In this sample from the CAFE Insider podcast, Preet and Anne break down the controversy surrounding the use of federal officers to arrest and detain protesters in Portland. In the full episode, they also discuss the most recent legal maneuvering in the Manhattan District Attorney’s pursuit of President Trump’s tax returns, and the Supreme Court’s decision to leave in place (for now) a lower court order which disenfranchises hundreds of thousands of people in Florida with felony convictions.
To listen to the full episode, and get access to all exclusive CAFE Insider content, including the newly launched United Security Podcast co-hosted by Lisa Monaco and Ken Wainstein, become a member and two free weeks: www.cafe.com/insider
Sign up to receive the weekly CAFE Brief newsletter, featuring analysis by Elie Honig: www.cafe.com/brief
REFERENCES AND SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
CLIP: Chad Wolf on Hannity, 7/16/20
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
40 U.S. Code § 1315, Law enforcement authority of Secretary of Homeland Security for protection of public property
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents (1971), Supreme Court case concerning Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure
“What the Heck are Federal Law Enforcement Officers Doing in Portland?” Steve Vladeck, Lawfare, 7/17/20
“US Attorney for Oregon Calls for Investigation Into Portland Protester Arrests,” Oregon Public Radio, 7/17/20
Oregon AG Ellen Rosenblum’s lawsuit against federal agencies, 7/17/20
Steve Vladeck’s twitter thread about 40 U.S.C. § 1315, 7/19/20
General Barry McCaffrey’s tweet on federal agents in Portland, 7/17/20
“Why Trump’s Military Tactics in Portland Will Likely Backfire,” Barbara McQuade, NY Mag, 7/18/20
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Evokes the situation unfolding in Portland. Oregon continues to shock the nation videos of unidentified federal officers, detaining protestors
on viral on social media, raising questions about what is even going on and the races on for present trumps tax returns following the Supreme Court's decision to allow them and haven't district attorney to subpoena the President's financial records. Frumps lawyers are attempting to stall the processed,
skeeters, try to speed it up. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has struck another blow to voting rights.
Rarely leaving in place a lower court order that will prevent people with felony convictions in Florida from voting in November. I talk
all this and more with an Milgram on the CAFE insider podcast today were making a clip from the most
in episode available in the state to feed, to listen to our full conversation and access all
Kathy insider content, including the newly launched United Security Podcast, would LISA Monaco and can wasting try the membership free for two weeks. You can do
Kathy dot com, slash inside that's cafes, outcome, slash inside college,
and with a valid dot. Either you email qualify for a special disco had to cafe dot com, slashed students and sign up at a special rate. Again, that's cafe. Dot com, slash students
we look forward to having he was a part of the insider community. So a lot of issues to talk about an and here we ve got a lot of questions about. What's going on in Oregon as I tweeted. What the hell is going on and when or Portland Oregon miss the broad question that I think we can spend some time answering. It comes from June coolly, who asks dear boy,
in an can you please break down what is happening in Portland Oregon regarding the legal rights of our police force versus the Trump force. I thank you. I love your show and stay well June. Coolly will thanks for that question, so we should. We should set forth what the basics are. An we're talking about federal action with respect to protesters in other people who are suspected of doing things like defacing buildings were harming property. So do we got there will be no so far what exactly is going on and we can discuss the legality of yes, let's let even setback to the protests after the murder of George flights have been a series of protests in Portland. There are a number of votes have taken to the streets and knave mostly been peaceful protest, but there have been you know and, as is as is sometimes the case that happen.
Some people who do damage to property who or engaging behaviour that we generally dont want to see as part of the protests. And so what happened, then, is that you know in the mayor and the governor and the police have all been working to basically keep the protest come and to try to have as little destruction or violence as possible
This has been going on for again like fifty days. So last Thursday, the Department of Homeland Security sent
estimate is about at least a hundred federal officers to Portland. Now it's important to note there were invited in they were not asked to come in. They were not authorize specifically to come in
they came in and we'll talk about the legality of what they can and cannot do when they come into a jurisdiction like that, but the bottom line, as they can
and they were out on the streets. It's been reported that they use cheer gas on the protesters. They were in camouflage, essentially, military uniforms
did not have either name badges as if you think about it, most police Department, Chelsea, a police officer with their last name and their badge number and the
to be wearing a uniform from the police department, and basically, there easily
and a viable. You know who they work for it. You know their wielding the power of the state, and you know what their name is, and that gives you
count ability over the actions of of those officers, both for good
you want to make a compliment. You know is officer space. You want to say officer, Psmith hit someone. He shouldn't. Have your you're able to have that information
what it and in many and many police departments they had to her body, came to so additional accountability. Exactly right, that's right, and so here are important. They sent these folks out on the streets
did not have any identifying information, they were wearing, camouflage, essentially, army fatigues, they look like
They were members. We now understand. A number folks were members, at least of the customs border patrol those
federal agents that usually patrol the borders. We should remind folks that you know technically their sort of their able to to work throughout the United States, but they have particularly large jurisdiction when it comes to being within a hundred miles of a border. Portland is within a hundred miles of order, the Pacific at Atlantic Oceans, of course, countess borders and about two thirds of the United States of America. The population is within within that sort of range where the customs border patrol would have additional powers than they usually have, and so there are
grab off the street, there were people who were taken, who report being taken to the federal Court house. They would not placed under arrest, they were later released, but there is also a protest or who is badly injured when he was shot at close range with, like not an actual wept, like sort of a less lethal form of aforesaid at our member, the exact name but a type of weapon that basically is used for crowd control. Often it's also been reported that there's no training that these folks have absolutely no training and how to handle a riot or crowd control.
So what happens at the end of this is that there is just a huge outcry from the mayor. The governor did Useter locally was attorney, calls for investigation. It basically
you're saying. Why are there federal officers on our street just putting people and their putting people unmarked vans? It's also important to know so. It feels like a secret police force. It feels very much out.
Of the normal chains of the rule of law that you and I are used to, and so, when you say what the hell's going on, that's how I feel too, so I am over, never reactions, one of which is what I don't really understand is in case after case in time. After time, the administration take some action that is either legitimately controversial or legitimately controversial, but natural questions arise and legitimate folks are asking both on the right and the left. Although there are some hypocrisy, I think, on the part of folks who have style themselves libertarians.
and are keeping their mouths shut over this because being done by Donald Trump and when questions are asked, usually people in a position of power and authority, particular law enforcement authorities understand
they have an obligation and a duty and a responsibility to explain themselves, and then there could be a debate and there can be oversight if that's appropriate and people can be persuaded or not persuaded. And the weird thing about this is given the legitimate controversy and their arguments. I guess you could make
on one side or the other, but there's almost no comprehensive explanation of authority and reasoning for the public policy that their engaging in by this administration. It's kind of its kind of amazing me. You see all these people on twitter and social media, on television and in their blogs
try to figure out and guess what the legal authority is and what the statute is and the reasons why the trying to do things
There is almost no explanation in any throw away from the Department of Homeland Security you get. The acting chief Chad, Wolf goes on
be insisting that we all need to be invited. We can do it, we want. Will why? Don't you explain yourselves reminds me a little bit of what I still don't think, there's a satisfactory explanation of. Why does Michael Cohen, when he refused initially to agree not to write or published a book, was taken back to prison when he supposed
be exists actually furlough to his home. I just don't understand why, again and again they ferment further controversy by not explaining themselves. Do you have to tell? Why? Is it because there is no explanation? Is it because of arrogance on the part of the head of the age S and the president
an embargo mean what is not that hard to say they must have some reason that they believe, whether to good reason or batteries, and that they can do x y rosy.
why not share it right yeah? They refuse to show their math repeatedly. They just a part of it. Is that once I think its political largely mean us or to answer this piece of it. What I think is its political and that, once you sort of
age in the debate. You know they see
is losing great your seeding grounds of even justifying the sort of opposing view in some ways at their
assuming that they have this authority. I mean it also goes beyond what you even said, pre to the point where we can
talk about Chad. Four minute he's he's acting like so many other folks were poor, the head of federal departments. He,
essentially a lobbyist for eleven years. He talks about law enforcement. Like he's actually work today is a law enforcement officials. He has not- and I think it's really important to like watch what he's doing on Fox news. Where he's out there basically saying there's lawlessness in Portland and it has to be controlled and he's using language, I mean he basically said that one of his recent tweets- and this is reported by barbed MC weighed in in York Magazine- should get a great piece on what's lawful, what's not lawful,
But one of Chad Wolf's reason: tweet states quote: we will never surrender to violent extremists on my watch that language itself is offensive right. It is
equally talking about american citizens as akin to terrorists abroad, bright and so to me, like they have
put themselves in this idea that.
We are the rule of law. We don't have to answer questions we're going to enforce the Roma as we see fit, and they are completely missing. The fact that the rule of law and the ability to enforce laws comes from the power of the people and it comes from legislation. It comes from the United States Constitution and they do have to explain what they're doing you catch. A sharp
city streets and I mean, furthermore, I personally and I wanted to get your vibe on this. I mean this feels to me. We watched these
a month ago, where or six weeks ago now, I've lost all track of time where the present United States with Bill bar with one of the military secretaries basically goes out and has the protesters clear.
by federal agents again not identifying themselves, basically
That area cleared. So he can walk to the church ten feet away and your photo up remembered Adrian Barton order it. He just ordered that it be done. What was it
because the distinction, yet he had some distinction, but isn't this
This is a move, and we have now seen reports that the feds are going to go to Chicago and we ve heard the president sank Detroit Oakland, all these city
our mass and I'm going to take control of them? And so I personally think, like the one thing I would say today is that now is the time for people across the United States to be worried about this, because you may think it's I can happen in your backyard, but it s like this is part to me of a larger campaign by the president, and it should be frightening to everyone who cares about the rule of law and accountability of la force. That, and, as I said at the outset, this low confusion about what exactly is going on. We described a little bit, but you know I try to do some research crowd sourcing on twitter last night, and I don't know I don't see it published anywhere- were reflected anywhere how many people have been taken into custody by these federal officers, how many people have been charged if any, if there are state prosecutions, if the referrals to federal prosecutors, I just don't know what to do with its one on there
anecdotal evidence of people who were taken into custody, and then I guess, questioned and then released and if you know made some statements about their experience. But we have no idea what the numbers are in addition to not explaining. Why are going about doing things in a particular way? We often have any accounting, then I'm aware of of what the scope of the issues and how many of you
taken it right and you're asking a really important question. I think we would know ass if they were charge. I think we would now if they were charged, because you have to go to court with a certain amount of time, usually forty hours in some places, depending on how the local prosecutor's office work twenty four hours under the constitution. You have a right to be presented to a judge
and what the charges are. I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of charges, which I guess is, is a good thing, but also suggests that this is just sort of intimidation. Scare tactic, were they drive around pick people up, question them and then released them because they have no choice, but that's about either right. I mean that tens him to a huge message to me along the lines of the questions of legitimacy. Right I mean, if you make a state, if you make arrests based on a state crime that would go, we should go back and talk about the legality of
of this in a second, because it's hard it's hard to talk about it and not turn of combined the lawful, the legal arguments. But if you get arrested to stay crime, it goes to the state
a secure that would be the local de import led the day would decide within, as you say, a certain pretty short
time, whether or not to file charges. If it's a federal crime, it goes to the federal. U S attorney, who, as we know, has been reported to have called for an investigation into what the sea BP that cousin border patrol officers were doing so it does
look like he's, announced any arrests or has made us, and we would know if somebody was charged went to court for an arrangement, for example, and so I tend to think nobody's being charge that they're just using it exactly, as you say, as a way to intimidate and
scare people the streets, one question for you just a step back
over to the DC peace. One thing that was interesting in D c.
is remember that the military folks came out after and said we shouldn't have been there right, like we shouldn't be a part of this and was interesting to me here. Is that this? Isn't it
I regard this, isn't the? U S military! This isn't the FBI. This is the Department of Homeland Security, which is the third largest federal agency.
arguably the most politically could I mean I think we can argue the Sunday O J as well, but like very much politically controlled by the president and to me it's just a really interesting question of like. Why
is this? If you- and I were thinking of
the federal agents to a city for some reason see BP would not be the group of agents you when I would generally be thinking about Ray, and so you know what what do you make? Of that? I agree with the whole thing is bizarre. We ve been talking about how these
federal officers- were not invited in by the local authorities, then I coordinated with local authorities and local authorities are instead, you know bringing lawsuits and telling them to go away. That's one thing, and it's disturbing, but
that these federal officers are not coordinating with the local use, attorney's office and I've never heard of such a right. The FBI and
good service in the EU and other agencies. There. Working coordination with and collaboration with the USA turn his office, and you see here, the users of itself is calling for. An investigation is wondering what,
not so this operation is more rogue than you would even typically think of it. If you read the reports
question of why they're not wearing badges with names, etc. I get that point. We should note for folks that unit as you and I discussed that as a general matter. You know, FBI agents, secret service agents who were not on active protection and even those who are their plainclothes they're, not wearing. They have badges on them, but they're not on display.
body cams and that sort of normal. That's it there's not going to be made that there's no actual legal requirement to publicly display name and affiliation on the part of federal agents. On the other hand, as I asked in a different way yesterday, the question of whether or not
There should be an agency identification and even name identification and authority for four arrest. At the time you take someone into custody is a totally different thing
If you, if you're sitting around doing surveillance, is a federal agent, you know you not advertise yourself, you use it in a marker and you don't wear a uniform and people understand that this is
that, and I have not heard a single answer to the question: what is the policy basis or reasonable basis not to advise US citizen, your resting, where you're from and what you're basis
rest is yes. I would take issue a little that that so they're a couple pieces first is like, but we have to
Member that, as a rule, federal law enforcement is very different from state law enforcement. The people who are on the street generally interacting doing what the public are state and local officers. They wear
Judges they wear uniforms, we require,
often is a matter of law that they be or or city ordinance, that they be identifiable and that they be named so that again, for the reason of accountability.
I hope you enjoy the sample of a cafe insider forecast, to listen to the full episodes had to cafe dotcom, slash insider and try out the membership free for two weeks
interested students with a valid got either you email had to cap. It all come slashed students to the many.
you who have chosen to join the insider community? Thank you for supporting our work.
Transcript generated on 2021-09-09.