This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosse from Bloomberg Radio.
The new head of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division is upending the mission of the division, which traditionally has been to protect Americans against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sets, and national origin. Harmeit Dillon has abandoned landmark civil rights settlements and has changed the division's focus to combating anti semitism, rooting out anti Christian bias, fighting diversity initiatives, and protecting gun rights. It's led to a mass exodus of attorneys
from the division. In an interview with conservative commentator Glenn Beck, Dylan said that more than one hundred division attorneys out of three hundred and eighty have already said they'll leave.
I think that's fine, because we don't want people in the federal government who feel like it's their pet project to go personute police departments based on statistical evidence, or persecute people praying outside abortion facilities instead of doing violence. That's not the job here. The job here is to enforce the federal civil rights laws, not woke ideology.
Joining Me is Bloomberg Law, reporter Suzanne Mognac start by telling us about the history of this division and its purpose.
The Civil Rights Division is part of the Justice Department that was created in nineteen fifty seven as part of the Civil Rights Act that year, and it was really originally at its time intended to protect the right to vote. This is a big problem in SOLF at the time with protecting black residents from being blocked from the polls,
and that was sort of the original mission of the unit. Obviously, now it's expanded and it enforces all of the civil rights laws that protect people from being discriminated against based on their sex, their gender, disability, religion, etc.
Are they dropping any existing litigation or settlements by the prior administration?
Are they dropping anything?
Quite a lot, Yes, they're dropping a lot. We've seen withdrawals of consent decrees and just you know, removing themselves
from pending litigation. In a lot of different areas that the Biden era Civil Rights Division had handled, One notable one that got quite a lot of traction was an environmental case actually that had been focused on sewage issues in Black Delta and Alabama, where residents have been found to have been discriminated against by their county because they didn't have proper sewage systems, and it had created a health risk for residents in those communities, and that was
something that the Trump administrations decided to withdraw from that settlement. And so we've really just seen a lot of withdrawals of settlements but just don't align with what the Trump administration's missions are when it comes to the types of civil rights that they're interested in enforcing.
In that Alabama case, the settlement had already been reached, right, that's correct, So now what is the general new mission statement?
The Justice Department had actually sent out new mission statements for the civil rights divisions different sections. To take it broadly, a lot of the common threads that we saw throughout the new section mission statements were a focus on anti semitism, really specifically on college campuses, but focus on protecting women from quote unquote gender ideology, and really specifically what that is is preventing transgender women from participating in women's sports.
And we're also seeing just a focus on opposing DEI and that's obviously an issue that we've seen kind of throughout the new Trump administration. Diversity equity and inclusion efforts that we might see in universities or elsewhere.
Like the Housing and Civil Enforcement section, What did they do and what are they now going to do?
So Housing and Civil Enforcement primarily would take on the Fair Housing Act, which is a civil rights statue that prevents discrimination and housing. So, for example, refusing to rent an apartment to somebody because of their race would be a classic example of housing discrimination that they would go after.
What we saw in the new Mission statement was actually no made of the Fairhousing Act, and I think that was something that was significant for people following was that landmark civil rights law in housing is not even mentioned
as a priority, and it's misinstatement. And said, I think what we're going to see a lot of from this section is religious land use issues, so churches who want to get a permit or something for a certain amount of land and that they're claiming that they're being discriminated against, which has always been a mission of that section, to be clear, But I think we're going to see more of a focus on religious institutions in helping discrimination really,
particularly probably Christian institutions, since anti Christian bias is actually another tenant that we've seen kind of throughout the different sections as a core mission for this division.
But the division has always handled cases involving anti Christian bias.
Anti Christian bias with any religious bias has always been within the mandate of Civil Rights Division, and absolutely in instances of anti Christian bias in the past, we would have seen prior administrations take those on. What I heard from a lot of former Justice Department officials who came from this division was that the New Times administration was somewhat of an outcome oriented approach when it comes to
these issues. So I spoke to one former division official who told me that when they wanted to take a look at religious discrimination issues, they didn't start with a religion. They went around the country and talk to different communities to try to learn which religions they felt had been most affected at the time. This was during the Obama administration. He said. The research said them that Islamophobia was actually one of the most significant religious discrimination issues at that time.
And so I've been Anti Christian Bias task Force for example, it was something that had happened recently. It shows that they're really interested in probing anti Christian bias, but it doesn't necessarily say that that is the most prevalent iss you have religious discrimination. So of course you know, I haven't done this market research as a reporter, I could not tell you, you know, exactly why that anti Christian bias
stacks up against other religions. People can maybe take a guest to face on their own communities that which they're seeing the most of. But I just think it sort of says something that they're starting with that I'm starting with anti Christians as opposed to, you know, maybe taking a broader look and seeing where were the problems are.
And I think that's some criticism that former Justice Department officials have had as they take a look at this, that perhaps they're going in with an ideology that they're wanting to play out as opposed to going in with a problem and seeing where it is.
There's also the Educational Opportunities Section, which used to ensure that educational facilities are not discriminating against minorities.
What is its mission now?
So a huge part of what I think the new mission will be on the Educational Opportunity section is going to be a lot of transgender athletes and sports, and anti semitism on college campuses. These are issues for the Trump administration. More broadly, we've seen the Department of Education initiating investigations or sending letters to universities regarding investigations into anti Semitism on college campuses. Justice Department has opened one
into the University of California on this issue for example. Obviously, we've seen this crack down very broadly. I mean, the State's Department has revoked visas from students who were involved in protests against the Israel Homos war. And that's a broad priority for the administration, and I think it's really going to play out in this Educational Opportunities section of the Civil Rights Division when it comes to seeing it
as a religious discrimination issue. And then of course the transgender issue I think will also be a big one for that division. With college sports, there's been a lot of pushback on the right on the idea of transgender women participating in women's sports is being unfair to non transgender women, and so I think that's an issue that we can expect this division and in the Education section to really be taking on.
And then the Special Litigation Section, what did that do and what does it do now?
So the Special Litigation Section does take on a lot. They have a fairly broad mandate. Some of the cases that we've seen them do in the past are police brutality cases, cases for people who are incarcerated. We've also seen them take on space SAX cases, which are free to have access to clinic entrances. And so this is for example, would be protesters blocking people from entering abortion clinics for example. We certainly are not going to expect to see a law of enforcement of Face Act on
abortion protesters for life protesters outside of clinics. Specifically, in the new mission statements, they indicated that they do not want to see disparate treatment of pro life protesters, prayer visuals outside of abortion clinics, et cetera. That's something we've heard the political appointee Harmet Dillon has ever seen the division. That's something we've heard her say. So I think that's
something we're going to see a lot less of. One investigation that we've seen from the special Litigation section that's very new, I'm told for this division is actually one into gun rights. We've seen that section take on the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department on processing delays with concealed carry permits and whether that's an issue of discrimination. And so, while you know this is still within the broad mission of the Special Litigation Section. We haven't really seen civil
rights be used for gun rights. So that's just kind of a new, I guess interpretation of the dissection's mandate, but also part of the Trump administration's broader mission. Like they've made clear that Second Amendment right to bear arms is an important one for them.
So, I mean, you have the Civil Rights Division litigating basically against transgender women, litigating about delays in processing gun permits. One employee you talked, you said, they're demolishing the Civil Rights Division and repurposing it for something it's not meant to do. Are they basically abandoning almost everything the Civil Rights Division was known for, like you know, police brutality cases or discrimination against minorities. It seems like it's just a totally different focus.
It does appear though, that may be the direction that's going. I think racial discrimination cases in particular, it seem like they're going to be deprioritized as something I'm really hearing across the board, and we've seen it in action. We've
seen them withdraw settlements in racial discrimination cases. One of the first things that we saw this division do a few months ago was to withdraw settlements in racial discrimination cases against police departments regarding incidents past, and so I think sure that racial discrimination is going to be a lower priority for this division, and we're going to see more focus on the issues that we talked about on
anti Semitism, anti transgender and I DEI. And yes, that is a radical departure, I'm told from what that division has been doing in the past. And so what we're seeing out of that is just like widespread exodus of career officials who have devoted their lives and careers to civil rights enforcement, who just really don't see the current mission as in line with their values and how they see civil rights enforcement and how it should be.
And how many division attorneys have said they're leaving.
We're still waiting on those exact final numbers. Employees had until April twenty eighth to let the division leaders know if they wanted to take the differred resignation offers. This was the second offer, second opportunity they had to take somewhat of a buyout where they could go on leave for a few months and then formally separate in the fall. So we're still remains to be seen on exactly the
damage that's going to be done. But Harmie Dillon went on a podcast over the weekend and said she expected over a hundred attorneys out of that three hundred something attorney section to leave, which is significant, And obviously you know there's still a couple of days for people to get those requests in. Maybe not all have been approved. I think it's very possible, maybe even likely from what I'm hearing that it may be well over one hundred employees.
I think half is absolutely within the realm of possibility.
Are these career attorneys resigning themselves or are they being pushed out?
It's a mix. We saw a flu of reassignments, quite a few section chiefs, section deputy chiefs of the various section we've talked about who were reassigned to complaint education or FOYA offices, which we're seen as a lower tier of work. I think for a lot of those people, and that certainly with an effort to push them out by reassigning them to something different that they didn't sign up to do. I think a lot of these people are going to see the writing on the wall and
take the deferred resignation offer. And some of those people who take the deferred resignation, weren't reassigned. They just maybe see what the division is doing and it's not what they want to be doing, so they've decided best to go take the out now. So it's sort of a mix, and we've seen that across the board of the Justice Department. That will see some leaders be given a reassignment that's
maybe seen as less appealing. And when sometimes I think when somebody's boss or longtime manager is reassigned or decides to leave, they can create a morale issue below them, and a lot of the people who maybe work under them and have really respected their work might fee less inclined to stay.
I found your story really eye opening, Suzanne, thanks so much for joining me tonight. That's Bloomberg Law reporter Suzanne Monnac. The American legal system is being tested during President Donald Trump's first one hundred days in office and unprecedented blits of lawsuits filed against the administration's policies more than two hundred lawsuits in courts across the country over just about every aspect of his agenda, from spending to immigration to
firing of federal workers and government officials. Trump has complained about the judges who are keeping him from carrying out his agenda. Here in an interview with ABC News yesterday, we have to be treated fairly by judges, and we're not being treated fairly by all judges. Critics say the Trump administration has not been following all court orders, and a Supreme Court showdown over the president's powers appears inevitable.
Joining me is Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County state attorney.
Dave Trump is.
Averaging about two lawsuits filed against his administration for every day he's been in office. That's unprecedented.
This is because President Trump has decided to govern by executive order as opposed to do the normal thing of going to Congress and getting your agenda adopted. So for people who think he's acting like a king, perhaps, but I think it's a sign of weakness that he can't act like a president and get your agenda through the
legislative branch. FDR did. And the reason why Trump is doing this is because he's got a razor thin majority of Republicans in the House, knowing that it would be really difficult to pass on this very controversial legislation through and the filibuster in the Senate would block his legislation as well, So he is trying to go over the heads of Congress, and he's being assisted by the fact that Congress has advocated its role as a separate, coequal
branch of government. So it's up to the judiciary to stand firm and to provide the checks and balances that a democracy requires, and so far they have, they have provided the guardrails. So that's why you're seeing so many lawsuits. That's why you're seeing so many laws in court for Trump. That would change if he decided to govern through legislation rather than executive order, but there's no sign he's going to stop.
There are cases in all different areas. There is you know, government spending and DEI policies and all kinds of things. The cases that have gotten the most attention are the immigration cases.
Why do you think there is so many cases in that area?
I mean, is it because they're testing how far they can.
Go to his top priority? So immigration is the most important issue for him, and he knows that's the reason why he got elected. So he got elected for two reasons. Inflation in the southern border, immigration, and so far he has not been able to lower prices because the president has very little to do with inflation, although his positive
caused increase in prices through tariffs. So he's relying instead on the southern border and immigration, and so he's been extra aggressive on that issue because that's his bread and butter. But in so doing he is running a foul of due process because the president is not a king. And even though this obscure Alien Enemies Act from the eighteenth century exists, it is rarely invoked, and when it is invoked, it doesn't give the present unilateral authority to deport anyone
without due process. And the courts are reminding him of that. Now, Trump, instead of just abiding by court rulings, is trying to evade them. Importantly, he has not said that he has openly defined court rulings, and I think that's important. That's why I don't believe we're in a constitutional crisis. Yet the day that he says I'm going to defy the court's rulings, that's when it's coo, that's when we have a constitutional crisis. But that day hasn't come yet. He's
paying lip service to it. He's saying he's abiding by court rulings even though he's playing games with him. But still the fact that he is saying he respects the Supreme Court and will abide by the rulings does mean something.
Yeah, and Trump did say that he follows the laws again today in the Oval Office when he was asked about the case of the marilynd Man Kilmar Arbrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to l Salvador.
I don't know.
I haven't spoken to him.
I really leave that to the lawyers, and I take my advice from Pam and everybody that has very much involved. They know the laws, and we followed the laws exactly. One of the first judges that Trump has all doubt is the chief judge in the DC Courts, Judge James Boseburg, and he's the one that oversaw that high profile challenge to the deportation flights of Venezuelans to El Salvador. Trump has called him highly conflicted, a troublemaker and agitator, a
grand standard, and even a radical left lunatic. He's used some of those similar names against judges who were in charge of the cases. The criminal case is against him. What does it do to have though the President calling judges a radical left lunatic and calling for their impeachment.
Well, it got the admonition from Chief Justice Roberts. Chief Office Roberts rarely speaks out on stuff like this, but he did saying that if you disagree with the judges ruling, the recourse is not to try to impeace the judge, and by implication, not to bass the judge, but to appeal the judge. And that meant something because because Trump knows that his bread is buttered by the Supreme Court, that's who gave him unprecedented immunity. That's a big reason
why he was elected. He was able to avoid criminal trial during the campaign, So he owes the Supreme Court a lot, and that's why he didn't push back when Chief Justice Roberts scolded him. So, although it is a very maga thing to bash judges, you haven't seen it as vitriolic as it seemed to go. Right now, it seems like the rhetoric has died off a little bit, and I think that's because Chief Justice Roberts had to step in and remind Trump that he is out of line.
And Trump, who's purely transactional, does not want to upset the Chief Justice of the most important court in the land.
So Judge Bosberg, actually two judges are investigating whether the Trump administration defied their orders. As you say, Trump repeatedly says he always obeys court orders.
But when the government.
Flew those Venezuelans to El Salvador, Judge Boseburg paused the deportations and told the government to turn the planes around. He ruled on April sixteenth that the government demonstrated a willful disregard for his order for not turning the flights or ordering their return from l Salvador, and that none of their responses have been satisfactory. So Judge Bosburg could be on the way to finding someone in the Trump administration in contempt.
Could be. So far, no one has been found in the content. But what has happened is that the US Supreme Court, in extraordinary ruling on a Saturday at one am, came in and put the kebash on Trump's deportations of
Venezuelans to El Salvador. And that was even though the case really hadn't come to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court stepped in without really clear jurisdiction, even though the appellate court, the lower Court, the Circuit had not even ruled, So that to me showed that the Supreme Court isn't messing around, that they actually believed that Trump was going to violate Bozburg's order, that Trump was dumbing his nose at the judiciary, and so they had to
step in. And so Trump is at risk of losing the Supreme Court he needs so badly because he's Tustas Roberts and amy Cony Barrett are the two most important justices, and in that Saturday one am ruling, it was not only they who ruled to halt the deportations, but also Kavanaugh and Corse. It so all three justices appointed by Trump ruled against the Trump administration. And so that's why it's more than just holding Trump in contempt in his
administration and contempt. It's also actions like we saw at one am on Saturday by the Supreme Court that shows that the courts are pushing back.
Let's just say Judge Bozburg finds a Trump administration official in contempt, I mean, what would really happen? Couldn't Trump pardon anyone charged with contempt?
Yes, criminal contempt. Trump could step in, but he can also just disregard the court's order. I mean, the court's orders are enforced by the Martial Service, and the martial Service is under the executive branch, and so be up to the Department of Justice to go along, and you have to believe that they won't. Now, there are some rare cases where the court could appoint like a local sheriff to round someone up, but I think that's not going to happen. Could Trump step in and mess around
with it, Yes, that's a federal crime. He could pardon someone. But really the big stick that the court holds is really in the court of public opinion. The public overwhelming opposes disobeying court rulings. They don't want to see the executive branch disobeying the court ruling. And now we'll hurt Trump in the court of public opinion. Plus, as I mentioned, the Supreme Court could come in and just say no, no more, We're going to stop all your deportations for now.
Even if we don't have jurisdiction, we're going to step in. So that's a punishment itself. Now if we go down further and say, well, what if Trump just says that now we're going to defy the Supreme Court, Well, that's the conserttional crisis, that's the coup, and I don't think the public would tolerate that.
Yes, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe the Trump administration should follow court orders. According to a poll from Pew Research that came out last week. Most Americans seventy eight percent say the Trump administration has to follow lower court orders, and eighty eight percent say the administration has to follow Supreme Court rulings.
And Dave, what do you.
Think about the Attorney General Pam Bondi making frequent appearances on Fox criticizing court orders and judges. I've never seen an AG behave like that, you know, I have.
Been surprised at the dialogue coming from DOJ. I've never seen an attorney general on the cable news shows like that. But there's nothing that says you can't. This is the Trump administration norms. So although we've never seen it before, there's nothing illegal about it. It's just something that we're not used to. And even though I know her very well, she and I have different political views, and I always knew I'd be disagreeing with a lot of the things
that she was going to do. But as far as whether this is just wrong for her to go on to me. Now, no, I mean, she's taken a very transparent way to talk about things in front of millions of people, But the dialogue that comes out of it is very partisan. It's very pro Trump. But the voters chose a Trump loyalist who be attorney general when they voted for Trump. The other alternative was Kamala Harris, who ran on in part the independence of the attorney general
and the independence of the judiciary, and she lost. And so elections have consequences, and that's the reason why we shouldn't be too surprised to see Trump's attorney general on Fox News and serving essentially as the president's lawyer. He campaigned on that. He said he wanted that I could have been a lot worse. You could have had Matt Gates, who I believe would have locked up Donald Trump's political enemies for political purposes.
Talk about stress on the system. Coming up next, the deportation case that won't go away. This is bloomberg. One legal battle against the Trump administration seems to have eclipsed the others. The wrongful deportation of kilmore Arbrigo Garcia to l Salvador. The Trump administration has said in the past that they have no power or plans to bring Garcia back, but according to several reports, Secretary of State Marco Rubio
has been in touch with l Salvador's president about Garcia. However, during a cabinet meeting today, Rubio refused to discuss whether there's been any such contact.
Well, I will never tell you that, and you know who also, I'll never tell any judge because the conduct of our foreign policy belongs to the President of the United States and the executive branch, not some judge. So we will conduct foreign policy appropriately if we need to.
But I'll never.
Discussing, and no one will over her to make us discussing. That's how foreign policy works.
I've been talking to Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney. Dave.
The judge had.
A demand for the government to share evidence about Garcia. She put that off until April thirtieth because it seems like the government may be coming around on that.
So that case is still muddled because you have the US President and the Secretary of State and the Attorney General saying that it's out of our hands. It's up to the president ofl Salvador. But it's clear that if Trump wanted a Bregio Garcia back, he would be on the next plane back in first class if that was their request. After all, the Trump administration in the United States government is paying for his incarceration. We're paying for
El Salvador keeping these individuals behind bars. And Christy Nome, the Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, said that El Salvador's prison is a in our toolbox. Well, if it's one of our tools, you can use those tools and you can use it to fix things. So I think ultimately the courts are going to have to get a little more specific about pushing the United States government to
get Abrego Garcia back. The Supreme Court softened the language of the district court and said, instead of effectuating his return, they need to facilitate it. Facilitate is not as strong of a word as effectuating it. So the Supreme Court tried to get everyone together unanimously, which it did nine zero ruling saying kumbaya and say, okay, can we all at least live with the facilitating language. But that relies
on the good faith of the Trump ministration. So when the Trump administration says, yeah, facilitate means we'll send a plane if the presidentl Salvador deports him, and he's not going to do so, so what are we going to do? That's not good enough for the Supreme Court. That is a reason I believe the Supreme Court stepped in in this extraordinary Saturday one am ruling. This was their way
to say, we don't trust you anymore. So the ball is going to be in the trumpdministration's court, and Judge Zinnis is also getting impatient.
Trump has already filed eleven emergency requests with the Supreme Court, which is more than that during the combined sixteen years of George W. Bush and Barack Obama's administrations. And we're still waiting for the court to rule or decide whether to take a lot of those cases.
So there's a lot going on in the shadow docket. So we'll see. I mean, we've never been down this road before. We've never seen this kind of thing before, and so that's why I'm not surprised that the Supreme Court does things that we've never seen before.
So now let's talk about the tariff situation and the Democratic Ags, A group of Democratic AGS are suing Trump over the tariff, saying they have upended the constitutional order and brought chaos to the American economy. There are several suits over the tariff. So why would the AGS bother to sue.
Well, it's a coalition. You have Democratic ags and you have from the business community. They're suing because Trump, if he wants to impose tariffs, needs to go to Congress. But there is a law similar to the Alien Enemies Act. There's a law from the seventies that permits a president to put on emergency punishment emergency sanctions on governments that are rogue. But it does not say in that law that terriffs are a possibility. It's not a sanctioned listed
in the list of sanctions in that law. So number one, the lawsuit says, even if you invoke this law in case of emergency, you can't use terrorists. That's not an arrow in your quiver according to the statue. And number two, is it really an emergency? Is it an emergency a crisis situation when you are trying to overturn decades of trade and balances. If you have a problem with the American policy or something has been going on for decades. That's not a crisis emergency. It's not like you have
to have emergency powers. You have to go to Congress and change policy. So I think that these attorneys general have a very good argument. I think that their lawsuit will prevail, at least in part, to slow down these tariffs. Trump will have to go to Congress if he wants to get them through, but Congress doesn't want them. They see how damaging these things are. Maybe one day we'll have a Congress that actually works, that actually doesn't just
emasculate itself. But for now, the Congress is just scared to do anything. But that day could change once prices go way up and Trump's poll numbers go way down.
They're arguing that this is effectively massive taxes on Americans.
