>>> IMMIGRATION AND CLIMATE TO DIVERSITY AND JUSTICE.

THE DONALD TRUMP SHAKEUP OF AMERICAN POLICY IS HAVING A DRAMATIC IMPACT IN WASHINGTON AND BEYOND.

OUR NEXT GUEST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR BRENDAN BALLOU, BELIEVES THE PRESIDENT IS DISREGARDING THE RULE OF LAW.

IN HIS LATEST PIECE FOR SLATE MAGAZINE, HE SAYS THAT IN TRUMP'S FIRST 100 DAYS, HE HAS IGNORED JUDGES, EXTORTED LAW FIRMS AND FIRE LAWYERS.

WHY?

HE SAYS THAT IT IS DISLOYALTY TO THE PRESIDENT.

HE WILL DISCUSS THE MAX AS IT IS FROM THE BARGAIN OF JUSTICE AND HOW THE TREN DE ARAGUA BASE MIGHT BE POSITIONING TO TAKE OVER THE D.C. BAR AND WHAT ALL IF THIS MEANS FOR THE LAW IN AMERICA.

>> THANK YOU FOR TALKING WITH US AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> YOUR FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR STATUS, YOU HAVE TALKED AND HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT EFFORTS TO POLITICIZE MAJOR INSTITUTIONS PARTICULARLY LEGAL INSTITUTIONS.

I WANT TO START WITH THE RECENT NEWS.

MORE THAN 100 ATTORNEYS JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION AFTER BEING TOLD THAT PART WOULD BE PRIORITIZING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S CULTURAL AGENDA INSTEAD OF PREVIOUS PRIORITIES LIKE VOTING RIGHTS, POLICING OVERSIGHT.

IT IS NOT UNUSUAL WHEN AN ADMINISTRATION CHANGES PRIORITIES BECAUSE THEY CHANGE PRIORITIES.

WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS THAT HAS CAUSED THIS MASS EXIT IS OF CAREER EMPLOYEES?

>> THE ADMINISTRATION'S CHANGE AND PRIORITIES CHANGE.

NORMALLY CAREER STAFF WILL STICK AROUND WHETHER THEY ARE DEMOCRATIC OR REPUBLICAN.

I THINK WHAT IS DIFFERENT HERE IS NOT THAT IT IS A MORE EXTREME AGENDA.

THE NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS SAYING SHE WILL GO AFTER THE D EI POLICIES AND ANTI- CHRISTIAN BIAS AND THINGS LIKE I DON'T THINK IT IS JUST THE EXTREMISM OF THE POLITICS BUT ALSO WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS MESSAGED ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW MORE GENERALLY.

THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE PRESIDENT, VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE CABINET HAD MADE IT CLEAR THEY DON'T PARTICULARLY PLAN TO FOLLOW COURT ORDERS AND IN FACT, THEY ALREADY ARE.

AND SO IF YOU ARE A CAREER STAFFER, YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, DO I WANT TO BE PART OF AN ADMINISTRATION THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY EXPECT THE RULE OF LAW?

IF NOT, HOW CAN I BE EFFECTIVE AND THIS IS WHAT THE RESIGNATIONS WERE ABOUT I THINK.

>> WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THIS IS PRESIDENT TRUMP'S SECOND STENT IN OFFICE.

NOT CONTINUOUS OBVIOUSLY.

MANY OF THESE ATTORNEYS DID SERVE DURING THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

WHAT IS THAT THEY HAVE SAID OR WHAT IS THAT THEY HAVE SIGNALED THAT WOULD CAUSE PEOPLE, FOR SOMEONE WHO SERVED IN THE GOVERNMENT FOR DECADES, TO SAY THIS IS A LINE THAT I CANNOT CROSS?

>> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS WITHIN THE APARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUT LET'S FOCUS SPECIFICALLY ON THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION.

WHAT YOU HAVE SCENE IS THE DISMANTLING OF YEARS OF WORK BY CAREER LAWYERS TO WRING JUSTICE TO SOME OF THE MOST POOR AND DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE IN AMERICA.

YOU LOOK AT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT THEY REACHED IN ALABAMA THAT WOULD REMEDIATE THE FACT THAT HISTORICALLY BLACK NEIGHBORHOODS DIDN'T HAVE SEWAGE SYSTEMS THAT SETTLEMENT WAS DESTROYED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

YOU LOOK AT A CASE TO PROHIBIT DISCRIMINATION IN THE MARYLAND STATE POLICE FORCE.

THAT WAS DROPPED.

A CASE TO TRY TO PREVENT DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE MISSISSIPPI STATE LEGISLATURE.

