Hi, I'm Mike Papantonio and this is America's Lawyer. The Fed is raising interest rates to
fight inflation, but with the nation on the brink of a recession, that might not be a good idea.
We'll bring you up to speed on those details. Police officers in Uvalde, well, they're fighting
hard to keep the body cam footage of the recent school shooting hidden from the public. And we'll
talk about their legal reasoning for doing that. And most Americans believe Trump is responsible
for the Capitol riot, but that doesn't mean a prosecution is likely to happen and we'll explain
why. All that and more it's coming up, don't go anywhere, right here on America's Lawyer.
Inflation is outta control and the Biden administration is raising interest rates
to fight it. But is that the smartest move? Right now to join me I have Michael Bixby, the
fire breathing progressive standing in for Farron Cousins this week. Michael, as I look at this
case, you have all of the talking heads all over the place about the fact that the Fed should do
this and Fed should do that. But there are, there are some, some, some pretty important points that
they're making about raising interest rates and how it's potentially gonna bring on a recession.
No, that's exactly right. So that's exactly what they're talking about is the natural reaction to
this of, oh, we've gotta keep the prices down and you notice what some of the Fed is saying, oh,
we actually wanna really bring wages down. Right.
Is part of, part of what the goal is to be accomplished here. And absolutely there's a
real risk. In fact, it's the consensus that if the Fed keeps this up, that what you're gonna get is,
is at, at best some sort of a, maybe if it's not a full blown recession, you are gonna have some
contraction. So you're talking about something that's obviously gonna have negative effects.
The problem with recession, as you know, is most of the time we don't even see it until
it's almost over. And what I, I thought was so remarkable is Yellen telling, you know,
Janet Yellen coming out and saying, well, there's a couple things I didn't see coming. I, I didn't
see the potential for a recession and I didn't see inflation. What scares the hell outta me about
that is that's her job. And she, it was almost as if she said the whole administration was at
sleep. They, they were asleep on this issue. And, and if you think about that, Pap, I mean,
this is complicated and I, I don't wanna say oversimplify it.
Right. But at the same time,
some of this is fairly elementary. I mean, what happened in 2020 and 2021, we printed trillions
of dollars. The natural effect of that of saying, well, what is the likely cause of this going to
be? Is that going to cause inflation or deflation? I mean, if you ask it on a very elementary side,
it's like, well, that's much more likely to cause inflation. And there's a lot of com, complicated
effects of that. I appreciate that, but you're right. We have the best minds or supposedly
the best minds who should be looking out for this and saying, how are we going to manage?
Yeah. How do you say you never saw it coming? Okay. It was like, we heard the same thing about
the economic crash with the mortgages. Never saw it coming. And you ask yourself, well, my God
who, you know, who's, who's at the wheel? And it doesn't seem to make any difference
when we're talking to these economists, because they, they didn't see either the crash coming.
They don't see the, they didn't see this coming. They didn't see inflation coming. They didn't see
potential for a recession coming. They don't talk about what you talked about is that the end result
is to lower wages and potentially put millions of people outta jobs as this progresses.
Right. And you, you want to say, how is if you bury your head in the sand,
you can miss a lot of stuff. Yeah.
If you, if you choose to ignore it. But the ultimate consequence here, it's gonna not,
it's not gonna affect the people at the top. The people who didn't see it. And what you're gonna
see is the most damage is gonna happen on the bottom end. It's gonna happen for the lower wage
workers already, who are gonna be harmed. Right. Gated communities are not gonna
feel this. Correct.
The Supreme Court might be stripping American citizens of their Miranda rights and that could
be a disaster. Michael, when I saw this, I, I just got to thinking, this is the Miranda of course is,
trying to think, 1966. Yeah.
The Supreme Court said, they're just things that you ought to tell somebody
you've taken into custody and arrested before you interrogate 'em because of the terrible
coercion that existed before then. Pick it up. Yeah. Right to, right to remain silent. Right to
an attorney. If, if you don't have the money for an attorney, we'll provide one for you. These are
things that it, it's there for a reason is because again, the average American doesn't really know,
doesn't understand the legal system and you get down to it, it's the coercion.
And you do see that the way the police state in America is set up, it is based on, oh, just
tell me this. I can't tell you how many times I've seen instances like this. Oh, if you just tell me,
the officers just want you to confess, want you to give them the information that helps
them get the conviction, helps them get the arrest and, and say, oh, well, everything
will be okay. And, and that's not the case. Well, the history flashback is that it got
much worse than that. It got to where it was some situations looked like Guantanamo
to get these confessions. And so all of a sudden, 1966, the Supreme Court says we have
to stop that and we at least, if we have these constitutional rights, then at the very least,
we have the responsibility to tell people about. The case to watch is Vega v. Tekoh. Right?
That, that's, that's right. And this it's an interesting case, Pap, because the, the person
who's raised the issue is actually the officer. Right.
He said, I didn't violate this person's right because the Miranda warnings that's been the
law for, you know, 50 years, that's actually not the law. That's not a requirement. That's not part
of the constitutional provisions here that I have to comply with. So the officer's the one bringing
it up and saying, this isn't actually your right. Well, it's part of that Federalist argument versus
state's rights argument. And that's where this is going. As this progresses what we're gonna find
is that states get to build their own standards on what they think a Miranda should look like.
They can decide what the policies are, how far we can take it. They're gonna let law
enforcement have a bigger, a bigger hand in how an interrogation takes place, state by state,
according to who the legislators are. And that's, that's scary, Pap. And I,
I see with this court, I think that there is a very real, it seems like the consensus
is there's a good chance that at least the Miranda warning or the Miranda rights are gonna be eaten
away at if not done way with altogether. Exactly under that federalism, oh, let's give it to the
states. And that might be good in certain states, there might be some states where that's okay.
But I see a lot of potential for substantial harm. Yeah.
In, in many, many states who are gonna look at it and say, hey, we've gotta support the,
the police, the police need to have unlimited rights. This idea behind it. I'm like, no,
there's constitutional protections. Yeah.
For a reason. Yeah. Miranda 1966 was,
that of course it's still criticized as, as it being the, the court going where they shouldn't go
because the constitution doesn't provide for it. Miranda is right on point with the constitution.
A group of SpaceX employees have alleged that they've been fired for criticizing Elon Musk in a
letter to the board of directors. Now I gotta tell you, I saw this, I saw this story and I got to
thinkin', what numb nut would not believe they're gonna get fired if they send out a letter. They,
they sent out thousands of these letters just across the board saying, will you sign the letter
now? Whether they're wrong or right, you know, they have a right to criticize him,
but they also need to understand he has a right to fire 'em. I mean, what kind of bonehead says,
yeah, I'm just gonna go do this and then expect no ramifications from it?
Right. Talk about burying your head in the sand and I think you're exactly right. It's a private
company, Pap. So you're talking about, I mean, and you could say, we think the law
should be this or that, but the reality is if you go and bite the hand that feeds and here
clearly Musk is the hand that feeds with SpaceX, that's of course, that's what's gonna happen. And,
and, and, and, and I, now that being said is, honestly, this tells me a lot about the company.
Yeah. Because I think that there's a couple of
responses they could have. I think, yes, you can, you could criticize the SpaceX employees and say,
well, you knew you were gonna get fired and if you didn't, you were just completely ignorant. But,
but SpaceX's response is not very encouraging, which maybe isn't a surprise if you followed.
Well, as you said, it's a privately held company, Michael. This isn't a, I mean, that, that's what,
that's what's so amazing about. Matter of fact, the people who didn't sign it say exactly that.
They said what in the, their own employees are saying, well, of course I didn't sign it.
It sounds like a childish tone deaf thing to do. You know of, look, there's no question,
they have the right to criticize. But then to come out and say, we're victims, because I'm not under
contract. If they're, it's a non-contract state. Musk can fire as many of them as he wants. But to
say you're surprised by the idea that they, they said that he was an embarrassment to the company
that the whole Twitter, the whole element of what was going on with Twitter was an embarrassment
to them. And they're talking about the guy who gives 'em their paycheck. Any surprises there?
No, no, no, no surprises there whatsoever. But I do think, you know, there's been things about
their culture, SpaceX's culture and Musk. Yes.
I think that there's legitimate concerns there. But you say, hey, read the room a little bit,
in the way you get 'em addressed, or is there a better way to address a toxic environment
than that? Yeah. The end result was always going to be those people getting fired.
