Metrofocus: June 13, 2022

FRONTPAGE FORECAST 

In tonight’s look ahead at the major headlines, a bipartisan group of senators strikes a deal on gun safety, but does the proposed legislation go far enough to protect New Yorkers? And, the Republicans running for governor hit the debate stage with a major name, Andrew Giuliani, barred from appearing in person over his refusal to get vaccinated. Plus, the January 6th committee hearings are back with lawmakers continuing to lay out the case against former President Donald Trump. Joining us with the latest on these stories are: Shavar Jeffries, civil rights attorney and president of Democrats for Education Reform; Hannah Meyers, director of Policing and Public Safety at the Manhattan Institute; and Alyssa Katz, Deputy Editor at The City.

 

TRANSCRIPT

> TONIGHT, THE SENATE STRIKES A DEAL ON GUN REFORM, BUT DOES IT GO FAR ENOUGH?

GOP CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR FACE-OFF WITH A MAJOR NAME MISSING.

> AND THE KNICKS COMMITTEE LAYS OUT THE CASE AGAINST PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.

'METROFOCUS' STARTS RIGHT NOW.

♪♪

> THIS IS 'METROFOCUS,' WITH RAFAEL PI ROMAN, JACK FORD AND JENNA FLANAGAN.

'METROFOCUS' IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND, BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION.

AND BY --

> GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE 'METROFOCUS' FRONT PAGE FORECAST.

I'M JENNA FLANAGAN.

IN THIS WEEK'S LOOK AHEAD AT THE MAJOR HEADLINES A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF SENATOR STRIKES A DEAL ON GUN SAFETY, INCLUDING ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS AND FUNDING FOR RED FLAG LAWS.

BUT DOES THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION KEEP NEW YORKERS SAFE?

WE'RE ALSO TRACKING THIS WEEK'S DEBATES FOR GOVERNOR AND THE DRAMA HEADING INTO TONIGHT'S GOP SHOWDOWN WORK ANDREW GIULIANI BARRED FROM APPEARING IN PERSON BECAUSE HE'S NOT VACCINATED AGAINST COVID-19.

WE ALSO CAN'T FORGET ABOUT THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE HEARINGS WHICH CONTINUE THIS WEEK WITH LAWMAKERS LAYING OUT THEIR CASE AGAINST FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP.

LET'S WELCOME BACK TONIGHT'S PANEL OF EXPERTS.

UP FIRST, WE HAVE SHAHVAR JEFFERIES, PRESIDENT OF THE DEMOCRATS FOR EDUCATION REFORM.

WELCOME BACK TO 'METROFOCUS.'

THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

HAPPY TO BE HERE.

WE'D ALSO LIKE TO WELCOME BACK HANNAH MEYERS, THE DIRECTOR OF HISSING AND PUBLIC SAFETY AT THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE THINK TANK AND A FORMER NYPD INTELLIGENCE ANALYST.

HANNAH, IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU ON THE SHOW.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

GLAD TO BE HERE.

AND ROUNDING OUT TONIGHT'S ROUND TABLE, WE WELCOME BACK ALISSA KATZ, THE DEPUTY EDITOR AT THE CITY, THE INDEPENDENT DIGITAL NEWSROOM COVERING NEW YORK.

GREAT TO HAVE YOU ON AGAIN.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME BACK.

ALISSA I'M GOING TO START WITH YOU AND DIVE RIGHT INTO THE POTENTIAL GUN LEGISLATION COMING OUT OF THE SENATE.

AND I ALSO WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS OF COURSE FEDERAL, NOT WHAT THE STATE HAS DONE.

BUT CAN YOU JUST SORT OF LAY OUT WHAT IS POSSIBLY ABOUT TO HAPPEN, POSSIBLY?

YEAH, SO A BIPARTISAN GROUP OF SENATORS, INCLUDING MANY WHO ARE NOT UP FOR RE-ELECTION ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, HAVE REACHED A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT AROUND LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PUT IN CERTAIN SAFETY MEASURES INTO GUN PURCHASES, AND PARTICULARLY TARGETED AT PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 21.

WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT IN BOTH THE BUFFALO AND UVALDE MASS KILLINGS, THESE WERE BOTH BY 18-YEAR-OLD MEN WHO WERE ABLE TO LEGALLY ACQUIRE FIREARMS.

SO, THE IDEA HERE WOULD BE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND CHECKS, CHECKING ON MENTAL HEALTH, CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACTIVITY, YOU KNOW, OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT BE RED FLAGS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WOULD ENCOURAGE, ALTHOUGH NOT REQUIRE, STATES TO CREATE WHAT NEW YORK HAS BUT HAS BEEN LIMIT IN THE IMPLEMENTING, WHICH IS A RED FLAG LAW, WHICH IS IF LAW ENFORCEMENT OR SCHOOLS OR ANY AUTHORITY SAW SIGNS OF POTENTIAL DANGEROUSNESS, SOMEONE MAKING THREATS TO KILL OR BEING ARMED AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS, THEY WOULD ALERT LOCAL AUTHORITIES SO THAT THAT PERSON COULD NOT BUY GUNS.

BUT AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE ONLY ENCOURAGEMENT.

WOULDN'T BE A MANDATE.

SO THIS IS PRETTY -- IT'S A MUCH WEAKER THAN DEMOCRATS HAD BEEN PROPOSING WHERE THEY HAD BEEN LOOKING MORE AT THINGS LIKE AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN, RED FLAG MANDATES, MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS WITH FEWER LOOPHOLES.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE HERE.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS GOING TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFER, HANNAH, I WANT TO BRING YOU IN AND GET YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

OF COURSE THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY SOMETHING THAT WOULD ADDRESS ILLEGAL GUNS, AND I KNOW THAT'S A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM IN STREET CRIME IN NEW YORK, BUT OVERALL, IS THIS A STEP FORWARD?

I THINK IT'S A STEP FORWARD.

WE'RE HAVING PARALLEL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT MASS SHOOTINGS AND STREET LEVEL GUN VIOLENCE.

THIS IS DEFINITELY GEARED MORE TOWARD MASS SHOOTINGS.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO ASK AROUND GUN CONTROL, WHAT'S FEASIBLE AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE?

WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THOSE BIGGER CHANGES LIKE BANNING VAULT RIFLES, THAT DIDN'T STOP ANYTHING IN COLUMBINE AND SANDY HOOK, AND I THINK THAT THIS AGREEMENT DOES KIND OF CENTER ON, WHAT DO WE KNOW COULD HELP?

IN BUFFALO, THE SHOOTER WAS FLAGGED AS SOMEONE WITH VIOLENT IDEAUATION, MENTAL ILLNESS.

HE HAD A 15-MINUTE CHECK WHICH WAS A JOKE, AND HE CONVINCED THEM HE WAS FINE.

SO TIGHTENING UP AROUND PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE A DANGER, INCREASING THAT LEVEL OF SUPERVISION, ALSO INCREASING SECURITY TRAINING AND AVAILABLE AT SCHOOLS.

WHAT WAS SO HEARTBREAKING IN UVALDE, IF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT HAD JUST GONE IN SOONER, WHO KNOWS HOW MANY LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED.

ALL THESE THINGS ARE REASONABLE CHANGES.

THE RED FLAG, CERTAINLY IT'S EARLY DAYS WITH THESE LAWS.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT DATA WILL LOOK LIKE WHEN WE HAVE HAD THEM LONGER.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE GET FLAGGED BY A TEACHER, LOVED ONE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHO DON'T END UP GETTING BANNED FROM HAVING A GUN.

WE ONLY KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE DO HAVE IT.

THESE NUMBERS WOULD BE HELPFUL IN KNOWING, IS THIS A MANDATE THAT HELPED OR NOT DOING AS MUCH GOOD AS WE WOULD LIKE?

I THINK THESE ARE ALL STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

WILL IT IMPACT GUN VIOLENCE ON THE STREET?

PROBABLY NOT AT ALL.

THAT INVOLVES A LOT MORE PUTTING BACK DETERRENTS AND CONSEQUENCES TO OWNING AN ILLEGAL FIREARM, CARRYING AN ILLEGAL FIREARM AND SHOOTING AN ILLEGAL FIREARM, AND ALSO MORE CONSEQUENCES TO LOW LEVEL OFFENDING, WHICH SO OFTEN IS HOW WE IDENTIFY FIREARMS, GET THEM OFF THE STREET, AND DETER PEOPLE WHO WOULD COMMIT SHOOTINGS WHO TEND TO HAVE LONG CRIMINAL RECORDS FROM TAKING THAT NEXT STEP FARTHER.

SHAVAR, SAME QUESTION TO YOU.

IS THIS A STEP FORWARD FOR THE LARGER GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA, AND DOES THIS KEEP PEOPLE IN THE TRISTATE AREA SAFER?

I DEFINITELY THINK THE PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION -- WE'LL SEE WHAT THE FINAL BILL LOOKS LIKE.

I THINK THE PROPOSED FRAME WORK IS A STEP FORWARD.

IT'S AN INCREMENTAL STEP FORWARD.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

SOME BASIC IMPROVEMENTS AROUND BACKGROUND CHECKS, SOME CAPACITY TO IDENTIFY THOSE WHO MAY HAVE SOME MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGE.

I THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD.

I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT AND OFTEN TIMES LOST IN PUBLIC CONVERSATION IS YOU NEED A MULTIPLICITY OF STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.

SO IN ADDITION TO MAKING IT HARDER FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO DO HARM TO THOSE WHO ACCESS GUNS, PARTICULARLY ASSAULT WEAPONS -- I MEAN, THAT'S A POSITIVE STEP FORWARD.

BUT WE NEED A STRATEGY THAT ALSO INVOLVES PREVENTION EFFORT.

SOME OF THE CONVERSATION HERE FOCUSES VERY MUCH ON CONSEQUENCES, AND THAT CLEARLY IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF IT.

WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE INVESTING IN SERVICES SO YOUNG THEM OR NOT SO YOUNG PEOPLE WHAT MAKE A CHOICE TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR UNDERSTAND THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS FOR THEM.

WHETHER THAT'S WRAPAROUND SERVICES, COUNSELLING SERVICES, WHETHER THAT'S A THRIVING ECONOMY WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY FIND EMPLOYMENT IN THE PRODUCTIVE ECONOMY VERSUS THE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY, AND ABSOLUTELY CONSEQUENCES FOR VIOLENT CRIMES MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

IN THIS COUNTRY, HOWEVER, IS AN OVERPROSECUTION OF NONVIOLENT OFFENSES THAT TEND TO BE TARGET AT LOW INCOME FOLKS AND FOLK OF COLOR, PARTICULARLY DRUG USE.

TO A DEGREE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSEQUENCE FOR VIOLENT ACTIVITY.

WE'RE GOING BACK TO WHAT DID NOT WORK IN THE PAST, WHICH IS AN OVERPOLICING OR PROSECUTION FOR REGULATORY OR NONVIOLENT OFFENSES, THAT WILL BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND NOT ONLY FACILITATE THE RACISM WE'VE SEEN IN OUR CALIFORNIA PUNISHMENT SYSTEM FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

ALISSA, I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOU QUICKLY.

WE KNOW THE STATE, OF COURSE, LEGISLATURE WAS ALSO PICKING THUMB ISSUE, AND DO WE KNOW IF THEY HAVE TIED TO OR FACTORED IN HOW POLICING WOULD WORK IN TANDEM WITH ANY NEW GUN LAWS?

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, NEW YORK ALREADY HAS A RED FLAG LAW, AND ONE THING THAT HANNAH SAID, IT SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK, THAT THE COUNTY UPSTATE DID NOT IMPLEMENT IT DESPITE THIS BRIGHT RED WARNING SIGN, THE CONTRAST, SUFFOLK COUNTY USE RED FLAG LAOS AGGRESSIVELY.

EACH LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNTIES ARE TAKING IT SERIOUSLY AND ALSO THAT YOU HAVE TRAINING, BUT CERTAINLY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR EDUCATORS.

HANNAH MENTIONED, AND I THINK THIS IS CORRECT, THE FAMILIES AS WELL.

LIKE, IF YOU HAVE A CONCERN THAT -- AND IT'S HAPPENED, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE CASE IN HARLEM WHERE TWO POLICE OFFICERS WERE BRUTALLY MURDERED WHEN THEY RESPONDED TO A DOMESTIC INCIDENT THIS YEAR.

YOU KNOW, THEY -- THIS WAS A SITUATION WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE MOTHER DIDN'T KNOW THAT HE WAS ARMED, BUT YOU HAVE PLENTY OF DOMESTIC SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE PEOPLE ARE VERY AWARE, VERY SCARED, AND THE RED FLAG LAW CAN BE A WAY TO DO SOMETHING, ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO DISARM THE INDIVIDUAL, AT LEAST THERE'S A WAY TO ALERT AUTHORITIES.

OF COURSE.

I DO WANT TO PIVOT TO ONE OF OTHER BIG ISSUES AND THAT'S GOING TO BE WHO'S LEADING THE STATE GOING FORWARD.

THE PRIMARIES ARE COMING UP, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A GOP PRIMARY DEBATE, HOWEVER, PERHAPS EVERYONE WON'T BE THERE.

ALISSA, I WANT TO GO BACK TO YOU.

I MENTIONED IT IN THE LEAD, BUT IF YOU COULD SET THE STAGE FOR WHAT IS AND NOT HAPPENING?

THE CANDIDATES WHO I'M AWARE ARE PARTICIPATING WOULD BE LEE ZELDIN, I BELIEVE ROB AS TORINO, AND ANDREW GIULIANI, SON OF GIULIANI.

ANDREW IS SAYING HE'S BEEN BANNED FROM THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE A VACCINATION REQUIREMENT, AND HE'S REFUSING TO PROVIDE PROOF OF VACCINATION.

HE SAID IN THE PAST HE'S UNVACCINATED.

CLEARLY HE'S RELISHING THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THE VACCINE MANDATE AS AN ISSUE, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO POTENTIAL VOTERS.

WE DO HAVE AN EMPLOYEE VACCINATION MANDATE WITHIN NEW YORK CITY, AND WHILE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF REPUBLICAN VOTERS HERE, THERE'S CERTAINLY A FACTION OF THEM.

SOME PEOPLE HAVE LOST THEIR JOBS OR BEEN FORCED TO GET VACCINATIONS BECAUSE OF THAT.

SO I THINK IT'S A SAVVY MOVE ON GIULIANI'S PART TO STRIKE A MOOD AMONG THE REPUBLICAN BASE STATEWIDE.

THE POLITICS OF VACCINATION IS ONE THING, BUT LEGALLY DOES THIS -- WOULD THIS STILL HOLD UP CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE SEE MANDATES FOR VACCINATION AND SOMETIMES TESTING AND MASKING BEING DROPPED RIGHT AND LEFT ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AT THE FEDERAL AND LOCAL LEVEL?

HANNAH, I'LL DIRECT THAT TO YOU.

WELL, ACTUALLY, ALISSA WAS NODDING HER HEAD LIKE SHE KNOWS THE ANSWER.

I KNOW THE PUBLIC SAFETY SIDE, AND I AGREE WITH ALISSA THAT THIS SEEMS LIKE PERHAPS A WELL CALCULATED MOVE TO WHAT WILL MAKE HIM STAND OUT AMONGST THE OTHER CANDIDATES, WHICH IS HIS STANCE AGAINST THE VACCINE MANDATES.

HE'LL BE IN THE DEBATE VIRTUALLY.

I BELIEVE HARRY WILSON WILL BE THERE IN PERSON AS WELL.

I THINK WHAT WILL BE INTERESTING ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, ON PUBLIC SAFETY, THEY ALL KIND OF HAVE THE SAME SLURRY OF THINGS THEY WANT.

BAIL REFORM, LESS IS MORE, RAISE THE AGE.

THEY SAID THEY'LL GO AFTER ATTORNEYS WHO DON'T PROSECUTE AND TRY TO REMOVE THEM.

PROBABLY LOOKING AT ALVIN BRAG.

MORE POLICE ENFORCEMENT.

EXTENSION OF THINGS LIKE KENDRA'S LAW, MENTAL HEALTH LONG TIME SUPERVISION FOR THOSE THAT ENTER THE SYSTEM WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.

THE QUESTION IS WHO'S GOING TO HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL AND FORCE TO GET THESE THINGS TO HAPPEN, TO MOVE THE LEGISLATURE, AS WELL AS WHO WILL BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE WHY WE NEED THESE CHANGES TO THE MEDIA, THE PUBLIC, THE VOTERS.

I THINK ZELDIN AND ASTORINO ARE IN OFFICE NOW, THEY HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE A LONG TIME.

THAT MIGHT BE THEIR STRENGTH IN CARRYING OUT CHANGES.

HARRY WILSON IS AN OUTSIDER, THAT MIGHT GIVE HIM STRENGTH.

HE'S A BUSINESSMAN.

HE'LL LEAN INTO THAT.

AND GIULIANI MAYBE THE BIG PERSONALITY.

HIS FATHER, WHO EXACTLY DID TURN AROUND CRIMINAL JUSTICE 30 YEARS AGO IN A VERY PARALLEL WAY.

ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE THERE'S VARIATION ON WHERE THEY'RE COMING DOWN WITH CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY, WITH TOM SWAZY BEING IN LOCK STEP WITH THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE, AND STATEWIDE BAIL REFORM LAWS, GOING AFTER D.A.s.

JAMANY WILLIAMS REALLY STILL STICKING TO THE PROGRESSIVE SIDE OF THINGS, FOCUSING ON HOUSING AND JOBS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AS A CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY AND STILL TALKING ABOUT PULLING BACK ON POLICING.

SO REALLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAP.

THEN HOCHUL IN THE MIDDLE WHO'S TRYING TO WALK THE LINE, REALIZING CRIMINAL JUSTICES IS A BIG ISSUE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.

PUBLIC SAFETY CHANGES THAT SHE SUBMIT IN THE LAST SPRING, INCLUDING TWEAKING DISCOVERY, WHICH DIDN'T GET PAST.

TWEAKS TO BAIL REFORM, HOW FAR SHE'S GOING TO GO TO SET HERSELF APART FROM OTHER CANDIDATES AND ACTUALLY PUSHING FOR BIGGER CHANGES OR THOSE CHANGES OR ARTICULATING WHY THEY'RE NECESSARY.

I THINK SHE'S GOING TO TRY TO PLAY IT SAFE BUCK DEMOCRATS WILL HAVE A BIG VARIATION TO PICK FROM.

DEFINITELY A BIG VARIATION.

UNTIL OF COURSE WE DETERMINE WHICH WILL BE THE TWO CANDIDATES.

SHAVAR, I WANT TO GET YOUR TAKE.

THERE IS A LOT OF TALK ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE BY PEOPLE RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR ABOUT REPEALING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORMS THAT SOME PEOPLE CONSIDER PERHAPS HAVE MADE NEW YORK MORE DANGEROUS, WHILE OTHERS HAVE SAID IT'S MADE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, I SHOULD SAY, A LITTLE BIT FAIRER.

AND I'M WONDERING YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THAT.

YEAH, TO ME WHAT WE'RE SEEING FROM REPUBLICANS IS WHAT WE'VE SEEN A LONG TIME FROM CONSERVATIVES ON ISSUES OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT.

IT'S THE PERFORMATIVE POLITICS THAT IS REALLY ROOTED IN RACE.

THERE'S NO WAY FOR ME TO AGGREGATE OUR RACIAL HISTORY FROM WHAT WE'RE SEEING.

MOST OF THE CHANGES WILL BE VISIT UPON LOW INCOME PEOPLE OF COLOR.

THE BACK DOOR APPROACH TO POLICING DID NOT WORK.

TON OF RESEARCH HAVE SPOKEN TO THAT.

AND WE'RE NOT HEARING THE MORE BALANCED CONVERSATION WE TEND TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE THAT ARE DEEMED TO BE MODERATE.

BUT THE REALITY IS ON MOST COMPLEX ISSUES IT'S A CONSIDERATION OF A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT FACTORS YOU WANT TO BRING TO BEAR.

NONVIOLENT OFFENSES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED THROUGH THE CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT MECHANISM.

THEY SHOULD NOT LEAD TO INCARCERATION.

THESE TEND TO BE ISSUES THAT DRUG TREATMENT CAN ADDRESS.

I WOULD PUSH THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BE PROGRESSIVE.

WE DO HAVE ISSUES IN TERMS OF GUN VIOLENCE, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, DOMESTIC OFFENSES, A VARIETY OF OTHER OFFENSES THAT INVOLVE VIOLENCE.

IN THOSE CASES, THAT'S WHERE A MORE CONSEQUENT PUNITIVE APPROACH MAKES SENSE TO SEND A CLEAR SIGNAL SOCIETY WILL NOT TOLERATE PHYSICAL ATTACKS ON OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

BUT THE RANGE OF THE REGULATORY OFFENSES, WHICH TENDS TO BE WHERE MANY OF THE CONSERVATIVES FOCUSED THEIR ENERGY, BECAUSE IN A PERFORMATIVE MANNER YOU CAN COMMUNICATE TO YOUR BASE VOTERS THAT YOU'RE ACTIVE ON ISSUES OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT, THAT'S WHERE WE SEE VERY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES THAT FUEL THE MASS INCARCERATION OF BLACK AND BROWN BODIES.

WE NEED AN APPROACH THAT DIFFERENTIATES VIOLENT OFFENSES FROM NONVIOLENT OFFENSES, AND THAT WILL BE THE BEST APPROACH FORWARD.

ALISSA, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOU WERE NODDING WHEN I ASKED THE LEGALITY OF MANDATE WHENCE WE SEE THEM GETTING DROPPED ALL OVER THE PLACE, SO IF YOU JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THAT VERY QUICKLY.

I THINK IN CVSs CASE, THEY'RE REQUIRING VACCINATION FOR PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, GOING IN PERSON TO THEIR STUDIO.

THEY'RE A PRIVATE EMPLOYER AND, THEY CAN REQUIRE WHAT THEY WANT, AS FAR AS I KNOW.

IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF THAT EVER GETS LEGALLY CHALLENGED, BUT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE ON SOLID GROUND.

WE'RE GOING TO PUT A PIN IN THAT FOR NOW, WAIT FOR THE PRIMARIES TO PIG OUT WHO THE OFFICIAL CANDIDATES ARE.

I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE, WE'RE TAPING EARLY IN THE DAY, BUT THE SECOND DAY, I BELIEVE, OF THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE HEARINGS ARE TAKING PLACE, AND WHILE THE COMMITTEE IT SEEMS TO BE LAYING OUT A CASE PERHAPS FOR PROSECUTORS TO BRING CHARGES AGAINST PERHAPS THE FORMER PRESIDENT, HIS CABINET MEMBER OR OTHER ASSOCIATES, I THINK THE LARGER QUESTION PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW IS, IS THIS EVEN WORTH IT?

IS IT GOING TO WORK?

IS IT WORTH WHAT THEY'RE ENEARTHING AND SHOWING TO THE PUBLIC WHEN THE COUNTRY IS SO CLEARLY DIVIDED?

SHAVAR I'LL START WITH YOU.

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT IN ESTABLISHING THAT THE HISTORICAL RECORD IS VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE EXTENT TO WHICH FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES TO NOT ONLY NOT ENGAGE IN A PEACEFUL TRANSFER OF POWER THAT STARTED WITH GEORGE WASHINGTON, BUT TO WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY AND IN AN INSIDIOUS MANNER SEEK TO DISRUPT THAT AND SEEK TO OVERTURN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

WE'VE GOTTEN TO A PLACE WHERE WE'VE NORMALIZED THE KIND OF CHAOS ASSOCIATED WITH DONALD TRUMP THAT WE CAN OFTEN TIMES LOSE PERSPECTIVE FOR HOW ABSURD AND RIDICULOUS THAT HE WAS IN SO MANY DIFFERENT INSTANCES, PARTICULARLY IN THIS CIRCLE THE PEOPLE AROUND HIM KNEW THIS WAS A BIG LIE.

HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL TOLD HIM THAT.

HIS OTHER CORE ASSOCIATES TOLD HIM THAT.

HE KNEW IT WAS A LIE.

BUT FOR HIS OWN PERSONAL PURPOSES, HE PROPAGATED THESE LIES.

SOUGHT TO ARBITER A POTENTIAL ELECTION.

IF FOR NO OTHER REASON THAN OF AN ACCURATE, CLEAR, HISTORICALLY ROUTED REASON ABOUT WHAT THIS INDIVIDUAL DID, SO ME IT WOULD BE WORTH AND IT TO THE EXTENT THE INVESTIGATORS -- PARTICULARLY THE LAST CONVERSATION FOR REPUBLICANS WHEN THEY WANTED TO START LOCKING UP BLACK AND BROWN FOLKS FOR USING WEED, BUT LOOK AWAY FROM TREASON THAT WE SAW FROM THE PRESIDENT, I THINK THAT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

HANNAH, FROM AN ANALYSTS THE PERSPECTIVE, YOUR UNIQUE PERSPECTIVE, DO YOU THINK THUS FAR THE JANUARY 6th COMMITTEE COMPILED ENOUGH DATA OF COMPELLING CASE?

I THINK IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW MUCH MORE WE HAVE TO LEARN THAT WE HAVEN'T LEARNED ALREADY, WHICH MIGHT BE A LOT, MIGHT BE NOTHING.

I THINK WE LEARNED MAYBE ONE OR TWO NEW THINGS IN THE HEARING LAST WEEK.

I THINK THEY DID A GOOD JOB KEEPING IT APOLITICAL TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT IS POSSIBLE.

I WONDER HOW MUCH GOING FORWARD THAT WILL BE POSSIBLE.

IT WAS CERTAINLY VERY MOVING.

THERE WAS A LOT OF FOOTAGE WE HADN'T SEEN.

THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENT TESTIFIED SHE WAS VERY SYMPATHETIC.

SO I THINK GOING FORWARD IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF THIS WEIGHS INTO THE POLITICS OF WHETHER OR NOT TRUMP COULD BE THE CANDIDATE AGAIN, AND THAT ASPECT OF THINGS, AND I THINK BEYOND THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT MORE WILL COME OUT OF IT, OR IF IT WILL BE AN EXERCISE IN TALKING MORE ABOUT IT.

I JUST WANT TO JUMP BACK REAL QUICKLY TO SHAVAR'S LAST STATEMENT, BECAUSE I THINK HE DID IDENTIFY WHERE WE'LL BE IN THE JUSTICE CONVERSATION NOW, IN AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN PULLING BACK ON LOW LEVEL OFFENSES, IT HELPS BLACK NEW YORKERS AND AMERICANS.

IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO WITHOUT INCREASING RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY, VERSUS A GROWING ARGUMENT, SOMETHING ERIC ADAMS RAN ON THAT WE NEED A CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO ACTUALLY GET PEOPLE WHO NEED DRUG REHABILITATION AND REHABILITATION WITHOUT JUDICIAL LEVERAGE OR THREAT OF INCARCERATION.

WE NEED TO GET PEOPLE WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS INTO SUPERVISED CARE, INTO TREATMENT.

HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WOULD REGULARLY HAVE PENDING SPECIAL CASES IN NEW YORK WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE MANDATORY TREATMENT.

IT'S DWINDLED DOWN TO TENS BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY LESS CASES BECAUSE OF BAIL REFORM, DISCOVERY REFORM.

IT'S BLACK AND BROWN NEW YORKERS AND AMERICANS WHO ARE SO EXTREMELY THE VICTIMS OF GUN VIOLENCE, OF OTHER KINDS OF CRIME.

71% OF THE SHOOTING VICTIMS IN NEW YORK, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE 20% OF THE POPULATION.

I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE SITUATION GOING FORWARD, WHICH IS HOW WELL PEOPLE MAKE THE ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES.

I WOULD ALSOBY REMISSED TO SAY THIS IS A BUSY WEEK NEWSWISE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS DECISIONS COMING FROM THE SUPREME COURT.

SO, ALISSA, I WANTED TO JUST GET YOUR TAKE, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE DECISIONS WOULD IMMEDIATELY IMPACT NEW YORK.

OF COURSE, THE DECISION ON ROE VS. WADE, THE DECISION ON CONCEAL AND CARRY.

WHAT IS IT DO YOU KNOW THAT NEW YORK IS PREPARED FOR?

HOW DO WE HANDLE DECISIONS THAT WOULD DIRECTLY AFFECT US?

PARTICULARLY MOST IMMEDIATELY THIS GUN CASE -- YOU KNOW, MY ORGANIZATION, THE CITY, CONTACTED THE NYPD AND A NUMBER OF MAJOR INSTITUTIONS IN NEW YORK CITY TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO PREPARE, BECAUSE WHAT WE CAN ANTICIPATE BASED ON CERTAINLY THE ARGUMENTS FOR SUPPORTER OF, YOU KNOW, THE PLAINTIFFS WHO ARE SEEKING TO OVERTURN NEW YORK STATE'S GUN LICENSING REGULATIONS IS THEY BASICALLY WANT TO ENABLE, YOU KNOW, THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS IN NEW YORK WITH SOME LIMITED EXCEPTIONS FOR WHAT MIGHT BE TURNED SENSITIVE PLACES.

WHICH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A VERY OPEN QUESTION THAT THE JUSTICES REALLY -- THEY CONTEMPLATED A BIT DURING THE HEARING ON THE CASE, DURING THE ARGUMENTS.

LIKE, WHERE WOULD A SENSITIVE PLACE BE?

COULD IT BE TIMES SQUARE, THE SUBWAY, THE NYU CAMPUS?

THIS IS A REALLY OPEN QUESTION, BUT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE REGARDLESS, YOU KNOW, IS WE NOT ONLY HAVE THE SEVERE PROBLEM OF ILLEGAL FIREARMS, BUT WE'LL HAVE A SITUATION QUITE LIKELY, KNOWING THE COMPOSITION OF THE SUPREME COURT WHERE WE'RE ALSO NOW GOING TO BE DEALING WITH LEGAL FIREARMS AND TRYING TO REGULATE THEIR CARRYING AND USE IN A VERY DENSE URBAN ENVIRONMENT.

MAYOR ADAMS HAS BEEN CLEAR.

HE FINDS THIS ALL KIND OF VERY ALARMING, FRIGHTENING, AND CHALLENGING -- LOOMING CHALLENGE, AND THAT THE NYPD IS SAYING THAT THEY'RE PREPARING FOR THIS.

BUT WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW.

WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE SEE THE DECISION, AND WE WON'T KNOW REALLY HOW THIS PLACE OUT, I THINK, UNTIL WE BEGIN TO SEE HOW INSTITUTIONS -- IN DEPARTMENT STORES, YOU NAME IT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT, HOW TO JUSTIFY FIREARMS, CAN THEY DO IT, AND WHAT WILL THE FURTHER ACTIONS BE AS WELL AROUND THAT TURF, HOW DO WE REGULATE WHERE GUNS ARE AND WHERE THEY CAN'T BE?

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

I WANT TO THANK MY PANEL OF EXPERTS.

SHAVAR JEFFERIES, HANNAH MEYERS, DIRECTOR OF POLICING AND PUBLIC SAFETY AT THE MANHATTAN INSTITUTE THINK TANK AND FORMER NYPD INTELLIGENCE ANALYST, AND OF COURSE ALISSA KATZ, DEPUTY EDITOR AT THE CITY, THE INDEPENDENT DIGITAL NEWSROOM COVERING NEW YORK.

THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING ME ON THE 'METROFOCUS' ROUND TABLE.

> 'METROFOCUS' IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- SUE AND EDGAR WACHENHEIM III, THE PETER G. PETERSON AND JOAN GANZ COONEY FUND, BERNARD AND DENISE SCHWARTZ, BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG, THE AMBROSE MONELL FOUNDATION.

©2022 WNET. All Rights Reserved. 825 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10019

WNET is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Tax ID: 26-2810489