el came to me with the idea of a panel on this topic, we sat around trying to think who would be the right people and i have to say, who would win a fight and win batman in this fun to think about but we never thought of people would all come together to be here today, and when our top choices agreed, i think we had a mixture of shock. i think we were intimidated and extremely grateful. our panelists are people who do not usually appear on panels. they are people who build a three day conferences on their keynote address, and i cannot tell you how grateful i am here. they do not need much of an introduction, so i am not going to give them one. on my left, eliot spitzer

former governor of new york. he has been called the sheriff of to wall street. groundbreaking prosecutions. sitting to my right, since 2009 he is about to be the longest serving as assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division in modern history, where he oversees attorneys. beyond that, and i do not really recall previous attorney generals. he has become the go to drive. -- the go-to guy.

our spokesman today, i think it is a real credit having him here. to my extreme left we have mary jo white, where she seems to represent just about every institution that has anything to do with the financial crisis cases out there, but far more importantly from my own perspective, and for nearly nine years, she was the attorney for the district of new york, where she had an unprecedented run in that position, only making one significant mistake and that was hiring me and giving me the only job i ever wanted and never would have needed a.

i am heavily conflicted with everyone on this panel since i owe all of them something. mary jo, my life and my job. elliott was one of my earliest and strongest defenders and the public arena and someone i will always be very grateful for, and landy, i was grateful to become a friend and confidante, and someone i could not for my heart -- pour my heart out soup. -- my heart out to. he brought one of the most significant cases, a multibillion-dollar accounting fraud at his office would the prosecution, so i am grateful.

i am grateful to save our panelists have agreed to waive the opening statement. 1:30, and then we will take questions from the audience. let me start with this proposition. first of president and the attorney general in a press council less than two weeks ago in announcing a new task force he offered as part of the explanation as to why we have not seen as many big ticket criminal prosecution some would like to see is because a lot of potential activity in the run up to the crisis may have been immoral or unethical, but it did not cross the line to be a criminal behavior that warranted criminal prosecution. elliott, you have not been shy

about this. statement and that analysis? >> it is true that much of the activity was immoral and wrong but not criminal, but that does not lead to the logical conclusion much activity was not criminal. there was significant criminal activity in both civil and criminal context that should be prosecuted, and i continue to believe if we were to pursue a the evidence, and one set of documents that clearly said to the banks, you are not securitized loans. those types of documents would lead to criminal cases. let me make a slightly larger

point. i almost hate to bring up occupy wall street, but they had a sign that was very accurate. it said, we will know corporations are people in texas executes want your good region when texas executes one. -- when texas executes one. the problem we have is we have given corporations all the upside but none of the downside. we have given all of the rights and privileges, yet when it comes to holding them accountable, because of the buffers built-in by people all doing their job in good faith, is difficult to ascribe criminal intent. in the criminal context, we have said, you do bad things. we do not have a way to hold you responsible. we cannot indyk goldman sachs.

-- cannot indict goldman sachs. the world would come to an end. there is this void, so we are consequences. lot more prosecutions, data the evidence that shows a willful disregard for bad stuff. willful disregard is important. we should be using data. >> why do you think there has not been more prosecution, since the evidence is out there? >> it is tough. we did not bring as many criminal cases as we arguably could have, but this was earlierwall street perpetrates

one of the greatest scare arms. the greatest was persuading us they could regulate themselves. stricken from the english language. we believe it, so even when we did the global analysis, i gave credence to the notion that they web of conflict of interest and violate a fiduciary duty that led to the frogs. -- led us to where we are. >> much of what elliott said makes sense, but he is addressing policy making issues. give what is the role of the regulators? what did they know? whether institutions should

regulate themselves and whether there should be a change, and those are important issues and policy issues, and congress has to deal with those, but that does not make it prosecutable. we have to remember that. as we talk about excess of greed or excessive risk-taking i personally may find it abhorrent. that does not make it a crime and we have to face that. i do not accept the fact of we have not done anything. i admit when you are in new york street, you may losewe invited thousands of people for mortgage fraud. we have indicted and convicted multibillion-dollar fraudstersit is not just a madoff but across

the country, so i want to talk about it. i think it is a very important topic, but it is not the case to suggest nothing has been done. we have to remember when you bring criminal cases, there are challenges. we need to bring them, and we do it all the time. in one panel i am accused of of prosecuting too much. >> i appreciate that, and not to take away from some remarkably

good work in many areas, but there has not been what a lot of people would like to see, which is handcuffs in wall street. which is kind of related, in new york. >> we have got a room filled with brilliant nyu law students and some percentage will go to the new york law firms, and some will be involved in these transactions. disclosure documents. we have to deal with the issue sophisticated parties. you have huge institutions. i have got to prove materiality.

problem. and we have a brilliant lawyers. some will hopefully recruit some of you. we have great people at the sec. they are working tirelessly, but these are typical reactions and cases, and the fact that we want to see people walking in>> just to follow up this concept there is greed and immorality and makes us fall short of criminal charges. can you give us an example of consideration of expanding to cover these types of behaviors? we are talking about unethical behavior, and we have chosen to draw a line. everything on this side will be

punishable. everything on this side should be civil can you think of an on the non-criminal side of the line and whether there is a suggestion to move that, because if there is a behavior that financial system, shouldn't it be criminal so it does not happen again? >> i will let them decide what ought to be criminal. i want to be clear. we are not investigating cases. they just announced a credit suisse case a week or so ago. there are a lot of cases being investigated, but i have to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

i have got to prove it is material and the people acted with criminal intent if you want to say there ought to be strict liability, but when we are talking about these cases, there is no crisis. -- no secret. this country and raised some level of regulatory action. people embrace the idea of securitization, and more complex products. for a long time, we put those people on a pedestal. they were the smart people who went on and created the structures and became rich, and they have their big houses all over new york. r.f. that has got to be a crime i think. >> when we are talking about it the problem i have is if you are a company or an individual with the greatest lawyers like

mary jo white, they are going to put those to the test. very complicated. companies are big. decision making is diffuse. we have brought a lot of cases. three years ago i would have told you we have prosecuted dozens of people who had done a billion dollar frauds. people would have said that was

very good. we have decided to take this investment and say, let's not talk about this. we are doing it, but it is a challenge. >> that is about to take away from those important cases. mary jo, you have one of the most important perspectives from being on both sides. of what do you think about the president's assessment? i am going to guess you do not laws. >> i think the breadth of the criminal laws, state and federal, are extraordinarily broad. they pick up every variety of fraud and you can imagine, and you can bring a criminal case based on real-life criminalyou can bring it, so the laws are extraordinarily broad. if you bring a criminal case to a company, is easy to do. if someone has committed a crime, they are liable. does that mean they should

drive them out of business? anytime you have got a financial scope we have gone through, you are going to have crimes committed. people are not used to that kind of co lawful failure. of we the people who do not mark to market correctly. to distinguish what is criminal behavior, reckless and risk-taking and not bow to the frenzy. what i worry about you saw richard --you saw every ceo on the networks as if they were on the most-wanted list. forget whether they committed a crime.

forget whether there is any knowledge whatsoever of of between conduct that is not criminal and what is criminal. they were beating you up for bringing to many cases but seriously, you have to proceed responsibly and not bow to the frenzy, and i worry the frenzy over takes reason and justice. >> i wonder who was on the panel but took up position. >> me. >> mary jo, you are right. there is in a tent, and civil law versus criminal law is a

debate, but the pressure to bring federal cases could have debated have there been an more significant remedies even when the cases were civil. did people know it would take, and goldman had to pay the whopping fee, which was basically the sales tax on its 12.5 $9 billion check from taxpayers but it got. it was the cost of doing business. they said, we win, and we get to continue to do this type of thing. at the time, why wasn't it necessarily a imposed upon them -- this is a business model.

a change away a structure these deals. there is a date change the way they structure of these deals. there is a good chance they knew opportunity to get a structural reform you need, and maybe the pressure to have a ceo in handcuffs would have diminished. delve into areas where you do with it. one of the major efforts was the research analyst settlement. they're are different views about whether the was good or bad, but i think you have to be careful legislative reform byyou have to be an expert about that, but i agree if you consider to be the kind of>> you are right.

good he is meticulous and saying, it is a legislative function. having said that, where u.s. high massive regulatory failure, basic rules of obligation they can legitimately say, this is exhibit a, and if you want out of this prosecution, you must change away in you do business to ensure you will not do it again. if you catch the guy selling cocaine, he is the way for 20the penalties imposed upon them are not sufficient. >> you go ahead and talk about

you do have the option of a prosecution agreement against the company were you can impose any condition you want to. if you are certain about theyou could require that as a you try to resolve it and tomy point is we are going tothat is not something the prosecutors themselves can do. a lot of these supplements it is the southern district combined. i just want to say it is easy on a panel to talk about what should have been part of the settlement, but no one has accused my friend. they are aggressive and appropriately so.

i do not know the facts, but what i do know is people are pretty tough. any settlement, there is a give- and-take, so i cannot address why something was not done, but i can say is the strength of that particular case, and these are complicated cases, and i

know it is not fun to hear with lots of different issues and these settlements, and a result of that. >> one potential source of criticism has been generated by the department itself and the was the creation of a task force dedicated to a origination and securitization that contributed to the crisis. i was fortunate enough to be a charter member when it was launched. this sounds a lot like president bush's task group, so we have these evolving

structures, and this one comes out, and one way that its approach has not been optimal. the other side of this, and many skeptics look at the structure of this new working group. it is co-chaired not just by you as being of the branding on an issue that is unpopular and whether or not this is a effort, or isn't acknowledgments something needs to get fixed. >> there is no magic to these structures. you have got a lot of well- intentioned people.

we were trying to figure out as actively as we could how we could make a real difference, and as you pointed out, and we got together, and it was very successful. we are in a time where the nation has expressed an appropriate level of outrage. we have local state prosecutors so this is an evolutionary process. the fact we are doing this suggests we have more than ever before who want to be helpful. i spent two days with eric schneider. because without the dat -- task force, i probably would not. i spent yesterday of the fcc and we talked about these

issues, so the fact and we have a structure just focusing on this does not suggest we have been doing something that is notwhat it does suggest is we need to find ways to be more nimble. we do not pretend we have every answer. we do not pretend there is only one way to do it, but it does indicate we are an im, and many committed to being responsible. there was not as much of an operational point where people were decaling individuals to work together, so you and i've built a good relationship because we are friendly, so our teams could work together, but in this case, i think four people would not have done it as well. good people working under the same roof, and we have all learned a lot so i get to see

what is the sec doing? different offices around the country, and there are a lot of offices handling this. >> isn't this a little bit late to? are we running against the cases it? letmost of those but have occurred, by 2007, this machine was grinding to of halt, so the first part of my question is a little bit too late, and one of the things suggests this is not more of a political suggestion. who is on this, and who is not?

eric has been vocal for sure but you mentioned the southern district of new york, and i just went to the celebration of 50 years of having a securities fraud unit, the oldest in the country, more than 25 prosecutors, so what does it say the cochairs, but my understanding is they are not on the committee. what does that say? that is my two-part question. >> the fact that you do not have the title of being one of co- chairs of the working group does not suggest you are nothe is a leader of the space. the southern district is a leader and will continue to be. i know he is heartbroken there

are a couple of meetings he does conflicted, and we could not get them together. >> he is the man. >> the southern district is very involved with respect to statute of limitations. a lot of these investigations are ongoing. there are plenty of statutes. we have lots of tools. there are different ways of getting around this, so people have been spending a lot of time, but i do not want to suggest that we were not at it in 2009 through 2011 and we will continue to be at it for some time.

statements and you alluded to earlier about the downside of created these task forces inside a highly politicized environment, and please correct me if i am wrong. you mentioned arthur andersen when you were district attorney and they were putting together the enron task force. they said the district was not going to participate in that have force. i would like you to address the potential dangers of this approach and whether enron task forces may be an example of how they can be expressed. >> speaking generically, my immediate reaction to task forces of have been announced

with a lot of fanfare, where is the meat? are they real is the first question you ask. you wonder what is new, and you mechanism to try to assure the or are they really bringing together resources it is helpfulthe other thing is i am not saying you cannot do good things, but it is like announce it, and there will be cases. it gets back to my friends the concern. once your form of body like that, they are a failure if they do not bring criminal cases. and you do not want that in the system. stocks to be the metric foryou want to really decide if the space at all.

>> do you think enron is an example of that? i heard there were 30 individuals charged, and only one survived appeal. >> of a historical matter, and the u.s. attorney actually opened the investigation and after i left the task force, the southern district decided not toyou have to ask others why the was. it is known not so fondly as a sovereign district of new york. they will make judgments based on where do they get the biggestthey operate on their own. they supplement the task force. they are not necessarily of part

of one, not out of protest or being left out but because they by being sovereign. >> i think mary jo is right about this. creating new task forces is great press. it does not do anything. where is the meat is all the matters. they should be evaluated onwhere we continue to disagree, the folks in the federal government work hard. they are incredibly diligent. these are judgment calls about these statutes and the degree to which they should be used. i will give you an example. we had a lot of cases.

the mutual-fund industry was doing a lot of bad stuff because there were conflicts of interest. one manifestation was criminal intent. the other was fees. the sec did not feel the negotiating the fees to where the market would have pushed of a jurisdiction. do we clearly did. bizarrely, judge posner has agreed with us with respect to specifically mutual fund fees, ceo compensation, where he said it is so broken that it is appropriate, so i think about is that address it in a more

satisfying way. >> i totally agree with you, and i completely agree. with special counsel. i have always been critical for the very reason you said, but on the one hand we have not done enough, and on the other hand taskforce those are too aggressive, but you can get it

right. i am not going to comment on enron. i defended people in that case, but a whole point is to promote the very dialogue you talked about. we do not have it all right. if this new residential mortgage-backed securities working group permit me to have more discussions with camilla harris or joe biden or others who are saying we have more flexibility in, i think that is right. i think it is on us not to about to political pressure, but i think it is incumbent on us to have as comprehensive and approach as we can so we get it right, so that is the goal. >> let me ask about these clayton documents. i do not know if anyone here has seen them. i have seen them marginally. he was speaking on very aggressively, saying we have an impending crisis, and i thought they produced a fine document. these clayton documents

essentially we say the very company brought in to do due diligence on the credit worthiness of mortgages told the banks these loans do not support your underwriting standards. it seems to me you followed this stuff up and find out where the information goes. how can you not make a structural case against the banks for failing to act with that information? i >> i cannot talk about with him. i cannot talk about anything that could be under[laughter] >> that was not that funny. [laughter]

in all of these kinds of cases you make a good point now that it comes down to what exactly was represented, what was understood, what they are getting. did they know, and did they think, they are saying this, but we have our own people who are pretty smart, and we have our own people to determine what the underlying securities are thei am saying they are very labor-intensive and exercises. >> i think there is a

recognition on the part of prosecutors and government attorneys but this is so and that is that you often can accomplish a lot more on the civil side in the way of reform and bring viable large cases, so in new york, you have its civil division, so in the pharmaceutical spays you had a -- space you have a lot of claims. you have corporate integrity and you do not have the consequence of criminal indictment driving a fifth of the big five. now the big four accounting firms out of business. it is well worth spending a lot of time on about. as a series of governments. >> one of the problems of civil authorities, and i think we have seen this a lot, is that we

have cases against these institutions see individuals charged to in these cases. their settlements appear to be covered by insurance policies or shareholders themselves. it sort of raises the question of and one of the reasons we all got in the business of being prosecutors is not just because of publicity about the impact you have through deterrence, and the sense i get is that while they may be helping valuable goals, are they going to get us to the point where this activity does not pay off

for the individual? they got to keep just about every single penny. how do we fill that gap? >> those individuals commit a crime? even so, arguably it is a case where it is appropriate to bring a criminal prosecution. insurance is kind of the name of the game, practically in the white-collar arena. it might be one of the places where deterrence work. everybody on wall street knows about that. i think in the short term, there is a deterrent effect. is an effect. as i would always say to assistance, pay attention to that vehicle of deterrence. should that person actually be do not just jump to whether this is punishment for this individual but a deterrent for people similarly situated. plainly, we get a lot of cases in the securities fraud after the sec brought one or two or three civil actions and the guy

did not get that. he was a recidivist, so we needed a bigger hammer. you do have to pay a lot of attention to that. you see in the justice department and in a lot of arenas making a specific point of saying we really are appropriately targeting individuals for that very reason. >> i think this raises a structural issue which is the standard is necessarily and rightly very high. the specific intent, which severna theory you are using. when you bring a civil cases there is no deterrent. i think we can accept that. we need to figure out where this may not be sufficient evidence to get actual intent against the ceo, and it has always struck me that that is where the civil remedies, and.

the five people who are up in line even though there may not be direct evidence of their culpability, they are barred, because we have to create an environment where that is the responsibility that carries a burden. why was not the ceo of any of the bank's removed at the point in time when they were selling and securitizing jong. even if you cannot prove the criminal case. this is why i say, we are giving them all of their rights but none of the downside risks. i think there is a way to craft genuine remedies in the middle that will say to people at the top, you will be held accountable. there is a price to be paid. >> i think you are getting remedies. the sarbanes-oxley. they are beginning to get active in that. there are a lot of assumptions in your scenario that need to be proven. >> they usually do.

>> one area where this was done was part of a resolution. the prosecution agreement which is essentially part of that. that firm had to go out of the tax shelter business. there are available remedies, but i think we have to go and be very careful to think that we know enough. >> i want to be clear. i do not want this to be -- both as a defense lawyer, as i was

for many years now, and we cannot discount the deterrent effect. when we investigate cases, even if we do not bring them. the ceo or cfo for major institution feels he is subject to criminal liability, when we interviewed them, we put them in the grand jury, they have lawyers. this is hanging over their heads for years. at the end, we may decide not to prosecute. i think it is inaccurate to suggest that does not have a strong effect. i am not sure ceos feel as if they can do whatever they want. around the country, when i meet with ceos, in a whole array of different. >> let me shift gears for a

second. how would answer your rhetorical question about why we did not seem more structural change, it is, the sec insisted on those terms, goldman would not have settled. that reminded me of the second part of your question. why, when we were bailing the banks out, did we not insist on more punitive measures against financial institutions? my transition, in part of that, some have said it is because of the revolving door between financial regulators and wall street. treasury is a great example of going back and forth from the banks to the regulators and back again.

it tends to lead towards agency capture and it leads to a lack of diversity. that may seems far from our topic, let me continue. it has been suggested that this revolving door is in criminal justice. many people have pointed to that as one of the explanations as why there have not been more robust law enforcement. i was, for five years, it made me a better prosecutor. >> to your clients know you just said that? >> it was a long time ago. they would not be surprised. >> i did not think there would be happy. >> broken clock twice a day kind of thing. you were in a rolling stone piece. they describe you as the doctor

frankenstein. of the offspring. just today, we were with the new york times. my close friends, he is leading the security unit with a seven figure paid it. -- 7-figure pay day. >> he said jealously. [laughter] >> what do you make of this criticism? i know you do not agree with it. i do not agree with it yvette. what do you think of the optics that are causing people to question the integrity of our system? >> the optics are an issue. it raises questions. you are reasoning back with. a slap on the wrist when they prior days.

that must be it. i do not buy it at all. you have to be cognizant and deal with those. you do not undermine the reality and the even hand of justice. government. if you are like me, you have hired everyone. if you know somebody, you are going to get a better result. i think, if anything theyou do not get a better result if you of the friend of ai think the system is benefited have been in the government and vice versa. when i was hiring assistants, what i'd most like to see was someone who had been on the defense side and had been beaten up by overzealous

prosecutors. that is not to say it does not help you in the private sector to have been with the sec or the attorney general. you understand how they think. you understand what is persuasive. there is nothing wrong with that. >> do you want to comment? you have been on the receiving end, i think unfairly. >> sure. first of all, the system is a great system. most of the prosecutors are a career prosecutors around the country. i do think having people go in and out of government is great. it makes us more flexible. it makes us more nimble. in my mind, i am far better because for 10 years i litigated against some of the sections i now supervise. i had a much better sense of what large firms do.

i was able to look at cases from a defense perspective and try to identify what the government needed to do. frankly, i think having career prosecutors and people inside and out generates ideas that we were speaking about. i travel around the world. i deal with my counterparts all over the world. in many societies, going in and out is not what they do. people stay in the government. they take a different path in law school. if you're going to serve in the government rather than the private sector. there is no question, as a result of that, in a lot of countries, they are less innovative and less able to deal with the situation. the majesty of our system is we have people, great people, who are making a lot of money in firms and what to serve in the that to be sacrificed. >> let me talk about it set up. i think you agree that the

revolving door has been a problem. i do not want to put words in your mouth. >> you did that, but that is okay. [laughter] >> i think it has been a significant problem in my timei think as of the impact of the revolving door. for the same reason, and less -- i am much less bothered by this in prosecutions. my wife is a psychologist. she could give you a fancy term for that. i learned you studied psychologythat may be my own distorted view from my own experiences. part of it is, outliers, in a law school, and when we get out, we are trained to represent our client. that gives us a degree of flexibility to go from side to side with a little bit more than somebody who is a banker or from a regulatory perspective.

i would like to get your thoughts. >> i see it differently. i agree with mary jo, i think the revolving door can be good. you get more the versed -- more diverse perspectives. the problem is not whether somebody has been at you have people who are willing to play many different roles. the problem is not whether somebody has been at a big firm the question is, have they so internalized their arguments, the ones they made at the big firms, but that they find it incapable of understanding their new position. i will give you an example. i think i could have gotten along well with harvey, who could have been a great security defense lawyer became chairman of the sec. he said, you are going to see a kinder, gentler assisi. -- sec. i do not want a kind and gentle sec. he had eternalized the defenses he had been making.

perhaps, he neutered himself. made it impossible to make the judgments that needed to be made. that is a different issue. i think mary jo and you are right. getting diverse uses fine. the problem we have is not a revolving door issue. it is the peter principle on steroids. we promoted the wrong people. in other words we took the people who made bad decisions that led to the crisis and we said, you must have learned from the mistakes. now you are in charge of solving it. [laughter] i did not understand what we -- why we would take the same mechanic who had broken the engine and say go in and speed it up again. that is a different issue. we all know the peter principle. it got worse and worse. >> you have no idea. with that, i think it is time to

take questions from the audience. there we go. up front? >> hi, one of the things that strike me about the lack of prosecutions in terms of easing prosecutions is what has been going on with the robo-signers. somewhere between jimmy diamond -- jamie dimon and the $8 burger flipper he fills out a form that says he has reviewed these files. i have seen the note, when he has not. i have noted this delay in payment, when he has not verified it. and on and on. they are 10 or 20 datapoint, which they verify which they have not. they sign it. they get it notarize or it is a false notary. they are just stepping in and signing it not by a notary.

-- they are just signing it. that is submitted to a court. when i went to law school, we call that perjury. i have a hard time imagining there is not a building that would run a 90% successful prosecution rate on those cases. who decided that the law does not matter and the rules of for centuries, do not matter? let's just do this down and dirty. why are they not prosecuted it everywhere? >> it is the low hanging fruit. >> i am detecting a point of view in that question. [laughter] i am not going to talk about robo-signing. they are talking about different ways of settling it. let me suggest a couple of points.

do not assume that prosecutions are not being made. if he used some of the examples, it is hard to answer these questions. because i cannot and will not talk about the robo signing. you are not, those of the cases that you are going to get a low level people. you can try to work your way up. there have been tons of cases. they talk to lawyers and accountants and brokers who are in jail. in nevada, we have had a series of cases of major fraud on home associations. my point is not to take away from your question. it has not happened. at the same time we think, how have we not indicted the ceo's of major institutions, we are talking about robo-signing.

it is this role. we want to get people, we are not not sure where it is. there may be the fraud, as he described, of making a representation you did not. those who will talk about whether or not -- you do have to be careful. >> come on. [laughter] >> is it a process . i would say a fair bit of sophisticated cases have been brought.

we don't do a good job of explaining it. and you shounlt assume. and i think that you have to be careful but there are lots of case where is, in fact we are working our way up. >> where's our man with the mic? right here in the front row. sorry. >> i know a lot of what people are angry about is what appears to be a hypocrisy as far as prosecuting rich people for crimes as opposed to poor people and i think a couple of times you mentioned how good the lawyers are for executives and how they can hire good council and i was wondering how much that should or can or does play a role in prosecute and

your use of discretion as opposed to just letting it affect the outcome at trial. >> it's a great question. you know i testify about things like the crack pot of december parties. we had the largest organized takedowns in the history of the country. and this is no question and we do gangs. gang prosecution are a huge priority. there's no question that in our society, different people have different quality of representation. anyone who says that is disingenuous. if you have mary jo white and she says i want to make a presentation you listen long and hard and you prepare accordingly because you know that the person is going to have great representation and in sophisticated cases there is great representation. but the other way can benefit

us because while we're investigating, if i can get the lawyer to make a presentation to me about the facts that can jump start it. now that may be in the defense' interest if they believe that by jump starting they can make this go quicker but kit also be in the government's interest. so they can be more efficient. it's a factor in the sense that we know that complicated cases are highly represented. but it doesn't affect our decision-making but what it could do is that a good lawyer is able to show me why we shouldn't bring the case and they're able to show in a very good way what the facts are. sometimes you think in other case where is lawyers are less good you wish you would do that. i see that when presentations are made to me. some lawyers are excellent and some lawyers are less good. sometimes those are in complicated cases. and someone picked a good

lawyer vs. the bad lawyer. it's up to me and my team not let the quality of the lawyering in my way -- in any way intimidate us but to get to the bottom of the facts. >> this may sound like a platitude but the prosecutor's job is to do the right thing. when i was in the government -- i know you're laughing at that but really they mean it and they ought to mean it us a. i'm not suggesting that it's always the case but it should be. if you get a presentation from a lawyer that's not so good look, that wasn't an effective presentation. let's get this right, make sure the client doesn't suffer because of the lawyer. you can't do all the work of every defense attorney but you do try to make up for representation that isn't at that level for all people. but i'm not suggesting you can

rectify it all. >> not to be superficial about it. it's not that hard to indict an individual. if all you want to do is get a good press release or a good -- a lot of people applauding the government, you know, we could do it and in a year or two or three years later, maybe we could pay the consequence. our job is to get it right and that's the experience -- >> the hard thing is to do the investigation properly, thoroughly read the e-mails,, come up with the theory and find out what happens. i think the frustration that i had and the public has right now is that the federal government is getting in the way. i don't think that's the case. while i have been very differential and i will continue to be to mary jo and

lanni. "the o.c." c., the office of the control of the currency the primary federal agency overseeing the banks went in to shut us down. we will then supplement your jurisdiction to join you to investigate all the issues that metastasized. finally we won 5-4 to get the jurisdiction to look at the issues that should have been investigate. so this was a grotesque heinous example of industry capture. the o.c.c. is controlled by the banks. the lawyer was litigating, he was in the office with you you hired him. he was litigating against the lawyers for all the banks and the federal government. the federal government was there as the puppet, the pawn,

the mouthpiece for the banks. that was heinous. while we today are saying, yes, things are better and give full credit to what she is saying, until pretty recently the federal government was on the wrong side. >> i don't want to suggest -- i don't want to talk about any particular matter. there's absolutely no question. we need for this to work vigilant regulators. they're the experts and we clearly don't want regulators that are captured by an industry. i mean, obviously that is not something that we can promote. >> right back there. >> i was wondering if in that 60 minutes you said, some of it may have seen sort of portrayed that particular -- i know you may not be able to talk about

that instance someone from country wide who said, i had this information, right? i think when a lot of people look at that that wrees they say, hey, look, there's a person who has this information, is that possibly a way that maybe that visceral need -- you're limited in what you can take on. you can't take everything. i want to know if you can respond to that. >> for those who missed the 60 minutes, my mother may forgive you for missing it. but basically i went on "60 minutes" to talk about this issue. but there was someone from country wide who said i knew about the wrongdoing at country wide. in the f.b.i., no one ever spoke to me. not in my way to be de-- not in any way to be defensive but that dated me.

we're a big country. i can't explain in a particular case why somebody wasn't interviewed. people who work with me know they find that completely unacceptable. i'm very tough about interviewing witnesses and prosecutors interviewing witnesses as well, not just the agents. look if you're a whistleblower and you have something to say, you should say something. if we say, look, i want whistleblowers coming forward. if you have information and you want to know, my hope is that you wouldn't wait for somebody to knock on the door. you can tweet, let the government know that you can talk and hopefully someone will pick up of -- pick up. but do i get it. we're a decentralized system. we have 94 u.s. attorney generals. the f.b.i. is terrific but everybody's busy. i can't say in one particular

case why she wasn't interviewed. i can say she should have been interviewed. i want her to be interviewed of i want every whistleblower to come forward. but that's sort of the reality of an imperfect world. >> let me ask a follow-up question for all of you to answer if you'd like. one of the remarkable things that we've seen and when you look at the savings and loans crisis and you saw more than 1,000 if not thousand of banks executives who went to jail for these cases an you look at what's happened recrenly, one of the things that has happened the amount available for better or for worse. i don't mean to suggest it was for worse. after the september 11 attack, there was a tremendous refocus of the f.b.i. resources away from white collar crime. i'm not criticizing that but it is certainly a reality. you saw at the very beginning

that mary jo at the end o your reign, from 2000, to 2008 that happened. by the time we started a mortgage fraud group, the amount of resources available were so much less. and they started to ullpg resources back into doing mortgage fraud but really that meant all other types of white collar fraud suffered from investigators and what you saw was a real degradation of agents who had not been spending five or six or seven years training in these investigations. how much of an impact do you think the lack of available resources have really well trained experienced resources and in new york we were embarrassed but outside we

dealt with one white collar f.b.i. to do all the cases? how much impact do you think we had? >> i don't agree with the official premise. i'm often asked about the snl crisis and say, well why is it different now? i actually think going back to what i said before that it's someone in my view in the s.n.l. crisis. people all over the country were indicted and prosecuted or sued civilly. and they tended to be local bankers in local areas sometimes for relatively modest amounts of money. and i woument would say to all of you in this room that's what's happened now. that's what's helping over the last three years. the s.n.l. crieses we were putting in jail the wall street barrons. but don't assume because you

are all living in manhattan that right now in all these investment fraud and for gauge fraud that we aren't doing it. i think what's going on is somewhat analogous. as the f.b.i. director says, the number one priority will be to keep that country safe and safe from terrorism. i'm the system attorney general of the criminal division. there's now a criminal surt division. congress decided we needed to have one because there are nations, of course, constant vigilant fight against terrorism but with the cutbacks there has been -- and i fought very hard for this. there are far more increased resours to but what we would call traditional crime and white collar crime. i don't think we'll be in a post 911 scenario where a good

amount of resources and there's no question that we have more resources. and that's the reason why we do need more things like this task force because we are in a world where partnerships matter. the criminal division cannot longer work alone. we have to work with u.s. attorneys and we have to work with the great a.g.'s and the like and the's why we have more task forces. >> i would observe this. i think he's right. the organization that comes from the office down to justice is right in terms of where you've got start. i having said that i think that the lack of resources is too often used if for excuse for failure of cases to have been made. i hate to roll out the a.g.'s office when i was there. i think we had 10 lawyers total. 10. compared to the thousands of agents and the f.b.i. and the white collar. i think somehow having fewer

resources is better. i've often said the s.e.c. is like g.m. you can't change. or change what you need to be clanged because you're not thinking as creatively and therefore resourced stressed. there's something that can be said when you are forced to say how do we make the cases that matter most. i think somehow resources get in the way. there were fewer resources around the nation because they were schiffed away from organized crime and securities to terrorism. and that made sense. but that didn't diminish the o.c.c. they had their entirely regular apparatus and they're the ones that should have are had the information flow at least to flag the crises that were emerging. when it culminated in the

financial eye sys everyone who came close to sub prime debt new it was being marketed illegally and improperly. that is where they fail. >> a little known fact is that a lot of the big u.s. attorney's offices and the s.e.c. it's the lawyer who is do the investigating. so even though you had a dislocation of resources after 911 for obvious reasons, still do it's easy for me to say on the eight floor. we were diverted and should have been from the white collar cry. the s. empt c. has brought in other things like brought in traitors. that's a good thing which i think is porn as well. >> i would say that generally that characterization is true about the attorneys doing

investigation except when -- in the relief program. >> it has to be said. if you look at someone like the director or his bepity. i mean, they transform. they've just transformed the s.e.c. and you have to to be nimble. it's very important to me that even in my own division that any case would be ok. in other words, you weren't going to be able to hide behind this old case just to shape it like the beautiful vase and as a result of this just to give you one little anecdote. they probably never had more than three or four trials a year. last year we had with 20 lawyers, we had 17 trials. it's just a focus.

so i couldn't agree more with all these point. we have to be nimble and we have to keep examining how we're doing things. and our regulators have to do that as well. >> i'm sad to say that we are out of time. but thank you to the panel. thank all of you for come -- coming. [applause] >> one year after being in prison in cairo for his facebook page that helped spark the revolution, wael ghonim

came. he's interviewed by david gergen. this is just over an hour. >> my name is trey grace. i'm the director of the institute of politics. we're excited to have everybody in a packed house. toe's conversation is going to be moderated by david gergen who's the director of the kennedy school center for public leadership. c.p.l. along with middle eastern initiative. please join me in welcoming david gergen. >> thank you. >> good afternoon and welcome to the kennedy school forum. we're delighted that you're here. on behalf our our guest, we'd

like to begin today by asking everyone to stand for a moment of silence in memory of those egyptian who is have died in the last three days. >> thank you. and i must tell you that it's a wrenching experience for our guest to be here today. you know, his heart calls for him to be in egypt. and he had made a commitment to be in the united states but know how difficult this is for him to be here and how eager he is not to be seen as "the leader of the revolution." but as someone who is a major contributor. i think it's worth understanding that a year ago

today our guest was imprisoned and blindfolded unsure of whether he might die at any moment in cairo. egyptian security forces were just awakening to the fact that he had been the anonymous figure behind a facebook page which he had started out of dubai which had an enormous impact upon young people especially but people all across egypt who had been oppressed for so long. and this facebook page along with contributions by others as he's so anxious to point out which started on the 25th of january a year ago and it was three days later that he was arrested and he told the security forces who he was.

the word started leaking out. and when he was finally released after spending that time his wife and children were uncertain whether they would see him again. when he was finally released, he was a hero. and that revolution has become of enormous, historic significance for the world holding out hope for the people in the world that they too can find freedom and democracy. so we're honored wael ghonim that you're here with us today. thank you very, very much for joining us. [applause] he's here in part because he's authored a new book. this is the early events but

there's a hard back called "revolution 2.0." the power of the people is greater than the people in power a memoire. you should know that there's going to be a book signing and a chance to greet him personally at the charles hotel. it will start around 5:15. we're on a fairly tight schedule. you'll have a chance to come over and get a book. i'm told that the first 100 people to arrive will actually be sbite told a free book. i've had the pleasure of spending some hours here in the last cup of days reading this book and i commend it to you. it's a wonderful tale. i think that for those of us who are interested, concerned about public leadership and how one leads in today's world it's a really instructive tale.

it's one that classes will be studying in the future about how one can use the power of the media. let's turn to the star of the show. i'd like you to tell us about your life. tell people of who you are, where you came from, where you got be where you are. could you tell us to us in short form now? >> first of all, i'm happy to be here. it's very hard to be in the u.s. today while what's going on in egypt. i feel very torn. i have to say that i'm following the news as they happen in egypt. but i hope i'm contributing by being among you for what we as pyre for the new egypt. basically the reason why i wrote this book is to answer

many of the questions that put me as a leader or a hero as the one who sparked the revolution as you have said because i don't think this is right. i'm an ordinary person. i happen to use some tools which i think in the hands of everyone one of us and everyone can actually make use of those tools and things have developed, i learned through the experience which is i wanted to share those things with everyone and at the owned the day tell people that this was no magical, you know, amazing, behind the scene secret, that made egypt revolt. egypt revoted because there was a regime that was basically oppressing all of the people, not because o a facebook page or an individual calling for an individual to go on the street. i was born in egypt. traveled to saudi arabia. lived there for 15 years and then came back to cairo. i finished my school, became

you know, went to -- study commuter engineering and did my degree at the american university in cairo. and worked for google. >> so when you came back from saudi arabia as a teenager and then you went to cairo university, you sort of found computer engineering but you were very interested by technology. you started a website when you were 18 or so? >> yeah, i think a lot of people like to call me -- i'm a geek. i love computers more than anything else. i believe in -- the first time i logged on the internet, i thought this is heaven on earth for me as many would think. i got addicted to it. the first thing that came to my mind, i want to do something

useful and practical. i'm a muslim -- i knew a lot of people did not have access to to all the educational audio and video stuff and the internet was the -- using audio. so i started using audio anonymously on our website. no one knew i was that man until i was released because that's when, you know, the current owners of the website told people while i was in the prison. and i learned a lot from there experience. >> which one? >> i was working anonymously. i was working from different people around the world. i don't know them. i've never met them. that helped me develop my skills and things got to working. i belt a friendship with one of

the guys who hired me in his start of company was an e-mail company. so i have to deprotey much the same thing. that was the whole experience, the consistent thing and the experience is i'm always used to the virtual world. i think it's -- it's a nice world for people like me -- sometimes it would be better than the real world. but now, when you're at cairo university, i'm a little bit unclear when he -- you were in the united states. you were in contact with some people including young women on the internet. >> i wouldn't greet with what he said. >> well, tell us a little bit more. >> i wanted to get married. it was very hard to get married in egypt at a very early age. i was 18. in the website i started not

get married -- i started before converts of islam to communicate together a place where a lot of people meet. i found that lady. i talked to her. we kept chatting and it turns out, you know, when i traveled to the u.s. the chances -- one of my friends happened to know her and he was recommending her for me. and we just got married. so i found my wife online. >> but you got married within five months. wow, that's unbelievable. you never thought you were going to neat girl. you had no idea. >> there was a chance and that was one of the reasons why it made me keen on making it happen and thank god i'm happily married to my wife and we've been married for 10 years. >> with two children. with a lot of issue by working balance because you were so committed. >> she's used to it though.

but she convert. >> no, she converted before. >> you finished up at the university of cairo. but then you went on to the m.b.a. your book was how important the m.b.a. was in preparing you -- >> that's advertising for harvard, i think. >> no, no. we compete with the school across river. >> but you said that you learned the marketing was quite interesting about that. >> i think the signs of marketing was critical and my whole career passed. the good thing ant the internet is that you can apply the feedback. it's not like a typical ad where you have to monitor and track. so it added a lot of signs to

the skill i was developing over time. and i was always -- i was always scared about, you know, seeing ways to change people. that's something that makes me feel you know, feel good and keep going. i never thought at that time when i was studying that i use the skills that i acquired which we would talk about on the page that would make a little bit of a difference which would have a relationship between those who a active in human and political life and the audience which is the mainstream who is listening to what they are saying. you want them to relate to them. >> i want to come back to that because it's really interesting, part of your success and why it worked. let's walk through just a bit more through the biography. so you came out of the university of -- american university in cairo in 2005 or so? >> so it was only seven years ago. less than seven years ago you

graduated. >> yeah. but then you had a couple of internet -- >> i feel old now. >> you had a couple of internet jobs but you wanted to work to goog. you applied once and you didn't get it. >> i was obsessed with google because of the facthat i believe the internet can help change the world. i know this sounds very, you know cliche or it doesn't make sense to a lot of people but that's just how i see things working for a company that makes mass scale ads. the typical question was why do you want to wock for google? >> it wasn't the thing. what i like about google is the democracy of, you know,

offering people information. probably people living here do not understand the value that we have equal access to information. in a repressive regimes people only have propaganda. they make the smart ones afraid and not willing to change and the rest of the people who might not be fortune enough to access information would get into the propaganda machine. so i believe the internet was kind of one of the forces helping and changing this equation. >> is that an advertisement for google? >> yes. >> google doesn't need advertising. >> i don't believe facebook does at this point. >> i just remembered one of my friends told me once -- i would envy you because you work for google for marketing, and

google doesn't really need any marketing. so what do you do all day? >> when you started working for google, you were working in cairo but they asked you to relocate to dubai in january of 2011? >> 2010. >> 2010. all right. at that time, you did not see yourself as an activist. >> no, the fact that i'm an ordinary person, easily intimidated. i was part of the group of people that were scared. they don't want to overdo things. you know, like you have your limits. you can crack jokes about mubarak but you're not calling for a process or publicly go against it. this is one of the reasons why i think credit taking -- i took a lot of credit in this revolution which should not have happened because that time, i remember from 2005 until 2010 there were brave

people and there were people against mubarak saying the price of it -- while most of us on if pain streem side we were watching. we sympathize by them but we don't think they're doing the right thing because there niese hope and you're putting yourself in danger. that was the mentality of many egyptians until the time until -- things were getting worse but we weren't seeing light at the end of the tunnel. moment was someone who decided -- mouhammad was someone who decided he might run for presidency. we want him as a president about 2,000 egyptians joined at that time. it became very active and i noticed a lot of my friends were getting into, yes, we will go after this because we're so -- we're so mad, frustrated we

need any solution. anything will be better than what we're in. this is how i got addicted to politics. >> by the way if you would if your cell phone's on would you please turn it off. apparently it's interfering with sop of the sound in here for others. >> as this unfolded you saw the growing interest and then the young man who was killed in alex sand dri yea hamid saahid. tell us about that. >> so the whole process of the change campaign was kind of very slow and there was one problem which was change was personalized. change equals it. >> he was looked upon as a savior? >> yes, that's why i call the

second chapter "searching for a savior." egyptian people have to save themselves but still because of the media, you know, it's always the immediate yeah that creates all these strong perceptions. it was all around him. it was easy for the regime to attack. it was easy for the regime to say he was a trayor. he is someone who works with israel and having a global agenda, to -- i don't know to cut egypt in pieces and all this propaganda stuff. and people were kind of buying that. despite the fact that no one would, you know, if you talk to everyone on the treat are you happy. they would say, no, i don't think this is the right way to go. so when sahid died, i got very emotional i got very frustrated seeing that this is basically the regime. they commit a lot of crimes and no one is held accountable and

they keep getting more brutal and brutal. and no one is stopping them. so i told -- i should use my talent in exposing the -- you know, the human right violations of the ministry of internal affairs hoping to buy this exposure, they are going to create sort of public anger and by having this done, they would be more cautious. they would change some of their, you know, rules and conditions because the worse thing you do to a dictator is expose him to the largest number of people. you count ter propaganda that they are doing on everyone. nd -- and it was -- i started the page anonymously because of two things. one is the -- i want to see my kids. i want to keep going. and definitely for my personal security. and the other is because change should not be personalized.

people easily connect with codes that are not personalized. i might put myself in a position that you're abusing the effort. and the second is because everyone subscribes to and ones. this is what we saw. that's the biggest thing i noticed. everyone was owning it as if they were the one who called for it. if everyone asked on the 14th of january let's go on the 25th on the street, probably it would have -- would not have successed. the first day 46,000 joined. >> on your facebook page. >> and the third day -- i've reached by then 100,000. and i started thinking, you know i need one to help and i

got one of the guys helping me on the page. i told him do you want to be on the page? sure. and that guy i never met for in my life until after the resolution. and we became, you know, we became -- his name is abraham. we managed the page. through the experience of going through -- the experience of this page, i've learned a lot of things and i've applied a lot of what i have studied at school or what i've learned from previous experiences. and the most important one engagement is more important than activism. >> engagism? >> i call it engagism. at the own the day a lot of people want to have some bleach and start you know, isolating themselves from the main stream

which should not happen. what you should do is try and get the mainstream. most of time activities or projects, ideas come from the members an we do survey. we use continue survey to ask people do they want to do. it was nonconfrontational. i always -- never use the language like the regime say. all of that would help with the people making the connection with the page. it was just one of us feeling the same feelings we have. people were very empowered whenever we made the decisions on should we go do the silent or not and then people participate in the survey and based on the result of the survey we decide on going or not. and they are going for it.

>> there were other page that had been developed or at least one other page that was in memory of this child that was killed in alexandria. you want to invite people in. >> yeah, there was a page that was created, you know, i think two days before i created the page or one day. and that page was very famous. it calls for an audience. the profound page is like we're not going to leave you, you dog os the -- dogs of the regime. they were very confrontation nal. they kept going and they're very confrontational and i remember one time we were doing

the silent stance which is an idea by one of the members of the patriots. let's go to street, face the beech. many people that was very silly. the regime does not care about them protesting in the minutesry of downtown affair shouting mubarak. to me and for the non prontationnal people like me there was one way to express our anger. that attract more main street people. i believe the dictators want their opponents to seem like extremists. they want to sice late them from being able to reach to the masses. so back again, i talked to the guy, one of thed a minutes. and i told him can you give ne

statistics of your game. it turns out they doubled the participation they have. despite the fact they had 65,000 more members. i wonder why? do you think why? and we starred a conversation where basically i told him that your approach is the reason. people don't feel connected with what you are saying. people don't wlike you are saying. your very con frodgetationnal -- confrontational as you wanted it to be. you say in your book that condy had been an important influence on your in taking this approach. >> yes. i admire candy for his approach and his philosophy. and i believe the more i read about him, the more i learn from what he has done, the more i think he was ultimately

right. probably that's not the right approach for many people. and i have these arguments with some of the revolutions i just don't relate to what they do. we even were cutting parts of the movie and putting -- the gandy movie and subtitling it. i remember people were very angry because of the police reaction and i got this season. and the movie was killing peep. they can torture my body, kill me, but one thing they're not going to get out of me which is my self-respect for myself. i don't know if he said that. that was the main message we wanted to give. we're going to get old by being nonviolent but not responding to their violence by showing them that they are ugly because

of what they are doing and we were civilized. >> as you know, martin luther king was a student of gandy. made a big different in the civil rights movement in this country. but your approach to the facebook page itself was interesting. >> i'm joking about it. >> we talk about civic engagement. the -- but did you four steps that you wanted people who came to the four -- talk three. >> at the end of the day, you are convincing people don'ting a code and being active in it. that's the whole thing. that's what we are trying to do. so it starts with people liking the page and then you know, becoming active and getting

active online company and finally going to the street in nonconfrontational form. so for example the very first thing i launched was meant to be to brand the page. so we ask people to take prisoners and hold up signs. and the reason why it was very important to tell the audience. they are egyptians. you know, my name is ahmad. i'm 25 years ode. and i will tell you -- [speaking foreign language] so people started to make the connection that i am just like one of the. taking to the streets was not planned as -- you know, as anything until this guy came up with the idea of the silent stance which is pretty nonconfrontational. i have to also say that now i'm

analyzing what i have done. but in fact everything the's happening continually and reactively. it's very easy for us to say this is the case. this is the style. but that wasn't in my mind. what about your own personal conversion? you tread book that the -- when you saw the response to the face book page started to grow up. that you had this next friday -- it brought feelings for you. that's how you express your own sense of making this commitment and billy this is the center of your life. >> yeah, the thing -- it gets into your life without meaning to do it. one reason is because of the fact that the internet is very -- and the feedback is very innocent and very spontaneous.

you see the feedback. actually that was one of the reason why a lot of people were -- they right away see the premise for the good things they have done. they see hundreds of flights and say i want to do the same. even you know, my rock anything that question do for the country. just came as as in the the event. i think a lot of egyptians after the 14th -- before the 14th they would never have sold. they are ready to go to the street and die for a cohn. everybody completely changed. let me ask you one last question and then we're going to ask those of you who like to for tiss pate. we'll go to your question. so if you want to ask a

question if you could start lining up now that would be terrirving. and then i'm going to go ahead and ask you another question now. we have a member of the fasfult here in martial gans. it dates all the way back to cesar chavez in this country. marshall raises the question, whether the internet if you look at what's happened since the elections, many of the people come out to demonstrate. there is some concern that the islamic both here has done far bether in the election process that the people in the street

have done. is the internet very good at mobilizing people but not too good of organizing people so you have party-type structures? there's a big argument in this country about the place of the internet and social change. >> i think -- the internet is good at doing both. the fact why -- it was only a few months before the election took place and a lot of us as activists to where we were business with other things. because there were a lot of issues happening in the country. and none have effectively use -- i haven't seen anyone use the internet to organize the activity. you can definitely manage campaigns online and make something happen out of it. i want to make this point

clear. i i'm not disapointed -- i'm talking about myself, not on behind of everyone else. i took to the street because i think that the egyptians have been denied the right to choose whom they want for over 60 years. i did not take to the streets who say that x or y or z. i'm i believe that egyptian is far better not within having a leder who might have taken over and started doing their version of democracy once again. it's bet tore have the people choose whom they want. and if a few years if they don't perform things, i probably don't have an economic problem. but most of the problem who are on the streets they are going

to be out of it. as far as democracy. we know exactly that our job is to make sure that egypt becomes democratic. and then making sure that the democratic process is continuous and no one is hijacking it. inside i'm not going let anyone -- join. i think one of the most important goals of the revolution. >> ok. that's very, very lepful. why don't we go to the floor? the traditional here as most of you know that is chance for questions. there's one question per customer. and if you wanted to -- and

plead remember that each question ends with a question mark. identify yourself. >> it's an honor to share a room with you. a question, provincial question about the you of america and all this. interest it's interesting that you work for one american company. you've built their page. there seems to be a very continued relevance to what this country does. others have criticized the u.s. promping up -- prompting it. in's so much worry about decline. who are we? do we industrial a role. what do you think is the special el advance if at all? >> wonderful expressed

question. >> i saw you on twitter, by the way. , so one thing i want to say is. one of i'm exposed to a certain side. the wisdom could be argued by many people. so the sfact everyone should get over -- and mute it in flont of everyone and then we had analysts who do different things. if you ask me what made this revolution success. it was nothing to do with the u.s. i -- at the owned the day, the u.s. is a country that wants to service its own interest. we have a historical. you know even if they go

against the values. so there is nothing for me as someone who, you know, uses logic, who leaves. i think the u.s. has taken sides. after the fact that it was clearly going to happen. mihmry clinton saying that the government is a stable, we're friends. i don't think the u.s. had mig to do. it was better on the wing horse. sorry. ails i think there has been a lot of credit given to me and giving the fage -- fact. >> people were not happy.

strike among zircht workers. people were just missing the strigger -- the trigger. and the trigger great. it didn't have anything to do with the u.s. looking at how technology has helped i think this is pretty much a way from as -- i wouldn't give the u.s. the cre for having facebook as people use tools. i know i sound very bad trying to get the u.s. out of the picture because i saw a lot of critics and some of the western newspapers about what role they are in the country. this is what they us to do. if the interest of the egyptian people does go again as their personal or the country in which i highly respect.

that's normal. they are going to basically take the side of the american people. egyptians are cainle of learning as much as you can. but we are very sensitive to enter feemplet -- interest here. it's always taken in the op sit way. people don't excite the fact that the u.s. is telling us what to get done. there were others y you should be helped. and the economy was one of them and making sure that. we visit via phone line. but i assume the rest is angry.

sorry. >> can you decipher for us this terrible football tragedy because i understand that the cairo team has a group of sporter and they're the most violent of the demonstrators. how did this happen? was -- it was 67-9 or something. did the police stand back? did the shim team have a different insight. can you give us some of your insight >>ically basically i don't like judge before basically, i don't like to judge but what i can see is that they can do their job. a very bad drop that resulted

for the first time, by the way the number of people die in a soccer match in egypt. there has been a lot of rumors where people are saying they're paying the price of being -- they never get involved with politics and they were always on them because they are very organized. they can do a lot of process to remove that. i think that what happens was terrible. whether it's intentional or unintentional, it's appear crime. all these incidents happen. no one is held -- at the owned of the day, they establish all these comedies. at the end of the day, no one has paid the political crime because this is a split crime.

this is what frustrates people and create another waive of process that have to to face him. people do not want to process or die or anything. he's been hospitalized now. so i think that the situation is very critical. according to as many people, want to end military rule as soon as possible, three elections. most of the people said yes to the president. we end this vicious circle of violence that is happening right now. >> what would you do if you were there not? >> i would have been protesting

today, and the movement, which i belong to, created a political lobbying group. we are calling the parliament to speed up the process of elections. the elections should start as soon as february. we have a president by april. the road map is that egypt would have a president by the end of june. >> please. >> i'm an undergraduate at the college. i was wondering if w he could wondering -- wondering if you could talk about what challenges egypt faces as it transitions and if it can sustain the buildup of civil society we have seen? >> so, the biggest challenge as far as i see is the economy. egypt, 1 out of 2 people live under $2 a day. a lot of people are saying that we are heading towards a poverty revolution where the poor people are going to go in the streets

and start calling for real change. and that would have been a completely different style that what we have seen on january 25. the economy is a big problem. it will acquire all of the egyptians to unite and work together. and this is why, when we created our political movement we had people from different groups and ideology is all together because we believe that egypt is not going to go forward with egypt curses egypt mentality. i am islamist, you are a secular guy. we have to argue about ideology as well someone is lying down on the floor because he cannot afford going to the hospital to get his broken leg fixed. so economy is very critical. and going to the transition of democracy has been obviously a pain. it is not easy. this country is recovering from

60 years of military rule. it will be very hard, we will see a lot of challenges in the next few years. i think technology comes -- can play our role in spreading the awareness and getting more people in power the movement have -- we have created. now we are building a system where we can organize or work together and make sure that everyone is quite well informed. the activities have been carried we announce them online and so on. as well as an education, there is a huge space that technology can play. that is seen egypt to recover from the military role, which will not happen before they leave the politics and go back to their main job which is protecting the country. >> jed schwartz. i see i was wondering if you see also a grave danger that the revolution will be betrayed

by the military. you will be unable to overcome the rationale for the military rule. i'm sort of incurred by your progress so far, but wondering whether it would be good for some of you to begin to study political philosophy, which seems kind of like a non sequitur. and i apologize. remember that -- >> i agree. >> you agree? john locke voltaire and david hume. these guys who critiqued the power of theocracy. it seems to me, if you can build on those kinds of ideas that you might be able to overcome the drag of fundamentalist beliefs which i believe are retarding the economic and social

development. and if you could give me your email, i would be very appreciative. [laughter] maybe now or later. >> now would be very hard. i have seen a lot of discussions about the future of egypt and being very worried about islamists ruling the country. i could be wrong. i do not have a problem admitting that. if you look at the history of egypt in the past, a couple of hundred years, egypt was colonized by the french people and hardly any egyptian speak french. well, if you look at other nations that were colonized by the french probably they speak more french than error back off. the british people colonized egypt and also most of our people speak broken english as you can tell. and the shia, one religious

example, they came to egypt to build the largest institute that spread their belief across our world and ended up with the largest in the organization. i pretty much do not believe in the fact that you can import change on people. if that happens in egypt, where the society is a very maine, a very moderate and mainstream, that will go completely the opposite way. and the second, i know about the media possibly being wrong. but i have been in meetings, and private meetings with the different parties in control, they have the majority. i think there have been a lot of misconceptions. they are dragged into discussions. we need to put aside the preconceived a believe about them and put them in the will stage. we want you to perform more, to solve the economy. this is what the taxi driver who voted for the muslim brotherhood that one. he wants them to fix the problem

of the country, not to tell them how to worship god. >> good. we only have time for a couple of more. >> hello. i'm with the economics department here. i was thinking about specifically egypt's youth and the transition people that may be more interested in politics. i was hearing about your own personal story and the facebook page. christmas eve, today, one of my increases in egypt was active in a protest. -- personally, today one of my acquaintances in egypt was active in protests today. do you think there is a certain path in terms of what would be most constructive, such as the youth lobbying to oversee the

democratic process or the youth participating in running for office or none of these options? and what you think is the biggest challenges for making that actually be realized? >> i think that is one of our biggest challenges at the moment. how to institutionalize of those who take to the streets, those brave people who are ready to die, facing tanks and sacrificing their lives, how can we move that from this to political participation? we have not done good efforts so far. unfortunately, most of the parties have put sneiormostly senior people as candidates. so very few young guys have managed to run for parliament and won. there is a 27-year-old and the

parliament. he is the youngest guy ever in the history of the egyptian parliament. there is a 30-year-old and so on. what i am personally hoping to do and to see is to get people more involved in the lobbying groups and eventually, also getting people running for office. rabbit -- we have local community elections taking place in a few months. basically, this is for the people that served the small districts. this is more of a job that young people should get in. whether they would be able to win or not, we have to do some pressure on the parties to make sure that they support the youngsters. they are the future of the country and they are the ones that showed they are not happy and they can flip things around. >> please. >> thank you. i'm a graduate of the college. i know you are an optimist about

egypt's but we alls future, but other countries are looking towards egypt to see what will happen, especially with opposition movements in other countries. the tragic events unfolding over the last few months have given pause to a lot of these groups. now people say, maybe there is a fallacy that things can never get any worse off. there is a dictator, but we are putting food on the table. if you're not involved in politics, so this idea that things cannot it any worse. maybe they can. in which case, maybe we should say, it is ok. settled for the status quo. you're saying that with large segments in countries that are ruled by probably more brutal dictators. i am curious about your views on kind ofthe the role egypt historical his head towards arab countries in terms of leading? >> i am not an optimist by choice. i want to see the good side of

the story. and i know there is a very bad side to it. i read, and i see how can you look at this negative side? i just believe that being frustrated will not bring us forward. being frustrated will not be good for the people. people want to see hope and they do not want to see frustration. that is why i am an optimist. do i see the challenges he did is going to? i definitely see them. and i see that it is not easy at all. sometimes i get frustrated and really worry about the country and its future. but i try to keep myself on the optimistic side. egypt is definitely a role model for a lot of the arab world countries. if anyone thinks that the next few years are going to be amazing and great and everything is going in the right direction probably they are because after all, when you have cancer and

you'd go through chemotherapy, all lots of bad things happen to you but eventually you get there and you get better. by the way that was one of the problems of the revolution was the high expectations that were given to the people. if mubraak isarak is out, everything is good. part of our political naivete is that we thought that. i had thought we would get a better situation. now as we are learning, it is much more complicated. for those young guys that would say, yes, your in a bad situation. it could get worse when the results. eventually, the future will be much better come off because of generation after yours is going to enjoy the democracy and those who are ruling you will be accountable for everything they are doing. >> last question third >> one funny thing. i was praying right after if the

14th of january that nothing bad happened in tunisia. i remember the newspapers were disturbing all the stories about this, people brought the bank's in tunisia. because the regime wanted to tell people, it will get worse if we do like them. >> last question. >> hi. i'm teaching here at the center on politics and i run a personal democracy forum. well, you're an egyptian. i am american, but we are both netizens of the undemocratic republic of facebook. in your case you both used facebook in some amazing ways, but at a critical moment, your facebook page was shut down arbitrarily. it was a crisis. luckily for you, you were able to scramble with some help others to get it turned back on.

but my question is, should activist trust this book, and watch should we netizens ask of facebook to make them safer places for the kind of work that you do? >> the page was shot because i was managing it from an anonymous account. a fake account. and facebook has a policy that basically, you cannot use facebook with fake identities. when people reported the page right before the egyptian parliamentary elections, there were a huge number of government activists reporting the page. facebook looked and it said, that the administrator is fake. close. they closed it. as you mentioned, we got it backwa. >> people had to put their names

on. >> there is an egyptian-american lady. she offered help and she said, listen, i can put my name on the page. i don't mind. so it was -- the ownership of the page was transferred to her, the page got recovered. there have been interesting debates about the fake identities and the real identities or the decision that facebook takes to -0-- they think it's the right one. i believe as, what did you sa, y, netizens? you can always pressure these companies. at the end of the day, it is a company. you have no control over it. you should not collect its president who runs a. only the shareholders have the right to say. you either do pressure on them

for the changes are seeking, or abide to the regulations and deal with what you have. i do not personally trust any tool. i trust the people behind the tool. if facebook decides no politics on facebook or a chest on everything, we will find another tool. i was using a survey tool throughout the entire page experience that had hundreds of thousands of votes. i discovered on the night of february 10, that it was a small company run by two people from their apartment in the u.s. so people will always find the tools that will make them work in the way they want. and companies like facebook, as they become big, it becomes -- it is a huge responsibility on them and their actions. our job is to make our voice loud and clear for whatever we do not agree with. >> fair enough.

a lot of people are curious about this. you packed a lot into 32 years. you are very young. where did you go from here? >> to the book signing. [laughter] [applause] i have to say, i'm happy -- on february 8 when i was released, when i saw all the events taking place, i wrote that we will win because we do not understand politics, because a we are naive. we are dreaming. to many people, the dreams are impossible. to us, this a dream will happen or we will sacrifice our life for it. what exactly will i do? i do not know. i do not think i should know because things have been changing completely. i am very spontaneous.

a lot of the stuff that happens on the page happens because someone writes a comment and i react. i know from many established people, this is something very bad. and we will talk forever about the strategizing and looking at, putting a long-term plan and having a vision. i learned all of that and that is cool. [laughter] but, for me, all i am going to do my best. i love my country. most of the time. i love my country. i will do most of what i can do for its people. the moment i see it most of the egyptians proud, and we systematically solve the problem of poverty in this country, then probably i will come to harvard for an mba. >> your view will always be welcome at the kennedy school. i got this note -- actually it

is the first150. 150. i had not appreciate it the two co-sponsors. they purchased 150 books. and they will be there for the first 150 people that come through. >> all the proceeds of this book, i am not getting anything. i think it is unfair that people died and i become a millionaire of the book. all the proceeds are going to eat and togypt and ngo's and the families of martyrs. >> wael ghonim i think you can tell from the response of this audience tonight, how much we appreciate your humility, but we also very, very much appreciate what you have done and how you have championed and how much you love -- freedom and democracy in the world.

thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

this is the president speaker series. i am year special assistant on behalf of the president. we welcome you tonight. this will be a one hour interview. we will talk about navy seals what it takes to be a seal, and the killing of osama bin laden. it is my great pleasure to welcome our friends from c-span and a radio audience as well as all of you who came out to hear us. the author of the book "seal target geronimo," chuck pfarrer . [applause] everyone thinks it is so tough. it is interesting, it is dangerous. what do you have to be as a person to be a navy seal?

>> i think the candidates are a little bit crazy. i did not think that would be enough. i think everyone who is in the military can tell you it is a team sport. if you want to be a member, you have to be a team player. that is what it takes. >> this book goes through the history of bin laden. it goes through america's commitment. the navy seal program began in the early 1960's? >> we will created by president kennedy in 1962. the same time he created the green beret. the green beret -- we were facing possible soviet intervention in europe. the green beret was designed as a lead behind force. if you are going to train people, you have to have

mastered your own subject matter. they were professional, special operators. president kennedy created the seal team from underwater demolition teams who had served in the pacific. also, normandy, pre-invasion. the seal teams were seen as a direct action force. we can do military training. our primary goal is reconnaissance and getting the enemy. that is what we do. >> it is perfect for us. two days ago america's navy seals completed a major rescue in somalia. tell us what happened and give thoughts about how they perform. >> -- and your thoughts about how they perform. >> this was a textbook

operation. two people were kidnapped by an armed gang. they were trying to get to the airport. someone in their entourage who was somali probably sold their location out. they were kidnapped. the removed a number of times west and self -- they were moved a number of times west and south. they wound up in an encounter -- encampment close to the border of ethiopia. a couple of nights ago, a parachute operation -- they dropped two miles from the target. they were able to patrol in. the action of the objective only took 15 minutes. the shooting was over within two or three minutes, about as long as these things go. they killed nine dead as.

they were able to get the two hostages out. they were then flown to a camp. then back to the mediterranean they are on the way home now. >> we have heard one of the people was an american. her health was deteriorating. the president made a decision to put things into action. my first reaction was why did they not pull the trigger quicker? >> if you are going to deal with these guys, you have to find them and finished them. they had some intelligence. this was a kidnap for ransom situation. the bad guys when negotiating -- were negotiating with whoever they thought was going to pay money. was the location was determined. president obama does not always get all the credit he deserves

as commander in chief. he has rolled the bones a couple of times here with big-ticket items like this. there is always a degree of luck in these operations. this one came off flawlessly. there were no losses. these are complex operations. they involve airless and reconnaissance and everything else. they were lucky this came out. >> this is especially topical given the fact the news indicated the pentagon is looking at scaling down to a requirement, -- scaling down troop requirements so we can cut it and send people out to do mission work for us. do you think the dialogue that is going on about reducing the overall size and scope of the military will help the navy seal movement because of its success to put more money into this and

you strategic targeting to strike at the enemy? >> one thing that is interesting is 50 years from now when you look back at what the doctrine was, we went into world war i with cavalry charges, and up against aircraft. we went into -- charges going up against aircraft. i think it is a good idea if this is the enemy you are fighting against. if you are fighting against a ghostly movement that might be a good way to do it. people smarter than i am are going to have to figure out what the strategic balance is going to look like 50 years from now. i do not think you can hang your coat on any one idea. >> this is not your first book. people have seen you on the

various networks. give a background for our audience as to how you got to be a navy seal. >> my girlfriend dropped me in college. in the 1980's, i was a psychology major. i decided i did not to earth go back and forth to the library. -- did not want to go back and forth to the library. i was in the office of program. i was lucky the rotc program had just sent a few offices through. they had quit. they decided to give us a chance. i found myself in coronado. i got through. i spent the 1980's in and out of central america.

i then was elected to try out for seal team 6. i ended my career as red squadron leader. it was my privilege to work with the greatest guys you can imagine. >> is there a term that one may serve on a navy seal team? is there an expectation of when you get out? you write that many people choose to get out when they get promoted. >> everyone will face that. if you are a fighter pilot or a ship captain you come up to a point where they aren't going to want to put you in a staff charge. -- where they aren't going to want to put you in a staff charge. guys who really want to operate and stay operators, sometimes you will find them getting out,

as i did. >> this book came out november 16. almost immediately you were attacked by the christian science monitor. >> i am not sure they attacked me. there is an interesting bit about the book. an admiral who i worked with he said he did not want this book to lead the american people to doubt the administration's version of events. i will put my hand on that and say hallelujah. there were some versions floated by people in government politicians, people who knew and did not know. it was a 50 minute firefight. i said, where are the bullet holes? why did the second helicopter land on the wrong side of a 20 foot wall? there were a lot of stories out there.

if you are offering one of those stories, it is no longer credible, if you are a politician, you might find yourself offended. you can follette -- brought your own conclusions. >> you were able to talk to people involved in the operation. >> that is correct. >> their stores contradicted what we were being told? >> they did in some cases. i learned about this as everyone else did. the president made his announcement. whether or not he might have done that so quickly, we will talk about later. what he said was not contradictory. the problem was the people working for the president did not do him any favors when they started talking as much as they could and as fast as they could. vice president biden named the seals. that was not what the team wanted.

there was the story of the 50- minute firefight. there was the story of what is the insertion helicopter crashed. -- of whether the insertion helicopter crashed. they wanted to spin the mission and the narrative of their way. one of the things that got me up to write this book is, by august the factoids had metastasized into a story that had the seals crashing their helicopter as they arrived blowing their way into the building finally, shooting their way to the building. that did not sound like a seal team mission to me. talking to guys who were there on the scene, this whole thing was over in 120 seconds.

quite a different story. >> what is the real story? what is the real story? it was just a few minutes. >> it was. there were six helicopters on the mission. trailing two of those were a tank, a bird, it carried troops to a refueling base. in the lead with the two still helicopters. following them was another pair. one was a gunship and one was a command platform. the two helicopters were able to make it to the compound undetected. one went haute -- into a hover. it provided sniper cover. the lead helicopter was supposed to land on the roof of the main building. when it got there a structure

that had been seen in satellite. it looked like a position for anti-aircraft weapons. that helicopt -- helicopter went into a hover on the roof. the mission takes about as long as it tells me to tell -- as it takes me to tell you. they jumped off the helicopter. as they surged down the hallway bin laden's son was running upstairs. he was shot and killed. bin laden sticks his head out. the seals called geronimo. bin laden slams the door. the seals kicked the door open. bin laden shoves his wife at them.

he dives to get to his assault rifle. four shots were fired. one was a miss, one grazes his wife in the leg. his head was lower than her waist. he was taking cover behind her. what struck him in the head once got him in the heart. he is dead. we are 90 seconds to 120 seconds into the mission. that is more like a seal mission. >> how did they get to a 50 minute firefight? >> it was almost a game of chinese telephone. i think what happened is a politician was told, one of the helicopters has crashed. he turned that into, one of the helicopters crashed on insertion. somebody was told the mission took 40 minutes, 38. there have been shot fired. that morph into, it has been a 40 minute firefight.

that is an eternity. that is gettysburg. nell, this is sounding more like a seal team. they hit with incredible skill. with great economy of force. >> our listeners are going to have questions for you. we will mic each one of you. one of the things they are wondering is, how could this go on? how could bin laden be in this area with our intelligence and the people of pakistan, the government not know he is there? the stories are hard to believe. what is your understanding about how long he may have been hiding out there? >> i am not a politician. i did not have to say what you want me to say. having pakistan is an ally is like having a cheating spouse.

there are a couple ways to deal with it. there are all sorts of ways to deal with it. or you can get along. there is no doubt that bin laden was there with the complicity of the pakistan intelligence service. i might add that their guest list runs longer. he was there for the majority of the 10 years we had been looking for him. five or six years he had been living like the howard hughes of jihad in this compound. >> one of the things i found fascinating, you give a history of bin laden and his family, how he grew up, the wives he took on, all the kids he had. the people who were around him could have been just as happy if he were dead. you write the money he had, the

money would still come in. most people who were his lieutenants put him in harm's way. they encouraged him to be in a dangerous position. they were hoping the enemy was going to take him out early so the money would come to them. >> in particular, one man, who is now in charge of al qaeda, he has a history of the train people he works with -- betraying people he works with and creating vacancies above him. he was involved in and assassination in egypt. he was tortured in prison. he broke. he turned over evidence. he was released at the end of the trial unlike hundreds of other defendants who disappeared. he fled to saudi arabia.

he made his way into the entourage. he had a lot to do with turning bin laden's efforts. the soviet jihad was winding to a close. he saw the whole world as his oyster. mr. bin laden's original partner wanted only to confine jihad to the soviet. it is likely that he had something to do with the car bomb that took out the original partner. thereafter he became the svengali of bin laden. i did not say this to make any excuses for him. he really was this lost, rich kid who found himself surrounded by religious zealots who needed

his money. >> you write that it put him in combat. they tried to groom him, he could not cut it. >> it is almost comical, his actual combat experience. every time he went out there, he almost got killed by the soviets. in his last and most legendary battle, for some reason, after contact with the enemy, mr. bin laden did something that is almost fatal. he climbed a tree to see what is going on. they fired and rpg at him almost killed him did not kill him. mr. bin laden later passed out. the legend grew that he fell asleep he was so unconcerned. this was blown up. this was a win for al qaeda.

they managed to beat back -- this blew him up into this larger-than-life character. now he is under the sway of this man who went to one of the finest medical schools in the middle east. he has mr. bin laden who has low blood pressure, fainting, and an appetite for salt. that is addison's disease. he never died messes it, he never treat it. he keeps sending -- he never diagnoses it, he never treats it. he keeps sending him forward. it is up is what he had in mind. you fly for 10 years. -- it is obvious what he had in mind. you fly forward 10 years. the united states is looking for bin laden. he does not communicate by

radio, cell phone, he has no telephone. everything comes and goes by messenger. the doctor who can read and speak english, is an avid consumer of the news. he watches cnn bbc, he reads every book written about al qaeda and bin laden. even though the doctor sees that the brothers have been added in guantanamo bay as carriers -- couriers, instead of removing these guys, he buys one of them a brand-new 20 the truck toyota truck -- brand-new toyota truck. even eventually the cia is going to figure that one out. they did.

not everyone agrees with me in this. it seems if he did this, it is either a staggering act of negligence or true to form. he thinks is his boss. -- fingers his boss. the hundreds of millions of dollars in their coffers, which is what it takes to plan and execute these operations. >> i want to come back to a point you were talking about. bin laden could go undetected. even when the russians were fighting in afghanistan, he would have these massive tunnels. finally, they would give up and go away. that is a point where bin laden thanks, i think i have something. >> in the battle of the lion's den, he was not sitting there with one sandbag between him and

oblivion. they had tunnel's hundreds of feet deep. it should never be surprising that the men who order the casual birder of noncombatant women and children, they are always lacking physical courage themselves. i would also say this, if all you have to do is push the button and you go right to paradise, why did they not do it? it is a pretty good question to ask of the recruits. these are cynical men. they have taken the mantle of religion to commit violence. i do not think it is even religiously motivated. >> this book interweaves between bin laden and the prior history of the navy seals. our navy seals swim to some form of secrecy?

are you free to talk about whatever you want once you leave? >> know you are not. -- no, you are not. there are a handful of offers. we take seriously what we can and cannot say. i take it very seriously to avoid discussions of sources and methods. also, to avoid discussing tactics. there are some things, the roof of the highest building in a compound i did not think i'm going to give anything away to say that is in excess of the operation. -- is the nexus of the operation. we all take it very seriously. we all know there are guys in harm's way as we speak. >> our navy seals getting a lot better? we have had a tragedy things that have gone wrong.

we have many more victories than we have had cut it is. -- had tragedies. i speak now of the rescue of hostages in the 1980's. was that bad luck? >> if you are talking about operation eagle clock, it was bad luck. jimmy carter launched an operation to rescue the american hostages who had been taken by the iranian government. two aircraft collided at a refueling point. the decision was made to abandon an operation. it was bad luck. i would also say the american special operation forces have gotten a lot better at 4 with a refueling at night -- a lot better at refueling at night.

these are immensely complicated operations. everyone has to be perfect. >> it was not we cannot blame the weather. they talked about a dust storm and collisions. >> i think, that is one of the things that is so impressive about operation neptune's beer. -- neptune spear. planning for special operations -- there was a guy referred to in the book, a commander he put the junior officers through a grueling series of planning and operations.

he would look at your plan and he would throw darts at it. he would say, let's take this out. we are going to go in by helicopter, we have no helicopters. you are going to take the subway it collapsed. one of the things it forced you to do is to make redundant the critical nodes of your operation. 12 minutes into the operation hovering over that compound, one of this bell helicopters it is on the roof, the next minute, it has slammed into the livestock. that is one of the bride's home. did the plan fell apart? no, it did not. the mission was in and out in 38 minutes. no american casualties.

only one person was killed. one was slightly wounded when her husband tried to use her as a shield. it is a pretty good operation. >> i think it was recently, it may have been a hostage situation. at one point, they are asking the president if they should ask. -- act. somebody gives the signal as if to say but the think you can do it, fine, but if you fail, we do not know about it. >> that happens most of the time. when you put special operations forces forward. you remember from mission impossible the secretary will of l. any knowledge of your operation. that is this -- will avow any knowledge of your operation. that is the way it goes.

there have been two notable seal team successes. there have been many hundreds of other successes. these two have come into the press a lot. i think that is dangerous. i think it is dangerous because politicians might drift into thinking that seals are good for the population doc popularity. it is not always work. -- popularity. it does not always work. >> what do you want readers to get from this book? what do you want them to deal? >> the guys who serve in the seal teams this goes for everyone in the military. they are all volunteers. seels to commit their lives to this would. -- seals commit their lives to

this work. it takes two years to become a seal. it takes five additional the -- years to try out for silting 6. -- seal team 6. it is known as team jedi for how hard and how long you have to train. when you show up for green team, the training, you are up against the best in the business. it is not just training and we are going to pat you on the head and let you go. you have to earn your spot against the best sales in the business. -- seals in the business. it is one of the most rigid on earth. how you are considered, it depends on what operations you have done. where you have been.

how dependable you are. as a military operative you are on a first name basis. the planning is extraordinarily collegial. an officer would not think about beginning an operation without talking to everyone of the guys who would be there. this is something that is built up from day one. >> do we know what the watch out that there is? those who enter the program and may not make it? >> it is 60% to 90%. you almost never get crept by year, and thrown out. you quit -- never get grabbed by your cuff and thrown out you quit. it is a mirage. you are learning how to turn the pain of. -- off.

that is all you can learn in the six months. from that on, it is two and a half more years of training. >> what about the mental aspect of it. we all know what happened in texas at the military base. there was a soldier -- we have had advance where we have talked and -- talk to military people who said there were signals going out that showed this officer was in trouble. the intensity of being a navy seal, do they monitor these people closely to see if they go off in one direction or another? >> the unit itself is so close and tight, it is the unit that stays together. in the case, you are talking about a guy who was a loner. he was a quiet man.

in a seal team, these guys train together, they operate together, they are friends. it is a bond that connects them. it will hold them together. >> one of the programs we are proud of is homeland security. it is growing. it has incredible potential around the world. how do navy seals that fit into the delivery of homeland security? >> despite their ability a special operation forces, the seals to get out, the apple does not fall far from the tree. there are a lot of former steel dies working in homeland security -- former seal guys working in homeland security. there is an exercise that has gone on for four or five years.

it is a top to bottom, multi agency counter-terrorism exercise. within these exercises, there is a red team that operates against the bad guys. there have been a lot of seals working on that red team. i was supposed to be a member of that. you have seals showing the government, not only what would be a vulnerable place to hit but had to go about doing it. these are the guys who give to their country. even when they get out, they still give to their country. they keep giving and giving. special warfare tends to be a cerebrum of it. -- a cerebral outfit.

that is not what we need. we need people who read. they do. that is what it takes to move up in the organization. >> does any other country have a special forces unit that can compare it to a navy seal program? >> absolutely. everyone of our allies has terrific special operation forces. the british sas the french have there's, the norwegians. they are very comfortable. -- comparable. we all operate. we all kotte -- countered train and cross train with each other. >> where they go around the world, the tour of duty, how

does it work? you wait to be told where you are going? you stay for a period of time? is it by assignment only? >> after your training, you are three years into your career. the seal teams have year graphical areas of specialty. we do not encourage anybody to specialize in anything. one of the things is everyone can do everything. if you are in seal team 2, you are supposed to be able to operate in the arctic environment. right now, there are those guys in the desert. everyone has to do everything. the global war on terror, there are seals everywhere it gets dark. >> let me go back to the book and bin laden. the weapon, ak-47?

he is photographed with that constantly. there are videotapes. >> it was his baby. >> it was a gift. >> it was captured during the lion's den engagement. it was carried by russian special forces. their contact was with russian regular. that was a battlefield spoil perry >> in the end, did he fire that done? >> i think he could. -- that gun? >> i think he could. think of the things he did. try to connect that with the military mindset. he is bombing embassies, he is crushing airliners into

buildings, none of these are -- these are all 1-way operations. >> i found this book reading. i was reading it at 5:00 in the morning. >> you should have read it earlier. [laughter] >> 5:00 this morning, i am thinking here is a guy who did not hit us at the beginning. he worked up to that. once he got the russians and of of pakistan, he hit israel so much -- the russians out of pakistan, he said, the reason i hate israel so much, i hate america. >> in 1983, at the end -- in the highest part of the civil war

the israelis had occupied at southern -- southern territory. two nights in a despicable of violence. they killed as many as seven dozen women and children. -- 7000 women and children. this was a christian militia group. it was later discovered that there was the complicity of the israeli military units surrounding the camp. bin laden said when he saw the skyscrapers moldering -- smoldering he wanted to deliver this to the united states. that massacre was the reason president reagan wants the

multinational peacekeeping force. i came to beirut. i had the honor of serving with the marines during that time. that ended americas deployment -- it ended with the bombing of the marine barracks in 1983. it was america's biggest military defeat since pearl harbor. this was an operation that was ordered by the iranian government. the national security administration intercepted the traffic. they failed to decode it until two weeks after the bombing. but then, they concealed the fact they could this during the congressional hearings that ended the career of timothy garrity. one of the bravest and best and most billion military leaders i have ever intended.

that bombing -- most brilliant military leaders i have ever encountered. that bombing was the start of this global jihad. this was a sophisticated operation. mr. bin laden saw this, he took a page out of this operational book. the marine barracks and the french foreign legion headquarters were struck within 32 seconds of each other by two of the largest non-nuclear explosions in the history of warfare. 15 years later bin laden would use this to attack embassies in africa. that massacre that was what set him on his path. i write about this in the book. i think it is important.

the first thing you study is, whatever your enemy is doing. you read whatever he is reading. you ask him, what is motivating him? this is what is motivating mr. bin laden. does he have a legitimate gripe? i think massacring at 3000 or 4000 people might be a bit much. >> do navy seals get to interrogate? >> if we are special operations shooting to kill. if you want to shoot it out that is the way it is going to end up. the way to keep a long life is to surrender. we are part of the intelligence process. we are part of the operational solution. >> how do they draw the line between the order not to assassinate, yet, these people go for a target. you have orders to go and do

something. how'd you avoid violating that law? >> in this case, it is a logical order to go after military commanders. -- a lawful order to go after military commanders. bin laden would have been alive if he had surrendered. i think also, the seals do not forget that 18 months ago four seals were court-martialed for punching a detainee in the nose. this was a man who had the filed corpses. this man came out and said one of the seals punched me in the nose. the administration and let that go to court martial. these guys were acquitted. the seals can read the newspaper.

there is no seal -- it is an unlawful order if i tell you to shoot this guy whether he is armed or not. you are honor bound to decline that order. bin laden would have been captured if he had not resisted. >> if you have a question, raise your hand. we will come to you and you will be able to ask directly. start thinking. i am going to go to the audience right after this. talk about the search for gaddafi, the end, and where the seals are to request what is interesting about the gaddafi and game -- walmart. >> what is interesting about the dead gaddafi endgame it is the way dictators are going to go. they capture him, they put him

on trial. mr. gaddafi ran one of the most oppressive police states in the history of the world. when his bodyguards, everyone started going south, he is left to wander the streets. he fell into the hands of combatants. he was murdered. that is the way it happens when you are a dictator. >> you mentioned that often these dictators are callous themselves. -- cowards themselves. >> almost universally these are not men of physical courage. if it had physical courage, they would leave these operations themselves. they would buy their own propaganda. -- they would lead at these

operations themselves. they would buy their own propaganda. they are not. they are not brave men. >> we are going to go to the audience. if you have a question, raise your hand. we will come to you quickly. thank you for being with us. your questions now. >> i've read the reports on the hostages being rescued by the seals. they came down on parachutes. they killed nine guards. they got them out of there. how did they get them out? helicoptered? >> they were expected by black hawks -- extracted by black hawks. the interesting part for me was they inserted by parachute. these guys can parachute from

the stratosphere. the bad guys did not see them coming. it is likely these guys jumped from 40,000 feet. like i say there are seals and everywhere it gets dark. >> it sounded like the gods had been chewing on some leaves. >> -- the guards had been chewing on some leaves. >> they might have. it was 15 minutes. that is the engagement in getting the hostages out safely. if you can imagine the planning it takes to run an operation that goes from outer space into the stratosphere, down to ground level, all the aviation aspects working perfectly. it is a testimony to the professionalism of these guys.

the aviation crews and the seals themselves. >> we are going to go through the audience. whoever has a question, we are going to go to you. your question. >> can you comment on the operation involving the destroyer in brisbane and dropping the seals and the water -- in the water. the killing of some pirates, and the one pirates still in this country. >> one decided he had been in a lifeboat long enough. he came over. the decision was made, the remaining pilotsrates were getting agitated that their comrade was not coming back. they had fired a couple of shots

into the air. the decision was made that if they could get a clean shot, they would have the green light. these guys made the mistake of sticking their heads up at the same time. this is the level of marksmanship we are talking about. three shots fired from the deck of a rolling ship onto a tiny lifeboat in the middle of the night. targets that are small. >> the pirates. i never cease to be amazed. do they not exchange notes? they are going to be caught. what do you think is their thought process? >> there are dollars to be made. there are shipping companies that of willing to pay the money to get their crews to

state the -- safety. interestingly enough, the pirates, they are not hijacking a whole lot of russian ships. the russians have a blunt way of dealing with it. it is not getting the pirates but getting everybody else. it descends from the soviet era where they also did that in lebanon. >> back to the audience. >> how long did the united states no of bin laden's location before going in for the operation? >> about six months. the compound was under scrutiny. there are a lot of threads that have to come together to confirm his location. does it make sense?

president obama is underrated as commander in chief. he decided to go for it with this operation. he put a lot at risk to do so. he made the right decision. it has paid off. >> there are certain countries who are not subjected to the attacks of these pirates. you do not hear about north korean vehicles being taken. it did not hear about people off the coast of india. do we look like targets? is it the american flags? >> you cannot kidnap and ransom someone who cannot pay you. >> we are the targets because we have the money. >> absolutely. there is also value in capturing americans. that is part of the problem. >> when they capture stuff, when

they captured a ship, is it used to buy the weapons that go back? >> exactly. these guys are building a business peri. they are going to upgrade their weapons and speedboats. we have already seen that. it is an arms race. >> back to the audience. if you have a question, raise your hand. we want to get as many of you in as possible. let me ask can you tell us what you do now? >>the book tour. >> i still work as a trainer. i have been helping to train deploying seal teams. guys get out of the teams, the apple does not far fall from the tree. some of the old fat guys can

teach the young in shape asguys how to do the job. >> that in the audience, a question. >> there are some things you can write about, some things you could not. the operations depend on secrecy more so than the space program did for a top gun. hollywood has not come up with a movie. do you think they are likely to come out with one? >> there is a movie coming out that is about the seals and starring the seals. all seals are actors if you ask

me. [laughter] the interesting thing is, the tactics are amazing hard work. on an exercise, you will get somebody saying, i turned and ran around and walked into the headquarters. they did not see the three and a half they crawl up to the road side dishtch. it is a lot of hard work. >> we have a lot of students in the audience. what would be your advice for them? >> they are already doing it. they are serving their country. god bless them, the nation needs it. [applause]

>> back up in the audience. >> i was wondering, what malia thoughts on the theory that osama bin laden was detained and interrogated by the navy seals? >> i did not think so. i would have loved to given him a ride,. it was interesting a couple months before the raid, i was talking to a friend of mine who is an intelligence officer, his opinion was that osama bin laden was dead and the pakistani government was concealing his death. that was wrong. it turns out it was not that wrong. you have osama bin laden he made himself the howard hughes of jihad. he was pacing around his compound. he was watching reruns of

himself on cnn. this is one of the reasons as the 10-year anniversary happened, this is one of the reasons the doctor decided to make a leadership move. i do know some of the intelligence material indicated there are strains within al qaeda. there were strains. the doctor decides to push mr. bin laden into combat was obsequious. who knew that his future and the future of the jihad depended on osama bin laden's money? it was not surprising he made this move. >> let's go back to the audience. >> thank you for your service to the country. some of us can only imagine what he does do to protect our freedom. i wanted to thank you and all of

the veterans. my son is serving as a senior chief in the navy. do you think the pakistani government and military were hiding bin laden or protecting him? >> i certainly do. i think they are completely responsible for his care and feeding. i will go on the record to say that right now others are under the care and feeding of the isi. i think you have a case where you have one of america's allies we are dealing with a cheating spouse relationship. it is something we have to realize that pakistan's goals are not our goals. there is not any reason for pakistan to want a prosperous democracy to the north of them in afghanistan when they have to

worry about the country falling into thethese are both nuclear arms powers. it makes the situation extremely complicated, i might even say more complicated than all kinds of versus the u.s. >> we have a scenario -- then al qaeda versus the u.s. >> we have a scenario where now people say syria has a back door deal and lebanon is involved and one wonders when they will turn on israel. the cheating spouse explanation does that apply to countries like saudi arabia? >> there is an interesting case in saudi arabia. you have the saudi royal family. they have come to a puritanical

and stringent form of islam curio. you have got changing demographics building mosques and propagating not only the fate of islam but it lends itself to see hawed and can be pugnacious -- lenses of tune -- lends itself to jihad and can be pugnacious. we have to keep that in mind. >> the you expect the navy seals will be called into service to deal with problems in central and south america and chavez

hammond? >> i do not know. somehow but is less likely to happen. the event horizon is the middle east. did you mention the situation and between iran and syria. i think the situation is likely to get much worse. when libya failed, you have wal- mart gaddafi and people who benefited -- muammar gaddafi and people who benefited. assure all assaad -- assaad as a minority. they are heavily invested in the baathist regime.

the fact butsaid they are associated with the dictatorship, it can lend itself to a terrific civil war and sectarian violence. that is more likely to happen then not to happen. there are some things that should be done diplomatically. i hope that happens. >> let's go to the audience. >> i am a fan of technology. i read an article about how they used to listening devices that could tell by the resonance who

was speaking, the age of the people even. can you shed any light without divulging any of the secrets about technology used in intelligence gathering? >> i would not want to be the guide but went on c-span talking about the. i would say that information is everything, and in this information age as you walk through life, you said it's of information. you bought-spirited your picture was taken. you bought a candy bar you use your cellphone, and you let steve jobs push his buttons. to live in an information society, where everything is information. the bad guys live-in the same

world you do. their vulnerabilities are the same as yours so they do not get their cake and have it too. you have people who want to send us back to the sixth century and they are being hunted by flying robots. >> what was your best today as a navy seal diamond -- your best day as a navy seal? >> the good deals for navy seals. >> when you felt at the end of the day it was worth it. >> i would have to say it was the whole time i was working with the best guys in the world

is there is one bad thing about being a seal, it is getting out. you are not working with the same caliber of people. would they walk through fire for you? that is part of the job. these guys are so close and so type that is something you miss when you leave it. >> the use stay in contact? >> absolutely. it is a bit like a colt. good >> to questions. first, we are told that outside the is in the process of failing, due to a number of other operations, but they are falling apart. i would like to find out what your opinion is on that, and given the upcoming reductions in

spending for the military, what do you think the future for seals and special operations will be? >> first i do not think outcry the is out of the game. -- i do not think outside the -- all kinda -- i do not think al qaeda is out of them game. he is one terrorist attack away from producing him back on the map. i was reading as well about the forces but are being called for. it is interesting. you cannot reduce the military

and still expect to deliver special operations forces wherever you want. 41 seal you could in combat, there are 1000 people who -- for every sealed you put in combat, there are 1000 people who support them, the guys who fled the helicopters the cooks everyone else, so i think it would be a mistake to start cutting everything. it is a good idea not to leave the football stadium before the game is over. take that from a new orleans saints fans. >> do you still believes the only easy day is yesterday? >> i know the only easy day was yesterday puritan -- was yesterday. that is one of the seals sayings.

the other things i forgot like carrying a telephone pole around with me. >> i have to assume because of the intensity it must be difficult to have family lives. is it? >> it is. i think the divorce rate runs about 75%. you would go on as the plymouth, and you come back, and to go on training for another -- on employment, and you come back, and the training for another one. goodthey are extraordinary women. good >> i wonder if the saudis are strong funders. they are the second-largest of colder in fox news corp.. where do -- second largest funder in fox news corp..

where do americans go to get a true democrat to the canadian broadcast association because i am -- >> the canadian broadcast association, because i am married to a canadian. what you see on the news is a puppet show. did you do not see this scenery for the strings. events resonate in the public domain. this was a splendid military operation, and military precision bombs against 6 the deceiver. the president made his statement -- and military precision bumps against expediency. the president made his statement, and people are saying things that are not true, not even plausible. a helicopter is not going to

lend on the wrong side of a concrete wall. it is not going to happen. the famous situation room photograph with people looking merv was this was the moment we learn when mr. bin laden was killed. that was when they saw a helicopter take off and crashed. i am glad you are skeptical about what you hear on the news. the truth is out there, and the truth is extraordinarily persistent. >> when the book came out did you lose friends or make more new friends? >> i can tell you there were a couple of guys in the community who did not like the book, but i can tell you the overwhelming majority of guys i know have patted me on the head. i do not want to ever be in a

position to speak for those guys. they are professionals and when you are a professional you do not have the luxury of criticizing the amendment, so i am not in a position to say that for them -- criticizing the management, so i am not in a position to say that for them, but i was incensed by the version that had come out in august triggered -- in august. it is ground up, shoot them in the head. >> are you a screen writer, too? >> i am a screenwriter. >> are you ever going to produce something based on your knowledge? are you free to do so? >> i am in no hurry to do that. this is a history that belongs to the american people, and i do not think it needs any new people right now. >> thank you for being here

tonight. >> [inaudible] >> he would have gotten a sack over his head and a nice ride in a helicopter to return -- in a helicopter. the seals conduct operations almost nightly, and the vast majority result in a capture. mr. bin laden goes down as someone who tried to live up to his own press. mohammed decided not to do this. when it comes time for their moment of glory they decide maybe they will just give up. >> is there another book in you about navy seals bowman -- about

navy seals the mark >> there might be. there is a whole generation of seals coming out. i think you're going to see stories from operators of around there now. >> our next event will be february 9 your your -- february 9. two people will be here. he was the one who represented pelion gonzales -- elian gonzales. a jury consultant will analyze how juries play some of the top of lawsuits of the decade. give we will look at the law. that will be right here at the auditorium. i want to thank the wonderful folks.

tina richard clinton up in control. thank you for making this possible tonight. for our friends in sees them, thank you for coming. good -- on c-span, thank you for coming. we will be on the radio program on sunday. of what we find out about an booktv, we will let you know. once again, thank you for coming. good[applause] our colleagues who be selling copies of the vote. you can get a copy. good stock will sign it for you. thank you so much for being here -- chuck will find it for you. thank you so much for being and one

hour and 20 minutes. [captioninperformed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank you all for coming. we are on a short schedule, so i will get to it. more than three years ago after one of the worst financial crises hit in united states history, and the government has been criticized r its failure to prosecute senior executives

at the large institutions that many believe caused a crisis. today we address key questions about whether this was fair or not. where do we go from here? and to evaate what has been done so far. before i start with our incredible panel, i want to give thanks to mike for helping to put this together and now the sponsor, the prosecuti cente for cosponsoring and two of the fellows for helping to put this together and i would like to thank the world of winter region in -- the world for twitter. let me introduce our panelists. when michael came to me with the idea of a panel on this topic we sat around trying to think who would be the right people, and i have to say who would win

a fight and win batman and superman? in this fun to think about but we never thought of people would all come together to be here today, and when our top choices agreed, i think we had a mixture of shock. i think we were intimidated and extremely grateful. our panelists are people who do not usually appear on panels. they are people who build a three day conferences on their keynote address, and i cannot tell you how grateful i am here. they do not need much of an introduction, so i am not goi to give them one. on my left, eliot spencer -- elliott spitzer former governor of new york. he has been called the sheriff of to wall street.

groundbreaking prosecution'ss. sitting to my right since 2009, he is about to be the longest serving as assistant attoey general in charge of the criminal division in modern history, where he oversees attorneys. beyond that, and i do not really rell previous attorney general'ss. he has become the go to drive. good our spokesman today, i think it is a real credit having him here.

to my extreme left we have mary jo white where she seems to represent just about every institution that has anything to do with the financial crisis cases out there but far more importantly fromy own perspective, and for nearly nine years, she was the attorney for the district of new york, where she had an unprecedented run in that position, only making one significant mistake, and that was hiring me and giving me the only job i ever wanted and never would have needed a. i am heavily conflicted with everyone on this panel since i owe all of them something. mary jo, my life and my job.

elliott was one of my earliest and strongest defenders and the public arena of, and someone i will always be very grateful for, and landy, i was grateful to become a friend and confidante, and someone steffyi could not for my heart out soup. he brought one of the most significant cases a multibillion-dollar accounting fraud at his office would the prosecution, so i am grateful. i am grateful to save our panelists have agreed to waive the opening stament. i will take questions until 1:30, and then we will take questions from the audience.

let me start with this proposition. first of president and the attorney general in a press council less than two weeks ago in announcing a new task force he offered as part of the explanation as to why we have not seen as many big ticket criminal prosecution some would like to see is because a lot of potential activity in the run up to the crisis may have bee immoral or unethical but it did not cross the line to be a criminal behavior that warranted criminal prosecution as. elliott, you have not been shy about this. what is your assessment of that statement and thatnalysis? >> it is true that much of the

activity was immoral and wrong but not criminal, but that does not lead to the logical conclusion much activity was not criminal. there was significant criminal activity in both civil and criminal context that should be prosecuted, and i continue believe if we were to pursue a the evidence and one set of documents that clearly said to the vegas you are securitized loans -- to the banks you ar not securitized loans -- those types of documents would lead to criminal cases. let me make a slightly larger point. i almost hate to bring up occupy wall street, but they had a sign that was very accurate. it sd, we will know corporations are people in texas executes want your good region

when texas executes one. the problem we have is we have given corporations all the upside but none of the downside. we have given all of the rights and privileges, yet when it comes to holding them accountable, because of the buffers built-in by people all doing their job in good faith is difficult to ascriberiminal intent. goodin the criminal context, we have said, you do bad things. we do not have a way to hold you responsible. we cannot indyk goldman sachs. the world would come to an end. there is this voyageid so we are

stuck with the downside consequences. bottom-line, there should be a lot more prosecutions, data, the evidence that shows a willful disregard for bad at superior -- for bad stuff. willful disregard is important. we should be usingiet -- using data. >> why do you think there has not been more prosecution, since the evidence is o there? >> it is tough. govwe did not bring as many criminal cases as we arguably could have but this was earlier on. wall street perpetrates one of the greatestcare arms. the greatest was persuading us they could regulate themselves. self regulation should be

stricken from the english language. we believe it, so even when we did the global analysis, i gave credence to the notion that they would begin to pull apart the web of conflict of interest and violate a fiduciary duty that led to the frogs. >> the you agree with wt they have said? >> much of what elliott said makes sense, but he is addressing policy making issues. give what is the role of the regulators? what did they know? whether institutions should regulate themselves and whether there should be a change, and those are important issues and policy issues, and congress has to deal with those but that does not make it prosecutable.

we have to remember that. as we talk about excess of greed or excessive risk-taking i personally may find it abhorrent. that does not make it a crime and we have to face that. i do not accept the fact of we have not done anything. ion it when you are in new york and you are focusing on wall street -- i admit when you are in new york and you are focusing on wall street you may lose perspective. we invited thousands of people for mortgage fraud. we have indicted and convicted multibillion-dollar investor from times -- fraudsters all over the country. it is not just a matter of -- just madoff, but across the

country, so i want to talk about it. i think it is a very important topic, but it is not the case to suggest nothing has been done. we have to remember when you bring crimal cases there are challenges. we need to bring them, and we do it all the time. inne panel i am accused of doing too little. in another, and now i am accused of prosecuting too much. >> i appreciate that, and not to take away somefrom somremarkably good work in many areas but there has not been what a lot of people would like to see, which is handcuffs in wall street. we have had our firstase, which is kind of related, in new

york. good >> we have got room filled with brilliant in why you -- brilliancet nyu law students, and some percentage will go to the new york law firms and some will be involved in these transactions. we have to deal with lawyers and disclosure documents. we have to deal with the issue materiality when you have sophisticated parties. you have huge institutions. i have got to prove materiality. if i cannot, i have got a problem. and we have a brilliant lawyers. some will hopefully recruit some of you. we have great people at the sec. they are working tirelessly, but

these a typical reactions and cases, and the fact that we want to see people walking in handcuffs, i understand the desire but that is not enough. >> just to follow up this concept there is greed and a morality that makes us to fall short of -- immorality and makes us fall short of criminal charges. can you give us an example of that and whether tre is considerion of expanding to cover these types of behavior'ss? we are talking about unethical behavior, and we have chosen to draw a line. everything on this side will be punishable. everything on thiside should be civil can you think of an example of something that falls on the non-criminal side of the line and whether there is a

suggtion to move aboutthat because if there is a behavior that caused the near collapse of our financial system, shouldn't it be criminal so it does not happen again? >> i will let them decide what ought to be criminal. we are not investigating cases. they just announced a credit squeeze case a week or so ago. there are a lot of -- credit suisse case a week or so ago. there are a lot of cases being investigated, but i have to prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. i have got to prove it is material and the people acted with criminal intent if you want to say there ought to be strict liability, but when we are talking about these cases there is no crisis. this country and raised some

level of regulatory action. people embrace the idea of securitization, and more complex products. for a long time, we put those people on a pedestal. they were the smart people who went on and created the structures and became rich, and they have their big houses all over new york. r.f. that has got to be a crime i think. >> when we are talking about it, the problem i have is if you are a company or an individual with the greatest lawyers like mary jo white, they are goi to put those to the test. we are doing it, but they are very complicated. companies are gay. decision making is diffuse. -- companies are takenbig.

decision making is diffuse. we have brout a lot of cases. and we keep changing the focus. three years ago i would have told you we have prosecuted dozens of people who had done a billion dollar frauds. people would have said that was ve good. we have decided to take this investment and say let's not talk about this. we are doing it, but it is a challenge. >> that is about to take away from those important cases. mary jo, you have one of the most important perspectives from loying on both sides -- now most importa perspectives, being on both sides. of what do you think about the president's assessment? i am going to guess you do not think we should be changing the laws.

>> i think the breadth of the criminal laws, state and federal, are extraordinarily broad. they pick up every variety of fraud and you can imagine, and you can bring a criminal case based on real-life criminal intent. you can bring its so the laws are extraordinarily broad. if you bring a criminal case to a company is easy to do. goodif someone has committed a crime, they are liable. does that mean they should drive them out of business? anytime you have got a financial crisis of the unprecedented

scope we have gone through, you are going to have crimes committed. people are not used to that kind of co lawful failure. of we the people whoo not mark to market correctly. what you should not do is fail to distinguish what is criminal and what is just mistaken behavior reckless and risk- taking a not out to the frenzy. richard -- and not bow to the frenzy. you saw every ceo on the tworks as if they were on the most-wanted list. forget whether they committed a crime. forget whether there is any knowledge whatsoever of of fraud, so we must distinguish between conduct that is not

criminal and what is criminal. they were beating you up for bringing to many cases but seriously, you have to proceed responsibly and not bow to the frenzy, and i worry the frenzy over takes reason and justice. >> i wonder who was on the panel but took up position. >> me. >> mary jo, you are right. there is in a tent, and civil law versus criminal law is a debate but the pressure to bring federal cases could have debated have there been an more significant remedies even when the cases were a symbol. good -- cases were civil. did people know it would take, and goldman had to pay the whopping fee, which was

basically the sales tax on its 12.59 billion check from taxpayers but it got. it was the cost of doing business. they said, we win, and we get to continue to do this type of thing. at the time, why wasn't i necessarily a imposed upon them -- this is a business model. a change away a structure these deals. there is an -- date change the way they structure of these deals. there is a good chance they knew what they were doing and use the opportunity to get a structural reform you need, and maybe the pressure to have a ceo in handcuffs would have diminished. >> there is a lot to be said for that but i also think there is a real pitfall, and that is when you have prosecutors to try to delve into areas where you do

not have the expertise to deal with it. one of the major efforts was the research analyst settlement. they're armede different views about whether the was good or bad, but i think you have to be careful legislative reform by way of enforcement actions. you have to be an expert about that, but i agree if you actually dealt with when you consider to be the kind of transaction, that could cause so many losses, that could end the need for handcuffs. >> you are right. good his meticulous and saying it is a legislative function. having said that, where u.s. high massive regulatory failure

where nobody is in for some basic rules of obligation they can legitimately say, this is exhibit a, and if you want out of this prosecution you must change away in you do business to ensure yowill not do it again. if you catch the guy selling cocaine, he is the way for 20 years. the penalties imposed upon them are not sufficient. >> you gohead and talk about this. you do have the option of a prosecution agreement against the company were you can impose any condition you want to. if you are certain about the business model, i would question the.

you could require that was a condition and. -- you could require that as a condition. >> i do not want to suggest they are taking a myopic view, and you try to resolve it and to deal with it. my point is we are going to empower regulators more. that is not something the prosecutors themselves can do. a lot of these supplements it is the southern district combined. i just want to say it is easy on a panel to talk about what should have been part of the settlement but no one has

accused my friend. they are aggressive and appropriately so. i do not know the facts but what i do know is people are pretty tough. any settlement, there is a give- and-take, so i cannot address why somethinwas not done, but i can say is the strength of that particular case, and these are complicated cases and i know it is not fun to hear with lots of different issues, and these settlements, and a result of that. >> one potential source of criticism has been generated by

the department itself and the was the creation of a task force dedicated to a origination an securitization that contributed to the crisis. i was fortunate enough to be a charter member when it was walsh -- launched. this sounds a lot like president bush's task group so we have these evolving structures, and this one comes out, and one way to do it is an acknowledgement that its approach has not been optimal. the other side of this, and many

skeptics look at the structure of this new working group. it i cochaired not just by year-end -- by you as being of the branding on an issue that is unpopular and whether or not this is a rebranding of an existing effort, or isn't acknowledgments something needs to get fixed. >> there is no magic to these structures. you have got a lot of well- intentioned people. we were trying to figure out as actively as we could how we could make a real difference, and as you pointed out, and we got together and it was very

successful. we are in a time where the nation has expressed an appropriate level of outrage. we have local state prosecutors, so this is an evolutionary process. the fact we are doing this suggests we have more than ever before who want to be helpful. i spent two days with eric schneider. i spent yesterday of the fcc and we talked about these issues so the fact and we have a structure just focusing on this does not sgest we have been doing something that is not working. what it doesn't just is we need to find ways to be more -- what it does suggest is we need to find ways to be more nimble.

we do not pretend we have every answer. we do not pretend there is only one way to do it, but it does indicate we are an im, and many of us are extraordinarily committed to being responsible. there was not as much of an operational point where people were decaling individuals to work together, so you and i've built a good relationship because we are friendly, so our teams could work together, but in this case, i think four people would not have done it as well. good people working under the same roof, and we have all learned a lot so i get to see what is the sec doing? it is just another way of figuring out what are the different offices around the country, and there are a lot of

offices handling this. >> isn't this a little bit late to? are we running against the statute of limitations for these cases it? most of those but have occurred, by 2007, this machine was grinding to of halt so the first part of my queion is a little bit too late, and one of the things suggests this is not more of a political suggestion. who is on this, and who is not? eric has been vocal for sure, but you mention the southern district of w york, and i just went to the celebration of 50 years of having a securities fraud unit, the oldest in the country, more than 25 prosecutors, so what does it say about this country? not only is the district not on

theochairs but my understanding is they are not on the committee. what does that say? the fact of you do not have the title of being one of sonata cochairs of an -- one of the cochairs of the working group of not suggest you are not involved. he is a leader of the sce. the southern district is a leader and will continue to be. i know he is heartbroken there are a couple of meetings he does not have to attend, but that conflicted, and we could not get them together. >> he is the man. good>> the southern district is very involved with respect to statute of limitations. a lot of these investigations

are ongoing. there are plenty of statutes. we have lots of tls triggered the states have tools to -- we have lots of tools. the states have lots of tools. there are different ways of getting around this, so people have been spending a lot of time, but i do not want to suggest that we were not out event -- and were not at it in 2009 through 2011 and we will continue to be at it for some time. >> in 2008 you had some statements and you alluded to earlier about the downside of created these task forces inside a highly politicized environment, and please correct me if i am wrong. you mentioned arthur andersen when you were district attorney and they were putting together the enron task force.

they said the district was not going to participate in that have force. i would like you to address the potential dangers of this approach and whether enron task forces may be an example of how they can be expressed. >> speaking generically my immediate reaction to task forces of have been announced with a lot of fanfare, where is the meat? are they real is the first question you ask. you wonder what is new, and you wonder whether they are just a mechanism to try to assure the public you are doing somethi or are they really bringing together resources it is helpful to actually do the job neman -- do the job? the other thing is i am not

saying you cannot do good things but it is like, announce it, and there will be cases. it gets back to my friends the concern. once your form of body like that they are a failure if they do not bring criminal cases. and you do not want that in the system. you do not want a search for stocks to be the metric for success. you want to really decide if politics does not involved in the space at all. >> do you think enron is an example of that? i heard there were 30 individuals charged, and only one survived appeal.

>> of a historical matter, and the u.s. attorney actually opened the investigation and after i left the task force the southern district decided not to participate. you have to ask others why the was. it is known not so fondly as a sovereign district of new york. they will make judgments based on where do they get the biggest bang for the buck. they operate on their own. they are not necessarily of part of one not out of her death or being left out but because they -- out of protest or being left out but because they think they can get the most done by being sovereign. >> i think mary jo is right about this.

creating new task forces is great press. it does not do anything. where is the meat is all the matters. they should be evaluated on their own merits. where we continue to disagree, the folks in the federal government work hard. they are incredibly negligent -- diligencet. these are judgment calls about these statutes and the degree to which they should be used. i will give you an example. we had a lot of cases. the mutual-fund industry was doing a lot of bad stuff because there were conflicts of interest.

one manifestation was criminal intent. the other was fees. the sec did not feel the negotiating t fee to where the market would have pushed them was an appropriate exercise of a jurisdiction your euan -- jurisdiction. do we clearly did. bizarrely, judge posner has aged with us with respect to specifically mutual fund fees, ceo compensation, where he said it is so broken that it is appropriate, so i think about is where we can begin to see a smart prosecutions and remedies that address it in a more satisfying way. >> i totally agree with you, and i want to make a point because

i completely agree. in a former life i had to deal with special counsel. i have always been critical for the very recent you said, -- the very reason you said, but on the one hand we have not done enough and on the other hand taskforce those are too aggressive, but you can get it right. am not going to comment on enron. i defended people in that case, but a whole point is to promote the very dialogue you talked about. we do not have it all right. if this new residential mortgage-backed securities working group permit me to have more discussions with camilla harris or joe biden or others who are saying we have more flexibility in i think that is right. i think it is on us not to about to political pressure but i

think it is incumbent on us to have as comprehensive and approach as we can so we get it right so that is the goal. >> let me ask about these clayton documents. i have seen them marginally. he was speaking on very aggressively saying we haven impending crisis, and i thought they produced a fine dument. these clayton documents essentially we say the very company brought in to do due diligence on the credit worthiness of mortgages told the bank's these loans do not such as fiat your underwriting standards. good -- do not support your underwriting standards.

it seems to me you followed this stuff up and find out where the information goes. how can you not make a structural case against the banks for failing to act with that information? i >> i cannot talk about clayton, up because --i have dealt with him. i cannot talk about anything that could be under investigation. >> can you give us a date? [laughter] >> that was not thafunny. [laughter] in all of these kinds of cases you make a good point now that it comes down to what exactly was represented what was understood what they are

getting. gooddid they know, and did they think, they are saying this, but we have our own people who are pretty smart, and we have our own people to determine what the underlying securities are the and we are going to acquire, so was there any reliance at all? there are many issues. i am saying they are very labor- intensive and exercises. good >> i think there is a recognition on the part of prosecutors and government attorneys but this is so, and that is that you often can accompsh a lot more on the civil side in the way of reform and bring viable large cases, so

in new york, you have its civil division, so in the pharmaceutical spays you had a lot of claims. you have corporate integrity in and you do not have the consequence of criminal indictment driving a fifth of the big five. it is well worth spending a lot of time on about. >> one of the problems of civil authorities, and i think we have seen this a lot, is that we have cases against these institutions on the very rare occasions y see individuals charged to in these cases. their settlements appear to be

covered by insurance policies or shareholders themselves. i's sort of raises the question of and one of the reasons we all got and as those of being prosecutors -- gotkine the business of being prosecutors is not just because of publicity about the impact you have through deterrence, and the sense i get is that while they may be helping valuable goals are they going to get us to the point where this activity does not p off for the individual? they got to keep just about every single penny. how do we fill that gap? >> those that individuals so, it is a case to bring a criminal prosecution against them.

deterrence is the name of the game in the white color arena. it is the one place where it actually works. when you arrests, everyone knows about them. in the short term, there is an effect. as i would always say to assistance, pay attention to that vehicle of deterrence. should that person actually be charged? do not just jump to the, this would be a deterrent, not just for this individual, but for people similarly situated. we did a lot of cases in securities fraud on the criminal side after the sec had brought civil action. the guy did not get it. he needed a bigger hammer. you see in the justice department and the sec making a specific poi of saying, you

are targeting individuals. >> this raises structural issues i tried to raise at the beginning. this tension between the -- it is very high. the intent, of the real intent, whatever you are using. en you bring civil cases, the company pays a little bit of money, there is no deterrent. for goldman, $500 million who cares? we need to figure out a better way to create the terrance in a context where there might not be sufficient evidence -- create deterrence in a context where the mine not be sufficient evidence. why did they not say, you are prescribed from doing transactions of this type for 10 years. even though there may not be direct evidence, they are barred from the industry for 10 years. we have to grit an environment where people understand, carry

the burden. why would not be ceos removed -- why would not ceo's be removed? this is why i say, occupy wall street was right. i think there is a way to craft remedies in the middle that will say to people at the top, you will be held accountable. there is a price to be paid. >> you a bit in remedies like that. sarbanes oxley, the sec is being active in that space. there are a lot of assumptions in your scenario that need to be proven. another day. what did the ceo know? is it clear these transactions are bad? it takes a lot of knowledge to

know that. a lot to decree that you cannot be in that business. one example of where that was done as part of a criminal alternative was in the execution agreement. as part of that, that firm had to go out of the tax shelter. there are available remedies. we have to be reay careful about thinking we know enough as prosecutors to enforce people. >> i want to be clear. i do not want this to be -- both as a defense lawyer, as i was for many years, nell as an -- now as an ahe we cannot discount the deterrent effect. the ceo or cfo for major institution feels he is subject to criminal liability, when we

interviewed them, we put them in the grand jury, they have lawyers. this is hanging over their heads for year at the end, we may decide not to prosecute. i think it is inaccurate to suggest that does not have a strong effect. i am not sure ceos feel as if they can do whatever they want. around the country when i meet with ceos, in a whole array of industry, i am told to quite differt. >> let me shift gears for a second. how would answer your rhetorical question aut why we did not seem more structural change, it is the sec insisted on those terms, goldman would not have settled. that reminded me of the second part of your question. why, when we were bailing the

banks out, did we not insist on more punitive measures against financial institutions? my transition, in part of that, some have said it is because of the revolving door between financial regulators and wall street. treasury is a great example of going back and forth from the banks to the regulators and back again. it tends to lead towards agency capture and it leads to a lack of diversity. that may seems far from our topic, let me continue. it has been suggested that this revolving door is in criminal justice. many people have pointed tthat as one of the explanations as why there have not been more robust law enforcement.

i was for five years it made me a better prosecutor. >> to your clients know you just said that? >> it was a long time ago. they would not be surprised. >> i did not think there would be happy. >> broken plot, twice today kind of thing. -- broken clock twice a day kind of thing. you were in a rolling stone pie. they describe you as the doctor frankenstein. i like to think of myself as one of the offspring. just today, we were with the new york times. my close friends, he is leading the security unit with a seven figure paid it.

>> he said jealously. [laughter] >> what do you make of this criticism? i know you do notgree with it. i do not agree with it yvette. what do you think of the optics that are causing people to question the integrity of our system? >> the optics are an issue. it raises questions. you are reasoning back with. if you think someone has gotten a slap on the wrist when they should have been treated more vigorously you find out the lawyers know each other from prior day'ss. at must be it. i do not buy it at all. you have to be cognizant and deal with those. you do not underminehe reality and the even hand of justice. we have all been in the

government. clients think, you know so and so. if y are like me, you have hired everyone. if you know somebody, you are going to get a better result. i think, if anything, the opposite is the case. you do not get a better result if you of the friend of a frnd. i think the system is benefited by knowledgeable lawyers who have been in the government and vice versa. when i was hiring assistants, what i'd most like to see was somee who had been on the defense side and had been beaten up by overzealous prosecutors. that is not to say it does not help you in the private sector to have been with thesec or the attorney general. you understand how they think. you understand what is persuasive. there is nothing wrong with that. >> do you want to comment? >> share.

-- sure. first of all the system is a great system. most of the prosecutors are a career prosecutors around the country. i do think having people go in and out of government is great. it makes us more flexible. it makes us more nimble. in my mind, i am far better because for 10 years i litigated against some of the sections i now supervise. i had a much better sense of what large firms do. i was able to look at cases from a defense perspective and try to identify what the government needed to do. frankly, i think having career prosecutors and people inside and out generates ideas that we were speaking about. i travel around the world. i deal with my counterparts all over the world. in many societies, going in and

out is not what they do. people stay in the government. they take a different path in law school. there is no question, as a result of that, in a lot of countries, they are less innovative and less able to deal with the situation. the majesty of our system is we have people, great people, who are making a lot of money in firms and what to serve in the government for a while. i think it would be terrible for that to be sacrificed. >> let me talk about it set up. i think you agree that the revolving door has been a problem. i do not want to put words in your mouth. >> you did that, but that is okay. [laughter] >> i think it has been a

significant problem in my time in treasury. i think as of the impact of t revolving door. for the same reason, and less bothered by this in prosecutions. my wife is a psychologist. i learned you studied psychology to go to law school. that may be my own distorted view from my own experiences. part of it is, outliers, in a law school, and when we get out we are trained to represent our client. that gives us a degree of flexibility to go from side to side with a little bit more than somebody who is a banker or from a regulatory perspective. i would like to get your thoughts. >> i see it differently. i agree with mary jo, i think the revolving door can be good. you get more the versed perspectives. you have people who are willing to play many different roles.

the problem is not whether somebody has been at a big firm, the question is, have they so internalized their arguments, the ones they made at the big firmsbut that they find it incapable of understanding their new position. i will give you an example. a grade securities the french lawyer became chairman of the sec. he said -- a great security defense lawyer became chairman of the sec. he said, you are going to see a kinder gentler assisi. i do not wana kind and gentle sec. he had eternalized the defenses he had been making. he neutered himself. made it impossible to make the judgments that needed to be made. that is a different issue. geing diverse uses fine. the problem we have is not a

revolving door issue. it is the peter principle on steroids. we promoted the wrong people. we took the people to make bad decisions that led to the crisis and we said, -- we took the people who made bad decisions that led to the crisis and we said, you must have learned from the mistakes. i did not understand what we would take the same stannic -- mechanic who had broken the engine and say, go in and speed it up again. that is a different issue. it got worse and worse. >> you have no ide it is time to take questions from the audience. do we have a microphone? there we go. >> hi, one of the things that strike me about the lack of

prosecutions in terms of easing prosecutions is what has been going on with the robo-signers. somewhere between jimmy diamond and the $8 burger flipper he fills out a form that says he has reviewed these files. i have seen the note, when he has not. i have noted this delay in payment, when he has not verified it. they sign it. they get it notarize or it is a false notary. that is bmitted to a court. when i went to law school, we call that perjury. i have a hard time imagining there is not a building that would run a 90% successful prosecution carate on those

cases. who decided that the law does nomatter and the rules o property which had been around for centuries, do not matter? let's just do this down and dirty. why are they not prosecuteit everywhere? >> it is the low hanging fruit. >> i am detecting a point of view in that question. [laughter] i am not going to talk about robo-signing. they are talking about different ways of settling it. let me suggest a couple of points. do not assume that prosecutions are not being made. if he used some of the examples, it is hard to answer these questions. you and not -- you are not

those of the cases that you are going to get a low level people. you can try to work your way up. there have been tons of cases. they talk to lawyers and accountants and brokers who are in jail. in nevada, we have had a series of cases of major fraud on home associations. my point is not to take away from your question. i do not accept the premise that it has not happened. at the same time we think how have we not indicted the ceo's of major institutions, we are talking about robust and in -- about robo-signing. it is this role. we want to get people, we are

not sure where it is. there may be the fraud, as he described, of making a representation you did not. those who will talk about whether or not -- you do have to be careful. >> come on. [laughter] >> is it a process violation which is terrible? maybe there is an argument. my point is, lots of low hanging fruit, a lot of mitt hanging fruit, -- of mid-hanging fruit these cases have been brought. i would say, you should not assume. there are a lot of cases where we are working our way up. >> where is our man with the

microphone? here in the front row. >> hi, i am chris. i know a lot of whapeople are angry about is what appears to be a hypocrisy in terms of prosecuting with people for crimes as opposed to poor people. a couple of times, you mentioned how good the lawyers are four executives. i was wondering how much that should or can or do play a role in your use of discretion as opposed to just letting it affect the outcome? >> it is a great question. i testified about this. the crack, cocaine disparities.

we had the largest organized crime take guns in the history of the country. we pursuededicare and fraud. gang prosecutions are a huge party. there is no question that in our society, different people have different quality of representation. anyone who suggests differently is being disingenuous. what it does do is, if you have mary jo white and she says, i want to make a presentation, you listen long and hard. you know the person is going to have great representation. in sophisticated cases, there is great representation. it can benefit us. while we are investigating we can get the defense lawyer to make a presentation that can jump-start it. it may be in their interest if

they believe they can make this go quicker it can also be in of interest because we can be more efficient. the bottom line is, we know that complicated cases are well represented. it does not affect our decision making. what it could do is if a good lawyer is able to show me why we should not bring the case, if they are able to leapfrog it and show good way is what the facts are, sometimes you think, in other cases, you wish they would do that and they have not. i see that when presentations are made. some lawyers are excellent. sometimes somebody picked a good lawyer instead of a bat boy. it is one of the realities of of system. -- instead of a bad lawyer. it is one of the realities of the system. requires us to get to the

bottom of the facts. a good or your may help us do that quicker. >> the prosecutor's job is to do the right thing. when i was at the government, -- i know you are lauing, they mean it. they ought to mean it. it is not always the case. if you get a presentation from a lawyer who is not good, what we would talk about is, that was not a very effective presentation. let's make sure we get this right. let's make sure the client does not suffer because of the boy year. you cannot do all the work of every defense -- because of the lawyer. you cannot do all the work of every defense attorney. you cannot rectify it all. >> not to be superficial, it is not that hard to indict an official. if all you want to do is get a good press release or a lot of

people applauding the government, we can do it. in a year or two maybe we pay the consequences. how would job is to get it right. that is the exercise we are involved in. >> the hard thing is to do the investigation the frustration that i have, the public has is, it is sometimes clear that the federal government is getting in the way. i do not think that is the case anymore. it certainly was the case. well i have been very different show when there were public servants when we opened an investigation,he occ the primary federal agency overseeing the banks went into court to shut us down. they did not come into court to

say, this is an important issue. we will supplement your jurisdiction to join you to investigate all of the issues. they affirmatively went into court to fight as. we had to go all the way to the supreme court. we have a look at the issues to be investigated. this was a heinous example. the budget is paid for by the banks. we went to court. a spectacular lawyer, he was litigating. he was a great lawyer. he was litigating against the lawyers for all the banks and the federal government. the federal government was tre as the puppet, the pond, the mouthpiece of the banks. it was heinous. that is what was going on for many years. well things are bette i give full credit to what lanny is saying.

until recently, the federal government was on the wrong side >> i did not want to talk abt any particular matter. there is no question, we need to the regulators. they are the experts at the subject matter. we do not want regulatorwho are captured by an industry. that is not something we can promote. >> back there. >> this question is for you. that 60 minutes piece that some of us may have seen, it portrays -- you may not be able to talk about the particular instance, the woman from country ride who said, i have this information. when a lot of people look at that they say, there is a person who has this information. is that a way that the vessel

need -- i understand you a limited period -- are limited. >> for those of you who missed the 60 minutes. my mother may forgive you for missing it. [laughter] i went on to talk about these issues. there was a woman who said, i knew about wrongdoing at countrywide, no one ever spoke to me. that predated may. it was prosecuted by the u.s. attorney in s angeles. i know the u.s. attorney in los angeles. he is a terrific person. he works very hard. we are a big country. i cannot explain why somebody was not interviewed. people who work with me know i find it unacceptable. i am very tough.

i interview witnesses. not just the agents. if you are a whistleblower and you have something to say we should go after you. i want whistle-blowers -- if you have information and you want to tell my hope would be would not wait for someone to knock on the door. there are telephones. you can but the government know you want to talk. hopefully, someone will pick up. we are a decentralized system. we have 94 u.s. attorneys' offices. i cannot say in one particular case, why she was not interviewe i can say, she should have been interviewed. i want her t be interviewed. i want every whistle-blower to come forward. that is the reality of an

imperfect world. >> let me ask a follow-up question. i think one of the remarkable things we have seen, when you look at the savings and loans practice, it involves thousands of those bank executives who went to jail. if you look at what has happened recently, one of the things that has changed is the amount of resources available and the expertise from the fbi. for better or for worse i do not mean to suggest it was for worse. after the september 11 attacks there was a resurgence of interest away from white collar crime. i am not criticizing that. it is a reality. at the very beginning. my run at the u.s. attorney of this we saw that happen. by the time we got to 2008, the

mother of resources available were so much less. -- the amount of resources available were so much less. that meant all other types of fraud suffered from investigators. and, what you saw was a degradation of skill level and set of agents who had not been spending years in training on this complex investigations. the follow-up question is, which you alluded to earlier, the big firms. how much of an impact the think the lack of available resources and well-trained resources elsewhere in the country, i would deal with a u.s. attorney's office that had one white color of pyi agent for the entire district ---- >> i do not agree with the initial promise. i am often asked about the prices. i say why is it different now?

going back, it is analogous to the crisis. in the crisis, people all over the country were indicted or prosecuted or sued civilly. they tended to be local bankers in local areas. sometimes for relatively modest amount of money. i would say to all of you in this room, that is what is happening now. th is what has happened over the last three years. 2100 people have been charged on mortgage related cases. in the crisis, we want putting it until the wall street barons. -- warned putting in a jail the wall street barons. do not assume that we are not doing it. i think what is going on is analogous. as the attorney general has

said, the fbi director has said the number one priority will be to keep this country say. it is safe from terrorism. i am the assistant attorney general. there is a national security division. there was n 13 years ago. congress decided we needed to have one. i will say, with the cutbacks, there has been -- i have fought hard for this, there are more increased resources. traditiol crime in traditional white collar crime. i do not think we will ever be in a post-9/11 scenario where our resources are not fighting terrorism. we have more resources. that is the reason we do need this task force. we are in a world where partnerships matter. the criminal division no longer works alone.

we have to work with u.s. attorneys. we have to work with local da's and the like. that is what we have more task forces. >> i would observe this. i think lanny is right. he is right in terms of where you have to start. i think the lack of resources is too often used as an excuse for the failure of a case. i hated to roll up to the office. we had 10 lawyers total who investigated financial. compared t the thousands of agents in white collar. sometimes, having fewer resources is better. the sec is like gm, when you are so big you cannot change. you are not thinking as critically as he must think when you are small.

there is something being said for small and nimble. how do we make the cases that matter the most? sometimes, resources get in the way. he is right, there were fewer resources available and white collar around the nation. they shifted away from everything, all organized crime security, and terrorism. that did not diminish the sec the regulatory agencies. they had the regulatory apparatus. they were the ones who should have generated the information up to justice to make the cases or at least the crises that were emerging. with this apparent focused on letting the fuse for the financial crisis, everyone knew this was a crisis. there was fraud. it was being marketed a legally. the agencies that did not cut back still failed pass the

information on. >> a little-known fact, in new york and other big offices and the sec, it is the lawyers to do the investigating -- who do the investiagting. even though you had a dislocation of resources we were diverted. everybody was diverted. from the white collar crime. the sec said some other things like bring in traders so we can understand the transactions. that is a good thing. >> i would say that characterization is true except when it came from the office of the special inspector general. >> i was going to say it has to be said, when you look at the director of enforcement they

transform. they have transformed the sec. you do have to be nimble. one example is in my own division, any case that was old, there had to be a good excuse. you were not born to be able to hide behind this old case. as a nut -- you were not going to be able to hide behind this old case. as a result, there were never more than three or four trials a year. last year, with 20 lawyers, we had 17 trials. it is a focus. i coulnot agremore with eliot's point we have to be nimble. our regulators have to do that as well. >> i am sad to say we are out of

time. i would like to thank our panelists. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> thank all of you for coming. >> one year after being in prison in cairo for his facebook page that helped spark the egyptian revolution wael ghonim spoke to harvard university school of government. he spoke with david gergen. this is just over an hour. >> good afternoon, everybody and welcome to the john f.

kennedy jr. forum. i'm the director of the institute of politics. we're excited to have you all here this afternoon in a paked packed house. we are going to be moderated by david gergen. co-sponsoring this event with the institute of politics. please join me in welcoming david gergen. [applause] >> good afternoon and welcome to the forum. we're delighted and honored that you're here. on behalf of your guests, we had a request that he and i have joined in. we would like to begin to ask everyone to stand for a moment of silence in memory of those egyptians who have died in the last three days.

thank you. i must tell you, it is a heart wrenching experience for our guest to be here today. his heart calls for him to be in egypt. he had made a commitment to be in the united states. know how difficult this is for him to be here and how eager he is to not be seen as the leader of the revelation. but as someone who was a major contributor. i think it is worth understanding that a year ago today, our guest was imprisoned and blindfolded, unsure of whether he might die at any moment in cairo.

egyptian security forces would just awakening to the fact that he had been the anonymous figure behind a facebook page which he had started a of to buy which had an enormous impact -- started out of dubai which had an enormous impact on people who had been oppressed for so long. this facebook page along with contributions by others was the spark behind a revelation. it started on the 25th of january. it was just three days later he was arrested. he told the security guards who he was. the word started breaking up. when he was finally released, his wife, his children, when he was