Yeah. It's just like, they it's like a bunch of tone deaf boneheads that don't understand
it's gonna happen. No question. They said, we need to reign him in. Yes. Maybe that's
the case. But expect the consequences. There was other ways to go about doing it.
The former fiancée of Khashoggi wants president Biden to ask Saudi Arabia an important question
on his upcoming visit. Real simple question, where are the pieces to my husband's body?
That, that, that's a horrible thing to have to ask, but that's the question she has. She says,
look, if, if, if president Biden goes over there groveling and begging
on bended knees for something, maybe mention that I might, that this guy that you were so critical
of the prince of Saudi Arabia, maybe ask that guy that you called a pariah, by the way, before
you were over here groveling, ask him where the parts to my husband's body are today.
Yeah. That's awful powerful, Pap. And, and, and if you're Biden, I think he's in a tough spot
because he's very clearly, I mean, it wasn't, he didn't equivocate. He said it is pariah.
We will bring 'em to justice. We're going to hold them accountable. We're gonna
do something different because Trump failed here too. There's no question.
Trump and Trump, Trump was all over Saudi Arabia. It was like they we're, they had a love affair
after it with Trump. Had a love affair with the prince after he chopped up Khashoggi.
And that was embarrassing. But yeah, what, what happened here is they got caught. That was the
only difference is that if you think that this is the one exception, the CIA concluded with
regards to him, that this was something, this was directly an order from the crown prince.
The real question, Michael, you realize there's questions whether he was even watching it because
they had the TV set up. Now this, this freak, this maniac, that is just nothing but a despot,
you know, just a dictator over there. There's no, he has no right to even sit there. It's like,
they proclaimed one day that I'm gonna take all this land. I'm gonna take all these oil rights.
Who in the hell says, yeah, you can have? But that's how the family's grown, you understand?
Right. It's just, we're in charge. Nobody put
us in charge. We're in charge. And they've been in charge for all these generations. When, when Biden
came out and said, look, I'm gonna make him pay the price. Remember he was running for president,
all that tough talk. He was saying, criticizing Trump, who should have been criticized,
but saying, when I'm in charge, they're gonna pay the price for what they've done.
Yeah. How much you wanna bet that we don't, we don't see a strong Biden who's,
who's criticizing that, bringing this up, addressing this issue, for something where again,
they convicted multiple people, Saudi Arabia convicted them, and then commuted the sentences.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's an
embarrassment. Absolute embarrassment. Well, you know what? There's right now,
as we speak they're teetering, does he go, doesn't he go? You know, don't go. I mean,
don't go. The idea of expedience over values just doesn't fit a president.
The Uvalde police department is fighting hard to keep body cam footage on the day
of the Robb elementary school shooting, hidden from the public. Wow. Okay. Here,
here it is. They're being, they're being sued obviously. The, the, the police officers that,
that were supposed to be in charge of saving these kids, 19 officers,
19 officers waited outside the school fully armed while all this was going on, while children were,
were, were saying 9, you know, calling 9 1 1. Calling 9 1 1.
Help. What's your take? Yeah, this is, this is kind of pathetic,
Pap. It's, this is another thing that is embarrassing. And that's actually, if you
look at their response and say, why? Why don't they want to give the video? Why don't they want
sunshine here so we can see as these children were murdered and you didn't do your job? You
allowed these children to be murdered. Why? Because we would be embarrassed.
Yeah. That's what they said.
Yeah. Literally they came out and said, we, anybody would be embarrassed for,
to have 19 police officers. Who in the hell would not have rushed in just like the
fellow that ended up doing it? You know, 19 police officers out there and they can't make a decision
on how to handle the problem. So here's what I really love about, about their, their answer when
you take a look at it. They say, it's going reveal the methods that we use to fight crime. Literally,
that's part of their, they're gonna say, if we were to disclose this, this is gonna reveal the
techniques that we use to fight crime. It's gonna show, it's gonna show all of these tricks that we
have to fight crime. So we can't release this. Also, it's gonna cause distress to our employees
once they understand what really happened. Once they understand how irresponsibly we were.
Yeah. How shameful
we were. We're gonna be in fear for our physical safety. I mean, it, the, the juxtaposition between
children being murdered and the failure and allowing that to happen, versus you saying I'm
gonna be uncomfortable. This is a conver, I mean, unquestionably, this information has to come out.