It definitely is. I mean, these tariffs are not paid by foreign governments. They're paid by the importers, and the importers pass it along to the consumers. And you saw how Amazon wanted its consumers, its customers to know why all of a sudden prices are going up, and they were going to list it as here is the cost of tariffs. And then Trump called Jeff Bezos and say,
how dare you? And then Jeff Bezos did what a lot of billionaires and big law firms have been doing lately, and and so they will not report the specific itemized tariff costs. But the public is not stupid when their goods go up. There's only so much blame you can give to Joe Biden and DEI and all these other things. At some point people are gonna put two and two
together and know that it's because of terror policy. Why all of a sudden the stuff that they need that's being imported from other countries is now much more expensive.
A White House spokesman said the Democrats are prioritizing a witch hunt against President Trump over protecting the safety and well being of their constituents. But any lawsuit could take months or even years, and it would come likely after the ninety day pause.
Courts could act more quickly. Think it is a strategy, as you know, for Trump and Maggot, to delay, delay, delay, But I think the courts are onto them. They've been through this before.
So you're in Florida, let's talk about your governor Ron DeSantis, who's term limited and he's promoted his wife to be the next governor, and that.
Is setting up a showdown between the DeSantis wing of the party in Florida and the Trump wing of the party because Trump has endorsed Byron Donald's, a mega congressman, to be the next governor. And that's why the knives
are out for Casey DeSantis. She has a charity, the Hope Foundation of Florida, that allegedly received a ten million dollar donation from Senteen, a medicaid provider, a vendor who overcharged the state and so as part of their penalty, they had to pay a certain amount to the state and ten million dollars of that went to Hope Foundation, and then a ten million dollar donation went from the Hope Foundation to tax controlled by DeSantis's people to run
ads against the marijuana referendum that was on the ballot, and the marijuana referendum lost in a close election. And people are saying, well, it is not illegal to take money was meant for the state's medicaid program and put it into your own political coffers. The DeSantis folks are saying that was extra money, that was an extra contribution that was not part of the medicaid penalty. And the Republicans are doing a lot of the investigation here. He
may be wondering, why are the Republicans investigating this? Because Ron DeSantis is a lame duck. His term ends in twenty twenty six, he can't run for governor again. There's not a lot of good feelings amongst Republicans towards the governor who has rules with an iron fist, and now that he's a lame duck, they're getting some revenge and press. Most importantly, Donald Trump runs the Republican Party nationally and in Florida, and they want to please the Boss, so
they're going to side with him and Byron. Donald's over Ron. In case of Dystantus, this whole controversy was not generated by Democrats. There aren't enough democrats in Tallahassee in our government to make us think about things. And it was not caused by the press corps. The press corps has been decimated in Tallahassee. This was created by fellow Republicans and that's why DeSantis keeps looking over his shoulder to see who's gonna stab in the back next.
Is he still popular among Floridians?
Yeah, I think he would get re elected to a third term if he ran. I do think so. I think he's not as popular as he was, but I think, you know, Florida's a red state, and I think he is still somewhat popular. But Donald Trump is more popular, and Donald Trump's choice would normally beat Rond De Santa's choice in a party primary. And when you add this growing scandal which has damaged Casey DeSantis and Ron De Santis, then I think the chances of Casey de Satan's becoming
governor are getting smaller by the day. She has not announced that she's running for governor yet, but she's trying to get through this controversy, which really had caught them flat foot. I don't think they expected this. They had never dealt with anything like this in their entire time in office. They didn't care what the Democrats said, they didn't care what the press said. But this is different.
This is coming from their side of the aisle. So he's calling out Republicans for being Rhinos, he's calling them out to being fake Republicans. He can't believe what's happening to him, but it's just reality of politics. If there's blood in the water, the people who who really resented you for years they're going to come out and exploit that situation. They see it, they see that blood in the water, and all of a sudden, they're coming out
of the woodwork to go fishing. I think that's a consistent metaphor, but leave it up to the listeners.
Always interesting to talk to you, Dave, Thanks so much. That's Dave Ehrenberg, former Palm Beach County State Attorney. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast, Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
week night at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg