Inside Trump’s DOJ: Jan. 6, Eric Adams and the Future of American Justice

>>> MEANTIME, IN THE UNITED STATES, A FEDERAL JUDGE IS ASKING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO EXPLAIN WHY PROSECUTORS HAVE SUDDENLY DISMISSED THE CORRUPTION INDICTMENT AGAINST NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS.

MULTIPLE PROSECUTORS HAVE RESIGNED IN PROTEST AMID CONCERNS THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION STRUCK A DEAL IN EXCHANGE FOR ADAMS' COOPERATION IN ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAWS.

BRENDAN BALLOU JOINS ME TO DISCUSS THIS.

>> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

SO FOR TALKING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE A FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR AND YOU PROSECUTED SOME OF THE JANUARY 6th CASES.

CASES OF PEOPLE WHO, YOU KNOW, ASSAULTED THE CAPITOL IN AN EFFORT TO INTERFERE WITH THE COUNTING OF THE ELECTION RESULTS, OR THE VALIDATING OF THE ELECTION RESULTS.

FIRST OF ALL, CAN I ASK YOU HOW YOU GOT THOSE CASES?

THE CASES THAT YOU WORKED ON, HOW DID THEY COME TO YOU?

>> SURE.

IT WAS AN ACCIDENT.

MY PRACTICE PRIMARILY WAS IN WHITE COLLAR CRIME GOING AFTER ANTI-TRUST VIOLATORS.

THE CALL WENT OUT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.

JUSTICE THAT THERE WAS A DESPERATE NEED FOR PROSECUTORS TO GO AFTER AND PROSECUTE THESE JANUARY 6th RIOTERS.

I RAISED MY HAND.

AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO THINK IT WAS BECAUSE OF MY PROSECUTORIAL GENIUS, IT WAS JUST A MASSIVE NEED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT.

>> DO YOU REMEMBER HOW YOU FOUND OUT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS PARDONING THESE PEOPLE EN MASSE?

I KNOW HE TALKED ABOUT THIS DURING THE CAMPAIGN.

WHEN THE DAY CAME THAT HE ACTUALLY DID IT, MAKING NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO ENGAGED IN ACTS OF VIOLENCE AND PEOPLE WHO ENGAGED IN MISDEMEANORS, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT YOUR REACTION WAS?

>> YEAH.

IT WAS ENORMOUS DISAPPOINTMENT AND FEAR FOR, PRIMARILY, THE OFFICERS THAT WERE ASSAULTED AT THE CAPITOL THAT DAY WHO I BELIEVE ARE GOING TO BE THE TARGETS OF, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL MILITIA OR VIGILANTE VIOLENCE.

MAYBE THIS WAS NAIVE OF ME BUT I HAD ASSUMED THAT EVEN THE PRESIDENT WOULD HAVE CERTAIN POLITICAL RESTRAINTS ON PARDONING PEOPLE THAT ASSAULTED OFFICERS, THAT WERE INVOLVED IN, YOU KNOW, STAGING WEAPONS NEAR THE CAPITOL IN ANTICIPATION OF POTENTIAL WARFARE.

I THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE CONSTRAINTS ON EVEN THE PRESIDENT FOR PARDONING THOSE FOLKS, OR COMMUTING THEIR SENTENCES.

OBVIOUSLY THERE WASN'T.

>> WE'RE ABOUT A MONTH INTO THIS ADMINISTRATION.

THE LATEST INCIDENT INVOLVING THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS THIS EFFORT TO PERSUADE THE PROSECUTORS IN NEW YORK DROP THE CORRUPTION CHARGES THAT HAD BEEN LEVELLED AGAINST NEW YORK CITY'S MAYOR, ERIC ADAMS.

IN RESPONSE TO THIS, AT LEAST SEVEN PROSECUTORS HAVE RESIGNED SO FAR.

WHAT CONCERNS YOU ABOUT THAT?

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS A UNIQUE CONCERN.

SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM THE CONCERN AROUND PARDONING THE JANUARY 6th RIOTERS.

