×

Używamy ciasteczek, aby ulepszyć LingQ. Odwiedzając stronę wyrażasz zgodę na nasze polityka Cookie.


image

Moyers on Democracy podcast, Bill Moyers talks with David Berg and Daryl Bristow about Trump’s Laws... (1)

Bill Moyers talks with David Berg and Daryl Bristow about Trump's Laws... (1)

ANNOUNCER: Welcome to Moyers on Democracy. President Trump still will not admit he lost. He tweets and repeats the lie that the election was a fraud, the vote rigged, the election stolen. There are fewer than ten weeks before he must leave office, but he refuses to cooperate with Joe Biden in the transfer of power, denying the man who beat him by over five million votes the resources usually provided to a president-elect. Trump has flooded the courts with lawsuits contesting the results, seeking recounts, trying to stop the certification of ballots in battle ground states. Washington grows more paralyzed, the country more polarized, the rule of law in limbo. Here to assess what's going on are two of the country's most experienced lawyers in election litigation. Daryl Bristow is the former senior partner of the multinational law firm Baker Botts LLP, based in Houston. A graduate of the University of Oklahoma and Harvard Law School, he worked for George W. Bush's legal team on two Florida lawsuits regarding balloting for the 2000 presidential election. David Berg founded the firm Berg & Androphy, with offices in Houston and New York City. He has recently taken Trump and others to court over their efforts to use the Postal Service to discredit and dismiss mail-in ballots. He's written two acclaimed books — the memoir RUN BROTHER RUN, and THE TRIAL LAWYER: WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN. Here to talk with Daryl Bristow and David Berg is Bill Moyers.

BILL MOYERS: David Berg and Daryl Bristow, thank you for joining me.

DARYL BRISTOW: Happy to be here.

BILL MOYERS: One headline after another in the last few days has described Washington in a state of chaos. Does it appear to you to be that bad there?

DARYL BRISTOW: The first thing I think about is the tense time we live in, because politics has gotten to be almost a religion. And it's turned people into a religious fervor. Friends, close friends, people that I have long-standing relationships with– there's a strain now when we even think about talking about politics because their views are extreme. And they're extreme in an atmosphere of mendacity; lies and liars. It seems like that's acceptable as long as you achieve the bottom line on the lawsuit, although, frankly, I don't see much to the lawsuits.

DAVID BERG: On the issue of these lawsuits, they're terrifying people. I've gotten emails the last few days asking if Trump's lawsuits are going to upset the results of the election. And, as Daryl and I both can tell you, the lawsuits are specious. The one that's gotten the most attention is the one filed in Pennsylvania where the lawyers are attempting to shut down the certification of the Pennsylvania vote, which I can tell you right now, for a number of reasons, that's never going to happen.

BILL MOYERS: Have the Trump lawyers won any of these many suits they are scattering across the country?

DAVID BERG: They've won a modest order out of the Supreme Court. Justice Alito agreed to refer the question of whether or not, in Pennsylvania, the ballots that were received after Election Day were segregated from those received before Election Day. But it's absurd because they were segregated. And the election was decided on votes received by November 3rd. So, it's absurd. If your listeners want to, go to the website of Democracy Docket and you will see that, of all the cases that have been filed– the case where they're asking to shut down the certification in Pennsylvania, one of the things that you'll find is that they drew a judge who was appointed by Barack Obama and he's got an excellent, scholarly past. And I disagree with Justice Roberts. There are Trump judges and there are Obama judges. So, we've got a hell of a shot at seeing that knocked out quickly.

RELATED: Moyers on Democracy

DARYL BRISTOW: You know, David, I will say this. No question, you have judges who've been appointed and they have allegiances. But at least my experience in 2000 was that those judges did the right thing. we had concerns about some of the judges in a situation as serious as the one we were in. They did the right thing. So, I believe, in the end, although there's going to be a lotta speculation and a lotta fear, I think the system will work. And—

DAVID BERG: To your point, Daryl, I have what I call the Andy Hanen rule. Judge Hanen is a very conservative judge. And about a week ago, a couple of very right-wing plaintiffs filed suit in his court seeking to disqualify 127,000 votes that had been cast around Houston in Harris County at drive-through ballot boxes. And Judge Hanen's response was, first of all, the Supreme Court had approved establishing these ballot boxes where you could just drive through. But he said, you've come to me at the last minute, he was obviously perturbed with that, trying to change the rules. Secondly, he said, I have questions about the legality of these drive-through ballot boxes. It has to do with what's called legislative deference, that the local officials in Houston who set up these ballot boxes had no right to make that change. But he said, even if I found it illegal, I would still count those votes. And one of Daryl's points that he's made repeatedly that it's absolutely true, you have these innocent voters who rely on officials, for instance, in Pennsylvania on the Supreme Court, saying if your vote is postmarked timely and comes in after the election it'll be counted.

BILL MOYERS: Daryl, you mentioned your experience. The fight you were in, what was that, briefly?

DARYL BRISTOW: I represented Bush and Cheney. In 2000, we had three election contests — the Bush v. Gore case, which we all know well, and then two mail-in ballot cases, Seminole County and Martin County, where the Democratic people, were essentially attempting to invalidate 25,000 ballots because the ballot request forms had incorrect voter registration numbers. And the Republican representatives had gone in and corrected those numbers; a violation of Florida law. So, there was a technical violation. And the contention was that because the law had been violated with regard to process, that voter's ballot should be discounted. And if they won those cases, Bush would've lost the presidency. Our position was you cannot set up a system, have a supervisor of elections send out the ballot forms, have the voter actually cast the ballot– all of that, admittedly, the voter had attempted to cast the ballot, had casted the ballot and the Florida Supreme Court confirmed what was state, federal and constitutional law. And that is, you don't invalidate, you don't disenfranchise a voter after the fact when they have relied on the system in order to cast their vote.

BILL MOYERS: Does that experience connect in any relevant way to what's happening right now with all these suits that the Trump team has filed?

DARYL BRISTOW: Well, you know, think about the fact that the Bush campaign, back then, was defending the voting system, was defending the integrity of the ballot. The Trump administration basically is trying to dismantle the integrity of the ballot, disenfranchise voters who innocently cast their ballots. That experience was where the system was tested in one state where there was a few hundred votes' difference. Here, we're talking about five states and a huge amount of ballot difference, and over 5 million votes in the popular vote; a very different situation. A lot less room to stand up and question the election.

BILL MOYERS: David, the last time you and I talked you had just filed a suit against the Postal Service. Where does it stand?

DAVID BERG: We actually filed a suit against Trump, the Postmaster General DeJoy, and against the Postal Service. The object of the exercise was to reverse certain practices that DeJoy triggered. When DeJoy came on board at the Postal Service, DeJoy instituted policies that were, in fact, detrimental to the to on-time delivery of mail-in and absentee ballots. And he froze any more hiring at the Postal Service when thousands upon thousands of postal workers had been felled by the coronavirus or fear of going back to work because of it. Not just Judge Sullivan, the district judge in the district court of D.C. where we filed our suit along with three other suits, but three or four other federal judges issued preliminary injunctions. And by the way, there are eight preliminary injunctions telling the Postal Service, stop doing what you're doing. Reinstitute late delivery, extra trips, hire personnel. Stop this hiring freeze. And, in our case it told them, you've got to reverse these policies. You've got to hire the personnel to get these ballots, these mail-in ballots and absentee ballots delivered on time. This led to a lot of issues, Bill. In Judge Sullivan's case, we had hearings every day for two weeks or more, Saturdays and Sundays included, during which the Postal Service was required to produce evidence of the delivery rates of mail-in ballots and also absentee ballots.

BILL MOYERS: Right.

DAVID BERG: And what's astonishing to all of us is that after these injunctions were sent to the United States Postal Service, the testimony was– from high-ranking officials, executive vice presidents who reported directly to DeJoy, a very critical factor– nothing happens there now without his approval. What we learned was that they treated the injunctions as suggestions. They did nothing different. And instead of improving on-time performance, instead of making sure these mail-in and absentee ballots were delivered on time, the performance rates deteriorated, degenerated badly. Now Judge Sullivan stayed very much on top of this. And he issued orders making sure that the various post offices were swept. In only about seven or eight jurisdictions, one example was Atlanta, where they had very sub-standard delivery of absentee and mail-in ballots. Houston, Detroit, astonishing low delivery rates. If I were of a conspiratorial mind, I would say that it's very suspicious. And this was the basis of our lawsuit. Those three are Democratic strongholds. All three of them, Detroit, Atlanta, Houston had sub-standard delivery. There were some other areas like central Pennsylvania that had sub-standard delivery. But that was the exception. And that's a Republican area. So, where does it stand now? We had this discussion with a court the other day. Are we now mooted? Biden has been elected. The ballots have been cast. No, it's not over. That's just one example. And this was my grave concern. We have a runoff in Georgia that could, as the judge pointed out, that could tip the scale of power in the Senate. I mean, it's a point that all of us know. And we cannot give the DeJoy-led Postal Service free reign over delivery of mail-in ballots. So, the case continues. And I think it will end in a consent decree in which the just the Postal Service, through its lawyers at the Justice Department agree that they will never institute the kind of destructive policy, the termination of extra trips by the Postal Service, of late trips, of hiring the personnel they need. That they never again will do that during an election season.

RELATED: Moyers on Democracy

BILL MOYERS: You're looking to the future as well as to the recent election.

DAVID BERG: Absolutely. We want to not only put an end to what they've been doing that impedes the delivery of mail-in and absentee ballots. But we want to stop it from now on in every election year. We can never have this kind of interference.

Bill Moyers talks with David Berg and Daryl Bristow about Trump’s Laws... (1) Bill Moyers spricht mit David Berg und Daryl Bristow über Trumps Gesetze... (1) Ο Bill Moyers συνομιλεί με τον David Berg και τον Daryl Bristow για τους νόμους του Trump... (1) Bill Moyers habla con David Berg y Daryl Bristow sobre las leyes de Trump... (1) Bill Moyers s'entretient avec David Berg et Daryl Bristow sur les lois de Trump... (1) Bill Moyers parla con David Berg e Daryl Bristow delle leggi di Trump... (1) ビル・モイヤーズがデイヴィッド・バーグ、ダリル・ブリストウとトランプの法律について語る... (1) 빌 모이어스가 데이비드 버그, 대릴 브리스토와 함께 트럼프의 법칙에 대해 이야기하다... (1) Bill Moyers rozmawia z Davidem Bergiem i Darylem Bristowem o ustawach Trumpa... (1) Bill Moyers conversa com David Berg e Daryl Bristow sobre as leis de Trump... (1) Билл Мойерс беседует с Дэвидом Бергом и Дэрилом Бристоу о законах Трампа... (1) Bill Moyers, David Berg ve Daryl Bristow ile Trump'ın Yasaları hakkında konuşuyor... (1) Білл Мойєрс розмовляє з Девідом Бергом та Дерілом Брістоу про закони Трампа... (1) 比尔·莫耶斯与大卫·伯格和达里尔·布里斯托谈论特朗普的法律...... (1) 比爾莫耶斯與大衛伯格和達裡爾布里斯托談論川普的法律... (1)

ANNOUNCER: Welcome to Moyers on Democracy. SUNUCU: Moyers on Democracy'ye hoş geldiniz. President Trump still will not admit he lost. Başkan Trump hala kaybettiğini kabul etmeyecek. He tweets and repeats the lie that the election was a fraud, the vote rigged, the election stolen. Seçimin bir sahtekarlık olduğu, oylamanın hileli olduğu, seçimin çalındığı yalanını tweetliyor ve tekrarlıyor. There are fewer than ten weeks before he must leave office, but he refuses to cooperate with Joe Biden in the transfer of power, denying the man who beat him by over five million votes the resources usually provided to a president-elect. Il reste moins de dix semaines avant qu'il ne doive quitter ses fonctions, mais il refuse de coopérer avec Joe Biden dans la passation du pouvoir, privant celui qui l'a battu de plus de cinq millions de voix des moyens habituellement accordés à un président élu. Осталось менее десяти недель до того, как он должен покинуть свой пост, но он отказывается сотрудничать с Джо Байденом в передаче власти, отказывая человеку, победившему его более чем на пять миллионов голосов, в ресурсах, которые обычно предоставляются избранному президенту. Görevden ayrılmasına on haftadan az bir süre kaldı, ancak iktidarın devrinde Joe Biden ile işbirliği yapmayı reddediyor ve kendisini beş milyonun üzerinde oyla yenen adamı, genellikle bir başkana sağlanan kaynakları reddediyor. Trump has flooded the courts with lawsuits contesting the results, seeking recounts, trying to stop the certification of ballots in battle ground states. Trump a inondé les tribunaux de poursuites contestant les résultats, cherchant des recomptages, essayant d'arrêter la certification des bulletins de vote dans les États du champ de bataille. Трамп завалил суды исками, оспаривая результаты, требуя пересчета голосов, пытаясь остановить удостоверение бюллетеней в штатах, где ведется борьба. Trump mahkemeleri sonuçlara itiraz eden, yeniden sayım talep eden, savaş alanı eyaletlerinde oy pusulalarının onaylanmasını durdurmaya çalışan davalarla doldurdu. Washington grows more paralyzed, the country more polarized, the rule of law in limbo. Washington devient plus paralysé, le pays plus polarisé, l'état de droit dans les limbes. Washington daha çok felç oluyor, ülke daha kutuplaşıyor, hukukun üstünlüğü arafta. Here to assess what's going on are two of the country's most experienced lawyers in election litigation. Ici, pour évaluer ce qui se passe, deux des avocats les plus expérimentés du pays en matière de litige électoral. Neler olup bittiğini değerlendirmek için burada, seçim davalarında ülkenin en deneyimli iki avukatı var. Daryl Bristow is the former senior partner of the multinational law firm Baker Botts LLP, based in Houston. Daryl Bristow est l'ancien associé principal du cabinet d'avocats multinational Baker Botts LLP, basé à Houston. Daryl Bristow, Houston merkezli çok uluslu hukuk firması Baker Botts LLP'nin eski kıdemli ortağıdır. A graduate of the University of Oklahoma and Harvard Law School, he worked for George W. Bush's legal team on two Florida lawsuits regarding balloting for the 2000 presidential election. Diplômé de l'Université d'Oklahoma et de la Harvard Law School, il a travaillé pour l'équipe juridique de George W. Bush sur deux procès en Floride concernant le scrutin pour l'élection présidentielle de 2000. Oklahoma Üniversitesi ve Harvard Hukuk Fakültesi'nden mezun oldu ve George W. Bush'un hukuk ekibi için Florida'daki 2000 başkanlık seçimleri için oylamayla ilgili iki davada çalıştı. David Berg founded the firm Berg & Androphy, with offices in Houston and New York City. David Berg, Houston ve New York City'de ofisleri bulunan Berg & Androphy firmasını kurdu. He has recently taken Trump and others to court over their efforts to use the Postal Service to discredit and dismiss mail-in ballots. Il a récemment poursuivi Trump et d'autres en justice pour leurs efforts visant à utiliser le service postal pour discréditer et rejeter les bulletins de vote par correspondance. He's written two acclaimed books — the memoir RUN BROTHER RUN, and THE TRIAL LAWYER: WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN. Here to talk with Daryl Bristow and David Berg is Bill Moyers.

BILL MOYERS: David Berg and Daryl Bristow, thank you for joining me.

DARYL BRISTOW: Happy to be here.

BILL MOYERS: One headline after another in the last few days has described Washington in a state of chaos. Does it appear to you to be that bad there? Cela vous semble-t-il si mauvais là-bas?

DARYL BRISTOW: The first thing I think about is the tense time we live in, because politics has gotten to be almost a religion. And it's turned people into a religious fervor. Friends, close friends, people that I have long-standing relationships with– there's a strain now when we even think about talking about politics because their views are extreme. And they're extreme in an atmosphere of mendacity; lies and liars. Et ils sont extrêmes dans une atmosphère de mensonge ; mensonges et menteurs. It seems like that's acceptable as long as you achieve the bottom line on the lawsuit, although, frankly, I don't see much to the lawsuits. Il semble que ce soit acceptable tant que vous atteignez le résultat final du procès, même si, franchement, je ne vois pas grand-chose aux procès. Похоже, что это приемлемо, пока вы добьетесь результата в судебном процессе, хотя, честно говоря, я не вижу в судебных процессах особого мнения.

DAVID BERG: On the issue of these lawsuits, they're terrifying people. I've gotten emails the last few days asking if Trump's lawsuits are going to upset the results of the election. And, as Daryl and I both can tell you, the lawsuits are specious. Et, comme Daryl et moi pouvons vous le dire, les poursuites sont spécieuses. The one that's gotten the most attention is the one filed in Pennsylvania where the lawyers are attempting to shut down the certification of the Pennsylvania vote, which I can tell you right now, for a number of reasons, that's never going to happen. Celui qui a retenu le plus l'attention est celui déposé en Pennsylvanie où les avocats tentent d'arrêter la certification du vote de Pennsylvanie, ce que je peux vous dire tout de suite, pour un certain nombre de raisons, cela n'arrivera jamais.

BILL MOYERS: Have the Trump lawyers won any of these many suits they are scattering across the country? BILL MOYERS : Les avocats de Trump ont-ils remporté l'une de ces nombreuses poursuites qu'ils éparpillent à travers le pays ?

DAVID BERG: They've won a modest order out of the Supreme Court. DAVID BERG : Ils ont obtenu une modeste ordonnance de la Cour suprême. ДЭВИД БЕРГ: Они выиграли скромный приказ Верховного суда. Justice Alito agreed to refer the question of whether or not, in Pennsylvania, the ballots that were received after Election Day were segregated from those received before Election Day. Le juge Alito a accepté de renvoyer la question de savoir si, en Pennsylvanie, les bulletins de vote reçus après le jour du scrutin étaient séparés de ceux reçus avant le jour du scrutin. But it's absurd because they were segregated. And the election was decided on votes received by November 3rd. И решение о выборах было принято на основании голосов, полученных до 3 ноября. So, it's absurd. If your listeners want to, go to the website of Democracy Docket and you will see that, of all the cases that have been filed– the case where they're asking to shut down the certification in Pennsylvania, one of the things that you'll find is that they drew a judge who was appointed by Barack Obama and he's got an excellent, scholarly past. Si vos auditeurs le souhaitent, rendez-vous sur le site Web de Democracy Docket et vous verrez que, parmi tous les cas qui ont été déposés - le cas où ils demandent de fermer la certification en Pennsylvanie, l'une des choses que vous ' Je découvrirai qu'ils ont attiré un juge nommé par Barack Obama et qu'il a un excellent passé universitaire. And I disagree with Justice Roberts. There are Trump judges and there are Obama judges. Есть судьи Трампа и есть судьи Обамы. So, we've got a hell of a shot at seeing that knocked out quickly. Donc, nous avons une sacrée chance de voir cela éliminé rapidement.

RELATED: Moyers on Democracy

DARYL BRISTOW: You know, David, I will say this. No question, you have judges who've been appointed and they have allegiances. Il ne fait aucun doute que vous avez des juges qui ont été nommés et qui ont des allégeances. But at least my experience in 2000 was that those judges did the right thing. we had concerns about some of the judges in a situation as serious as the one we were in. They did the right thing. So, I believe, in the end, although there's going to be a lotta speculation and a lotta fear, I think the system will work. Donc, je crois qu'en fin de compte, même s'il y aura beaucoup de spéculations et beaucoup de peur, je pense que le système fonctionnera. And—

DAVID BERG: To your point, Daryl, I have what I call the Andy Hanen rule. DAVID BERG: Pour votre point, Daryl, j'ai ce que j'appelle la règle d'Andy Hanen. Judge Hanen is a very conservative judge. And about a week ago, a couple of very right-wing plaintiffs filed suit in his court seeking to disqualify 127,000 votes that had been cast around Houston in Harris County at drive-through ballot boxes. Et il y a environ une semaine, deux plaignants très à droite ont intenté une action en justice devant son tribunal pour demander la disqualification de 127 000 votes qui avaient été exprimés autour de Houston, dans le comté de Harris, dans des urnes au volant. And Judge Hanen's response was, first of all, the Supreme Court had approved establishing these ballot boxes where you could just drive through. But he said, you've come to me at the last minute, he was obviously perturbed with that, trying to change the rules. Mais il a dit, tu es venu me voir à la dernière minute, il était visiblement perturbé par ça, essayant de changer les règles. Secondly, he said, I have questions about the legality of these drive-through ballot boxes. It has to do with what's called legislative deference, that the local officials in Houston who set up these ballot boxes had no right to make that change. Cela a à voir avec ce qu'on appelle la déférence législative, que les responsables locaux à Houston qui ont installé ces urnes n'avaient pas le droit de faire ce changement. But he said, even if I found it illegal, I would still count those votes. And one of Daryl's points that he's made repeatedly that it's absolutely true, you have these innocent voters who rely on officials, for instance, in Pennsylvania on the Supreme Court, saying if your vote is postmarked timely and comes in after the election it'll be counted. Et l'un des points de Daryl qu'il a répété à plusieurs reprises, c'est absolument vrai, vous avez ces électeurs innocents qui s'appuient sur des fonctionnaires, par exemple, en Pennsylvanie à la Cour suprême, disant que si votre vote est timbré en temps opportun et arrive après l'élection, il va Être compté.

BILL MOYERS: Daryl, you mentioned your experience. The fight you were in, what was that, briefly?

DARYL BRISTOW: I represented Bush and Cheney. In 2000, we had three election contests — the Bush v. Gore case, which we all know well, and then two mail-in ballot cases, Seminole County and Martin County, where the Democratic people, were essentially attempting to invalidate 25,000 ballots because the ballot request forms had incorrect voter registration numbers. В 2000 году у нас было три избирательных состязания - дело Буша против Гора, которое мы все хорошо знаем, а затем два случая пересылки бюллетеней по почте, округ Семинол и округ Мартин, где демократы, по сути, пытались признать недействительными 25000 бюллетеней, потому что в бланках запросов на голосование были указаны неправильные регистрационные номера избирателей. And the Republican representatives had gone in and corrected those numbers; a violation of Florida law. И представители республиканцев вошли и исправили эти цифры; нарушение закона Флориды. So, there was a technical violation. And the contention was that because the law had been violated with regard to process, that voter's ballot should be discounted. And if they won those cases, Bush would've lost the presidency. Our position was you cannot set up a system, have a supervisor of elections send out the ballot forms, have the voter actually cast the ballot– all of that, admittedly, the voter had attempted to cast the ballot, had casted the ballot and the Florida Supreme Court confirmed what was state, federal and constitutional law. And that is, you don't invalidate, you don't disenfranchise a voter after the fact when they have relied on the system in order to cast their vote.

BILL MOYERS: Does that experience connect in any relevant way to what's happening right now with all these suits that the Trump team has filed?

DARYL BRISTOW: Well, you know, think about the fact that the Bush campaign, back then, was defending the voting system, was defending the integrity of the ballot. The Trump administration basically is trying to dismantle the integrity of the ballot, disenfranchise voters who innocently cast their ballots. That experience was where the system was tested in one state where there was a few hundred votes' difference. Here, we're talking about five states and a huge amount of ballot difference, and over 5 million votes in the popular vote; a very different situation. Здесь мы говорим о пяти штатах и огромной разнице в голосовании, а также о более чем 5 миллионах голосов при всенародном голосовании; совсем другая ситуация. A lot less room to stand up and question the election. Намного меньше места, чтобы встать и поставить под сомнение результаты выборов.

BILL MOYERS: David, the last time you and I talked you had just filed a suit against the Postal Service. Where does it stand?

DAVID BERG: We actually filed a suit against Trump, the Postmaster General DeJoy, and against the Postal Service. The object of the exercise was to reverse certain practices that DeJoy triggered. When DeJoy came on board at the Postal Service, DeJoy instituted policies that were, in fact, detrimental to the to on-time delivery of mail-in and absentee ballots. Когда ДеДжой вступил в должность в Почтовой службе, ДеДжой ввел политику, которая фактически препятствовала своевременной доставке почтовых и открепительных удостоверений. And he froze any more hiring at the Postal Service when thousands upon thousands of postal workers had been felled by the coronavirus or fear of going back to work because of it. Not just Judge Sullivan, the district judge in the district court of D.C. where we filed our suit along with three other suits, but three or four other federal judges issued preliminary injunctions. And by the way, there are eight preliminary injunctions telling the Postal Service, stop doing what you're doing. Reinstitute late delivery, extra trips, hire personnel. Stop this hiring freeze. And, in our case it told them, you've got to reverse these policies. You've got to hire the personnel to get these ballots, these mail-in ballots and absentee ballots delivered on time. This led to a lot of issues, Bill. In Judge Sullivan's case, we had hearings every day for two weeks or more, Saturdays and Sundays included, during which the Postal Service was required to produce evidence of the delivery rates of mail-in ballots and also absentee ballots.

BILL MOYERS: Right.

DAVID BERG: And what's astonishing to all of us is that after these injunctions were sent to the United States Postal Service, the testimony was– from high-ranking officials, executive vice presidents who reported directly to DeJoy, a very critical factor– nothing happens there now without his approval. What we learned was that they treated the injunctions as suggestions. They did nothing different. And instead of improving on-time performance, instead of making sure these mail-in and absentee ballots were delivered on time, the performance rates deteriorated, degenerated badly. Now Judge Sullivan stayed very much on top of this. And he issued orders making sure that the various post offices were swept. In only about seven or eight jurisdictions, one example was Atlanta, where they had very sub-standard delivery of absentee and mail-in ballots. Houston, Detroit, astonishing low delivery rates. If I were of a conspiratorial mind, I would say that it's very suspicious. And this was the basis of our lawsuit. Those three are Democratic strongholds. All three of them, Detroit, Atlanta, Houston had sub-standard delivery. There were some other areas like central Pennsylvania that had sub-standard delivery. But that was the exception. And that's a Republican area. So, where does it stand now? We had this discussion with a court the other day. Are we now mooted? Biden has been elected. The ballots have been cast. No, it's not over. That's just one example. And this was my grave concern. We have a runoff in Georgia that could, as the judge pointed out, that could tip the scale of power in the Senate. I mean, it's a point that all of us know. And we cannot give the DeJoy-led Postal Service free reign over delivery of mail-in ballots. So, the case continues. And I think it will end in a consent decree in which the just the Postal Service, through its lawyers at the Justice Department agree that they will never institute the kind of destructive policy, the termination of extra trips by the Postal Service, of late trips, of hiring the personnel they need. That they never again will do that during an election season.

RELATED: Moyers on Democracy

BILL MOYERS: You're looking to the future as well as to the recent election.

DAVID BERG: Absolutely. We want to not only put an end to what they've been doing that impedes the delivery of mail-in and absentee ballots. But we want to stop it from now on in every election year. We can never have this kind of interference.