letter, any unwelcome conduct should be considered sexual harassment. so i'm telling you that chilly that if you ask someone out of a date and they are offended by it, this new rule you could be brought up one sexual harassment charges and a college. not only that, but they were extremely upset over the fact that many colleges give due process rights to students. this is america. we believe in due process. you are not considered guilty just because someone accuses you of something. they actually complained in his letter about colleges having appeal rights. so if you are accused of this and they're is a finding against you and you want to appeal that they complained about the fact that you can appeal that.

we also wanted colleges to put in the kind of procedures that an alice in wonderland, the queen of hearts core member commission said lot of their heads before there's a trial that is the procedure the justice department put in. they complain that the letter and said that colleges should consider taking disciplinary action like expulsion or suspension before someone appeals have been exhausted that can affect you directly. another way to connect you directly is, i can tell you that there is a racialist attitude at the justice department. and that attitude is completely opposite of the way it was when i was there. we believe in the race to tell the of our discrimination laws. in other words, for example, in the voting area you cannot be intimidated. you can't be harassed.

the basis of race. threaten, intimidate, harassed because of your race that is illegal under federal law. that is not the way this justice department views that. they have the same view toward employment discrimination. if you are white or asian they don't really care. after that kind of case. take a look in 2008 in philadelphia when members of the new black panther party stood outside a polling place harassing voters trying to get in yelling racial epitaphs at them and black paralegal uniforms

what did they do? it is this that in that plot -- entire history of the justice department and already won the lawsuit because the black panther party didn't bother to file an answer. that tells you something about the attitude and why it is a board that we be concerned about it. the president picked the attorney general. they first met back in 2004 when barack obama was first elected as a senator. they met at a small dinner party given a washington d.c. they collect from the first, the man.

they're both ideologues to my share the same progressive use of america and all are quickly became a part of the president's team. i can tell you that that was quite a change. most people forget that holder cut today he was the attorney general. he was the number two guy in the clinton administration and that just apartment and was fully expected that he would support hillary clinton, but he chases allegiance. that is part of the problem. he considers himself part of the president's political team. and the attorney general a distant second. there is no question that an attorney general is a political appointee. he attorney general is supposed to carry of what the priorities are of the president. the attorney general on like other members of the cabinet, there is a line that the attorney general is not allowed to cross, which is that despite the priorities of the president

is attorney general number one duty is to enforce the law. and to do so on an objective, non-partisan basis. this attorney general does not believe that. and every time the president has ignored the law, abuse the law cannot consider changes, the person that a side telling him how to it do that and the attorney general. this is really no surprise. look, he was confirmed by a very large vote. but we knew at the time that this was going to happen. we sell you just about one incident that occurred during the clinton administration that should tell you what this attorney general is capable of. toward the end of the clinton administration -- and all of you may recall, that is what hillary clinton moved to new york and said she was going to run for the

united states senate. well, at the time there were 16 convicted terrorists, domestic terrorists in federal prison. they were domestic terrorists from the fln which is a border rican terrorist group that wants brega to become an independent country. then they had engaged in over 130 bombings in the united states in new york, chicago, other cities, armed robbery, and had killed and murdered a number of people doing that. the 16 individuals were bound, prosecuted, and convicted. at the sentencing of these individuals, they threatened the federal judge from a threat to kill him and to make sure he was killed. in fact, the federal judge said that if the death penalty had been an option he would have imposed it.

however, at the end of the clinton administration consultants for hillary clinton were all saying that the border region wrote was important to new york. pardoning these 16 terrorists might help her with the vote. so they went to their go to the guy in the justice department who was eric holder. they did not trust the attorney general to do the political thing that they thought was correct. and eric holder recommended that these individuals be part. al, what you should know about this is that the fbi recommended against it. the victims did not want it to happen. and the part of his attorney at the justice department was adamantly against it because there is actually a lawyer in an office whose job it is to review applications that come in for a pardon by the president. of course that brings up another issue.

none of these individuals have applied for a part, none of them. and command phantom had never expressed the least apology for what they had done. those pardons were all issued. that tells you what he is capable of. he did this for a political reason pure and simple. frankly one of the reasons he did it in addition to hillary clinton was that he was hoping this would help him in the next administration become the attorney general because he was hoping, of course, that al gore would win the election. so that tells you something about this attorney general commanded should make you realize all things going on today are really no surprise. they're is a lot more in the book. i will tell you one other thing they're is a whole chapter about national

security. so for example, and who have they hired into the jobs? why all of these washington lawyers to volunteer problem of to represent all its shares held in guantanamo, those of the people they have hired. that is kind of like herring john gotti's lawyer, a mob lawyer, and putting him into the organized crime task force at the justice department and having him say what our policy should be in delhi she go after these operations. by the way, the attorney general has opened up more investigations of leaks of classified information that any prior attorney general combined. they're is a very interesting pattern to those investigations which is to

buy any time they can't prosecute some low-level employee who leaked classified information to the new york times. every time there has been major leaks that have clearly come out of the white house and were obviously intended to make the president look tough, make him look strong, such as for example the leak about -- heard about this ducks nest. probably one of the most successful cyber attacks the u.s. government has ever engineered. the cia engineered a computer virus and got it injected into the computers. extracting uranium so that they can build their nuclear bombs. top-secret projects, information about this came directly of the white house. clearly intended to make the

president looked like he was being tough on the iranians, trying to do something about it. the midst of all the criticism, did the investigation or prosecution of the individuals of all. that is the distinct pattern throughout all of that. >> us dixon questions. well, kevin back there -- >> i am wondering your thoughts on some of the voter perspective on what happened in mississippi, specifically democrats voting in the democratic primary in supposedly switching over and voted republican. and then accusations for going after the black vote but pandering to their ideology. you lose your food stamps if you don't go for me. >> i am not sure there is really a legal issue.

think there's probably a political issue. i can tell you that it is very clear what happened in mississippi was democrats deciding to run off elections. how do we know that? because week -- we know that because from the regular primary elections to the runoff elections there was a 17% increase in turnout across mississippi. so 17 percent more people voted in the runoff than the original primary. however, if you look at majority democratic counties the increase in turnout was 40%. so it is very clear that democrats came in and voted. there is actually an easy solution to prevent that from happening in runoff elections. georgia had this kind of provision. the state law issued. and as simple. you pass a state law that says only individuals who voted in the primary can vote in the primary runoff.

and that would have prevented this huge influx of individuals coming into do it. normally it is not really a problem because you have contested primaries on both sides. get the chance to make the decision in the party is a lot. >> did you have a question? >> kevin from pennsylvania. the clashes between eric holder and congress are pretty public. can you comment a little bit of the effectiveness? possibly more effective oversight with the plight? >> you know, we have a great constitutional system. but part of the problem with that system is that it assumes that people will abide by it. and we have an entire chapter about eric holder in

the way he has misled congress to lie to congress and shoals and other content for congress. doesn't care about upsetting congress are replying put their requests are for major oversight one of the only things that congress can do is try to use the power of the purse to make their upset with him known. that would mean doing a very targeted cuts that they think you're going to annoy the attorney general or make you understand there are upset with what he's doing. that means -- by targeted cuts you don't do just the general cuts to the department of justice's budget, but you cut out of his travel budget, you know, or something like out. that is the kind of targeted cut that in the past congress has used to make its anchor known.

you all may know that the attorney general is the first and only attorney general of the united states history to be held in contempt of congress because you refuse to give over documents and operation fast and furious, probably the most reckless of stupid law enforcement operation ever conducted by the u.s. justice department that led directly to the death of the u.s. border patrol agent that led to the deaths of hundreds of mexican citizens, something that is continuing today. and that shows, frankly, the kind of dismissive attitude that holder has toward congress. >> the next question to no, yes. >> from illinois. we are going into our coverage gubernatorial election. republican candidates is very interested in dealing with voter fraud in illinois and you have a lot of research on that.

he is trying to access all of the avenue is possible to deal with voter fraud. that has been a big issue in the chicago area. what other different things you have to hit, the different messes to use to produce voter fraud. >> it takes the legislature to be willing to pass the kind of loss that will actually do something about it. and plus you have to have a state election official willing to do things about it. for example, you know, illinois has no voter i.d. requirements. i am not sure if illinois is part of the interstates cross check program. another big problem we have in this country as i can tell you that you can register it in two different states it is pretty easy to vote in more than one state if you want to do that.

the state of kansas has started a program called a cross state into check program in which they let states compare their voter registration so that each state can get back a list of folks are registered in your state plus another state. that is something else that illinois needs to be -- they need to be a part of that group. they need to use that to clean up. we did a whole chapter talking about voter fraud, including in chicago where in 1982 which is in that long ago the united states attorney in a federal grand jury investigated and ended up prosecuting over 60 individuals, convicted of, putting them in jail. the estimate was that there were 100,000 fraudulent votes cast in that election. in fact, there were so many fraudulent votes cast in almost james the outcome of the governor's race.

>> text question. no, come on. each still a little sleepy this morning. oh, yes. down here. >> what is your opinion on the recent supreme court ruling regarding the voting rights act that made changes to two sections of the voting rights act. >> sure. last year the supreme court issued a decision in the case calls shelby county which has been quite controversial what was the right decision. in 1965 congress passed the voting rights act or probably the most important law in addition to the civil rights act, and it was needed because of the widespread discrimination going on in the south. but what people don't understand is that there were really two parts to the voting rights act. there was one part, section two, that was permanent, applies to the entire

country, and makes it illegal to discriminate the voting context on the basis of race. but congress put in a second provision, a temporary measure called section five. and what they said was that, okay, a small number of states -- at the time it was places like georgia, mississippi, alabama, they cannot make any changes in their voting laws without getting the pre approval of the federal government. now, the reason for the was that at the time the justice department was winning lawsuits against local jurisdictions, and local jurisdictions, as soon as the lawsuit was over, would find a new way to do exactly what they were doing before. the whole point of this was to make sure they did not change their laws to keep discriminating. this was also based on the fact and in 1965 that discrimination was evidenced by the fact that black registration and turnout, for example, in mississippi,

was in the teens whereas white registration and turnout was in the 50's and 60's percentile. there was clearly discrimination. this was only supposed to last five years. congress capped renewing it. the renewed it again in 2006 for another 25 years. in 2006 the registration turn our rate of black americans and their colored states proposes like georgia and mississippi was on par with and actually higher in some places that white voters. so there clearly was no longer any reason for section five. was not needed. and in the rear -- red instances where discrimination does occur the justice department can go to court and sue under section two, the permanent nationwide provision. so the supreme court made exactly the right decision because nobody who looks at

reality can say today that georgia, for example, is so much more discriminatory and maryland that it has to be under federal supervision and maryland should not. >> we have some people, students here in law school and some would think they want to go to law school. in a career of vice? >> well, it's are you, look, the economy right now is very tough for everybody, but it is also tough for lawyers. i have to say, would encourage you. frankly, we need more focus on the conservative side in law schools because they are, unfortunately, predominated these days, particularly the teaching positions by liberals. it can be a very rewarding career. so if you want to do with our with terror you, you know, pick a good school, go

to school, work hard. get out into an area where you are doing things that you find most interesting. so i won't discourage you, but i do have to tell you that the economy right now is pretty tough, even for lawyers. >> well, thank you very much. it is great having you. [applause] >> this is book tv on c-span2, television for serious readers. here is our prime time lineup for tonight. book tv visits ucla the top with social welfare professor about gangs and gang violence. at 8:00 p.m. eastern mark green black recalls the actions of american soldiers in iraq in afghanistan. former speech writer adviser for president clinton looks at the history of chinese americans and recounts his own family's experiences.

at 10:00 p.m. eastern dr. ben carson since down with jackpot of nbc news to spell out his plans to reverse what he argues is america's current decline. our prime time programming concludes at 11:00 p.m. as soviet dukes morris recounts the life of the late conservative commentator and congress will not clear boothe luce. that all happens next on it c-span2 book tv. >> up next ucla georgia lee talked to book tv about her book jumped in, a study of los angeles gangs and gang violence. this 20 minute interview was recorded at ucla and is part of book tv college series. >> host: jumped in was the name of the book. professor georgia l