Yeah. There's no judge. We have to.
There's no judge that's gonna grant this. I, I don't care. Even in Texas, even with a Texas
judge, the Texas good old boy judge is not gonna grant. This is most outrageous kind of response.
More and more Americans are blaming Trump for the Capitol riots, but that doesn't mean a prosecution
is gonna be slam dunk. It's actually far from it. If you talked, if you follow the comments
of anybody following the details, and frankly, I haven't followed the details, I watched parts of
it. I watch reruns of things. I try to figure out what's really going on. It's very clear
that these hearings need to take place because this has, this has significant ramifications.
But is Trump going to be prosecuted with, with, with, with Merrick Garland, with this
Department of Justice, is he gonna be prosecuted? That, that's, probably not is the answer.
No. And it's an incredible question, because obviously
you have, you have Garland who, you know, was potentially going to the Supreme Court and,
and maybe got shafted by most, by most accounts. Yeah.
But I think Chris Christie was the one who really gave some comments recently, some insight as a
former prosecutor himself. And he said, he said, the concern here is if you swing and you miss.
Mm-hmm. What, if you swing and a miss,
you're gonna be concerned about what sort of an effect that has. And basically they're looking
for, to prosecute this, it's gotta be almost a guarantee. It's gotta be something that's 99.9%.
But, he goes beyond that. He says the Department of Justice is, is, is so sometimes dysfunctional.
I mean, that's what it is. When, when they're so dysfunctional that unless there's a 99.9%
of, of, of, of a prosecution being successful, they won't do it. That's why you see 'em going
after this low hanging fruit all the time. Right.
That's why we don't ever see 'em going after Wall Street white collar criminals who steal
billions of dollars from the American public because unless it's a softball.
Right. Especially with Merrick Garland.
Right. They're not gonna go after this.
And that's, that's what Christie says and, and it's not just Christie. There's a lot of people
talking about the idea of willful blindness. The concept that they'd have to get to is that there
was willful blindness on his part. I think there is. I think when you look at it, it doesn't take
much to get there to conclude that. But they have to get there in front of a jury to prove intent
and in, without intent, did he have an intention by way of willful blindness
to allow this to happen and most of the, most of the pundits are saying no. And I agree with that.
Right. And, and I think you're right, is that the, the fundamental problem is one of saying,
well, I, I don't wanna lose. I don't wanna potentially be the guy who lost a case.
Yeah. So I'm just not gonna take
it. If it's a hard case, if it's a difficult case, even if maybe there's some really strong facts,
some of the stuff that we've come out and seen that is frankly uncomfortable to kind of watch,
uncomfortable to see. Yeah.
But it's like, hey, look, if this is not a guarantee, then I'm just gonna,
I'm gonna go onto the next one and prosecute the guy who doesn't have any money to defend
himself or the lower level person. Yeah. Well, you always see it,
don't you? I mean, and it's, it's disturbing because it's a, it's part of their culture.
And when Chris Christie and these other folks are making this statement, they literally are saying,
this is a Department of Justice, unless it's a softball, they're not gonna prosecute anybody.
HSBC, how about that? You were involved with that whole banking issue as a lawyer. HSBC pleads to
washing money for terrorism that ended up in the death of American soldiers. Yes, we did that. Yes,
we washed the money. Yes, we made a hundred billion dollars. And yes, we knew it was
gonna kill American soldiers. And you know what the Department of Justice did? They fined them.
Cost of doing business, Pap. Cost of doing.
Cost of doing business. That's just a little bit of our margin, a small
little percentage of our margin. And nothing will change. The next
generation will do the same thing. He needs to be prosecuted. Trump needs to be prosecuted. Is there
enough to do it? Yes, there is. Will they do it? No, they won't. That's my take on it, right there.
I think you're right, Pap. Yeah. Thank you for joining me, Mike.
Thanks for having me, Pap. That's all for this week, but all of these
segments are gonna be available on the coming week right here on this channel. And you can follow us
on Twitter @americaslawyer. I'm Mike Papantonio and this has been America's Lawyer where every
week we tell you the stories that corporate media won't tell you because their advertisers don't let
'em do it, or because their political connections don't allow for it. We'll see you next week.