THAT WAS DROPPED.

YOU ARE SEEING YEARS OF WORK ABANDONED IN A MATTER OF WEEKS.

I THINK FOR THESE CAREER FOLKS, OBVIOUSLY IT IS NOT JUST THAT THE ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T SHARE THEIR COMMITMENT TO CAUSE OF CIVIL RIGHTS AS TRADITIONALLY UNDERSTOOD BUT DOESN'T PARTICULARLY HAVE A COMMITMENT TO THE INSTITUTION OF THAT APARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR LIKE I SAID, TO THE RULE OF LAW MORE GENERALLY.

I THINK WHEN YOU ARE IN THAT POSITION, IF YOU ARE CAREER CIVIL SERVANT AND I HAVE BEEN IN THIS POSITION BEFORE, YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, WHAT CAN YOU DO TO BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE.

SOMETIMES IT IS STAYING WITHIN GOVERNMENT AND TRYING TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW WITHIN IT.

SOMETIMES IT IS LEAVING AND LEAVING AS NOISILY AS YOU CAN AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT THESE PEOPLE DECIDED TO DO.

>> THE NEW ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS SAID ABOUT THE EXIT IS, DOZENS AND OVER 100 ATTORNEYS DECIDED THEY WOULD RATHER NOT DO WHAT THEIR JOB REQUIRES THAN TO DO IT.

I WAS NOT SURE HOW TO READ THAT.

AND AWAY, I THINK SHE MIGHT BE GLAD.

BECAUSE PRESUMABLY, THEY COULD PUT PEOPLE IN THOSE POSITIONS THAT WOULD BE MORE AMENABLE TO THAT POINT OF VIEW.

HOW DID YOU READ THAT?

>> I THINK SOME MIGHT BELIEVE THAT.

AT ANOTHER LEVEL, IT MIGHT BE A BIT OF A BRAVE FACE ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION.

THE ONLY THING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS, THE ONLY THING ANY LAWYER HAS IS CREDIBILITY.

THE CREDIBILITY TO PERSUADE A JUDGE TO RULE.

THE CREDIBILITY TO GET A JURY TO AGREE WITH YOU.

IF YOU DESTROY YOUR CREDIBILITY, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THINGS LEGALLY.

AND SO I THINK WHEN YOU SEE A MASS EXODUS LIKE WHAT WE SAW A FEW DAYS AGO, IT SUGGESTS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS BLEEDING OUT ITS CREDIBILITY VERY QUICKLY.

SO MAYBE IN THE SHORT TERM IT IS HELPFUL TO THE NEW ADMINISTRATION WHERE THEY CAN TRY TO STAFF WITH PEOPLE MORE IDEOLOGICALLY ALIGNED WITH THEM.

BUT IN THE LONG TERM, I THINK IT WILL MAKE IT MUCH HARDER FOR THEM TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR AGENDA.

>> I WANT TO TURN TO ANOTHER ISSUE YOU HAVE BEEN WRITING ABOUT.

YOU WROTE A PIECE FOR SLATE.

A BID FOR LEADERSHIP BETWEEN TWO TRUMP ALLIES, BRAD BONDI, WHO IS THE BROTHER OF ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BONDI AND ALICIA WONG WHO IS A TRUMP APPOINTEE, THEY ARE RUNNING TO TAKE OVER, AS YOU SAY, THE D.C. BAR.

WHY DO YOU THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT COME AND A LOCAL ISSUE BUT DO YOU THINK IT HAS REAL IMPORTANCE?

>> I'M GRATEFUL YOU ASKED AND I THINK IT IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL IMPORTANCE.

THE D.C. BAR IS THE BAR ASSOCIATION FOR NEARLY 120,000 LAWYERS IN AMERICA, LAWYERS WHO PRACTICE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF GOVERNMENT.

THE ELECTIONS MATTER FOR TWO REASONS REALLY.

THE FIRST IS THE LEADERSHIP OF THE D.C. BAR.

IT DOES PLAY A ROLL IN THE DISCIPLINING OF THOSE 120,000 ATTORNEYS.

IT IS NOT DIRECT BUT THE FEAR IS THAT IF TRUMP ALLIES ARE ABLE TO TAKE OVER THE D.C. BAR, THEY COULD USE THAT AS A WAY TO PUNISH LAWYERS THAT ARE SEEN AS INSUFFICIENTLY LOYAL TO THE ADMINISTRATION.

THAT IS ONE FEAR.

THE OTHER FEAR AND I THINK IT IS MORE COUNTRY FACING ANY LIBERAL MOVEMENT, BAR ASSOCIATIONS HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN VOICES DEFENDING DEMOCRACY, DEFENDING THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND DEFENDING THE RULE OF LAW.

YOU SEE THAT HAPPEN IN COUNTRIES LIKE BRAZIL AND SPAIN A FEW DECADES AGO.

AND THE REAL FEAR HERE IS THAT IF THE TRUMP ALLIES TAKE OVER THE D.C. BAR, THE BAR WILL BE SILENCED WHEN THE GOVERNMENT ACTS AND ASKS COUNTRY TO THE CONSTITUTION AND THAT IS ONE LESS VOICE STANDING UP FOR DEMOCRACY AND FOR THE RULE OF LAW.

>> SO BRAD BONDI, WHO WAS ASKED ABOUT THIS, HE SAID THE BAR IS A NONPARTISAN MISSION WHICH I INTEND TO PROTECT AGAINST ANY PUSH TO POLITICIZE IT.

MY EFFORT TO RUN FOR D.C. BAR PRESIDENT BEGAN MONTHS BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS AND HAS NO CONNECTION WITH NATIONAL POLITICS AT ALL.

AND THE PLATFORM IS SORT OF A I TAKE IT YOU DON'T REALLY BUY THAT.

>> THERE ARE TWO FEARS HERE.

ONE FEAR IS THAT BRAD BONDI MIGHT NOT BE BEING TRUTHFUL ABOUT WHY HIS RUNNING.

HE IS THE GLOBAL COCHAIR OF INVESTIGATIONS FOR A MAJOR INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM.

HE SEEMS TO HAVE DEVELOPED A RATHER SUDDEN AND PASSIONATE INTEREST IN FREE CERTIFICATES OF ACCREDITATION OF THE D.C. BAR.

IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE THE SORT OF THING THAT NORMALLY INTERESTS A HIGH-POWERED WHITE- COLLAR ATTORNEY.

IT IS POSSIBLE HE IS BEING DISINGENUOUS ABOUT WHY HE IS RUNNING.

IT IS ALSO POSSIBLE THAT HE IS TELLING THE TRUTH AND THAT IS JUST AS SCARY.

WHEN HE SAYS HE WANTS TO MAKE THE BAR THIS A POLITICAL ORGANIZATION, WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THEY DON'T WANT THE BAR TO SPEAK OUT WHEN THE RULE OF LAW IS UNDER ATTACK.

AND SO AGAIN, I THINK THE RISK HERE IS A CREDIBLE INSTITUTION, AN INSTITUTION THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE BELIEVE IN, COULD BE SILENCED IF TRUMP ALLIES TAKE IT OVER.

THERE HAVE BEEN SOME KEY PLAYERS THAT HAVE HAD THEIR LICENSES REVOKED FOR MISCONDUCT LIKE RUDY GIULIANI BEING ONE EXAMPLE.

IS PART OF YOUR CONCERN THAT THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY EXONERATE WRONGDOERS?

OR IS IT MORE THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED THEY WOULD TRY TO KEEP THE BAR FROM ORGANIZING ITSELF AS AN ENTITY TO OPPOSE OTHER THINGS GOING FORWARD?

IS THAT MORE YOUR CONCERN?

>> THAT IS IT.

THE LATTER CONCERN IS THE IMMEDIATE PROBLEM.

THE LONG-TERM CONCERN IS THE D.C. BAR IS INVOLVED IN APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE BOARD THAT HANDLED DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS HERE IN D.C. AND SO OVER THE MONTHS AND YEARS, THOSE MEMBERS WOULD BE REPLACED POTENTIALLY WITH TRUMP LOYALISTS.

WHEN YOU DO THAT, THEN YOU HAVE AN A NORMA'S AMOUNT OF POWER OVER MANY THOUSANDS OF LAWYERS THAT WORK IN THE GOVERNMENT.

AND SO THERE IS THE POTENTIAL WHERE THE ADMINISTRATION CANNOT JUST FIRE AN ATTORNEY THAT IS DEEMED INSUFFICIENTLY LOYAL BUT ALLIES COULD POTENTIALLY DISBAR FROM WORKING ENTIRELY AND THAT IS REALLY POWERFUL LEVERAGE.

>> AND THAT COULD BE SEEN AS PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND NOT CARRYING OUT THE WILL OF THE ADMINISTRATION?

ONE CASE THAT COMES TO MIND IS THE ATTORNEY, THERE IS THE CASE OF THE MARYLAND MAN WHO WAS DEPORTED TO EL SALVADOR WHO, THE ADMINISTRATION ACKNOWLEDGED IN COURT THAT IT WAS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR.

HE HAD A JUDICIAL ORDER SAYING THAT HE WAS NOT TO BE TO TORT --TO BE DEPORTED TO EL SALVADOR THAT HE HAD A FEAR OF RETALIATION IF HE WOULD RETURN.

NOW THERE HAS BEEN THIS FIGHT BACK AND FORTH TO GET HIM BACK BECAUSE HIS ADVOCATES HAVE SAID IT IS NOT FAIR AND HE SHOULD BE RETURNED AND HE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEPORTED AT THE ADMINISTRATION SAYS HE IS A BAD GUY.

THEY INSIST HE IS A GANG MEMBER EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED OTHER THAN SOME TATTOOS WHICH ARE HERE IS HOW WE KNOW THE ADMINISTRATION ADMITS IT IS AN ADMINISTERED OF ERROR.

THE ATTORNEY SAID SO IN COURT WHEN PRESSED.

AND THEN THIS LAWYER IN COURT WAS SUSPENDED OR AT LEAST WAS MOVED UP THE CASE.

HE WAS SUSPENDED BECAUSE OF IT AND WAS CRITICIZED PUBLICLY SAYING HE DID NOT ZEALOUSLY ADVOCATE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION.

IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT?

SOMEONE LIKE THAT WHO IS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT HE CONSIDERS INAPPROPRIATE REVOCABLE RESPONSE ABILITIES.

WITH THE COURT BUT NOT IN LINE WITH THE ADMIN ATTRITION'S POSITION WOULD THEN BE LITERALLY DISBARRED FROM THAT THAT?

>> IT IS A POTENTIAL LONG-TERM RISK.

ALL LAWYERS HAVE OBLIGATIONS.

ONE IS TO ADVOCATE FOR THEIR CLIENT.

THE OTHER, ANOTHER FEDERAL IS TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND HAS AN INDEPENDENT DUTY OF CANDOR.

YOU CAN SEE HOW SOME OF THOSE ALLEGATIONS COME INTO CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER.

THE LEADERSHIP OF THE DOJ.

THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED THAT LAWYER TO ZEALOUSLY ADVOCATE EVEN IF IT MEANT DISTORTING THE TRUTH.

THAT LAWYER, TO THEIR CREDIT, DID NOT DO THAT.

YOU CAN IMAGINE A WORLD IN WHICH, TRUMP LOYALISTS ARE ABLE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD AND POTENTIALLY WOULD SEE THAT AS A SIGN OF DISLOYALTY AND ALSO PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT.

THAT IS THE LONG-TERM RISK.

>> PEOPLE DO RUN FOR THE LEADERSHIP OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION'S ON SAYING THEY WANT TO ADVOCATE FOR THINGS LIKE DIVERSITY IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION, RIGHT.

IS IT REASONABLE THAT SOMEBODY COULD ALSO RUN FOR THE HEAD OF THE D.C. BAR SAYING, I DON'T THINK IT IS YOUR JOB AND I THINK WE SHOULD STICK TO WHATEVER THEY CONSIDER THEIR CORE RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT IS ALL EXTRA STAFF AND IT IS POLITICS AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY PLACE HERE?

>> MY ARGUMENT IS NOT THAT IT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR BRAD BONDI TO RUN FOR D.C. BAR PRESIDENT.

MY ARGUMENT IS THAT WE DON'T WANT TRUMP, OR MINISTRY SHOULD LOYALISTS RUNNING THE BAR.

IT IS AN ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE THING FOR HIM TO RUN AND IT IS ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE FOR HIM TO BE VOTED AGAINST IN THE ELECTION WHICH IS OPEN UNTIL JUNE 4th.

>> ONE MORE ISSUE.

JUDGE HANNAH DUGAN AND WISCONSIN.

ANOTHER CASE IT HAS GOTTEN A LOT OF ATTENTION.

SHE WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY THE FBI ON COURTHOUSE GROUNDS FOR ALLEGEDLY HELPING A MAN A VAGUE I.C.E.

JUDGES HAVE BEEN ARRESTED BEFORE FOR THINGS.

IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE WAY THIS WAS HANDLED THAT STANDS OUT TO YOU?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WAS AN ARREST MADE NOT WITH THE INTENTION OF SECURING A CONVICTION BUT SECURING THIS.

THE LEGAL STANDARD TO CONVICT THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE SEEMS FAR BEYOND WHAT THE FACTS WARRANT.

MY SUSPICION HERE IS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS NOT NECESSARILY TRYING TO CONVICT THE JUDGE.

PERHAPS THEY WOULD LIKE IT IF THEY COULD BUT TO TRY TO INSTILL A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FEAR IN JUDGES AND IN A VERY SPECIFIC WAY WHICH IS THAT I.C.E.

AGENTS ARE GOING INTO COURT HOUSES TO TRY TO DETAIN UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS.

PRESUMABLY, JUDGES WILL BE INCREASINGLY AFRAID TO STOP I.C.E.

AGENTS FROM INTERFERING IN COURT PROCEEDINGS OR FROM ROAMING THE HALLS TO TRY TO PICK UP UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS BECAUSE THEY TOO ARE AFRAID OF BEING ARRESTED AND CHARGED.

>> THERE SEEM TO BE TWO VERY DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF WHAT HAPPENED.

THE ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO BE ARGUING THAT JUDGE DUGAN ESCORTED THIS MAN OUT OR HELPS HIM TO EVADE AUTHORITIES OR SOMEHOW HELPED HIM GET OUT OF A SIDE DOOR OR RUNAWAY.

THE OTHER VERSION IS THAT SHE WAS TRYING TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY.

SHE WAS IN A SPECIFIC PROCEEDING THAT WAS UNRELATED TO THIS AND THE MATTER WAS NOT ADJUDICATED AND SHE FELT HE DESERVED HIS DAY IN COURT ON THAT ISSUE AND WAS TRYING TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THAT PROCEEDING.

THOSE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

NOW THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS HAD HER ARRESTED SAYING SHE BROKE THE LAW, WHO DECIDES AND HOW DOES THIS GET SORTED OUT?

>> NOW IT IS A CRIMINAL TRIAL SO IT WILL BE DECIDED BY A JUDGE.

AND THEN IF IT GOES TO TRIAL, TO A JURY.

YOU MENTIONED ON THE OUTSET THAT JUDGES HAVE BEEN ARRESTED BEFORE.

THE ADMINISTRATION ARRESTED A JUDGE IN THE FIRST TERM AND ULTIMATELY THE PROSECUTION WAS DROPPED AND REFERRED TO SORT OF A PROFESSIONAL DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING.

THE TRACK RECORD IN WINNING IN THESE CASES IS NOT PARTICULARLY GOOD.

THE JUDGE HAS ALREADY BEEN REASSIGNED OR TAKEN OFF OF HER CASES.

THE MESSAGE HAS BEEN MADE VERY CLEAR TO JUDGES THAT THEY ARE NOT SAFE FROM CRIMINAL DESICCATION IN THIS ADMINISTRATION.

>> I DO HAVE TO ASK, IF THE FACTS ARE AS ALLEGED BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND ANY OTHER PERSON KNEW SOMEONE ELSE WAS BEING PURSUED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AND GAVE THEM A MEANS OF ESCAPE, WOULDN'T THEY BE PROSECUTED?

>> NOT NECESSARILY.

I HAVE NOT HANDLED IMMIGRATION PROSECUTIONS I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTATE MY EXPERTISE BUT THE PRIMARY STATUTE BY WHICH SHE WAS CHARGED REQUIRES CORRUPT INTENT OR OTHER INTIMIDATION OR BASED ON THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE GOVERNMENT'S ON DOCUMENTS, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANYTHING CLOSE TO THAT YET.

IT SEEMS LIKE AN ARREST BILTMORE FOR HEADLINES AND ACTUAL PROSECUTION.

PEOPLE SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THESE ISSUES?

IT SEEMS VERY TECHNICAL.

CAN YOU GIVE US A SENSE OF WHY YOU THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO PAY ATTENTION TO THESE KINDS OF SPECIFIC ISSUES AND SPECIFIC PROSECUTIONS AND ALLEGATIONS AND THESE DEVELOPMENTS?

>> I WOULD TELL THE VIEWERS TO NOT UNDERESTIMATE YOUR OWN POWER HERE.

HAVING BEEN ON THE INSET OF GOVERNMENT, I CAN TELL YOU THAT PROTESTS, OUTREACH AND OUTRAGE REALLY MATTER.

IT CHANGES HOW PEOPLE INSIDE OF GOVERNMENT THINK.

IT CHANGES HOW JUDGES THINK.

THE MORE ATTENTION THAT CAN BE BROUGHT TO ATTACKS ON THE CONSTITUTION OR ATTACKS ON THE RULE OF LAW, IT EMPOWERS PEOPLE INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT TO RESIST UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR ILLEGAL ACTIONS AND IT EMPOWERS JUDGES TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT.

SEE THE EXACT CONSEQUENCE OF PAYING ATTENTION AND SPEAKING OUT, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU ARE HAVING AN EFFECT.

>> THANK YOU FOR TALKING WITH US ONCE AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU.