verizon's purchase of yahoo! and the fact that we are talking about -- >> guest: i will simply say that. we have said is publicly a couple of times and we continue to work on the deal. i don't have any new news to report today on the status of the breach. certainly when we have something new to report we will be saying it publicly. >> host: craig silliman's general counsel and executive vice president for public policy at verizon and john mckinnon covers technology for "the wall street journal."

c senate majority leader mitch mcconnell announced his support for an investigation into russian influence on the u.s. election. he also answer questions on replacing the affordable care act and tax reform at this 25 minute news conference.

[laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> well i think this has been one heck of a year. i hate to see it and that i was topped off saturday night you see i have my sweater on. quarterback lamar jackson won the heisman trophy saturday night topping off a terrific year. the things that i care about like holding the senate and electing a president. another main subject you are interested in this morning and i'm going to read a statement which i typically don't do but i want to make sure you fully understand what i have to say on the issue that i think is mostly undermines this morning. obviously any foreign breach of our cybersecurity is disturbing and i strongly condemn any such efforts. prior to the election the director of national intelligence released a statement saying that the

russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from u.s. persons and the cetaceans including from u.s. political organizations. as that was what the intelligence community believes can be set in unclassified remarks without risking sources and methods. anything else, anything else is likely illegal and potentially for partisan political gain. i agree with senator schumer senator mccain burr and others that simply cannot be a partisan issue. let me remind all of you that the senate intelligence committee of which i am the chairman of the armed services committee said as ex-officio members is more than capable of conducting a complete review of this matter and senator schumer will soon join us on the committee as he could review this matter through regular order. i have every confidence in chairman burr they will review

the matter in a responsible way. an obama administration is launching a review and when the office, the director of national intelligence completes its review there'll be additional information released to the public in a responsible manner. chairman mccain has announced he will conduct a review within the armed services committee of the threat that they face from cyber attacks. that will be useful as we need to integrate our cyber capabilities into our overall warfighting doctrine. the obama administration grade years attempted to reset relations with russia and that back while rush expanded its sphere of influence come interbreeding crimea eastern ukraine syria and attempted to bully countries. it defies belief that somehow republicans in the senate are reluctant to either review russian tactics or ignore them.

so last come let me say i have the highest confidence in the intelligence community and especially the central intelligence agencies. the cia is filled with selfless patriots many of whom anonymously verse their lives for the american people. excuse me, can i have some water? by me just say and i will open up to your questions, i think by any objective standard the 114th congress looks pretty good compared to the previous one. everything from the cures bill to ndaa bills first longtime highway bill in 20 years, faa, were to, the water resources bill permanent tax relief that

we addressed the opioid prescription drug epidemic in a major way a complete rewrite of no child left behind the k-12 education issue, fea accountability a cybersecurity bill a permit doc fix human trafficking trade promotion authority and others. even though there were obviously some pretty big differences in a time of divided government i think we were able to search for the things that it was my desire to search for the things we have agreement on and make some progress for the country. there were a number of things upon which we were able to score some points for the american people. with that let me throw it open. >> you believe the russian government intentionally --. >> the reason i read that statement is i think that. thoroughly covers what i'm

prepared to say about that issue. >> he talked about an investigation is separate bipartisan investigation. >> we are going to follow the regular order. it's an important subject and we intend to review it on a bipartisan basis. >> in your statement a critique of the obama administration with russia. doesn't likewise concerned if the signals coming from the new administration of a different attitude and more friendliness toward russia? >> let me just speak for myself. the russians are not our friends they invaded crimea. senator mccain and i and some of our democratic friends met with a delegation from the all take countries just this past week to say they are as nervous

about the russians to put it mildly. that may also say as i said last year nato is important. we intend keep the commitments that are made and that nato agreement which i think by any objective sense has been one of the most it not the most successful military alliance in world history and i think we ought to approach all of these issues on the assumption that the russians do not wish us well >> leader mcconnell is a problem the incoming president is sending signals to russia that he is resending and what do you say about his appointment of of. >> i'm going to say this a lot times. i just addressed how i feel about the russian and i hope those who are going to be in positions of responsibility in the new administration share my

view. >> you mentioned you were confident in u.s. policy but are you concerned the president-elect denies fair conclusion that russia was behind the hacking and that he's now questioning the credibility of the cia? >> look i have party addressed my own view about where we are on most issues and i really don't have any intention of further elaborating. >> do you have any concerns about the nominee -- [inaudible] on russia to? >> i've been very impressed with the nominations so far and we will have to wait and see who is nominated for secretary of state and will obviously treat whoever that is with respect and they will go through the regular process and respond to questions and we'll see where it comes out

>> to think a resolution can be confirmed in the senate if he is nominated? >> let's wait until we get the nominees. of the nominees that we are already aware of i am optimistic that they will all be confirmed but i don't want to comment on a nominee today. >> mr. leader can you verify for us it was reported over the weekend there was skepticism about the intel. can you verify that for as? >> i clarify for you what i had to say about that in the statement that i read at our opening. >> do you think this president-elect is getting off on a great footing with the intelligence agencies overall and the general trajectory that is on right now?

>> i will comment on who has been nominated so far. take my pompeii was in excellent choice and i'm optimistic the president is going to have a good national security team, all aspects of it, in place. >> with regard to his relationship. >> i think i've pretty well covered that. the mac on the house side conservatives are saying that's too long. you agree it's too long and would take three years to replace obama tear? >> but they make sure everyone understands the status quo is not sustainable. the notion that we could do nothing and allow the current law to implode is unacceptable so i hope no one believes no

action is possible or appropriate. therefore we will move right after the first of the year on an obama tear replacement resolution and then we will work expeditiously to come up with a better proposal than current law because current law is simply unacceptable and not sustainable we will be worked in with the various stakeholders to get their best advice about what comes next and with regard to the phase-in. mac timing of all that is yet to be determined but let me just say again doing nothing is not an option great you have seen the headlines across america all last year about the status quo. when we get through deciding how we are way to do that i will be happy to let you know. >> various stakeholders you said you're working with are also warning about the dangers if a

replacement were not established with actuaries in hospitals and medical associations. how does that factor into your decision? >> none of those people you mentioned are happy with the status quo. they want changes too and we are going to work to come up with a better system than this monstrosity that was left behind by the obama administration. [inaudible] >> we will let you know. we are going to move forward first with the obamacare for placement resolution what comes next is what comes next. in other words legislatively we will determined but the replacements going to be. >> while you were putting together that replacement will it covers many americans as the they -- they're not?

>> 85% of americans have coverage and there are still roughly 25 million who don't so it covers was the issue obamacare was an abysmal failure. surely we can do better for the american people and that's what we intend to try to do. this e that means i said earlier we will move first with the obamacare replacement resolution and then we will come up with what the replacement will actually be. >> use of the placement will be phased in. what is his revision that he liked and a lot of people liked under the obamacare plan? does that get pushed and. >> i don't know how may times have said the same thing but we are going to be working on the phase-in period and what it will

look like once we get to step two. step one is the obamacare replacement resolution which we will turn to right after the first of the year. >> back on russia what is the intelligence committee doing and do you expect speaker ryan, while the house of some sort of role here? >> senator mccain and senator burr will both be looking at this issue and doing it on a bipartisan basis as i indicated in my statement. >> can you walk us through your timeline on the budget resolution? the chairman on the house side expects that debate -- but is that your thought that will be the same document from the senate side and use any obstructions outside of appealing at? >> we anticipate doing to voter

registration -- resolutions is to pick the first of the obamacare repelled resolution then we will do well later in the spring. it will largely be dedicated to tax reform so there will be two this year and they will set up a reconciliation follow-on vehicles for us to address two very important issues they president-elect has talked about we all care about repealing and replacing obamacare and doing conference of tax reform. we are all worried about and concerned about the offshoring of u.s. jobs. the single biggest reason for that is our tax structure which makes it very difficult in many instances to stay here because the corporate tax rate and now the individual tax rate that most businesses use as well is way too high and it's a noncompetitive situation. the president-elect made it clear he's going to move on as

many regulatory changes that he can make as soon as he takes office. much of that was done by executive order or regulations of one kind or another. it's too big of an impediment to growth in our country, overregulation and the tax structure. the president-elect seems to be committed to addressing both of those in the republican majority in the house and the senate are as well. >> use of money for top cop goals of this past year was getting regulation access and passing spending bills on time. you have failed at that. c i didn't. just a refresher memory that democrats decided to ball up the appropriations process which you can do if you have enough of a minority to do it because they wanted us to end up in a situation like we did. we will see whether they have a

different view next year. i hope so. i gave up to six weeks to try to process individual appropriations bills and the democrats simply would not let them out of the senate. let's put the failure where it belonged. >> your caucus will be smaller next event was this year especially on the house site but i guess i'm wondering why should we think it's better next year or should we? >> well i hope so. there will be enough senate democrats to follow up in the process if they choose to. think what they concluded this past year was when they have a president that they like bottling up the process to give the present a lot of clout at the end of the year benefited them. it will be interesting to see if they bottle up the process when you have a different presence in a different authority.

>> so it's all on them. c it certainly was this year and the minority of the senate is not a relevant. >> senator last week democrats were trying to get the president-elect to weigh in on the issue. is he encouraging them to stay out of it? >> i have not discussed it with him. my own view of that is a coalminer health care issue i hope to begin a full year and we ended up getting an off a fix through the pr through the end of april and it's my goal to try to get that coalminer health care issue fixed. >> in the past he talked about the massive debt we have

$20 trillion tax and the governor expires. [inaudible] doing things that you talked about before the election like medicare and social security which are all difficult to do politically. >> again i'm not speaking for myself but i think this level of national debt is unacceptable. whatever we choose to do next year i hope we will not lose sight of steps that we could take that would exacerbate the problem. so i am concerned about it and all of those things may think we have to take into consideration in each of the things we do going work. c the present lexus talked about a massive infrastructure plan of over a trillion dollars along

with a lot of huge tax cuts which nonpartisan experts say could add trillions of dollars to the debt. you said. [inaudible] >> my preference on tax reform is that it be revenue-neutral. the government and to not exacerbate the issue that you raise and on the infrastructure issue it will be interesting to see how this is put together. i am interested in seeing what is the administration going to recommend and i think the details are really important. what i hope we will clearly a boy and i'm confident we will is a trillion dollar stimulus. i will take you back to 2009. we borrowed a trillion dollars and nobody could find it.

allah seem to do was plus-up a bunch of different federal councilman he looked around trying to find examples of things that actually occurred there were few. we need to do this carefully and correctly and the issue of how to pay for it needs to dealt with responsibly. c this is a legacy question but i'm curious how you would describe the last eight years dealing directly with president obama and moving forward how you describe your relationship working so far with present. you speak frequently on most daily with the speaker. c i think president obama is a very smart guy. he wanted to move the country significantly to the left and he did. he did it the first few years because he had total control of congress. a trillion dollar stimulus, obama karen dodd-frank. and i was wrong in my prediction three times. i thought after the 2010 election president obama would

pivot to the center. he did not do that. i thought after the 2012 election when he didn't get the house back and i thought surely after the 2014 election he would pivot to the center and he didn't do that so it's pretty clear looking back over the last figures the president wanted to move america significantly to the left. what i would call the europeanization of america. high taxes and over regulation and what you get in the end is slow growth and underperforming growth point of view all through these years. and a slow recovery after it the deepest recess and since world war ii. few bear in mind that that's what he wanted to do i think he moved the country significantly in a european direction. the good news for us is a lot that was done by executive

orders and regulations. to get the country going again in my view as i said earlier we have to deal with the regulatory onslaught and tax reform to take our foot off the brake and get it on the accelerator. so i think the president was effective in doing what they want to do. they're in mind reagan only had the house for eight years we moved to the middle and that raise the age for social security and the last conference of tax reform 30 years ago. he did welfare reform and we balance the budget three years in rapid a row. think we can safely say about president obama he is not a centrist and with regard to the new president we have a terrific relationship and he has a very high energy person. just to give you an example than talking to my colleagues on the floor last week it was astonished -- astonishing how

many up and talking to him. he's very accessible, very energetic. i wonder if the man ever sleeps and i think we are all excited about the energy and the direction that he seems to want to take the country in the best evidence of that are the appointments that have been made so far all of which i think have been. impressive. >> leader mcconnell during a bombing or she said the debt ceiling should be used as an instrument. do you want to apply that principle during the trump ears? >> on one occasion it was helpful. the budget control at an august of 2011 actually did end up reducing government spending for two years and ago since after the korean war. the much reviled sequester has

put a lot of pressure on domestic discretionary spending. there have been other times when we have raised the debt ceiling and not done it in connection with some effort to reduce it but at least on that one occasion at broad assaulted a table. this was the first of three deals that i did with the vice president who is very transactional and a terrific negotiator. i think it was a present to wanted to do more deals with this. that was all in the first term. there were three major deals negotiated in the first turn. i did all three. the august 2011 budget control act, going back to the year before the two-year extension of the bush tax cuts at the end of 2010 and then the fiscal flip deal new year's eve of 2012.

obviously the vice president was not freelancing. the president gave him the opportunity to negotiate. the second term mccain who has a wicked sense of humor is all of the know said joe was in the witness protection program so their best negotiator was not around during the second term. i think there was nothing the president wanted to negotiate. i'm sorry for rambling on here but i think it's unclear to me whether the raising of the debt ceiling will end up securing other things or not. one more. you are off. sin senate republicans -- if president trump revokes the order that president obama did affecting the dreamers and the young immigrants? the daca. >> we will have to wait and see what the new administration recommends that whole area.

well, have a great christmas everyone. we will see you next year and we will go back at it. thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>> i think if the next president wants to aspire to be like somebody they probably want to be -- aspire to washington or lincoln. can't re-create the country. to see aspire to be james monroe? what he can do is aspire not to be. ..

twenty-six tea2016 report shows. attorney general loretta lynch speaks at a mosque in sterling virginia. [applause] >> thank you all. thank you so much for that warm welcome. thank you for coming here today. thank you so much for that warm introduction. you mentioned that you didn't have the analogy for all the

excitement onstage, but i think you do. when you called everyone came to help. [applause] when one falls we all have to step up without regard for our own safety. without knowing what lays behind the curtain, everyone wants to help. when one is threatened we have to speak out regardless of the discomfort that it may call upon us. when one of us is in harms way, we are all in harms way. and yes i want to thank you for illustrating that. [applause] hi could sit there now but being from the long line, you know i

won't. all of the community leaders and members have come together and welcomed me so beautifully this morning. can we all once again have a hand for all of our children that have done so well. [applause] there's a reason that we are here. here. there's a reason that we do this work. and for all of you parents and grandparents, yes all of your hard work is making it pay off because they are beautiful and represented you so well. i want to thank all of the leaders that spoke before me for their moving words but most importantly for their commitment and recognition that the god we all share doesn't see the difference when he looks at us.

when we hurt, he hurts and we all have to step in. let me thank all of you, the advocates that are here for everything that you do all day every day to strengthen and empower all of the communities. thank you so much. [applause] i am honored to be here today in this space and most importantly, in front of this audience. we are all here today as men and women of all races and creeds and color. we are born in the united states having been resolved from generations ag ago but immigrans nonetheless. and i some of us came here more recently in search of a better life. we may speak different languages

were read from different books of scripture. we may call our god by different names, but we all love this country and the ideas for which it stands and we are committed to upholding them. we want our children to lead lives of safety and we proudly claim the title of american. and justice brandeis claimed we are all there. the most political office there is. that is our strength. we are all together in this and here today, i see a living expression of the american promise, a living picture of america the position that every person's dignity is inherent and equal. we know that promise is as old as the nation itself.

240 years ago, two centuries, the forefathers boldly proclaimed all men are created equal and of course when those words were written, they had a way to go because there was again between the founding ideas and reality is the very hand that put those words on and found the purchase and sale of other human beings and for many of our ancestors, african-americans, native americans, all immigrants and countless others the promise of american life rand paul overfull too long -- ran over for far too long. they were powerful, too self-evident. generation after generation heard and read those words and

took them to heart and demanded that they be fulfilled and they stood up just for seeking the right to vote. the soldiers that defended freedom overseas only to return home to a nation that wouldn't let them vote and sometimes even repaid their service. are they fought for their civil rights. all of these are examples of courage and determination. they've come before us also illustrate the great truth that every generation must keep this battle a new and push this country forward for those

promises. we have built a society that is so much further along and reflects the literary justice for all. for our work is not finished. we have been challenged on these and so many other fronts as we are all aware. as we talk about just last month the fbi released its statistics on a numbe the number of hate cs committed in 2015. we already see the disturbing trend. how much more work remains to be done. overall the number increases 6% from 2014 if the figure increases committed against the jewish americans for african-americans, lg bte americans, but perhaps the most troubling of all, it shows 67%

increase in hate crimes committed against muslim americans. this is the highest total of the incidents since 2001. when 9/11 assaults spurred so many reprehensible acts coming d we know that there are many more in all communities across the country that goes unreported. we also know it's easy to talk about the numbers and statisti statistics. but behind every member is a person. like how every statistic is someone whose rights have been violated. behind the pages of the report by the communities that are now more afraid than before and now more afraid than any american should ever feel. all of us have seen the recent news reports about hate crimes

and harassment. we have seen the story of jobs do they cope she -- hijbs taken off of one intended and a story that was taken [inaudible] that is what is behind all of those numbers. and i say to you again, when one of us is threatened, all of us are threatened. when one of us falls, we all have to help. that is our obligation and commitment into the pledge we have all made us citizens and it's just as important working on the issues working with local authorities from multiple incidents the agents and prosecutors are working to assess whether the cases constitute a violation of the federal law but h we will provie that support nonetheless.

because these statistics come at these number, thesenumbers and e people behind them should be a concern to every american regardless of faith and background over whether you are involved or not. because they target more than just the individual at the time. they target the fabric of our communities and they also stained nation's very soul. there is a threat that is strong that connects the act of violence against a woman wearing a hijab committed a transgender man to african-americans at bible study in charleston. there is a thread that links all of those and when one of them is

threatened, all of us are threatened. when one of us falls, we all must step in. as president obama said, it's what you fail t he failed to sen our constant humanity that we fail to recognize the same hopes and fears that the same passions and imperfections, the same dreams that we all share. that's the moment that we see that runs through all these issues. the reason we have so many people here today, the beautiful cross sectiocross-section of thl community, the leaders of so many different states, people that work from so many different areas is because we all feel so deeply in certain common values regardless of our faith. regardless what we call

ourselves. we all must believe. regardless of the name of the denomination or faith we believe every individual is precious. regardless of the title. we all believe injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. that's why the department of justice which i'm proud to lead ibleedin the administration regs hate crimes with the utmost seriousness whether they target individuals because of their race, religion, gender or their sexual orientation that's why we've worked so tirelessly over the last several years to bring those that perpetrated to those

injustice. but we look beyond our own building out into the community because when one of us falls, we almost got up. it is well as those perceived to be muslim. it is in the perceived attack in the south west. muslim americans, you are friends and family members and it is of course a history of muslim americans. the offense for many good doctors, nurses, police officers, firefighters, teachers, thousands of muslim

americans have fought under the flag that we all pledge allegiance to today. [applause] thousands have made the ultimate sacrifice to that flag. it's when they pledge their allegiance to the republic for which it stands they knew that it might call on them to lay down their life and they did so for all of us. and yet too often especially in this last year following a number of incidences that increase some of the most fearful rhetoric that we've seen in years. we've seen them targeted and demonized simply because of their faith.

it's how people choose to worship to say to you it is clear to impose a blanket stereotype come to characterize anything and to take the nation backwards. it's to go backwards in our discourse and to repudiate those that founded this great country. [applause] it guarantees the freedom of religion in that first. that's how it came to the en tod that is how we have to remember. we prosecute the actions that are demonstrated by the fear and

hatred. she needs the civil rights department and the groups of dedicated professionals who have given most of their time they work all day and well into the night defending the life of every american. [applause] dana and so many others worked with the civil rights division to defend the rights of all americans but particularly where we are seeing this increase in hate crimes. the civil rights division has convicted a connecticut man for firing a high-powered rifle at a mosque shooting in a house of worship.

how un-american is that. for threatening to fire bomb and two shoot and four a local laws and a north carolina man for my own home state. the division was charged in connection with the plot to detonate in the apartment complex which included a mosque where many members gathered regularly. that is just a few examples of the justice department's recent prosecution and while we are proud to do this work and uphold our values our greatest wish is that they had never occurred. that is of course what we have to work on.

our local law enforcement partners are still investigati investigating. the work to protect the rights of religious communities and to build houses of worship without unlawful interference or harassment. just the right to build a house of worship. a place to come together to pr pray. but unfortunately, that chance of protecting this right has become more urgent in recent years. they've heard repeatedly about the discrimination both especially the islamic centers. the tool to combat the discrimination is a statute that we used repeatedly called the religious land use persons act.

since 2010 the last six years we opened 50 land-use investigations and filed ten lawsuits involving and use in higandfiled eight amicus briefso inform the courts about the positions and its requirements. the last six years 38% involved islamic schools, 38%. this is a dramatic increase in the cases brought during the previous decade. we all know religious institutions are not the only vulnerable state we are determined to keep featured.

as we all know in order for our children to do what they've done so beautifully here today they have access to safe and inclusive classrooms. earlier this year the division lost another initiative that was at the camp to address religious discrimination in schools. a place you go to school should be a place that our children's minds are open to other ways of thinking. open to different religions and different cultures, not closed off and made to learn to hate. the head of the committee relations service is here today. paul and the crs worked so hard to ease tensions and promote

understandings in schools that have been lost by a dramatic incidences. they go and not to do an investigation but to help people heal, literally. [applause] by way of an example she was forced to remove her hijab in the school and they invited them to come into work with them and present the cultural awareness program to the school staff. the first ever national program manager for the south asian communities and they've joined us here today. thank you.

we commemorated the anniversary of the hate crimes prevention act to include crimes based on gender, disability, gender identity and sexual orientation. we had a number of hate crimes cases in states around the country and i've traveled around to meet with you and reaffirm the department of justice steadfast commitment and to the well-being of all americans including lg bt family members. [applause] we are so proud to carry them

out and it's been amplified the outstanding partnerships we have with our local law enforcement agency from the attorneys general to the police department is the country and we work with them in training our local and federal agencies to recognize and investigate hate crimes and engage in communities and the reporting and data collection and the issues that have helped us tremendously to further the partnerships i referenced which are so important in bringing the community needs to the floor. the partnership between law enforcement and the communities that we serve. some courage o coverage of whate accomplished over the last eight years, but i also know that we

face challenges in the years ahead. we face challenges that will require the department to remain an active force for good in communities from coast to coast. a federal hate crime laws are the most powerful tools we have for the more equal nation. and justice department prosecutors will continue. [applause] we will be here but he also needs you to be our eyes and ears and raise issues to the fore. we need you to work in partnership with us because i know so many americans are

feeling uncertainty or anxiety or feeling fear as we witness this rhetoric and note what we've been talking about and i know many americans are wondering am i in danger simply because of the way the book were pray. i know some are also wondering if the progress that we've made it such a great cost over so many years is in danger of fighting back. i understand all these feelings. i see all that when i meet with groups and i traveled the community. and i also know as we continue to demand a nation where all people are treated equally and fairly. but is als it's also a sad partr industry. but i also know we have come as

we say in my church be mighty long way and there is nothing preordained about it, nothing guaranteed that the march towards a peaceful future and there never has been a guarantee. it always has been hard. this wonderful democracy that we are all a list of end of the goal more perfect union. that is the fate. that's not destiny. it's countless individuals. some names we may never know. it's a nation that is more tolerant, more inclusive and more equal.

ordinary people just like all of you here today. they were the ones that made the progress that we celebrate and gave us the examples that we used in the cases that we make and why it is so fitting that we are here today in this beautiful house of worship, displays a deep and fundamental faith because it's been since the beginning that could take on the greatest power in the world found upon the quality. faith that this new nation could in fact survive. faith that it could in fact overcome that.

but the works that made it reality is what we celebrate today and that is what gives us the courage to move on since there is no guarantee of the fact. that is every movement in this country people throw themselves into the fights without a guarantee that simply the knowledge that they are working towards what is right. they als also have the faith les and i think of them often. because they both lived in the southern part of the country that the child was the stand fully human simply because of the color of their skin and they both did their part to make it a little more fair that they had no idea how it would turn out.

the middle of the night and dark road there were no equal rights. there were no merandarites for equal protection until they could leave the state to safety and a generation later, my father would organize sit ends and protests in north carolina with the students. neither one of them knew the results of those actions. both of them lived in fear for the possible consequences and there was enormous coverage and faith and hope because they were living even years apart in the

way of voting were living their lives. they told them they couldn't use certain drinking fountains or the declaration of independence wasn't referring to them. that's just their experience. there are so many groups as well but my father and grandfather knew what those words meant and they chose to act accordingly. they knew the fear and anger. although the country was far from perfect, it was capable and they both risked a great deal for that never knowing how it would turn out, never imagining that the daughter of one and grandfather of another would one day be the chief law enforcement officer of the country. [applause]

'is still alive in the country. that is still here in the country. the ability to face incredible odds with nothing but a desire and knowledge that you are entitled to the rights of every american is still in this country. as you and i know the declaration of independence says all men are created equal, it means us. the constitution says we the people. it means us a.

of a leap year inspired by our faith and strengthened by our courage. let us leave here with a renewed commitment to demand nothing less than what is true and live here in faith and hope the same that brought the country so far. it's always been hard. though there be challenges ahead? we know that it's constant vigilance. we have to work to maintain and make advances. there is the question particularly in the spines of

concern and anxiety the question is will be persevere and succe succeed. [applause] to the faith that is recognized by all people here today. the call to persevere. we have accomplished so much that there is so much more to do. but that is what we do.

that's what we do to people of hope. we keep moving and push forward. but we spend a few minutes with you today to talk about the country that we all love a. of the work doesn't stop. i will continue to stand beside you in the cause for liberty and justice for all. [applause]

>> sharing with you what justice brandeis said i as the highest office in the land, and the most powerful. thank you so much.

>> join me with the former winner of 2015 for the

documentary help for homeless heroes. >> my partner and i produced a documentary where we covered issues of homeless veterans on the street in california. we decided that th people that e fought for the country and have given their all for the country and the fact that they are now living on the street not having anyone care for them wasn't okay so we decided that we are going to talk about this issue within the community and make a c-span documentary about it. i encourage all in high school and middle schoolers to use this platform to speak their voice, to raise their voice and say your generation deserve to be heard in the government, and it is a better place to speak these issues. i think my advice for the

students that are on the fence starting the documentary is to really look into the community and see what is affecting those around you because they are the ones you love and see the most and you're surrounde you are suh every day. and so, it is an issue that you see happen every day on the street. that's probably where you can start because you want to be a voice for your community. >> now a look at the future of antipoverty policies under the trump administration. from the center for american progress, this is just over 90 minutes.

hello, everyone and welcome. my name is melissa boteach at the center for american progress. the pledge to make america great again and promise working families that he was on their side. unfortunately he hasn't even taken the oath of office yet and it's becoming more and more apparent that his entire campaign was a bait and switch. he campaigned on creating good jobs but rather than propose real policies to crack down on the trade practices and level the playing field upward he is taking his own winners and losers latching tax giveaways on companies that are still shipping jobs overseas and refusing to conflict of global real estate empire. he campaigned on raising wages but his cabinet picks are the

who's who of ceos and wall street tycoons. while he's doing at the cas it f saturday night live by public is distract the votes going on. the majority leader mcconnell is already pulling together plans to make health care coverage away from the 22 million americans. the rollback of consumer protections and to dismantle affordable housing for nutrition assistance and other services to families turn to when times are tough. especially in the economy only working for the wealthy few. all of this proposing to give tax giveaways to the billionaires. the attacks on working families are coming fast and on multiple funds. the community isn't standing by. i'm pleased to stand by greg sargent introducing neera tanden and where the progressives go from here

>> good morning, everybody. >> how are you doing? >> pretty good. >> thanks for that. >> so, now what. >> is that your first question? no i think we have to hold them accountable for the promises he made to the working class families and hold them accountable for the agenda that he's putting forward so far.

there is the massive taxes for the wealthy and it's our job to actually try to advocate for the families and make sure they do better. they then proceeded in every congress. we are now hearing about the granting or privatizing medicare. they campaigned as a person that would support the safety net. while he did mention block granting medicaid, i have to say that there was not a robust

policy debate on what that would mean for people. he did talk about repealing, but one of the challenges is that a lot of people who voted for him to do and take his policies particularly seriously. you even highlighted some that would lose health care under the affordable care act that are now saying they didn't expect him to do it. >> they would get as close as they could. what they came up with is they looked at the drop in the uninsured rate among the noncollege whites with a household income of below 36,000 devoted to the degree

disproportionately and what was interesting about that, i want to ask how this could be used in the debate. it's often sort of seemed especially medicaid expansion helped minorities especially latinos and african-americans and no question the drop in the uninsured rate has been enormous and have states that a lot of people spend to lose coverage. as the medicaid expansion or subsidies. how do you make that stick. the voters, are they going to be in a position to hold their own representatives accountable, will they even know what happened?

>> we had an instance with the grandfather clause a few years ago that only affected about 200 or 300,000 voters. 200 or 300,000 people. and as you recall, there was a giant kerfuffle around that. there's another word i could use but i will use kerfuffle. the issue for us right now to lay out where the debate is, that republicans would like to do a repeal and then replace three years later. that is relatively unprecedented to giving the giants policy change in one year and then wait for the answer to the policy change after the next election because they want to do it precisely after the midterm. there will be people that lose health care.

show the influence market issued. our point is we think the voters would the affected just in that period because of what republicans did and it would be more than a couple hundred thousand. we are talking millions of people that will be priced out of the market market and they wl start collapsing. people that are receiving health care that they need to survive. we have people that are relying on health care now for life-saving medications and coverage again those people are going to be at risk and i think that is the broad point.

49% of the voters were sending a message of change to washington. only 29% were supporting his agenda. you have a mix of people supporting the agenda and then people who just thought he wasn't serious about a lot of that in his hea sad and i thinka lot of that is a lot of them are coming home to roost. >> some seemed to support the idea i remember there was one just felt boater after the election saying p. much one that was very sick was going to lose health care if it were repealed. then i believe she said something like i don't believe he will do it i think he was bluffing. i know this is good to be a backward looking question about

what happened in the election. the candidates and surrogates and so forth from every candidate amplifies his or her voice said over and over again he is a scam, our agenda is better for them. why didn't the working class white voters in particular here that message. the poll showed a lot of people were sending a message of just generic change. it's the democrats signaled clearly enough that they are dissatisfied with the status quo, and why did they see the background? >> i think with any close election like this, there is a multitude of things you can look to. it's clear to me as it is

pointed out in the poll, a lot of people were not voting on particular issues but more of a change message and i take that point that perhaps the whole party didn't have the changed message. i would say that there's a million reasons that you can point to where we are learning additional news over the weekend. but for us going forward, i think the goal has to be now the democrats are the minority party we do have an opportunity to be really clear both on economics and on the political reform and changing the system. we had a candidate that now has an incoming administration which he promised to dream and actually whether it's the

department of labor to the treasury, etc. seems to be filling the swamp of those that have a record of opposing and making working people's lives harder whether it is the treasury secretary that foreclosed on people in the financial crisis or fined by the department of labor for not paying the wages he owed to his workers. i can't think of a case going forward. the challenge with this is people didn't take seriously what he was saying and a lot of people thought he was a blessing on these things and what it do all these things and a lot of americans are surprised to wake up to this kind of administration to make a clear

case. they are looking pretty tough for democrats although it looks to me at the 2,018th gubernatorial will be the chance for the games to try to hold this oppositional response. so, how can democrats improve. in the short term they will be the party that is standing up for medicare against the privatization and social security and against taking health care away from the 20 million. that beyond that, going to 2020, what needs improvement here, like how can democrats craft a stronger and more ambitious and much more reform minded kind of

agenda? >> we will have additional thoughts on this later this week. but our view at the center of american progress we are putting forward a memo on this later but our view is that we do need to claim the mantle of reform and reforming our economics and reforming our politics. and in that space, i think we have to argue for two things. that we have an agenda that speaks to the voters in their economics and making their lives better and we will have a much stronger contrast now than you are able to offer at the end of the democratic administration and i do think that we have to focus on how to improve people's daily lives with harder arguments. it is a clear message that i'm

going to improve your life and get the job for you, versus a more complicated answer about the wages and costs. that's something we are working on now and we will have answers for folks getting into the future. >> one of my concerns on that front, trump did talk about conserving medicare and social security, but our broadly speaking it was about jobs. it wasn't if you were going to respond in a more nuanced way to the globalization and automation did need to transition in the response actually is not that satisfying. it comes across as sorry. >> i take the blame that it's a little bit harder in people's lives. the reality is i would point out

we have talked about this before the challenges are in the middle class stagnant wages and cost. but i also take the blame that sometimes it is a clearer answer to folks that is easier than a ten-point plan and that is something progressives have to focus on. i think a lot of the voters voted for him because they thought he was a different kind of politician, he was attacking republicans, he wasn't taking money from people themselves. that message has been a media it was the last transition period.

>> i guess i wonder this question is a real one he explicitly said during the election i have ripped it off. i turned to the politicians. he said openly again and again and again, that empowers me. we all laughed and now i guess i wonder whether there's going to be a similar dynamic in some of the cabinet picks. maybe the same type of voters don't buy the argument in the corporate connections and so forth will show their actual priorities. how do you -- >> i think that is a fair question. if you listen to trump, he said

the part i knew how to make the system, i knew how to use the system and then he said i'm going to take my knowledge and work for you. it doesn't seem to me that he is using the system to work for us. they are using the system to work for him and so i think you are absolutely right we need to test the proposition and we may be wrong. you can't argue that this is an economically populist election and populism is on the rise and what people voted for is ensuring they can control the power in the country. we have to test that.

they continue to have a pretty low approval rating and i think it is still governing in a very divided way. and i think we have to see -- i think it will be tested how much people seem to be in support of the cabinet that he is assembling. and i think that is the role of organizations like ours to point out not that they are bad people did what they would do with real families. the department of labor is supposed to be a department at the advocates for working families. advocates for the working families by ensuring they get the wages they need. the entire philosophy is antithetical to that whether it is popular or not and to point out it doesn't meet the needs of

families and i think that it will be up to the family to see if that makes sense or not. are there some ahead when it comes to the democratic unity and in 2018 you have democratic senators that are up in the red states. i wonder if there is going to be some kind of a temptation may be on their part to not draw as part of a line to say the democratic leadership might want. let's say that he goes forward with privatizing medicare and they will go forward with the appeal. is there a danger that some get a little -- chuck schumer said the other day in the media that they would not participate in any obamacare replacement that falls short of welfare and would there be a temptation on the part of some of these democrats to go along.

the infrastructure is a problem because if he rolls up some privatization he might have some democrats that want a photo op in the red state. >> eight really matters what the issue is. at ththe affordable care act isa perfect example. i was pleased to see senator schumer talk about keeping democrats together. i think what people see is in the next couple of weeks, the next couple of months, they do have a repeal later which i hope they do because that would be utterly irresponsible to their own constituents every member of congress has those that are achieving the affordable care act that seems like a responsible the government to tell people what you'll do come and that is just my few but 90% of americans think that is what

they should do. but the reality of that is a i don't know that it would be in the democrat's best interest to say i am part of this problem, too by rolling up their sleeves to solve it. it would be up to the republicans to solve it. ..

>> >> but one can't envision a scenario that this some republicans tried to replace that one that has much fewer protections for something like that but since a lot of conservatives spend money on helping people there might

be a role for progressives to rollout these alternatives. item motor real obamacare replacement. >> absolutely. we obviously over the next few months and commit to fight off as many terrible things. we and americans thought to we would have a radical departure. but do you think the democrats could offer the alternative one so far it

gets massive tax credits to private companies to induce them into a market so the taxpayer one pays for the tax credit that the higher fees. liz much better to have a direct investment. not with incremental. and then as envisioned by a donald trump. and then for around one the country to give people a opportunity to lay out the

alternative vision. when you stand back it is a lot easier to offer the alternative. >> is there a role the progressive groups one with good demand that to from the robust signature plans. >> if you think about eight years ago at this time. and they want the country to pull together. and elected by the minority of the country.

>> >> he rationalized is raised and he creates a lot of the

anchor between different groups but allot of his voters can reach for the stronger political reform. >> was last question about that i do not agree with the debate is a false choice and then speaking to the economic anxiety of those playing the of politics buttons couldn't democrats and all of us do a better job explaining that lots and none of the stuff that is sought behalf of the minority groups also helps

the white families. so the truth is that to we can be bolder and more clear in our message absolutely but i don't think we should fall to the charge that they have always spend i think it is at and honestly pathetic but also to have that burden of government to see if the policies truly help the more not so far is seems that

that republican agenda of the very people that he said he would help and that is a tragedy. >> got happy note. [applause] >> before we go to the panel discussion i will offer a personal reflection because while we have all the data to say why it is the disaster they know firsthand

how not to make ends meet. the appointment of the attorney-general these are not the obstructions featuring work on numerous occasions also appearing at the "new york times" "the washington post" and to focus on social lead the economic justice into the economic hard chip. her memoir is forthcoming and holds up degree from the university of montana. [applause] one. >> thanks to the center for

american progress. 1/6 years ago my three year-old and i were in a studio apartment. during the day was a full-time maid but that night i stayed at completing course work for several online college class is for reworked full-time and arrows able to do that because of support to to help me pay for child care. i worked full-time this still needed food assistance to feed us because after paying rent gasing and utilities bailey had $50 left for things like twilit paper and so. that december it was so called i had to close the french doors and foldout the small couch because they could not afford to keep the

entire space warm. then my 90 -- 93 civic one was spotted and they wouldn't the snowplows another day of missed work means i could not pay another bill. the reason i was in in this situation i fled from my daughter -- daughters father i was prompted to call the police for safety now i was homeless. worked as of landscaper to transitional housing and we could not have made it out of the shelter without the attendant based rental assistance. to find of full-time job but

$8 now or is not enough to provide for a family. even with a full-time job i had to:of budget to buy paper towels. after that cold winter with the child tax credit i could buy toothbrush's curtains and a desk in blankets and a bed. a heated mattress pad so i didn't have to heat the whole room in be slapped at night pratt was still in hopelessness and doubt. and then steven emotionally support me. and with the food assistance and rental assistance and

may help me to get back on my feet. and when the biggest threat to their existence and when they needed the most. already under attack by republican legislation like speaker paul ryan. and then to the death march we cannot let this happen but then i gave birth to a second little girl we could eventually move into secure housing but i could afford one and somehow my gamble paid off ended july 2015 and article i wrote went viral and got also got a top literary agent but launched

by career over the next few months, started to work as a writing fellow and with the economic karcher reporting project ahead to a mitt when i fell on and hard times. and then that constant stress of providing for my family. in to write opinion pieces in that economic hardship project but last summer my youngest daughter's second birthday i accepted an offer for my memoir. this story of not only finding happiness with the little things but what it takes to find your resources to survive then to the other

side reid along bird need them. all while raising two children but i knew i could not have done that without these living standards to get ahead. paul ryan may think his plan is a better way but it does nothing to create jobs with food stamps and medicaid and not whereas most calories. el whiff prescription medication. in the back aches from long hours to keep the society moving smoothly. and then to stand out in a

fantasy in and go home to the unheated house still hungry from there one meal a day they need to go home to children who had to set in an office during recess because they could not afford to have a coat. that they need to spend together on a pullout couch keep form to wake up the next day and do again. thank you for listening. [applause] >> did this my privilege to

moderate a discussion of the panel of experts. informally is serving as administrator calendar president carter with the landmark food stamp act of 77. and the pension benefits of public policy on health care. and as a professional staff person with the of labor movement. and up political director peopling croute improving communities through organizing representing 50 different foundations and 17 states and the pastor and

founder of marriages from the united care chalk of christ in philadelphia. to my right is the manager of witnesses to hunker at a philadelphia now spreading to other cities. partnering with mothers and caregivers of young children who have experienced poverty in into frame those issues will. and finally on the end over here the director of public policy for the center of community change one. with a national organization focusing the power and capacity and has the along career of those at the center for law and social policy.

that was a mouthful. thanks for bearing with me. but to get right down to with. with both the importance of policies that our critical to working families that support them as wages are not enough. we also heard a little of the previous conversation a policy that trump made when he was campaigning. and steve kemp led to you think that he will make life better ahead of the workers party? >> we probably should dial listen as much to mr. trump as watching. and with uh cabinet and the direction that has taken us.

but if you step back from trump i think he is much more of bob product of the modern more generally ends is more of his rhetoric but the republicans have a vision of governance that that purpose is to facilitate commerce and the making of money. the more money be making society we reject that characterization. and idol think it is monolithic. to do what is called the externality to mitigate those consequences and adverse effects.

and we have clean water and clean air those are democratic principles so with commercial development to address those societal problems. so of the of working-class we know we have a labor secretary nominee and then somebody doesn't believe in environmental regulations the department of education has discussed trade the school system of choice without accountability. but it means that those who don't have independent means will not have the opportunities to get a heads white firmly believe the trump administration is part of broader cabinet today just society that considers

economic justice and externalities' of a capitalist system. >> as we continued of discussion of what to say for working families. view have done a number of public appearances over the last few weeks speaking very boldly in your career behalf never seen a greater threat to the safety net programs that are there for with those wages are not enough whites you characterize that is the greatest threat to following the election this said he would not touch medicare or medicaid.

and let's start with the house republican budget of those budget proposals issued. we know a significant part of a of the budget was non-defense discretionary programs that means everything outside of the budget of rental assistance assistance, education, and job training, the enforcement of labor standards and environmental standards these are all part to of the budget. wary breed are now headed is under what is called

sequestration that would take total funding to the louis lowell on record going back at 1962. however the trump campaign proposal promised to cut this below the sequestration level so those are massive cuts like child care and a variety of others. but then you come into court existence and plenty of

assistance for snap. they are set to up and no way for those national standards you are not baton a waiting list and then the economy goes down. the house republican budget cuts make those beyond repealing be affordable care act. if there is a fixed amount of money it doesn't keep pace with health care costs and the increases in a recession. the budget takes about $1 trillion over 10 years with cuts out of health care

and food assistance to block a grant to and then to wipe out the health coverage expansion and to so if you put these pieces to get other unfair was a simultaneous for those whose

struggle to make the ends meet every week. >> but i'd do want to do turn to steve shoe help us understand and frame the the economy turns. there is a deception about workers as they are different conversations or should be. and then seated next to each other. is there a really a dichotomy is there a relationship from the two

speakers before you? >> there is no distinction between those who are in the working-class most people who receive public assistance and food stamps or snap or medicaid are in and out of of labor reich it and it is a false distinction that there are people with very limited opportunity that are disproportionately african-american send immigrants. but the broad characterization i could put this into a story that it is a function of for some responsibility for crowfoot we know that's not true.

people who get as much public's assistance that we're not talking about two distinct sets but those that have a labor market changing dramatically and also talking compensation and a with the low-fare in the '90s, there is a conscious effort to blame people of color for is securities that is threatened by the labor kit. but then it is difficult to come back.

in the enabling of may coalition of voters who voted for trump. >> wanted to read many of them did place their bets on donald chomp to make their life so if enrages that divided press if it is a us versus them or to prove cell level of resentment trying to divide and conquer. >> the largest in the country we have 45 states and local operations breaker unitarian net have paid vice

-- fast perversity of latino or asian and they are all part of our coalition. one of the failings is meant to run better run into renfrew of part negative and he has used a lot of dog bone negative dog whistling bridge and to the working-class white fall calf to understand they have more incongruous million flasks cajun folk who ordeal of a curve san but with that

trump camp it is critical to understand is an issue of

that racial oppression. >> that want to bring new in so they were impacted by a the policies like nutrition

assistance and to bring these people together and what can we as progressives learned what from those model and how can that organization and others working that same way build a movement? >> thanks for having us. talk about these stigmatizing the language be that we use. everybody has an experience with those key players everybody get some form of social welfare they know this. event to get away last with uh tax credit and reminders of of that.

all these things to get for having a child is will fare. then when we changed the conversation to stop making about those people but all of us how we benefit from the government wanting to provide benefits. then they get that human face. with that 13 percent the poverty rates. and then one of the things we have to do is stop separating the pour from working. nobody show live in poverty. full stop. so when we have that conversation reinforce the idea that is everyone's problem and it is not yet.

would use supposed to do? and how we pay people america has never recovered to include labor costs. and based on the economic system of free labor and i would mention and you reap what you so. bois and we have a liar who was about to be the president of the united states. every day he tells another live. this is where we are in our world. those organizations that are on the ground but my biggest

fear is how do we get the funding to continue to ample for a -- amplified voices prexy we all have experts with value but why don't we value the experience of the community's weak word talk to people and stop projecting this is what they think they need. also to express their are some children on fridays they can take of book bag filled with food so they could have been over the weekend. we do know some children can't eat if they don't get to school. but some say what

psychological impact to give them a bag of food to share their family not bear responsible for feeding their family? what if that bag is stolen what can home? have these come on rescission said there's more than poverty that if we do that we will get somewhere. >> with that first at analysis. hired to we can initiate more effectively or but now

simultaneously with this conversation we live in a post truce world but in a world where fake news beats out real facts and figures at a think-tank so how o do progressives like the center for american progress for we are accustomed to fax in figures win the day because they are true how do they reach people that hasn't been one over? >> we have to live our values. and arguing that this is very diverse. the majority women all

different races and status with sexual orientation and of that matters. we work together well but

sometimes in the closed system to a more open type of debate but like i said at the beginning it is a clear sense and understanding with a consensus around that. because most want to claim progressives. with the society that is nurturing. with those policies in place.

we are about to embark on a journey literally 80 years of consensus. to communicate that with facts and figures is not always the best way to do representative. and lenny communicate to make this as real and as accessible cow affects pocketbook issues neighbors neighbors, services of what they do in their jobs. people take pride whether they are working for nasa. and we have to listen to them oftentimes there are dismissive of the of the

concerns. and then to have credibility >> but turning back to bob. oh what really comes to service of what was describing with these policies that they benefit from our with that interest deduction to even received health-insurance. howard do we accomplish those goals? and that safety net and then as they are expecting.

>> just with those ways of communications. with those facts and figures >> so if you look at the campaign to comment trump in the domestic arena with those policies. and when congress begins to act there are specific proposals. ramparts average job is to analyze effectively. but as the analogy with a

successful effort to make congress make permanent those improvements and we found the various republican members generally this deficit under the impression that this was of low in town program. in fact, a larger share because of those areas. and as they show them the actual figures in us period ahead of the policy of our the program we need to put

the information together what about locality by locality? those other economically challenged areas but those areas that they often rely on these programs i am not sure that we have tried hard enough. that means to the second point we need everything so the actual information in them and they work for the wages.

in that day want to help obama and to the degree that this assistance is fundamental. and not only that normal kind of analysis. with those programs or if the program like medicaid has of block grant those that have been adequate funds and to know where this is coming from. but should they be made?

in with the debates on the tax policy. so what is that the urban institute ltd. includes dave provision of the of medicare tax with the hospital insurance of the investment income this provision means a worker making $50,000 per year pays that medicare tax on all wages and it doesn't pay any medicare tax adult chain bad is particularly popular with the claims

nonetheless. andy will advance that message to say bashan be of salt quicksand you will do that while raising the minimum wage for the programs like food assistance credit. >> put that together. >> best steve i will ask you a lot of progress since have been reluctant to normalize trump and of that presidency the hold the what we don't want to be responsible for but at the same time i will

confess uh great fear to continue to spend a lot of time of what did he tweet this morning to be fought of space for the republicans to push through that major piece of legislation that was just introduced last week from the ways and means so which side do you land on? to read your negative? bin mike kandel think it is up to us and then to have incredible power and to deal with that. but then to call them out and those support center not in the interest of the working people.

including those that they are supporting. so for us to immediately get caught up in with dad different type of communication from some high elected officials. but on the communications question part of the problem , with my research based on shared values. to have zero new proposals will benefit one of of those things that most americans

feel they have been up to and then once he made that connection you can tell a story of what is going. and to say this is now implicitly is the benefits of the policies that they are talking about they want the tax cuts as block grants. because it helps to pay for the tax credit but the story that we need to tell is that we saw from the sanders campaign the wall street and corporate interests want the tax cuts because that

benefits them and not the working people. but the most challenging is we have to talk about how that continues to harm. and to have a frank conversation in those who share those views. and it is 100 years of history. it just cannot all be about of 99% with the structures whipping up against blacks or immigrants. >> before i turn it over to the audience who has

questions for the panel one last question so at a point where economic power is now controlled by the ever smaller number and rich corporations, how do we build up the power base in our community that is a huge part of what you are involved in to counterbalance where the power is held currently? and hal can establishment structures and national organizations connect with folks who were on the ground greg. >> it goes back to working closely together to get us think-tank san the intellectuals in conversation with those on the ground and need to be

listening to each other. we did say earlier the best policy makers in our country sitting in the projects if you want to ask somebody what it takes to get out of poverty rask which takes to get out. we feel there has to be a closer relationship. listening more to deeply here from a people that are struggling at risk of having this conversation that you are talking medicare or medicaid. so we you. use the misery because to

increase the use of private prison. and those that then who came here the very majority have to have the opportunity and we will take personally we've got to try get rid of stopped and frisked by leander stand there are lot of lawyers that are making a lot of money with stop and frisk the necessarily. talk about when we cannot allow donald trump to be normalized because what he is trying to do would destroy this country especially those but it is critical that we figured how

to work together so we are out with biting and rustling to gather. with of progressive leadership in the house and in the senate. . . and we have to make sure when we talk about communications we have to make sure we are

communicating with people where they are. i agree we need facts and figures because that's where the proof is that they won't understand what any of the themes so how do we get out into the community and translate that in a way that makes sense for people? it is the foundation of all of this and why a person would believe they need food stamps and a poor black person as a booch. i absolutely hav have to when yu ask me how that all these white women vote for trump, because racism is a part of it is not necessarily about the economic insecurity because they were economically insecure and have them forever. this poverty and struggle wasn't new to them. they know what this is and they want to frame it in this way

because they lack the education that teaches them about how this came to be in help them and their families ended up in the situations they are. they listen to the rhetoric and they are susceptible to it because they lack the knowledge they need to combat it and we have to prioritize on both sid sides. you haven't heard the name of the people from the ballot and that is just as bad as someone voting for trump. when we are sending people to sit on the jury duty, that is one of the scariest things we have people touching other people's lives and they don't know anything about the wall all they are doing is going with their gut.

in my opinion in many cases it is worse then we see from the gop so until we start talking about that and educating people in those ways we are not going anywhere and that is how it happened and how this will continue to happen. calling someone a white nationalist is redundant and the only people that have access or white peoples of these are the educational conversations we need to have one of the few

institutions in america that is diverse in all senses we have a special obligation and the fact of the matter is the republican party has long been appreciated as more than the democratic party. we've been the target. republican attacks because they recognize the power of working people coming together and get to spend the new democrats who don't quite see the value of the bargaining. don't see the value of labor. it's the only institution where the workers can exercise power on their own by joining together. everything else is filtered through political system and it doesn't always work well for us. the judicial system works even worse. so the collective bargaining needs to be preserved and we are now facing the likelihood of the supreme court president being reversed not just rove v. wade

and the public sector employees could have strong unions we may be seeing the right to work la laws. these are very intentional mechanisms to undermine the power waiver. when you have south carolina, nikki haley who will be the nominee to be ambassador using the power of her estate to defeat the unionism. we have a serious problem in the state we have a law from no collective bargaining that get a political party that is antagonistic to it and compress it and for the collective

bargaining its proven in a democracy across the globe, and it will prove to be so here. republicans recognize that and we need the democrats to recognize it if we are going to be successful. >> the moment has arrived. we are running a few minutes over because we started a few minutes late. audience questions raise your hand if you've got one and then the microphone will come over to you. right here in the back. >> my name is jim webster and i used to publish newsletters about agriculture but the biggest claim to fame is working at the u.s. da. my question for any of the panelists, when does the buyer's remorse sets in who would like to take a stab at that first? >> going back to education, as

trump begins to name those people a lot of them don't know who they are and they don't know the impact these folks have had in their individual spaces so as we begin to educate and get these articles out saying here are five things you need to know about this person used her to become more familiar and start realizing wait a minute, these people are exactly who we didn't want right now they come out and folks are like two. so that's where the folks start to see that. >> another add-on to that? >> he has yet to take office because of what he's doing. some of the decisions he's taking i think some people are saying wait what do we do. and a cross by multiple communities that did or did not vote for him but they are seeing the danger of what he's doing at this moment in time. so i think it is already beginning. >> also to be affected by the

state ostate of the economy wile more quickly if the recession comes. i think that it will be difficult for the administration to blame the next recession on obama but i'm sure they will t try. but i do think what happens to the overall economy will have an impact. we have to see, but there are policies that trump talked about during the campaign that many economists believe would accelerate the recession. >> right here in the front. >> good morning. thank you very much. i guess i considered myself a hubert humphrey liberal typically politically in perspective when i ask the following question. it's about thinking of corporate america as monolithic and i'm wondering if the progressives

don't need to find more alliances within the various business and corporate communities. the affordable care act was supposed to hurt small business. i don't know if it did or didn't. if it did, then you need to find a way to make it better when they are trying to dismantle it and have the business people have petitions to the new small-business chairman. if it didn't, then there's an example that needs to be counted by the small business and in north carolina we have a democratic governor because corporate america weighed in so strongly. so in the communities like philadelphia, you have corporations not all of whom are adverse to a hubert humphrey

agenda. don't you need to find new partners and get out of the bubble? >> it is a very good question with the assault not only on the affordable care act that food stamps which wal-mart doesn't want to see cut any more than folks on the stage. who wants to take a crack at that? >> the date, and the pope's death worked to build support for -- v. david and the folks were many outspoken. there are corporations, small businesses who will speak up on a number of these issues either because it is in their self-interest like agricultural interests will support food stamps for the goods they are producing.

the national retailers association have incredible power and are working every day against workers rights and well-being and security. i think we should look for corporate and small business allies but ultimately, i think the main alliances that we need to build are among working class people, multiracial organizing efforts to build political power for people who don't have power. >> i saw a hand right over here in the front. >> thank you all so much for coming out here and chatting with us. i have a question piggybacking on the previous question which is about how as progressives we all have our individual species.

we work for climate change to the safety net and support of black lives matter and immigration etc.. how do we as progressives come together despite our very passionate focus on our individual issues, particularly as we probably suspected the trump administration will start picking off certain groups at a time so what does that mean, how do we come together for how to be kind of maneuver that. >> we are a broad-based organizations we work on the issues simultaneously. one of the things we have been challenging our colleagues we are all fighting to certain

people. undocumented immigrants in the country whether we are dealing with child care issues, whether we are dealing with voter suppression and voter id laws. we have to begin to think in a way of military terms. we have to build an army that is essentially learning how to attack and maintain vigilance for the various issues we work against and not allow ourselves to be picked off one by one. i used to teach this to my organizers as long as we stay in the silos, one built up street and town big enough to crush the silo. i might not be working on your issue today that if we are working together against the same people, we will begin to turn the tide over a period of

time and we keep rolling and it's difficult. you could actually have multiple issues that are in the legal simultaneously. so i think we have to work to get out of the silo and understand what we are fighting against the mindset and the narrative of what the country ought to look like and that we need a collective mindset to think about what the country looks like in every family can fly if not barely survived and that is what we've got to get to. >> what is really important is the self reflection and confronting our own biases because we are working for one particular issue. every single issue has multi-layers there is no such

thing as a singular issue talking about the environment all activism and poverty, racism, things like that we talk about poverty. it's all these things s through every single issue if we recognize we can come together on those things and can act on those comments that we cannot have those conversations until we confront getting in the way of being able to communicate. >> please join me in saying in the panelist. [applause]

next supreme court oral argument in a case related to racial gerrymandering in north carolina. blacblack voters into congressil districts are giving the republican-led legislature passed minorities into the districts due to the votes in other parts of the state. this is just over an hour. >> the argument in 126 1262 mccy versus harris. >> this should be familiar because they've been to the court on many prior occasions. even though there are congressional districts in north carolina congressional district the issues are actually quite distinct. with respect to congressional district 12, it's different from

both the house delegate district in the previous case and the congressional district number one because this was not a district that was drawn with the intent to create the majority minority districts to comply in the voting rights act but with respect to district 12, this was a validly political draw. now if that all sounds familiar it's because it's the same dynamic that was before the court in number two. the court in reversing the district court on the standard concluded that when the state actually said that this was a political draw into the race didn't predominate over the politics in th and the draw of e district that is essentially the same dynamic that is before the courts now with one major difference. this is a much easier case for this court to reverse van to because even before the court gets to be standard of the review, there is a legal error

here that was created by my friends on the other side and the districts failure to abide by teaching. i think it was about as clear as it could have been that in the case where you have a majority minority district or something approximate, and you have race and politics highly correlated, and you have somebody challenging the state's suggestion that this is a political and not a racial draw with the plaintiffs must show, not canned or may or it would be nice but what they must show is the alternative way ways that te legislature could accomplish its political goals. >> that passage is pretty clearly hobbling off the

analysis of the case with purely circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence of the race-based district. i think you would have heard it and it would have sounded different if the court meant that in every case where the question was is this politics or race there was a requirement and that just would have read differently. >> i respectfully disagree for two reasons. one, there was direct evidence and number t two the direct evidence is similar. you had evidence that the map drawer himself had taken a race with the community in greensbo greensboro. >> what i wrote was such as this one. people may wonder what is a case such as this one.

by the time we reached the alabama case, there is one seen by the majority of the court to try to bring clarity. we are speaking as a quart, not every individual gets his own way or should answer if we go back into an area and try to reconcile the case and try to come up with a complicated area a set of standards that will prevent us from turning into the 19th court of evidence to consider some awfully detailed manners and so forth. the last case, the alabama case at least trying to set the way in which a district court should go about deciding a case such as this one. should i not have? >> alabama and cromartie number

two are different cases like how to deal with alabama and congressional district number one, where you have a state we did it and we wanted to dra conl the majority and minority district. cromartie is the states last and best were on the cases like this where the states is why did we do it, politics. we looked at the benchmark map, the benchmark map had congressional district one and we wanted to preserve that is the majority district and we know how to tell you when we are taking race into account we said we are giving it, we are not playing the data with respect to see one and when it looks to 12 is the political draw. >> that is the question the district court was trying to answer is politics or race.

that's politics it's fine, if it's race, it's not. let's take a hypothetical which is the state does decide to do the race-based districting. it says we want to segregat sege only african-american voters, this is the way we want to do it. but then they said we will justify it based on politics because that sounds better. the justification is politics, but the true reasothat the true. so, were you suggesting when you stood in the first statement or you suggesting that a plaintiff comes in and has all this direct evidence that they are trying to do race the plaintiff has to present its own maps? >> i would say yes and why not. we are talking to a situation where the plaintiff is going in and asking the federal court in

this case after they already asked the state court and lost. but we are asking the federal court to say a sovereign state legislature that says the politics was dissembling and it's actually race, that is a big thing to ask of a federal court. it is unique in the cromartie2 case when the state is forthright. >> that if they have direct evidence that the state is doing race-based rather than politics based. >> i guess i'm a little less troubled being demanding of the plaintiffs fan iem of putting the sovereign state legislatures in a difficult position. and if there is no direct evidence of course i think the alternative map drawing is going to be a breeze. all this direct evidence that it was about race and the idea that

this was about politics as a pretext they think it is going to be easy as pie to show you could have drawn that differently and you wouldn't have taken the race into accou account. we know they correlate and that is just a fact of the matter what he said notwithstanding that if race is the note if you get one result. the maps are actually hard to do given the extent of correlation that the direct evidence of the race space which i have to say there is some in this case because the principle line drawer says they told me to get above 50% direct evidence. that basically makes the case for somebody. >> to be clear to direct evidence is actually incredibly hopeful for my client because the same guy that had no problem

testified cd 12 that when he drew the map he didn't even look at the racial data he looked at the 2008 presidential political results and drew a map in order to bring in the democratic voters and exclude republican voters. >> didn't she say specifically not with respect to guilford county which is probably the most important piece of this discussion? >> that is and what he said. he basically said to do it as a political draw independent you have to check what you did with the african-american community because guilford county is a covered jurisdiction. >> we can go back to the original deposition testimony. >> absolutely.

you look at the deposition to the testimony, and that the testimony of the trial and all fits together because -- again, when it came to guilford county, i turned off the political screen on the software and picked up the race. the whole time he had a political data precisely because the race and politics or correlated and he drew the map then he checked his work specifically with respect to guilford county and he did treat them differently if he should have because it is the only covered jurisdiction and he looked and said they have the community together. i don't have a problem. now my friends on the other side want to take what ever quibble there is and it is essentially with respect to every other part of the map the race isn't taken into account at all it is not controverted.

they did a cross check to make sure there wasn't a retrogression problem with guilford county which is exactly what he should do by the way. with the court said getting that direct evidence relatively minimal weight was to say if you look at the rest of that e-mail, the map drawer was very candid about taking race into account drawing cd one and there was less reasonable so i didn't predominate. the similarities couldn't be more dead on with this case. the most you can get is taking into account some way that didn't make it to predominate in the same evidence here that if you can contrast the way the legislature proceeded it's

virtually impossible to think that this was all a pretext. i understand why you want to search a little bit more when you have a legislature that comes up in these racial maps and they say greece had nothing to do with it, but when it repeatedly says we treated differently i would think you would want pretty substantial evidence before you second guess that conclusion. >> if i can enter evidence that he sits on the witness stand and says i have had a conversationh the map drawer and he says my bosses told me i have to get up over 50.1%, but seems substantial evidence of a direct conversation he's had and says he received orders from on high.

>> that's the thing. there's a dispute whether that conversation ever took place. in the record in this case, you have a senator who protests that's not what happened. >> didn't district judge say -- spinnaker they did say that that only gets to the point that even if he said that, it didn't get translated to the map drawer. they made multiple public statements that say it isn't a racial drawl. it's a political draw. ..

>> 200 i understand that problem too. i think the problem in cromartie to is it doesn't say in all cases, i write that for purpose. they say it when a case like this one is ambiguous but it means it, that as the time progresses we face what you see and i see is the problem right now. that is a set of standards the district court's can apply which will try to separate sheep from goats. without us spending the entire term reviewing 5000 page records. that's what. that's what you have by the time we get to the later cases.

i understand your arguments. i'll go back and look at it. you think it's absolutely determined to have the cromartie two, not so sure. >> i think it's determinative because he didn't say in a case such as us on he said in a case such as this one where it's a majority minority district or close approximation and race and politics are closely correlated. another criteria is in the cases where the legislated stated goal was politics not rex. you have silly senate but you're absolutely right. before you decide whether it's sheep or goats, i think it's perfectly fair to say there are two breeds here generally, the cases, the more common ones, the alabama cases, the shock cases, those are all cases where the state comes in and cd one, and the state comes in and says yes, it was race because of this act

we don't think race predominated and predominate and if we did we survive, but there's a separate class of cases with the state comes in and says it wasn't reset all, it was politics. and they are highly correlated but it was politics. there's very sensitive sensitive cases for the state because of the state does that, if they lose because they have found to have dissembled they don't even get to the second half of the case. i kick my. argue was politics that race, and if you think rely by the way we narrowly tailored, you don't have that opportunity. there has to be a high threshold cromartie two addresses those cases like a laser beam. if you give guidance to lower courts don't tell them you fake them out in cromartie two. say that you're going to stick with that and identified the class of cases.

it's not the world's biggest burden to come up with an alternative. if the alternative map shows the way that you take race or politics into the count the same extent with bader race by turning covenants or making a district look like this and this which is what you found in commodity too, looked at the alternative maps and it was not beyond man to come up with maps in the case. the. the problem is they actually showed the legislature. >> even though the district court listen to the map and believed to come in the statements are pretty much against you, and then they heard two of the state senators and they were against you and that it's up to the district court to identify the strength of witnesses and came to the conclusion on the basis of that. in fact it was race was the explanation. despite that everyone who comes in has to have an alternative

map and we have five interveners and will have five or six different alternative maps and a hundred state legislators and so forth. >> first of all, i don't think the direct evidence here is of a character that's material different from cromartie to itself. and i would say, look, trying to give district court's direction, everybody's, everybody's going to say i have direct evidence, the quality and character of it will differ from case to case. what i think you should do is in this class of cases where the states defenses politics not race, is the five interveners can get together and pull the cost which will be minimal and give me one alternative map that shows you can do the same particle thing without a comparable effect on race. i think it would make your jurisprudence more administrable. it would have the virtue of applying starry decisive because

he said it in cromartie two. everyone of the court cases says this is an extremely difficult business, it's inherently legislated business, it is a humbling and big thing to have a court second-guess the decisions. i think in a world like that especially when you have already set it to say that there is an alternative map requirement as a gatekeeping function to guided district court to give the court the same tools you used in cromartie two to say it's easy to say it was a pretext but when i actually look at this, at the end of the day and going to look at that alternative map in conjunction with the direct and circumstantial evidence but be guided by something that says there was another way to do this and that does make me think that this direct evidence is more probative than it was. if they

really just want to help the democrats or the republicans or vice versa they could've done it with the different racial balance. >> what we do with that that eat evil we are trying to addresses the use of race. once it's met you don't need a manifestation of it, you need need just the use of race. that's the evil the constitution is intended to avoid. so state legislators go out and always it's politics because it's really easy to say politics even though there is a lot of direct evidence that there really was race. and put the added burden on a plaintiff now to do a map where you'll come up and say on that map of this takes care of this problem that there's another political reason for not doing it that way, there's another political reason for not doing

it this way, it's impossible to ask a plaintiff to come up with a race neutral map in light of the entire -- issue is our state legislative prohibited from using race and if they are then they should go back to the drawing board. >> your honor, i think that sure at the end of the day in these districts where you basically have one party saying it was politics and the other was saying its race, you do ultimately have to have a mechanism to determine which one it was. our humble point is that everybody agrees they are highly correlated, that creates the possibility for abuse so are not saying there should not be a test but this is a difficult thing, it's a a particularly damning thing to say that state legislature especially when they're being candid about their race and cd one to say they're

disassembling is a big thing in the only issue in the case because there isn't going to be screwed need fix it on the backend. they're gonna say we didn't take race into account at all. it's not beyond man, woman or anyone else to come up with an alternative map. it's not doing it to be mean, they're extremely you so full for the analysis and you only have to look at the committee to opinion to show how they can say if you do that you're going to elongate it. that will will not be the case all the time. in some you'll come up with a alternative map. if i could turn my attention to cd one which is the case that is more like the virginia district in a sense that here it is, the valid use of race in order to preserve a majority minority district. as to this one in particular we think the district court aired in scrutiny simply based on

essentially the adoption of a 50.1%. the easiest way to affirm this probably to do with the north carolina supreme court do which it also confronted a district court that it applied strict scrutiny because that have been apply but they said applying it would be merely taylor. the north carolina supreme court said the district court screwed up on scrutiny trigger but nonetheless we agree it's narrowly terribly and i think you could do the same thing here. i'm sleep read bursting the district court but it may be the easy way to decide cd one. here they admitted they took race into account. they were dealing with a difficult problem which is they had a bench part map that had cd one is majority minority district. to to be sure it was a coalition district a little north of 48%. it also lost 97000 votes.

they want to preserve it as a majority minority district based on their reading of strickland and other things they say the safest way to do it is to get it over 50.01%. so we'll tell them after our one it over 50.01%. the map targets that instruction and draws a district that ends up about 52.6%. the fact that it's at 52 and a 50.1 shows it's not like this ratio was preserved over everything else. but also i think it's worth understanding it's not like there is a myriad of ways to do what the map chart did. there's two opportunities. you can draw the district to get part of wake county and that would get you over 50% 50% or you can go into the city of durham and get over 50% that way. the first time the map charger

the map drew in wade county that's 50% there is back and forth with representative butterfield and the like in. >> to what extent in what circumstances of section five of the voting might that require that a continuous district be drawn assuming you're using race and then you have to comply with strict certainty, to what text then to think it requires a continuing district. >> i think it requires a reasonably continuous district. if you a more compact district and in our you essentially have to extend the district to capture those territories. the one thing i would would say before i sit down about cd one is a think it is telling to look at representative butterfield's testimony in the record. what the lower court found is the reason we lost on strict

scrutiny was there is not racially polarized voting and cd one or particularly the state hadn't enough to show it. nobody thinks there is that racially polarized voting and cd one. they don't think that. they think wouldn't do enough to prove it. representative butterfield doesn't think that he was think of it in the district. the dispute is not over whether it's racially polarized voting, is as represented butterfield testified, it has has to be at least 45%, 46 or 47 is better it could go south of 45%. butterfield said if only two thirds of white voters will never vote for an african-american candidate and cd one. he admits there's racially polarized voting. it's not about whether we like or don't like racial targets it's whether you're going to give legislative flexibility to choose between 47 to 48 on eight on one hand or 50.1 and 52 on the other. that has to be within the zone of the deference.

>> thank you your honor. >> thank you counsel. >> elias welcome back. >> mr. chief justice i would like to jump in and go through district 12 as my colleague did and talk about cd one. the problem that the state has in cd 12 is the finding of predominance was more than amply supported by the record the trial court found. we are under a a clear air. >> the question as justice breyer has pointed out is whether race was a dominant and controlling factor removing a significant number of voters in her out. it seems that the primary

defense that the state house and trying to overturn the decision of the lower court is that an alternative map was not introduce. while certainly an an alternative map is a way to induce evidence it can't be it's the only way there's a matter of ways to prove that race predominates. i would would point out that we offer no alternative map in the last case. i would point out that we offered no alternative map in the case that you heard earlier this year. >> why not? >> because in each of these cases and in alabama they offered no alternative come in each of these there is no need to provide an alternative map to prove circumstantially what amply existed directly. it's not true that the state of alabama and that case or the state of virginia did not assert political motives as a defense

to some of the district. >> did they in respect to this district, district 12? because when i go back to cromartie to a think he's right, it does say at least where the evidence is close to one side is saying it's racial the other side is same as political and the other says the party attacking the boundaries have to show that the legislator could've achieved his legitimate political objectives in an alternative ways that are equally consistent with traditional principle. so what is it that you suggest? are you going to say this isn't a close case? are you going to say we should've overruled that? overruled that? >> i would say two things. the first is, i'm taking issue that trial courts are confused and this is a reversal on a

trial court. the trial court in north carolina was not confuse that a map was not required. >> then explain why is in a map or some kind of evidence they could have achieved their political objectives with less reliance on race? that's what it seems to say. if it doesn't really say that then you could say there many things you might sam not suggesting an answer. i want to say what you do say you can say doesn't matter because were giving weight to the district court, but i don't want to suggest something. >> your honor, i think that cromartie, the language in cromartie that's been focused on is discussing that case, the case in which you say there were lots of maps. that was a fundamentally a maps case where each side is proving their case through maps

principally through circumstantial evidence of what was in various versions. in that case where you're offering maps on both sides you at least have to offer one that shows you achieve the goals and political goals without waste predominate. i would .. out as an important note the state of north carolina didn't draw a remedial map in this case is not hypothetical whether they could draw a map that achieve their political goals but did not gerrymander based on race. in fact the state of north carolina after this jew a map of battle lovely on political data that using restated andrew this district at a lower yet protected the republican nature of the district. >> did they say that did not know. >> if they didn't say that

whether they are able to draw another map doesn't prove anything. if the legislature said this is done based on politics and there's no way we could've achieved our political a jet objective without doing this they can't prove a negative so it makes sense to turn to the other side and say prove that's wrong and that the political ends could be served without taking her without the map that was drawn. >> i think the problem with the reading being offered is that it puts the constitutional cart before the horse. the harm is in using race as the predominant factor. there's no constitutional right to gerrymandering. what has to be protected as the voters rate. >> but what was the basis for was it politics or race?

so if no one can point to a way of achieving a political objective other than through the map that was drawn than that's evidence that politics was the reason for. >> your honor, it may be evidence of her evidence of race serving as a proxy. even if not it doesn't mean there can't be other evidence. >> which except that a map is necessary except in the case where there is quite strong evidence that race was the basis? i don't think this court needs to do find out the strength of the evidence, i think i think it's evidence. i think a map is evidence and i think like most trials it's a mosaic, snow smoking gun and the mosaic of evidence in this case. >> how much weight do you think the absence of a map is entitled to? >> i think it's entitled to no way. the fact that there is is a map that was enacted was obviously

in the evidence that they had it the trial that race and party correlate to a large degree is evidence but employment in this case look at what it is that lewis said. before we get to them after our that's take a look at what they said. quote, because the presidents of guilford county, this is the cost the cost in the 12 districts we have drawn our proposed 12 district at a block voting age level above the percentage that's above the population found in the current history. that that statement from the sponsors that it was race.

what did the experts say? the expert said in his report and this is ja 1103, the general assembly, mindful that the county was covered by section five of the by section five of the voting rights act determined it was prudent to reunify the african-american community in guilford county, this could avoid the possibility of a charger fracturing our community and inhibiting the clearance by the department of justice. this extension of the 12 district caused the circum- circle around the district to increase in diameter. >> i think the evidence with respect to dilfer counties your strongest evidence, but beyond that the rest of is not very strong. >> your honor, but that is where race predominate. race predominated in a district justice bar u.s. to question and the less, this was the district those overpopulated by 2800 people.

this was almost spot on one person, one vote. and yet they moved 75000 african-americans into the district. so to say the county is the strongest states, that is in fact where they moved. >> was or any evidence that was necessary to avoid regression problem? >> they offered no evidence that i was to comply with the voter rights act. >> why is that? i wasn't that an issue? >> whether it was a strategic litigation system that they wanted to put all their eggs and in the politics not race basket were whether their expert would not support this was actually necessary to comply, i don't don't know. but that was not their argument. it's also important to realize that evidence doesn't stop there. you have mel, who by the time he

testifies be for the district court he is out of congress and has no stake in this district one way or the other for himself. he has moved on to the administration and a life after electoral politics and he says he is told the reason why this happened was that it had to ramp up to over 50% to comply with the voter rights. >> they did make the case and they said yes we did that and the reason we did was mostly african-american voters will for democrats and we want all the democratic voters in one district. >> it's what the democrats did last time that's the kind of argument they make. >> what mel was told that he is a respected african-american was going to be expected to sell to the african-american community that this needed to be over 50% to comply any know what he said in his testimony, he laughed. he

said it's not possible because the people in this district will know there isn't a reason why this have to go above 50% to comply with the voting rights act. the trial court also discounted the testimony that my good friend and colleague has suggested was offered by the mat drawer about what he was told and that he had turned off race and only use partisanship, that analysis, the district court did not credit and said i heard the testimony, i listen to the live witnesses and i didn't credit it, it was not believable. >> like a back to congressman roth's testimony. he referred to something other than what i thought thought you highlighted in your brief, what you highlight is double hearsay. congressman ron said we should of told him and somebody else told him something and none of

those people is actually the person who drew the mat. i don't even know whether any of that's admissible to prove the truth but if it is its weak evidence. >> it was admitted, there is no objection to the evidence and it's evidence that the trial court credited as important documents. >> so i understand the supreme court can do whatever you want, but i think the role of the appellate court is to look at this and say you wage the credibility of this and whether it sounded like attenuated double hearsay or whether it sounded against all of the other evidence sounded like something that is believable. >> when judging demeanor in the light,. >> the other thing that i think is overlooked is look at what the actual number came in it. isn't it coincidence that politics drove the map and yet it wound up with 50.66, isn't

that coincidence? shocking they turned off racial data and they drew a map and it just so happened that it came at 50.66. that's not a coincidence. the trial court did not find it a coincidence. the the fact that the number that ultimately came was just a hair above the threshold for section two district is not incidents its further evidence that race predominate. >> mr. last i would like to ask you about the procedural issue in this case. there is another case those in state court the same issues and justice decided the opposite way. we are urging in this case that to your era that we should judge

what the judge did. but if we we had a state case before i suppose their findings would also be judged by the standard isn't that so? if the state case when the other wang came to us look at that and say? >> your honor, the court applies clear error to the case before whether there's a finding it and that's the rules of the appellate procedure and what this court has done for many years and what my clients are entitled to this is their case. they brought this case and are entitled to have it adjudicated under the normal rules. the well-established principles

of the court. >> but justice ginsburg can pursue and protect her own question. and it's true the state case was first. >> it the second point i would make is that the state case was really a different case. in several respects. the state case was predominantly about the state lines. they're challenging and congressional district but most of the testimony do not relate to the student related to the state district. number two, there are not the findings of fact and the dixon case they're not the specific findings of fact about the credibility of witnesses that

are found in this opinion. this trial court was very meticulous in laying out what facts they found most credible, what they relied upon. the state. the state action was much more conclusive in that regard because they're dealing with a mountain of evidence around the state legislative and state senate district. finally i would say there are other judicial mechanisms available to this court and two district courts generally to control and handle the question of multiple cases moving through the system. congress making a decision that in the cases of statewide redistricting there would be an expedited process for cases to move through the federal system to the supreme court. whether that was good policy or bad policy in the pot of congress it was a policy decision that cases that come up out of the federal courts come from a three-judge panel on direct appeal to this court. the other case goes through the