 This morning we're going to talk about, on life and the law, we're going to talk about lawyers defending American democracy with two lawyers who are both involved. One, Scott Hoshberger, who joins us from what, Boston, and my brother Gene Fidel, who joins us from New Haven. Welcome to the show, gentlemen. So, Scott, let's start with you. Can you talk about the origins and mission of lawyers defending American democracy? Call it LDAD. Many of us had a major concern that we had, which was that the President of the United States appeared to be intentionally making every effort to undermine the rule of law and providing ways or tax on the press, the tax on judiciary, and tax on the justice of the party, including particularly major legal principles. We talked about that. And what we realized was that while there are many people who are pushing back, most of them was partisan. It was a few. And we felt that our bill had spent over 50 years. And we are independent, as many, many others were, and that's what led to our statement of principles, our open major principles that we felt were fundamental to American democracy, independence of the media, independence for us and public officials, the agencies and others. And we have managed to have an open letter, and we continue to reach out and try one by one to get more and more lawyers. That was your one of the major goals. Yes, Gene, why is that? And how do you motivate people? This whole exercise is quite interesting. We have a lot of far associations, far organizations, every shape and description. But tongue-tied, or there's the things that are already on their plate, they don't have any energy left to dedicate to the kind of crisis that they can with what they have. But I think one of the things that under some of our bars, these are our friends and our colleagues in our legal norm. It's up to us to stick up to those norms and be vocal. I mean, you have to use your vocal cords in your pants. That's about it. Maybe you're blind also. But we do have some credibility as a group. One thing I would want to say is this is all the artisans and you're just trying by other means to hammer President Trump. That's absolutely not the case. This is a non-artisan effort. And what we're appealing to is not any particular set of social objectives or political objectives, but social principles of the world. And we have members... Jay, I think that's... Let me echo just on that with Tina's name, because I think one of the questions here is what is this really sort of being very kind to the organized bar and the leaders of our bar, such as what I think is the economic interest, the privatization, if you will, of law firms, the consequences. And the only ideological piece here is there are equal justice on ideological. We have a major problem in this country. And this is where, as Gene says, this has been the role traditionally of the bar. I mean, where many will not remember this. When we were coming out of law school in the early public days of the 70s, the Nixon White House, the Vietnam War, the Lord Lawyers as a group, not as Republican lawyers, but as lawyers committed for civil rights, who stood up in the Boston Bar Association, the U.S. Law School Dispensification, supporting the Saturday at Massacre when Archibald Cox was being removed. We just had this remarkable report that none partisan person is the president and is in the bar about the question of whether we have a corrupt Vietnam in 1968. As Gene is talking about, it is an effort to try to mobilize that there is a defeat, and not just a seer fashion as independent. Well, you know, there are various factors that have held the bar back from exercising its duty and its power to preserve the rule of law. Those factors may be very hard to change. And I wonder how you see the effort to change those factors and to mobilize, as you say, mobilize the bar to take affirmative action on this issue when they have not, as you said, really done that so far, even though it's went two years into this administration, two years into these attacks on the rule of law and for that matter of the Constitution. So how do you step forward? It's not just that you can speak and write because you went to law school. It's what do you do with the speaking and writing? What are you asking the signatories to this letter to do? Well, the first thing we want is, and it's a lawyer's letter, by the way. This is not to denigrate people who have a happy opportunity and find it going to law school. But it's a lawyer's letter. And what we want is for as many of our fellow people who teach, people who have been law school beings, we have many judges, obviously, can't sign a letter like this, but we have many former judges who have been very offended by some of the things that have happened over people in that, that meet that description, partisan, you know, passing partisan outrage of the day, the news on whatever is your channel of choice. But actually, let me, I want to say one thing here, such as, I do want to add one quick note, and that is, oh, and I want to, I want to see the provide base, or J, even your base. We need to see Scott's comments about what it was like to make Nixon crisis. The bar did stand up. The two of us stand up during the fight against Senator Joseph McCarty. It was time, I don't know that the country really is in a crisis where the president of the United States, and I'm talking about what was in the Ninth Circuit. We're pulling something that raises our tempers to fight against that, except for their own self-interest, or at stake, or the client is not a wonderful thing to have. This is a ship for handing out business cards. How many people I talk to agree with us they can do about it? They either think it doesn't matter, you know, they're not gonna, you know, they're not gonna live again, they're not gonna go on the street. It's almost hopeless, that, or it doesn't affect me. It's the sidelines that we're trying to create, at least engage in the process and see what we can do. Yeah, I mean, we have, we have huge complacency, not only among the bar, but among the public, I think, and people, people are, they don't feel empowered to change things. They watch the line, the new normal increase, they are more outraged, and less, less, less empowered. So I ask you this, Scott, you know, visiting Dickens on the ghost of Christmas future, if we do nothing, what happens to this country? Well, I think, look, I don't, full of our issues, we still are out of the economy. We still have vibrant institutions. We still have freedom of speech. We still have all the values that people around the world, and yes, our imperfections are clear, whether it's race or hate or things of that time. So we still have an opportunity, but this can just keep going on. I go back to the WBH here, which was that, if you look back to 1968, I think in the Ken Burns series that you get on Vietnam, the 68, the same was, things fall apart, the center will not hold. And that was actually a statement I guess that Bobby Kennedy used to reference as a way to call us to understand that we need to hold the center. And I, for example, even in our elected politics, I mean, can you be elected among Democrats? Is it possible to be a moderate centrist and have a chance to get via primary? Or is it, do you have to take extreme positions and just being in the middle and trying to hold the center and the institutions a possible? So I think that this is where what we have, we need to figure out if we ever have the chance to make the case possibly, why it is important that these core principles and the institutions, the Department of Justice, always pretty much stand for making decisions on the facts and the law. Yes, policies, but not partisanship, not politics, not reaching out, not having a president of the United States demand that an attorney general serve as his or her attorney, as opposed to being independent. They may still have this partisan, but there was always at least the facade that we're independent. And the same thing, you know, with the same thing with the press, for all its position, we're now clearly divided there. I think this polarization is not only President Trump, but if we stay silent, I hate to refer back to what I've heard many people talk about the mid 30s in Germany. I mean, do you just wait for this to happen, and assume it will not happen? How do we get young people to understand the dramatic problems that we face when we as the adults will not stand up and deliver? Well, Gene, what about just waiting? What about just waiting until the next election and suffering through it? We don't have that luxury. We really don't have that luxury, but I want to add one point, so that, you know, viewers not feel that Scott and I are about to throw ourselves off the balcony and be critical, because there are some, there are some quite positive develop, and I, you know, they need to be mentioned, even though Scott and I and our friends in working democracy feel that some, you know, real energetic work has to be done. Energetic work is being done, but it's not being done by far as much. It's being done by law school clinics, which have done yield and service for row and service. These kids, they're kids, right? They kids, of course, they have to work here tonight representing people who, you know, wouldn't be the Muslim band that was the executive order from President Trump was being litigated. They worked here the night. They just showed up at the airport. We won't, I haven't forgotten those pictures. I don't think either of you has either. These, when you look at the amount and breadth of litigation that lawyers from law firms and from clinics and law professors have engaged in, it is really a tremendous achievement for lawyers, but it is not an achievement for the bar. And that's the missing piece that I think is critical. And that's why we're here. And I know I speak for myself. I'm always happy to be on your show, Jay, but I think it's important that people hear from people like Scott Hosh Barker. He walked to his own home. So I will talk with the Attorney General of Massachusetts for a while. He was ahead of the common cause for a while. He's a public spirit, a person that I've ever known. And we need the Scott Hosh Barker to come forward. We need the bar presidents, the president of Hawaii State Bar, the California State Bar, any bar that is in a position legally to take a position on things, ought to be taking a position in their name, in their corporate name. That can't be done everywhere. It can't be done in jurisdictions that have a, you know, what's called an integrated bar where it's a public agency basically. But that's not the entire country. And it's certainly not the American bar. The key point, Jay, is that the hope that I see is actually like so many things coming from the younger generations in terms of their commitment. But I think that they also need various kinds of role models. And if they look now, the role models are not coming from the organized bar. Maybe that's somewhat inevitable. But they're coming from leading advocates on both sides. I mean, what is the Federal Society, which has been active and very, very successful, or on the other side that sort of wore the H.C.R.U. and other kinds of activities. But the problem is that they're silos. They're not relating to the broader issues of the common causes in the words of John Gardner. The common causes, what is it that binds us all together that we may have different views about, but that we kind of agree upon that we need, and this is where I think the bar associations, and I would even, I think the law schools, Gene has mentioned at one point that I think that we're ducking a little bit, which is that we happen to have, and I did a very prominent law schools where there are some deans that have stepped up here. But by and large, most genes of law school today feel exactly like managing partners of law firms. They don't dare offend anyone, and therefore, they will not take direct positions in terms of issues such as this, which are not partisan. That is, they do not believe that they may stand for the rule of law, but they're not going to criticize the President of the United States or a leading official who may do something that would be deemed a violation of the rule of law. I mean, that's just not part of the job description. In fact, the job description is, you know, avoid that kind of controversy, support civil discourse and that kind of thing, but don't take a position on anything that is facing us right now. And right now, I think in this country, the Mueller report, for example, in my experience and lifetime is not whether there should be impeachment, but whether there should be a full discussion of reading a report in which the President of the United States boldly, unless, of course, now he says they lie and he doesn't lie, boldly every effort to interfere with what now is trying to even be the illegal investigation that is to challenge the very core things, just as Gene said, they're all public judges, not real judges. You know, the press is all fake news unless they agree with me. Their Mueller report is atrocious except that it exonerates me. So believe that part, but don't believe the part about where I lie. In other words, there