Boat Strikes, Impeachment Threats & Immigration Judges

0:00So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94 % of common questions. Not noise, proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM. When you're running a business, the best days are the ones where priorities stay on track. For midsize and large companies, risk can affect multiple parts of the organization at once, from property and liability to cyber and regulatory challenges.

0:43At that level, managing risk becomes an ongoing discipline. At the Hartford, the focus is on helping businesses manage risk before it turns into something more disruptive. And when losses do happen, that work is paired with insurance coverage shaped by years of underwriting, risk engineering, and claims experience. Learn more at thehartford.com slash risk mitigation. Policies provided by Hartford Fire Insurance Company and its property and casualty affiliates, Hartford, Connecticut. Game night rush, or any night of the week, really, Genius keeps every order moving. From online ordering to your kitchen to the front counter.

1:20Big league reliability for any business. That's Genius.

1:27This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio. What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service. You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion with a destroyed vessel who are killed by the United States. Congressman Jim Hines, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, described his reaction to video footage of the second attack that killed two survivors after an initial strike on an alleged drug boat in international waters near Venezuela on September 2nd. Admiral Frank Bradley, who oversaw the attack, and General Dan Cain, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed lawmakers today in a closed-door session.

2:23Lawmakers and legal experts have questioned whether a war crime was committed, and two congressional panels have opened inquiries to determine whether Bradley or Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth might be culpable for orders they issued during the operation. After the briefing, Heinz said the admiral confirmed that there had not been a kill-them-all order as reported and that there was not an order to grant no quarter. Admiral Bradley and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did the right thing. And Admiral Bradley defended the decisions taken. And Admiral Bradley has a storied career and he has my respect.

3:08Joining me is Professor Joshua Kastenberg of the University of New Mexico Law School. He was a military judge and lawyer in the U.S. Air Force. Josh, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen said the second strike was an extrajudicial killing amounting to murder or a war crime. What's your analysis of the second strike? So my take on the second strike is partly colored by the fact that the administration has this changing narrative constantly. And the latest narrative that they come up with is implausible, that somehow these men were going to climb back on the vessel and continue on in their cocaine run.

3:50So having said that, look, you know, the United States has convened grand juries for murder on the high seas going back to the War of 1812. And there's a federal statute prohibiting precisely what occurred, you know, murder on the high seas. Now, of course, Trump himself is immune from any criminal liability, thanks to the Supreme Court's decision over a summer ago and, you know, Trump versus United States. But it seems to me that nobody else is immune from that kind of a charge. On the other hand, who's going to pursue it? I don't think the attorney general of the United States is going to differ from the White House's version of events or their own legal reasoning.

4:36One of the things that Hegseth said yesterday was that he left the room. He had other meetings before the second strike. Let's just say that's true. Who's responsible, the commander, Navy Vice Admiral Frank Bradley, who ordered it, or the defense secretary who reportedly approved the overall operation? Well, they all are. And I'm chuckling in a sad kind of way about that claim of Secretary of Defense or Secretary of War Hegseth's answer and claim, because at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter in this regard. You know, coming out of World War I, if not the Civil War, the United States embraced the doctrine of command responsibility.

5:26And we particularly saw that play out in World War II at the Nuremberg and International Tribunal for War Crimes in Tokyo, those trials. And even in U.S. law, when the army under General MacArthur prosecuted General Yamashita, nobody ever alleged that he was the trigger puller or gave an order for his troops to massacre thousands of innocent Filipinos as the United States liberated the island. They prosecuted him for failing to control his troops and for creating the environment where it would be made possible. The only thing in a real rule of law setting that would save Hegseth is if he preferred UCMJ charges against the individual who gave the order.

6:10But I don't think that's going to happen. I think they're all banking on protection from Republican allies in the House and Senate and their favorite go-to media sources and then ultimately presidential pardons, which have now been given to Honduran drug dealers. With the news of this second strike, it seems like attention has been diverted a little from the Trump administration's main campaign against suspected drug smugglers where the military has killed 83 people. What do you think about the legality of the whole campaign? So we are not at war with Venezuela. And the idea that a United States domestic law can reach into Venezuelan waters has no basis.

7:00However, and this is a big caveat, under international maritime law, any nation can stop actions such as piracy or other high crimes that occur on the sea. In order to do that, you have to have absolute correct intelligence that a crime such as international drug trafficking is occurring. And there has to be some sort of agreement among nations that that is occurring. And on top of that, you have to be able to show that what you're doing is consistent proportionality-wise to the crime involved. And the problem with that second aspect of it, the proportionality aspect, is that the United States Coast Guard, which most often does not use that kind of lethal force, does an excellent job of stopping kilo upon kilo upon kilo of cocaine coming into the United States.

8:02They don't catch it all. So, you know, the argument that this is lawful is sort of stretching the realism of law into the Alice in Wonderland of law. Also, yesterday, a Pentagon inspector general's report delivered to lawmakers found that Hegseth's actions in what's been called Signalgate posed a risk to personnel and missions. but again is this going anywhere even if it did well you first of all you'd have to have a member of the house file an article of impeachment the article of impeachment would have to be taken up by a committee then by the house i don't see an appetite for forcing hegseth out through the legislative branch by the republican party now he of course could resign the president could fire him But I don't see an appetite right now for that in the White House either, although that's possible.

9:01In terms of the criminal law of the United States, I don't see any action going against him on that one. At the end of the day, unfortunately, all it is likely to do is to create a historic legacy on the character of Hegseth himself. But it also erodes trust within the department, because if you're a uniform warfighter, you need to have trust in your chain of command. And this certainly erodes it. Let's turn now to the video released last month by six Democratic members of Congress directly addressing active duty military and intelligence personnel. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home.

9:47Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. All six who have military or intelligence backgrounds were just telling service members and intelligence officers what the law is. Yet President Trump has called them traitors and said they were engaging in seditious behavior, punishable by death. Well, first of all, all the members of the House and Senate who made that video said was you have a duty to obey the law. And that includes a duty to disobey unlawful orders.

10:32That's a correct statement of the law. And I don't think that any investigation into those members should ever come up. as a result of them making a correct statement of the law. I think that that concern is real based on this bellicosity that's come out of the White House, and that bellicosity includes the use of the Federalized National Guard in our cities. Apparently, the FBI headquarters is pressuring, this is according to Bloomberg reporting, the Bureau's domestic terrorism agents to open a seditious conspiracy investigation into those six Democratic lawmakers. Yeah. You know, I was asked the other day in the local news if there is precedent for this or precedent for a military investigation into Senator Mark Kelly.

11:29And I said, no, there is not. Not in the United States. There is precedent for it elsewhere. One of the things that the framers of our Constitution and all their genius wanted to do was to create a government that was responsible to the people through the legislative branch. and the last time something like this happened wasn't in the United States. It was before the United States was created. It was Oliver Cromwell using his new model army to pressure parliament to take votes the way that he wanted them to take votes, including the execution of Charles I. We built a constitution to prevent the very thing that apparently the FBI's leadership seems to now think is plausible.

12:21Seditious conspiracy, look, to me, if there's a high crime or misdemeanor, it's the attempt to cower members of Congress from exercising their free speech rights. It's not the exercise of those free speech rights themselves. Is it sort of absurd to claim that, you know, under that statute that this was seditious conspiracy? Again, I go back to my Alice in Wonderland quote. Yes, in the rule of law, it certainly is that you need to go back to the Civil War, and you can look at members of Congress, slaveholder like Benjamin Gwynne Harris from Maryland, or a pacifist like Alexander Long, who gave anti-war speeches, and in Harris's case, who actually gave a prayer on the floor of Congress for a Southern victory.

13:13And at no time were those two sitting members of Congress investigated or prosecuted by the Lincoln administration. I know there are people who say, well, what about Van Landingham? But Van Landingham was no longer in Congress. And even that episode has been condemned today. So no, I mean, this, you know, every time you and I speak about the administration, I say, well, they're pushed the envelope. But on this particular case, this truly is, it's beyond absurd. It's truly an affront to the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the ability of members of Congress to represent their constituents on the very fundamental positions that a majority of their constituents elected them to do.

14:00Again, it goes back to the pre-revolutionary days, the mentality of Cromwell and the rule of the major generals and the dictatorship of the mid 1600s in Britain, the very thing we had a revolution against. Thanks so much, Josh. That's Professor Joshua Kastenberg of the University of New Mexico Law School. Coming up next, why do Republicans keep filing articles of impeachment against judges they disagree with? This is Bloomberg. So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need.

14:38Now, a global workforce of 300 ,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94 % of common questions. Not noise, proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business, IBM. Support for the show comes from Public. Public is an investing platform that offers access to stocks, options, bonds, and crypto. And they've also integrated AI with tools that can assist investors in building customized portfolios. One of these tools is called Generated Assets. It allows you to turn your ideas into investable indexes.

15:16So let's say you're interested in something specific like biotech companies with high R &D spend, small cap stocks with improving operating margins, or the S &P 500 minus high debt companies. Chances are there isn't an ETF that fits your exact criteria. But on public, you just type in a prompt and their AI screens thousands of stocks and build a one-of-a-kind index. You can even backtest it against the S &P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Go to public.com slash market and earn an uncapped 1 % bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com slash market.

15:58SEC Registered Advisor. Crypto services by zero hash. Sample prompts are for illustrative purposes only, not investment advice. All investing involves risk of loss. See complete disclosures at public.com slash disclosures. This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Apple Card is designed with your iPhone in mind, making it easy to get started and even easier to use. Apple Card is a no-fee credit card you can apply for right from the Wallet app on your iPhone. Apple Card has no annual fee, no late fees, and no foreign transaction fees. No fees, period. Every credit card should be this easy. Get started in the Wallet app today.

16:34Subject to credit approval, variable APRs for Apple Card range from 17.49 % to 27.74 % based on credit worthiness. Rates as of January 1, 2026. Existing customers can view their variable APR in the Wallet app or at card.apple.com. Apple Card is issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch. Terms and more at applecard.com. I am right now calling on the House of Representatives to impeach Judge Bozberg. Republican Senator Ted Cruz has been on something of a crusade to impeach judges who issue decisions he doesn't agree with. Not only calling for the impeachment of Judge James Bozberg, the chief judge of the district court for the D.C.

17:12Circuit, but also Maryland Judge Deborah Boardman. Cruz even scheduled a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing entitled Impeachment, Holding Rogue Judges Accountable, although that hearing scheduled for Wednesday was abruptly canceled on Wednesday morning. Cruz isn't alone. Republicans have filed a wave of impeachment resolutions this year against judges they disagree with, despite the fact that only 15 judges have faced impeachment since 1805 and none since 2010. More than 50 retired federal judges appointed by presidents of both parties are warning that using impeachment as a tool for political retaliation against judges is a dangerous violation of constitutional norms and judicial independence.

18:05My guest is retired federal appellate judge Paul Michel, who is on the D.C. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Michelle, why do you think Republicans are continuing to call for the impeachment of federal judges when it's so highly, highly unlikely that a judge would be impeached? So why go through this effort? Well, June, I think that there is a campaign underway that seems intended to intimidate judges to try to shatter their independence and their ability to rule impartially under the law. It's an attempt to influence their decisions, which is completely improper. Under our constitutional system, judges are intended to be impartial, independent of both the Congress and the executive branch.

18:59It's worked well for nearly 250 years, and there's no basis that makes any sense for departing from that tradition and those precedents now. I think the Republican members who are participating in this kind of a campaign are just reacting to pressure from the administration and worries about re-election and contributions and the like. But that's not a good excuse because they know full well that disagreement with a ruling by a judge is not a proper ground for impeachment or removal from office. It's not even close to a proper ground because the Constitution itself spells out explicitly what the proper grounds are.

19:46and as you know the phrase is treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and clearly a judicial ruling applying the law as best the judge can is none of those things and therefore not even close to being a candidate for impeachment, much less trial in the U.S. Senate. So I think it's basically an exercise in intimidation, a publicity stunt, and not a serious effort. And it's not responsible. And worse than that, it's harmful to the country because it shakes the confidence of all American citizens in the independence and rectitude of the courts. And everybody in the end depends on the courts to protect their rights.

20:37So everybody has a stake in this, not just rich people or big corporations. Every individual citizen is threatened if the courts rule under political coercion rather than the steady precedence of statutes and higher court rulings. So this is really a very big deal, a very big turning point for the country. And for two centuries and more, we haven't had this. We've only had a total of 13 judges impeached, and about seven were convicted at Senate trial. And in every case, it was for plainly serious crimes, like outright money bribery. Sorry to say that a judge was guilty of such conduct, but a few have been over the 200 years.

21:24But this is totally different. This has nothing to do with high crimes. This is high politics. So judges are human. Do you think that any of them, perhaps concerned for their safety, the safety of their families, are being intimidated in some way? Well, there's certainly efforts to try to intimidate them and coerce them and affect their rulings. And you're quite correct to put emphasis not only on the judges, but on their families. The judges have had various forms of harassment, over 100 cases of unordered pizzas being delivered, often late at night. In many cases, the pizza deliveries have cited the name of the murdered son of a judge in New Jersey, Esther Salas.

22:10Her son answered the door. She was obviously the target of the assassin, but the son happened to answer the door and was shot and killed. Judge Salas' husband was critically wounded. Fortunately, the judge herself was not, but the whole thing was a horror show. And so when today's judges get pizzas in the name of Daniel Anderle, it's a message. They know Daniel Anderle was the murdered son of a fellow judge. And judges tell us that they knew when they took the job. And, of course, all judges are volunteers. No one has to be a judge. It's a high honor. and you know you're going to be unpopular with a lot of people.

22:50That's in the nature of the job. You know you'll be criticized in the media. You know that there will be parties who will be very unhappy with your ruling. Sometimes both parties are unhappy. Always one party, the losing party, is extremely unhappy. And often there is criticism from many other people. Judges all know that. They accept that. What they can't accept is serious threats. So, for example, when the SWAT team shows up at a judge's house at midnight based on a malicious false report of a shooting in progress, it scares the devil out of the whole family and upsets the judge. So it's not just pizza deliveries.

23:30It's also SWAT teams. It's also vicious death threats, phone calls, text messages. And even the children of some judges have been harassed on their way to school by fanatical individuals who've been inflamed by extreme rhetoric on social media, including some of it coming from high government officials and members of the Congress, which is just despicable and very unfortunate. it. We've never had that before in this country, and we shouldn't tolerate it now. Speaking of members of Congress, Senator Ted Cruz, who leads the subcommittee, has called for the impeachment of Judge James Boesberg, a judge whom the attorney general has called out by name.

24:16Why do you think Boesberg has been repeatedly targeted? Well, he's one of a number of judges who's ruled in cases involving challenges to the lawfulness of administration actions. And like some of the other judges, not in every case, but in some cases, they've ruled that the law was violated by the administration. And in Judge Boesberg's case, Chief Judge Boesberg, I should say, it was more than one case that upset the administration. Now, as to Senator Cruz, Senator Cruz is an exceptionally smart individual, a very well-qualified lawyer of great experience. He's an absolutely superb advocate and was the leading solicitor for the state of Texas before he became a senator.

25:06He was a White House lawyer before that, and you know the rest of his biography. He knows better. He knows these are not impeachable offenses. He knows it clearly. So I can only guess that he's acting for other motives not to apply the law of impeachment. Again, whether it's the hearings threatened by Chairman Cruz of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the courts, or whether it's somebody in the White House or the Justice Department, these threatening verbal attacks cause real danger to judges. The Marshal Service has vetted and declared that there are hundreds of serious threats, not just crank threats.

25:51We're used to crank threats. That's not so serious. But serious threats and dangers. As you know, Justice Kavanaugh had a would-be assassin armed on his block prowling around looking for Justice Kavanaugh, and that individual is recently convicted and sentenced. So the dangers are really quite real. Now, you asked a very good question earlier. Are the judges actually being intimidated in the sense that they're changing their ruling from what they would normally rule. I don't know of any instance of that so far, but the pressure campaign has been going on. It started years ago. This is not only under the present administration, but it has ramped up dramatically in the last 10 months.

26:36And ultimately, judges, however courageous and committed they are, and I think they are both to a man, to a woman. We're not perfect, but we are devoted to the country. That's why instead of making a lot of money in a big fancy law firm or corporation, we became judges at far, far lower salaries. It's an honor to serve the people. I did it for 22 years. I loved every day of it, and all the judges talk about it that way. But ultimately, judges too are human, And if they feel like their family members are terrified and their children are being harassed and there are death threats coming in that the Marshal Service evaluates as serious, at some point, humans are going to have a stress point of failure, just like a wing on an airplane.

27:24You know, enough stress and you can break anything, particularly when it's elongated over time. And that's what we're seeing here. So, yeah, they're holding up fine now. But can we be assured they'll continue to hold up fine if this pressure campaign, which keeps escalating, goes on and on and on? And the Article III Coalition, of which I'm a part, as you know, it's an arm of Keep Our Republic, a pre-existing charitable civics education organization that's been in operation for about five years. The coalition is new just this year. It has 52 retired judges, both trial and appellate, as members.

28:03And incidentally, about half of them were appointed by Republican administrations and the other half by Democratic administrations. So it's totally balanced. And it's really non-political because it's a group of people devoted to the rule of law, not the rule of any one man or woman. So this is a very dramatic moment for the country to come to grips with, and I'm very hopeful that the unbroken tradition and precedent of 250 years will carry forward and be honored by everybody in power now, and hopefully the really vicious rhetoric, really inflammatory rhetoric of people being called leftist lunatics and people who hate America and rogue judges or activist judges.

28:49If a judge is ruling on the basis of personal politics, that would be fair to say that's an activist judge. You could also say it's a completely improper judge betraying their oath. But if a judge rules against an administration because of a statute, it's the job of the judge to interpret the statute and apply it. And if the judge finds that the administration's action is contrary to law, the judge is obligated to so rule and to impose remedies, including injunctions. That's not being activist. That's not being rogue. It's actually just a judge doing the normal thing that judges do every single day.

29:30That's actually their job. So instead of being castigated, they should be respected. You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to like them. You don't have to like their ruling. You can criticize them, including in strong terms in public. And that's a constitutional right of everybody. But to foment violence against judges is just beyond any reasonable line. Thanks so much for joining me today, Judge. That's retired Judge Paul Michel of the D.C. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Coming up next, why the Trump administration is firing so many immigration judges. This is Bloomberg.