critically important, but i seem to keep coming back to the meetings. another thing that came up that was quickly important was how weak the systems are internationally in so many countries and how much technical assistance countries need to build the kinds of tax authorities so that you can work with them to make sure those gaps don't develop. we have pledged to double our office of technical assistance support. we worked closely with the imf and other bilateral partners. but we are making real progress. we have more work to do. i think that the idea that there's different rules, depending on kind of where you are in the hierarchy is unacceptable. everyone has to follow the law. and if the laws permit the movement of income to countries

or places where they are inadequate tax, enacted tax policy question we have to address which is one of the reasons we have proposed business tax reform so that the u.s. broken tax system can be fixed and we would tax all u.s. income were ever it is in the world at a reasonable level and close the loopholes that make our system as broken as it is. we right now have a tax system that forces companies to look for ways to avoid statutory tax rates that's the highest in the developed world, into our effective tax is about average because of the impact of the system of deductions and credits, which some were worthy when they're put in place. many have outlived their usefulness. some were not necessarily useful when they were put in place. we've got a lot of work to do, but i think our economic leadership in this area is still profoundly important.

in the base erosion and profit shifting debate we have been right the heart of it globally. so the world has more work to do. we collectively have more work to do, but i think we've made progress and we will continue to make progress. >> mr. secretary, you have taken us from brentwood to the panama papers with many stops along the way. thank you very much. it's a pleasure to have you here. >> great to be here today. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> madam secretary, we probably get 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. >> now a conversation with former vice president dick cheney, former attorney general ed meese and pepperdine constitutional law being, douglas kmiec, but the vice presidency, choosing a running mate, the balance of power and reflections on nancy reagan and justice antonin scalia.

this is one our. >> thank you, rob, thank you ladies and gentlemen. let's get right to it. we heard a presentation from dr. larson the suggestion role as vice president was a political expedients, and that it was a prize that could be given a way to earn some political credit for the president. we saw some interesting manipulations going on in the electoral college where people were under the original system casting their ballots in a way where so many people would cast

ballots in unexpected pressures attendant would emerge that folks cast for vice president because they were undesignated vote originally. first of all what do you make of that history? is a history that you are comfortable with or do you find yourself dissenting from it? >> i thought it was eloquent and right on. my wife has written a book on james madison, and that covers his role. the impression that dr. larson presented is very much in tune with you bill, if you will, my wife's interpretation. not that she has, well, she doesn't care that great of weight with most people, but an

afterthought. it was fun to do with some of the problems that arose as to put together the electoral college. the fact that you had a couple of prominent members of the cost of tuition convention because of the flaws they saw, they had not been addressed with the creation of the vice presidents. i think it was indeed a bad -- a band-aid, and effort to do with a short-term problem and the rationale behind it at the time. >> when we get into this you radical to discover how much the vice presidency is tied up with this conception of the electoral college and the changes that take place in it. one also discovers a supposition from our first president who of

course received treatment oftentimes as a saint of the republic who viewed the entire operation of government in a nonpartisan way. as i said in terms of his farewell address, very strenuously about the painful effects of party. when you ask washington for his conception of his role of the president it's much different than the role that we associate with the president now. we associate with the president ahead of its party. we associate the presence of been a national leader in terms of laying out policy programs that people ask the congress to fall on behalf of the constituents that had elected him, on behalf of all the american people. washington's conception was much different than that. it was executive. in fact, washington and madison to some degree reason to the

fact that members of partners with ask the executive branch for their opinions on certain matters. madison writes that he worked assiduously to prevent members of his administration from answering those letters. we all have been an executive administration. we had different reasons for not answering letters from congress. but the madison supposition was that that was confusing the functions of the branches, that the president was to take what was delivered to him and to take care that the laws were faithfully executed. if you have that as an assumption of the nature of the presidency and you have our first president been so nonpartisan, does it make sense to think of the vice president has something may be that there's more going on than just merely a juror to be added to somebody's political treasure box? >> one of the things i remember, i think i've got it correct, there was a little bit of confusion, if you will, between

the executive role was -- [inaudible] you look at washington's first address to the congress come a message to the congress, he had madison, and then it was submitted by the president to the congress. madison in his capacity as congressional leader wrote the congressional response, executives message which he had written himself originally. then again washington used him to respond to that message. the confusion about who was riding home, messages being done, the operator based in the way they were comfortable with. imagine today if the president of the united states called on the congressional leader to write his state of the union.

they were making it up as they went along. the political climate at the time though, such reaction to the idea of a strong executive love of the great concerns they had in terms of having too much power in the presidency was kind of a backdrop to a lot of the thinking of many of the people there at the constitutional convention. of course, open to the time there will was no executive that had congress before going off or back to 1776 or so or even before that, continental congress. the idea that an executive in this country have a lot of power is something that bothered a lot of the participants. >> i think that's right. one sees even, i mentioned how the framers used the state constitution as a model. when they did that they discovered of course they were not really fond of the state

executives because the state executives were appointees on the ground. there were very much resented and resisted. post declaration of independence it became a look at different because it was been popular saw it internet at least some portion of the population, freeholders and so forth, selecting the governor. but you are quite right there is this profound concerned with the abuse of power and issued of power, which brings us to the come you can jump forward a bit to say i mentioned in the introduction. and that is there's this perception out there in the land, maybe somewhat explanatory of some of the voters in the primary. something us to explain the vote was seen in the primary, but there's a certain rage among the people that the government is just simply not on the job. i don't mean this be any way parson because think it's kind of a high partisan exercise.

key appointments in both administrations, a lot of times judicial appointments. i can remember complaining when i worked for you about the slow process of confirmation proceedings and neglect of the senate in handling those matters. of course, now the shoe is on the other foot. president obama is making that complaint. these things can be troubling from a kind of general public perspective, what is it the government delivering what those guys promised to me when they ran out on the stump for years ago? and from a more intellectual or day-to-day perspective, it's interesting the separation of powers that you mention, is it not? beauty of key appointments not being made, you get legislation not being addressed, there's a tendency on the part of the presidency to go around the

problem, issued executive orders you don't have authority for in place of legislation, recess appointment that you don't have authority for and so forth. so the separation of powers than sl becomes its own victim. my question is is this dysfunction issued a service want or would you describe it in a different way of? >> i'm not sure how much it has to do with the role of the vice president. >> we will work on that. >> good point. but i think there's great frustration out there in the country that is being tapped into for political reasons. we had that on the republican side now with the candidates running in a rich field, new talent, what we're left with at this stage. all those supposedly

establishment candidates are not really a factor. it's taken on a different tone and a different style than i've ever seen before. >> what i would argue it is something to do with the vice presidency is this, that as you mentioned, and you mentioned as well, even on the issue of the presidency as to what he was to do or she was to do. there's uncertainty about that. they were feeling their way. this was a new office. they didn't want 18. they wanted leadership. they wanted management but they did know how much. they didn't want a king. the problems get more confused with the vice president. one of the things i think commands inquiry is how does the problem of reuniting the powers into an effective government --

[inaudible] the youngstown case where he says powers are not just to be divided and separated but they are meant to be interspersed and integrated when necessary to reform, a working government. it is vice president of has this unique role of both being a legislative officer at a potential executive function, is it the place where these two interests have asked to meet, what the substitute is therefore giving agreement that is a better for giving agreement to move the government forward in a positive way? >> the way i look at it based on my own experience, i was reputed by some to have an especially

powerful position as vice president. spent i think the president said when you hear dick cheney's voice, your mind. i think that was probably an endorsement. >> i often think about why it worked the way it did on my watch. and i think a lot of reasons but none of them really relate to the constitution or to the -- >> more of a personal dynamic? >> personal. very much personal. and my ability to work with the congress, i've been a member of the house for 10 years. i have been part of the leadership for eight years. shortly after i was elected vice president i was visited by the speaker of the house and the chairman of the ways and means committee. speaker of the house was a good friend. i helped him when he first came into the congress. any hazard. bill thomas. they came to me and said look,

we know you're going to be the president of the senate. you have an office on the senate side of the capitol building but we think of you as a man of house that we also want to have an office on the house side. the ways and means chairman at that point had two very nice offices. one facing the west front. you can look out the windows all the way to the lincoln memorial. a huge office. the other one hand was a small office but right off the democratic cloakroom on the house floor. they gave me my choice, that i could it be the one of those offices, even though i am president of the senate, my background with house, relationships, i took the office

right off the democratic cloakroom. it because i knew it aggravated my democratic colleagues. [laughter] but we controlled the house. i had an office not only on the senate side, not only down in the west wing, but also on how side and was able to work from that position to bring logjams on tax legislation and so forth. significant legislative impact when required but that was really all based upon personal relationships in my past background with both the house and the senate. >> not mean to understate that. >> i think that's a great story by the way i think that's a demonstrative the story as to the significance of the vice president by want to give a little credit to the framers.

