THE ABREGO GARCIA CASE---WILL TRUMP DEFY THE SUPREME COURT?

THE PRESIDENT GOES AFTER LAW FIRMS•MAKE A DEAL OR ELSE.

AND SHOULD NEW YORK'S NON-PUBLICSCHOOLS BE ALLOWED LOWER STANDARDS FOR STUDENTS STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO IVORY TOWER.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED TONIGHT BY TY SEIDULE FROM HAMILTON COLLEGE, LISA DOLAK FROM COLLEGE OF LAW AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY AND LUKE PERRY FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

ONE PROGRAM NOTE BEFORE WE BEGIN: WE ARE TAPING THE PROGRAM THIS WEEK ON WEDNESDAY MORNING, AND ALSO THIS WEEK IVORY TOWER WILL BEGIN AIRING ON THURSDAY EVENINGS, AS WELL AS ITS USUAL FRIDAY AND SATURDAY TIMES.

THE QUESTION THAT'S BEEN IN THE AIR SINCE PRESIDENT TRUMP TOOK OFFICE IS COMING TO A HEAD.

WILL THE PRESIDENT DEFY THE SUPREME COURT?

THE COURT RULED THE ADMINISTRATION MUST "FACILITATE" THE RETURN OF A MAN MISTAKENLY DEPORTED AND SENT TO A NOTORIOUS PRISON IN EL SALVADOR.

KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA CAME TO THE U.S.

ILLEGALLY AS A TEENAGER THIRTEEN YEARS AGO.

NOW HE'S MARRIED TO AN AMERICAN, HAS A SON AND A JOB.

AN IMMIGRATION JUDGE RULED HE SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO EL SALVADOR.

BUT HE WAS.

TRUMP SAYS HE WON'T BRING HIM BACK.

IS THIS THE CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FEARING?

>> YOU KNOW, IT MAY WELL BE.

IT SEEMS AT LEAST WE ARE HEADED IN THAT DIRECTION, AND BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATION JUST SEEMS TO BE ACTING WITH IMPUNITY AND STONE WALLING AND REFUSING TO ANSWER AND SEEKING TO DELAY AND TELLING US THINGS THAT DON'T SEEM TO BE REAL OR MAKE SENSE, AND SO I THINK, YEAH, I PEEN NO QUESTION IT'S HEADED BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT, WHERE THEY'LL HAVE TO DO MORE THAN THEY DID ON THE EMERGENCY APPEAL THAT THE ADMINISTRATION FILED REGARDING THE DISTRICT COURT'S ORDER.

YOU KNOW, MY THOUGHTS ON THIS ARE-- YOU KNOW AND I SAID THIS BEFORE, OUR SYSTEM WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, RIGHT?

FOR A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE THE PRESIDENT FLOUTING THE LAW, REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE SAYS HE IS DOING.

AND CONGRESS IS POLICE MISSING IN ACTION BECAUSE IMPEACHMENT WAS THE REMEDY.

THAT WAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL REMEDY FOR THIS SITUATION, BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF PRESSURE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE COURTS AND RIGHTLY SO BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONLY PLAYER LEFT ON THE FIELD.

BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY CONCERN BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE SAID TO ME, YOU KNOW, WHEN ARE THE COURTS GOING TO STAND UP AND DO SOMETHING?

AND I'M LIKE WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO?

NOW, ADMITTEDLY THERE ARE SOME STEPS THAT THEY CAN TAKE, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT AS WE HEAD BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE AND PRESUMABLY IN OTHERS, THE QUESTION THAT I KEEP THINKING ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, AT WHAT POINT DOES THE COURTS OWN AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COURTS OWN SURVIVAL INSTINCT, IN TERMS OF SURVIVAL OF THE INSTITUTION; AT WHAT POINT DOES THAT KICK IN REGARDLESS OF THEIR, YOU KNOW, JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHIES, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH THEY BELIEVE IN THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE POYER OR DEFERENCE TO THE PRESIDENT OR AREA OF FOREIGN RELATIONS, WHATEVER.

ARE THEY PARTICIPATING IN THEIR OWN SELF-DESTRUCTION AND AT WHAT POINT WILL THAT STOP?

>> BUT ALSO, ALONG THOSE LINES, AT SOME POINT, OR MAYBE THEY'RE EVEN DOING THIS, MAYBE DON'T COME OUT FULLY AGAINST THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS, YOU KNOW... >> ABSOLUTELY.

THAT GOES BACK TO MARBURY VS. MADISON IN 1803.

THAT WAS THE CONCERN THEN, JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL AVOIDED DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE, IN THAT CASE, PRESIDENT JEFFERSON, TO TAKE AN ACT THAT HE MIGHT REFUSE TO TAKE AND THE COURT FOUND A WAY TO ASSERT ITS AUTHORITY AS HAVING THE POWER OF JUDICIAL REVIEW WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, CONFRONTING THE EXECUTIVE IN A FRONTAL WAY.

BUT AGAIN, THERE HAS TO BE A POINT AT WHICH THE COURT, YOU KNOW, DOES SOMETHING TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION.

>> WELL THEY'RE GOING TO GET PLENTY OF CHANCES.

I THINK THIS SHOWS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT IT DOES ROUTINELY.

FIRST, IT'S JUST CRUEL.

SO IT'S TAKING SOMEONE THAT ADMITS IN ERROR AND SEND HIM TO THIS HELL HOLE IN EL SALVADOR AND THEN LAUGHS ABOUT IT WITH THIS DICTATOR, THE COOL DICTATOR FROM EL SALVADOR, BUT WHAT I DON'T SEE FROM THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS ANY REAL LONG-TERM STRATEGY.

SO WILL IT KEEP POKING THE COURT AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL THIS COURT DOES?

THE OTHER THING IS THIS WASN'T A FULL BLOWN CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT.

RIGHT?

IT WAS A SHADOW DOCKET IN A WAY.

AND THE COURT HAS BEEN HESITANT TO MAKING FULL DECISIONS BASED ON NOT GOING TO A FULL COURT CASE.

IT WAS NUDGING, NUDGE, NUDGE, NUDGE.

THIS ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T TAKE NUDGES SO IT'S GOING TO GO BACK.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE A MAN, WHO KNOWS HOW MANY OTHERS, THIS IS THE ONE WE KNOW ABOUT, THAT MAY BE IN THIS HORRIFIC PRISON SYSTEM.

AND IT DOES MAKE YOU THINK, COULD THEY DO THIS TO AMERICAN CITIZENS?

COULD THEY DO THIS TO GREEN CARD HOLDERS?

IT'S A SCARY SITUATION THAT EVENTUALLY IS GOING BACK TO THE SUPREME COURT BUT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, THERE COULD BE OTHER CASES-- THERE ARE OTHER CASES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO AVOID BECAUSE CRUELTY AND LACK OF LONG-TERM STRATEGY IS THE WAY THIS ADMINISTRATION OPERATES.

>> I THINK THERE ISN'T A LONG-TERM STRATEGY BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY MADE A MISTAKE AND THEY HAD TO QUICKLY DECIDE STRATEGICALLY, DID THEY WANT TO OWN THE MISTAKE OR DID THEY WANT TO TRY TO USE IT TO THEIR ADVANTAGE?

AND I DO THINK ALL CONCERNS ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT HAVE BEEN MENTIONED ARE WISE.

BUT THE ADMINISTRATION DOES CARE TO SOME DEGREE ABOUT PUBLIC OPINION, AND I THINK THEY'RE CALCULATING THAT THIS IS A GOOD FIGHT FOR THEM TO TAKE ON.

IT'S NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

IT'S SOMEONE WHO CAME HERE, IN AN UNDOCUMENTED FASHION, AND SOME IN THEIR ADMINISTRATION ACKNOWLEDGE THE ERROR AND THE COURTS HAVE RECOGNIZED THAT, BUT YET PEOPLE LIKE STEVEN MILNER TRUMP'S EAR SAYING WE CAN SPIN THIS.

WE CAN USE IT IN OUR FAVOR BECAUSE THE ONLY AREA THAT THE PRESIDENT IS PULL POLLING WELL ON RIGHTED NOW, PARTICULARLY WITH REPUBLICANS, IS IMMIGRATION.

THE MORE THAT WE AND EVERYBODY EMPTION TALKS ABOUT THIS-- AND WE SHOULD.

IT'S IMPORTANT.

IT IS CRUEL.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DEMOCRACY.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ECONOMY WHERE TRUMP IS TOTALLY GETTING HAMMERED.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE CALCULATIONS IN PLAY AND UNLESS PUBLIC OPINION GOES SOUTH ON TRUMP ON THIS ISSUE, THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO POKE THE COURTS AND OBFUSCATES BECAUSE THEY THINK IT IS WORKING.

>> WE DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT THE MAN IN QUESTION, ABREGO CARS GARCIA, THERE WAS AT SOME POINT AN IMMIGRATION HEARING BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN A REPORT THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE EL SALVADORAN GANG AND WE DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT.

>> THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF REPORTING.

YES, YOU ARE RIGHT, THE JUDGES HAVE HAD MIXED REVIEWS ON THAT TO SOME DEGREE BUT HE IS SOMEONE WHO LAS A FAMILY, A FAMILY BUSINESS GOT EXTORTED BY A LOCAL GANG, THEY THREATENED TO KILL HIS BROTHER AND RAPE HIS SISTER AND THEY DECIDED TO GET OUT OF THERE.

THAT'S WHY HE CAME HERE.

WE DO KNOW THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

IT'S A TRAGIC STORY.

>> IT'S A DOUBLE HEARSAY THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF THE GANG.

THE POLICEMAN WHO SAID IT HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED.

BUT I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT THOUGH, THIS IS-- THEY WANT TO KEEP IT AWAY FROM THE ECONOMY.

SO EVERY TIME THAT SOMEBODY MENTIONS THIS, IT STOPS THEM FROM MENTIONING THIS CRAZY TARIFF SYSTEM AND I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT THERE.

>> SO HE IS ONE OF, I THINK THE INITIAL GROUP OF 238 PRISONERS WHO WERE SENT TO THIS PRISON.

THE IDEA OF SENDING SOMEONE TO A FOREIGN PRISON, I MEAN THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SENT, MANY OF THEM, HAVEN'T BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME, EITHER HERE OR ELSEWHERE.

BUT SOME HAVE AND SOME ARE TRULY CRIMINALS.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA OF JUST SENDING SOMEBODY INTO A FOREIGN PRISON?

>> WELL, I THINK ONE OF THE THEORIES HERE WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, MANY OF THESE PEOPLE WHO WERE SENT ON THE PLANES THAT DIDN'T TUSH AROUND-- THAT DIDN'T TURN AROUND WERE ALLEGED TO BE MEMBERS OF A VENEZUELAN GANG AND THERE WAS AT ONE POINT-- ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS I'VE HEARD THATTED ADMINISTRATION HAS MADE IS THAT VENEZUELA WAS REFUSING TO TAKE THEM AND SO I DON'T KNOW-- WHO KNOWS WHAT IS THE TRUTH HERE.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE TRUMP FOUND THIS WAY TO, YOU KNOW, HIRE THIS, YOU KNOW, THE EL SALVADORAN PRESIDENT TO BUILD THIS MASSIVE PRISON FACILITY AND PAY, YOU KNOW, CONTRACT IT OUT.

>> MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXPAYER MONEY IS GOING-- >> HE SAID HE WANTS HIM TO BUILD FIVE MORE.

I WANT TO RETURN TO THE SHADOW DOCKET OR EMERGENCY DOCKET.

SO THE ADMINISTRATION IS CONTINUOUSLY APPEALING ADVERSE ORDERS ON THIS EMERGENCY DOCKET DIRECTLY TO THE SUPREME COURT.

SUPREME COURT DOESN'T HAVE TO TAKE THESE CASES.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S PUTTING A TREMENDOUS STRAIN ON THE COURT.

SECONDLY, YOU ARE RIGHT.

I THINK THE COURT IS WISE TO NOT MAKE DEFINITIVE RULINGS ON INCOMPLETE RECORDS.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

I'M HOPING THEY'LL SAY NO, NO, NO, WE'LL TAKE YOUR APPEAL ONCE IT COMES UP THROUGH THE NORMAL CHANNEL >> ANOTHER TARGET FOR TRUMP-BIG LAW.

HE'S ISSUED EXECUTIVE ORDERS TO PUNISH FIRMS WHO HAVE REPRESENTED OPPONENTS.

HE'S REVOKED SECURITY CLEARANCES AND BANNED LAWYERS FROM FEDERAL BUILDINGS.

HE'S DIRECTED THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO SANCTION LAWYERS AND FIRMS WHO ENGAGE IN "UNREASONABLE AND VEXATIOUS" LITIGATION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

SEVERAL PROMINENT FIRMS HAVE MADE DEALS WITH TRUMP TO PROVIDE PRO BONO WORK ON CAUSES HE FAVORS.

FOUR FIRMS HAVE SUED TRUMP OVER HIS ACTIONS.

DOES BIG LAW HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO FIGHT BACK TO PROTECT THE LEGAL SYSTEM?

>> YEAH, WELL, YES, I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN OVER 100 EXECUTIVE ORDERS OR SOMETHING.

AND OF ALL OF THOSE, I THINK WHAT HE HAS DONE TO THESE BIG LAW FIRMS IS CLOSE TO THE TOP OF THE MOST ILLEGAL, THE MOST ILLEGAL.

IT CLEARLY IS AGAINST THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND IT'S EX, TO.

IT IS LITERALLY EXTORTION THAT THEY'RE DOING AGAINST THESE AND WHEN IT GOES THROUGH THE COURT SYSTEMS, THE COURTS HAVE UPHELD THE LAW FIRMS BUT THESE 10 LAW FIRMS, I THINK THAT I'M COUNTING SO FAR, HAVE BENT THE KNEE.

I THINK THIS IS A CATASTROPHE FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION.

IT SHOWS THAT THEY ARE REALLY AFTER MONEY AND ONLY MONEY, AND THE ONES THAT HAVE DONE THIS, I THINK LED BY PAUL WEISS, THAT LAW FIRM, HAS JUST BEEN EXTRAORDINARILY BAD, AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOW SAYING THAT WE ARE JUST GOING TO SPEND A BILLION DOLLARS OF PRO BONO MONEY ON WHATEVER TRUMP SAYS, SHOWS IT IS A CATASTROPHE FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND I WORRY THEY'LL LOOK BACK 10 OR 20 YEARS FROM THIS AND SAY WE LOST OUR WAY.

THIS IS EVEN WORSE, I THINK, FOR THE LAW PROFESSION THAN THE RED SCARE WAS.

>> HAVE THEY LOST THEIR WAY?

>> IT'S HARD TO ARGUE WITH WHAT TY SAYS HERE AND IT IS-- THAT'S WHAT I KEEP COMING TO IS WHY ARE THEY DOING THIS?

THE ONLY ANSWER IS THAT IT IS ALL ABOUT MONEY.

AND HOW CAN THAT BE?

I SAID A MOMENT AGO ABOUT THE COURT.

THE LAW FIRMS ARE LITERALLY PARTICIPATING IN THE SYSTEM THAT IS THEIR LIFE BLOOD.

AND MY BIG QUESTION IS WHAT LEADS THESE FIRMS TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE END OF IT?

RIGHTED?

ONCE YOU BEND THE KNEE, AS YOU SAY, WHAT IS THE THEORY ABOUT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO STOP COMING BACK TO THEM TIME AND TIME AGAIN ASKING FOR MORE AND MORE.

I MEAN WE SAW THIS WEEK THAT HARVARD SAID ENOUGH, RIGHT?

AND WE'LL SEE HOW LONG HARVARD HOLDS OUT, IN THEIR FIGHT BACK, REGARDING THE EXECUTIVE ORDER THERE.

AND AGAIN THE CONCERN THAT-- I READ THAT THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS ALREADY WRITTEN TO ALL THESE LAW FIRMS SAYING HEY, THEY'RE'S A CASE FOR YOU.

WHY DON'T YOU DO THIS?

AND THE REPORTING WAS THAT SOME OF THESE FIRMS HAVE ACTUALLY MET WITH OR ARE SCHEDULING MEETINGS WITH THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION.

>> WE KNOW WHAT THOSE CASES ARE?

>> NO, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE WHATEVER CONSERVATIVE PROJECT THAT THEY WANT THESE FIRMS TO WORK ON AND THAT, BY THE WAY, IS NOT THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF WHAT PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES ARE, RIGHT?

>> I SHARE YOUR DEEP CONCERNS ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW AND DEMOCRACY.

NO DOUBT.

I GUESS I'M A LITTLE MORE SENSITIVE TO THE REALITIES THAT THESE PEOPLE FACE.

PART OF ME IS SOMEONE WHO ENGAGES GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS IS VERY PRAGMATIC.

AND THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR THE WELL-BEING OF THEIR EMPLOYEES, THEIR SHAREHOLDERS, AS WELL AS THE COLLECTIVE INTERESTS OF SOCIETY.

SO I THINK IT CAN BE EASY FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME, WHO IS NOT IN THIS WORLD, AND DO NOT HAVE THE MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY AND DO NOT HAVE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS TO SAY TO THESE LAW FIRMS OR HARVARD OR ANYBODY ELSE UNDER ASSAULT, YOU SHOULD DO MORE, YOU SHOULD FIGHT IT.

YOU SHOULD RISK YOUR COMPANY, YOUR EMPLOYEES, EVERYTHING ELSE FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

SO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT ARGUMENT.

BUT PERSONALLY, I FIND IT HARD TO MAKE IT FULL THROATED BECAUSE THESE ARE DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO MAKE.

AND SOME PRAGMATISM CAN BE MERITED.

>> AND I'VE TRIED TO GO THERE, RIGHT?

AND I HAVE BEEN ON THE OTHER SIDE.

I HAVE BEEN ON YOUR SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT WITH OTHER PEOPLE, RIGHT, WHO HAVE MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT I JUST MADE BUT AGAIN I KEEP COMING BACK TO WHY DO THEY THINK IT'S GOING TO END HERE?

AND I WORRY THAT, WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT IS INTIMIDATION.

INTIMIDATING, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST BIG BUT MEDIUM AND SMALL FIRMS, WHO ARE GOING TO BE UNWILLING TO TAKE CASES CHALLENGING THE ADMINISTRATION'S ACTIVITIES.

SO I GUESS MY WORRY IS THAT THIS IS MUCH LESS ABOUT $40 MILLION OR $100 MILLION IN FREE PRO BONO SERVICES AND MORE ABOUT SQUASHING DISSENT BROADLY AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION.

>> AND IF FIRMS ARE RELUCTANT TO TAKE ON A CASE, THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, OF COURSE, IS PEOPLE, WHO NEED-- EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO A DEFENSE, RIGHT?

THEY MAY HAVE TROUBLE DEBTING A FIRM-- GETTING A FIRM TO REPRESENT THEM.

>> AGAIN, THIS ADMINISTRATION IS AN EXTORTION RACKET AND BECAUSE IT'S AN EXTORTION RACKET, PARTICULARLY FOR THE BIG LAW FIRMS, THEY MAKE SO MUCH MONEY.

PARTNERS MAKING FIVE, 6, $8 MILLION A YEAR.

THIS IS WHAT THIS IS.

THIS IS NOT COLUMBIA WHO WHICH IS GOING TO HAVE TO LAY OFF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE MAKING A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY.

THESE ARE THE WEALTHIEST LAW FIRMS IN THE COUNTRY THAT ARE DOING THIS.

AND THEY'RE SENDING A MESSAGE TO SO MANY PEOPLE SAYING, LISTEN, YOU JUST CAN'T FIGHT THIS.

BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE FIGHTING.

SO SUSSMAN GODFREY IS FIGHTING AND THEY REPRESENTED DO DOMINION IN THAT.

PERKINS IS FIGHTING SO WE SHOULD SAY, HEY, LISTEN, IT'S NOT AS THOUGH EVERYBODY IS DOING THIS.

THERE ARE FOUR BRAVE ENOUGH TO BE DOING THIS AND THE MORE THAT DO THAT, THE MORE LIKELY THEY ARE TO WIN AND THEY ARE WINNING.

THAT'S THE OTHER THING.

>> THE ONES THAT ARE FIGHTING IT ARE ALSO DEALING WITH THE OTHER FIRMS WHO ARE TRYING TO PURGE THEIR EMPLOYEES AND TAKING THEIR CLIENTS BECAUSE THE CLIENTS ARE GETTING SCARED.

TO THE POINT THAT I WILL ENTHUSIASTICALLY CRITICIZE THESE FIRMS IS WORK TOGETHER, PARTICULARLY DURING THESE TRYING TIMES AND STOP TRYING TO TAKE EACH OTHER'S TALENT AND CLIENT.

FIGURE OUT A DETANTE THERE SO COLLECTIVELY YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN TRYING TO RESIST THE ADMINISTRATION.

>> THE OTHER THING I THINK THE CLIENTS OF THESE FIRMS HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IS THE BUILDING CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOW.

THESE FIRMS HAVE INDICATED THEY'RE WORRIED, SIGNIFICANTLY ABOUT THEIR OWN SURVIVAL, THEIR OWN INTERESTS, THE PARTNERS IN THESE FIRMS HAVE THEIR OWN INTERESTS NOW THAT IS ARGUABLY GOING TO CONFLICT WITH THE INTERESTS OF CLIENTS WHO ARE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO #-B, BE ON THE SIDE OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND I GUESS IF YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT WHEN IT'S THE FIRST AMENDMENT IS YOUR-- I MEAN IN MY VIEW, THAT IS THE STRONGEST CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT WE HAVE TO MAKE.

YOU KNOW, ON THE SECURITY CLEARANCES, THE ADMINISTRATION MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THESE SECURITY CLEARANCES AND THE ORDERS THAT HAVE BEEN IN FAVOR OF THESE LAW FIRMS HAVE CARVED THAT OUT AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU AN INJUNCTION ON THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN I WANT TO BE ON YOUR SIDE OF THIS, BUT I CAN'T GET THERE.

>> IT'S A CATASTROPHE FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION, I THINK >> A BILL HAS BEEN QUIETLY CIRCULATING IN ALBANY THAT WOULD CHANGE REGULATIONS FOR NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THE PROPOSAL WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR THOSE SCHOOLS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT THEY TEACH A "SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT" CURRICULUM TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

THE CURRENT, STRICTER STANDARDS WERE ENACTED THREE YEARS AGO AFTER A NEW YORK TIMES INVESTIGATION FOUND SOME YESHIVAS FAILED TO TEACH CORE SUBJECTS.

SHOULD STANDARDS BE LOOSENED?

>> NO, NO, THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS ISSUE FOR 10 YEARS.

WE HAVE A PROBLEM, IT'S LARGELY CONCENTRATED TO A SMALL GROUP OF RELIGIOUS MINORITIES IN BROOKLYN WHERE SOME OF THESE SCHOOLS DO NOT TEACH TO THE STATE STANDARDS AT ALL.

THEY'RE TEACHING IN YIDDISH, THEY'RE NOT TEACHING ENGLISH.

THEY'RE NOT TEACHING SOCIAL STUDIES.

THEY'RE NOT TEACHING MATH, THEY'RE NOT TEACHING SCIENCE.

THEY'RE NOT TEACHING ANYTHING ELSE THAT PUBLIC SCHOOLS TYPICALLY TEACH AND THE REASON THEY'RE GETTING SPECIAL POLITICAL ATTENTION IS BECAUSE SOME OF THESE ORTHODOX JEWISH SECTS TEND TO VOTE IN A BLOCK, RIGHT?

AND YOU HAVE A MAYOR AND A GOVERNOR WHO ARE NOT PARTICULARLY POPULAR AND THEY'RE TRYING NOT TO UPSET THIS GROUP FO TO TRY TO FORESTALL THESE REGULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN YEARS IN THE MAKING FROM GOING INTO PLACE BECAUSE AT THE END OF JUNE, THESE SCHOOLS HAVE TO COMPLY.

AND I THINK IT'S HORRIBLE TO CHANGE THE STANDARDS OR MORE PRACTICALLY WHAT I THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN, IS DELAY THEIR IMPLEMENTATION FOR MANY MORE YEARS AND THE PROBLEM WILL JUST PERSIST.

>> YOU MENTIONED THE GOVERNOR THERE, AND GOVERNOR HOCHUL, SO SHE HASN'T BEEN REAL VOCAL ON THIS.

SO WHERE IS SHE ON THIS?

>> FIRST, LET ME JUST SAY THAT AS A TEACHER, I AM PRO-READING.

PRO-WRITING AND PRO-ARITHMETIC ACROSS THE BOARD AND SO THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM.

>> THE THREE RS.

>> ABSOLUTELY FOUR.

BUT FROM THE GOVERNOR'S PERSPECTIVE, AND SHE IS LIKE SAYING OKAY, I'VE GOT THIS TINY AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT IT AFFECTS, AND IT'S-- CAN I HORSE TRADE IT TO GET SOMETHING ELSE?

SO SHE IS, I THINK, WEIGHING THE BENEFIT, THE COST BENEFIT FOR THIS AND TRYING TO KEEP HER CARDS CLOSE TO THE TABLE AND I BELIEVE SHE WILL, YOU KNOW, SPREAD IT OUT SO THAT SHE CAN GET SOMETHING ELSE SHE WANTS.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE POOR CHILDREN THERE ARE GOING TO PAY THE PRICE.

>> SO APPARENTLY IT'S A DRAFT BILL THAT HAS BEEN CIRCULATING AROUND ALBANY AND THE LEGISLATURE.

AND I GUESS THERE IS SOME HOPE THAT MAYBE IT WOULD BE PUT DIRECTLY INTO THE BUDGET, WHICH COMES OUT-- WELL, WE ARE NOT ENTIRELY SURE.

BUT SHOULD BE COMING OUT.

AND I'M WONDERING ABOUT THAT PROCESS, LISA, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE, IF YOU WANT TO PASS A BILL, YOU OUGHT TO PASS A BILL.

>> NO, IT'S BAD LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE FOR SURE TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS ANY DEFENSIBLE POLICY HERE, WHICH I CAN'T SEE.

IT SHOULD GO THROUGH THE NORMAL LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

I MEAN WE SEE THIS ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL TOO, ALL THESE THINGS GET ATTACHED TO AND INCORPORATED INTO THE BUDGET AND, YOU KNOW, THEREFORE LEGISLATORS HAVE NO CHOICE EFFECTIVELY BUT TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE OTHERWISE THERE WON'T BE A BUDGET.

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH YOU BOTH.

AND I JUST-- THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT AS A SOCIETY, AS PARENTS, AS LEGISLATORS, AS THE GOVERNOR, WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEPRIVE THESE CHILDREN OF AN EDUCATION.

WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT ON A MORAL BASIS.

AND I'VE LONG FELT THAT WAY ABOUT EVEN UNDERPERFORMING PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

IT'S NOT-- WHEN THESE KINDS OF FIGHTS HAVE COME UP-- AND THIS IS AN EGREGIOUS SITUATION AND IT JUST REALLY TROUBLES ME THAT WE WOULD EVEN BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, THAT THIS COULD BE ALLOWED TO BE HAPPENING TO THESE CIZ.

>> AND I-- TO THESE KIDS.

>> ADVOCACY HAS BEEN LED BY A FORMER STUDENT WHO EXPERIENCED THIS AND FORMED THIS ORGANIZATION WHO HAS BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY TO TRY TO CHANGE THE LAW.

THEY'RE DEFENDING LEGAL CHALLENGES.

AND LET ME SAY, RELIGIOUS MINORITIES NEED THEIR RIGHTS TO BE PROTECTED AS WELL.

I JUST DON'T THINK THAT EXTENDS TO EDUCATING CHILDREN EXACTLY HOW THEY WANT IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T FIT WITH THE STANDARDS THAT EVERY OTHER CHILD RECEIVES IN THE STATE.

>> AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HAS COME OUT PRETTY STRONGLY ON THIS.

>> YES, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE BILL.

THEY WANT THINGS TO REMAIN IN PLACE.

>> OKAY.

WELL LET'S GO TO THE AS AND Fs AND TY WE BEGIN WITH YOUR F. >> FOR MY F I DON'T HAVE AN F, I HAVE AN FING LIST, THAT'S SAFE FOR PBS I CHECKED.

WHERE SO MANY THINGS ARE GOING WRONG FROM WRECKING THE WORLD ECONOMY TO BREAKING OUR ALLIANCE TO PLAYING FOOTSY WITH DICTATORS, EXTORTING LAW FIRMS AND COLLEGES.

GOVERNMENT IS SERIOUS BUSINESS FOR SERIOUS PEOPLE AND TRUMP AND HIS CRONY CAPITALISTS ARE NOW OPERATING A CRUEL CLOWN CAR.

>> LISA.

>> THAT'S A HARD ACT TO FOLLOW.

>> MY F GOES TO THOSE WHO ARE CONTINUING TO VANDALIZE TESLA AUTOMOBILES CHARGING STATIONS AND DEALERSHIPS.

APPARENTLY AS AN EXPRESSION OF THEIR DISAPPROVAL OF THE ACTIONS OF ELON MUSK AND THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

FAR FROM BEING A LEGITIMATE FORM OF PROTEST OF COURSE THESE ARE ILLEGAL ACTS THAT DAMAGE PROPERTY AND IMPOSE COSTS ON INNOCENT BUSINESSES AND CAR OWNERS AND DISCOURAGE EFFORTS TO PROMOTE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP.

MAYBE TERRORIZE IS TOO STRONG A WORD BUT IT APPEARS THERE IS A GOOD DEAL OF HYPOCRISY GOING ON HERE.

>> LUKE.

>> MY F GOES TO KATHY HOCHUL FOR SAYING NEW YORKERS DON'T CARE IF THE BUDGET IS COMPLETED ON TIME.

SCHOOL DISTRICTS AROUND THE STATE, 731 OF THEM, ARE WAITING FOR THE STATE BUDGET TO BE COMPLETED SO THEY CAN FINISH THEIR BUDGET AHEAD OF THE PUBLIC VOTE NEXT MONTH.

>> LET'S GO TO THE AS.

TY.

>> MY A GOES TO THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO WERE FIRED FROM THEIR JOBS AS THREE AND FOUR STAR GENERALS.

THEY SERVED THE NATION FOR 30 OR 40 YEARS AND DID NOTHING TO DESERVE WHAT THEY GOT, WHICH IS TO BE FIRED FOR NO REASON.

YET THEY'RE TRUE PROFESSIONALS AND THEY REALIZE THAT THEY SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE PRESIDENT SO THEY JUST LET LEFT WITHOUT ANY GRAND FINALE OR ANY-- WITHOUT ANY CRITICISM SO MY HAT IS OFF TO THEM.

>> AND A, LISA, YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO THE WONDER OF NATURE THAT WE HAD THE CHANCE TO SEE THIS WEEK.

A HERD OF AFRICAN ELEPHANT IS REACTING TO THE 5.2 MAGNITUDE EARTHQUAKE THAT HIT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ON MONDAY.

AS THE GROUND BEGAN TO SHAKE, THESE EL ELLEN DeGENERES FANTS AT THE SAFARI PARK QUICKLY GOT INTO A CIRCLE WITH THE THREE ADULT FEMALES POSITIONING THEMSELVES TO PROTECT THE TWO SEVEN-YEAR-OLD CALVES IN THE HERD FROM THE POSSIBLE THREATS.

IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO WATCH THE FULL VIDEO OF THESE MAGNIFICENT ANIMALS IN APPRECIATE AND AND WOULD APPRECIATE A LIFT FROM THE BAD NEWS, CHECK IT OUT.

>> I DID CHECK IT OUT.

IT WAS PRETTY ASTONISHING.

I SAW THAT LAST NIGHT.

LUKE, YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO THE MUNSON PROCTOR INSTITUTE IN UTICA, A GREAT SPACE FOR ART AND ART EDUCATION, A NEW EXHIBIT WHERE INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD ARE SHARING THEIR CREATIVE EXPRESSIONS ON LIVING IN THE CITY.

>> THANK YOU.

I WANTED TO, YOU MENTIONED AS YOUR A, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE VARIOUS THREE AND FOUR STAR GENERALS WHO HAVE BEEN FIRED AND ONE NAME THAT WE LEARNED ABOUT THIS WEEK WAS I THINK IT WAS TIMOTHY HULL, THE HEAD OF THE NSA WHO WAS FIRED AND THE REASON FOR HIS FIRING IS?

>> I THINK LAURA LOOMER, A CONSPIRACY THEORIST CAME UP AND SAID HE WASN'T SUPPORTING THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLANS.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT THEY DAME FROM.

I DON'T KNOW WHY LAURA LOOMER WOULD KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS BUT AT A TIME WHEN WE ARE BEING ASSAULT BID RUSSIAN AND OTHER CYBER THREATS, TO HAVE THAT PERSON FIRED, SEEMS CRAZY AND DANGEROUS.

>> CRAZY AND DANGEROUS.

AND ALSO TESLA, LISA,THE ATTACKS ON THE TESLA, THERE SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF VIRTUE SIGNALING.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

I DON'T HAVE ONE.

>> THEY'RE GREAT CARS.

>> YOU KNOW, BUT THE PEOPLE I KNOW WHO HAVE THEM LOVE THEM.

AND MANY OF THEM HAVE BOUGHT THESE CARS IN SUPPORT OF, YOU KNOW, THE ENVIRONMENT.

>> THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.