have the ability to do that for ourselves, something that is committed in the constitution to the federal government's responsibility. and when the federal government doesn't do its job, the federal government doesn't necessarily feel the negative impacts. it's people who live in those places like texas where it's very real. i want to maybe just ask one last question, not to get too far town in the legalese, but ms. atkinson as a result of the investigations that have been done here in congress on the fast and furious gunwalking debacle, we were met with a claim of executive privilege by the attorney general that was then embraced by the president of the united states even though there was no indication whatsoever that the president or high level people at the white house were actually involved in,

but could you just describe this sort of -- the sort of obstacles that you ran into in the course of your investigation of the fast and furious scandal? >> some of this which is already sort of in the public record, when i began covering this story, the justice department employees put out intrernl emails that said the story was false and the whistleblowers weren't telling the truth, which we now know, have proven, they were, and the justice department has admitted it. but they put out a series of false implications and information along the way. they launched a campaign in my view of calling superiors, bosses colleagues, social media, using bloggers to cooperate with them and work with them in some cases directly saying it was not true, repeating false talking points. it was an all-out effort to kill the reporting and stop other

reporters who might be pursuing it. the extent of the links -- lengths to which public affairs officials went to try to stop this line of reporting on a story they clearly saw was proving to be damaging to them. >> i'm advised that another roll call vote has been called on a series of votes we're having on the floor of the senate. at the request of the chairman, the committee will stand in recess until 1:30. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

>> day number two of the senate judiciary committee hearing for loretta lynch to be the next attorney general. the nominee testified all day yesterday. she's not in the witness room today, some of her family members are there and supporters. women you saw dressed in red are members of her sorority. but she's not there today. instead the committee is hearing from nine separate witnesses testifying on the nominee or issued -- issues relating to the justice department. they're taking a break here, and a long one, because of votes on the senate floor, votes related to the keystone x.l. pipeline, it's likely that the senate could wrap up work on that

today. anyway, those votes will keep the committee in recess for about an hour and a half or system of we heard from john cornyn who gaveled out 1:30 or so eastern. we're going to open up our phone lines and hear from you, your thoughts on potentially the next attorney general, her testimony your priorities for the attorney general, the numbers are call if you're a democrat, you should use 202-768-8920. republicans, 202-748-8921, all others 202-748-89 2. make sure you mute your television or radio once you get through. you can also join us on social media, facebook or the hash tag on twitter #cspanchat. wanted to show you a tweet from patrick leahy, ranking democrat on the committee.

just asked all of today's outside witnesses if any of them oppose loretta lynch for attorney general. not a single one opposed. let's go to calls. dethese in east orange new jersey, on our democrats' line. hello, denise are you there? denise, are you there? all right, we'll go on to karen karen in springfield missouri, republican line. caller: hello. host: go ahead, karen, you're on the air. caller: yes. my priorities for the next attorney general is they uphold the constitution above all else. above all the, you know rhetoric or whatever they feel, the pressure that they feel from the administration, the from the outside, from the president on down. host: we'll get to more of your calls in a minute. we were fortunate this morning

on "washington journal" co-hear from the chairman of the committee himself, chuck grass grassley and asked him where he stands on his vote on loretta lynch, the nominee. here's what he had to say. host: you said at the hearing i for one, need to be persuaded she will be an independent attorney general. did she persuade you yesterday? guest: not yet but the hearing isn't over and there's a lot of written questions she'll respond to over the next week or so. we have one more day of hearings today, five people that republicans have chosen, four that the democrats have chosen. and we'll listen to them. and they are probably not going to mention much about her qualifications because there's no question about her qualifications her competence. she has a record of being a vigorous prosecutor up there in

noverbingt, two different times being appointed by two different presidents. and she's very eloquent system of what we're probably going to hear today is the same thing i tried to bring out in my opening statement yesterday and my question you know, maybe when i say we, we republicans more than the democrats feel that we have politicized -- a politicized department of justice and that we have a department of justice that is broken. so the question comes back, can she fix it? you have to feel somewhat sorry for her going into a department where a lot of us feel that the president made some unconstitutional decisions and immigration isn't the only one. in fact he made a decision in nlrb 9-0. even his employees overturned him. but the point is she's going

into a situation that's kind of broken and politicized and will she be able to fix it? that's what's important to most of us. >> why don't you have confidence? 100% confidence that she can fix it? guest: well she gave answers yesterday but really didn't answer. that's not just loretta lynch. a lot of republican and democrat nominees come before us and waffle around and don't really answer the questions. and if you heard her and you were outside of the political system, you might not detect that. but when you have a strong -- when you have strong feelings, let's say just on immigration. we aren't arguing the immigration issue. we're saying that the president acted against the will of congress or congress should be acting in that area and the president doesn't have the authority to act in that area. she has to defend that. and she was very difficult for her to kind of straddle the fence of that.

host: tu howe do you plan to vote on her confirmation? guest: you'll have to ask me in a couple of weeks. each one of us are going to have written questions. we were there with her nine hours yesterday, but you don't get all the questions answered. she could be there a week and you might not get all the answers. and we may have follow-up questions as well. and today's hearing is very important. we'll be hearing from people treated rudely by the i.r.s. and the justice department -- is the justice department prosecuting people there that broke the law, we'll hear from people that were exposing fast and furious and were not treated well by the justice department when they were trying to get information on fast and furious. we're going to hear a lot today from people, and we're going to hear today from people that are going to defend what the justice department does or defend

loretta lynch as being a person that can fix it. but i think we didn't really hear from her yesterday that the department was politicized, we didn't hear from her that there was anything broken. we heard from her that she was going to abide by the constitution. well, you expect everybody that takes an oath of office to abide by the constitution. host: we will have coverage of today's hearing as the chairman just outlined what will be taking place 10:00 a.m. eastern time here on c-span, day two of the attorney general confirmation hearings. chairman grassley, do you think she can get three republicans to clear the senator judiciary committee? >> i think that there's kind of a feeling among most people to give some deference to the president of the united states and with an important position like the attorney general, even if there was not a majority in the committee to vote her out probably would still go to the

senate floor, not to just have 20 senators decide her fate, let all 100 senators weigh in. host: do you put yourself in that category, you'll defer to the president? >> i think -- it isn't just president obama, i'm talking about all presidents. i'm reading calvin coolidge's biography, he sent an attorney general up voted down twice. then he finally picked somebody else that they passed without any trouble whatsoever. so this is something that the senate ought to deal with like it has historically. host: you sound like a yes vote at least clearing her out of the committee. guest: you want me to make a decision two weeks before i read the record and even before the record is playing. you would expect that maybe from a politician to waffle i'm telling you how i normally do things. and you're about a week or 10 days ahead of time. host: all right, we'll wait and see.

>> chuck grassley from earlier on "washington journal," the senate committee in recess, we expect them back about 1:30, day number two of confirmation hearings for loretta lynch to be the next attorney general. we continue with your calls and comments. let's hear from arlene in tiptonville, tennessee. caller: hello, sir. host: go ahead. caller: i'm a registered democrat but when i can vote again, i will be voting for a republican president. this lady may be as nice as she can be but she is going to be a yes person to president obama. she will not -- she will concur with everything that he wants her to do. and we -- down in this little small town in tennessee, we are very disappointed in our president. and i'm really frightened.

i think i'm expressed emotion too much but that's how i feel i have been a democrat all my life and i don't feel like that anymore. host: all right, let's go to our democrats' line here philip in camden woim i'm -- wyoming. caller: yes, i think that senator whitehouse hit the nail on the head, the republicans are just using these hearings as a forum to criticize the attorney general and president obama. i think they're wasting a lot of time. host: here's floresville, texas dean is next on the republican line. caller: don't vote for that woman. she will like the lady said before, she'll do everything obama says to do. ok the deal with the democrats is that the -- in order for them to approve of obama, they're approving of abortion, which is murder and they have blood on

their hands with every baby that's murdered. do not vote for that woman. she is going to do everything obama wants. host: we're taking your comments on twitter, also on -- at ht cspanchat. here's some comments early in the afternoon. john, who says, prosecuting bush era war crimes. and from karen she says obviously ms. lynch is very glib and well he hearsed. she sounded perfect as she tried to tug at our emotional strings with her beautiful self-serving set-the-stage speech but the more she spoke the more she showed her true colors. richard chents -- comments, finding ways to address violence against the black community. that's your priorities for the next attorney general on

facebook. next up, from the virgin islands. caller: i'm just calling to say i've been listening and what i found out, what i believe in my heart is that this this is a chance to talk about people doing wrong who are not there to represent themselves and using that as part of the discussion to nominate the new attorney general. i see a very big disconnect and wanted to say that this is wrong because of the terrible disconnect. has nothing to do with the attorney general coming in. just my comments. host: and steve in toledo, ohio, democrats' line. steve, you're on the air. caller: i want to say, i'm a millenial, and i've kind of grown up being taught that democrats look out for the poor and the less fortunate but as i pay attention to c-span more and more i realize that democrats really are insiders, they're the

kind of people that i wanted to be against, and i'm finding myself more in the republican camp, the more i hear like sheryl attkisson's testimony about what obama and holder did to her and how we can't get truth anymore. i listen to msnbc and it's all garbage, all the time. democrats have to change and start being honest and real with the american people rr no one will vote for them. host: just a note about the democrats, the house democrats are meeting today in philadelphia two days of their retreat, president obama is speaking to that group later today. we will have coverage of his speech. around 7:00 eastern on the c-span network. that caller mentioned sheryl attkisson. here's a tweet, c-span chat, america owes you so much thank you for proving there are some journalists with integrity and worthy of trust. this one, i'd like to see her --

loretta lynch -- continue to bridge the cap between cops and the communities they serve that most. and this one, ms. lynch is an outstanding example of the american dream but can the attorney general stand up to the president? and camille is next in new york republican line. camille? caller: yes. host: you're on the air. caller: i feel -- i'm a registered republican and i feel that she would need to abide by the constitution and be fair on both sides of the aisle. do what she feels is the right thing and not -- and the honest thing, not what obama thinks and wants to be done. because he hasn't done anything and our last attorney general, thank god he's out, i'm very happy. host: do you think that loretta lynch represents your area in terms of the -- being the u.s. attorney, do you think she's an independent enough voice? >> no, i personally don't think that. i would like to see somebody

else, but that remains to be seen. host: ok, let's hear from nancy in north carolina, you there? caller: yes. good afternoon. host: good afternoon, go ahead. caller: i'd like to see someone independently minded with justice, number one, to defend our constitution and uphold the right and defend our u.s. citizens and our rights and above all i think it's about -- host: i lost you there camille sorry about that. let's go to los angeles and ruth. hello. democrat's line. caller: yes. i would like to say i don't know why these people on both sides can get up and talk about justice because the justice ain't justice for all. i would like to say speak no evil and they're not going to

like anybody because they're against president obama and you can't do -- she's not going to do anything if the other people don't sign nothing. the republicans don't put nothing through and that's the bottom line. they get up there talking about justice, justice is -- black people ain't doing nobody wrong, either. host: this is day number two of two days of confirmation hearings by the senate judiciary committee. if you missed any of yesterday's, they went for nine hours total, you can see it on c-span.org. our tv viewers are seeing some video from yesterday's testimony. c-span.org. right now, day number two, they're in recess, the senate is voting on a number of antidepressants to the keystone x.l. pipeline bill and when that wraps up, at least the first round of votes, the committee will gavel act in in just other an hour, about 1:30 eastern.

frederick in seattle, washington on our republican line. go ahead. fred lick. -- frederick. caller: this is frederick calling from seattle, washington. a cupful of things that are really upsetting, when the issue of constitutionality tends to get trivialized because lots of democrats on there thinking like it's something out in the weeds, it's not that important, well it's crucial that -- to understand that the attorney general is the law enforcement officer for the whole united states and if that person does not do their job then this is basically an ungoverned country. if you're not obeying by the constitution then it's lawless ungoverned country. this is not what we want. we want a government of laws. and when the democrats will sit there and say, we want to talk about this attorney general not

the attorney general who has been before, this is ridiculous because you have to look at who works for who. the attorney general works for the president and the attorney general can get fired if she -- if they don't do what the president wants them to do. so clearly the issue is with the previous attorney general, not upholding the law, it's crucial that the next attorney general does uphold the law. and so when the democrats sit there and act like, well, this is something that's in the weeds and we don't want to talk about what went on in the past, how can you correct the deficiencies if you don't talk about the whole situation and when they talk about holding someone responsible, the president is responsible, unfortunately, we don't have any constitutional remedy to deal with that other than the oversight by the congress. and we all know there's a big struggle between the congress and the executives and

unfortunately, i know that when reagan has been -- we like it when the executive in that case is a strong executive but the executive can do good or can do bad. host: frederick's comments on the constitution reflected in this tweet from steve king on the house side of things, steve king speaks a lot on the house floor about the constitution, his tweet, the senate must not confirm loretta lynch for attorney general. even eric holder is better. lynch is in contempt of the constitution. orrin hatch, republican on the committee, one of the 11 republicans on the committee tweeted, in lynch hearing senator hatch assures witnesses that investigations related to the i.r.s. and lois lerner are ongoing. let's hear from red oak, texas, hello to barbara on our others line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to let you know that i feel that ms. lynch probably brings a lot of things to the table, very well elingted, she

-- educated, she has a lot of good information she would be able to share. however, that being said, i think that we need someone in there that has a backbone and a determination to follow the constitution as it's written and not be told by the president or others on what to do. i think immigration is top priority, it's changing the united states into a huge mess. and everybody knows that except those what are sitting up there in the government. and i have a grave concern about my children and my grandchildren as to what's going to take place. mind you, my grandparents came over from another country. but they came in the right way. and stood in line at ellis island and did everything they were told to do, according to the laws of the united states.

everybody needs to do that. my grandparents never had a free ride. they came over here, they never were on any kind of government subsidy or welfare. host: barbara where did your grandparents immigration from? >> they came from the czech republic. and the reason they came over here was because during that time they were suppressed, as a matter of fact, they couldn't own any land and they took everything that they had and sold to get their ticket to come over on the boat which took them weeks to get over here. and it's no royal cruise line back during that day. it was an extreme hardship. but they came over here, they followed the rule of law and they never got any assistance from the government they came over here they started working, and they started businesses and

they became good citizens according to the law of the united states. host: barbara, appreciate your call and more of your calls coming up, wanted to show you some reporting from "the national journal" with their headline, the senate has confirmed loretta lynch is not eric holder. will it confirm her? nine witnesses testified before the senate judiciary committee. they write that it's day two of the confirm case hearing for the attorney general and one thing is clear, loretta lynch is not eric holder but holder may still hover over this hearing too. there are nine witnesses at the second day of the confirmation hearings by the senate judiciary committee, none of them raised their hand when senate patrick leahy asked whether they opposed her nomination for attorney general. their testimony and lawmakers' questions, have so far focused on the past and current department of justice policies something that holder would have to answer for, not lynch. that's this morning from

national journal. again, about an our or so the should gavel in for more testimony. let's hear from grace in memphis on our democrats' line. caller: thank you so much. am i on the air now? host: you're on the air, live, yes. caller: ok. i would like to say that loretta lynch would make an excellent a.g. but in the meantime, anything that this president does, many of the republicans, not all of them will say that the person that he is suggesting to fill a slot is not qualified. if the president walked on water, the republicans would say he's doing that because he cannot swim. so this is where we are. we're at the point in this country where we are going to implode. because we do not know how to work together. thank you so much for letting me have my say. host: thanks for your call, grace. more on the way. we did want to show you some of the opening testimony this morning from the chairman of the committee, chuck grassley, and

the ranking member, patrick leahy. >> welcome everybody to our second day of hearings on ms. limpling's nomination to be torge. yesterday we heard from the nominee. i thought she was very engaging, very confident there's no question about her competence from what she's done as far as her legal background and her work as u.s. attorney. we appreciated her willingness to stay here through it all so we could get done with her in one day and everybody that wanted to ask questions verbally could do it. of course there's going to be a lot of questions in writing for her to answer in time. she's clearly a skilled and competent lawyer. we asked questions yesterday but i have to say, at least from my

standpoint, i'm not speaking for any other member, it seemed like indirect answers, so i suspect that those will be followed up with questions for the record. today we will hear this second panel in front of us right now, many of these will speak to many ways in many ways, the department of justice under its current leadership has failed to fulfill some of the most basic aspects of its mission, the question for me and a lot of members on this side is whether ms. lynch is committed to leading the department of justice in a new direction. there's obviously people here that are going to speak about the direction of the department in a different way and we'll listen courteously to that as well. weal here from sharyl attkisson as an example of a person who was an investigative journalist

who has been bullied threatened, and blocked from entering the department of justice because she had the guts to report on issues like fast and furious and benghazi. that's one example of something we'd like to have a new attorney general fix. we'll also hear from katherine -- catherine engelbrecht targetted because she's a conservative with the strength to stand up for justice. the department has paid lip service to the investigation it's supposedly leading. i want to know how ms. lynch will react to people base obbed their political views. we'll have steven cooke who feels the department of justice doesn't appreciate the work of

law enforcement every day. it's important to see what ms. lynch might do to mend broken relationships. and we'll hear from professors curley and rosenkranz who will talk about how the justice department under eric holder has defended unlawful actions on immigration. those people will bring up points that we have made not quite as directly as they have or personally as they have, in hopes that ms. lynch will restore the office of legal counsel to the impartial role it used to play as a check on president's authority. i look forward to hearing today and now it's senator leahy's turn to give his opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is the second day of the

committee's consideration of loretta lynch to serve as a nation -- as our nation's attorney general. we had a long day yesterday, today we'll hear testimony from outside witnesses about ms. lynch. i'm especially interested in testimony from those who actually know her. yesterday we heard directly from her. for nearly eight hours of testimony. she testified about the values -- the value and independence she'd bring to the office of attorney general. she testified how she would make as priorities national security and public safety but preserve the values that we americans, i hope all of us, hold dear. i was encouraged when republican senators on the committee agreed with me that the key question for voting for a nominee to be attorney general is independence. some of us remember a past

attorney general who is a member of the president's -- who told us we were a member of the president's staff and we had to remind him that no he's not. he's not the secretary of justice, he's the attorney general of the united states. and is supposed to be independent. responding to questions on issue after issue, it is clear that ms. lynch is an independent lawyer, a strong character balanced, and has obvious abilities. i want to thank a moment to thank chairman grassley for his handling of yesterday's hearing. it was no easy feat, especially with 18 votes, i believe it was, yesterday afternoon and kept it going he made sure that every senator who had a question on either side of the aisle, they were given the time to ask the question and be heard. i commend him for that. i appreciate the tone of this

hearing. >> thank you. >> and today, i was not surprised -- i was not surprised, we have been friends for decades and i know you well. but we're going to hear from law enforcement officials who have worked with ms. lynch. these are the people who have the best knowledge of her. they strongly support her nomination. the president today will -- those present today will speak in support of ms. lynch, similar to a letter one of the finest f.b.i. directors we have ever had submitted on her behalf, louis freeh. barack obama is not the nominee. that may come as a surprise to some who heard some of the questions. eric holder is not the nominee. loretta lynch, daughter of a marine and reverend lorenzo lynch a u.s. attorney, twice unanimously confirmed by the

united states senate applauded for her law enforcement work, that's who is being called upon to consider. after hearing her testimony before the committee and reviewing her record, know one in good faith could question her integrity or her ability. she said yesterday she looks forward to working with congress to confront the many issues fatesing americans today, she's met with over 50 senators in both parties. soy hope we can come together in the senate to support this historic confirmation of an outstanding public servant and move quickly doing it. host: some of the testimony from earlier today. the committee is in recess until, we think, about 1:30 eastern or so. there are votes on the senate floor related to the keystone x.l. pipeline. get some more thought from you on your priorities for the next attorney general. you can join the phone conversation.

202-748-8920 for democrats. 202-748-2821 for republicans. others 202-748-2922. on twitter #cspanchat. here's one message, from bill king. going over all the new voter restrictions in red states and exposing them. and ma chu millenial. let's go to arthur in beardstown, illinois. are you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: i would like to know how she stands on gun control and i take every -- i think every citizen has a right to own guns

and another thing about immigration, all these politicians and senators and congressmen and worked in the white house, they all sitting up there worried about immigration reform and everything, they don't realize that there's working people out here competing for jobs. why should we compete with people that comes here illegally? host: ok arthur, she was asked about gun control yesterday and among the nine hours of questioning. you can find that at c-span.org. go next to round hill, virginia, kermit, hello. caller: yeah, this is kermit. it's kind of sad when you listen to the last caller, knuckle dragging bigots worried about guns and abortion.

she's well qualified. only problem is, she's not white. eric holder did a fantastic job as attorney general. he probably did know his place. intelligent and liberated blacks don't have a place anymore. those days are gone. president obama will probably go down historians will probably rank him as top of the five greatest ever. he was a phenom. last election the economy was in shambles. there's no way he was supposed to when. no normal person would have won. but he is exceptional. and the country will have to accept that fact. he is a phenom. he's the tiger woods of politics. until the country can face that they're fantasizing. host: president obama is not in

washington today, he'll be up in philadelphia speaking to house democrats. we may get a sneak peek to his federal budget for 2016 due in a couple of weeks. he's speaking to house democrats. two days of retreat in philadelphia. those comments by the president tonight a little after 7:00 eastern. look for coverage on the c-span networks. back to political -- presidential politics. headline here in "the washington post"," washingtonpost.com about a judiciary committee member, lindsay graham, officially launches a presidential exploratory committee, the name of the committee is called security through strength, writes the "washington post." next is craig in maryland on our democrats line. what are your priorities for the next attorney general, craig? caller: thank you for taking my call. i would say that the effort to continue to investigate these voter suppression laws,

so-called voter i.d. laws but they're really voter suppression laws i also think that the police reform reform of policing around the country should be carried forward also, there are obviously things unfair about that as far as this hearing is concerned, i think that senator whitehouse is correct in sing that this is not the proper forum to bring up old disagreements with eric holder, he's already been censured, we all already know how republicans feel about him, i think that loretta lynch should be granted the respect that this committee is supposed to be hear for and that is to decide whether or not she should be confirmed. i do think she will be confirmed, by the way. enge this is all just a dog and pony show for the republicans.

once again to bring up their hurt feelings or whatever it is the problem is, with eric holder. i think it's unnecessary. host: "the new york times" wrote about her being confirmed, even if she's confirmed by the committee, it may be several weeks, even into march, before she's voted on by the senate, depending on the senate schedule. here's on the republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. mentioning to the people that call in -- i'm listening to the people that call in, it seems to me that they're talking about the new attorney general coming on, they talk about race. it always turns back to race. the last gentleman said obama this woman will not get elected because she's black. that's not the case. it's said -- it's sad they think that. talking and throwing flowers at obama going down as the top president of this country, i think he's delusional to even say that. but to talk about what's going

on today is very interesting. but the thing that gets me is when you hear a senator feinstein say that we're here to confirm her not to talk about the past, but the past was that obama appointed or selected eric holder to become the attorney general of the biggest most powerful enforcement officer in the country and look what he has done. so why not talk about what an appointee of obama has done and not to have that? i think this woman is very qualified and very articulate but why do we have to put race in something? my parents came here mitigating circumstance grandparents came here from another country and they worked their way out of the ghetto areas and got educated. it seems like people want to talk about racism. it's horrible. and they just fuel it. what did holder do in ferguson?

he fueled race issues. and to have people like al sharpton who owes the government $4.5 million and goes and visits the white house you try to owe the government $100 and they'll levy your checking account. but this man has a platform on msnbc. and he's the biggest race baiter in the world. host: that's frank from florida. mr of your calls coming up. a busy day on capitol hill even with the house out. the senate now voting on a number of amendments to the keystone x.l. oil pipeline bill. senator banking committee met today, approved a measure that would apply additional sanctions on iran if the negotiations fall through. and also today the senate armed services committee heard from three former secretaries of state, madeleine albright, george schultz and henry kissinger. as that hearing got under way, protesters greeted the

witnesses. >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes! arrest henry kissinger for war crimes! arrest henry kissinger for war crimes! >> could i -- >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes! >> could i ask for capitol police? you know -- >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes! >> if someone would get the capitol police. >> arrest henry kissinger for war crimes! arrest henry kissinger for war crimes!

arrest henry kissinger for war crimes! >> we don't want to hear from you anymore. >> in the name of the people of chile. in the name of the people of vietnam. in the name of the people of eastity mor. in the name of the people from cambodia. in the name of the people of laos. >> i'd like to say to my colleagues and to our distinguished witnesses this morning that i have been a member of this committee for many years and i have never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous as despicable as the last demonstration that just took place about, you know, you're going to have to shut up or i'm going to have you arrested.

if we can't get the capitol hill police in here immediately -- get out of here you low life scum. [applause] >> so, henry i hope -- dr. kissinger, i hope, on behalf of all the members of this committee on both sides of the aisle new york fact, from all of my colleagues, i would like to apologize for allowing such disgraceful behavior toward a man who served his country -- host: that's the new chairman of the senate armed services committee, john mccain, restoring order to that hearing with three former secretaries of state. we'll show you that hearing later on c-span network, and find it online at c-span.org.

here on c-span we're waiting for the judiciary committee to gavel in at 1 thoirt resume the nomination hearing for loretta lynch. we continue with your calls. jerry in huntsville, alabama. go ahead. caller: good afternoon, thanks for taking my phone call. you know, i've been watching this confirmation hearing. host: you there? caller: hello. hello? hello? host: jerry are you there. caller: yes, hello. host: i hear you but -- i'm going to move on to mark rhett in north carolina. caller: good afternoon. host: go ahead, margaret. caller: this hearing is about -- can you hear me? host: yes. caller: if this hearing is about confirming someone for the office of attorney general based on her qualifications and her suitability for the job, i can't

see how any of those senators in good conscience could vote against her. in my opinion, any vote against this woman is solely based on politics, not on her ability to do the job. secondly, they're so upset with the president's executive order on immigration, pass a law. everyone is saying these people are here illegal, they should follow the law. make the law. make a law that makes it very clear who should and should not be here, how and how they get -- how they -- what happens to them afterwards. they're now in charge of the house and senate. they complained with when the democrats had the house they couldn't get anything passed on immigration do it. do it because the president's order goes away immediately when the house passes legislation on immigration. host: the house has passed some legislation on immigration rescinding some of those executive orders of president

obama. next up is for the senate, once they clear the decks of the keystone x.l. oil pipeline there's a timeline there because of that department of homeland security funding running out at the end of february. certainly among the next couple of items coming up on the senate in the next week or so should be homeland security spending and that will certainly include border security and immigration. let's go to homestead florida, steven on the republican line. welcome. caller: thank you for taking my call. as a young millenial, i really enjoy seeing the fact that i can have a strong black woman who has had more convictions and successful terrorism cases tried in her district as attorney general or as a u.s. district attorney, i think she's strong i believe her qualifications are right. i would like to see her focus on criminal justice reform and i would truly love to see her

focus on some of the fast and furious gun scandal and other things, and the i.r.s. targetting. those things would be really beneficial to get by. and also to, the last few callers who said something about voter suppression laws, there have been so many studies about higher voter turnout among minorities due to that and just to make it even among all of them, make those voter i.d.'s free and then there's no more complaining about someone can't get an i.d. host: is there a voter i.d. in florida? >> i do believe there is but it's very lax compared to other states. host: thanks for your comments steven. let's check twitter. #cspanchat. reaction to the hearing today. here's a tweet from the average american who says americans don't object to lynch but hate to give president barack obama a

win on any nominee and hate holder. will they confirm her? and john baker, senator whitehouse and senator feinstein just don't want to acknowledge that lo rhett tall lynch will be a yes person. toni brown attkisson only interested in money made from the g.o.p. hack. and diane says what this administration did to attkisson and others should be front page news. let's go to a caller. caller: good afternoon. how are you doing? host: doing fine. caller: don't care who is attorney general white black polka dotted, male female, it, eunuch, whatever they cannot be whoever the president is. they cannot be a yes man for the president and give the president

carte blanche with the executive orders. i've read the constitution here in my hand and nowhere in the constitution does it give the president presidential powers as the president that we have today claims and does. so who is right? the sitting president? or the founding paperwork of this nation? you know. because he's been nothing but, as the grateful dead used to say, what a long strange township it's -- trip it's been. host: appreciate your comments manufacturer of them coming up, on facebook and twitter. the committee likely to come around 1:30 and when they do we'll resume live coverage. in the meantime, we'll show you the opening statements from the nine witnesses who were

testifying to the committee. this morning. >> been a reporter for nine years my producers and i probed countless political, corporate and financial stories ranging from iraq contract fraud and waste under bush, to waste under obama. some of these reports have been recognized for excellence in journalism most recently investigative emmy nominations for reporting on tarp, benghazi, and a grup of stories including an undercover investigation into republican fundraising. the job of getting at the truth has never been more difficult. facets of federal government have isolated themselves from the public they serve. they covet and withhold public information we as citizens own. they bully and threaten access of journalists who do their jobs news organizations that publish stories they don't like

and whistleblowers who dare to tell the truth. when i reported on factual contradictions in the administration's accounts regarding fast and furious, pushback included a frenzied campaign with white house officials trying to kill the reporting by calling and emailing my superiors and colleagues using surrogate bloggers to advance false claims. one white house official got so mad he angrily cussed me out. they used their authority over building security to hand pick reporters allowed to attend a fast and furious brief, refeudsing to clear me into the public justice department building. advocates had to file a lawsuit to obtain public information about fast and furious improperly withheld under executive privilege. documents recently released show emails under which taxpayer paid white house and justice department press officials complained i was out of control and vowed to call my bosses to try to stop my reporting. let me emphasize that my reporting was factually

indisputable. government officials weren't angry because i was doing my job poorly, they were panicked because i was doing my job well. many journalists have provided their own accounts. the white house made good on its threat to punish c-span after c-span dared to defy a white house demand to delay airing a potentially embarrassing interview with the president. 50 organizations wrote the white house objecting to unprecedent red strixes on the press that raise constitutional concerns. a new york city times photographer likened the white house practices in some cases to the soviet news agency. former "washington post" executive editor len downey called the obama war on leaks by far the most aggress i he's seen since nixon. david sanger of the "new york times" called this the most closed, control freak administration he'd ever covered. "new york times" editor margaret sullivan said it's the administration of unprecedented

secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press. months before we knew that the justice department secretly seized a.p. phone records and before director of national intelligence director james clapper incorrectly testified under oath that americans weren't subject to mass data collection i was tipped off the government was likely secretly monitoring me due to my reporting. three forensics examines con firled the intrusive long-term remote surveillance, including key stroke monitor, use of skype to listen to audio and more. getting to the bottom of it hasn't been easy. it's unclear what if anything the f.b.i. has done to investigate. the justice department has refused to answer simple direct, written congressional questions about its knock of the -- knowledge of the case. it has stone walled my freedom of information requests, saying it has no responsive document, then admitting to 2,500 of them but never providing any of them.

in 2013, reporters without borders downgrade america's standing in the global free press rankings, rating the obama administration as worse than bush's. it matters not that when caught, the government promises to dial back or that james rosen gets an apology. the message has already been received. if you cross this administration with perfectly accurate reporting they don't like, you will be attacked and punished. you and your sources may be subjected to the kind of surveillance devised for enemies of the state. for much of history, the united states has held itself out as a model of freedom, democracy and open, accountable government. freedoms of expression and association are, of course protected by the constitution. today those freedoms are under assault due to government policies of secrecy, leak prevention and officials' contact with the media combined with large scale surveillance programs. the nominee if confirmed should start a new path and reject the damaging policies and practices

that have been used by others in the past. if we aren't brave enough to confront these concerns it could do serious long-term damage to its supposedly free press. thank you. >> if i'm accurate, professor rosenkrantz, you recently had a back operation and you need to stand. we would not object. whatever you have to do. mr. barlow. >> i would eco that, sitting here recovering from two fractured vertebrae. i know how important it is to be able to stand. >> mr. barlow. >> thank you, chairman grassley, ranking member leahy members of the judiciary committee. it is my privilege to appear before you here today in support of the nomination of my former colleague, loretta lynch, to serve as attorney general of the united states. i would be remiss if i did not first thank this committee for the strong support i received

in 2011 when my own nomination to serve as united states attorney was before you. it was a tremendous honor to serve as u.s. attorney in the department of justice. i always will be grateful for the trust you had in me when you supported my nomination. it's now my privilege to recommend ms. lynch to you. you already heard and read much about her storied 30-year legal career. so instead of elaborating on her many credentials, i want to take just a few minutes to share a couple of personal observations about my former colleague. i first met loretta at a conference of united states attorneys several months after i was sworn in. what i remember most vividly about her was the way she handled a portion of the gram where u.s. attorneys were asking questions of the executive office of the united states attorneys. loretta moderated the session. some of the discussion regarding budgets, resource allocation, hiring authority and other issues understandably

became intense as my colleagues and i argued our various views and articulated the many needs our districts had during lean budgetary times. but loretta was calm and unruffled. she asked hard questions, but she did so in an unfailingly dignified and respectful way. where strong feelings created the risk of bringing more heat than light to the conversation loretta brought only light. she was clearly tough, but also fair and gracious. that impression of loretta was confirmed and deepened as i served with her on the attorney general's advisory committee. the agac is a committee of roughly a dozen united states attorneys who serve as a voice of their colleagues to the department of justice and provide counsel to the department leadership on various management, policy, and operational issues. loretta was the chair of the agac during the time i served as a member of it.

i know that you already know the united states attorneys are not attendant group. all are in accustomed to being in charge, all are used to expressing their view, all are at least in part the products of very different backgrounds, experiences, and places. if you put 12 or so united states attorneys together in a room as the agac does, you will get a wide variety of ideas and perspectives, often very strongly held. it takes someone very special to lead that kind of group. for the agac to work well, as intended, that someone needs to be smart, insightful, organized, articulate, inclusive, and experienced. loretta was and is all those things and more. she was always well prepared. she made sure that all points of view were fairly and fully considered. she listened far more than she talked.

she facilitated consensus wherever possible, and made space for dissent when consensus could not be reached. by her example and her conduct, she elevated the discourse and refined the exchange of ideas in our committee. through these experiences, my initial impressions of loretta lynch were fully confirmed. she's tough, fair, gracious, smart, and independent. in conclusion, during my time as united states attorney, i had the privilege of serving with a truly outstanding group of u.s. attorneys throughout the nation. i learned much from them. i was inspired by their service and their commitment. but of all these dedicated and talented public servants, the honorable loretta lynch truly stood out. if confirmed by the senate, i am sure she will make an excellent attorney general of the united states. thank you.

>> reverend newsome. >> mr. chairman and mr. ranking member and members of the judiciary committee, it is my pressure and honor to appear before you to support the nomination of attorney loretta elizabeth lynch for position of united states attorney general. i have known loretta virtually all of her life. our family relationships cover a period of 40 or more years. her family has been associated with several branches of my family by way of the baptist church connection, and the network of educators of the great state of north carolina. her grandfather was a highly regarded and respected clergyman. the same can be said of her father and her brother, both of whom have been distinguished leaders at the state and national level for some time. for many years, her father was a key leader in the life of the

general baptist state convention of north carolina and the national baptist convention u.s.a. her brother continues in that tradition of leadership even now. her father and i have been ministerial colleagues, we have been ministerial colleagues since the 1970's. it was my privilege to teach her brother during the years that i served on the duke divinity school faculty. i have been able to maintain a warm personal association with her mother, an esteemed church leader and educator in her own right for decades. through her father, brother, and mother, and mutual family friends, i have been able to stay abreast of loretta's impressive and remarkable rise to a position of pre-eminent leadership in the life of our nation. loretta is the product of one of the most outstanding families in the state of north carolina. to the degree that virtue

counts in our society, i'm bold to say that she is the product of one of the most outstanding families in the united states of america. the members of the lynch family are known for their exemplary character, integrity, excellent achievement, civic mindedness, commitment to the common good, and deep and compelling sensitivity to the well-being of all people. over the years it has been my privilege to witness the development and emergence of the best of who we are as a nation in the person of loretta. in the religious, educational, and social circles which our families have moved, she has had a reputation for being stellar in everything she has done. as a teenager she drew the admiration of adults and more significantly her peers as well. she stood out among them without alienating herself from them.

she stood out in many, many ways. she was as approachable then as she is now. even then she enjoyed a reputation for being levelheaded, balanced in her thinking, and wise in her judgments. she evidenced a level of maturity that was out of the ordinary but only in those ways that garner the respect of young and old alike. as a teenager, loretta was the daughter every parent would love to have. early in life the quality of her character was evident. this is why the cities of greensboro, where she was born and durham, where she graduated from high school with honors claims her as a daughter who has made them proud. all of more proud we north carolinians will be if she is appointed the first u.s. attorney general in the state's history. as a student during her precollege years, she performed such a high level that it only seemed natural she would attend and graduate from harvard

university and harvard law school. in fact, her career trajectory is consistent with the extraordinary intellectual ability and prowess, discipline, even courage she demonstrated during her youth. early on she dared to dream to become the best of the best, and she has accomplished this in the field of law and jurisprudence. as her professional record shows, she has become the best of the best without qualification. in the way that her career has taken shape, i discern several attributes worth noting at a time such as this. first of all, she is an informed independent thinker who listens well and studies hard. second, she has the capacity to maintain the strength of her own convictions. third, she is morally grounded and principled. highly principled. fourth, she acts decisively and judicially. and fifth, she is a public servant of the highest order the type that works well with others to bring about good results with positive

outcomes. thank you very, very much. >> ms. fedarcyk. >> chairman grassley, ranking member leahy, and members of the committee, it's my pleasure to appear before you this morning to speak about my association with the attorney general nominee, loretta lynch. i wholeheartedly endorse her confirmation from the vantage points of someone who worked closely alongside loretta in her role as the united states attorney of the eastern district of new york during my two years as the assistant director in charge of the f.b.i.'s new york office. i served in that capacity for two years, retiring in 2012 after 25 years of service in the f.b.i. i was responsible for the largest field office in the f.b.i. and inherent to that are the most complex and sensitive investigations in all of this nation's law enforcement. new york was and will remain the target for the terrorism

activities of individuals and groups that espouse their violent agenda. from world trade center one in 1993, to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and beyond, we continue to see this terrorist agenda manifested against new york. as a result, the f.b.i.'s resources and the considerable talents of the united states attorneys in both the eastern and southern districts of new york are almost in a daily undertaking to protect this nation's security. i think it's also important that the committee appreciate the magnitude of the criminal violations the new york office works. these violations range from the complicated and pervasive financial crimes, the insidious and debilitating effects of organized crime and public corruption, and the violence associated with national gangs and other violent offenders. given this challenging environment, it was a necessity to establish a substantial and seamless partnership with loretta and her office. over the course of the next two

years, we formed an effective partnership to address not only the national security in criminal threats, but also to engage in outreach and liaison to make a positive impact in the community. the basis for my unquestioned support for loretta's nomination is founded upon the numerous success her office has achieved, the close professional and personal relationship that provided me extraordinarily insight into loretta both as united states attorney and as a person. i was privileged to observe her commitment to commission, her personal involvement in issues that invariably arose in our work, as well as those within the broader law enforcement community. in supporting loretta's nomination as the next attorney general of the united states, i would like to comment on three areas that form the foundation of my recommendation. sound judgment, legal acumen, and independence. in all of my interactions with loretta, her approach to addressing and resolving issues invariably involved gathering information to understand the issue, obtaining input from stakeholders, and making a decision based upon the facts and law. as you heard ms. lynch yesterday commit to a collaborative and collaborate

approach, i can assure you that she will follow through. while not an attorney, i do recognize that loretta was nominated and confirmed twice as united states attorney in the eastern district of new york, served on the attorney general's advisory committee and was named as a chair of the committee in 2013. and her favorable reviews by the executive office for united states attorney which called her exceptionally well qualified. lastly, i have never known loretta to make a decision on politics. she showed fairness, respect for others, and deep sense of duty. her office embraced those qualities in their work. as i previously stated, a multitude of criminal investigations, including the arrest of approximately 138 mafia figures that represented the largest single day operation against the mafia in history, but other notable accomplishments span the spectrum of the national priorities and are an example of her successes in the eastern

district, including international terrorism, public corruption, gang violations, violent offenders, etc. ms. lynch's recognition that task force has brought the best of interagency investigative resources to bear on entrenched crime problems was integral to broader and deeper successes than would have been the case for any one agency or department to achieve alone. these task forces included the nation's largest joint terrorism task force, violent gang task force, long island gang task force, health care task force, and financial fraud enforcement task force to name a few. in closing, abraham lincoln said character is like a tree and reputation like a shadow. the shadow is what we think of it. the tree is the real thing. ms. lynch is the real thing. thank you. >> thank you very much.

now professor legomsky. >> thank you, mr. chairman. honorable members of the committee. thank you for the privilege of testifying this morning. i'm here to focus on the concerns that some have expressed about the president's recent executive actions on immigration. i do sincerely appreciate that reasonable minds can and do differ about the policy decision as to precisely what the enforcement priorities ought to be. but i want too respectfully share my opinion that the president's actions are clearly within his legal authority. that is not just my opinion. 135 immigration law professors and scholars signed a letter just this past november expressing that same view in strong terms. this is the mainstream view among those of us who have spent our careers teaching and researching immigration law. the president has not just one but multiple sources of legal authority for these actions and i submitted a detailed written statement that documents how each of these. the written statement also identifies every legal objection i could think of that

the president's critics offered and explains why in my view none of them can withstand scrutiny. with limited time i'll hit a few key points and refer you to the written same. we all now agree in a world of limited resources, prosecutorial discretion is unavoidable. you can't go after everyone, you have to prioritize. in the case of immigration congress has made this explicit. it charged the secretary of homeland security with, and i quote, establishing national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. priorities. that alone would seem to suffice, but in addition, year after year, congress knowingly gives the administration only enough money to pursue less than 4% of the undocumented population. that to me is the clearest evidence possible that congress intends for d.h.s. to decide how those limited resources can be most effectively deployed.

congress has spnchingly required d.h.s. to prioritize three things. national security, border security and the removal of criminal owe fenders. those are exactly the three priorities that these recent executive action memos incorporated. on top of all that, we have the 2012 supreme court decision in arizona v. u.s. where the court struck down most of arizona's immigration enforcement statute precisely because it would interfere with the federal government's immigration enforcement discretion. the court went on at some length to emphasize the breadth. some critics claim if the recent executive actions are legal, that would mean there are no limits at all and therefore some future president could suspend enforcement of some other law. but daca and dopa don't even approach the sort of hypothetical nonenforcement that that argument conjures up. if the president were to refuse to substantially spend the resources congress has appropriated, then i believe we would have a serious legal issue.

that's not even close to the present reality. even after daca and dopa are fully operational, the president still will have only enough resources to go after a small percentage. as long as he continues to use those enforcement resources that congress has given him, it's hard for me to see how that can be called an abdication. for deferred action specifically, the program has been around for more than 50 years. not only has congress never acted to prohibit it or even restrict it, congress has affirmatively recognized it, by name, in several provisions. the formal agency regulations also recognize it, by name. a long line of courts, including the supreme court, have recognized it by name. not one of these legal authorities, not one, says or even intimates that it's legal if the small number of people but otherwise not. the same is true for work permits. the statute authorizes d.h.s. to grant permission to work, and the regulations specifically make deferred action recipients eligible for them.

some have said deferred action is ok on an individual basis but not for a whole class. first of all, nothing in the law actually says that. in fact, almost every modern president has granted reprieves for removal and work permits to large, specifically defined classes of undocumented immigrants. at any rate, the secretary november memo is filled with clear, careful, repeated instructions to officers that even if the general criteria in the memo are all satisfied they still have to make individualized case by case discretionary judgment. in fact, the very form the officers are required to use when they deny deferred action and denied it more than 32,000 times on the merits, contains a list of the reasons. one of those specific reasons listed is discretion. i think this is the way an agency should work. inarticulate criteria. and expects officers to use the judgment in applying those criteria to individual cases. thank you very much for your

time. >> thank you, chairman grassley, ranking member leahy members of the senate judiciary committee. i thank you for the honor appearing before you. it's a historic moment. looking for the confirmation of the 83rd attorney general of the united states. i want to begin by saying i have great respect for ms. lynch. as i have said before, her extraordinary career as a prosecutor pays great credit to her. and to her nomination. indeed, if confirmed, and i hope she is, i believe that she could be a truly great attorney general. if great leaders are shaped at great moments in history, this could be such a moment for loretta lynch. the justice department is at the epicenter of a constitutional crisis. a crisis that consumed her predecessor and his department. my focus, therefore, of my written testimony and my oral testimony today is less on ms. lynch than the department she wishes to lead. as my academic writings indicate, i have been concerned

about the erosion of lines of separation of powers for many years, particularly the erosion of legislative authority of this body and of the house of representatives. that concern has grown to alarm in the last few years under barack obama. someone that i voted for. someone with whom i happen to agree on many issues, including some of the issues involved in these controversies. we are watching a fundamental change in our constitutional system. it's changing in the very way that the framers warned us to avoid. the justice department has played a central and troubling role in those changes. in my view, attorney general holder has moved his department outside of the navigational beacons of the first and second articles of our constitution. in that sense, ms. lynch could be inheriting a department that is floundering. the question is whether she can or will tap back to calmer waters.

as discussed in my written testimony, the framers focused on one defining single danger in our system, and that is the aggrandizement of power in any one branch or hands. they sought to deny every branch the power to govern alone. our system requires consent and compromise. it goes without saying that when we are politically divided as a nation, as we are today, less things get done. but that division is no license to go it alone as the president has suggested. you have only two voices in the madisonian system. you can seek to convince your adversaries or you can seek to replace them. you don't get to go it alone. there is nothing noble about circumventing the united states congress because it means you're circumventing the united states constitution. and any person who claims that they can get the job done alone

is giving the very sirens call that the framers warned us against, and one that i hope this body resists. in my testimony, i have laid out examples of how this change is occurring. i have divided it between obstruction of legislative authority and the sue surpation of legislative authority. the obstruction ever legislative authority includes the blocking of the contempt citation, nondefense of federal statutes, usurpation includes many of the legislative changes that we will be talking about today and has been discussed by others. the american people in my view have been poorly served in recent years by the justice department. the balance that has been sought in recent years has been lost precisely as the framers have feared. the rise of a dominant executive within our system, a type of uber presidency. it is certainly true that the

framers expected much from us, but no more than they demanded from themselves. they expected this institution to fight jealously over its own authority. they gave you that authority not to protect your power, the separation of power is designed to protect liberty from the concentration of power. it doesn't matter what party we are from and it doesn't matter if we agree with what the president has done, in my view he has worthy ends but he has chosen unworthy means under the constitution. and the justice department has been the catalyst for that. in exercising the power of confirmation, this body has an undeniable interest in confirming the nominee will address these relational breaches. these unconstitutional actions. i can only imagine the pride that ms. lynch's family will have when she raises her hand to take the oath of office. when that moment comes

however, there should be a clear understanding as to what she is swearing true faith and allegiance to. as the 83rd attorney general of the united states of america. the department that she leads should be the embodiment not the enemy of the separation of powers. it's a covenant of faith that we have with each other. and i sincerely hope that she regains that faith. as she takes over, as she may, the department of justice. >> chairman grassley and members of the senate judiciary committee. and ranking member leahy. i'm honored to address you this morning about a frequent news topic, american policing at the local level. these hearings are focusing on the confirmation of possibly the next attorney general of the united states, ms. loretta lynch, and i wish her well. i want to spend some time critiquing outgoing attorney general eric holder's tenure at

the united states department of justice and use it as the framework as a way forward. the mission statement of the u.s. d.o.j. says to enforce the law and defend the interest of the united states according to the law. let me repeat that, according to the law. to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic. provide federal leadership and preventing and controlling time. -- crime. to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, and ensure impartial administration of justice for all americans. in my 36 years in law enforcement, i viewed the united states department of justice as an ally in pursuit of justice. local law enforcement has always been on the frontlines of preventing and controlling crime and seeking just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, as the mission of the d.o.j. implies. what i have witnessed from the department of justice under the leadership of attorney general eric holder has been almost hostility towards local law enforcement. i have seen this in both public statements made about the

profession and some of the policy decisions that treats police officers as adversaries instead of allies in the pursuit of justice. partnering with local law enforcement agencies and ensuring the fair treatment of all americans in the pursuit of justice are not mutually exclusive. what we all witnessed in ferguson, missouri, back in august was a tragedy. an unfortunate incident for officer darren wilson and citizen mike brown. what followed however compounded that tragic situation as people across the united states converged on ferguson to exploit the situation for self-serving purposes. suffice it to say that was not america's finest hour. in the days and weeks that followed in ferguson, missouri the police related use of force was forefront in the national news. what was called for at that moment when the u.s. d.o.j. inserted itself early into the process was an appeal to reasonableness, responsible rhetoric, and cautioning against a rush to judgment.

instead some very powerful people made statements that only heightened rising tensions. unfortunately, race is, has been, and will always been an explosive issue in america. the incendiary rhetoric used by eric holder create add pathway for a false narrative that then became the rallying crying for cop haters across america. it sparked unjustified hatred toward america's law enforcement agencies and its officers. without a shred of evidence, a broad brush has been used to unfairly malign the reputation of the profession of policing in the united states. the accusation has been made that our community's finest systematically engaged in the practice of targeting young black men because of the color ever their skin. that claim is patently false. and i reject out of hand the mere suggestion of it. if i'm wrong, then someone needs to show me the evidence. officers at the local level put on their uniforms and go out every day to make their communities better and safer with which to live.

without them, our communities would collapse into utter chaos. the world that our officers operate is complex, dynamic, uncertain, and one where unfortunately things can and do go wrong. when that happens, the american law enforcement officer needs to know that after a thorough and transparent investigation the facts and evidence of a particular case will be applied to the rule of law standard for a decision about their actions. after putting their lives on the line, they do not deserve a standard of false narratives preconceptions, misconception, emotional rhetoric, or racial demagoguery. author and scholar, thomas soul, said in a thought provoking piece on the rule of law, if police who are are told they are under arrest and refuse to come with the police cannot be forcibly taken into custody, then we do not have the rule of law when the law itself is downgraded to suggestions that no one has the power to enforce. so where do we go from here?

how do we get beyond this frayed relationship between local police and the u.s. d.o.j.? my suggestion is for the next u.s. attorney general to articulate clearly a renewed commitment to rebuilding trust with local law enforcement. that involves open lines of communication with an emphasis on listening to the suggestion of law enforcement executives and for the nation's sake, please stop undermining the character and integrity of the american law enforcement officer. next, resist at the federal level to interfere with local police training standards. are cops perfect? no, far from it. but they are community's finest. every community is unique and what will work and what will not work. we already have state standards. finally, i want to speak on two emerging issues on the radar screen in criminal justice. sentencing and prison reform. any discussion about reform in these areas that does not include a counter view about the consequences of this short-term technical fix and

impact on crime victims will have a catastrophic consequence on an already stressed black and hispanic communities. the recidivism nature of criminals will cause more minorities to be victimized by violence, similar to what happened in milwaukee, a 10-year-old girl shot in the head and killed on a school playground. the shooters were career criminals. the black community does not have the support structures in place for an influx of career criminals sent back into the community or to deal with the habitual criminals who currently rain terror in neighborhoods. adding more crimes and violence in that mix will bring more misery to the overwhelming number of decent black law-abiding citizens just trying to get through life against already great odds. reform simply lowers the bar is nothing more than normalizing criminal behavior. thank you very much.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member leahy, members of the committee. i thank you for the opportunity to testify at this momentous hearing. the committee's rightly focused decided to explore not just the qualifications of the nominee, but also the proper role of the office. i myself take into position on -- take no position on the ultimate question whether the nominee should be confirmed. rather i offer observations about the proper role of the attorney general and comments, alas, on the ways in which the current administration has fallen short of its constitutional obligations. you explored at length the attorney general's weighty responsibility to supervise the various components of the department of justice, but as you know the most important responsibility of attorney general is not the supervision of the tens of thousands who work beneath her, it's the solemn counsel that she gives to the one who works above.

her most important job is giving sound legal advice to the president of the united states. and perhaps the most important dimension of this function is to advise the president on the scope of his executive powers and duties. the attorney general should rightly explore all legal options for the president to achieve his goals, but at the end of the day, if no legal options are available, the attorney general must be prepared to say no, mr. president, you have no constitutional power to do that. the fortitude, the rectitude required to say no to the president is perhaps the single most important job criterion for attorney general of the united states. i'm afraid it's particularly important now in an administration that is inclined to press the outer bounds of executive power and skirt the obligation to take care of the laws be faithfully executed. i hope the committee will thoroughly explore the

nominees' conception of the faithful execution of the laws and advise the president when he runs afoul of this constitutional obligation. the constitution provides that the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. first, notice that this is not a grant of power. it is the imposition of a duty. the president shall take care. this is not optional. it's mandatory. second, note that it is personal. execution of the laws may be delegated, but the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed is the president's alone. third, notice that the president is not required to take care of the laws be completely executed. that would be impossible. but -- so the president does have power to make enforcement choices, but he must make them faithfully. finally, it's important to remember the historical context of the clause, english kings claimed the power to suspend laws unilaterally, the framers rejected this practice.

these principles in mind, we can turn to three recent examples, alas there are many more one could choose. first, the obamacare suspension. so on july 2 2013, just before the long weekend, the obama administration announced the president would unilaterally suspend the employer mandate of obamacare. notwithstanding the unambiguous command of the law. the statute is perfectly clear. it provides that these provisions become effective on january 1, 2014. this blog post written under the breezy orwellian title continuing to implement the a.c.a. in a careful thoughtful manner, makes no mention of this deadline. now, whatever it may mean to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, it simply cannot mean declining to execute a law at all. second example, immigration is almost an exact mirror of the first.

in this context rather than declining to comply with the duly enacted statute, the president has decided to comply meticulously but with a bill that never became law. so congress repeatedly considered a statute called the dream act, which would have exempted a broad category of aliens from the i.n.a., but congress declined to pass it so on june 15, 2012, the president announced he would simply not enforce the i.n.a. against the precise category of aliens described in the dream act. he announced that the dream act would have been enacted into law though it had not. now, this is clearly not an effort to conserve resources. after all the solicitor general went to the supreme court to forbid arizona from helping to enforce the i.n.a. exempting more than 1.76 million people from the immigration laws goes far beyond any traditional conception of prosecutorial

discretion. now, professor legomosky cited an unsurprising consensus of liberal imdwration law professors approving the most recent action. i'll cite one authority the president of the united states just a few years ago, quote, america is a nation of laws which means i as the president am obligated to enforce the law with respect to the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. because there are laws on the books that congress has passed there are enough laws on the books by congress in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me through executive order ignore these congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president. i would hope that nominee would agree with this statement. my final example is i.r.s. targeting. i'll be happy to answer constitutional questions on that topic as well.

thank you. >> good morning, mr. chairman, members of the committee. i'm the founder of true the vote, a national nonprofit initiative to protect voters ' rights and promote election integrity. i'm here today because i was targeted by this government for daring to speak out. i'm one of the thousands of americans who have become, sadly, living examples of this kind of trickle down tyranny is actively endorsed by the current administration and rigorously enforced by the department of justice. over these past few years the department of justice has made their presence very well-known in both my professional and personal life. since filing for tax exemption from the i.r.s. in 2009, my private businesses, my nonprofit organizations and i personally have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit, inquiry or investigation by federal agencies, including

the i.r.s., osha, a.t.f. and the f.b.i. all of these inquisitions began after filing for tax exemption. there is no other remarkable event or rationale to explain how for decades i went unnoticed by the federal government but now find myself on the receiving end of interagency coordination into and against all facets of my life. i shared that same timeline as a part of testimony given in february of 2014 at had a hearing before the house oversight and government reform subcommittee. time did not permit then nor does it now to give a full account of the cast of characters and confluence of events that fill a binder with over 800 pages worth of government subterfuge but the department of justice has found its way into almost every aspect of my story. in my attorney's testimony last year's house hearing she spelled out before the committee why we believe that department of justice investigation into the i.r.s.

targeting scandal was in fact a sham. within hours of her filing, she received a phone call from the department of justice. now, suddenly wanting to interview me. it was the first time we had been contacted in approximately nine months after the investigation purportedly commenced. an arrangement was made by the department of justice public integrity division but we were then told that civil rights division would also be participating in my interview. now, this is significant because at the time that same civil rights division was fighting against true the vote in a courtroom back in texas trying to prevent us from becoming an intervening party for the state in voter i.d. litigation that the department of justice had brought against them. the d.o.j. told my attorney that unless i was willing to waive my rights and obligations to involvement -- to the involvement of the civil rights division that they would not interview me at all. and to date they still have not.

a handful of months later we met the department of justice in court again. this time as they represented the internal revenue service in a lawsuit true the vote filed -- >> i want to thank everybody for understanding the chaotic way the senate's run when we have all these votes and we have this important issue before us of who should be the next attorney general. so thank you all forever your flexibility as well as my members -- for your flexible, -- flexibility, as well as all my members. i want to take a moment to comment on the criticism we heard this moment -- morning from one democratic memberen -- member on democratic site. i won't speak for any other member of the committee, but i for one find it absolutely disgraceful how our government has treated some of our fellow citizens and the department of justice, under its current

leadership, has failed, really failed to meet some of its most basic responsibilities. every single one of these witnesses, every one of them, speaks directly to ms. lynch's nomination. because the question in my mind is, as i stated yesterday will she take these flaws seriously, will she fix them? and i note that it wasn't too long ago that democrats agreed that it was perfectly appropriate to call witnesses to address what they viewed as problems at the department. so i would note to the anyway sayer on the other side of the aisle -- nay sayer on the other side of the aisle, it wasn't beneath the dignity of the committee when they were in charge, so why would it be now? and i would make reference to judge mckasey's hearing before he was approved to be attorney general. the other side called witness after witness who testified

regarding issues that occurred at the department while he was serving as a federal judge in the southern district of new york. so for instance, maybe it doesn't bother you that the i.r.s. targeted conservatives and the department doesn't seem to have taken the issues seriously, but it bothers me a great deal. and i want to know if ms. lynch is committed to tackling this problem and a range of others. senator sessions. >> thank you mr. chairman. office of attorney general is a big deal and we need people who are able to take questions, the department's entitled to be criticized and they're not perfect. i love the department of justice. i served in it 15 years. i was an assistant united states attorney for over two and united states attorney for 12. and i loved that job and i loved the people in it and i so admired this department.

as i told ms. lynch in private conversation you have to understand the reputation of this great department is being eroded the situation is not good in this country. it's got to be re-established. we're not going to allow this to become a political body that just conducts its work in haphazard political reactive ways and i think senator hatch raised one of the questions that still galls me and that is the failure to defend doma, the defensive of marriage act. that was a defenseble act and everybody that's ever been an attorney general or in such an office knows you have a duty to defend the laws passed by congress. that's the attorney general's duty. eric holder and president obama failed to do so and it was shameful and disgraceful and an abandonment of the rule of law and more and more people understand that. so i'm not happy about what's

happened to my department of justice and i think they should be investigating these matters. they haven't yet contacted people in alabama and i specifically requested it. is this politics? why not? don't you go to the victims first? that's my experience. and get their story. well, professor turley, i thank you for your comments on what's happening with regard to executive overreach and congressional weakness. i think -- i know we all, you know, i don't deny that i'm a republican conservative. but i believe this is not just a partisan matter. i mean, this is a huge erosion of constitutional powers of the

united states congress when the president of the united states in contradiction to law gives lawful status to people who are here unlawfully under the law, and not only that creates a social security number for them, a photo i.d., and an authorization to work and a right to participate in social security and medicare. this is a stunning event and we are in denial here, a lot of people, about the seriousness of it. i wanted to ask you about your testimony in the house. you say that quote, the center of gravity is shifting and that makes it unstable. you're talking about the separation of powers. and within that system you have the rise of an uber presidency. that could be -- there could be no greater danger for individual liberty, and i really think that the framers would be horrified by that

shift. because everything they've dedicated themselves to was creating this balance and we've lost it. it's not prosecutorial discretion to go into a law and say an entire category of people will no longer be subject to the law. that's a legislative decision. and you go on in great -- that's just a portion of your i think correct die section of the fund -- dij season section of the fundamental -- dijsection of the fundamental issues at stake. are there any further comments you'd like to make on that subject? >> i certainly do stand by it. the interesting thing about the madisonan system that we have is that, the three branches are effectively locked in an orbit like three bodies. in fact, the interesting thing about madison is he was fascinated by newton and the types of ways that bodies would

interact. our system reflects that. what happens is if you have a system that's based on a principle of balance and then you introduce a dominant branch, it doesn't just fall out of kilter. it creates a very dangerous circumstance. there are many legitimate questions that come out of the constitutional convention. but the one thing that returns over and over again is the collective view of the framers federalists and anti-federalists that the thing we have to fear most in this system is the rise of a concentration of power in one individual. and they knew a lot about it. because they had just gotten rid of a person who had that type of concentrated power. >> king george. >> exactly. >> and i had the congressional research service look at that. they concluded that king george iii, by the time -- at the time of the american revolution, was unable to enact or repeal any laws without the approval of parliament. this was the heritage we had

from the british and that's what part of the revolution was about. it's a fundamental principle in the formation of our government. that the executive does not get to make laws. i appreciate that. professor rosenkranz, briefly if you don't mind, do you agree with that, that we are at -- i think professor turly once said, a tipping point and it's a matter of grave importance to the republic? >> i think it's certainly a matter of grave importance and i think we have seen dramatic examples of executive overreach in the last several years. things that are unprecedented. things we've never seen before. >> and do you agree with professor turley that one of the most significant overreaches is the president's executive actions with regard to amnesty? >> yes, i absolutely do. i think it's inconsistent with

his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed in particular the immigration and nationality act. >> it seems to me that they're arguing that take care that the laws be ectscutesed means you have to do the best you can to enforce the laws. under the circumstances, which have some legal basis. but in truth, dobalt they go well beyond that and create whole new laws that are not even on the books and they're not authorized to do that, are they? >> you're quite right. this action looks a lot more like a legislative action than like executive discretion. >> senator, may i jump in and comment on that, please? >> yes. >> thank you. we've heard a lot of very broad general statements to the effect that separation of powers is important, which of course it is. that the president is not above the law, and of course he is not. but i have yet to hear any specific rebuttals to the points that i was making earlier about the specific sources of authority that congress has provided.

we do have this legislation which specifically says it is the responsibility of the secretary of homeland security to establish quote, national immigration enforcement policies and priorities, and not only that, but congress has specifically directed the administration to prioritize three things. border security, national security and the removal of criminal offenders and those are precisely the priorities reflected in the recent executive actions. >> i appreciate that. but i don't agree. congress laid out 500 pages of detailed law involving immigration. many of them are mandtory. and they're not being followed. and then we had the -- yesterday i asked ms. lynch, who has more right to a job in this country a lawful immigrant who's here, a citizen or someone who entered the

country unlawfully. and her answer, i believe that the right and obligation to work is one that is shared by everyone in the country. regardsless of how they came here. and certainly if someone is here regardless of status, i would prefer they would be participating in the workplace. do you think that contradicts immigration law of the united states? >> i do think this work authorization aspect of the president's action is perhaps the most troubling aspect of it. you know, the traditional view of prosecutorial discretion is inaction. it's the president deciding not to do something to someone. but this affirmative action of giving folks permits that's something that's unheard of to traditional prosecutorial discretion. >> i agree with that as a prosecutor. i know what prosecutorial discretion is. everybody that has to deal in

the real world uses that on a case by case basis. i further asked her, i want to have a clear answer to this question, ms. lynch, do you believe the executive action announced by the president on november 20 is legal and constitutional, yes or no. and ms. lynch said, as i've read the opinion i believe it is, senator. so we're being asked here to consider her nomination. when we decide who to vote for in the united states senate, to confirm somebody to the united states congress, you think it would be improper for the voting body, the united states senate, to consider whether or not we believe that person will be an advocate for and a supporter of laws we think are unconstitutional and defend the

policies the congress has established, should we consider that when we decide who to vote for? >> i think it absolutely should be the kind of thing you should be considering yes. >> i do too. i believe congress has a duty to defend its legitimatal constitution allege powers. it has several -- legitimatal constitutional powers. it has several powers of its own. one of them is the power of the purse and one of them is the power of confirmations. i don't see any need for this congress to confirm somebody to be the chief law enforcement officer of this nation who is at that table insisting that she intends to execute a policy that's contrary to law and to what congress desires and what the american people desire. and says that someone here unlawfully is as much entitled to a job in this country as somebody who is here lawfully. it's just beyond my comprehension. are we through the looking glass? can't we see plain fact? everybody wants to talk about the politics.

well, the president can do this, he's shutting down homeland security, all these complainlts. but the real question is fundamental. what are we going to do to defend our constitutional heritage, what will this congress be able to say to subsequent congresses if we acquiesce in these kind of activities? i think it has permanent ramifications for the relationships of the branches of government. mr. chairman you've got a meet oric rise there. i'm impressed. but i have to say, no one could handle it better. i'm proud of you. [laughter] i'm over my time. thank you very much. >> thank you, senator sessions. thanks to all of you for joining us today. i deeply enjoyed your testimonies this morning. before we had to go and vote. so thank you for being here, thank you for sharing with us your opinions which are helpful

and informative. i want to begin my remarks just by commenting on some concerns that i've heard expressed from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. some have suggested that what we really ought to be doing here should be focused almost exclusively on ms. lynch's impeccable public service record and on the fact that she has served her country well has served her clients well. that her resume is not just amazing but that it's extraordinary. and it absolutely is. but we ought to be focused on those kinds of qualifications and that we ought not be focused on the department of justice and on some of the things that are going wrong with it. i have a somewhat different view of that in that i think both are relevant. for example, if we were running a company, if we were running a business, and we were looking for a new c.e.o., if we were looking for a general counsel

we would probably want to know what someone's view of the organization as it existed might be. we would probably want to know whether that person acknowledges problems within the company. whether they were legal problems or other types of problems that the company faced. so i think we're kidding ourselves if we suggest that we shouldn't ask a nominee, someone who has been nominated to be the attorney general of the united states about problems existing within the u.s. department of justice. i think that's absolutely essential and previous hearings in this committee have borne that out. previous hearings in this committee where for example this committee reviewed the attorney general of the united states in the last presidential administration, i think those hearings bother that out -- bore that out.

yesterday we heard from ms. lynch. i'm very impressed with her legal abilities, with her analytical abilities. very impressed with her resume and her strong record of public service. i was however very disappointed yesterday in the fact that in response to many hypothetical questions that were asked of her, we didn't get a straightforward response. particularly when it comes to excesses of executive power. particularly when it came to questions about prosecutorial discretion. and so forth. for those of you who may be watching this hearing who weren't burdened with a law degree hypothetical questions are the bread and butter of the american legal education system. to a very significant degree, especially in appellate litigation, they are the bread and butter of the practice of law. one thing that i think all of us were taught in law school is that even when you don't want to answer a hypothetical

question even when it doesn't have an easy answer, you needs to try to answer the question. if you don't the judge will be very unhappy. i was disappointed yesterday that when i asked some questions of ms. lynch, she refused to give me a direct answer. in an attempt to try to elicit an answer from her i made the hypothetical increasingly simpler, increasingly clearer, asking questions like the followinging. imagine a hip thetcal state in which -- a hypothetical state in which there's a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. imagine that the public is crying out for relief from that law. there's pretty widespread agreement that the speed limit ought to go up to 65, maybe to 75. and that within the legislature there is also widespread support for. that but the legislature can't agree on the exact speed limit to which it ought to be increased. so the governor, seeing an opportunity, then says, well, i'm just going to come out with a new policy. my policy's going to say, if you want to exceed the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit, all you need to do is write to the governor's office and i will send you back a permit a

permit that says for the next three years, while i'm the governor, i will not give you a ticket if you drive faffletter than 55 miles per hour, as long as you don't go faster than 75. and i asked ms. lynch, would that be appropriate? would that be consistent with the rule of law? would that be an appropriate exercise in prosecutorial discretion? i did not get what i perceived to be a direct one-word answer out of that. . it did not seem to make a difference. i'm going to start by asking two of our professors we have here is that in your opinion a difficult hypothetical question, such that if a s