got to that budget line and offers to some degree because it opened the door to the fact you are going to be the president of the senate. and yet it was dick cheney that took the presidency of the senate and found the most active in office to occupy and found ways in which to have conversations with respect to tax and other important legislation. but isn't that interesting that this office that they created that has been called just -- [inaudible] folks looking for some political reward. so instabilit it's been in termt you would point out to be her success as vice president. i think the framers get a little tip of the hat for that, don't you? [inaudible] [laughter] >> as the medevac didn't you have come in the widest to the

office in the white house and the west wing. also get in office in -- i believe. so they could never find you. [laughter] >> looking at the vice presidency as it is come on down through the years, as recently as calvin coolidge, i don't think there's much thought of the vice president as a big role in the executive branch. if i remember my history correctly. it has really when eisenhower came in, he was used to a military structure, and he i think talked about nixon becoming kind of an executive vice president. where the vice president would have more of a role in the executive branch. is that about your recollection of how the office changed at that point and has been involved

with executive since that time? >> i think so. clearly it has evolved over time. prior to the time i got the job, one of the reasons i said no when it was first offered, was i never met a vice president who was happy. [laughter] there were those who ultimately -- for one reason or another and harry truman and others who went on to distinguished careers. but i remember when i was ford's chief of staff, nelson rockefeller was vice president, very unhappy because he had plans for operating. big projects, lots of money, and we were in a period of time when our policy was -- [inaudible] he eventually left and was never happy, and allegedly there's a

report that he once said the only way he would serve as vice president and a second for term if he could also be white house chief of staff. the job he really us fired to. >> didn't get a chance to prove that. >> no. >> he went on to other things. >> he wasn't even the candidate for vice president. >> no. and i was never a candidate for vice president until george bush finally nominate after he persuaded me that i should go on the ticket. but i think in recent administrations, go back i think to the carter-mondale relationship i think was a step up if you will in terms of the degree to which they work closely together. mondale played a more prominent role.

i think that obviously continued in my days, and with respect to joe biden now, i don't know enough yet the details about joe's functions. but clearly in recent decades there's been an enhancement of the power, the responsibility. >> there's the story of you told meeting with vice president quayle where vice president quayle tells you that be prepared to take a lot of for trips, do a lot of ceremonial duties and raised some money for the party or for the president. i think your terse response was i have a different conception of the office as an understanding. that understanding, since were at glasgow, is going to run into a little headway because one of those understandings is we've

got those 15 words in the constitution that says the executive power is vested in the president of the united states. late justice scalia who dissented more than once in the separation of powers case was filed -- fond of saying that means all powers. not that you should lose a lot of sleep over these legal niceties, but did you think you are stepping outside of your constitutional role? >> still there was also a duck hunter. [laughter] -- scalia was also a duck hunter. there were times when it played a significant role, but the finger member is added to the president wanted to the reason it worked as well as it did for the two of us, he had spent an amazing amount of time, more than i ever seen any of the

president, an amazing amount of time thinking about the vice president. to the point i had several years later after office, in 1992 when i was secretary of defense, and his dad was running for reelection, that he had gone to his dad, 41, suggested to him he make a change in his running mate, and he replaced dan quayle with me. this was eight years before he himself had been vice president. so eight years before he had been thinking about who would be vice president. the job was not accepted, but he had a very i think carefully thought-out plan what it was he

wanted for vice president i got involved in it. i said no. i was in the private sector. i had no desire at all to become vice president. then he asked me to help find somebody, and we worked through about a two or three month process were i was running a search of the phrase candidates and so forth. but also i think what was delivered on his card, he never took the first no for an end. he could get me involved, and working with him as he talked about what he was looking for as he conveyed to me what i should be looking for in terms of a candidate. i absorbed his perception. i wanted the office to work, and when they got all through with a search on the offered up everybody i could think of, i was obviously a failure as a headhunter, he turned to me and

he said, you are the solution to my problem. he persuaded me that i was what they needed. there was never a contract or even a handshake on how it was all going to work. we just talked about enough while i was doing the search so i had a good understanding of what he was looking for. he decided sometime before that he had a chance to take a vice president. >> but it's fair to say that no other vice president has had the experience you had in both branches. so there was in effect his idea of the vice president was the what kind of a model, whether he mentioned that directly or not. and so it was a natural. you finally became not just the model but the candidate. >> it isn't true that, i think

identified a set of experiences that executive and legislative mix that is unique among especially for our honored guests today. but the other people that pointed out are people with legislative experience. that that legislative experience even if they didn't have the counter, additional executive experience that you were able to enjoy as well, like lyndon johnson, for example, in terms of his effectiveness as president, drawing upon legislative talents. although we heard from professor larsen wind atoms tried to throw himself into his work, it was too much for the senate to have them be there -- adams. george w. bush was more persuasive than secretary to try to get daniel webster to take the vice presidency and you may win with his quip was no, sir, i will not take the vice

presidency. i would prefer to be dead before i am buried. [laughter] >> you did, putting aside a moment legal niceties of what is and is not etched in the president even if your particular present ones to overlook those niceties. you did do something that other vice presidents have not done, and that is submit a letter of resignation. ..

with the president from time to time? give us an example or two. >> well, -- >> you mentioned the amicus brief. >> certain disagreement, we have differences of view. part of the progress we had -- [inaudible]

[inaudible] it was important to have that ability. there were other occasions though we disagreed, for example , we discovered in the spring of 07 [inaudible] became an editor in photographs and pictures taken inside a nuclear reactor in the eastern syrian desert. that's what i described.

all of a sudden we find so much later the nuclear device that they'd be able to conclude. it is a major concern in terms of proliferation, the place where it was located -- [inaudible] what ultimately happened -- the difference of opinion was that it was important as what we've said repeatedly to oppose it.

we had taken a strong position that would back it up. as the only only one in the administration that actually put a meeting upstairs, basically the national low. i had had a private conversation is -- the united states had to be the one that took the action. [inaudible]

[inaudible] i had the better policy action. he was the president. >> you made that argument entirely internally. [inaudible] -- although it was in a secret. seven months before we even a knowledge to there had been a decision.

so that the person you received the second highest number of votes became vice president was really contested presidency and was at the same product, the same range of talent and stature and maturity and jefferson himself, would point that out from time to time. when the system change so you ran a separate ballot, then you sort of take the second-tier -- creating a second tier of people who would be aiming at the second office opening and therefore you would attract a good quality of people. he described someone who said it was a perfect retirement pot and no one will bother me and so forth. your example just now illustrate you have enough substance and personal gumption to take on the

president of the united dave's comment even when you're the only voice in the context of the cabinet. that -- how does the presidential quality -- what other quality and the vice president which you hold out to us? >> i think before, a lot of times the presidents pick remi made -- running mates might have to do with gender, geography. i think there is only one that matters more than all the others put together and that is the capacity to be president of the united states. i think if we look back at history, we will find a number of selections and doesn't make

that progress. there are a lot of pressures, two searches for gerry ford after rockefeller stepped down. it was in that summer in iran that search for president george w. bush several years later. >> it's necessary to step in at any given moment is the breadth of its eerie and. [inaudible] >> obviously a certain degree of compatibility. another thing that was important in terms of my role of my ability to operate was i had

taken myself out. it was very clear that i was not using it as a stepping stone itself. back in 93 after i left the defense department. set up a pac of 160 campaigns. i concluded after it was all over with that have not been for president. at a time i'd gotten to that point i had had three heart attacks, one culinary bypass and i was fearful a campaign was a long shot anyway. in my heart i knew i'd immediately be labeled as the guy who lost because he had a bad heart.

i changed in one of the reasons george bush is comfortable with me and gave me a match latitude as he did was because he knew i wasn't worried about the iowa caucuses because i wasn't going to run. i think that's a very important part of building the degree of trust. you have to have the staff and also the folks on capitol hill. that is something i really believed and it wasn't because i was trying to influence the outcome of the iowa caucuses. >> a one term and. >> you want to run the panelists if they have questions they are welcome to interject with the question in terms of cards and so forth. i have an inexhaustible supply of questions in my head.

to that i want to go to before turning to the cards. one is for you, attorney general. we've got this anonymous officer whose legislative branch person. if confidential discussions in the executive branch. we know that as a matter of law, executive privilege depends upon maintaining that privilege and confidentiality so you really can't have executive privilege when there's something outside the perimeter of the executive branch. how do we handle this difficult day went right in the middle of it is a person who is formally not part of the branch in an active sense, but only in a waiting son and is more in the nature of legislated officers to they are not a serious constitutional flaw. >> people could conjure up, but

i think the idea of the separation of powers as being two or three long separations -- is a rock concept. the idea that you would have power among three bodies, but not that two of the bodies couldn't require further limitation on power that required the two of them to agree in order to have something done by the government. the whole concept was to limit the power. they found the keys to having the executive ability to do things, but at the same time not lose the liberty of the people. and so they found the key was that the limited power among three branches and further

limited even each branch to operate individually on some things with two branches to cooperate whereas here, really to require the president to determine what executive power the vice president had. it didn't say the president and the vice president. his power as vice president and executive nature dependent upon what the president delegated. i think if anything the founders were exactly in line with what they intended to do. >> the branches are not sealed as we would say. >> no firewall is to recall it

today. >> in that sense, again the vice presidency whether you call it an afterthought or fortuitous circumstance, by uniting those two roles to some degree encourages that interpretation of cooperation. >> the manipulations of the collagen that sort of thing. if we didn't have the vice president, what would she do? there's an instance over the years for the president -- something happened to the president for one reason or another. if you didn't have a vice president, what would she do? would you turn to the totally unelected secretary of state as the first among equals i guess you would call it. how would you fill that gap? >> bad in itself has been the

line of succession as we know. alexander hagel had a vibrant memory as has changed several times. >> but he was wrong. >> definitely have a memory of him. >> the speaker of the house was next in line so there is no vice president speaker of the house. then you have a person who is elected by most citizens in one state or one correctional district becoming president. probably the lowest electoral majority who would've had a great country. >> as you pointed out, there's people not elected by anyone. there is a question we do have from the audience, which i think is a good one. since 1940, presidential candidates have chosen their vice presidential candidate on their own by sometimes in consultation with close political advisers. is that enough accountability or

should there be an alternative such as the primary for his vice president perhaps opening it up to the larger convention for the delegates in the convention virtues may be from a list of the president narrowed down to three or something of that nature. with zero.on accountability and election of the vice president? >> i guess the ability of the vice president to really contribute acting in effect give ultimately upon what the president wants. think of lyndon johnson. here is a guy, a legislative genius and senate leader in the county administration made him vice president. lyndon johnson's vice presidency

to go to afghanistan where there is sore. [inaudible] it was a classic case of a very powerful, very calm, very experienced man running the senate very effectively once he became vice president he had almost nothing to do. he would say maybe well at the convention are achievers but ultimately for him to be effect give, it has to be the approval support of the president and it doesn't matter how else. i'm not sure you are going to get something to make another difference in the final analysis. you may say the president did

not take well the objection. that individual will be relegated to duties. >> i don't know how much her lovely wife's book covers the vice president went their own way from the president, but i was surprised as i dug into the history to find all of these examples of vice presidents casting a vote against the presidential nominee, casting a vote against the presidential program. most of that happened in the 19th century. some of that was closer to today. is that a vice presidency that we are overlooking the ability

to not necessarily count on the vice presidential vote when you send them over to handle the tide? >> that would certainly put a strain on their relationship. i remember nelson rockefeller when the debate in the senate would teach reducing the number of senators it would take to break a filibuster and rockefeller got actively involved as vice president, taken a position in didn't really want to be involved. most of rockefeller got involved and address the chamber. the final analysis we ended up having to go back.

so it can have been. you've got to be wise enough to know when you may be a little more aggressive and in the final analysis, you can go over and jump off a boat in a totally different direction but the odds of the administration is probably not a good idea. in the end it's the president's administration. >> or greater dangerous arts or country is country is concerned is that the president doesn't take the vice president in. there's a story at least i don't know whether it's true or not the truman did not know about the atomic bomb until he became

president. it seems to me the presidency is a rather extreme case of the president not inviting the president to what was going on. since that time come that time come and answer a few situations where the president or vice president have not had. >> we recently had some remarks by bush 41 about your role in mr. rumsfeld's role and may be used -- [inaudible] thank you very much. [laughter] i know you think very highly of president bush and i am not looking for your we have into that particular comment other than they ask you as you reflect on your own vice presidency, are

there some things he would've done differently? >> right offhand i can't think of any. it's a fascinating story. the biography of the george h.w. bush in the course of that but the president -- president bush senior made the comment that i had undergone a change within secretary. >> he attributed it to 9/11. >> i became much more aggressive the aftermath of 9/11.

law enforcement under the weight had been treated in the past was inactive for. i spent a good part of my time as vice president and then made sarah didn't happen again and establish the procedures and i admitted that he was right. we got a very nice book after and then went on to say some very nice thing. [inaudible] we meet once a year and some jokes and so forth.

i got an invitation to sit next to them to leave a message that there is no hard feelings. >> now, there's a few questions here that go a bit beyond the vice presidential topic but it's an opportunity to have your thought and i think it would be good to do that. would either of you like to reflect on the recent passing of nancy reagan and what she meant to former president reagan. >> the one thing i will say she didn't try to usurp the power of the vice president. [laughter] there is an awful lot of talk about her being that sort of thing which was not true.

[inaudible] >> no, she didn't have an fire. let's say he didn't get along well. the president decided it's better that he found other work. nancy reagan was a very good wife, devoted to her husband, tremendous source of strength. but in eight years as the president's legal advisor and chief of staff in california and eight years in the presidency, there is not one instance where she tried to interfere in the policy or anything by the influence of what was going on in government. there is no doubt he had ideas and issues a good wife she would talk to him at night. she was very alert to people she didn't think were serving him well. the main thing she was concerned about quite frankly was as the oldest living president in

office at that time that he didn't get overtired or do other things for travel too much to keep them from being a highly effect is president. overall, she was important to him and very important to the country. the thing she did that just taken on the drug campaign and talking with kids cut education that sort of thing, reinforces things he's trying to do. most of this are people like tom brokaw spoke and people like that. including the press was not only to him but to his country. >> speaking as someone who had done anything i could.

she couldn't have been nicer to me personally the social limitations and so forth and then they sent that richard duchenne >> the person i want to ask you about that one of our christian nurse wanted to ask you about, justice scalia of what you brought to the constitutional understanding. >> in the history of the court house a major, major role in a departure. paragraph speeten about the same time and was gotten to know each other over the years, but

let's say we spent a lot of time. there were moments when it sort of came together. before the supreme court goes on to force me that the energy task force to develop a list of all the names i talked to and put together an energy policy. i refuse to do that. >> the federal advisory committee. >> yes. we've put together the vice surrey committee. i argued that the president could talk about it how they want to they want and they don't have to tell members of congress and everybody else who has talked to. ultimately they ruled in my favor. during the course of this, justice scalia and i found out

and the sierra club alleging there was some problem about two of us with all these cases than these cases and they wrote a brief period audio mac -- [inaudible] one day they wrote a brief about the supreme court demanded that scalia would draw from the president. justice gilead what a beautiful 20 page elegant, elegant document -- [inaudible] he was just a great guy, always tremendously impressed, but also also -- [inaudible]

>> it was interesting that he had that ability to separate policy differences that personal relationships. i think the fact that he and ruth bader ginsburg were closest to people on the court, that many of the two justices was an indication the tradition in the capital. in the capital and not in the white house and the old executive office building. the current vice president joe biden came very nice remarks that afternoon. we started our discussion about a concerned that mr. biden has raised about dysfunction. since we've been talking about the supreme court vacancy occasioned by the responsibility

to find someone to place justice scalia. is it in your judgment the appropriate thing to do to be that big sea until the next election? >> i agree with the position saying they won't consider the nomination until after. they obviously have times before when the senate has good. it is partly a tactical move by the senate leadership to close election numbers as you start down the path to bring the vote to the floor at this stage that there's a lot of very difficult political initiatives on that members who are at this time and

to protect them from that the decision is so important in terms of the future of the court to replace scalia as the ultimate conservative of justice was somebody very different. it is going to shape the court for the next 30 years. it is bound to be a subject of debate and argument on both sides and obama will argue his point of view and the republicans will argue their point of view. [inaudible] >> it's interesting to notice that this issue first came up to my recollection during the george w. bush's last term. chuck schumer, harry reid, all

very vociferous they should there be a vacancy in the supreme court could never confirm anyone during the last year. i think we just looked at this as the biden and schumer rule that the republicans are now following. >> well, it could be. i suspect there's a bipartisan direction that they would hope the country not go when in the cost as we all know to the other branch. the cost that is being paid is one that has been paid in the past to avoid it if you can. be that as it may, it's a wonderful discussion. i think of so many quips about the vice president. one that comes to mind is thomas marshall who was vice president to woodrow wilson told the story of two brothers leaving the village. one became vice president and

neither were heard from again. that is obviously not the case. thank you does. -- thank you both. [applause] >> as a recruiter and an officer, you know that these standards -- she said you would not have gone until last year. what stopped you from being a good shot? >> i was convinced it was a shot. when i told myself i would hold myself to a higher standard is to do with me. i forced myself to go to the electronic pistol range for a

month so i could become more confident with my weapon and it worked good for the first time i shot expert. so it can be done. almost 20. >> 20 years of service and it took you that long because we went to the basic school together. we all qualified right then and there and there is no one telling you at the time you couldn't shoot. >> clearly you >> clearly you are not familiar with language expectancy. you can roll your eyes, sir. the point is if women are told through language within tissue. >> i was never told that through my entire four years. >> you may not have been told that. if you look at the decade of shooting results at parris island, it's very clear that was the case. what would change that dynamic, we saw the results.

>> what i was fortunate enough to be able to do in the cable industry and wireless industry was to be involved as they were bringing great change to the american economy and the way people live their lives. and that is what we are dealing with at the fcc because we are now in the middle of one of the great revolutions of all time. the job of the fcc is to say okay, how do we deal with the

kind of changes happening all around us? >> georgetown university law school held a forum last week on race and law enforcement. in one discussion the fbi general counsel and historian discuss government surveillance of civil rights leaders including the luther king. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> ladies and gentlemen, welcome back. it is my great pleasure -- [inaudible] by night, freddy martinez is in my mind the leader of what i

think is the most exciting grassroots anti-surveillance organizations of the country. he is a technologist, but it's a militarized himself at the freedom information act to learned an incredible amount of the assisting right technology in chicago. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming freddy martinez. [applause] >> how is my sound? gas? i'm going to try to get through these quickly. a little bit about me. we will talk about some of the work i've done, stingrays in general, concerns the people of color and what will work on the next 60 to 90 days and said things to work on the next couple of years. i was once called a skinny, fidgety 27-year-old wired reporter. but i love that. and i'm a technologist by day.

so my motivation all started over a at a bar. everyone knows this phrase like someone should really look into this and inevitably you're that person that looks into it. because i'm a physicist and because i have experience with different technologies, it allows me to do this kind of stuff. the other thing for motivation is when i organized, i come from i believe enough volition. so i take that and apply it to our work and that really helps us in the things we do. i love this slide. for some reason there was a local news channel. they tried to look interesting right technology. they just believed the police didn't have any because they were told that.

journalist in the room don't do this, but because of the ways we approach technology and the way we understand policing, we didn't take no for an answer and we had to sue multiple times the police department can a state attorney's office get even the basic facts. it's basically like a suitcase sized device and basically your information. you can put antennas, battery packs and increase the covers sized. what it does is force is your phone to give up identifying information about you. without any kind of -- there's no opt-in or anything like that. there's a couple of manufacturers. harris corporation is a big one and what are called guaranteed

boxes, but they are also sold all around the world. why you would use one, you can sense and messages for free. you can identify information, real-time location tracking. gather information about who is calling who, how long the calls are lasting. you can build your round. so that is why people use them. real-time location tracking which is why police departments across the country use them. so we uncovered two or three in chicago. we have noticed that across the country police department will get steamed rice. they'll get court orders. this doesn't require a warrant and then build your real time location following suspects around the country.

the reason that matters his pen register orders require much lower legal standard and what isn't being told to judges as they are following people by essentially searching their staff without a warrant. that's why it's important this is happening across the country. police departments or sign a nondisclosure agreement that if they come to you and someone is asking for evidence to use this on my client, will drop the case or we won't tell judges we got one of these stingrays that we are using it in the case. that is traveling in a lot of different reasons. defense attorneys can't raise this judicial argument that this is not -- that there's a fourth

amendment protection here. the chicago police department claims they have no evidence of the stuff being checked in and out of. evidence control rooms because they say releasing information about this is national security concerns. we have the strange legal arguments that have been, like i can't give you information because of national security reasons, but on the other hand we are not controlling who's using them or we don't have records of how many times they are deployed across the city. it leads you to a very strange -- when i'm trying to do a request it's hard to get an answer to a question because of the really contradict research a statement that the police departments are making. in chicago this stuff was paid for with civil asset forfeiture

money. this was money seized from suspect did drug dealers. this money doesn't have to be proven in the court of law that there's anything nefarious linked to it. there's about $50 million we've identified that has gone towards a civil asset forfeiture in chicago. i don't know what is worse, that they do this in chicago or nationwide that they are taking money from the department of homeland security and using that to essentially militarized police departments. i don't know what is worse. nationally he was hit a department of homeland security grant of going into buying equipment and giving it to the police department. said that as a huge concern. another is her i talked about earlier the pen register orders. in chicago, stuff is controlled

by the bureau of organized crime, vice and their contacts. the whole unit works out of the square and what they do is essentially target the poor. we know that this is essentially what they do. so that is a huge concern for me. the state's attorney on the other hand has claimed they have no record of ever prosecuting cases was stingrays. we are trying to fight through a foia to see if we can get those cases. this is interesting because we can't raise questions about whether or not it is appropriate to spy on people's cell phones if we don't know who they are doing it to. it's a very catch-22 it makes our work a little bit hard. because we've had real good success in the lawsuits we have filed, we are getting close to the answers. there's a great graphic in tacoma in 2014 if we could just

as what you think the case is ingrained, what kind of cases would that be. some of these would be -- green is drugs. in 2014 someone must've been like will use these for drug cases. that is the case in tacoma. in boston they are similar. all of the officers who -- in the next couple of steps we should try to figure out for these criminal cases have been prosecuted, where defense attorneys are being misled. we should be challenging these prosecutions. many people out of prisons that have been essentially applied to and incarcerated. in chicago we won this legal case that we are going to essentially be giving record of

deployment use of the chicago police department. we are really excited about that. there is a technologist, privacy activist -- his name is mike cech.com. he's been doing this across the country. if you are interested in doing this work, their hundreds of police departments across the country that need investigation. i think that is it for my time. i treated out the sides. he has done fantastic work and he's one of the only foia attorneys that doesn't charge you for. consider taking those cases because we need it. questions? >> is your presentation available to us?

>> yes. i treated a link a couple moments ago. >> this might be a naïve question in terms of civil forfeiture. walk me through that. if you are acquiring basically illegal items, drugs, does that eventually get turned into money that can be used to purchase the stingray equipment. >> the way it works is usually you will have the money from a traffic stop for a search warrant and that money will get seized. you will get cases like city of chicago versus $9 that will get entered into a general fund. the police -- at least they are used in the general fund and allocating resources for the war on drugs. they are kind of a self fund

dean -- sometimes it's cash. sometimes it is like beach headphones and ps threes. kind of a mix of everything. >> will do this last question. what communities are the stingrays being used in? >> from what i can tell this seems to be mostly drug cases. i don't mean like the guys who were jacking up the customs pharmaceuticals. you know, that is not a crime. [laughter] but it seems like it is low-level drug offenders and then to go back to this idea of where this stuff is housed in bryce canyon or conducts investigations good that is all people on the west side and southside of chicago. i wish i had a list to show you every single demographic, but i don't. that seems to be consistent with

what we have seen here in chicago and across the country with drug cases in general. [applause] >> it's funny thinking about asset forfeiture. i'm actually working with a number prosecutors who think about ways that prosecutors can make a difference with regard to mass incarceration and race disparities. we have been convened by cyberspace, junior who is the progressive had district attorney and so he is bringing together 20 people from all over the country meeting regularly to talk about these issues. where is he getting the money to do this? he's using the money he is getting from this question, a lot of concerns about it. that is bringing us together to do some thing that will do some

good. produce mass incarceration. there's 30 lots of amazing moment. this is one of the highlights. you have heard from one of the stars of this panel who's going to be the chair, the director of our center on privacy and technology. we have the honor of hearing from david garrow, professor of, professor von history distinguished faculty scholar at the university of kent lavinia -- university of pittsburgh law school. he is best known for writing the pulitzer prize winning biography of martin luther king, the definitive biography. i should say he is best known for that now. texture at this time he will be non-definitive biography of barack obama. that will be published in winter

of 2016-2017. it is a special honor to have mr. jamesa baker, the general consult of the fbi. i can tell you it is not easy to get one for us than officers to talk about these issues. we have reached out to mr. baker, hoping that he would want to take place it is. we were really interested in hearing from law enforcement as well as activists and scholars and historians. to our great delight, he said yes. and saying as he continued a tradition that the fbi has started coming to georgetown and talking about race and criminal justice. this is just different from the police department lon forstmann agency including the fbi which is generally thought of as being the preeminent law enforcement agency.

the direct or if the fbi came to georgetown last year and gave a major speech and i didn't agree with everything he said, but i was happy he came to at least talk about those issues. we will continue that conversation now. thank you for being here. >> paul has done a wonderful job introducing our panelists here, are incredibly important panelists in this debate. without further ado i will mention where running a little under 15 minutes. that is okay. will make up for it in the lunch hour. we will begin with professor garrow who will speak about martin luther king jr. and the connections you can draw from that today. >> thank you. it's great to follow someone like freddie martinez is doing such great present a word.

to me as an historian, the simplest technology of surveillance remains the most profound, the most dangerous come at the most troubling and that is human informants. in the technology of the 1960s, the fbi had three waves of surveilling dr. king. bugs, microphones come in the sewers in fbi lingo. and wiretaps. in the 60s, given the microphone surveillance required trespass in the bureau was very hesitant about committing criminal trespass. wiretaps were incredibly time-consuming and it is safe to run throughout most of those years the fbi is operating 60, 75, 80 wiretaps. but i want to concentrate on

human and torments and i want to tell two quick stories. the first involves dr. king and the second involves the african-american who is actually the most surveilled person of the 1960s. not dr. king, but elisha mohammed had a notorious vote politically conservative nation of islam. i got interested in this in 1979 and in 1979, thanks to the church committee, thanks to attorney general and to attorney general and leave a comment thanks to house assassinations committee, we knew pretty much all of the chapter and verse about the electronic surveillance without her cane and the anonymous threat in suicide letter that alvaro put up this morning that was written by assistant fbi director, division five bill sullivan said to king without jay edgar hoover's personal knowledge.

it is critical that in looking at the hoover era fbi to not personalize hoover sound into visually weird, dangerous come a unique monster. the fbi culture or surveillance is a culture that was much more inclusive than all encompassing than just shake her hoover. when i first got interested in the story of the fbi and dr. king, my beginning question was why did this hostility get started. we knew then that is focused on dr. king's closest political adviser and friend, sam levin said, a white jewish new york real estate attorney.

within two years i was being threatened with indictment under the espionage act of 1917 by the chief of the fbi's intelligence unit, the now late michael jay steinbeck for the environment identities i have managed to discover by means of interview. interview in fbi people, communist party u.s.a. leaders, interviewing a kgb agent or two. morrison jack chesser brothers who'd grown up in the communist party and by the early 1950s had become the fbi's most valuable human informants over of the hoover era. they were the fbi and cp u.s.a. conduits between new york and moscow. they visited moscow to regularly. morris visited beijing. it's a fascinating story but we don't have time for that.

in that work, but the time they are working for the fbi, they met stanley levinson. before he met dr. king was a communist party of the u.s.a. financial operative. stanley story is a wonderful, compelling tale and is richly memorialized big studios t.i. very extensive wiretapping of stanley, of dr. king, of clarence jones. i apologize the dawn of time for me to give you little bio sketches of who these folks all were. the fbi's hypothesis was a dangerous communist influence on that are king was quickly disproved because in all those those hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours of electronic surveillance, there is no

scintilla of evidence that stanley was in any way manipulated and his relationship stanley was as loyal and that's helpful to mark with the king junior as anyone in doc/. i also admit teen 81 when the bureau was threatening me had come upon the name of jim harrison, jamesa harris who was the fbi's main human within the southern christian leadership conference could dr. king's organization in atlanta. one cannot understand the history of what the fbi did to dr. king, due to the civil rights movement without knowing the full stories and the full documentary record of human informants like worsted jack

childs, late jim harry said. since jim harrison is still alive, we don't have this file. the most profound question to me as an historian focuses on the fbi's position, a position that predates baker's role as general counsel. but they will never give up even decades later the records documenting what human informants have done in american political movements. i have a name for all of you to search for. it's a wonderful story tremendous journalism. ernest withers, mark parris ghia of commercial appeal in memphis has done phenomenal work in recent years documentary and how visitors like jim harrison was a

major paid fbi informant against the civil rights movement. .. malcolm was murdered by criminal conspiracy organized in the nation of islam. the primary gunmen remains alive and free today living in newark. google the name willie bradley.

we know, thanks to several documents released two or three years ago, as of sometime in 1965 come we don't know for sure of the date of his murder in february of 1965, that the fbi had multiple top level, the bureau term of art, top level informants in the nation of islam. and historians know the nation's story welcome have some very strong suspicions who those informants were. and top level does not mean you were a member of a mosque or a member of the image were a member of the hierarchy. the murder conspiracy that killed malcolm remains uninvestigated, and pursued by the u.s. department of justice and i've in new york county,

i.e. manhattan district attorney's office defended the. it is a travesty of american justice. if black like to matter can let's make malcolm's life matter. .com and i this conversation with jamaica yesterday -- [applause] we cannot solve in fully reveal the conspiracy that killed malcolm until all of the fbi files regarding the nation of islam and regarding the top lev human informants within the nation of islam are released in full, unredacted, no deletions so that scholars who know how to understand the nation, not people with department of justice security clearances can look at those documents and map out the real conspiracy. several people remain alive. they should be prosecuted and convicted. thank you very much.

[applause] >> thank you very much. mr. baker. i didn't mean to be that kurt. i will say nice things afterward. >> we had a great conversation yesterday. mr. baker has no relationship to the hoover era. [laughter] >> we can confirm this. >> so obviously the american people have invested get that with great power under the statute of the united states but you've given us great power and we can talk about that as go forward especially when it comes to surveillance if you want during the question period. you have given us great power and order to protect the country and for the domestic threats and to enforce the criminal laws. with that we need, you want us to have, and we welcome

constraints. so we have power and we need constraint. we need constraints under law so that we can do that job that you want us to do the way you want us to do it. that's the key thing. so i think one of the lessons to be learned a special you start thinking about the electronic surveillance activities that occurred during the investigation and activities around the martin luther king case, is that there were insufficient constraints on the government's authority to engage national security surveillance, so-called at that time, for these purposes. one of the important lessons, i mean, you cannot really understand american surveillance law the way it exists today. you can't understand the statute framework in which we operate today. you can't understand the

constraints that we have on us today to you don't understand the king case. answer to contrast what happened in the past and to shed a light on where we are today, there is much more significant accountability and oversight constraints with respect to the fbi's surveillance activities and the work in the past. just this week the director of the fbi was telling a story about how, on his task, he has a glass top desk, and underneath the glass he has a one page authorization that j. edgar hoover submitted to attorney general bobby kennedy for authorization to conduct surveillance of dr. king, that is basically, as a very flimsy support for it factually. it has really no limitation on duration, on geographic scope, i

want to be done with the communications that were collected. it really is a quite astoundingly broad authorization. the director keeps that on his desk, right now, and every morning he is responsible for certifying applications under the foreign intelligence surveillance act, an act that was enacted after the king investigation, and its provisions are in many ways in reaction to what happened, what was uncovered by the church committee in looking at the case, the investigation. so the director literally puts his stack of fisa applications on top of the one pager every morning. of fisa applications are like this. each one of them is quite extensive, quite thick with numerous presentations that are required by the law.

and i can talk about those in one second, but the point is that the era today, the protections we have in place today, are substantially substantially different than they were at that point in time. so give layer upon layer of requirements that are an effort to of accountability and oversight, with respect to the fisa application the director or the deputy director or some other high ranking national security official inside the company has to sign a certification that meet certain statutory requirements, and basically explains the purpose of the surveillance and the necessity of it. that's in essence what the certification is. in addition every single application has to be signed i hire ranking justice department official, the attorney general, the deputy attorney general or the assistant attorney general for national security. they have to sign their name and/or personally accountable to congress and to the public with

respect to these surveillance is. in addition something that did not exist at the time, we have the fisa court or the foreign intelligence of his escort which is a real court that consist of saving federal district court judges who reviewed these applications, and the government cannot go forward with these surveillance is except in certain limited emergency circumstances if the fisa court judge has not signed off on that. in addition also what was absent at the time back in the king era were permanent oversight committees in congress but that did not exist at the type that exists today and has existed since the '70s. that is a huge oversight mechanism, hugely important oversight mechanism that exists today i did not exist in the basket in addition i think something is not focused on a lot, if i could take two more minutes, the statute itself has a number of standards set forth in it that they can constrain

the power of the government and focus the government's attention to make sure that we are doing these types of highly intrusive surveillance is. there's no doubt they are highly intrusive surveillance is or searches that the government is doing to in a way that is consistent with the constitution, with the statute and with i was a bit with american values. so, for example, the our specific standards about what it means to be a legitimate target under fisa. you have to be a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. what is a standard that applies? its probable cause, caucasus and. so that's what the judges have to look at. you are limitations on the duration of the surveillance. limitations on the facilities is the word, so the phones and other types of locations where the surveillance or the search will be conducted. those have to be described and the judges have to make determinations under the law with respect to what they are

authorizing. importantly their significant limitations on what the government can do with the information once collected. one of the things that was the most problematic about what happened with respect to the surveillance of dr. king is with the fbi did with the information after a collected it. the amount of information that was disclosed to other people and the sensitivity to other people that was exposed to other people was quite astounded. today there are several different important parts of the statute that limit that kind of use of the tree. in particular, the information cannot be used for an unlawful purpose. utility used for a lawful purpose. in addition there are court ordered minimization procedures that apply. minimization means the government has delivered to the extent feasible the collection, retention and dissemination of the information, consistent with

the government's obligation or interest in producing, obtaining, producing and disseminating foreign intelligence information. so those procedures or hugely important as well. what i guess subconsciously business structure, the government learned a lot from these cases. congress learned a lot. congress passed laws. the government has been implementing those laws for a long time. we as the fbi have learned a lot from it as well and we recognize to this day, right now and every single day with the director having this on his desk, that we need to stay focused on this particular case. but the larger issue it raises with respect to being cautious about our own exercise of power and being cautious about the beliefs that we have when we are thinking about exercising the power that you've given us under law. cushioning our thinking. questioning why we doing

something here and pushing ourselves to make sure that we are not deceiving ourselves, that we are not unaware of her own biases, that we are focused on a we should be focused on when we engage in investigative activity and when we use investigative tools. i think so this is something i just want to tell you that is something we think about very much today. it'is very much in our mind. and without i will turn it back over and look forward to your questions. >> thank you so much. [applause] >> i think it's important to recognize and underscore something that you said, mr. baker, is that it's pretty interesting. in congress each of some folks who talk about the dr. king case. folks like pat leahy, rand paul. but it's important to say that in the executive branch the one

person who, i'm repeating myself on display but i want to make sure that everyone hears it, the one person who talks about the king case today is director comey. he has very deliberate made the decision to train all new fbi agents on the case. i want to ask you about what that legacy needs to do. director comey gave a speech which i'm sure universally with about hard truths in law-enforcement and raise. at the start of it he told the story that you think as an introductory speech story. talks about how his grandfather, was chief of police in yonkers and barely his grandfather became very unpopular after he apparently got a firehose that the lakers were using to transport beer from the place they brewed beer to the speakeasies in the neighborhood. the story is innocuous until you

realize wait a second, there was a time when beer was illegal in this country. then you think, yeah, there was a time not too long ago it was basically illegal to begin. there was a time when it was illegal to be japanese and living on the west coast. japanese american living in your home and the west coast in the central part of the united states. we are seeing from this conference there was a time when it was effectively illegal to be a black civil rights leader in america. so bringing it to the modern day at the debate i'm sure you spend a lot of time on, how can the fbi say that it should always be able to access information on our phones to root out illegal conduct when throughout our history the law has been repeatedly misused in ways that hurt vulnerable people? >> okay. there's lots there. >> i haven't given any thought

to the question, i'm sure. [laughter] >> we are most definitely not saying we should always have access to everybody's phones. that is absolutely not what we're interested in. we want access to data that we think is necessary in order to conduct our investigations that you want us to conduct, thank you being the american people have charged us to conduct. when we have appropriate legal authority to do so. so when we have, for example, a search warrant issued by independent judge that says there is probable cause to believe there's evidence of a crime on that particular device, what we are saying is okay, today, we will then pursue that it will try to get that evidence off the particular device because that's what we're expected to do. we our investigators so we investigate. what we been trying to send with respect to what you are referencing is that increasingly for a variety of reasons,

including encryption, we are enabled to obtain evidence in a case in a situation where data may be stored on the phone or in a situation where we are trying to do a wiretap and the data is in motion. because it's encrypted were unable to access that. what we are really trying to say, and director comey has said and i said, is that in terms of come onto times have we think about it. we think of ourselves as a service of the american people. that we belong to you. you own us. we follow your direction. it's our obligation given the responsibility the american people charged us with to tell you how it's going, to make you understand what difficult as we are encountering because you want us to do certain things to protect you. what we are trying to tell people is that when it comes to electronic surveillance, it's been a very effective investigative tool when used

properly over the years. it is much less effective today. what do you want us to do about that? the laws today, generally speaking, do not enable us to get access to this type of data. is that okay with you? is that all right in situations where you have the woman in louisiana who has been murdered and her mother thinks that maybe evidence on the phone and we can't access the phone. is that okay with you when we try to find a child or when you have a situation involving a child predator? is that okay? is it okay when we know we have leaders in isil in syria communicating through intermediaries with people in the united states, people in the united states using encrypted communications? we can see sometimes they are communicating but we don't know what they are saying. is that okay with you?

do you want us to different tools, or as a society are you and me, all of us, are willing to live with the inevitable public safety costs that are associated with encryption which, of course, enhances all of our privacy, including line. so at the fbi we also are charged with dealing with cybersecurity threats. so encryption is great in that regard. we loved encryption. encryption helps us in so many ways as a society but it has costs and we need to think about as a society how we are going to do with those calls. made we say we will accept it. maybe that's it. at the value that is associate with encryption is so tremendous and so great, so beneficial that we will deal with the costs. the reality is, we didn't talk about it but i spent most of the core at the department of justice and being now at the fbi one of the things that has been impressive to me is the proximity in terms of like me

giving legal advice to people, i am much more proximate, much more closer to the agents were literally having to go into houses and put lives at risk. i, therefore, and much closer to the bad guys, and we collectively are all much closer to the victims. so we have to do with it. we have to face the victims. what is our obligation to them at? so it's very challenging. these are hard issues. they are very hard issues. the are no demons you on it any site. the companies are trying to do things that they think are legitimate that i don't question their motives anyway. long answer to a short question. >> an important answer. i want to ask a question to professor garrow. i would invite you reflected anything that either mr. baker or you've been thinking about. one nugget for you to consider. one of the most powerful things in the book is precisely what mr. baker raises is how fbi uses information.

a lot of people know there was a wiretap in your book the fbi versus martin luther king, you talk about how fbi didn't take information or use of the black new. they brought it to the press, to funders, tuesday i tried to stop what dr. king was doing. i invite you come your not supposed to ask for suspected of questions but i invite you to speculate, what would dr. king's life been like in the absence of that surveillance? >> great. two points. dr. king was able to survive as a landmark civil rights figure because the journalism standards of the 1960s were set by ben bradlee, not by nick denton. in today's america, dr. king's private life would have destroyed him before 1963.

and the degree of sexual voyeurism that j. edgar hoover, bill sullivan, seymour phillips, headquarter supervisor in the rodney king case, the degree of sexual voyeurism inside hoover's fbi was not limited to dr. king by any means. the bureau tried to do that in many instances here but american journalists back then, nobody touched it. nowadays you can see what has become of this culture. second point which alvaro touched on, scores and scores of people, probably several hundred people here in washington knew what was going on, knew that all of his sexual information was being passed around to catholic bishops, heads of foundations,

religious, journalistic, political figures all over the government. not a single whistleblower stepped forward. and i mentioned the organizational culture of the hoover fbi. the organizational culture of the hoover fbi but that there was never a whistleblower. so to me as a historian, when we say someone like jeffrey sterling, an african-american who is in jail in this country today, something you should know, or whether we think about a great american patriot who is living in exile in vladimir putin's dictatorship, whistleblowers are, history teaches us that whistleblowers are necessary to american freedom. without whistleblowers, you get a hoover fbi. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, we have time for one or two questions.

[laughter] i know. trust become we could stay all day but mr. baker has to be general counsel of the fbi and professor garrow has many things to do. we have a question here. >> this is a remarkable presentation that i appreciate that mr. baker said from the fbi. my question has to do with what is the lesson that the fbi is drawing currently from the martin luther king case? at how does that apply to new technology but it's not just under fisa, defense authorities, but for example, the fbi's racial and ethnic mapping program which we know from public disclosure that the fbi's policy manual for domestic operations guide permits the fbi or the fbi believes it has the authority to collect and map public available demographic information about racial and ethnic communities in its effort to cure out its duties. i think the public is concerned. the aclu has filed numerous

public records request about this program. and how that authority is being implemented and how it is not leading to widescale racial and ethnic profiling and intelligence gathering investigation? >> thank you. >> so i missing a button on the ability of the details of that program because i just don't have been in my head. let me just say this. the protection of privacy and civil liberties is baked into everything we do now. the diog as reference has numerous requirements with respect to ensuring that civil liberties and privacy are protected. in addition we have numerous officials within the fbi old operational management parts of the workstation as well as lawyers. i have a whole team, i guess 11 privacy and civil liberties lawyers who in my opinion are excellent, and they are all over these kinds of issues.

we are in a challenging environment. and so the world is constantly changing. the adversaries are constantly changing, if the technology, technology and tools, analytical tools we have available to us are constantly evolving. what we have to do is make effective use of these tools so that we protect the country, but do so in a way that is consistent with the law and consistent with the constitution, consistent with our values, and that makes sense, that are efficient uses of the resources that we have. so what i was a i guess is that we are constantly worried about the kinds of things that i think you are worried about in terms of, i'm guessing some of the concerns under your question. we are very worried about.com to get we want to make sure doing is defensible because we know to both public and to congress in because of whistleblowers, we

are going to be held accountable. so some put all of this stuff comes out as we want to make sure that what we're doing is defensible. sometimes it's hard to figure out in the moment what that means. so we have robust discussion and debate within the fbi about what is the proper thing to do, what are the requirements. there are a lot of pressures on us. in terms of the fisa discussion, saad laid out what i think are the concerns and some the things been put in place to avoid the situations that gave a talk about. but they also give critiques, too slow, it's ridiculous, the argument requirements, that slows us down especially when we're dealing with al-qaeda. you all these pressures we have to fear what to do him any ideas to put in place the appropriate mechanisms, structures and people who can make the right decisions. >> for the second and final question i want to recognize that we have a lot of folks were

watching at home from live stream, and we also have a periscope feed from georgetown. so i'm going to give you, mr. baker, a question from periscope. i will paraphrase a little bit. the question is where minority populations are often disenfranchised, politically and economically, how does that affect the sort of quality of american people who are quote-unquote authorizing the fbi to do what it does, to collect this data is not? and the question asks, a senator demint of the american people who want this data are not the ones at risk of being surveill surveilled? [applause] tried to picture and again the question. that's a tough one for the fbi to answer, because we are as i said before, we are the servants of the american people and the

american political institutions that tell us what to do. in particular congress and the courts. so if there are, that's a question about the nature of u.s. democracy, then i'm not sure that i can or should really be the one to answer. >> professor garrow? >> i would just like to use a phrase i mentioned yesterday, a phrase that alvaro has certainly used and it it pushes back against today's theme. muslims are the new blacks. think about the political culture today in terms of communities who are under suspicion. [inaudible] >> we were out to talk about that immediately after lunch. so stick around. >> so we face old questions in new contexts. >> excellent. ladies and gentlemen, i think it's important recognize the unique conversation we have here between professor garrow and mr. baker i want to reiterate

what professor butler said. it's easy to turn down an invitation. we invited a lot of the nation's top intelligence officials to come, and many of them said no. you said yes, and that's important and we really appreciate that. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for coming this way. we have so much for you in the afternoon including a discussion precisive the overlap between the african-american population and the muslim population. you have 45 minutes for lunch. we will reconvene on time at once or 5 p.m. that panel as not to be missed. so we have a cafeteria. with the trucks, lots of businesses, restaurants. there's a list upstairs but one round of applause and see you at 1:05.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

a [inaudible conversations] >> bring you live coverage from outside union station in washington, d.c. at columbus circle to the u.s. capitol just two blocks away to the south were organizers of democracy spring say they're expected to attend a sit in at the capital protesting corruption and money and politics pics of the protesters having start the march back in philadelphia at the liberty bell arriving here today, and the second scheduled

to run today through saturday. take a look. >> to be here for each and every one of us, for equal voice, for a democracy that is representative. and so let's do one more thing. put your arms up to the sky. open it up why. and if you feel comfortable, find someone. if you feel comfortable, find someone to do your. we are doing that weird thing where we touched each other. so in the spirit of dignity and respect, this reminds we are holding on to one another with respect and consciousness and compassion. and legacy commitment today not just for the intention we came for, but to one another.

like let's look out for each other today, yes? does that feel important? do we want to create a culture where we look out for each other? so here's what we want to invite you all to do. throughout the day you with their different times mic check. you know that culture, right? mic check. mic check. so here's what we're going to do it throughout the day we will do a well check. well check? well check? and when we do that we will take a moment and we're going to look around a liquid remember that we are here together and we're going to look out for each other. so that just might be looking to the person next to you and being like hey, you will take? or do you need something? to see some who is in need? you show up within. because that's what makes us different. that's what makes us different. nurture, love. are you all committed to that? [shouting] >> well check.

>> well check. say democracy. yes, money out. >> i am ready for spring. here we go. [shouting] [cheers and applause] [shouting] [shouting] >> i believe. >> that we will win. >> i believe.

>> that we will win. >> one vote. >> money out. >> one person. >> one vote. >> i believe. >> that we will win. >> that we will win. >> that we will win. >> that we will win. >> democracy. >> democracy. >> democracy. >> democracy. [shouting] [cheers and applause] >> how are you all doing today? awesome, awesome. for those of you don't know me, i will be your mc for today's program. i'm so excited to see all of you guys you. you. all of the beautiful faces. i'm excited to see all of these armbands and headbands and whatever else you're tying up.

i'm excited i'm so energized. are you feeling energized? [shouting] are you excited about democracy spring? are you excited about taking direct action to reclaim our democracy lacks me, too. so we've got a couple of speakers before we take over. first of just like to introduce you to -- [cheers and applause] i know. it's a pretty big deal. for those of you who don't know, the host and founder of the world's largest online new show. he is the ceo of the network and a true leader of the progressive media committee. please give it up for -- [cheers and applause]

>> [chanting] [cheers and applause] >> it is so great to see you guys. wonderful to see all of you out here. all right. so i'm going to start with a study because that's always exciting, right? so princeton did a study of over two decades, 1800 politics position than they realized that public opinion has no correlation to public policy. in other words, that house over there, congress, they don't even care what we think.

[booing] there was one thing that had a direct correlation to public policy, and that was the owner of opinion. a special fashion special interest opinion. so unfortunately that greathouse over there has been deeply corrupted. but all of you are here to take that house back. [cheers and applause] because it is in their health. it's our house. [applause] whose house? >> our house. >> whose house? >> our house. >> who thousand? >> our house. >> that's right. so we started, look, i started the young turks 14 years ago. i started with back in 2011 at occupied action in new york. at the point of wolfpack is fix

this mess, right? so what we need in this country is our birthright as americans, very and fair elections. [cheers and applause] >> and i can't imagine the founding fathers not being enormously proud of you guys here. because they put it in the constitution that we need to amend the constitution from time to time to make it a more perfect union. so they envisioned exactly this moment. in fact, they put in article v, and at some point it is likely that congress will get to corrupt the people of to get an amendment to the states. so they thought, they were geniuses, they saw this very moving. there are some in the press better naysayers, of course. by the way why are the naysayers? why the critics?

why don't they believe? [shouting] >> because they are the establishment. so when you've got billion dollar companies who make billions of dollars from money in politics, what does the money and politics goes? it goes to tv ads. so do you think those tv stations will turn them millions of dollars of private to get our democracy back? they don't care about that. of course, they will not be on your side. but those naysayers can here's what they don't understand. we always win. [applause] so in the short run, do we get setbacks? of course but in the short run thus far and establishment when from time to time? of course. but martin luther king had a great saying about this. wrong forever on the throne. truth forever on the scaffold,

at that scaffold sways the future and that scaffold is right here and we are ready to swear the future today. [cheers and applause] so when we fought for civil rights, we want to win we fought for women's rights, we won. when we fought for gay rights, we one. and when we fight to get our democracy back, we are going to win. [cheers and applause] this is the beginning of that victory. so when we march today it's going to be a victory march. so we have been under siege for a long time i the establishment. it's now for us, time for us to put them under siege. so first thing i ever said at occupied when i launched wolfpack was they are not coming for us anymore. we are coming for them. [applause] and who you are in new york come

for them right now today. [applause] one final thing for you guys today. women's rights movement seemed absolutely impossible. there were naysayers back then, critics back then. and they said our the world are you going to give women the right to vote when they can't vote in the first place? it's impossible. and we did that, too. so when they take today it's impossible, don't believe them. the whole point is to try to discourage you. but i see today, our wonderful brothers and sisters who today, and you are not discouraged. [applause] and the women's rights movement took seven years but what they don't take as from the first video industry it only took seven years to get that impossible amendment. and it turned out that it wasn't impossible and that's exactly what we're going to do. and here we are in the street just like they did it.

it's great to see all of you here and it's just the beginning. i wanted to ask you one more time, whose house is that? >> our house. >> whose house? >> our house. >> let's go on a victory march. [cheers and applause] >> awesome. give it up everybody. [cheers and applause] all right. welcome the next bigger to the stage, terry o'neill, professor and activist with a distinguished history of fighting for justice from racial and economic equality to pushing for a constitutional equality for women. she is the president of now which a national organization for women. please join me in giving it up to jerry o'neil. [cheers and applause]

>> good morning. on behalf of the national organization for women, i am thrilled to be here to welcome you to say we are working together to change our future. we know we can do it i working together. [cheers and applause] you know, the statement of purpose in our bylaws says to its to take action to intersectional grassroots organizing, delete societal change and build a feminist future which will include all of us. [applause] but to me exactly when we say we're going to be doing intersectional grassroots organizing? one thing would work for gender justice we will not be colorblind. [applause] we will ask the question any kind of balls we look at how does it impact my sisters of caller?

how does that impact the lgbtq sisters? how does it impact transgender women of caller? what is the unemployment rate? what is the homelessness rate? if you look at any single policy we look to the margins and put the margins at the center of our work. that is the dedication. [cheers and applause] and that is how, that is why now is so adamant about overturning citizens united in getting money out of politics. [cheers and applause] and stopping the voters oppressive laws including an amendment to the constitution of the united states that says every citizen of this country is guaranteed a right to vote. [cheers and applause] so i want to tell you very specifically why that's so important for women. when you ask yourself what are these of voter suppression laws specifically doing to women? well, let's begin the analysis

with this. women work a lifetime at unequal pay. and that unequal pay, a large part of it, is ridiculously low, in fact a poverty level minimum wage. two-thirds of minimum wage workers in the united states are women. 70% of tipped workers in the united states are women. tipped workers minimum wage, a lot of people don't know this. that tipped workers minimum wage is $2.13. [booing] very disproportionately, tipped workers are women of caller, and their gross revenue is less than $6 because of this low minimum wage that is only for tipped workers. why get a job?

how you going to support your family? and by the way, in 40% of families, women are the primary or sole breadwinner. when you are facing these economic injustices across the board, economic injustices that are more deeply felt by women of country, immigrant women and lgbtq women than women who look like me, now you look at the voter suppression laws come and what do you find? a key part of voter suppression laws are voter id laws. women are more likely to change their name. so it takes extra time and extra resources to find that only your birth certificate within your marriage certificate, and very often your divorce decree to go to prove to skeptical agents that your actual are entitled to vote in this country. it is outrageous and it is a burden that falls disproportionately the people with the fewest resources to make that group. we don't expect that suppression

anever going to change it by taking back our country. [cheers and applause] so let's look at what happens as this be clear about how that voter suppression system got into north carolina. how it gets into ohio, how it gets into florida. that happens because of money in politics. way too much money and politics. now, in theory, a rich guy, like charles koch -- [booing] or david koch -- [booing] come in theory they could use their money to help elect progressives candidates, couldn't they? reality is the koch brothers will always use their money to elect conservatives. and what do conservatives, legislators to us and as they get into office with you look at what has happened.

what happened in 2010 and 2011 and 2012 and onto today? conservative legislators at the state and federal levels are raising and abominable war on women. that is what happens to women. they are determined to block the $15 minimum wage. we are determined to achieve $15 because that will help women. [applause] but with money and politics you have politicians that want to block that minimum wage. with money in politics we have politicians that are trying to block women from access to abortion care. one in three of us, one in three women will have an abortion by the age of 45. it is a common and necessary aspect of our basic reproductive health care. these conservative politicians are also trying to block us from achieving accessing birth control, where 90% of sexually active women in this country ask

is birth control something that what does it mean when a woman cannot access basic health care? she can't keep that lousy job she's got. she can't determine the number of spacing her pregnancy, should go to bed her career? how is she going to manage keeping the job she has? how is she going to decide what kind of family she has come and to support her family indignity and economic security? we must get money out of politics because that is the only way we will begin to elect more progressive politicians who will put our policies first, we'll put our needs and our interest first. so women, i know i've overstepped my time at i apologize, wanted to get excited about this. we are with you. we will take our country back. thank you. [applause]

>> [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] [chanting] >> got to give people hope. >> got to give the people hope. >> corporations aren't people.

>> corporations aren't people. >> stand up, stand up. >> sit-in, sit-in. >> democracy. >> democracy. [cheers and applause] >> you guys are awesome. i'm so excited how many of you here. we are so excited about energy. next up we have -- the

intersection of state, justice and the money out of politics. he's an executor to of the action network, cofounder of the global catholic climate and faithful democracy. please join in welcoming him. [cheers and applause] >> thank you and welcome. what is our faith and our word? it's not translated into action and sacrifice. that was actually a quote that we came up with several years ago when the whole group of us a couple blocks of you get a 30 day hunger fast for immigration. my brother who speak unix was there also. we did a 30 day fast to protest our immigration policies. closer, okay. how is that, better?

we are used to being quiet and meditative. again i welcome you people from many different faiths and spiritual traditions. young and old, people of all colors and all sexuality joining together to bring a prophetic voice to raise awareness, bring about an end to corruption of big money in politics. to work together for free and fair election in which every american has an equal voice. people of faith, we recognize the responsibility of government to seek justice for all people and to build the common good. justice cannot be achieved unless the rules governing the democratic process are just as fair. for unless the rules governing the democratic process are just and fair for all. that's a citizens vote not limited by power of money, social class and unequal access to public media.

i know that today many of you are going to risk arrest. i will not be able to join to today. i will be here next monday where whole group of faith which also risk arrest. [applause] i will be thinking about you today. save some space in the jail cells for us. i often get asked a question, why? why as a person of faith why participate in civil disobedience? why doing things like go on hunger fast? i get asked a question of why should faith leaders in care about this issue? should we really, really just interested in saving souls? and isn't there a separation of church if they? and i tell people that i did is because for me this is prayer. this is how i pray. this is how i live my faith. [applause] i do it because this is what jesus did. this is what st. francis of assisi did. when jesus turned the tables

over in his temple come when jesus healed on the sabbath which he did every single time he healed was on the south. he was committing acts of civil disobedience. st. francis got naked in the public square to protest the inequality of income among the people. i'm not suggesting you all go over and get naked either way. we all thought of that one time but we decided no, not a good idea. so we need, we need to we write our story. we need to rewrite our story to resort of connectedness, not a story of separation. we need to rewrite our stories so we have a story that tells us that people are not considered illegal because they want to come for a better life. that we want a story that tells us that children are not sold into slavery so we can have cheap cellphones and cheap coffee and cheap chocolate.

we want a story where we can, that our government is not controlled by a few wealthy people and that our laws are made to protect them at the expense of the rest of us. where people's voting rights are not taken away in cash to end racism is rare and not prevalent. money has always played a key role in electoral politics but what kind of role is played should be the subject to regulate it reflects democratic values the most important, it is necessary to have safeguards which ensure that more than just the wealthiest interest groups have a voice in the public sphere. a broad spectrum of faith tradition shares religious teachings that recognize each person has a gift of the creator and emphasized the human dignity of each and every person. every person should not only have the right to vote but he or she should have the right to speak and to be heard. every person should be able to

contribute his or her ideas. .. [cheers and applause] >> as people, by the way, we should be telling all of the members of congress, we just should tell them, every single one of them, tell them that. about 95% of the people in congress claim to be christians and i really use the word claim to.