all hand on deck to promote the narrative that absentee ballots, mailin ballots are necessarily going to be rife with fraud. The attorney general has done that on television speculating without any evident whatsoever. And he said i dont have any evidence. Its logic, suspecting that foreign nations will send thousands and thousands of fraudulent ballots and seeming to ignore actual election interference in 2016 and 2020. The divergent view he has from the actual fbi director hand picked by the president of the United States who is out of favor a bit these days. When you subvert what is supposed to be a neutral rule of law process to advance a narrative. Thats a problem so you allude to this kind of odd case out of pennsylvania where at one point it was nine ballots and then seven ballots, and then theres investigation of whether there was fraud. What happened with those ballots its a little bit confusing the narrative, but the bottom line is, Standard Operating Procedure in the Justice Department is not to talk about investigations and reveal details of investigations, particularly revealing details of investigations before theyre concluded and before some charging decision has been made. If you dont make a charging decision you make your mouth shut as jim comey has been made to understand given what he did four years ago with respect to hillary clinton. Nonetheless, this United States attorney who i dont know personally and not familiar with his represent tailings, made public statements that he had to then revise because they were erroneous with respect to seven out of the nine ballots that presumably cast for donald trump and didnt make their way to the right place. Its a signal to other people in the department or other place, the normal rule keeping your mouth shut about an Ongoing Investigation maybe dont apply and maybe its the case that i exercise my discretion to put my thumb on the scale a little bit every once in a while for this thing because we see the attorney general doing it, the mueller report, voting by mail or roger stone or anything else that, caused the resignation of the entire career prosecutors from that case. Then maybe thats something that i should do, too, maybe it will help me to curry fair and cause my career advancement. If i dont do these things maybe in trouble. I keep making the point that these are sort of other piece, theyre jumping out 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 involves was to recuse himself from the russia investigation. And thats literally the one thing that the president of the United States, this president , didnt like about Jeff Sessions. And what did that lead to . That led to attorney general bill barr who broadcast at his confirmation hearing, unlike prior nominees confirmed to be the attorney general going some time in the past saying they would not only seek out ethics advice on recusal they would follow the ethics advice given by career ethics people in the department. Bill barr said no, im not going to do that. You have it coming from the white house, you have it coming from the head of the department and you start to undermine the culture and as the u. S. District of pennsylvania, doing what in the department is normally done. So, i want to pivot soon to a little bit of hope because i dont want to scare the folks at home too much, but before we do that, i do want to just return briefly to a topic that janai alluded to, which is the Supreme Court. And nobody knows more about the Supreme Court than you, probably. I wonder if you could talk a little about the implications of what were seeing now there, and the potential shift for the Supreme Court to act as a guardian of the rule of law. You know, its a little about like what i was saying with respect to the department of justice. For its vital to the health of our republic, to our constitutional system, that the American People have faith in the Supreme Court as an institution, that they believe its an institution about law and that its not a political institution. And thats really been shaken very badly and i think one could go back as far as bush against gore to see for at least half of the country, there was you know, that was a watershed moment that really caused Many Americans to have out in the idea the Supreme Court as an institution of law and not of politics, but you know, the democrats, people on the left, i think they reconciled themselves with bush against gore and got back to the point of thinking that they could have faith in the institution of the Supreme Court. And then youve got to the Merrick Garland fiasco in 2016 where president obama nominated somebody in the early spring of 2016 i think as qualified at any nominee in the history of our country. Moderate, beloved sguj judge on the d. C. Circuit and look what happened. Theres only one way to interpret what happened there was that the republican majority in the senate wanted somebody on the court who was going to vote differently than they anticipated Merrick Garland would vote. Thats the only explanation so they blocked it and i thought at the time that that was going to just have a devastating effect on at least half of the country feeling that they could trust the Supreme Court and i do think its had a very serious adverse effect and now, you know, just in the last few weeks look whats happening. Having had a, as a countries, going through what we went through with the garland nomination to now have Justice Ginsburg pass away, a revered beloved justice, have her pass away just 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 try to fill that receive on the eve of the election, right on the teeth of argument in 2016 as a reason why the garland nomination shouldnt be considered, i mean, how i mean, just people should ask themselves, how why would you think half the country would have any faith that this is a neutral institution thats devoted to the rule of law when you see this kind of shenanigans surrounding the process of deciding who goes on the court . I think its a terrible problem and i think were going to pay a price for it for a long time. Janai, do you want to jump newspaper since youve raised this before, too . Sure, i couldnt agree more with everything just said. That, its a critical amount of the people in our country no longer see our judicial system as a potential avenue of relief, especially in a system like ours where the Supreme Court ultimately determines the law of the land. We are in extraordinarily perilous terrain and that feeling of distrust towards our system is growing and thats why were seeing sustained protests. You know, many like to quote dr. King, he describes riot as the language of the unheard, and he was talking about the uprising in the early 1960s in watts and harlem. They leave off the next line and the next line is, what is it that america has failed to hear . And protesters are saying in no Uncertain Terms that theres a growing faithlessness in our system of justice and that is thats wellfounded delusionment because of what were seeing in all of congress and what was just described in terms of how the the nomination process has become completely politicized. And if were honest weve always had to force our institutions to be accountable and i think this circumstance will be no different. We will continue to see protests. And id be remiss if i didnt acknowledge, fannie hamer and on the day that celebrates herbe herbert her birthday. Well need our elected leaders to serve all the people, that it will not be an easy task, but its one that we must commit to and no administration is evolved from that responsibility. Thank you. I think were actually running up almost to the twothirds mark so id like to pivot now maybe a little bit to solutions and governor, maybe, you know, i want to get to the department of justice, but as you noted at the outset, this is not just about the doj and Law Enforcement. Right now were in a pandemic thats disproportionately affecting people of color, particularly black americans and that disproportionment with the handling of the abuses if not into the pandemic response. Maybe, could you talk a little about solutions . Im going to ask you a twopart question. One is to talk a little about some of the things we need to address and then also, though, as you know, republican elected official right now, youre seeing you are seeing democrats talk more about this issue and we hope theyll be bipartisan. What are the prospects for getting some bipartisan agreement on some efforts to shore up guardrails . First of all, i think what were seeing at least come in to vivid relief. Its taken, its ripped a ban date off a wound that weve had in for a long time in this country the disparate ways that communities of color were treated. Whether its money from the federal government. Where they dont have the political voice, its located. You have Environmental Justice issues that are rampant because companies were allowed to pollute in those areas because they didnt have a voice. This is something thats been going on true multiple administrations and unfortunately, its a real part of our history. In a really perverse way, this might be a good time. I mean, it certainly is a time to present it. You have to recognize thatwhat happening in the importance of these peoples lives and businesses. Hopefully it will mean there will be more attention paid to how discriminatory weve been. Theres know he other way to describe. Weve been discriminating all along and thats a stain on this country. And i have hope. The virus has brought this so to the fore and because you have groups like the Problem Solvers Caucus in the house and senate and the Bipartisan Group has to be even republicans and democrats, no republican can join on their own or democrat on their own. Theyre responsible for a lot of the Bipartisan Legislation coming forward and of course the first two reports that we did, this task force did, many of them are embodied in pieces in the house and some have gone through the senate, but they were all bipartisan and so, there is hope. I think the biggest hope having a change at the administration, its hard to get to this without that. An 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 and given the tools and the kinds of things recommended in our reports, they have the ability to do that and you see that h rchr hr1, had a lot of what we offered in it and it was bipartisan. And the big pieces of legislation that have really impacted the country, any of the nature, whether youre talking about social security, medicare, medicaid, Environmental Protection agency. The minute you have a totally partisan bill, solely one party, the next time the other party gets in power they undo it. People understand that more. Its up to the public to bring pressure on their elected officials at all levels and say, we cannot continue like this. If you purport to be a christian, you have to think of what you do to the least among us you do also to me. We have to remember those values of treating people equally, to how this country was founded, out Republican Party was founded as a party to free slaves, as a major part of it. We seem to have left that totally behind, but i do see in particularly young people today are coming together and saying, weve got it make a change. Weve got to care about climate change, thats something thats going to impact us for ever, frankly, because were not going to stop it. We can slow it, but not stop it. And women we have to understand were in a perilous place right now and what weve steen in eroding our basic values have longterm consequences hard to analyze, but i see now we have to focus, we cant hide from the discriminatory practices of the past and were seeing more pressure put on conditions and on local and state governments and thats where the changes are really going to take place. At least initially. The federal government, first thing that anybody well, should be the first thing anybody coming, taking the oath of office this coming here, in 2021 should do is corral the virus. I mean, that has to be job number one before you can get the economy back, but for the states, well, thats important. Theyre also the ones who can take the sentence on the other parts of this equation and start to bring the kinds of change that we want to see throughout the country and across the country. They cant ignore their constituents when they get to them every day. You get to washington and kind of forget because youre in a bubble and thats not something you can accept anymore. Would you say in terms of corralling the virus, there are things to do to protect the government science in particular that will help us do that faster . Absolutely, first of all, we have to stop denigrating science and pretending it doesnt matter. We need to have a leader who says, this is important, this is the number one job. Were going to rely on the experts on this and scientists, and its got to be pure science, not directed by a political end. Not something thats because you want it to turn out this way, were going to torture it into this. And unfortunately as happens with some of the regulations at the environmental regulation, well, i dont think that arsenic is a big deal, ill take away the regulations on how much arsenic people can compo exposed. No, you have to tell us about this particular regulation. When they have the rollbacks and the process and when it gets to the courts, even today. The courts are striking down the efforts to undermine the science and we can hope that thats something that is going to continue because their regulations are pretty clear in enabling legislation is pretty clear how you address these issues and you have to have some basis in science, but its going to take a directive from the top that this is important, that science is valued and we need that transparency to understand this is what the science really is saying and then let people have a look at that. Obviously, interpretations are going to be different depending our your bias as you come to it and you need to look at the underlying science and that has to be broadly to the community. Preet. Before we go to q a from our listeners or audience, maybe if you could just talk a little about some of the reforms that could help us bring the department of justice back . And theres a bill, actually, the protect our democracy act that was just introduced that contain some of these things that you could maybe speak to. Look it, the first thing ill say, this is the whole thrust of the book that i wrote after i good fired by the president. Codifying the rules are important, too, you can have the best constitution in the world, you can have the best criminal code in the world, but if you dont have good judges, good prosecutors, good defense lawyers and dont have good public press, all of those go to hell and some of the abuses that people talk about with respect to this administration or prior administrations, in the main, no law has changed. In the mean, and not in the main in totality the constitution is the same of the most of the laws are the same. Most of the policies are the same, whether its a contact policy or something else. What has changed is the personnel and who is involved in those things. This if he choose to exercise their discretion that doesnt do good for the public and eviscerates the rule of law and public faith in the rule of law and people being equal in the eyes of the law. Then no constitution, no law, no court can save it. That has to come from people. So as an initial pattern, i know people doesnt look to hear this because its an amorphous thing. But the leaders in the congress to oversee the department have to care about those values and what the spirit of those are and inculcate them among the entire group of people at the department. And there are things to do, oversight by congress and i use today work in the senate and we did vigorous oversight of the Justice Department in 06, 07, 08. But there are other things you can do and seems to me theres another theme here, which is the protection of people hot are career and trying to do the right thing, whether theyre assigned jobs like the special counsel to try to figure out from a neutral perspective because there are too many conflicting interests in the department. And who did what, and more protections for the inspectors general. I think one of the provisions in that act would give a to fire inspectors general. We havent talked about. For the first time in 11 years an Inspector General was removed, and more, five total by the president of the United States. On the grounds that he basically lost confidence. Among other things, the protection of inspectors general and people, even high ranking. The day before i was asked to resign the president of the United States called me director. The District Attorney Southern District of new york, never been called by barack obama, and i never object returned the call because a political person should not be directly in conversation with the United States of attorney without involvement of any other people including the attorney general, my office had jurisdiction over his home, his residents, his business, his charity all sorts of things. No good could come of that. So you need a contact policy for people not familiar, there has been written guidance for some time. It gets revised from time to time that makes it clear certain members, people in the white house cannot talk to anybody except a small select number of people in the Justice Department. Certainly a president or a vicepresident shouldnt be calling a local United States attorney, and reporting to congress with respect to the contacts so there can be oversight. There are a couple of things, they dont replace the integrity of the people who are responsible for overseeing the system, but theres a start. That same should apply to scientists, too. When they Say Something that and the ip at theing grit act had a has a lot in it. But as preet says, it relies on the people ultimately, those who are going to enforce these things ap watch these things. We can put the barriers in place and we can go for the transparency, but we have to have the people willing to enforce it and to stand up. If i add a quick note on that, you know, i think this were going to be, i hope, a few months from now in a moment like the post watergate moment where congressmen acted a lot of statutes that tried to respond to the corruption and lawlessness that became wellknown out of the nixon administration. And as somebody know in the executive branch many years later i thought those laws like the ethics and Government Act and foia and those made my life for difficult and they were frustrating, but they were really important and they were symbolically really important because as the governor, as preet said, and i 100 agree, the end of the day you have to have people of integrity in these positions who leave m the bl blul believe in the rule of law and i think as a country practically and symbolically when Congress Takes a step like enacting the laws in the post watergate era, its the same. These are our values and what matters to us as a country. So i think its important, it will be important for congress to do that again and hopefully well be in a position for that to happen. So, we are almost out of time. Before i go to the last question, which is from the audience, i want to just take a quick moment to acknowledge, there are many, many Brennan Center staff contributing to this event and i just want to briefly note my colleagues, our fellow, martha, Garrett Fowler and julia bolen who worked tirelessly and our crack event staff, okeep and adrian. And these events over zoom actually are time consuming and they really work very hashed. I want to take a moment to acknowled acknowledge them. And to finish. Im going to leave you all with and hoping all of you can comment briefly on one question that we got which is, theres been some criticism of the Current Administration during this call and were a 5013c organization. And these always need to be bipartisan concerns, id like to pose that with a thought no matter who is president in january, 2021, we need to keep these issues front and center and we need to make them a priority. And janai, maybe ill start with you. Sure, im glad we got that question because it suggests that the dysfunction and dispopa in which this country is presently engulfed is the falt assault of a single president or single administration, is one, to credit them too much and two, to dangerously oversimplify the complex history of racial caste in this country and how deepseated its roots are. So the revolution of imagination it will take to transform this country into something truly deserving as being called a multiracial, multiethnic democracy. We have a moment because of the confluence of issues facing our country, not just the frailties of this administration, but also because of the shared suffering that the pandemic has imposed on all residents of this country. Also because of the new illumination that mass protests have provided to some of the deepest inequalities that still plague our owe site. 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 in way we have linked destinies, so, i think its important that we recognize that this is beyond party. This is beyond any factionalism. This is about our shared humanity and if we dont see it in that way well continue down this dangerous path. But i am rather hopeful. Often out of these moments of tumult and struggle. We see transformational, as we transform into really inhabiting the full potential of our democracy so i remain hopeful and i look forward to continuing this type of discussion as we head in that direction. Don, you want to go next . Yeah, you know, in fact, if anything, i think its going to be if there is a new administration in 2021, i think its going to be more important to focus on the norms and values that we have been talking about today and the Brennan Center has done so much amazing work to promote. I think with a new administration, theres going to be enormous pressure on t first of all, i think theres going to be enormous pressure on it for retribution against the Old Administration and i think theres going to be enormous on it to make fundamental changes very fast in ways that our law making system maybe cant accommodate under the constitution. And that theres going to be a great temptation to embrace the argument. Well, look what these other sobs did. How can you say we cant take these steps ourselves when were making things better. And we might be doing it to make things better, but i do think that, you know, the problem with norms and values and rules is that you can get into a downward spiral, one side, one side cheats the other side feels its okay to cheat and its worse and worse. And so, i do think that kind much vigilance with respect to the new administration, particularly in those, in the early months and year is going to be quite, quite important. Governor, why dont we go with you and then preet, you can have the last word. Well, it would be nice and easy to blame it on one administration and thats just convenient, but unfortunately, what this has shown us is how deep the issues go. The what weve seen in congress in the last decade from both parties, weve allowed this to happen, its our fault we have allowed it to happen by not participating in elections and primacies, when the voter turnout isnt 10 or 12 . That isnt giving you candidates for the fall who reflect the majority of people. It gives you candidates in the fall who were the most partisan of their particular party who cot them those nominations. So we have to look in the mir and understand its been both parties and administrations over the past. We didnt racism didnt just happen. Weve had this has been unfortunately a part of our history for a long time and i dont believe theres been any administration that has fully faced it, republican and democrat and tried to address it in the ways they should. And all the issues we have been talking about. This is a gradual process, more highly illuminated and suddenly moving faster, going inside those norms than were used to than weve seen in the past, but its not Just One Party and its not just one person. Thats too convenient, too easy and it ab solves of us having to do much should the administration change in the fall and that would be a devastating mistakes and i couldnt agree more with what don is saying. We have to be careful of retribution one side or the other. They did it so its okay for us. And somebody has to rise above and serve their country rather than their party. Preet. Im broadcasting from my own home, i never get the last word so thank you, appreciate it. [laughter]. Im absolutelily feeling optimistic if theres a new administration that bipartisan support for some of these reforms because a lot of these abuses were talking about, you know, many of them have occurred before. I think not to a degree that weve seen in the last four years, there have been bad pardons before. Marc rich and bill clinton, there there theres nepotism before. Bobby kennedy. I think in this time frame, to size and scale weve not seen before, but its going to be true, i think, if human nature is what i think it is, that once this administration ends, republicans who are prepared to keep their mouths shut because of fear of attack by the president or something else, are not going to want a future democratic president , billionaire or not, to be able to engage in these abuses that they know in their hearts and minds were in fact abuses. Theyre not going to want a future republican, not going to want a future democratic billionaire or whatever, perhaps demagogue to get away with all types of financial endanglements or take advantage of emoluments theyre not supposed to or hire their daughter and soninlaw and keep them in the white house without the ability to really hold them accountable because you dont pay them a salary or all sorts of National Security abuses. I think well be able to fire inspectors general with no explanation at all and completely without consequence, thats a thing that everyone is going to tear 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 as well, and say, well, now its our turn and we should be able to do whatever we want and understand that its like in the postnixon era. Its to everyones advantage to curb the things that on a bipartisan basis i think people would be more open about this without fear of attack from the president and say, these are a few quick things we need to fix. The context policy, nepotism, the pardon power. Giving some explanation. Its not going to be true that republicans in the future will be fine if a democratic president starts pardoning members of his family. Its just not going to be acceptable. And i think once we get on the other side of this, my hope my hope is that people receive sensibility in all of this and well get something done. Thank you, on that note were out of time on behalf of the Brennan Center for justice. I want to thank our outstanding panel for a really wonderful conversation and i want to thank everyone who is watching this discussion. Thank you all and have a wonderful day. Thanks, folks. Thanks. Watch live coverage. Senate confirmation hearings for judge Amy Coney Barrett starting monday with Opening Statements by Judiciary Committee members and judge barrett. Live coverage on cspan and cspan. Org. And listen live on the radio app and listen to Amy Coney Barretts legal views. And the senate is about to gavel in. No votes expected. The chamber is holding prefer pro forma sessions after three republican senators tested positive for covid19. We take you live now to the senate floor. The presiding officer the senate will come to order. The parliamentarian will read a communication to the senate. The parliamentarian washington, d. C. , october 9, 2020. To the senate under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable pat roberts, a senator from the stae of kansas, to perform the duties of the chair. Signed chuck grassley, president pro tempore. The presiding officer under the previous order, the Senate Stands adjourned until 8 45 a. M. On tuesday, october 13, 2020
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.