 Good morning. Thank you for joining us. We're here to talk about the rule of law, which is under assault in many, many sectors, including by leadership. We have with us the Honorable Walter Kiromitsu, the former judge of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, and highly respected, the legal professional former attorney. Also, for nine years, head of St. Louis president of the school and many other contributing roles in the community. Also with us is Jeff Fortnoy, a senior leading partner at Cage-Shutty, one of our largest and leading law firms, highly respected First Amendment attorney and constitutional scholar. So we've got the right people to talk about this. Gentlemen, even with the U.S. Supreme Court in recess, it appears that the assault on the rule of law continues not only unabated, but if anything escalated. Where do you see that happening that gives you the most reason for concern? You said gentlemen, so you must be talking to Walter. Excluding myself. Jeff is the most knowledgeable, so we'll let Jeff go first. Well, I think there are two places right now. One, obviously, is the whole voting situation and voting by mail. All the challenges in the various states brought by both Republicans and Democrats, obviously taking opposite positions on access to polling. I don't mean polling, polling, but I mean polling places. You know, the Republicans doing whatever they can to limit access to the ballot box and Democrats doing their best to try to increase access and eligibility to vote. And I think over the next 60 days, that is the single most critical assault on the rule of law, because in a democracy, if you can't have free and unfettered elections, you don't have the rule of law. And I think a secondary issue is what's going on in various cities, even though that's law on the streets and what's going on with protests versus rioting versus counter-protest versus who's creating the destruction and whether they're as the president likes to say, good people on both sides. So I think those are the two most significant assaults on the rule of law as I see it right now. Okay, thanks, Jeff. Let me ask you folks a question, because there are direct and indirect attacks on the rule of law and questions, serious questions have been raised about whether the electoral college system from several hundred years ago still really matches up with equal rights, equal voting access and equal voting power. It certainly doesn't comport with one man or one person, one vote. We've now had two elections in which the popular vote loser by millions of votes has won the electoral college by decisive margins. Could that happen again? And what's your view of that, Walter? Yes, I think it could very well happen again, especially with this President Trump. I think the electoral college has been there for years for a reason, but the more we experience it and we see a blatant default on the part of the system, I think it's time to seriously consider removal of the electoral college system and to revert back to the popular vote, one vote, one person, and just count the popular votes throughout the United States. So I think it's about time that we reconsider and re-institute that system. That's my view anyway. Yeah, I agree completely. The electoral college is a situation that is long overdue to be eliminated, not reformed, eliminated. It won't happen, however, obviously for political reasons. The Republicans know that they are completely how person and outvoted in the most popular states, New York, California, even in states that are increasing in population like Arizona, Florida is another issue talking about the rule of law, but as long as they can get the electoral votes that they can get out of a solid South and a couple of other states, I mean this election in one way is kind of a joke because it doesn't matter what people in 44 states do, so why do we have to vote? Let's just take the five states that are going to control who is this election and let those five states vote and cast their electoral votes or even their popular votes. I mean, it's like slavery. It should have been outlawed a long, long time ago. To what extent is the electoral college vote manipulable by gerrymandering voter suppression tactics like that? I don't think it is. I think it indirectly is because it determines who gets elected to the House of Representatives and so ultimately, you know, that's where law is made and in the Senate, but I don't think it has any kind of a direct impact on the electoral college. So, you know, I just think gerrymandering is a whole other issue and we've talked about it before and the Supreme Court unfortunately has weighed in on how they feel about gerrymandering and you know, to be honest, it's not a new phenomenon and it's not a Republican or Democrat phenomenon. I mean, whoever takes control of the state legislature is going to decide where the districts are going to be and you've got to give the Republicans a lot of credit over the last 20 years because while the Democrats were focused on whatever they were focused on, the Republicans were focused on winning municipal and state elections and taking control of state houses. Now that's changing a little bit. They still have, I think, more governors chopped than Democrats do but I think the number is getting much closer but you know, to the victor go to spoils and if you're concerned about gerrymandering, then you better be more concerned about winning your state elections to your state houses of representatives in state Senate. Yeah, and those are two separate issues that gerrymandering and the electoral college but you know, like Jeff said, they're both, you know, the political parties are taking advantage of those two systems to their political advantage. Okay, so what from your perspective might be the best strategies for possible change in November? I'm not sure what you mean. Get one more vote, one more electoral vote than your opponent. Okay. That's the best strategy. Okay. Is that going to come down to those five or six swing states? What everybody's saying, right? I mean, I only know what you guys know from reading and watching TV. I mean, there apparently are five or six states that almost every pundit believes will control the election and they're essentially the same states that control the last one. You know, there's a couple of states in the Midwest, Wisconsin and Michigan, and North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, and one other state, Virginia. But I think most people think there's literally a handful of states and really 40 plus states are irrelevant with the electoral college being the way it is. And to that point, Chuck, we mentioned the attempts for voter suppression. And we are aware of at least two separate federal cases that are pending in August last month. And one of them is 20 different states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration as well as the postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, to reverse cutbacks to the postal system designed to undermine the agency's ability to deliver the expected upsurge in mail-in ballots this fall. And those lawsuits are still pending. And then in addition, the separate federal lawsuit, the Trump administration filed a federal lawsuit to invalidate vote by mail procedures in Pennsylvania, Nevada, and New Jersey, alleging that mail-in balloting will lead to massive fraud, absolutely no evidence of that. So those two pending lawsuits have already reached the United States Supreme Court. And the US Supreme Court is declined to take any action to halt the growing tide of voter suppression. And that, again, is another form of an attack on the rule of law. And there's apparently no indication of any movement on the part of the Supreme Court to decide this case before the November election. And so as a result, there's some question as to the validity of the election itself. I don't know whether President Trump is going to, if he loses, whether he's going to file a lawsuit to try to invalidate the voter results. So those are various serious questions on the direct attack on the rule of law. Well, actually, you know, Trump, as of yesterday, has now taken the opposite view of voter suppression. He wants people to vote more than once. So I don't think that's suppression. I mean, he said yesterday in North Carolina, vote twice. Send your ballot, send in your ballot, and then on election day, go vote again. So, hey, he's trying to make people vote more than once. I think that's great. That's the opposite of suppression, isn't it? Yes, yes, I think so. It happens to be a federal crime, by the way. But hey, that's never stopped Trump before. And the other thing, Chuck, you mentioned what can we do about it? And if we are trying to figure out something to do by the November election, that's quite impossible to do it in in that short time frame. But I noticed that the New York City Bar Association has planned a five-part forum on the threats to the rule of law, which is scheduled to begin on September 15. So at least New York City and the Bar Association is making some attempt to voice their concerns on the attacks on the rule of law. So that is one form of venue or action that could be taken to quell, or at least to voice the concerns we have over the attacks on the rule of law. The attacks are on numerous fronts, not only voter suppression, but also on President Trump's attacks on the judges who rule against his partisanship or his case. He's called the judges, Obama judges, or other judges, you know, name calling of the judges. That's an attack on the rule of law. And then also he has called Congress the investigation into the 2016 election. He used the word witch hunt. And then also he pardoned, he's attempted to pardon through Attorney General Barr, the Michael Flynn's case, and also suspend the sentence of Roger Stone. Those are also attacks on the rule of law. So there are numerous attacks on the rule of law by this administration on various, various fronts, which we should be concerned about. Let me add one more that has just come out very recently, which is an indirect attack, but on a practical level it might have severe impact, which is Trump is now threatening to use his executive powers and administrative powers to basically substantially reduce funding to the states. And he certainly fought against, through Mitch McConnell, any funding to the states to recover from the pandemic and its economic effects. With the election coming up, with the load falling on the states to try to put measures in place to assure full free election. That takes people, that takes work, that takes money. Is it any accident that the federal funding restriction to the states and the cities is coming now just before the election? Well, you know, it's not going to make much difference. The four cities he's threatening are all going to vote Democratic anyway. You know, I mean, he's threatening Seattle, Portland, and New York City and Washington DC. I mean, is there any question? You know, since the popular vote doesn't matter, you can suppress all the vote you want. You can put those three states in the district in the Democratic column. I can see if he was threatening to do that in a state that was going to be contested like Wisconsin, although with what's going on in, you know, Kenosha and what had gone on in Milwaukee, who knows what he's going to do next? I mean, look, those of us who are our age, remember 1968, 1972, the law and order campaigns of Richard Nixon, you know, those were bad enough. But even Nixon never had the audacity or the guts to do what this president has done in ignoring the rule of law. Walter's gone through a very brief list of some of the more obvious things that he does. But that's who he is. You know how many lawsuits Trump was involved in before he was elected president? They're in the scores. I mean, he talked about abusing the legal system and threatening the legal system and using your money and the legal system to try to obtain an advantage. I mean, Trump is exhibit A. So why would it change when he became president? And he's exploring every loophole. He knows how slowly the courts move. He's now appointed 300 federal judges in less than four years. I mean, he has shaped a judiciary for the next quarter of a century. Fortunately, they're not all disciples, but they certainly share a lot of his political views, if not his moral and criminal views. So let me ask the question. In you folks' experience and none of us are spring chickens. Have you ever experienced a U.S. president who's been so overtly, blatantly corrupt? In my prior lives, it was tough. I remember. There you go. But I was a different person then. I have never experienced the president of Trump's caliber. In the two months from today that we have to the election day, is there anything that you can see that might happen that might wake up people who still might be willing to have an open mind, make a decision? No. I think the debates will probably influence some people. And who knows what Trump might do. Maybe we'll get a vaccine tomorrow. And he can trumpet that, of course, most people aren't going to take it in light of all the controversy about its safety, which is a whole other problems. Look, we live in Hawaii. We're immune to what's going on in the lower 48. We have to just accept the fact that this 35% of the people love Trump for one reason or another. It's mind boggling. I watched a little bit of that rally in North Carolina yesterday and reminded me about Hitler. I mean, you know, there were a majority of people that loved Hitler. I mean, I just can't figure out how and why. You might like the fact that up until today the stock market was going up, but I mean, it's beyond me that a human being could approve of Trump as a person. And what he does as a person and as a president, regardless of economic policy, but folks, there's 35% and that has not budged, right? Goes to 37, it goes to 33. And there's 50% that hate him. Thank God. There's about what, eight to 10% that apparently they won't say or haven't made up their mind. Now, remember, Chuck, that, you know, President Trump has been quoted as saying that he, as president, has the absolute right to pardon himself for any crime. Okay. That in itself shows his total disregard for the rule of law. He's basically saying, hey, I can come with any kind of criminal action and I can pardon myself. But the good news is the Justice Department says he can't be charged with a crime while he's president. So we won't get that opportunity. We'll see what happens January 21st. It's a two-stage process. So what do you think the factors are that might between now and November 3rd, affect swing state voters, undecided voters, the debates, anything? I think that'll be the most critical thing. And, you know, things could go really haywire during the debates. I mean, there's always a chance that Biden loses his train of thought or mis-speaks. On the other hand, there'll be a million fact checkers out there, including Biden himself, who are going to have to call him on, you know, call Trump on the carpet every time he makes a lie, which is almost every statement. So it'll be, you know, fascinating. And then who knows? I mean, who knows what happens with the pandemic or, you know, the economy or they phony up some indictments, which they've been working on now for over a year, the Republicans, you know, an indict Hillary Clinton or, you know, James Comey or Hunter Biden or, you know, I mean, nothing's going to shock me. There's going to be some outrageous act on the part of the Justice Department and the president to try to skew the election in the last couple of weeks. I am convinced of that. Okay. So let me ask another question. How do you manage and control a debate with someone like Trump? He interrupts, he yells, he screams, he adheres to no rules. Well, you saw both of you, I'm sure that they had promoted or requested 12 different Fox news analysts to serve as hosts and none of their 12 got picked by the bipartisan committee. They picked four hosts, including Chris Wallace, by the way. Now Trump and his people are screaming that the debates are already biased in the selection of the moderators. I mean, it's outrageous. It's like every single day, they've already now said the debates are going to be one-sided because the bipartisan committee has selected Democratic Leaning Moderate. I mean, it's 1984. It's Animal Farm. It's believable. Yeah, it is ridiculous. I didn't realize they picked the four panelists. Who are the four panelists? Well, I don't, and once Chris Wallace, one is a woman White House reporter from NBC. One, I think is a PBS person, and I don't remember the four. I see. But it's nobody that you see normally in the slots on CBS NBC hosting the news or no one from CNN, no one from MSNBC. I mean, it's a fairly legitimate group of moderators, but how they're going to control Trump? Impossible. Impossible. Yeah, if I were doing a mediation, I think the only way to manage the conversation like that and debates like that would be you allocate a specific amount of time. When that time ends, that person's cut off. You go to the other one, they get cut their mic off. Yeah. And then, you know what Trump will say as soon as it's over, it's a no-win proposition. Yes. But we know what he will do. And unless they set up something that controls that, that manages that effectively. The only thing that'll control that is an electrical shock. They need to wire him up. And if he goes over, press the button. I think time management is the key. Okay. And as we come down into our last couple of minutes here, any parting thoughts? Where do we go from here? What are your hopes, your wishes, your advice to the country? Walter, they're all waiting for you. Go ahead. I don't have any wise advice. I would defer to Jeff Portnoy. He's the guy we should be following. No. I just think we just hang on for the next 60 days. Every day will be something different. And then everybody's got to get out and make sure they get a vote and make sure that vote's counted. And then we'll let the courts decide who wins this presidency, I think, unfortunately. So Walter, to finish us up for today, as people go to vote, what do you think they should have first in mind? I think the first issue in mind is to return or maintain the integrity and the honor of the office of presidency and vice president. Is right now there is serious question as to the position of the president and vice president, their role and how they respect the rule of law. So that all involves integrity and impartiality. What the voters should keep in mind is how do we preserve integrity and impartiality and the honor of the position of president and vice president? Thanks, Walter. Thanks, Jeff. We brought us back to where we started months ago. It's integrity, independence, and impartiality. Take those to the voting booth and make them work for all of us. Thank you. Those are Trump's three eyes. We need three eyes. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay.