today. the house will gavel in at 2:00 eastern. a pair of bills on the agenda today, including one addressing committed a main concerns -- addressing eminent domain concerns. the senate will double in at 2:00 eastern. watch the house live on c-span. senate live what are companion network, c-span2. >> >> bush supports the death penalty for murderers but dukakis allowed first-degree murderers to allow passes from prison that the accusations that john kerry made against the veterans who served in vietnam

was devastating. >> randomly shot at civilians. >> we can all point to an average commercial or two or three or four. on average, negative commercials are more likely to be factually correct and negative commercials are more likely to talk about issues. >> will 2012 go down as the most negative campaign cycle in history? a new american foundation looks the past political campaigns and their impact on american culture. watch this and past panels on campaign advertising on line at the cspan video library at c- span.org. more than three years after one of the worst financial crises in history, there is criticism of the federal government for not criminally prosecuting more wall street bank executives who might of been involved with the subprime mortgage market. coming up next, we go to new york university law school for a discussion by a panel of justice

officials including the head of the justice department criminal division. this panel is about one hour and 20 minutes. >> 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 for 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 evaluate 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 prosecution center 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 going 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 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. 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 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 statement. 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 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. what is your assessment of that 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 vegas, you are securitized loans -- 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. 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. the world would come to an end. there is this void, 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 using diet -- 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 earlier on. wall street perpetrates one of the greatest scare 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 what 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 criminal cases, there are challenges. we need to bring them, and we do it all the time. in one 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 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. we have had our first case, which is kind of related, in new york. good >> we have got room filled with brilliant in why you -- brilliant 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 of 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 are 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 there is 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 example of something that falls on the non-criminal side of the line and whether there is a suggestion to move that, 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. [laughter] >> 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. we are doing it, but they are very complicated. companies are gay. decision making is diffuse. -- companies are big. decision making is diffuse. we have brought 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 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 lobbying on both sides -- now most important 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 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 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 who do 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 and not out to the frenzy.

richard -- and not bow to the frenzy. 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 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.

[laughter] >> 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 12.5 $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 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 are 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 he is 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 you will 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 go ahead 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 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 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 is 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 suggest 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 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 about this country? not only is the district not on the cochairs, 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 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 not have to attend, but that 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 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 something, 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 -- 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 them was an appropriate exercise of a jurisdiction your euan -- 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 lot of claims. you have corporate integrity, 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 you see individuals charged to in these cases. their settlements appear to be covered by insurance policies or shareholders themselves. it'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 pay off for the individual?

they got to keep just about every single penny. how do we fill that gap? >> those that individuals commit a crime? even so,insurance policies or

the shareholders themselves, reimbursing themselves. in cases recently. it raises the question, one of the reasons we got into the business of being prosecutors and why we like doing the big cases is not just because of the publicity, but because of the impact you have. the sense i get is that, while they may be helping good important goals, are they going to show this does not pay off for the individual?

the individual who took the bonuses and profited richly and get to keep every penny. how do we fill that gap?

there are available remedies but we have to be careful that we know about as prosecutors to degree them. >> i don't want to suggest that we will aggressively pursue cases criminally. as a defense lawyer which i was for many years and now as an aag, i don't that we should completely discount the deterrent effect when the investigate cases even if we don't bring them. if a ceo or cfo of a major institution feels that he or she is subject to criminal liability, when we interview them or put them on the grand jury, they have lawyers in this is hanging over their heads, maybe we decide not to prosecute the company or the individual. i think it is inaccurate to suggest that that does not have a strong effect. wall street co's on

feel they can do whatever they want and there is no deterrent. >> the question is, did that individual commit a crime? secondly, if 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 point 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. when 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 really 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 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 industry, i am told to quite 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 plot, twice today kind

of thing. -- broken clock twice a day kind of thing. you were in a rolling stone piece. 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 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. 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 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. we have all been in the government. clients think, you know so and so. 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, the opposite is the case. you do not get a better result if you of the friend of a friend. 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 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? >> 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 the 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 firms, but 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 want a 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. 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. 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 idea. 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.

on and on, there are 10 or 20 datapoint they never verified. in half the cases, it is a false notary. it is submitted to a court. when i went to law school, we call that perjury. i have a hard time imagining there isn't an element that wouldn't run and 90% successful prosecution rate on those cases. when the public is frustrated with a lack of prosecution, the question is why are we figuring out, just like throwing guys and nickel bag -- who decided that the laws don't matter and that the rules of property, around for literally centuries, don't matter, and they order to adjust to this down and dirty -- why

aren't those being prosecuted everywhere? >> i am detecting a point of view in that question. [laughter] first of all, i can't talk about robosignings, but let me suggest a couple of points. don't assume that in a lot of areas that prosecutions are not being made. if you use some examples -- it is hard to use your example because i cannot and will not talk about robosigning -- those are the kinds of cases, th candidly, for the most part you get low-level people. yes, you work your way up, but there are tens of those cases, tons of 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 isn't to take away from your question, but i don't accept the premise that it has not happened, because at the same time we are saying how come you are not indicting the ceo's of major institutions, we are talking about robosigning. i understand the concept, but it a little bit it's the point -- it is just a visceral. we want to get people, and we are not sure where it is. robosigning is one issue. there may be fraud, and those who will talk about whether or not -- i better be careful what i say in that -- >> oh, come one. [laughter]

>> what is the substantive violation? if it is sx is a violation, terrible, somebody signed tens of thousands of things, robosigning, may have happened in any event. lots of low hanging fruit, lots of mid-hanging fruit. i don't we do as good a job of explaining it. more generally, i would say that you should not assume -- there are lots of cases where we are working our way up. >> where is our man with the mic? >> i know a lot of what people are angry about is what appears to be hypocrisy as far as prosecuting rich people for

crimes as opposed to poor people. i think in a couple of times, you mentioned how good of 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 your use of discretion as opposed to just leeting it affected the outcome at trial. >> great question. i testified about things like the crack cocaine disparities. we have had the largest organized crime tate downs in the history of the country. we pursue medicare fraudst ers all over. gang prosecutions are a huge party. there is no question that in our society, different

people have different quality of representation, and people who suggest differently art disingenuous. if you have mary jo white on the other side wanted to make a presentation, you listen long and hard, and you prepare accordingly, because you know the person is going to have representation. in sophisticated cases, there is representation. the other way can benefit us, while we are investigating, if i can get the defense lawyer to make a presentation to me about the facts, it can jump-start it. the defense may believe that i'd jump started, they can make this go quicker, and it might be in the government's interest because we can be more efficient. the bottom line here question is that i.t. is a factor in the sense that we know that complicated cases are highly well represented, but it does not affect our decision making, it's a very -- but what i could

do is if a good lawyer can show me why we shouldn't do the case, and show in a very good way what the facts are. sometimes you think in other cases where lawyers are less good that you wish you would do that and they have not. some presentations amaze me. some are excellent, some are less good some have a complicated cases, some have a good lawyer versus a bad lawyer. it is one of the realities of our system and it is up to me and my team to not let the quality of the lawyering in any way intimidate us. is our requirement to get to the bottom of the facts. a good lawyer may be able to get that quicker. >> the priority is to do the right thing. when i was in the government -- i know you are laughing, a they unit and they ought to mean it. if you get a presentation from a

lawyer who is not so good, what we used to talk about internally is that 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 a lawyer. that is not to say that you cannot do all the work of every defense attorney, but you do try to get it right and make up for a presentation that is not at that level. i'm not suggesting you can rectify it all. >> not to be superficial about it, it is not that hard to to indict in individual and not that hard to indict a company. if all you want to do is get a good press releas ande and a lot of people applauding the government, we can do it and maybe two or three years later we pay the consequences. our job is to get it right. >> the whole thing is to do the investigation properly, the

for relief,rly, find out what happened the frustration i and the public have is that oftentimes the federal government is intentionally getting in the way. i don't think that is the case anymore, but it certainly wasn't the case. -- was the case. while i am very deferential to mary jo and lanny, but we opened it in investigation into subprime lending, the agency went into court to shut us down. they did not come into court to say yes, this is an important issue, you don't have jurisdiction, but we will supplement your jurisdiction to investigate all the issues that metastasized into our crisis. they firmly went into court to fight us and we had to go to the supreme court, winning in 2009 to get the jurisdiction to look at the various issues to be

investigated. this was a grotesque, a example of industry capture. occ, paid for and control by the banks. a lawyer was litigating -- i think he was in the office with you, mary jo -- he was litigating against the lawyers for the banks and the federal government. the federal government was there as the puppet, the pond, the mouthpiece of the banks. that is what was going on for many years tidwell we are saying that things are bette -- that was what was going on for many years. while we are saying that things are better, for many years the federal government was on the wrong side. >> eliot was involved in that one, i wasn't. absolutely no question that we need vigilant regulators. they are the subject matter experts and we don't want regulators that are captured by an industry.

that is not something that we can. -- that is not something that we can promote, nor should we countenance. >> this question is for you, mr. breuer. that "60 minutes" piece sort of portrait -- you may not be able to talk about that particular instance with countrywide -- but when a lot of people look at, that is when it they said that a person is out here and has this information. is that a way that maybe the visceral -- obviously, i understand you are limited in what you could take got, but if you could respond to that -- >> absolutely. for those of you who missed "60 minutes," my mother may forgive you for missing it. [laughter] i went on "60 minutes" to talk

about these issues. somebody from countrywide said, ", i know about the wrongdoing of countrywide and the fbi never spoke to me." not to be defensive, but that predated me and it was prosecuted by the attorney of los angeles. i know the current attorney of los angeles. he is a terrific person and he works very hard. look, we are a big country. i cannot explain in particular case why somebody wasn't interviewed. people who work with me know that i find that completely unacceptable. i am tough about interviewing witnesses. i want my prosecutors interviewing witnesses as well, not just the agents. if you are a whistle-blower and you have something to say -- i said on "60 minutes" that i want whistle-blower is coming -- if you have information and you

want to tell, my hope would be that you do not wait for somebody to knock on the door. hopefully someone will pick up, right? it is a little bit of a balance, but i do get it. we are decentralized system, 94 u.s. attorneys' offices. the fbi is terrific, but everybody is busy. i cannot say one particular case where she wasn't interviewed. i can say she should have been interviewed, i want her to be interviewed. i want every whistle-blower to come forward. but that is the reality of an imperfect world. >> follow-up question for all of you to answer if you would like. one of the remarkable things we have seen, when you look at the savings and loan crisis and you saw thousands of bank executives who went to jail in these cases, and you look to what has happened recently, one of the

things that has changed is the amount of resources available, articulate the expertise from the fbi -- particularly the expertise from the fbi, for better for worse -- i don't mean to suggest that it was worse, but the reality is that after the september 11 attacks, there was a tremendous focus of the fbi's resources away from white collar crime. you saw it probably at the very beginning, mary jo, but at the end of your run. my run at the u.s. attorney's office from 2000 to 2008 saw that happen. by that time we got to 2008 and started with the mortgage fraud group, the amount of resources available were so much less. they started pulling resources back into doing mortgage fraud. that meant that all the types of white-collar fraud suffered from investigators. and what you saw was a real degradation of the skill level and set of agents who have not

been spending five or six or seven years training of these complex investigations. the follow-up question, and you alluded to this earlier -- how much of an impact do you think the lack of available resources of really well trained, experienced resources -- in new york, we always had an embarrassment of riches, but elsewhere in the country, dealing with the u.s. attorney's office that had won a white- collar fbi agent for the entire district -- how much of an impact might that have had? >> i don't agree with the initial premise, i just want to say. i am often asked about the s-&-l crisis and white is it different now. it is somewhat in my view, at least -- in the s-&-l crisis, people all over the country were indicted or prosecuted or sued civilly, and they tended to be local bankers in local areas,

sometimes for a relatively modest amounts of money. i would say to all of you in this room that that is what happens now. that is what has happened at the last three years. 2100 people have been charged with mortgage-related cases around the country. putting in jail the wall street barons -- that is the criticism here. don't assume that because you are all living in manhattan that right now, all these investment frauds and mortgage fraud, that we are not doing it. what is going on is somewhat analogous. look, as the fbi director says, as everyone says, the number-one priority will always be to keep the country safe. safe from terrorism, right? i'm assistant attorney general of the security division. there is the international security division. congress decided we needed to have one for the vigilant fight

against terrorism. but i would say that with the cutbacks, there has been -- i fought very hard for this -- far more increased resources to what we would call a traditional white collar crime. i don think we will ever be in a post-9/11 scenario where could it come out of our resources are not fighting terrorism, but there is no question that we have more resources. it is also, frankly, the reason we do need things like this task force, because we are in a world where partnerships matter. the criminal division can no longer work alone. we have to work with u.s. attorneys and with state a.g.'s and local d.a.'s and the like. >> i would observe this about resources. lanny is right, the prior decision from the oval office to

justice is right. having said that, i think the lack of resources is too often used as an excuse for the failure of cases to have been made. i hate to roll out the ag's office when i was there -- i think we had 10 lawyers total for investor protection, compared to thousands of agents in the fbi and around the nation. sometimes having fewer resources is better, and i have often said that the sec was somewhat like gm, where you are so big and lumbering that you don't know what needs to be changed because you are not thinking creatively about what you must think when you are small and therefore resource-stressed. there is something to be said about being small animal and how to make the cases that matter the most as opposed to what is on the conveyor belt? resources get in the way. lanny is right, there were fewer resources available for white- collar offices, switched to

everything from organized crime to terrorism, and that made sense, but that did not diminish the occ, the sec. they had their entire regulatory apparatus and they are the ones who should have generated information flow up to justice to make the cases, or at least a flag of the crises that were emerging. focusing on what really did culminate in the lighting of the views of the financial crisis, everybody knew this was a crisis. there was fraud in dammit, it is being marketed illegally -- fraud endemic, it was being marketed illegally in fraudulently. >> in york, the u.s. attorney's offices, it is the lawyers who do the investigating -- >> no, no -- >> even though you had dislocating after 9/11, still

do, we were diverted, to some degree everybody was diverted, from the white-collar crime. sec has done other things like bring in traders so that they can understand transactions. that is a good thing. important as well. >> i would say that generally that characterization is true about attorneys during investigations, except when the agent came from the office of the special inspector general. >> i was just going to say to eliot's point, a great point, when you look at someone like the director of enforcement, the chief in the southern district, they transformed the sec. you do have to be nimble. when a small example, it was important to me that in my own division, any case that was an old case, there had to be a good excuse. otherwise he would not be able

to hide behind this old case just to shake it like a beautiful vase. just to give you one little anecdote, the public integrity section, 20 elite lawyers, probably never had more than 3 or four trials a year. last year, 20 lawyers, we had 17 at trials. it is just the focus. i could not agree more with eliot's point. we have to be nimble and we have to keep re-examining how we do this. our regulators have to do this as well. >> i am really 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]

>> surely we will go live bank to the pentagon for a briefing on the ongoing unrest in afghanistan. president obama has acknowledged and apologized for the burning of korans by soldiers last week at a military base. we will have an update on that 11:30 on c-span. until then, your phone calls on this morning's "washington journal." much more frequent and n primaries past. if you thought you were living through a particularly nasty presidential primary season, turns out you were right. four years ago, just 6% of campaign ads in the g.o.p. primaries amounted to attacks on other republicans. in this election, that figure has shot up to more than 50%, according to an analysis of

advertising trends. and the negative ads are not just more frequent, they also appear to be more vitriol i can. in 2008, one of the harshest ads mitt romney ran ahead of the iowa caucuses criticized the immigration position of senator john mccain of arizona, but only after calling him an honorable man. in 2012, such writes p.w. barnum, such a nicety seems quaint. this is the pro-obama super p.a.c. ad that's airing in michigan attacking hit mom knee. -- attacking mitt romney. >> let detroit go bankrupt. >> mitt romney. there's no question he made a fortune from businesses he helped destroy. >> bankrupt. >> romney pocketed huge fees shortly before companies collapsed. >> bankrupt. >> even en the businesses failed, romney came out ahead. are those the values we want in

an america president? >> bankrupt. >> priorities u.s.a. action is responsible for the consent of this advertising. host: do negative ads work? that our question this morning. let's hear from jim, i understand penalty caller, in akron, ohio. good morning. caller: yeah, first of all, i think it depends on the individual. if he's got all that baggage, thnegative a are going to work. i want to kind of change directions here real quick. i'm looking at the screen right now, and i see republicans, democrats, and independents. threpublicans and democrats, they're one in the same today. what we have in this country is we have different states destroying the company, and it starts with the state otexas. the last four wars have been started by texans, and oil companies are in texas. nasa, that texas. illegal labor, that's texas.

halliburton is from texas. so, you know, it shouldn't be democrats and republicans. it should be people that live in texas or the southwest that are attached to the oil, the war, you know, the illegal labor, you know, the military contractors. host: the focus is on negative ads -- caller: yeah, but ma'am, the negative ads, that's all irrelevant today. host: ok, let's hear what katherine has to say, democratic caller in florida. go ahead, katherine. caller: yes, good morning. what the gentleman was speaking of wasn't quite the question that you had asked. yes, i believe negative ads are just what they are, negative, and whether you are a democrat or republican, independent, it is negative, and i really have seen a trend with the more negative ads causing a loss to the people who are pushing the most negative ads, such as mr.

gingrich. he has lost quite a few points, and he's just an example. i don't like it on any of the sides, and it's bad for the country. >> host: katherine, as a democrat, what did you think about the ad we just watched? it was from the pro-obama super p.a.c. attacking mitt romney zsm that turn you off to the president? caller: turns me off, no, it doesn't, because i have read the f.e.c. for over four years now, and i see what they do. they allow people to run moneys, so i do not think that it makes president obama look bad, it makes p.a.c.'s look bad. but the average person that doesn't understand the f.e.c. and p.a.c.'s and those moneys, they will certainly think that that is negative. host: let's look at some comments on facebook. peter says, you bet your life they work. he says negative ads are effective. steven says voters do not treat all negative information equally. if the allegations or information presented in the

negative ad are perceived as relevant, the effects will probably be less significant. second, while negative ads have the capacity to weaken political support for a candidate's opponent, going negative within a campaign can also diminish the tacking candidate's stature among voters. he says there can be a backlash. jesse says negative ads do work. royanne says i would rather know what they could do to improve conditions in the u.s.a. i'm tired of all the negative ads. josh, what do you think, ann arbor, michigan, independent. caller: well, you know, i was just looking at that super p.a.c. ad you played earlier for president obama, and t one thing that i really noticed is that the ad is incredibly emotive. while i do agree that negative ads are particularly effective in the modern political sphere, we need to, as a collective, realize that certain negative ads really add nothing to the discussion, and others really have the potential to distinguish certain candidates,

ideologically and statistically. host: does it influence you, josh? do you feel like you absorb what the negative ads are saying? do you think there's a backlash at all? caller: i mean, backlash is certainly a prevalent issue, but i think backlash comes in the form of some of the more ugly ads we've seen throughout the republican campaign, especially a lot of the mudslinging we've seen. i mean, it's all over the tv screens here in michigan with mitt romney and dr. ron paul. you know, all duking it all on the airwaves. some of them have really emptied the complaints, while others are very substantive, like some of ron paul's complaints about senator santorum's voting record or mitt romney's voting record while he was governor of massachusetts. host: are you planning on voting in the primary? caller: absolutely. host: can you tell us who? >> caller: absolutely supportive of ron paul. host: let's look atome of the local newspapers in michigan, the "detroit news."

it's courtesy of the newseum. we get the front pages thanks to them. not only does it have a story about romney and santorum, but it also has a piece on ron paul. it says the maverick urges reform. it talk about one voter who took the trip for the journey of her life. host: there's one day left before g.o.p. make their candidate known. as they crisscross the state sunday, mitt romney looked to

solidify his status as the best candidate to take president barack obama in november. host: democratic caller in washington, d.c., good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: good, thanks. go right ahead. caller: i love your program, and i appreciate the opportunity to be able to voice my opinion. first, i suggest that i think that it's clearly evident the negative ads have been prevalent in american campaigning, not only in recent memory, but over the course of the extended period of the way our process works. at some point, though, i have to question as a viewer of this political drama, wh does the media or individuals such as yourself that are reporting this, i mean, this extends over to bloggers now that the media has extended to the public

sector, what is the definition of a negative campaign? i can't imagine calling mitt romney out on his comments on the detroit bail justice as a negative comment. he's running for the president of the united states, and this is something that he specifically put a stamp on to the public. how is that defined as a negative campaign, and what is going on as far as the media overlooking a lot of these use that are made throughout the primary process, both on e republican and democratic side, which i think is even more visceral than anything that's being broadcast on television. host: well, we, c-span, actually covered an event on frid that looked at some of e very questions you're aski about, the new america foundation looked at the evolution and impact of negative ads. we'll hear alip of that in just a few moments. but first, let's listen to an ad that comes from the pro-romney super p.a.c. this hits santorum on votes he's taken, and this ad is running in states that have

primaries torrow. >> how did rick santorum actually vote? santorum voted to raise the debt limit five times andor billions in wasteful projects, including the bridge to nowhere. in a single session, santorum cosponsored 51 bills to increase spending and zero to cut spending. santorum even voted to raise his own pay and join hillary clinton to let convicted felons vote. rick santorum, big spender, washington insider. host: that's from the pro-romney super p.a.c., restore our future, hitting rick santorum. here are the numbers to call if you'd like to weigh in on whether you think negative ads work. republican, 202-737-0002. mocrats, 202-737-0001. independent callers, 202-628-0205. republicans, do you think there's any kind of backlash happening? we heard some comments from jeb bush of florida, saying that he

was concerned about the tone and direction of the back and forth going on between the candidates. what do you think? does it ultimately hurt the team or does it help by making the candidates stronger and gettg them battle tested before the general election? here's a comment that michael made on twitter. negative ads work for me if they're clearly fact-based, however logic and outright lies work against the ad originator. what do you think stands? democratic caller in cleveland. caller: hi. how are you today? host: good. caller: good, actually, i'm sometimes goin to call it negative ads. i think we come from, because that's pretty much what it's about now. i'm on the democratic side, so i know you get it from bh sides. but i think the majority of negative ads have 30% of truth to them, there's really not a lot of fact, and i think that because of the super p.a.c., which allows them to continue to do that, i think it's going

to continue to bring our country down. i think whatever happens to the people people speaking on the issues rather than picking on the other person's negative, and i think that it is hurting our democracy as a country, and i think eventually if that continues, without any type of adjustment to the super p.a.c., it's going to hurt us overall in our society, and our society is going down because we're no longer caring about certain things. at this point, i think it's terrible, but on both sides. i think in my opinion, the republicans go way too far with it, and now it's even evident because they're actually doing it to each other, which is fine. but it dehumanizes the president like he's not even human. and i think most of the negative ads work because they appeal to people who are not very intelligent to make their own decisions based on a

particular ad rather than look at things logically and then have an understanding behalf they should do. host: let's look at comments that former florida governor jeb bush made. he said the other day -- host: marty is a republican in westland, michigan. good morningmarty. caller: how you doing? host: good. are you planning to vote tomorrow? caller: absolutely. host: who are you voting for? caller: i'll be voting for newt, even though the ground game out here is nonexistent in the state ptty much because he's in georgia today. but i'm sure it's political. host: do you think negative ads are hurt him?

caller: i would say so. for me, i don't pay attention to negative ads. it's pretty much bad if you look at the polling and whatnot. i just would hope people research, analyze that both parties have come to destroy the country and hopefully people willet to their senses and realize that, you know, the stuff has got to stop. it's our money,ot theirs. host: joseph writes in on twitter and says sit zends united has made the negativity great they are election cycle than it appears. let's go to our next ll, which is out of utah. south jordan, utah, steven, independent line. welcome. caller: welcome. there are principles that have applied and acted upon that will increase the social, spiritual, and economic well-being of individuals, as well as nations. ese principles have come from moses, and they're called the 10 commandments. and there's one of them that

says thou shall not bear false witness. in this election, it's turned into the bear false witness election. it surely will not increase the social, spiritual well-being of individuals or this nation. home what does it mean to you when it comes time to vote? caller: come times to vote? i don't even know if i'm going vote this year, because i don't think it's going to make any difference who is elected the way this country has gone. host: does that trouble you, steven? caller: it does. it's really sad. i don't see republican or democrats, they're both -- what's happened to this country, this country has turned those principles into, you might say, the 10 inconvenient truths, all of them. and it's sad. host: we have a comment on twitter asking about this issue of truth. don writes in and says ere's no such thing as truth in politics. i mentioned that c-span on

friday shared an event from the new america foundation that looked at the evolution and impact of negative ads. you can find more of this on our website in a video library at c-span.org. but let's take a listen to comments made by robert mann, the author of "mushroom clouds," which looks at how lies actually can come inside of positive ads sometimes. let's take a listen to that. >> a lot more lies are told in positive ads than negative ads. you can't -- i'm a family man. i love my country. i love puppies. i love christmas. those are not sort of demon stable statements that can be checked unless you can, you know, find someone torturing santa claus or something, you're want going to be able to disprove that. the facts are presented in these negative ads, and occasionally, you know, maybe more often than, you have people like john kerry and michael dukakis who are

incompetent incident when it comes to knowing how to respond in an effective way, but there are many candidates who are very effective in responding to those and using, marshaling the media and others to set the record straight. that's why i agree with ken, that the negative ads are not a bad thing. they eage people in a way that positive ads, frankly, i don't think do. host: that's robert mann. he is the author of "day petals and mushroom clouds," a book about ads and campaigns. that was part of an event that c-span was at at friday from the new america foundation. if you'd like to see more, go to our website and look for the video library at c-span.org. let's look at this graphic about negativity in campaigns. this is looking at 2008 versus 2012. in 2008, the green are positive, money spent on positive ads, and then money spent on negative ads. very different this campaign season. $52 million spent on positive ads four years ago with only

$3.4 million on negative ads. so far this year in 2012, over $18 million on the positive ads and over $19 millionn the negatives. that's looking at how super p.a.c.'s are contributing. when we look at the contributions by candidates, expenditures by individual, gingrich, paul, romney, santorum, the most money has come from the romney campaign, $14.7 million. gingrich has spent $2.7 llion. ron paul, $1.3 million. rick santorum, $400,000 on negative ads. caller: thanks for taking my call. you look beautiful in that purple blouse that you have . host: what do you think about the negative ads? are you listening to them? do you payttention to them? caller: well, not really, because the biggest lier wins. it's like the stripes on a zebra. you can't change the stripes. i'm actually -- i want to say

i'm biased to the fact, but i've been a union truck driver on the east coast for 25 years. like most of these callers have said, the working man and working woman of the united states who basically forks out everything has no say in the matter. we put a bunch of crooks in office down there in washington. they've lost complete touch with the guy, the iron worker, the truck driver, the teacher, the san tarme worker, the hospital worker. i mean, any time you pay a ball player and an actor multimillion dollars for an hour and a half's worth of work, and you pay an airline pilot who's got 300 people on board an airplane to go across the seas, you take their pensions, strip their pensions from them, we're running a backwards country here. something just needs to be changed. thanks for taking my call. host: well, danny, there's a story in the "l.a. times" today, santorum and romney fight their own class war in michigan. in a key republican primary showdown, rhetoric flies about

a struggle between the working class and the elite. this ties into what you were work -- what you were talking about. host: joe on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, negative ads work, because they keep the candidates from really discussing the issues. but they a co-conspirator, the media. the media falls into that trap and perpetuates these negative ads, and they refuse to discuss the issues.

i can't remember the last time i've seen someone on the media ask the president or these candidates -- there are 24 million americans out of work. what do you intend to do? we're $16 trillion in debt. what do you intend to do? our jobs are overseas. what do you intend to do? so, the media is complicit in allowing these candidates and the president to get away from discussing the issues that are killing my country. host: what do you think about the debate season? has the republican debates helped the dialogue, helped you hear the candidates talks about the issues? caller: that's the point. host: you don't think so? caller: that's the point. this is no debate season. thiss a mudslinging season. there's no debate. there's no issues being discussed. could you hear me at the other end? host: i could, joe. what i meant w the actual debate. there have been over 20 debates between the candidates f. you've tuned into those, have those added somethinghat you feel like what you're seeing and hearing about the media has

not? caller: it makes me realize we're in worse shape than i thought. host: ok. alice, democratic caller in kalamazoo, michigan, good morning. caller: good morning. yes, now, we teach our children, we're supposed to teach our children not to tell lies. and when you have grown people standing on tv lying on each other, what is that teaching your children? tell tell a lie to get what you want. host: alice, you live in michigan. how much advertising are you seeing, are you listening to, are you reading in your papers? >> i view a lot of that on tv. it's disgusting. happy let's hear from pat in fenton, who's calling on our independent line. let's get you going here. pat, what do you think? caller: well, first, thanks for c-span. i think as a lunch pail republican that i'm going to vote for santorum. romney has talked about the

bailout in ways that have upset me. he's blamed it all on the unions, the economic problems that the automobile companies d instead of years of bad management, and from his own mouth, he has reinforced what santorum has had to say. host: are you hearing -- are you talking to friends of yours, are you talking to family, are you hearing about their impressions of how they're going to vote tomorr? caller: yes, and for the most part, they're going to hold our noses and vote for santorum, because we don't feel like he is attacking the average person in the way that the romney campaign has. host: have your feelings changed about mitt romney from four years ago? caller: yes. host: how come? because of the bailout? caller: because of the bailout, and because of the fact that he was willing to bail out the banks, he wasn't willing to bail out the automobile industry, which would have resulted in millions of jobs being lost. i know at that time there wasn't a bank or corporation that was willing to put up the

money to help with the bailout, to fund it. i've listened very carefully to the news about that. i think that the santorum ad has reinforced what romney himself has said about the bailout and what he continues to say about the bailout. host: and pat, before we let you go, as someone who lives in michigan, how significant do you think it would be if mitt romney does not win tomorrow, does not win that state? caller: i think the powers-that-be have decide that had romney is going to be our candidate regardless of who votes. host: the comment on twitter, charles agrees with an earlier caller who was concerned about the media's role in the negative tone. charles has a good point. the media replicates the negative ads and amplifies and collects money. let's go to california. alan, republican. good morning. caller: i am absolutely a democrat, but i forgive you for that. host: my apologies. go ahead, alan. caller: you're forgiven. obviously these negative ads

advance the agenda of their perpetrators. they have the effect of depressing the overall interest of the electorate and going to the polls and casting the vote. it's fascinating, because it's >> see "washington journal" every morning said 7:00 eastern. live to the pentagon for a briefing on the unrest in afghanistan. here is press secretary george little. [laughter] >> he is always looking over my shoulder. well, good morning. i will open with a few remarks on afghanistan, and i'm joined by my fellow spokesman via video link from kabul. since we third last week that isaf forces mishandled religious materials, including the choly koran, political and military

leaders from the president to the secretary of defense move quickly and forcefully to express apologies for this incident. american and afghan leaders have met with a muslim religious leaders over the past several days to elicit support in conveying that message. tragically, many in afghanistan have been killed or wounded as a result of a violence there. extremists have killed four americans, including two officers within the confines of the afghan interior ministry. they demonstrate that we will experience challenges within the course of this campaign. let me be clear -- first, secretary to attenpanetta and chairman dempsey are fully committed to a strategy in afghanistan.

they believe we have achieved significant progress iagainst te and they momentum, believe the fundamentals of our strategy remains hundred second, we will not allow recent events to allow us to lose sight of the core objectives, including denying the taliban the ability to maintain a safe haven in afghanistan. at third, we are away for a in are committed to achieving the transition to the afghan -- unwavering in are committed to achieving the transition to the afghan security lead on the timeline agreed to at lisbon. fourth, we join with president karzai and other afghan leaders in the call to calm and an end to violent protests. fifth, we appreciate the steps

karzai is taking to quell violence in the country and we commend at the hard work and sacrifice of the afghan security forces, who have suffered casualties attempting to quell the violence. we respect the right of all afghans to peaceful protests. finally, our relationship with our afghan partners remains strong. we continue to strengthen the mutual trust between isaf and the government of afghanistan as well as afghan forces and civilians. every day, our forces together with our afghan partners face a purple and immediate there are enemy.facea brutal afghan security forces are

parham with isaf forces in 90% of situations. together they fight in difficult situations, building trust and mutual respect despite recent incidents. we know that the spirit of american coalition and afghan forces will be tested throughout the campaign in afghanistan. anyone who believes that they can weaken our resolve through these cowardly attacks is severely mistaken. let me repeat that -- anyone who believes they can weaken our resolve through these cowardly attacks is severely mistaken. our coalition will emerge from these challenges stronger and as determined as ever to provide security for the afghan people. there is much at stake in afghanistan, and our commitment to our mission and our strategy will not waver. with that, i will be happy to take your questions, unless captain kirby from kabul has any

further comments. >> no, thanks, george. you covered that very well. i am ready for the questions. >> george, with respect to move to move;'s all advisers from the ministries, what has to happen before going forward with that partnership? he said the fundamentals of the strategy remains sound. the partnership and the trust you refer to seems to have deteriorated, to put it mildly. is this business as usual? is he going to proceed with the strategy without any particular consideration? >> with security for personnel and isaf, that is something we

work on together. the fundamentals of our strategy to remain sound. the mission continues. we continue to fight the enemy, and we will do that. we work alongside thousands of afghans every single day to ensure a better future for the afghan people. nothing that has happened over the past week will deter us from that goal. we're making progress. we have put the enemy on its heels in many part of the country. it does not mean there isn't work to be done. but let's not let the events of the past week steer us away from the reality that we have made significant progress throughout the country. on the first question, let me turn it over to john. >> thanks, george. general allen has made it clear that the advisers will go back into the ministry's when he is

ready for them to go back. he has not put a deadline or timeline on that. he is in discussions every day with the minister of the interior and the minister of defence about what we are doing to improve security in the ministries so that he can get to that decision point. i wouldn't really at this point want to go into any specifics on that, because we want to preserve a little bit of force protection measures. suffice it to say, he is not ready right now to have the advisers go back. but this is february. the other thing i would say, and he made this very, very clear yesterday in meetings, is that he wants to work to go on. the advisers are still remaining in contact with their counterparts in the ministry's. the contact is still there, the work is continuing. it is just that they are not physically at the ministry buildings. >> has isaf taken any additional

measures about pausing or de partner in the patrols or routine contact with personnel as a course protection measure? how can isaf personnel be confident that in the wake of these protests, they are not vulnerable to attack by the very people they are mentoring? >> john? >> well, look, great question, but as you know, we've talked about green-on-blue incidents in the past. this is something -- it is a challenge we are dealing with all the time. in each of the regional commands, and general allen urged them to be vigilant, but he made clear that operations must continue. we just wrapped up an operation to date, a three- or four-day operation down there, with over

900 afghan national security force troops up part of this operation, nearly half the number total of troops have participated. it was what they call a spoiling mission. they wanted to get ahead of any spring offensive by the enemy down south, and they tremendous work together. it was a very successful mission. over 200 palace of explosive home eight captured, 29 ied's taken. they expected over 5000 vehicles on highway one. that is just one example. the work continues throughout the country. partnering continues. the growth and development, training of the afghan national security forces, that has not been impacted. clearly, everybody is going to be little more vigilant right now. that is the right thing to do, it is appropriate to do.

the mission itself continues. >> hi, captain kirby. please give us your best assessment of what is happening on the ground right now. how widespread are these protests? how often are they happening? how dangerous is the atmosphere? what, if any, additional steps can you tell us about to protect americans in general, troops and civilians? >> right now all that has been done in kabul -- nothing has changed over the last couple of days. the advisers are not in the ministries. movement here is restricted. especially anything outside of the green zone. obviously, it would be less than honest if i said that things are

not tense in kabul. they certainly are. but it is getting calmer here. on saturday we had 24 protests. a majority -- not a majority, but a great number of them were filing. yesterday, only nine protests, and they were not throughout the country. four in the north, if you are in the east, only one out west. today, there were only three protests, and two of those were about the koran issue, one was about land disputes, none of them were violent. it seems that things are calming down. there has been called by religious leaders, certainly by president karzai and others, for calm and peaceful protests, and we're seeing the results of that effort to urge restraint. >> captain kirby, craig whitlock. could you give us an update on

the status of the investigation into, as george put it, the murders of the two officers in the interior ministry? why haven't the perpetrators been caught? why has it afghanistan said publicly that this was an afghan? >> well, i am not going to speak for the afghan ministries are saying or not saying or why. that is something they should talk to. this just happened, so the investigation is just now under way. the afghans are also investigating it as well. we are working together with them on that. the killer fled, and there is an active search to find him. i would be loath to go into any more details than that. believe me, craig, what happened the other day as everybody's attention here and a sharp focus. the real tragedy -- our thoughts

and prayers go to the families of the two who were killed. the larger point, in georgia said this very well - -- george said this very well -- as tragic as this was here, and certainly a shock to isaf personnel in kabul, everybody wants to continue the mission and get back to work, and that is what we're focused on. >> can you tell us, reviewing the entire afghan strategy, we heard that you asked general allen to do our review for the post-surge strategy, and the pentagon is getting together to look things over. where do we stand now? what is expected? when we get the report from allen, if that is why we are waiting for, and o a