>> next eric holder talks about his service during the obama administration. in his current role working with the national democratic redistricting committee.he also responded to questions about redistricting. the house intelligence committee memos that robert mueller's russia investigation. >>. [inaudible] this is his first appearance. thank you for coming. [inaudible] [laughter] i will point out that you are a

son of an earlier era. >> that was one of the favorite judges. >> i will note that mr. holder was nations 82nd attorney general serving six years under president obama. from 2009 until 2015. he continues to collaborate with president obama today and his advocacy on redistricting. we are also joined by kelly ward ., executive director of the national democratic redistricting committee.thank you for joining us. and now for the ground rules. we are on e.the record. please, no live blogging or tweeting. in shortcoming of filing of any kind while this is underway. there is no embargo when we finish. we will email pictures of the session to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast is

over. as you know, from my predecessor, u if you have a question 78 nonthreatening signal. >> did you had to say that? nonthreatening? [laughter] >> because of the size of the crowd i ask that you limit to one question. and if we get through we can gof for a second round. mr. holder, if you like to make brief opening remarks. >> thank you so much for inviting us to spend some time with a few people who i know and a lot of people who i do not personally know but have seen on television or whose stories i have read. i would like to thank you for the job that you are doing. and actually to say that i think the job that you all are doing now maybe more important than it has ever been. i think that it is really

incumbent upon you all to be fearless in your recording. your fact acquisition. and as you bring the truth of the situations that we face in a number of contexts. i applaud you for the job that you have done and hope that as a citizen of this great country that you will continue in the whether you have shown these past few months. the midterm is expected to be the most expensive in history. there will be a record number of candidates, party committees and interest groups spending unprecedented amounts of resources. much of the focus will be here in washington dc. and for the battle on congress and when there there will be a wave in the 2018 but there are key gubernatorial and senate races, state senate races that will decide e who controls the redistricting process that will occur after the census in 2021. the census in 2020

redistricting in 2021. with this activity the national democratic redistricting committee is the only organization looking at this years electoral map strictly through a redistricting lens. it is very important. only through a redistricting lens. during the redistricting process in 2011, republican used new technology to take gerrymandering to what i would say unprecedented levels. they lock themselves into power for the past decade and shut out i believe, voters from the electoral process. in many cases, it has been communities of color, african-americans, latinos that have been most adversely affected by gerrymandering. it is not a coincidence that where we see the greatest amount of gerrymandering, during the last round of redistricting in texas, wisconsin and north carolina, we also see sthe states have passed some of the most

oppressive voter id laws. there is one strategic hub focused on redistricting. no two states are the same.we have analyzed all of the states and looked at each of them. we are executing a comprehensive four prong approach employs the redistricting process and it is tailored to what we have found in each of the states. this will enable us to be most effective in each state. let me scroll through the four ways in which we will do our work. first, we will support reform efforts been including ballot initiatives and states of a creative favorite redistricting process in the state. second, we are building a very aggressive advocacy campaign to achieve their outcomes in the redistricting process. including raising public awareness, engage in grassroots activists and other state-of-the-art infrastructure. we have established a relationship with organizing for action.

which is the, i was say the committee that grew out of the group that were out of the obama campaign. we are working very closely with them. third, we have a robust litigation strategy. in places where maps have been drawn unconstitutionally. we have filed lawsuits i believe in five states at this point. considering the filing estate and lawsuits in other states as well. we will also focus on the electing democrats who have committed to fairness and redistricting and will be focusing on positions that will play a role in the next round of redistricting. we will continue to execute all four prongs of the strategy this year and for the years to come. i want to focus on the last prong. that is the editorial efforts. we focus on switching the balance of power on redistricting by electing democrats committed to redistricting. there redistricting in key races that will have an impact on the process. this will help for new fair maps in 2021.

new maps are drawn following the census every 10 years. the officials elected to four-year terms in 2018, will be the people sitting at the table when it comes to 2021. these are the people who will be responsible for drawing those maps. this makes the elections in 2018 very vital. these are in some ways the first critical steps for putting in place people who will take power back from politicians and give it to the people. where politicians that are picking their voters between citizens who are choosing for the representatives will be. it is fundamental to the system of democracy. we have identified 12 key states that we believe have the best opportunities to underrate republican gerrymandering in the country and bring about fairness that represent the people. we have a watchlist and i

believe everyone has a copy of the maps. within the 12 key states, we have 90 editorial races, 12 legislative chambers and several key down ballot races. the targets include states, -- that we found have the most extreme partisan bias in the congressional maps and ndaccoun for the republicans gaining what they termed, a quote - durable majority. of 16 to 17 seats. the other states opportunities for democrats to protect against republican gerrymander. michigan for example. a swing state. republicans gained a trifecta, the governorship and both houses of legislature. again trifecta control in 2011 and have rigged them out so they controlled 10 of the 14 congressional seats. though it is a swing state. the electoral targets that include open governor seat,

state senate as well as state house. i also believe there can be an opportunity to support a citizen movement to put a ballot initiative on the ballot with regard to how redistricting should be done. georgia is another example where democrats have the potential to make gains that could protect against partisan gerrymandering.our electoral work it will focus on the open governors seat and state senate. the national redistricting foundation, we have active litigation there that is challenging the midcycle. the midcycle redistricting that was done by the statehouse in 2015. arizona is an example of a state on the watchlist. they currently have a nonpartisan commission. i would point out arizona and california as good examples of places that have nonpartisan commissions.republicans in the state legislature they have

put forward potential changes that can weaken the process that is in place and make it more political. wisconsin is also estate we will be looking at. wisconsin is a state where republicans got less than 50 percent of the vote in the last cycle and yet controlled about two thirds of the two thirds of the congressional delegation. that is one of the cases before the supreme court and the fact there are as good as it possibly could for those who are in support of reform in this process. and they will invest time and resources using our position as a strategic hub for redistricting to focus energy into the races to ensure that all redistricting targets are covered and to engage young people, people of color in these areas in this years election. i personally plan on traveling to many of our targeted states to campaign for individual candidates and continue raising

awareness around the issue of gerrymandering. in particular always focused on making sure that african-americans, people of opcolor understand the long-ter implications of these elections so that they are organized and energized to get out and vote come november. earlier this week i sat down with president obama. for a couple of hours. it is something hannah had been talking about for a great many months. actually before i left the department. i had a meeting with him this week to brief him on our plans and strategy and expected later this year we will see in campaigning. he refocused on the races that will matter for redistricting. has identified this as his chief political activity in his post-presidency. while they are strong indications that this will be a good year for democrats, i'm all concerned. we talked about a wave that we expect for democrats. as we saw in virginia vithis la fall, democrats are a distinct

structural disadvantage in many houses. many statehouses. even after what i would call the democratic landslide in virginia. a democratic wave. republicans still hold a advantage. we'll see where we can be the most effective in each of the states and drive far into the map as possible. as i have said time we have the four pillars. and when is the democratic candidates give we will al continue to monitor ballot initiatives, litigate and play litigation against un-presidential gerrymandering and have a fair redistricting process in 2021. what i want to emphasize is that we are looking for a fair process. we do not want to have, we do

not define success as electing democrats in 2021 mike republicans eight and 20 k which is gerrymandering on behalf of democrats. if we have a fair redistricting process and make this a valid between republican ideas and democratic ideas. between conservative ideas and progressive ideas. vedemocrats and conservatives will do absolutely fine. there is no need for us to replicate what the republicans did in 2011. in some ways i think of this effort as a partisan effort at the government. we are trying to get back i is think with the framers intended. as i said earlier, have the people paid their representatives instead of having politicians picking their voters. >> thank you very much. i'll start with a question and will take it around the room. in your list of the most gerrymandered states, he did not mention maryland. right next door. which of course, has

gerrymandering case before the supreme court. i'm curious if you can comment on the republican governor, has a long-standing proposal to set up a -- i wonder why is that not better to have a district that is so gerrymandered at least according to the plaintiffs in the state. they said was gerrymandered by the state democrats. and then, the second part. i will break my own rule. [laughter] one question rule. and john delaney this morning happens to be the number that represents the district, the sixth district of maryland. he has a bill to end by partisan gerrymandering, to end partisan german and by all states. i would like you to adjust the maryland question and in the context of the plans.

>> i think the first part of your question really is correct. we are focused on looking at the states that are most gerrymandered. maryland is not one of the states. we can argue about what happened in the one district in maryland. supreme court will render a decision and render a decision when they oncome to look at wisconsin. if you compare what is going on in wisconsin to what has happened in maryland and compared to wisconsin, pennsylvania, ohio, north carolina, texas. you are really comparing apples and oranges. you can talk about the one district that we are focusing on states that have had substantial gerrymandering problems.i've not had a chance to read the article but i think that a movement towards nonpartisan commissions is in some ways, a purest way to do

this. there are some state constitutions that do not allow for that to occur. in some instances citizens do not have the ability to go straight to the ballot as he can for instance in michigan. weight is not being considered. in texas you have to go through the state legislature and the urgerrymandered state legislatu will never allow that to happen. but in a theoretical sense, i think it is in some ways the best way to do it. but i deal with reality. between now and 2021 we will not get commissions and all of the states. we are trying to use all the techniques we have. lawsuits, advocacy work, supporting commissions where that is possible. and then putting in place people who will commit themselves as northam did in virginia.he said he would not sign a bill, a redistricting bill that was not clearly drawn. >> thank you.

and are you bothered by the way the lines are drawn in maryland? we have that one seat in maryland. >> i think we should look at it. and the same standard that i think should be applied to republicans should be applied to democrats. it would be a mistake to look at the one district and think that it is in some ways equivalent to what we have seen on a statewide basis. i would say in some ways a nationwide basis by one of our political parties. >> steve from the washington times. >> i was hoping my comment on some decisions the justice department has made. first of all, the arpaio pardon. what you make of that decision-making process and also the current justice department officially apologized to the groups for lothe irs targeting and completely reaching an opposite

conclusion of the justice department on -- i am wondering what you make of that decision? >> with regard to arpaio, the case that was -- the presidents powers to pardon is absolute. and you know, i cannot criticize the process. it was ultimately the presence decision. i think it is instructive that the power that is used relatively sparingly was used by this president to grant some relief to a person i think it is fundamentally undeserving of it. the case that we brought wther was appropriate. the front of the court with regards to how arpaio conducted himself during a portion of the process was appropriate. i think it was a misuse of the pardon process in that regard. the apology when it comes to

irs. it is kind of typical of what we see in this administration unfortunately. not giving support to people in the department. any investigative agencies within the department. we simply do a good job.and would make tough calls. and sometimes those calls don't satisfy people on one side of the political spectrum or the other. but i think at the end of the day they ought to be respected and they certainly ought to be respected by the people who have the responsibility to run these departments. and the notion that the justice department need to apologize for what career people made, decisions that were made, that apology was unnecessary, unfounded and inconsistent it seems to me with the responsibilities that somebody who would lead the great justice department should have done. >> john --

>> thank you. my question is a two part. but one question actually. about your successor. >> there are a lot of rules! [laughter] you are not going to prosecute. >> i still have friends! [laughter] >> general sessions, your successor, once again very hard line on marijuana. in addition, senator grassley has a prison reform bill that people have praised on both sides of the political spectrum. the general sessions does not seem to want to embrace prison reform. your thoughts on his position on marijuana and on prison reform, , particularly with regards to the grassley bill. >> i think we got it right with. the justice department has

limited resources. when you're trying to decide how to deploy the resources and what places you will place emphasis. the memorandums that essentially we will let the states experiment but we will really put up guardrails. it was very explicit. we said that when it came to dealing marijuana to minors. transportation marijuana across state lines. there were eight or nine factors in the memo. inthat if you go across those 8 factors then there will be federal and government intervention.i mean we are speaking to the governors of colorado and wisconsin peer sharing with them whatever concerns were. getting reassurances from them that what they would put in place a serious regulatory system. we hink the approach that took was appropriate. when it comes to you say prison reform. i would pcall it criminal justice reform. that was an issue i think we

had a rare opportunity. at a significant bipartisan reform effort. i remember having a meeting in my conference room. we had representatives from coke brothers, the tea party, the aclu sitting down to talk about what was a shared goal? the notion of criminal justice reform. again, given limited resources that we have, given the need to bridge the trust gap that exists between people in law enforcement and certain communities in this nation. communities of color in particular. criminal justice reform is something that i think should occur. i have not read the grassley bill to any great extent but i think what was being considered during the time, during the end

of my time i guess is attorney general, i thought was a good way in which we ought to be reforming our process. and you know, i think you look the statistics, after i guess the prime minister in 2013 for 2014, the numbers show that we have seen a decline in crime. we have seen the justice department bringing cases where it ought to be against kingpins as opposed to be when it comes to drums, kingpins as opposed to people that are couriers. more serious, people getting these harsh sentences. being held accountable. given sentences that are with their conduct. i would hoping that this administration would get back on the train that was a bipartisan train and start thinking seriously about criminal justice reform. >> alexis from the hill.

>> you read the reports of the president is amorous of the relationship that you and president obama shared. his belief that he had the presidents back and were loyal to him, his political ambitions. i wonder if you can comment on presidential terms -- the way president trump feels about that. >> it would be a good thing for him to have a relationship and treat the justice department in the same way that president obama treated his justice department. president obama and i are friends but he also understood as i understood, there has to be a wall between the justice department and the white house. and there were things that i did while i was attorney general. decisions i had to rnmake that were not communicated to him. my guess is that there were more than a couple that he probably did not agree with.

and yet, i dinever heard from him. anything either privately or certainly not publicly. that was critical of any decision that i made. i would hope that president trump would rethink the way in which he has attacked the career people, the fbi, the career people at the justice department, the career people in our intelligence community. the ways in which he has spoken about his attorney general, actually our attorney general, and understand that there is long-term collateral negative consequences to such attacks. the mueller probe will be unaffected. he is a strong buy and the people that work for him are strong. they will do that investigation. but there will be a time, know, a case will be tried in illinois, mississippi, missouri where credibility will have to be made between an fbi agent

saying one thing and a defendant with a witness saying something else. and having raise questions in a way that the president has, about the way in which the fbi is not doing his job there not only the present. the republican party has done this as well. they will raise doubts in the minds of people as they listen to the fbi agent. and what she says in a way that never existed before. so that in the thlong term, negative collateral consequences are substantial. they are real. and i would hope that the president would pull back. >> all right. it'll housekeeping now. we have deborah from usa today coming up and then -- huffington post, reuters, national journal, the hill --

>> date will make themselves known by making nonthreatening gestures. >> excellent!and then the los angeles times. usa today. >> how much will the focus be on the red states in the deep south? how much does the alabama wood play in that in the message that you will deliver to people in particular on this issue. >> yeah, it's interesting you say ththat. it is one of the areas in which we will give particular focus. we have listed our targets and watch lists. a variety of techniques that we can use. among these i did not mention perhaps was the use of the voting rights act. to come up with ways in which we make districts more fair or make representation more fair. and in the south, there are i think voting rights cases that we can bring. even under the voting rights act that was harmed by the shelby county decision.

there are voting rights cases that we can bring anywhere considering bringing litigation in at least three states. [inaudible] >> i do not think we are in a position to show that we will have something pretty soon. >> fox. >> i wonder if you can comment on your thoughts about the controversy surrounding the department of justice right now when it comes to the tragic process. and the memo that was released and the one that they would like to release. what you think of classified information getting in the public space like that. and what about the process, do you think it was fair with that particular warrants? >> i do not think i saw the application i went to the fisa court. i can tell you these things are really scrutinized.

within the investigative agency that seats them here scrutinized within the justice department. that ultimately approves them. and then obviously, scrutinized by the court. that ultimately signs them. and i read this stuff that the fisa court is a rubberstamp they prove 90 something percent or whatever the percentage is. the percentage as high as it is is because there is a degree of scrutiny. those get bounced down and back at the fbi for instance.to get bounced by at the justice department. his interaction with the court where things are sometimes pushed back and then have to be redone. i am concerned about the revelation of things that go before the fisa court. the court is designed to do things in secret for a reason. we are talking about some of the most sensitive things that our government does in order to protect the american people. i am concerned about the nunes

memo because you know, the next time an individual decides that he or she wants to share information with the united states that would be helpful to us, we will have to think about what does this mean? is my identity going to be revealed? is the shinformation i share going to be revealed? intelligence agencies have to ask the same question. if we share information with the united states, will they be the same trustworthy partner that they have been over the years? and so, i worry about the issuing of the nunes memo and the best i can understand it seems to have been pretty inaccurate in a number of ways. i would hope that the white house would ultimately make the determination that for lack of a better term, the schiff memo, i would assume the adam schiff is not going to reveal certain

things with sources and methods and it will have the least negative impact on our intelligence gathering capabilities. but it strikes me to get the white house and that we want to listen to the fbi and the justice department before we make a determination on the release of the schiff memos. really? really? did you listen to the fbi and the justice department when you made the determination to release the nunes memo? in spite of the fact that the justice department said it was extremely reckless or whatever the term was. mr. caray made a really -- christopher wray made a really rare statement. he would listen to him them but now you decide that you will listen to them. we will see how this works his way through it will be interesting. >> ryan riley, huffington post. >> there are no rules here. this is a total lawlessness!

[multiple speakers] >> you are no longer obligated to give the president sound legal advice. so should he talk to robert mueller? and second, hessian democrats think about james comey these days? >> to the president talk to robert mueller? that is a determination he and his lawyers will have to make. it will be interesting to see how this plays out. i think the possibility exists that even in common with the receipt of a subpoena, that the president might not speak to robert mueller. it is entirely possible that he could use his fifth amendment privilege. which would be almost fatal for any other politician.

but if this president says he catches on fifth avenue and no suffer any negative political consequences, number five is an interesting one. you fifth avenue which is also the fifth amendment. [laughter] i think it is a possibility. what was the second one? >> the political thinking on the james comey case. >> i wrote a piece about that. you know james comey is a good man collecting-- he is a good m made a wrong decision. i think that he is a long time you know, contributor to our nation. i think that he did a great job as deputy attorney general. he did a great job as fbi director. he happened to make you know, a mistake!do

but i do not think there is reason for us to disbelieve what he said about his interactions with president trump. tei've always found jim to be very upfront and very forward about his views and not afraid of expressing the truth. >> jeff mason from reuters. >> i would like to ask you about an issue that i know you're passionate about. the death penalty. during president obama his second term, he asked the department of justice to do a review of the death penalty. i do not believe anything ever came of that. i'm wondering why and i am wondering if you ever decide to run for office, it is an issue that you would raise? >> yeah, no, work was underway by the time i left. i left i guess in april 2015. after having resigned i think in september 2014. but they just cannot quit me,

you know? so i do not know. i do not know what happened in terms of results of that. i know what we did a similar study during the clinton administration, we release it publicly. i think i was a deputy attorney general at the time. i think we released it. i do not know what happened within the department and whether the work was completed or a decision to release, i just do not know what happened. i mean, i have spoken out about the death penalty. at that we have the greatest system of rljustice in the worl. our system of justice is comprised of men and women who you know, that they are judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurors, are trying to do their best.but human beings make mistakes. we know that we have seen mistakes made in cases that were noncapital in nature. and it is one thing, it is an

awful thing, one of the last cases i worked on as -- before he came attorney general, a man was convicted of rape of something he had not done and he served 19 years. the person was mentally handicapped. served 19 years. we got him out of jail given a substantial amount of money from the state. you cannot reverse the death penalty mistake. that has always been the concern that i have had. in addition to the ways in which it is imposed. both geographically, racially, economically. i will continue to speak out about my opposition to the death penalty though as when i was attorney general those with the toughest decisions i had to make. because i had to set aside -- >> the rest of this breakfast with former attorney general, eric holder is available on c-span.org. type eric holder in the library window on the homepage. we were living here is the essence and it is now you meet

at 1130 there will be voting whether to limit debate on the 2018 defense spending bill. public funding runs out at midnight. later the senate is expected to take up a six week extension. live now to the floor of the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit, our lamp and light, we praise your holy name.