team for what your support, really appreciate that. you all know you've a direct line to me if you need me for anything. our organization is here to support you to support our see services, and we really appreciate that. with that, wishing everyone a happy holiday. all the best for 2019. thank you for being here, everyone. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the senate voted on two major issues deal with yemen and the death of joseph jamal khashoggi. rachel also as a foreign policy reporter with cq roll call virtue joins us with the details and let's start with the khashoggi resolution that the senate voted on. tweet from the chair of the foreign affairs committee, the senate voting unanimously to hold crown prince mohammad bin salman responsible for the murder of mr. khashoggi. what does this resolution actually say? >> guest: the resolution doesn't include any binding legal language. it is not actually setting u.s. policy. providing a sense of the senate the saudi arabia's de facto ruler did order the october assassination of jamal khashoggi ticket also makes a number of statements expressing the senate displeasure with various

policies of riyadh, having it with human rights. also criticized at length the houthi insurgent in yemen and their conduct in work as well as iran. >> host: it that often we something that is unanimous in either the house or the senate. i was at this unanimous? >> guest: this was not a a unanimous roll call vote. rather it was passed by a voice vote. at an support by republicans. it were a few democrats who metalanguage was a little too neutral regarding some other issues to saudi arabia's but the egregious aborted because it felt like their most best way to send a message to saudi arabia that they are unhappy with its ruler. >> host: on the measure dealing with yemen, rachel, take a look at this tweet from bernie sanders, talk about historic victory. the senate has voted to stop u.s. military support for the saudi-led coalition fighting in yemen. the first time ever the senate

has voted to end an unauthorized war. what does this say and what changes were actually made? >> guest: this marks the first time since 1973 passage of the war powers act the senate has voted to order the pentagon to end its military campaign abroad. it has to go through a number of hurdles before it could become law and there are even some questions about its constitutionally that is yet to be resolved. >> host: and you write also in an article that came out after the senate vote, rachel, define trump, ending the war. you write this is historic but symbolic and again what do you mean by that? >> guest: the house used a four procedure yesterday to ensure that no resolution under the war powers act dealing with yemen gets about this year.

that basically ensures nothing, congress can do nothing in this congress which ends at the end of the year. next year is another ballgame so with the democrats taking control of the house. they have all but promised to bring a yemen war powers resolution which should pass, and i believe 56 votes in the senate today in favor of the resolution suggests there should be a support in the senate to also passed a yemen war resolution. so they could set up a veto showdown with president trump as he has threatened to veto the resolution. >> host: rachel, you've written in the past that this is almost more of a proxy war between democrats and republicans that it is the united states against any foreign power. tell us more about that trip to this is just another opportunity for democrats and a significant number of republicans to express their displeasure with trump seemingly amendment of long-standing u.s. human rights

values in favor of a more transactional approach regarding saudi arabia. it's the chance for democrats to point out to the grassroots and to americans at large that this president is a historical what he governs. republicans who may privately share those concerns feel uncomfortable sharing them publicly because of president trump's continued strong support with the republican grassroots voters. >> host: appreciate your time. we would keep falling you on twitter and then of course your report at cq.com. thanks a lot. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> starting shortly on c-span2 we will go live to a form on modern surveillance and privacy issues in the u.s. it will be live from the cato institute here in washington, d.c. that event set to start at about 9:00 it will have 45 when he gets underway on c-span2. right now a part of the conversation from yesterdays national judicial college conference in washington.

they hosted answers depends on the effective verbal attacks on the judiciary branch and on the press of democracy. one of the speakers was judge robart. >> i'd like to turn now to judge robart and cad details about your experience actually being subject to an attack by president trump. particularly i'm sure as a judge you get criticized all the time. was it different and how was it different? if you could reflect on the consequences that you've seen from your perspective in your experience. >> well, i certainly have had my share of criticism. i'll take you back to late january 2017. the president was sworn in probably the 20th of january.

he unveils executive order and i'm from seattle and of a lot of software companies so in my chambers is referred to as travel ban 1.0. the state of washington has seen this come effective in getting ready for a while and they file that week following monday, a a complaint joined by the state of minnesota against the travel ban. on a complete random draw which i would note occurred while i was out of town. [laughing] it was assigned to me, and i did what i think in of the judges here would do. i had a conference with the parties. i set a briefing schedule and i said will have a temporary restraining order hearing on right affix a one week for issuance. we had the hearing.

the decision was not hard to make on the law because the position taken by the administration was that any action, in action and immigration or national defenses not removable by the corps. -- re-newel ball. there were very proud of it. interestingly, the very talented career justice department lawyer that they sent to defend the lawsuit when i read her that statement, looked up at me with what i detected to be a slight of pained look and said, i have been instructed to say -- [laughing] -- that that is the position of the administration. i entered a temporary restraining order in joining travel ban 1.0 about 3:45 p.m.

it's friday. i can went back to job that ability which was deciding jury instructions for copyright case involving real estate photos. we went off the bench about 5:00. i walked back into chambers, and there are a number of things the scene out of order. one of which was the phone was not being answered and everyone looked in shellshocked. we had telephone calls. we had voicemail. we had e-mail. with telephone messages left on my home answering machine. within about 40 minutes of the temporary restraining order posted, a very hopeful person through a series of dead inbox had posted my name, my address, my birth date, , i'll address, y wife's name. and we just started getting

communications. what i want to stress with unep is kind of what happens in the next 36 hours. go back to that january. president donald trump has been elected. he is millions of votes and is make immigration a major issue during the election. so that's obviously significant. you can judge because marshal service keeps track of all of these. they're still in existence. they're in a database, if you want to go back and read them, or at least i can. the most common theme of them was who elected you president? all right, that's witticism. i can understand that. i get criticized. i think all of us gets criticized. the second one was how can you or how possibly can you defy the president? that one starts to be more troublesome to me because

reflects a topic that's been mentioned several times today, which is the lack of civics being taught. that's what my job is, is to make sure the constitution is followed and if that means telling the present is welcome that's what i'm supposed to do. then there's my personal favorite which comes out and about 12% of every communication that we got was, when you run for reelection, i'm not going to vote for you. [laughing] ..

some people say jim, you need a thicker skin and it's gone on since thomas jefferson disliked john marshall's ruling. and it's different when you say so-called judge. because the so-called judge is the next commune cases, you are not a judge, you have no authority to do this. you must be stopped. well, i'm not going to say the president had animus.

he didn't know i exist. but that's the message that your 40 million twitter followers took down. you were never authorized to this decision and that, i submit, undermines the integrity and the authority of the judiciary. you know, i'll speak in my own defense. occasionally when people want to engage on this topic, the president got 38 million votes, how many votes did you get? and my answer is 99 and when something concerning the president passes 99-0, then we'll be equals. i don't think that's going to happen in the near future. [laughte [laughter]. and not only the character of the messages, but the number of messages spikes at that point. it's saturday, i have a police car parked in front of my house with its blue light flashing.

your neighbors never quite know what to do with you at that point, are they arresting you? should we come and protect you? ultimately what they ended up doing was bringing coffee and cookies out and serving it to the officers in the police car. so the president didn't stop at that point. he sent out another tweet the next night, which basically says terrorists are flooding into our country, they intend to do you wrong. and then in the greatest thought i've ever seen, if something happens, blame it on the judge, he's responsible. it's a great insurance policy. it causes another change in the tone of communications that come in. and it gets worse. the tone is now, you must be stopped. i have a personal risk in this. the president has told me that

my wife and my children are in jeopardy, my safety is hanging in the balance and you're responsible. and then the unfortunate thing that involves marshall in this, we must eliminate people like you to protect us. the president says this is a priority. that's-- once again, it's attacking the integrity of the judiciary when this-- first off terrorists were not flooding into the country. we all know that now. and secondly, to then say, well, i've got no responsibility for it, even if i'm the president, but blame it on the judiciary, you know, one, we don't have that authority. we don't have that ability, but secondly, it suggests that we're going to do something that's creating national policy contrary to what should be done. i'm about done here.

after those we ended up with any number of death threats, over 100 of them were considered serious enough that the marshals went out and investigat investigated. the marshal's idea of a low profile investigation, a black suv, a second suv, a third suv and they come in their s.w.a.t. gear and say god bless every one of them because they would have done anything they could to protect me and my family. so they're not protecting us from terrorists, they're not protecting us from the drug cartels, which most of us think is a problem, they're protecting us from mentally ill people who are seized on these things. they're protecting us from people who are extraordinarily partisan and led to believe that the judiciary is the problem and has to be eliminated. so, that's my personal experience.

i will say, as i did in the beginning, the president has a right to criticize my decision, you know, we're not, any of us in this room, immune to that, but the manner of that criticism, when it crosses the line and it becomes a personal attack on the integrity of the judge and i'm from the 9th circuit, western district of washington, we now have in the western district of washington a so-called judge, and in the southern district of california, a mexican judge, and in the northern district to california, an obama judge. giving people labels like that really underminds what we do and that's my view. [applaus

[applause]. >> a live picture from the cato institute here in washington d.c. shortly, we'll take you to a day long conference on modern surveillance and privacy issues with topics ranging from the trump administration and the deep state to corners about home appliances and data collection, again, hosted by the cato institute in washington. live coverage on c-span three from start in just a few moments. right now though, more from yesterday's national judicial college conference. >> it's truth a pleasure to be here and have an opportunity to have a talk with a legend, icon and someone who-- >> you know what that means? that means old. [laughter] >> , but someone i think who is loved by both sides of the aisle and i think you might be one of the, you know, unpolarized, bring us together. >> right. >> one of our board members

actually, i want to start out, recently met vice-president joe biden, a couple of weekends ago, and just wanted to pass on his greetings to you today. he couldn't be with us today. i want to start off with a softball question. what is your favorite moment covering the supreme court? >> well, i can't say that there is a moment, but it was probably best symbolized by the court's announcement of its decision in the affordable care act case. i'm one of a very view journalists who continue to go up to the courtroom to hear the announcements of opinions and the reason that most people don't is they have to get something out right away, and so, you can-- if you're in the press room, you can hear in the press secretary's office, you can hear the announcement of the decisions, but mainly what journalists do is they just take the opinion, they do a

quick scan of the synopsis at the top of the machine and they try to write four or five perhaps for the web or more. and they did that in the aca case and got it wrong. the wires, interestingly, did not get it wrong, but a lot of other people did. and that's because the question that we all thought was the big question to be decided, whether the ac krchlc -- aca violated the constitution's limits on the commerce power-- >> my name is julian sanchez, i'm a senior fellow here and it's my great privilege to welcome you all to the 2018 installment of our annual surveillance conference. we really began the conference in 2013 as a one-off focused