I BELIEVE THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE JANUARY 6th PARDONS WAS TO EMPOWER VIGILANTES OR MILITIAS THAT WOULD BE LOYAL TO THE PRESIDENT BUT ULTIMATELY UNACCOUNTABLE TO THE LAW.

I THINK WITH THE ERIC ADAMS QUID PRO QUO, THE AMBITION HERE IS TO EXPLICITLY POLITICIZE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, AND TO WAIVE THE THREAT OF PROSECUTIONS FOR POLICY GOALS.

I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED BUT CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T HAD TO EXPERIENCE FOR MOST OF OUR LIFETIMES.

THAT SEEMS TO BE THE GOAL OF THIS ADMINISTRATION AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT WILL BE A PART OF OUR FUTURE.

>> LET ME SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT ERIC ADAMS HAS CONSISTENTLY DENIED THAT HE TOOK BRIBES IN EXCHANGE FOR FAVORS.

THAT'S THE ORIGINAL UNDERLYING CHARGE.

THE SUBSEQUENT ISSUE AT HAND HERE IS THE ALLEGATION THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT THAT HE WOULD BE ACCOMMODATING OF THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY GOALS, SPECIFICALLY AROUND IMMIGRATION, IN EXCHANGE FOR DROPPING THESE CHARGES.

SO ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS THAT THE DECISION TO SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE CASE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ITS STRENGTH.

HE ARGUES IT WAS PRITALLY MOTIVATED AND IT WAS ING MR. ADAMS' ABILITY TO COOPERATE WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S POLICIES.

AS NEAR AS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT THE PROSECUTION OF AIRING ADAMS WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED?

>> I BELIEVE THE LAWYERS WHO WERE INVOLVED LAID OUT THE CASE FOR WHY WASN'T EXCEPTIONALLY CLEAR.

THE STRONGEST EVIDENCE THAT THIS WASN'T POLITICALLY MOTIVATED IS THAT ERIC ADAMS' OWN LAWYERS DIDN'T BRING THE CHARGE OF SELECTIVE PROSECUTION.

IT SUGGESTS THIS WAS NOT A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PROSECUTION BUT ONE RATHER GUIDED BY THE FACTS IN THE LAW AND THAT IT IS IN FACT DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO IS TRYING TO POLITICIZE THIS PROCESS.

>> A MOTION THAT WAS FILED BY THE ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTED THAT ADAMS' CASE BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT FOR LAY PEOPLE?

DOES THAT MEAN THAT IT CAN BE BROUGHT AGAIN IN THE FUTURE?

>> YOU'RE RIGHT.

SPECIFICALLY THE CASE COULD BE BROUGHT AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.

PRACTICALLY, IT MEANS THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE A MEANS BY WHICH TO EXTORT THE MAYOR IN THE FUTURE IF HE FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION'S POLICY OBJECTIVES.

>> THAT'S A STRONG WORD.

EXTORT IS A STRONG WORD.

DO YOU THINK THAT ESSENTIALLY THE PURPOSE IS TO HOLD THE CASE OVER HIS HEAD TO MAKE SURE THAT HE'S COMPLIANT WITH THEIR OBJECTIVES?

>> TO THAT HOMAN ON FOX NEWS THE OTHER DAY, AN ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL, SUGGESTED AS MUCH.

SO I THINK THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN PRETTY CLEAR THAT THAT IS WHAT THE OBJECTIVE IS.

>> HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS?

TO SEE SEVEN PROSECUTORS RESIGN, INCLUDING THE PERSON WHO WAS NAMED AS THE ACTING HEAD OF THE OFFICE, WHO GO IS HERSELF, HAS CLERKED FOR A CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS WITH THIS NUMBER OF PROSECUTORS RESIGNING OVER A CASE?

>> I CERTAINLY HAVEN'T.

YOU KNOW, THE HISTORICAL ANALOGY THAT FOLKS ARE POINTING TOWARD IS THE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE IN THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION WHEN MULTIPLE SENIOR DEPARTMENT.

JUSTICE OFFICIALS RESIGNED, RATHER THAN FIRE ARCHIBALD COX.