is a there is nothing that sort of people look at and say, you know, what are the facts here? How the what does it mean in terms of our policies? And what I'm concerned about is you just said wait for 2020. Well, if we wait for the politics of this and we had elections do matter. The question is, will enough people vote over what they think it won't? Will they not participate actively in that engagement? Or will it be a highly polarized ideological election that drives away independent people who don't want to be involved? I'm not sure that I have a kind of totally positive there that can just wait for 2020 because I think that right now we are being challenged on any number of levels that I think leaders of the bar, if the bar is to play a role and I just take everybody back to the Tocqueville well look to the law and legal institutions as being one of the core principles of democracy in America. Absolutely. So my question to both of you to close is, you know, you talked about writing a letter reaching 400 people looking for looking to reach many other people. There are millions of lawyers in this country who are potential recipients and signatories to this letter. What role does lawyers defending American democracy see for itself in being a leader and being a magnet and being, you know, a center of the discussion going forward? Or are you leaving it to someone else? What role will you play? I think the answer to that is that we're trying to stimulate us. We're not interested in, you know, building a building or having a, you know, a city park named for us. Scott actually has an interest. That's impressive. I never let Scott forget that. But no, no, we're not interested in building something that's been with us five years from now or four years from now. God willing, we don't need lawyers defending American democracy that's lower down the road. If we can be vocal and just write a fire on this people, specifically under lawyers, because I said, I mean the box, to get them motivated, to get them to shave off a little bit of that so it's billable hours and spend it on writing an op-ed, doing shows like this day, you know, appearing in Congress, even going to a demonstration years ago when I was still practicing in Washington. I remember that then whoever was the dictator of Pakistan, it was on fire at the Chief Justice, his name was Choudhury. And a whole lot of writers showed up in Washington, you know, Washington bar showed up on Capitol Hill, it was a nice day, for a demonstration in support of some guy in Pakistan, the Chief Justice in Pakistan. Well, you know, we're all as a lawyer, I personally think the lawyer should be out the street. It's not going to happen on May 1st, which is one day as well as May Day. Maybe it'll happen in September, what constitution day falls on the 17th. Lawyers have got to show up and dedicate some of their time, you know, there's only 24 hours in the day, you can't bill 24 hours a day, give us an hour, give us 10 for an hour, hand these cards out, hand these little cards out to your parents in the fall, hand them out. And you know what, the lawyers that you hand those cards to, they're going to say, send me some more, I want to get all my friends, you know, in court. Or to the next state trooper that stops me. You can find out, you can find out more about Lawyers Offending American Democracy on the website, LawyersOffendingAmericanDemocracy.org. Scott, let's give you a moment to close and see how much of what Gene said you agree with. Well, okay, first of all, I will say that one of the great pleasures for me has been reconnecting at this age with some of my friends and classmates and people like Gene who have distinguished careers. I say that not in any way to be totally obsequious, but it just is true. And what we sat here and said, look, our time has come, and suddenly we looked at each other and said, but where are the successors? If nothing else, one of our jobs is what our roles, I hope, is to try to remind people of the core principles that while we don't always adhere to them, that we felt were important, whether we were, whether we had public sector law, public interest law, academic law, law reform law, law firms at all the levels. But the core principles that the Lawyers Vietnam Committee, the Lawyers Against the Laws, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, the Lawyers Committee for Economic Justice was about, not about a partisan position, but it was lawyers speaking to core principles and speaking as lawyers, as an independent profession. And I believe that that is my hope is that the John Wagner line is when you're dealing with citizen activism, you don't need 50%. You need 1%. You need 1% of the leaders to mobilize the others around various kinds of common causes. And for me, what I am surprised about and hopeful about is that we have a chance to remind the lawyers what our common principles are as lawyers, to stand and defend the core values of and core principles of the law and our democracy and what is at stake. We are not, we do not win just because we're lawyers. But what is interesting is, I believe to this day that one of the surprises for most people is when they do attack the rule of law, when they do attack the judiciary, it's when they don't get pushback from the independent bar, they are surprised. And then they know there are no bounds. They expect to get partisan pushback. But where is the independent center, Jay? And I agree with Gene, totally in this respect. It looks like yours is, maybe they're small, but one by one, I am hopeful that we can manage to get an institutional change in bar associations so that the bar stands up and speaks to these issues consistently. But it's not going to happen overnight. And I just, I think that the idea that we try to do this one person at a time, as strange as that seems, is one that I hope is going to be very successful. We have to figure a way to let people know and that empower lawyers to speak out and to act. Amen to that. That's now it's a common sign up and join us and we welcome your ideas, your perspectives, and we welcome most of all your energy. Thank you, Scott Horschberger and Gene Feidell for this very interesting conversation. I hope we can do it again. And I wish you well on the project. And I will participate myself because I really believe what you're doing. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. And thank you, Jay, very much for having us. I appreciate it. And I'm honored to be on with Professor Feidell. He may know he is from Yale. It's only one thing I want to say, Jay. Mahalo. Mahalo to you guys. And aloha. Thank you all. Thank you.