The Daily Signal - Ep. 285: What Republican Attorneys General Learned During the Obama Years

Episode Date: August 28, 2018

During the Obama years, red states found themselves battling together on the front lines to defend liberty against an overreaching federal government. Attorneys General Ken Paxton (Texas), Doug Peterson (Nebraska), and Alan Wilson (South Carolina) discuss what they learned. Plus: If any anonymous source backtracks, shouldn't it make a difference? We discuss the latest media/Russia investigation controversy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, August 29th. I'm Kate Tranko. And I'm Daniel Davis. During the Obama years, red states found themselves on the front lines defending liberty against an overreaching federal government. Leading the charge were men like Ken Paxton, the Attorney General of Texas. I sat down with Paxton and two other attorneys general to discuss their alliance, both then and now. We'll bring you that discussion. Plus, a key source in the news reports about Trump and Russian meddling.

goes back on his statements. We'll discuss. But first, we'll cover a few of today's top headlines. White House Economic Advisor Larry Kudlow said Tuesday that the Trump administration was, quote, taking a look, end quote, at regulating Google further. On Tuesday morning, President Trump tweeted, Google search results for Trump news shows only the viewing reporting of fake news media. In other words, they have it rigged for me and others.

that almost all stories and news is bad. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican, conservative, and fair media is shut out. Illegal? Ninety-six percent of results on Trump news are from national left-wing media, very dangerous. Google and others are suppressing voices of conservatives and hiding information in news that is good. They are controlling what we can and cannot see. This is a very serious situation will be addressed. Well, just two days after John McCain's passing, President Trump had restored the White House flag to full staff. But after taking heavy criticism for both parties about that, the president reversed course and lowered the flags once again. At an evening event with evangelical leaders on Monday, President Trump gave his first public remarks on the late senator.

Our hearts and prayers are going to the family of Senator John McCain. going to be a lot of activity over the next number of days. And we very much appreciate everything that Senator McCain has done for our country. So thank you very much. On Monday night, President Trump honored evangelicals at the White House. Here's part of what he said via the Christian Broadcasting Network. In recent years, the government tried to undermine religious freedom. But the attacks on communities of faith are over.

We've ended it. According to CBN's David Brody, attendees included Vice President Mike Pence, Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Reverend Paula White, Housing Secretary Ben Carson, and Reverend Franklin Graham. Well, it seems more Americans are feeling the need for weed. According to a new study by the Annals of Internal Medicine, one out of seven Americans used marijuana at some point in 2017. That's 14% of Americans. 8% said they had used marijuana in the last 30 days. Marijuana use was higher in states where the drug had been legalized. The rate of usage in those states was 20% compared to only 12% in states where it remained illegal.

So potentially a factor to keep in mind for states who have not yet legalized it. But did they inhale it? Well, this is one record the U.S. didn't want to beat. the number of cases of three common types of sexually transmitted diseases increased in 2017, according to data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2017 is the fourth year in a row that STDs have increased, and in 2017 alone there were about 2.3 million cases of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis. Furthermore, gonorrhea in recent years has become untreatable by most antibiotics,

with only one left that remains an effective treatment. The reason behind the climb isn't certain, although one factor that Vox put forward was the increase in dating and hookup apps. Well, Buffalo, New York can say goodbye to Catholic adoption and foster services. After 95 years of service in the Buffalo area, Catholic Charities is ceasing adoption and foster-related services because the state no longer allows them to only place children with the father and a mother. The CEO of Catholic Charities in Buffalo, Dennis Walsick, said, quote,

It is with deep sadness we acknowledge that the legacy of the high-quality exceptional services which our staff provides to children and families through foster care and adoption will be lost, end quote. Faith-based adoption providers are facing similar challenges across the country. Groups like the ACLU are suing to force them to either change their policies or get out of the adoption business. Well, the kids aren't all right, at least in California. CBS's Sacramento, California affiliate, reports on a troubling incident in a classroom over a Make America Great Again hat. Yeah, this certainly wasn't your typical high school English class instead of turned into a lesson in politics and criminal justice. Video shows some of the tension inside this high school classroom.

The teacher is trying to subdue a fired-up 17-year-old. senior Joanne Butler hurling curse words after she became enraged at a classmate for wearing a President Trump, make America great again hat and grabbed it off his head. That's a racist and hateful symbol. Joanne Butler is now facing two counts of battery, one against her classmate and another against her teacher who deputies say she slapped as he escorted her out of the room. Butler says she made the scene to express her political beliefs. Maybe he just, wake people up in some type of way because it's not cool, the environment that our classroom is in. So I hope all those liberals who've been pushing the idea that nothing could be more extreme on the Trump

administration feel good about this. Well, up next we'll bring you a discussion with three Republican Attorneys General about their interstate alliance. Well, I have the privilege of being joined here with three State Attorneys General, All Republicans. We have Attorney General Doug Peterson of Nebraska, Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, and Attorney General Alan Wilson of South Carolina. Thank you gentlemen for being with me here. I'd have to be here. You know, over the last several years, folks like myself who follow the news and work in the news business, have seen these cases just one after another being filed jointly by Republican states.

A lot. You may have had a lot of work on your hands. The first question I have to ask is, how did this alliance between Republican state attorney's general emerged during the Obama years. Well, I was elected in 2010 right as the Affordable Care Act litigation was coming to fruition, and that was probably the watershed case where a coalition of more than half the states in the country, I believe it was 27 states, and then 28 if you include Virginia in their lawsuit, basically coalesced around this idea of federalism, and we fought the ACA or Obamacare all

the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now, we ultimately lost in the Supreme Court, but that created a synergy that we took forward to other issues in defense of federalism, religious liberty, and other issues alike. And so that was, really, I think, was the watershed event, in my mind, where the AGs started really coal us. Instead of being separate fiefdoms unto themselves, really started coming together. I would say with that, there were several issues that came up through the Obama administration, actions taken by the EPA, actions taken by the Department of Education. and other places where it was clear. They were going beyond the scope of their authority, and it was affecting states.

And so that very naturally allowed for states to come together collectively to challenge. For example, Waters of the U.S. was an important one for all of us to join in. And so frankly, it was a very proactive administrative state under the Obama administration that I think really caused a lot of this to gain energy after the ACA actions.

actions. Yeah, so Doug and I came in four years later after Alan. I think they sort of put the model in place. I think this guys from that era put the model in place that we ended up following. What was interesting about when Doug and I came in, it picked up. I think under my previous AGs, now the governor of Texas, they sued 31 times in six years. That was Texas. We sued 27 times in two years. So the pressure from the Obama administration kicked up. So it was great that this model of federalism and cooperation among attorneys general to fight this overreach by the federal government had already been put in place because we knew how to do it. And we needed to know how to do it because the pressure from the Obama administration, the overreach, got more intense and more numerous. And we were in a good place to go fighting.

Well, General Peterson, you mentioned the Waters of the United States rule. What are some of the other big cases where you consider the most encouraging wins where this alliance, really succeeded. Well, I think one of the things, some of these battles that we started, once the Trump administration took office, they pulled back on several of their rules. There was the bathroom case, which again was an administrative agency, overreading the law, broadening the scope of the law beyond what any courts had really said, and meanwhile saying, if you don't follow our guidance, we're going to withdraw money from them. I mean, this type of attitude, we have to be on the balls of our feet all the time for different things coming out of D.C.

Now, with the new administration, frankly, they've pulled back. Now, this isn't to say we wouldn't challenge, regardless of whether it's a Republican or a Democrat administration, we're going to protect state rights. But frankly, what we've seen, the EPA is a good example. The EPA is pulled back on the definitions of waters of the U.S. We've seen it in other EPA emission standards, and we think it's more conducive. Prior to the Obama administration, we're going to Proactive approach under EPA laws, there was a lot of difference given to states to manage their environments and it was in the original legislation from the 70s And then what you saw was an Obama administration that said well we're going to expand it through agency action

And right now under the Trump administration obviously they pulled back on that and so right now it's as I said It's not as if we wouldn't pursue an action if we felt they crossed the line again, but we just just not seeing as much activity in that regard. So we got a huge victory in immigration. It was a 26th state coalition. While Obama was in office, I think it was one of his biggest legal setbacks, because it really set the tone for this idea that separation of powers really does matter, that the president can't just come out with an executive order.

And we got that win at the Supreme Court, and we started getting lots of successes against the EPA. We had a win with the overtime rule against the, Department of Labor, we had another persuader rule that we got struck us. We had some successes, even while Obama was there. It was just nice when Trump came in and we still had a lot of cases to go with. We started having them or rescind some of them or revise, and so it's been a much better relationship between the states and the federal government. Well, in the last couple years after the Trump administration, you're seeing maybe a similar intensity on the Democratic side

in the AG, Democratic AGs filing jointly against the administration. What do you do you have a lot of you make of some of those suits? Well, they always say, I don't know what the phrase is flatterers, invitation, greatest form of flattering. And I think that's what's going on here. They're copying our model, but they're not doing it the right way. It's a cheap invitation because what we always fought on was rule law and the Constitution. They are seeking to go to federal judges and have them change the law. They're not out there trying to defend the Constitution. They're actually out they're asking judges to change the law, whether it's state law or federal law, my offices had to deal with a lot of both.

And it's just the new boat. Since the president isn't changing law, they've gone to another way. You know, one of the things I would say is we've had the opportunities. We're not, and it's no surprise, we're not invited to join in these lawsuits by the Democratic AGs, at least I haven't ever had one call me and say, hey, would you consider getting in? this, but I have pulled up their pleadings and to see what is the legal basis for this. And I've been very disappointed of how, what I consider fairly weak, legal arguments. And so it's frustrating because I would say the reason we brought these suits is because

it involved really important constitutional principles that affected how this country goes forward. And when I see the lawsuits currently being filed and the legal principles that are being applied, it's purely appears to be politics, which is frustrating because Republican or Democrat were supposed to uphold the rule of law. No, I'm just going to second what both these guys said. So one thing that I'm going to go back to is that I think it was the lawsuit that Nebraska led that we joined in on the bathroom mandate where they redefined the Civil Rights Act

in 1964 to redefine with sex, meant to be transgender, where they would force, to take these decisions away from local school districts and families. and withhold Title IX funding if they discriminated against transgender students, which no one on the Republican AG side is for discrimination of anybody, especially transgender students. But to rewrite federal law and put a gun to the head of the states was something that we just couldn't tolerate. And we brought that suit, and then right after the president came in,

they rescinded the rule. And I believe that was because of the role that the states were playing. I believe that that really expedited that. Well, obviously one of the things that you deal with is the federal judges appointed by the president, and there are many vacancies on the federal court, and President Trump is working to fill them. What do you make of the progress being made on that front, and are you encouraged by the potential for remaking the judiciary? You know, I can only speak. We recently had a well-respected attorney who used to serve in the Attorney General's office for, I think, 10, 12 years.

appointed to the Eighth Circuit. And I've known him for some time and know that he's someone who fully grasped the importance of the rule of law and upholding the Constitution. So the profile of the judges that I've been seeing on the federal bench, and particularly the circuit courts, is very encouraging to me because it's critical. When you go to try to uphold the Constitution and you have someone who thinks that the Constitution is just this living, breathing document that this particular judge can do whatever he thinks in his or her own mind is best,

it's a very, very frustrating process. And outside, obviously, what the founding father's ever intended. So to that question, I'm very encouraged what we're seeing in federal judgeships. Yeah, we've had four appointments to the Fifth Circuit since Trump came into office. All four came out of the Texas Attorney General's office, so I know them all. And it's remarkable. I would say he's doing, if not the best job, close to the best job I've ever seen of any president, appointing judges that care about the Constitution,

that care about the rule of law, and ultimately we'll make the right call when we're in front of them on the law. And so I'm very encouraged. I think he has done an amazing job with his appointments. He's done a better job of vetting than I've seen since, you know, I've been a lawyer. Yeah, I mean, you look at the nominations of Neil Gorsuch and Chanel Brett Kavanaugh.

I'm incredibly impressed at the highest levels of judiciary. But, you know, I don't have anyone from my office that's been nominated to a federal bench yet, but one of the AUSAs in South Carolina, one of our assistant U.S. attorneys, was just nominated to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and he was the one who prosecuted, if you remember, the massacre in Charleston a few years ago. Yes. To get at the black church down there, Mother Emanuel, and those nine people lost their lives tragically.

He prosecuted that case. He was also a former law clerk to Chief Justice Rehnquist back in the day. So, but I know this, this is a brilliant person, and he's going to be. to make an amazing judge if he's confirmed by the U.S. Senate. So I agree. I concur with what my two colleagues are saying about the president's vetting of these judges. And I'll tell you right now it's so important that we have the kind of people who follow the rule of law strictly.

You know, we were on a panel earlier, and I'll go ahead and cite my good friend Ken Paxson, Attorney General, Texas, who was saying, and I agree with him 1,000 percent, that we have judges right now saying that a current president cannot sign an answer. executive order that rescinds a former president's executive order. And that that is, that is absolutely obscene. We have judges actually, they look themselves in the mirrors and they sign these types of judicial opinions. And so that is why we are desperate to have good people on the bench who are going to follow the rule of law. Well, final question for you, gentlemen, are there any cases that you're working on right now that our listeners should keep an eye on that are going to become sort of the

cutting-edge issues that are making law in the next couple years. We have a hearing tomorrow on DACA. It's wildly controversial because it deals with all kinds of policy decisions that Congress should deal with. And I would say that every Attorney General that's a part of this, we have 10 states involved in this, would agree that this is an issue for Congress. And yet, this is about the rule of law and about the Constitution. And we have a president who admitted that he changed the law, that this wasn't done the right way, and a lot of people want to make an exception because they like the policy,

and yet once we start making those exceptions for a president, it's hard to ever turn that back, and we've opened the door for every president to make law, as opposed to the system that our founder so deeply believed in, which was a separation of powers and not having power in the hands of too few people, and that's what this is about. This is about protecting our people from a tyrannical government and a government that's controlled by a few people.

Yeah, and I, we don't have, In Nebraska, we don't have a present case filed, but I am being concerned in a university setting of how much oppression of free speech and free thought, both for students and for faculty members, that there is this group think that's being demanded of people by the so-called progressives. And it's troubling to me because if there's any place where we should have freedom of debate and ideas, it's in our schools and in our universities. and I'm hearing more anecdotal information of how that's being suppressed in a significant way.

No, I would just concur with what they said. I'm involved, obviously, in the DACA lawsuit. And I tell people oftentimes when you run for Attorney General, you run on a platform where you pick all these issues you're going to run on, and then you realize you don't pick the issues they pick you, and you don't know that you're being picked until it's on top of you. And so who knows what the issue to Juul will be in a year or a month? But we'll be there to enforce the rule of law.

Well, gentlemen, it's quite a lot of lines that you've built, and I appreciate you leading the way in the courts, and for joining me here. All right. Thank you. Are you into storytelling podcasts that help explain some of today's toughest policy issues and debates? Every week on the Heritage Explains podcast, we interview experts, intermingling media clips and personal stories

to help simplify issues from a conservative perspective. Find us on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts. Last month, CNN had a pretty sensational story. Former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen had heard President Trump refer to his son, Don Trump Jr., meeting with Russians to discuss if they had useful info on Hillary Clinton before that meeting occurred. Well, turns out one of the anonymous sources for that CNN story was Lanny Davis, a longtime Washingtonian who is now Cohen's lawyer. According to a report from BuzzFeed, Davis is now essentially retracting that confirmation. However, Davis also acted as an anonymous source to the Washington Post and the New York Post on the same story. CNN told BuzzFeed, quote, we stand by our story and are confident in our reporting of it, end quote.

The story did cite more than one source. However, that's not the only journalistic issues with this particular story. The story also said that Davis did not comment. Well, obviously he did comment to CNN, just not on the record. So, Daniel, would you say this is a big story? It's a bigger story than it's being made out to be. You know, Brett Bayer on Fox News last week kind of made a stink about this saying, hey, you know, the media has not made as big a deal as it should in retracting this.

They obviously acknowledged it, but the initial story was huge. and now the retraction seems relatively small. And frankly, to me, I think this confirms President Trump's concerns about anonymous sourcing. You know, he's complained about it that, you know, you could just be making up sources, and obviously they weren't making up a source. But Lenny Davis clearly felt that because it was anonymous, he wasn't being as accountable as he would have been otherwise. So, you know, I think this is also, this is just a bad, it's bad for Lenny Davis,

bad for his effort to, you know, give Mueller information and to take down President Trump. It's an egg on the media's face, frankly. No, it is. And I think, you know, something in the Daily Signal that we try to do is avoid anonymous sources as much as possible. And stuff like this is part of the reason why. I mean, the other thing, too, is, you know, people have reasons for giving certain tidbits of information. and often that reason, of course, can be related to who they are. It can be related to other motivations. And without knowing who they are, you have none of that context.

You know, Lanny Davis is not some disinterested party at this point. So I think it does speak of, yeah, the need for the media to be careful about anonymous sources. And, you know, something that we try to do in this podcast is acknowledge when we're citing a news story that came from anonymous sources. And I think that's important so that people can make up their own mind, whether they want to trust it or not. So much of this Russian story has relied on unnamed sources. And, you know, as you say, Daniel, when the corrections come, they never seem to quite get the prominence that the original story did. You know, this also makes you wonder how many other, frankly, lies Davis had told to the media. There may be others.

We don't know. It also makes me wonder who are the other anonymous sources that CNN is citing? I mean, they're standing by their original claim that Cohen said this, but they're just now citing other sources and if they're not naming those sources. I wonder who they are. Yeah, I have no idea. I will say, though, I believe Davis stressed that he did not lie, that he misunderstood CNN or CNN misunderstood him. I forget exactly what it's supposed to be, but he did not, he said, at least initially, intentionally lie.

is what he's claiming. Yeah. But yeah, I mean, I think, again, in terms of, like, if a journalist's job is to present someone with the facts and sort of let them decide for themselves to cite the infamous Fox slogan, then that's something that naming sources is really important for. Well, we'll leave it there for today.

Thanks so much for listening to The Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or a rating on iTunes to give us any feedback. We'll see you again tomorrow. You've been listening to the Daily Signal podcast,

executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis, sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visitdailySignal.com.