not vote. i think it's important that every american have the opportunity to vote. voting is the central facet, the fulcrum of our democracy. so anything that can -- any legislation that will encourage more voting i strongly support. specifically you were referring to the supreme court decision in the shelby county case which said that the coverage formula for pre-clearance couldn't be used as unconstitutional because of the then-stated congressional record, but the court indicated that a different and stronger record might support pre-clearance, and i would be in favor, if i'm confirmed, of working with the committee and the senate and the house to try and develop that record that would allow that important tool

to be used. the department still does have other tools. it has section 2 which remains in force as the supreme court clearly said in shelby county, and it prevents interference with voting practices and proc procedures, you know, that interfere with minorities' ability to vote, and it is something that the department has always looked to as an important tool. there are plenty of other tools to increase the ability of americans to vote, which i would support. >> thank you. i know senator lee has already raised there, but please know that senator lee and i will both be talking to you about privacy matters. this is not a privacy issue, it's an issue of concern and we'll do that.

let me ask you another question about an issue concerned to be in the bush administration, the last bush administration, they put a moratorium on death sentences in certain cases. they gave a reason for that. that death moratorium lasted from 2003 during the bush administration, and then suddenly in the last six months, the justice department, under the last president, rushed to execute more people. this is what's stunning. in six months there's more than has been executed in the past 60 years. i feel that is nothing short of

being a killing spree. what worries me is we all know the death penalty is used disproportionately against minorities and the poor. i was a prosecutor. i prosecuted many murder cases. i was opposed to that. i would much rather have somebody serve their time for years in a prison cell thinking about what they did wrong. now, senator durbin and senator booker reintroducing the federal death penalty bill which would end the federal death penalty. so i ask you this. would you go back to what president bush did and reinstate the federal moratorium which was looked at in the last few

months, have it reinstated while senator booker, senator durham, myself and others work on the legislation eliminating the death penalty? >> as you know, senator, president biden is an opponent of the death penalty. i have to say that over those almost 20 years in which the federal death penalty had been paused, i have had a great pause about the death penalty. i am very concerned about the large number of exonerations that have occurred through dna evidence and otherwise, not only in death penalty convictions but also in other convictions. i think a terrible thing occurs when somebody is convicted of a crime that they did not commit, and the most terrible thing happens if someone is executed for a crime they did not commit. it's also the case that during

this pause, we've seen fewer and fewer death penalty applications anywhere in the country, not only in the federal government but among the states. and as a consequence, i'm concerned about the increasing almost randomness or arbitrariness of its application when you have so few number of cases. and finally, and very importantly, is the other matter that you raise which is its disparate impact. the data is clear it has an enormously disparate impact on black americans and members of communities of color and exonerations also, that something like half the exonerations had to do with black men. so all of this has given me pause, and i expect that the president will be given direction in this area, and if

so, i expect it not at all unlikely that we will return to the previous policy. >> thank you. i think my time is probably just about up, but also as part of the appropriations committee, i'll be talking to you about the primary justice, the grants they had on violence against women act, voca grants, other such things. they have had bipartisan support. we have to make sure they are done. frankly, judge, i'm very happy you're here. i have a feeling we're going to have a lot of conversations in the next few years. >> well, i hope that's the case, senator. i'd be happy to have conversations even if i'm not confirmed, but i certainly prefer them if i am confirmed. >> you're going to be confirmed.

i'll bet my farm in vermont on that. >> never ask anybody to bet that, senator. >> thank you, senator leahy. senator sasse? >> i'm john king in washington. welcome to "inside politics." we'll continue to watch the hearing here. you see judge merrick garland. he is president biden's choice for attorney general for the united states. the judicial committee going through a two-day hearing. a number of interesting topics about that. we'll take to you the white house in a few moments. the president about to announce some changes to a very important covid relief program, the so-called ppp program. a lot of money is going to big businesses and not mom and pop businesses. also on this busy news day, a former setback on the supreme court. donald trump must turn over to manhattan prosecutors in new york his tax records. his tax records part of the investigation there. lots to cover in the hour ahead. let's begin with what we were

listening to. a very important confirmation hearing for the man who will become the next top law official. judge merrick garland, the last 22 years an appeals court here in washington. pledging that priority 1 would be to put behind bars those found responsible for the capitol insurrection back on january 6th. with us to share the reporting and their insights on this very important confirmation hearing is cnn's dana bash, our legal analyst ellen honig. wi don't know how many republican votes, but it's clear many republicans plan to supporting judge garland. he was a prosecutor back before he was on the bench as a judge in the oklahoma city bombing back in the mid-'90s. timothy mcvey in oklahoma city. he linked that experience to what he told senators here will be his number one challenge if, which we assume, he will be the attorney general. >> i served the prosecution of

the perpetrators of the oklahoma city federal building who sought to spark a revolution that would topple the federal government. if confirmed, i will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the capitol on january 6th. a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy. >> we know, laura coates, 230 people have been charged already, including more than a dozen members of the so-called proud boys extremist group, another dozen or so belonged to the oath keepers group. judge garland being very careful in his words, very cautious, saying he needs to get briefed, obviously, by the prosecutors on the investigation, but what did you take away from it as an accomplished lawyer as to how he's going to approach this critical first case? >> first of all, it's very clear he believes in the separation of powers because he sees the insurrection as an attempt to

topple our government, and the way we look at the separation of these co-equal branches of government. so he's already committed in ways we haven't seen. and remember, the justice department is under the executive branch of government, so he is going to bat for the legislative branch of government. on top of that, he's concerned with the idea of the white supremacy that was part and parcel to many of the what we saw on screen for the insurrections as well. he is using his previous experience as a domestic terrorism prosecutor to tackle what is domestic terrorism, the idea of white supremacy and trying to lash out. what i also saw was him being very cautious about the idea of he's well aware that there is going to be a 9/11 style commission, john, that will look into what happened at the insurrection and leading up to it. and he's concerned as a prosecutor there is going to be a conflict of interest for the witnesses who might see competing investigations as a way to maybe go around or deter them from testifying in either. so he was very adamant about

saying, i welcome this commission as long as it does not interfere with our ability to prosecute and to hear from witnesses. that's him being very forward thinking about what's going to happen about the public's need to know about what happened and the prosecutor's role in trying to punish those who were involved, those who encouraged and those who have impacted our democracy. >> forward thinking and clearly aware there is likely to be some tension given the court cases. those prosecutions might take months and months. judge merrick garland, well respected here in town, repeatedly saying i'm the people's lawyer, i'm not the president's lawyer. i will be independent. but he's about to become attorney general at a time there are potential trump criminalizations that could cross his desk. hunter biden's business dealings, we know his taxes under investigation by the u.s. attorney in delaware. rudy giuliani's ukraine activities under investigation by federal authorities. the durham probe on the russia

investigation will be inherited by judge garland. he wants to be apolitical, but some of the things, they collide sometimes. politics and policy do. listen to this exchange. this is senator grassley and whether he discussed this with the president. >> have you discussed this hunter biden case with the president or anyone else? >> i have not. the president made abundantly clear in every public statement before and after my nomination that decisions about investigations and prosecutions will be left to the justice department. that was the reason that i was willing to take on this job. and so the answer to your question is no. >> he's a cool customer, and again, he's an experienced jurist on the bench. he knows he's not supposed to say much in those answers. did you take anything away from that specifically about hunter biden or from the other

questions about energy and politics about how he could build that firewall? >> i did, john. i think merrick garland has made as clear as humanly possible that he will restore independence to doj. that's his number one value, that's historically doj's number one value. when he is asked, did you discuss this investigation with president biden, he said unequivocally, no, i have not. i think he's made it very clear. watching ted cruz interrogate merrick garland, and he skipped over the last four years. he didn't say anything about what donald trump did. i worked under doj under the bush administration, the obama administration. what happened the last four years is far, far worse than any of those. it was hard to sit here and listen to ted cruz sort of get on his high horse about politicization of doj, but i think merrick garland has made quite clear that independence is

his number one priority. >> since you brought it up, let's talk about the politics, dana. ted cruz, let's just say, humiliating and embarrassing trying to prove his bona fides and talking about eric holder as this horrible attorney general. the democrats wanted to talk about bill barr and donald trump and the justice department at large, so the issue came up about independence. let's listen. ted cruz saying eric holder once described himself as president trump's wing man. >> am i right to assume that you do not assume your role as attorney general as being joe biden's wing man? >> i assure you i do not consider myself as anything other than the lawyer for the people of the united states. i'm not the president's lawyer, i am the united states' lawyer. >> number one. again, judge garland is a very impressive guy. he knows how to stay in the lanes and answer. to elie's point, he said very

clearly i'm going to be the justice lawyer but i'm not going to do politics. i'm going to talk about the attempted realization of ted cruz there. >> and he used the term wing man. these are important questions to be asked of merrick garland. he's answered them so far, and we have a lot more to go. many, many times he addressed the notion of taking politics out of doj from the very beginning in his opening statement. but just as elie said, the fact that the republicans are using their time to get a sound bite played on fox news and other conservative media, which is exactly what we just saw for their political benefit, there's absolutely no irony left in here. i don't even know how to describe it. because, for example, ted cruz, it's not just that he ignored the past four years, it's that he was a very real player in the farce that was the stolen

election that donald trump put forward. so, you know, i think we have to say that, get on the record with that, and then move on. look, more broadly that you mentioned this, john, whether it's chuck grassley, the top republican on the committee now, lindsey graham, maybe even cornyn. it could be a pretty big vote given the policy nature of this role for so many years. >> and there was a little bit of, we owe you, judge garland. maybe there is a little tiny bit of guilt. as the hearing was playing out this morning, a blockbuster ruling from the united states supreme court. it is now allowing the release of former president trump's tax returns to a new york prosecutor. those returns will be subject to grand jury secrecy rules, meaning the public, you and i, may never see them. this, of course, part of an

investigation into trump organization, questions about trump organization finances and questions about hush money payments on an issue voinvolvin the president. quote, the application for a stay presented to justice breyer and referred to the court is denied. laura, president trump has fought this and fought this and fought this for years. now a conservative majority on the court with three justices saying cyrus vance, the manhattan d.a. and his grand jury are entitled to this. what happens now? the public may never see this unless there is a case brought forward and pieces of the tax returns are used as evidence. >> that's correct, and as you noted, there actually has been no noted dissents there, so you've got three justices that trump put on the court himself, essentially, and they did not allow him to have this sort of immunity from having to hand out

or hand over his tax documents. that's number one. but also you're right. a grand jury has secrecy requirements and rules for a reason. we don't want people to have all of their dirty laundry aired unless there is some actual criminal connection there. remember, michael cohen, the former fixer of president trump, was the one to alert the court through a hearing not unlike what we're seeing now about the idea of overinflation of assets, deflation of assets as well which led to the conclusions about whether the tax returns could be used in some criminal prosecution or investigation. so unless the grand jury finds that there is some criminal hook in terms of the overinflation or overstatement of assets or the deflation for some sort of tax benefit, we may never see any of this. again, it has to go all the way to trial for us to see this. if there is an early plea, if there is some sort of settlement of some type, we wouldn't see that, either. it's going to be incumbent upon the grand jurors to find that hook for the prosecutors to look and see if there really is one.

and remember, trump's lawyers have said from day one, this is all about a continuing witch hunt. this is overbroad. you have no interest in a prosecution. you have only an interest in trying to embarrass me or show that i'm not the wealthy individual that i said i am. but the court essentially said, actually, there appears to be a criminal hook here, enough for a grand jury to investigate the issue, and it's in their hands now, not the federal government, it's in the grand jurors' hands right now to figure out if an indictment should be forthcoming. >> elie, help us through that. if you're working on a case involving financial documents, if you're asking about certain properties when they were borrowing money from banks, and did they declare them in a different value when they filed their taxes. if you're trying to build a case, how significant is it that a grand jury and a prosecutor working financial crimes will now have these precious documents? >> john, this is a crucial and necessary piece of the investigation, because like you said, the crux of the investigation here is how did they value different assets at

different times? as a prosecutor, you want to say, when they applied for a bank loan, when did they say their assets were worth, what their income was, those kinds of things. how did they identify the same numbers with the assets. when donald trump individually filed his tax returns, how did he value those same assets? if you see a big difference between the different documents, the different times when he had to report those asset values, that's what prosecutors are going to be drawn to. that's going to be the heart of any charge that may or may not come out of the manhattan d.a. >> and, dana, the biggest lie this former prosecutor told was about the election in 2015-2016 through his presidency when asked why don't you release your taxes to the public or to the prosecutor, the answer was a combination of this. >> when the audit is complete, i'll release my returns. i have no problem with it. it doesn't matter. >> we're under order despite what people said, and we're

working that out. i'm always under audit, it seems, but i've been under audit for many years because the numbers are big, and i guess when you have a name, you're audited. >> actually, i paid tax. and you'll see that as soon as my tax returns -- it's under audit. they've been under audit for a long time. the irs does not treat me well. >> don't have to list ton that anymore, anyway. at least the prosecutors will get to answer their questions. >> yeah. there's absolutely no -- since you played it, there's no rule that says that just because somebody's tax returns are under audit, allegedly, according to him, not anybody else, that they can't release what they have. >> that was an excuse from day one through now. >> exactly. i know the point you were trying to make. i actually am looking at it through a political lens, looking through to 2024 and wondering whether the very real

flirtation around the former president around him making another run could be impacted by a final -- finally the public being able to view the tax returns that he worked so hard to hide, and if this is a real detrimental reason, even for somebody who has the political teflon that he does among, i don't know, what, 30% or so of the republican base, which matters a lot when you're running in the republican primary, maybe depending on what's in there, the question was whether or not he might think he'll open himself up to another political run. he is someone that didn't have the shame before, but it could be different when it's his money. >> so many republicans who are publicly still afraid of him, some kissing his ring at the moment, privately whispering that they hope something takes

him off the battlefield, including one of these investigations. we'll see as it goes. d dana bash, laura coates, e elie honig, thank you. the white house cannot count on any republican support for the covid relief bill. 500,000 american lives lost to covid-19. >> the chair asks all members in the chamber, as well as members and staff throughout the capitol, to rise for a moment of silence in remembrance of more than 500,000 americans who have passed away from the covid-19 virus. some say this is my greatest challenge ever. but i've seen centuries of this. with a companion that powers a digital world,

traded with a touch. the gold standard, so to spspeak ;) tonight, i'll be eating the al pastor burrito from boca burritos right here in aurora. (doorbell rings) excellent as a local access show, we want everyone to support local restaurants. right cardi b? yeah! eat local! (trill sound)

we're just moments away, an important message from the president of the united states. there has been a lot of criticism that the ppp has not gone to mom and pop businesses. the president will speak in a couple moments. while we speak, we have dana bash and cnn's kaitlan collins. the president is about to tweak the covid relief bill, at least, as we hit 500,000 covid deaths. >> we'll hear the blowback of the covid-19 relief bill as we mark this death rate later on in the day. this is all going to be about small businesses and what they should expect going forward. and, of course, this is his paycheck protection program you saw implemented under former president trump. of course, there were so many

questions raised about it because of how quickly they were trying to get the money out initially and who it was going to. so every time you see them try to restart the program, have a second iteration of it, they're trying to make adjustments every time to try to make the program better. probably what's notable about this one and what we heard from the sba earlier today is this is really focused on helping those small, small businesses. starting wednesday, there will be a two-week moratorium where only businesses who have 20 or fewer employees can apply for these loans, because there was a concern they were going to be shut out. here's president biden now. >> i had an opportunity to catch up with two small business owners i met on the road in the last couple weeks, and the first was a very entrepreneurial woman named pilar guzman savalla and she's from florida in miami.

and tim ottinger from wisconsin. both had small businesses but lived in different places. i heard, my shmall business is hurting badly and i need help now. it's my business to make sure they get help now. small businesses are the engines of our economic progress, they're the glue in the heart and soul of our communities. but they're getting crushed. since the beginning of this pandemic, 400,000 small businesses have closed, 400,000. and millions more are hanging by a thread. it's hurting black, latino and asian american communities the hardest. walk down any main street and you see it. empty storefronts, goodbye signs hanging in the windows. maybe it's the pizza place you used to take your family to dinner or the hardware store that always had the tool you

needed. it's the mom and pop shop that's sponsored by -- is supported by the community, and in turn, they support the community. they sponsor little league teams. the barber shop with the first dollar bill that he or she earned still taped to the wall along with a picture of their kids who are now in college. these small businesses, not the ones with 500 employees, but these small businesses met with a handful of folks. they are 90% of the businesses in america. but when the paycheck protection program was passed, a lot of these mom and pop businesses got muscled out of the way by bigger companies who jumped in front of the line. i want to be clear, the paycheck protection program is a bipartisan effort. democrats and republicans helped pass it. but democrats and republicans have also voiced concerns about improving it. with their input, that's what

we're doing in our administration, improving it. in the last month, we've increased the share of funding for small businesses to fewer than 10 employees by nearly 60%. for businesses in rural communities, the share of funding is up nearly 30% since we came to office. and the share of funding distributed through banks that traditionally help minority-owned businesses is up more than 40%. and today i'm announcing additional changes to the ppp program that will make sure we look out for the mom and pop business even more than we already have. as i explained to pilar and tim, the two small business owners i spoke to, on wednesday the small business administration is going to establish a 14-day exclusive ppp loan application period for businesses and nonprofits with fewer than 20 employees.

people can go out and find how to get ahold of these loans. people can find out more at the sba.gov. small business administration will also remove barriers that have stopped many businesses from being able to apply for these loans. for example, we're making it so that a student loan default or a non-fraud related criminal record does not prohibit someone from applying for the program. we're also making it easier for those one-person businesses like the home repair contractors, beauticians, small independent retailers to secure forgivable ppp loans. at the same time, we're increasing access by increasing oversight. i invite any inspector general in this program with jurisdiction over this program to closely look at these loans and report -- publicly report on

any issues they uncover inconsistent with what i'm saying today. we will ensure every dollar is spent well. these changes will bring much-needed long overdue help to small businesses who really need help staying open, maintaining jobs and making ends meet, and this is a starting point, not the ending point. we need congress to pass my american rescue plan. it deals with the immediate crisis facing our small businesses. now, critics say the plan is too big. let me ask a rhetorical question. what would you have me cut? what would you leave out? the american rescue plan targets $50 billion to support the hardest hit small businesses after this program expires the end of march. would you not help invest in them? would you let them continue to go under? would you leave them out again, like the previous administration

did? one of the things i've heard again and again from small business owners like pilar and tim is that knowing about support is one thing. gaining access to getting it is another. that's why we propose the $175 million to bring community organizations in to serve as navigators who help them through this process of application. we would also establish a hotline with help available in multiple languages so folks can pick up a phone and get the help they need to stay open and serve their community. again, the creitics say it's to big. do we not spend money on them? do we not want these businesses to be able to stay open and thrive and pay back? why would we not want to make sure small businesses who lack teams of lawyers, bankers and accountants have an advocate, someone they can rely on to direct them to help that's there

for them now, will be there for them. the american rescue plan is a rescue plan for america's small businesses and america's mainstream businesses. and we need congress to pass it right away. i'm grateful to the senate and the house for moving so quickly. i want to make it clear i'm prepared to hear ideas about how to make the american rescue plan better and cheaper. but we have to make clear who we're helping and who it would hurt. i always try to help people like tim and pilar and all the country's small businesses and families, the workers, the communities that depend on them to survive, recover and grow. it's my hope -- my hope -- that as democrats and republicans who have backed the ppp program, that democrats and republicans will back the american rescue plan. the vast majority of the american people, more than 70% of the american people, including a majority of

republicans, want us to act based on all the polling data. act big and act quickly. major economists, left right and center, here and abroad, say we should focus on smart investments that can make jobs available and focus on the jobs and in the people to prevent long-term economic damage to our nation and to strengthen the economic competitiveness going forward. in fact, an analysis by wall street's firm moody's estimates that if we pass my american rescue plan, the economy will create 7 million jobs this year. this year. we've also been in constant contact with the mayors, governors, county officials, members of congress of both parties in every state. that includes a litetter, i mig add, from 4 0 00 mayors, democr

and republican. they agree we have to act now. they understand we won't get millions of people back to work until we beat this virus. getting our economy back means bringing our small businesses back. and that's what we're going to do. that's what i'm doing today. we're going to focus. the program ends at the end of march, but for the next two weeks, the only folks who can apply for that ppp money are businesses with fewer than 20 employees. thank you very much. >> president biden at the white house walking away without taking questions, just making a short-term announcement about an existing covid relief program, the so-called ppp, the protection program, saying in the next two weeks applications will only be taken for businesses with fewer than 20 employees. that, he believes, will put to an end to those businesses.

tweaking an existing program, the president also urging democrats and republicans, so far it's all democrats, to support the big covid relief package. that decision comes by the budget committee. dana bash, he's trying to help people now, but he says he wants big, he wants bold. the analysis says it will create 7 million jobs. the mayors want it, the governors want it, but he also says he's open to someone who can make it cheaper. the package amount is $1.9 trillion, just like the president asked, but is that what's passed? >> when you look at what's going to be passed in the house, it's definitely going to be pretty close to what president biden put forward because those are the outlines of what we have there. i don't want to say that it's going to be exactly what president biden wants because

there is also a pretty narrow majority of democrats in the house as well. but the big question is going to be once it gets over to the senate. that's why the debate all week, particularly over the weekend, has been whether or not the $15 minimum wage increase is going to remain in that bill. progressives pushed hard, they're continuing to push hard, lobbying really intensely to keep it in, and the question is whether or not it will be allowed procedurally in the senate, but even apart from that, john, you also hear from moderate democrats saying, we don't even think that this is necessarily appropriate to put in this covid relief bill for a number of reasons. so, you know, is it going to change after it gets to the senate? the question is how so. >> that's what's fascinating. we didn't have many policy debates in the trump yirzears, just simply didn't. the republicans failed even when they controlled washington. the former president did get his tax cuts and then there wasn't

much policy. especially old school policy where the house passes a plan, it goes to the senate, something else comes back and then you have to decide to put them together. both the "wall street journal" and the "washington post" editorial board, they don't often agree, saying non-covid spending blowout. the house bill has little to do with the virus. that's coming from the "wall street journal." the "washington post" puts it more politely. congress needs to focus its covid relief bill on covid relief. the president is going to get a big package. democrats understand minimum wage, one of the differences here. there is going to be some bruising but they also understand this is test number 1 out of the box. there's been some republican grumbling, but is there a good faith republican effort to try to get the president -- they need to come closer to him. he won the election and then he won two in georgia. >> not so much in the house because they don't have the numbers, but there is that bipartisan group, 10 republicans, 10 democrats in the senate. need to go back? >> i need to go back to this

confirmation hearing with merrick garland. we promised we would dip in when it gets important. >> you said you didn't have the info yet that you needed to speak to him but you had no reason to think that him staying on was not the correct decision. why can't you commit specifically to saying that he will have the time, staff and resources he needs to complete his investigation? >> again, it's because i'm sitting here and i don't have any information about what he needs in his resources and the allocation of resources. but my -- everything i know sitting here suggests that he should, of course, have those resources. >> judge, two years ago bill barr made that exact commitment about the mueller special counsel. he did not have that information. he did not consult with the department. he was in the same posture you are. he simply said yes. why can't you say yes the way bill barr did two years ago? >> again, my view about every investigation and every decision

i make is i have to know the facts before i can make those kinds of decisions. i don't know what went into his consideration, but for myself, i have to be there and learn what's going on before i can make a decision. but as i said, i have no reason to doubt that the decision to keep him in place and continuing his investigation was in any way wrong. >> was it wrong for bill barr to make that commitment two years ago? >> as i said, senator, i'm not going to be making judgments about my predecessors. i don't think there is any purpose in that for myself. i want you to judge me on my own record and what i do going forward. >> was it wrong for democratic senators on this committee to repeatedly demand that bill barr make that commitment two years ago? >> i think my answer would be the same. >> let's turn to the death penalty. you said you've developed great pause over it, and you said that joe biden expresses opposition to the death penalty. did joe biden or anyone from his administration transition or campaign ask you not to pursue

capital punishment in cases against murderers or terrorists? >> no. no. >> thank you. >> judge, you spoke at the outset, as have several other senators, about your outstanding work in the 1995 oklahoma city bombing case in which you were part of a team to help bring to justice a white supremacist mass murderer, timothy mcvey. he was sentenced to death. that death penalty has been carried out. do you regret the fact that timothy mcvey received the death penalty and was executed? >> i supported that, as i said in my original senate hearing when i became a judge originally. i supported the death penalty at that time for mr. mcvey in that individual case. i don't have any regret, but i have developed concerns about the death penalty in the 20-some years since then. and the sources of my concern are issues of exonerations of people who have been convicted of sort of arbitrariness and

randomness of its application because of how seldom it's implied and its disconnect of black americans and people of color. those are the things that give me pause, and things that give me pause, as i thought about it, over the last 20 years. >> judge, you were confirmed as attorney general and there were another case like timothy mcvey where a white supremacist bombed a federal building that included 20 children, would you give that approval? >> i think it depends on what the development of the policy is. if the president asks or if we develop a policy on a moratorium, then it would apply across the board. there is no reason to have policy if you make indis indiscretionary decisions. if that was the policy, that would be the policy. >> judge, you said in your opening statement that you would

strictly regulate the white house, that there wouldn't be influence from the white house? they were seeking the death penalty under a white supremacist terrorist? >> i understand the question. maybe i didn't understand it before. what i'm trying to say is if there is a policy decision made by the president and announced by the president, he certainly has the authority to direct, and nothing inappropriate about it, it's within his authority to require an across-the-board moratorium. what i was talking about was not a decision by the president in any particular case or the direction of how any particular case should go forward but of a moratorium which would apply as a policy across the board. the supreme court has held that the death penalty is constitutional but it is not required, and that's within the discretion of the president. >> before i move on from the oklahoma city case, let me commend you again for your work

it and say that i believe timothy mcvey deserved the death penalty. another one is a white supremacist in south carolina who went into a church and killed 19 americans. he received the death penalty. do you believe that was a mistake? >> i'm sorry? >> do you believe tit was a mistake to apply the death penalty for murdering nine americans while they were in church? >> i have a feeling this is still a pending matter, and if it is, i can't talk about a particular case. >> in that case, let me ask you the hypothetical i did -- >> i apologize for asking you. >> let's suppose another white supremacist walks into another african-american church and murders african-americans worshipping christ in cold blood. the u.s. attorney seeks the death penalty against that white supremacist. would you approve it? >> senator, i think it does depend on what policy is adopted

going forward. i would not oppose a policy of the president, because it is within his authority to put a moratorium on the death penalty in all cases, and instead to seek mandatory life without possibility of parole. without any consideration can of the facts of any particular case. >> some on the left are calling for president biden to grant an across-the-board commutation for death row inmates that he reduce it to life in prison. would you accept this commutation? >> this is something i would have to think about on the across-the-board policy. i would have to think about that. >> thank you. i want to turn to racial equity. do you believe that the common core judge of american law is

that a judge can't discriminate on a citizen on the base of their race? >> absolutely. >> and it's not only unlawful, it's morally wrong as well? >> yes, i think discrimination is morally wrong, absolutely. >> are you aware that president biden signed somethian executiv about equity? >> it is assigned to every person without regard to their status and including the individuals who have been in underserved communities where they were not accorded that before. but i don't see any distinction between -- in that regard.

that's the definition included in that executive order you were talking about. >> so you believe racial equality and racial order is the same thing? >> this is how the executive order defined it. i can't give you anything other than how the executive order defined it. >> senator booker. >> thank you, mr. chairman. judge garland, it's really good to see you sitting before the judiciary committee of the united states senate. >> thank you, senator. >> i'm really grateful. if you don't mind me starting with a little bit of philosophy. there is the micah mandate, which i'm not sure by your expression you know, but you've heard it before. it's do justice, love mercy. >> that one i know, yes. >> and walk humbly. it seems like a pretty goo good mandate for life. this justice is founded with a lot of injustice at the time, but the brilliance of the

imperfect geniuses of our founders who aspired to create a society that john lewis and others would have called the more beloved community. i've read a lot of theologians who said, what does love look like in public? it looks like justice. you have perhaps one of the more important positions on the planet earth for trying to create a more just society. and the issues of race, and i was really grateful that you, in your opening remarks, talked about your agency actually coming about to deal with issues of justice in our nation. i want to talk about white supremacist violence which has been mentioned a lot, but before i get there, i am actually concerned about something that is pernicious and difficult to root out, which is the realities of implicit racial bias that lead to larger systemic racism. i've been kind of stunned that

the issue of systemic racism has become something argued over, but if i can just walk you through for a second, does our justice system treat people equally in this country at this point? >> sadly, and it's plain to me that it does not. >> i'm going to stop you there. we have a criminal justice system that treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent because one's finances makes a difference with what kind of justice one gets, is that correct? >> senator, there is no question there is disparate treatment in our justice system. mass incarceration is a very good example of this problem. we're incarcerating 25% -- almost 25% of the world's population and we have something like 5% of the world's population. i don't think that that is because americans are worse. but what underlies that is the

disparate treatment of blacks and communities of color. >> let's drill down on that for a second. one of the big things driving arrests in our country, stunningly to me, even, that it's still the case, is marijuana arrests. we had in 2019 more marijuana arrests for possession than all violent crime arrests combined. now, when you break out that data and disaggregate along racial lines, it is shocking that an african-american has no difference in usage or serlg than someone who is white in america, but their likelihood of being a part of what the president is doing, that they are more than two times the amount of white. >> it's definitely evidence of disparate treatment in the system which i think does arise by implicit bias.

>> i've had great conversations with people on both sides of the aisle who speak to this as abhorrent against ideals. every point the state house adjustment, which i know you know what that is, which i see as a mayor, that people get called in for an arrest of marijuana. they say just come in with your parents and it's dismissed. we see charging to bail to sentencing. every adjusted namsz -- has --

every adjusted nemesis. it does not mean the people were engaged in this or racist overtly, it means they have an implicit bias that often leads them to make different decisions about different people. that's correct? >> the marijuana example is a perfect example that you've given here. here is a nonviolent crime with respect to usage that does not require us to incarcerate people. then we're incarcerating at different rates of the different communities. and that is wrong and it's the kind of prison. >> it will make it impossible to get a job, it will lead to a downward spiral for their family. here you're in an agency that was formed to deal with the kind of systemic racism that was

going on at that time. when you have disparate use of the law where you see african-americans being churned into the criminal justice system, where it is concentrated in certain communities and not in others, where it has, the american bar association says 40,000 consequences on the lives of americans where they can't get jobs, they can't get certain business licenses. where they're so dramatic? t if you look at the disparate nature of the law, it's estimated it costs americans billions of dollars more. assuming this position where you are called upon for that micah mandate, what are you going to do about this outrageous

injustice that persists and ineffects our society with such a posiresult? >> it shows discrimination in health care ability, which we all see now in a pandemic which affects people of color enormously more, with respect to infection rates, with respect to hospitalization and ultimately to death. one set of things we can do is the mass incarceration example that i began with. we can focus our attention on. they put great danger in our society and not allocate it to

resources such as marijuana possession. we can stop charging the highest possible offense with the highest possible sentence. >> i was taught in law school never to interrupt a judge. forgive me. i would like to end with this question and then my time is up. you've talked a lot of thoughts about this issue and your determination at a time when our nation needs this, to go down as one of the great leaders when it comes to dealing with the daily, unconscionable jussie smolletts faced by some americans and not others at the hands of law enforcement. i think one thing you said to me pri privately about your motivation

in confronting hate and discrimination in american history. >> yes, senator. i come from a family where my grandfather fled anti -semitic persecution. a this country took us in, protected us, and i feel an obligation to the country to pay back, and this is the highest best use of my own set of skills to pay back. and so i want very much to be the kind of attorney general that you're saying i could become. i'll do my best to try and be that kind of attorney general. >> i believe your heart and i'm grateful that you are living

that. >> remarkable moment as you continue to watch the confirmation. judge merrick garland is set to become the next attorney general, asking him about the law especially of people in color in the united states. before that questions about whether he would support the use of the death penalty. elie honig is still with us, laura coates is still with us, dana bash is still with us. senator booker essentially trying to explain where this comes from, explain where your sense of justice, your sense of anti-discrimination comes from. a 68-year-old man who has been a prosecutor and judge on the bench for 36 years choking up talking about how his family escaped anti-semitism and persecution. he said it's the best use of my skills to continue a nation of fairness, justice. >> to pay back the country tha