The by demonstration has begun the process of exploring ways to undo new title nine regulations put in place under Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos. These regulations required colleges to provide basic due process protections to students facing allegations of sexual misconduct, protection such as the presumption of innocence and the right to know the evidence against you. These are things we take for granted, but before these new rules are past, they were shockingly rare on college campuses, divide, mistresses, move the reverse progress and allow campuses to re establish their politically motivated kangaroo course. One nonprofit called fire spent the last decade front and center in the fight to guarantee students rights on campus now, they're fighting the vitamin stations attempts to undo hard won gains for campus freedom to stand up for fundamental rights and learn more about,

hours work? I encourage you to join fires efforts today at the fire dot, Org t h, e fire dot, Org a generation of students will thank you welcome too in the car thieves, port podcast, where I rich Larry, discuss with Annie Mccarthy, the latest legal and NASH security issues this week. What else the January? the commission and the pending Supreme court cases you listening to a national view. Podcast for this, podcast directly and national view dot com were delighted to have you let it be easier, if you'd better, for us to be made as part of your stream at any of the stream and services out there for Spotify and please give that broadcast nanny Mccarthy. The glowing indeed gushing five our views they deserve. Itunes and now without further

do through the miracle. Nothing were actually sitting in the same room together for the first time in a year is none other than any Mccarthy greater, see? You read like lie: phasing out, it's been great: it's to spend a fabulous couple, and here's here's awaited yeah so we're here together the natural you institute, IDEA summit in Green Briar, West Virginia he on a panel today with the George Terwilliger discussing some others same, gradual recovery is a little bit. today that annual first go to the generally six commission, which has been, I guess, the biggest political issue. This big House vote. They passed the commission with a third thirty, five Republicans or something voting for it seems prospects, for it seemed dim in the Senate will make of it. when we were talking in the last podcast. We happen to be recalled. The same day. I guess it was Friday that

The news initially brought that they had come when agreement to have a commission and it turned out pretty much as soon as I said, they had come to an agreement that the agreement fell through and I think probably the explanation for that is that John Cargo, Is there the ranking? Member on the Homeland Security Committee is he has a high ranking position in the house in the Republican on the republican side. But he's not really. at least on this representative of where most of the parties, so here he's a New York, Moderate P voted is one the ten who voted to impeach President Trump so very quickly. I think air.

there they struck that deal, and I guess weirdly announced it since they didn't have the support all lined up for you got Kevin Mccarthy over the weekend, basically walking away from it and Mitch, colonel pretty emphatically early in the week. I'm saying he doesn't supported so voted it in the house. This is something the democratic and so it's important to them and mention that was about three dozen Republicans voted with the democrats- was a pretty comfortable. I think it was something like two fifty two point: seventy five or something like that. So you know- I I think, there's the interesting thing I guess is that there is.

so many more Republicans voted to. Have the commission then voted for the impeachment, and I dont know what exactly we should make of all that other than that it's easier to take the position that January six deserves to be looked at. Then it was to make the very consequential vote on whether a trump oughta be impeached or not. I don't I don't where it's going in the Senate. Mcconnell supposed, I was surprised today to see that does Susan Collins seems to be bought. and she is not someone that I expected rice growing- have problems with it and she clearly does now maybe her hesitation about the sudden I haven't figured out yet or maybe she just honestly just doesn't think this is a great idea for what it's worth. I continue to think

it's not a great idea to do it this way, I think they I have a congressional committee. Look at it do it as as a commission. I did I that Mcconnell one of the arguments he made in descending from it was one of the things we talking about last week, which was how is it that in every other contacts, when there's a big criminal investigation, that's attendant to something like this, Everybody says we have to back off until the prosecutors get their work done and in this instance, where are you not only have something that Democrats have framed, is kind of like the crime of the century? But there are hundreds literally hundreds of investigations, thereby sickly investigating every single person they can identify, whether it's from Facebook or whatever, whatever else honey of investigations and yet

For some reason we don't have to let the prosecutors get their work done. It's very important that we have two Pell Mell go ahead with this, so I think Republicans have good reasons not to want to indulge us. I think the practical, political reasons are probably driving the train and there, the obvious ones, which is, I think, Democrats wanted This is a commission because if they do it as a normal congressional, committee exercise it will appear to be. as politicized as it is, whereas if it, if they do it as a Mission and they t it up, like the nine eleven commission it'll at least the patina of of an independent investigation, but as a practical matter, and on what I mean by that is practical politics. There doing the devil

I want this to raise its number one because to temper the Republicans there. The Democrats are united. The Republicans are very divided, so the Democrats know that they will have a practical, already controlling this thing, no matter whether its five and five, which was the original plan, five Republicans five Democrats appointed by the leadership on each side. The Democrats are going to have a practical with hand on this, because the written there, Republicans and not as unified as Democrats are, and Mcconnell pointed out the fine print the chairman who will be or chair men chairwoman, who was appointed by police see and humor will be the one who- in charge of hiring the staff and if we learn thing from the nine Eleven commission exercise, even though

The hearings, the the member is, got all the attention when it got down to brass tacks and a report got written and the witnesses got interviewed. The staff does the lion's share of the work. So I think that's why they wanna do it by commission. Mcconnell obviously knows this and is pushing back so would there be any functional difference between a select committee which close he can right on our own power at any moment and a commission or suggest that the commission would would have higher standing and higher April. I'll and, as you say, the Bettina of of non parson chipper by partnership. I think if you I think with the commission would have enabling rules and a pronouncement of jurisdiction of what the commission is is being commissioned to do. they would more tightly be able to to narrow the focus you said it would only be on January six, whereas if they even if they

a special congressional committee, but it, but certainly if they did it through one of the standing committees. I think it's much harder to corral the minority and what the Republicans here want to do is obviously put the summer of twenty twenty on trial there. There basically saying all right if we're gonna talk about January six and we're gonna talk about all the rioting and went on across the country, so the democratic, to figure out a way to narrow that as much as Can the commission is a good vehicle for that, because if they can whatever enabling legislation they do to to establish? The commission is effective in narrowing that talks and you get a strong chairman who can make sure that they stick to the to the mission, they may be able to cut more that stuff. So are there things about genuine six that you think we still needed no weathers being investigated by a commission or investigated by the people currently investigating. I dont think that their

anything that we need to know that that involve what the Democrats want to pursue. So I may weaning would trouble what troubles doing right? We know what trumps role was mean be very, interesting. We don't we get the story me in Patron investigation right, which is another whole program, but be just to know the nuts and bolts of what tromp was doing, while the capital is being attacked, is wholly more control, his hand watching tv. I thought- maybe you boys are maybe was it, but you know that would have been a much much more import. and much more relevant thing to find out if they had drafted the it's been article correctly right and if they were actually trying to get a consensus article that more Republicans good reported here. That's not really is relevant because if you want, if you want to talk about

the threat of white supremacist in America. What tromp was doing minute by minute eyes and so important anymore right. So along those lines. I think this is just a political exercise and in fact the reason, polar big reason they want a commission is the land Big Commission whenever they talk about this, that people think about the nine Eleven commission right. The nine eleven commission was a response, the worst terrorist atrocity in history of the United States. What they are saying is the January Sixtus about the current greater, terrorist threat against the United States, which is white supremacist You know all the while, it's probably worth reminding people that the third attack on nine eleven at the trade son was destroyed, the Pentagon was attacked, but the third plain the theory has always been that plane was probably targeting the capital and the objective there was not too

like make a lot of noise and do all handle is unlike happen on January sex that was actually to dread. Roy the capital to candid she'll, everybody read, so to my mind, that kind of shows the yeah. This is the trivialize January sex. They know we always have to say that I find a guitar to, but I mean to Pierre January? Sixty nine eleven is not really a realistic comparison, but they're going to do it and they trying to set up the table said radio the. So what do you think was the worst case on January such because your ear people say that that they could have ground to a halt the proceedings. I think if someone was mentioning Elsie said you know, chop could still be president. Today, eighty of Jerry six had succeeded. You talk about people being kidnapped or kill It just seems to be all that it was horrible event. Certainly, the vanguard were terrible people who should be

hail to the wall, but I just all that comes seems far fetched to me. Yeah and I, This goes to one party or last question that aid that I didn't answer that I should have, which is the of January six that probably still needs investigation that hasn't been investigated. Enough is, I was the security, so inadequate, brows, a large for the reason that at once so wrong was they simply when it started to go wrong. They didn't have enough security presence there that really what they want to write look into right, but that would actually be worth looking into other than that. I have to say the worst thing about this. Was president Trump trying to I sure Congress and vice president tents not to do their constitutional duty, but the suggestion

the constitutional duty wouldn't have been done right. Let's just ridiculous right, any and if they couldn't have convene back in Congress at night, they would have couldn't convened in an all right. They would have gone down to union station right they needed so they could cover the green via the have a bunker here right, hasn't chambers. So that's generous excavation, so big big news from the Supreme Court. They ve taken this case Dobbs Michigan Abortion case coming out of Mississippi. So, first of all, what what was his case involved? What were the facts? well. It's the yeah. It's the Mississippi station all Age act and basically Mississippi is done, said that no, free viability? Viability is deemed to be twenty. Four twenty four weeks

those Zan, as pointed out in Romania's, pointed out, among others, that's a moving target. What what? What actual were viability ages, that sport is a big problem and always has been with with row so. The idea is that it's a categorical ban on abortions after fifteen weeks, so the issues that the state People who are defending the state statute wanted to raise, were, can you regulate any previous. Ability, abortions after row and an Casey as in a row has been understood by Casey and then, the other thing they wanna do Rich is is ask if you replying Casey and now is this the test with Casey is. It gets.

From a kind of throws overboard. All love rose, trying stir framework, which was untenable from the moment, it was enunciated Nazi. To a test of does a particular. Regulation create an undue burden on a woman. Suppose it right to have So what the state wanted to say. As the second question is in in evaluating a Casey claim of undue burden. Can the court take into account the states interest in the protection of on born in the health of the mother and in the integrity of the medical profession and then question they wanted to ask was about the third party standing. That is Canada. Can these outfits?

we're not actually the woman who seeking the abortion can do they have standing to come into court and raise these glance so the reason it's worth laying those out is the court only took the first question, which is that the question about is any regulation of pre viability, abortion tenable after room. So I think that dumb, it's a very hopeful sign that we that we get this because this week that the court is taken is because my recollection is the cord carried silver in conference like about a dozen times before the end. They wouldn't even tat, it had conference another dozen times before they finally put it on the calendar to talk about it, and then they finally got to the point where they decided to take it. Now we talked about this before, but it's it's worth reminding people to take a case in the Supreme Court. You need, for

and to win a case. Obviously you need five, but they are making the decision whether to take a case. This is all the inside baseball snuff. The goes on the phone or have to evaluate whether they'll get a fifth? Otherwise they don't want, take the case and that's why I want to waste your time right well, because they lose its board in order that they may think. So. I think that the concern obviously a debate today. Just talk about that. Will you you think your vote this way or that way I thought I yes, when they have their when they have their raw conferences, which often take place on a Monday where they decide who now we have all these different petitions that have come in and these are the ones we are thinking about. Taking an they go round the table each with a case a judge, has done the the memo that for the conference- and it is often the judge who

clerks, have written the memo who carries the discussion but they go round, they get a preliminary idea where all of the nine are. I understand that the United, but what we hear who knows this? this is all very hush hush they talk about, they won cameras in the courtroom. We are get cameras in the conference Justice Roberts. As I understand it, has done a lot more of steering the car answers, then he initially did in recent ear. So it's not always another job. Who carries the discussion. I have is. He will sometimes come in and say where I am, and you know the people who watched the stuff carefully, think that that signalling to the to the four now three liberals, but up until Barrack Gun on it, it was that for block it was kind of communicating to them where he was willing to meet them and and vote with them.

It is a lot of jockeying that goes on in the conference, so far, long time they don't take this case at all and then twelve times they take a day. They consider it, but they make a decision, and now they finally decided to take a highly unusual twelve times. I think twelve times is very unusual, although we have that we're gonna talk about the second amendment to this, but a lot of that kind of game playing go onto with the second amendment cases. I don't know that I can think of and where its twelve times, especially when it was a long time before he got in yonder in first. What's so obviously, that the the heartening develop. I think development for conservatives is the fact that they took this case. we think means the conservatives, think they have enough votes to win, and that's because there is obviously the baron factor.

Is that the swing vote, to the extent that exists on the court has shifted from Roberts to cabinet and for conservatives, a Supreme port were Cavanaugh is the swing is a much more conservative. What may be much overstated, but it's a more it's a decidedly more conservative bored, I think than Roberts. Who is, I think you don't care can be some somewhat squishy on some things, but strong on a number of things I own. I also don't think not much of a politician on the court on, you know, I think gum he does care about the they all care about the image of the court and and the function of the court in the sis but I think Roberts Cannon makes that a first order of priority a lot. I don't I don't get that sense with Cavanaugh, so I think the fact that cabin OZ is the center of the court right now is is a hopeful sign for us, but I

I also think it's very interesting the way that they decided to take this case of the idea that they took the issue. That was about the free viability, abortion and a categorical ban on it and didn't take the Casey question. So I this is just were worse, but boy, but I think what's going on is they have decided to not treat this as a case by case, I think they have decided to say this is in a regulation, is a categorical ban and may may give us a good opinion, and it would be wonderful if they did on pre via What are but they ve tested up to who is in a way that you don't have to address. Casey and as long as Casey remains then the way The rhythm of abortion litigation is going to continue to be. State makes portion restriction.

Buddy toodles into the district court and the issued never gets to row. You never get to that court, because everything is always about. Is each individual regulation so much the burden that it should be struck down, and that's it it's too you guys are pointed out. It's on the other. Is it's it's. It's a feel thing to. These guys does no objective so, but but they can uphold then the Mississippi LAW and not touch Casey era. Correct role, I think, to say not touch RO my position on this and written about this a few times now. I think you know every I'm a republican puts a justice on the Supreme Court. We have a big argued that all they could to overturn right and in point of fact, having been in the rural world since ninety ninety dry twenty five years, even in Asia, which is a different universe, but this is

Laos is another arbitrary rewriting of the rules. Yes, that, while I mean the house, the clergy and put another red floor on it, but It is true that if you want it, to address row. You could address it with this case because It is in many ways more start than the usual regulation we looked. The usual regulation is the doktor has to have hospital privileges in hospital. eighteen within fifty miles of a group of abortion and you're, not that kind of stuff where This is about this. Is it a global ban on a category of abortions, which would seemingly have been would have been a safe haven for so if they wanted to If they were ambitious enough, they could reverse row, but I just think if you going to do that, then what take the case in question to a one unjust say: we're taking the whole case and you're not going to deal with it. So could could you have

do your theory in it no more than the second member case on your theory, you have a holding that upholds the Mississippi, doesn't really touch. Casey arose, but you have for justice is certainly thank Roas, just bad law. We should overturn yes, because I think the project here- and this is gonna- be frustrating to. I think we don't. We seen Barrett. Yet when we show up that's open question, I think the other three justices and particularly Thomson Alito, are ready now and then not ready just because of a moral issue there ready, because row is a jurisprudential atrocity in it blight on law and for no one. No matter what it was about. I mean it happens to have to be about the most barbaric thing that sir, we are in the modern history of our country has ever been green light it right, but what

Whether it was about had a big pie, it should go. Be credits not lie. It's right. It's the most naked policymaking accord has ever, When for the Supreme Court of the United States, that's Santa, so I think that this has to proceed on two tracks right, one is the Casey process as to continue, which means to states that one of the things that are more comfortable enough, they think the Supreme Court is is going to be more, amenable to upholding restrictions, they gonna and act more and those judges whichever ones feel that role should go need to keep saying, because I think that's hell, that's how you move it forward. This may take decades me. I I'd like nothing, I think, would be better for our country for it to be gone in

that's true, but right now hold my breath. Ok, so the gun case involves New York. Restrictions unconcealed carry presumption right so This is again interesting, mainly because of the of the changing dynamic of the cord. So last July there were ten potential gun cases that were on board, ready to go and the Supreme Court decided not to take them and it was pretty clear. Even our reporting set it at national review at the time that, conservatives got the signal that Robert was not with them, so those who want a we affirm Heller and maybe ads

some more sinews to it, they backed off because they thought they lose or best. It would become more model which would only encourage lower courts to continue to chip away at Heller. So now taken this case and the only I mean get the cases. New York has ridiculously restrictive provisions limiting how of whose allowed to carry a gun. They would also get rid of being allowed to have a gun, but basically Heller doesn't and the cases that fall held dumb, do that so the only real to me. The only difference here is balance on the court and I dont think Cavanaugh is a wild cord, second amendment. If he votes consistently with with his assyrian and things that is written in his,

he's pretty strong on the second amendment. So I think the fact that they took this case again on the score is at the core has shifted in a way that's going to make it more difficult, if not impossible, but more difficult for chief Justice Roberts. Due to sort of deflect tough cases, so another matter of last week that tourism, headlines and cable chatter was the trunk case- support Thirdly, turning into a criminal case or trust James in in New York opening criminal case. What's going on there, yet this is really creating rich, because it's more it's more, media story than it is legal story, the only thing that happened this week, people went up in Europe totally spun up over the idea that Tisch Jane

the very ambitious progressive attorney general of New York state Announced- and this was the way it was reported that her investigation is now a criminal investigation and that allowed them to run a bunch of new cycle about, like some development must have happened in point of fact, now mind you. This is the same media that has covered the fact that the district attorney of Manhattan County has been Adopting a criminal investigation of Trump since about twenty eighteen, so they ve written a million stories about that they know they covered it as it went up to the Supreme Court twice, because that case is the case in which the day was trying to get trumps private financial information. So this that they turn into a into a big issue. The only that happened this week is Latisha. James said

that her office is now working together with side answers office, the Manhattan dossier on the criminal aspect of the investigation so in they, have on parallel tracks to say, attorney general lawyers will now join dances, district attorney, stay and they will work together on the criminal investigation- that's been underway for three years, so there's no, knew about this really a story about prosecutor, oral division of labour, but as far as the whatever potential jeopardy for further than Trump as not a thing has changed, and that is exactly the same case. Okay, so Quabo Andrew Quabos is better the news. And with his with his brother as well. So where do these probes stand? You have a very sceptical take of of all that we have the impeachment case, which does doesn't seem to be developing

rapidly you know there's one story after another and every time you really stories about Cuomo, especially when you read when the court, stories of breaking the same day, the trumps story, the breaking and you realize- it's the same investigators and that in some ways looking at both of them and with Trump, they wanted it like act like they're, not not on impeaching. Him isn't good enough. You know we need to put him in an governed and with Cuomo its See no evil here known. So the big story, In the end, the impeachment case is that the lawyer is that the Democratic Control Cuomo Allied state legislature, but the lawyers that they hired have issued subpoenas to the women while the complainants on sexual harassment claims- and you might say to yourself,

they're doing that now I would have thought they did that like three months ago. just goes to show what what a farce this whole thing is. You would think that the first thing you would want to do is talk to those people. Rightly somebody who's controlling that aspect of the investigation and then the chain countenance. for it is these lawyers that they have retained of from this big New York, LA form, Davis spoken word: well, the state allocated to didn't fifty thousand dollars for the global impeachment investing vision which is about enough to get about three weeks. Work at it is firm and they're talking about investing. That will go into next year. So the whole thing is just that its nonsense and its along the lines of we talk about this before I think they are who appear like their acting and they appear like their conducting a serious investigation. But most of this is for corner, often stuff that trying to run the clock for Roma and

The aforementioned tryst James has a investigation going on into the book, yet she's looking at the book now, I would be more worried about that investigation for Cuomo. I would urge the Mps, Lockerbie Impeach, I mean obviously but Tis James wants to be governor a thing. And she liked to be governor and twenty twenty four. Both com Anne Elliot Spitzer were attorney general before they were govern ourselves. So it's become a real, suddenly come on much more consequential political position because of the way these DA's across the country work with each other, but it to become a real stepping stone in New York politics and so she's she's a potential rival and she we'll have because she's the Bali prosecutor should never prosecuted. They have some criminal authority, but she's more like the state civil attorney, but she'll have alot

control over when news breaks about this case, so that bitch, you know thinking about challenging Cuomo in a primary say. The fact that she is now looking at the stuff that this is, in addition to her office was already looking at the sexual harassment climbs. So now there looking at the book, and I think you almost got a lot of vulnerability on the book because Not only did he get an outrageous amount of money out of it, but he did. You know you basically lie to the euro. Had Melissa Derosa mislead the legislature about why they didn't tell the legislate. you're about that the correct out about the nursing homes it was, you know they said it was because of the just his department there was at the time that they misled them there was no Justice Department investigation, but there was the book right there, negotiating the book contract. It looks like he, you

whose state resources, including direct and other people to help negotiate the book to write the book to research, the book to edit the book and so forth. So I think he's got a lot of problems with the book and the book is is like it. You know exactly the kind of thing like this honest stuff about this, some of these ethnic rules and and fraud rules, and all that stuff you could with major headstone, but the book. I think people can wrap their brains around If I'm Cuomo, I think anything people can wrap their brains around his neck could not another. Finally, the federal criminal networks Yes, so the the latest is, there were some breaking news on this, this with the eastern District of New York, even under the bite administration- I dont know if they haven't gotten a confirmed: U S attorney there yet, but they are continuing to

doktor investigation in the news that came out this week, was that they extended it into a look at another issue very Ikey for Cuomo, which is this idea of preferential treatment of Cuomo France, family members, Cuomo political cronies, and it turns out Melissa roses. Father too, who was a big New York lobbyists connected to the foremost they all got, the front line to get testing at times when It was very sparse with respect to other new Yorkers seems like it's. It's a black and white violation of state ethics law, but that's not federally cognizant, So what the story with the reporting was this week is that the federal prosecutors in bed when the eastern districts are looking at whether what kind well did pushing his his cronies. and family members to the front line can

theorize as a violation of the health care fraud laws under federal law, which are criminal laws. I think that's a real reach because I do think they'll be able to come in and say this won't help among the New York Ethic stuff so much, but on the fraud on federal fraud, stuff in particular, they are going to be able to say that these people who got tested for the most part but even the roses- Father De Rossa, stays with her parents house a lot of times when she's working in Albany thereof in Albany. She has daily contact with the governor, so not, as outrageous is sound for him to get tested, because the idea is to make sure Cuomo is right is protected as they so long. These people have exposure to the governor and that's why it's gotta be very hard to make a criminal case.

So I just don't. I dont see the financial component of it. You don't fraud cases supposed to be a swindle. This is not really. This is like the federal. This is the kind of thing that drives people, crazy, about the the federal government. Although I found a very interesting when I was a federal prosecutor, which is you get a bunch smart lawyers in a room and they start the arise about how you can make something. There are obviously not a federal case into rhetoric as it sounds like that's. What's but I wouldn't. If I were qualified much more worried about Tis James mused industry, but, as is the overall picture with Cuomo Lot sleazy shady unworthy stuff, but it can be hard to make anything stick legally just over off. I think that's part of it, but you know yet again we're in a situation where I think probably the politics is more wouldn't than the law. And this is the game that this is a long game, almost playing as bad as everything. almost done is and none of it, don't think any of it? It's like you know even that the sexual hers,

stuff, I don't mean to be callous here, but we're not talking about like there aren't rape allegation easier. It's not the kind of really criminal sexual saw as one allegation about the groping than that. arguably may cross into a very expensive view of New York criminal assault laws, but most of it is about creating a hostile environment. On me, did they mislead the Justice Department about them? the data on the nursing homes. I think we already know what happened here, which is they told the Justice Department about the nursing home debts in the nursing homes and didn't tell them about the deaths in hospitals. So that's gonna come down to what question did they get asked right, so on every little one he's got a you know, he's gotta he's got a defence, but the most most important thing he's trying to trying to do here,

Actual what I think is his understanding of the political terrain of New York, which is he is perceived as even though to us he's young, a progressive in New York. Politics he's like the thin line between you being a mainstream democratic in the governor s mansion and having awoke, progressive and he's bedding that there's a better chance that the people in New York would re elect him than that he'd get impeach. I think he's right, yeah, ok, that's the time we have. This podcast has been produced by the incomparable. Sarah shitty thanks everyone for listening and thank you. Animadverting thanks Ridge,