I THINK THAT THIS IS DIFFERENT AND ARGUABLY MUCH MORE SERIOUS THAN THAT SITUATION.

THE SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE WAS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT TRYING TO PRESERVE HIS OWN POLITICAL CAREER.

THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO DROP THE PROSECUTION IN ORDER TO ADVANCE A POLICY AGENDA AND SUGGESTS A FUNDAMENTAL RETHINKING ABOUT WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND WHAT CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS SHOULD EVEN BE FOR.

AND TO REALLY QUESTION THE VERY NATURE OF THE RULE OF LAW IN THE UNITED STATES.

SO IN THAT SENSE, I THINK THAT THIS IS QUITE LITERALLY UNPRECEDENTED.

>> SO NOW, JUDGES OVERSEEING THE ADAMS CASE HAVE ASKED THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO EXPLAIN THE DECISION TO DROP THE CHARGES.

HOW DO YOU READ THAT?

DOES THAT SIGNAL THEY'RE NOT JUST ACCEPTING THE DECISION AT FACE VALUE?

THE OTHER QUESTION I WOULD HAVE HERE IS, WHAT RECOURSE DO THEY HAVE?

THEY CAN ASK BUT -- >> YEAH.

SO WHEN THE DEPARTMENT MOVES TO DISMISS A CRIMINAL CHARGE, THE COURT NEEDS TO ACCEPT THAT.

AND MUST EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN DOING SO.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER THERE IS ESSENTIALLY A CORRUPT QUID PRO QUO HAPPENING IN DROPPING THAT CHARGE.

ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY SASSOON LAID OUT EXACTLY THIS ISSUE IN HER MEMO TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BONDI DESCRIBING THE PROBLEMS WITH DOING SO.

ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTED YOUNG JUDGES IN THE UNITED STATES ASSOCIATION I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT THAT HE WILL APPLY SCRUPULOUS ATTENTION TO FIGURING OUT WHETHER OR NOT THESE CHARGES CAN OR SHOULD BE DROPPED.

>> BUT DOES THE JUDGE HAVE AUTHORITY TO REINSTATE THEM IS THE QUESTION.

THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE PROSECUTOR WANTS TO DROP CHARGES, THEY'RE GENERALLY DROPPED.

ISN'T THAT THE CASE?

DOES THE JUDGE'S JUDGMENT SUPERSEDE THAT?

>> GENERALLY, THE JUDGES, OF COURSE, DEFER TO PROSECUTORS IN THESE SORTS OF THINGS.

ONCE AGAIN, THE JUDGES ARE NOT POWERLESS HERE.

SO WE'RE ENTERING ALMOST UNCHARTED TERRITORY HERE.

BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT HE COULD REJECT THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE CHARGES WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

AND POTENTIALLY DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO CONTINUE THE PROSECUTION.

I THINK THERE WILL BE INTERESTING LEGAL QUESTIONS.

THE ANSWER IS I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE CAN APPOINT A SPECIAL COUNSEL OR INDEPENDENT PARTY.

>> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS DOING, OR WHO DON'T THINK ABOUT IT VERY MUCH BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK IT AFFECTS THEM.

HAVING SAID THAT, THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT HE'S DOING, THE PEOPLE WHO FIND IT AS YOU DO, VIOLATING THE RULE OF LAW OF STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE ADHERED TO, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, HAVE BEEN LOOKING TO THE COURTS.

WHAT MECHANISM EXISTS IF THE PRESIDENT DECIDES HE WON'T ADHERE TO COURT ORDERS?

WHAT HAPPENS THEN?

>> THERE'S BEEN INTERESTING AND HELPFUL INFORMATION NO.

A SERIES OF ACTIONS THAT THE COURTS AND THE INSTITUTIONS SURROUNDING THE COURT CAN TAKE.

EACH DECISION BY THIS ADMINISTRATION TO IGNORE A COURT ORDER COMES AT SOMETHING OF A REPUTATIONAL COST.

THE COST THAT MAY BE TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE LAWYERS WHO REMAIN INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT.

SO EVEN JUST IGNORING A COURT ORDER ISN'T COSTLESS FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION.

BUT WHEN THEY DO, A COURT CAN HOLD GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN CIVIL OR EVEN CRIMINAL CONTENT.

MAKE BAR REFERRALS TO THE ATTORNEYS THAT REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT.

IN EXTREME CASES, COULD POTENTIALLY ORDER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TO BE JAILED.

NOW, THOSE SORTS OF STEPS MAY NOT PARTICULARLY CONSTRAIN THE PRESIDENT OR THE WORLD'S RICHEST MAN.

BUT THEY MAY WELL COULD NSTRAIN LINE LEVEL ATTORNEY THAT REMAINS AT SOME OF THESE AGENCIES.

IT MAY WELL CONSTRAIN THE LOWER OR MID LEVEL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THESE POLICIES.

SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE PRACTICAL TOOLS THAT THE JUDICIARY HAS TO CONSTRAIN SOME OF THE WORST IMPULSE THAT'S THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN SHOWING THUS FAR.

>> LET'S TAKE A STEP BACK HERE AND LET'S ASK OVERALL, WHAT IS YOUR CONCERN ABOUT WHEN YOU TAKE ALL OF THESE ACTIONS TOGETHER, AND JUST A MATTER OF A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOKING AT THIS MIGHT THINK, THESE RETECHARE TECHNICALITIES.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

SO FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS THAT PERSPECTIVE, WHO ISN'T SURE WHY ALL THIS MATTERS, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY?

>> YEAH.

YOU KNOW, FOR LAWYERS, THE IDEA OF THE RULE OF LAW ISN'T JUST AN EXPRESSION.

IT IS A VERY CONCRETE IDEA.

THE IDEA THAT DECISIONS ARE MADE NOT BECAUSE OF THE WHIMS OF AN INDIVIDUAL MAN OR WOMAN BUT BECAUSE OF PRECEDENT, PRINCIPLES, STATUTES AND THE CONSTITUTION.

WHAT THESE ACTIONS COLLECTIVELY SUGGEST IS A CONCERTED EFFORT BY THIS ADMINISTRATION TO END THE RULE OF LAW AND TO PUT THE POWER OF LAW IN THE HANDS OF ONE MAN OR JUST A HANDFUL OF MEN.

BUT IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT, THAT WILL BE A DRAMATIC CHANGE IN HOW THE LAW OPERATES IN THE UNITED STATES.

>> WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS TAKING THE POSITION THAT THESE OTHER ACTIONS ARE WHAT THEY ARE CALLING THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

THEY ARE THE ONES SAYING THAT THEIR PREDECESSORS ARE THE PEOPLE WHO POLITICIZED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

I'M THINKING HERE LIKE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI DEFENDED THE DECISION TO DROP THE CASE.

SHE SAYS SHE WAS ATTENDING THIS MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE THIS PAST WEEKEND AND SHE TOLD FOX NEWS, QUOTE, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO PROTECT AGAINST WEAPONIZATION IN NEW YORK AND EVERY STATE IN THIS COUNTRY.

SO HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?

>> I THINK THIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE THE NARRATIVE HERE TO BE A BATTLE BETWEEN THEM AND CAREER PROSECUTORS.

ESSENTIALLY, LY HE SAID, SHE S ABOUT WHO IS RIGHT.

IT'S A BIT OF A DISTRACTION.

FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM TO READ THE CHARGING MATERIALS IN THE ERIC ADAMS CASE.

UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS WERE.

AND NOTICE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, DID NOT SEEM TO BE CONTESTING THE UNDERLYING FACTS HERE, NOR, FOR THAT MATTER, WAS ERIC ADAMS CHALLENGING THIS AS A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED PROSECUTION.

THESE SEEM LIKE AFTER THE FACT JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AN ATTEMPT TO IN ESSENCE USE CRIMINAL LAW TO ACHIEVE POLICY OBJECTIVES.

>> YOU RESIGNED FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, I THINK, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, AS I RECALL.

WHY DO YOU HAVE DID YOU RESIGN?

>> I BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT'S PARDONS, AS I MENTIONED, WERE GOING TO CREATE A NEW WAVE OF VIGILANTE VIOLENCE THAT THE UNITED STATES REALLY HAS NOT SEEN SINCE THE KKK.

I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS A FACT THAT NEEDED TO GET OUT.

AND THAT THERE WAS LITTLE POINT IN ME SAYING, WITHIN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, TO TRY TO STOP SOME OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.

SO I DECIDED TO LEAVE AND TRY TO EXPLAIN THE PROBLEM AS CLEARLY AS I COULD.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR CAREER OR EVEN YOUR SAFETY?

>> I'M NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED ABOUT MY OWN SAFETY.

OR RATHER, I SHOULD SAY, I THINK THAT MANY PEOPLE ARE IN FAR GREATER DANGER THAN FOLKS LIKE MYSELF ARE.

I THINK THAT THE 140 OFFICERS THAT WERE ASSAULTED AT THE CAPITOL THAT DAY ARE UNDER SIGNIFICANT RISK FOR THEIR SAFETY.

I ALSO THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY THAT'S THIS ADMINISTRATION DEMONIZED ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, MIGRANTS, TRANS PEOPLE, AND SO FORTH, THESE ARE THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE THE INITIAL VICTIMS OF VIGILANTE OR MILITIA VIOLENCE.

AND IT THOSE ARE THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE NEED TO PAY THE MOST ATTENTION TO.

>> WHAT'S NEXT FOR YOU?

>> THERE ARE PRACTICAL CAREER THINGS.

IT WASN'T WHAT I NECESSARILY INTENDED BUT I THINK A LOT OF US KNOW NOW THAT THERE IS A FIGHT OVER THE HISTORY OF JANUARY 6th TO BE HAD.

THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO REALLY NEED THAT DAY TO BE FORGOTTEN FOR THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS TO SUCCEED.

AND I AND A NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE ARE ABSOLUTELY COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THAT DAY ISN'T FORGOTTEN.

>> I'M WONDERING IF, AS A PERSON WHO CHOSE, SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE PROSECUTORS BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNMENT, RIGHT?

IT'S A DECISION TO CHOOSE THAT.

AND I WONDER, IS THERE ANY PART OF THIS EXPERIENCE THAT HAS BEEN A CRISIS FOR YOU?

IT'S OBVIOUSLY A CAREER DISRUPTION.

IS THERE SOMETHING THAT MADE YOU QUESTION SOME THINGS THAT YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW?

>> NO.

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

OBVIOUSLY THE CHALLENGE TO THE RULE OF LAW IS MORE SERIOUS THAN IT HAS BEEN IN, CERTAINLY IN MY LIFETIME IN THIS MOMENT.

BUT I THINK IT IS ALSO A REMINDER OF HOW IMPORTANT THE RULE OF LAW IS.

YOU KNOW, THE RESIGNATIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, AND JUST TALKING TO MY FRIENDS AND FORMER COLLEAGUES WHO ARE STILL IN GOVERNMENT GIVE ME ENORMOUS FAITH WITH PROSECUTORS, LAWYERS, OTHER FOLKS IN GOVERNMENT WHO REALLY DO WANT TO SERVE IN THEIR INTEREST.

IT GIVES ME FAITH TO BELIEVE WE'LL ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL.

>> WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THAT?

>> WELL, THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE IS THAT FOR AN ADMINISTRATION TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING, THEY NEED TO CONVINCE THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENT TO ACT.

AND THE LESS POPULAR A POLICY IS, THE LESS LIKELY IT IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO IMPLEMENT IT.

SO WHEN YOU SEE SORT OFF WAVE AFTER WAVE OF WHAT I WOULD ARGUE ARE ILLEGAL, UNPROFESSIONAL, OR UNETHICAL ACTIONS IMPLEMENTED IN A HAM-HANDED WAY, OR PROPOSED THAT WAY, I THINK IT MAKES THESE POLICIES VASTLY LESS POPULAR WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT MORE BROADLY AND THUS MUCH LESS LIKELY TO EVER HAPPEN.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU.