Ahead of tomorrow’s expected veto by President Obama, Bret Baier took a fair and balanced look at the 9/11 Bill, holding back-to-back interviews with Jack Quinn (an attorney representing the 9/11 families) and Judge Michael Mukasey.
Quinn told Bret that the 9/11 families are “incredibly distressed” that President Obama would veto the bill, but is “absolutely confident” that Congress will “overwhelmingly” override it. When asked about a letter written by top officials (including Judge Mukasey) arguing the bill would undercut sovereign immunity protection, Quinn described those suggestions as false because “sovereign immunity is not an absolute.” “The conflation, the confusion that the judge [Mukasey] and his colleagues in the administration make between what the United States does to prevent terrorism and what other countries do to support terrorism is a very dangerous proposition,” Quinn said.
On the other side, Mukasey argued that while he has sympathy for the 9/11 families, “we don’t want to hurt ourselves in an effort” to try to help them. Mukasey also said “there has been no such determination” that the Saudi government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Overall, Mukasey’s view is that the United States has “the most at risk from the notion not that another country is going to do the same thing as was done in this bill, but rather that they're going to use this as the excuse to undercut sovereign immunity.”