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 student in either

of your classes refuse to answer the hypothetical or said it was too hard, would that be an answer you would accept in your class? >> no, i would not accept it. it is a straightforward question. the question of what the rule would be for the defense of federal statute yesterday was also a question that someone should be able to answer. i also commend you, senator, on your view of confirmation hearings. too often people talk about these hearings as john interviews. these hearings have a very significant role for separation of powers, as agencies become more independent. this is the moments that congress tends to get answers to questions, is when you're looking at someone who will head the agency. as i said in my academic writings, it is not often enough that senators use these hearings to try to rebalance or at least get answers from agencies, particularly one like the department of justice, which has been so difficult to get material answers from. >> i appreciate your thoughtful response to that, and i went to

get back to that in a moment. i just been informed of and error. no sooner had i taken the contemporary gavel in this hearing can i discovered senator blumenthal was supposed to be next at-bat. we are going to push pause on my questioning, and as soon as senator blumenthal is ready, we will turn the floor over to him and then resume with me in a moment. senator blumenthal? >> i appreciate that, mr. chairman. i approve your meteoric ride. thank you for your courtesy and deference. i would like to ask professor lebowski -- laganski to explain why the examples involving enforcement of the speed limit may not be an exact or valid

comparison to what we have here. >> thank you, senator. i think it is a fair hypothetical to throw out, but i definitely feel there is no simple answer. only because there are two pieces of information we would certainly need trade every statutory structure is different. the first thing i would want to know is what does the state statute say? how much discretion does it give the executive branch to set highway safety priorities? in the case of the executive actions, where we are comparing the two -- congress is very specific, and gave the secretary the explicit authority to establish national priorities and policies, and in addition even indicated what those policies and priorities are. the other point i would make is it matters what the particular priorities are. they have to be rational in one way or another. i think most americans, if

asked, would say the priorities look like common sense to me. he's prioritizing national security border security, and removal of criminal offenders over the destruction of american families, the destruction of long-term community ties, people who have otherwise lived useful and productive lives in the united states, and since he can 't do everythin these strike me as reasonable prioritiesg,. >> may the comparison would be more like the governor of utah deciding that on a flat straightaway in the middle of the state that going over the 65 mile an hour speed limits would not be enforced unless a person was doing something in addition dangerously, like weaving back and forth, but in more congested areas, that the 65 speed limit would be enforced rigorously.

if finding other characteristics, not just saying we are not enforcing that law. >> that is an excellent point. that is very analogous to what the president has done with his recent executive actions. both the prosecutorial discretion m.o. and the recent top memo find gradations. >> just to clarify, there is been a suggestion that the president's exercise of discretion does not permit case-by-case decision-making in other words, that it is a broad, across the board exception for all cases, but in fact, what the president is doing is really an exercise of delegation of discretion, prosecutorial discretion, for case-by-case decision-making. >> that's a fair

characterization. i'm thrilled to have the opportunity to answer that question. that has concerned me a great deal about the criticisms that have been offered trade the secretary's memo says not once not twice, but over and over again that officers on the ground are instructed to look at the facts of each individual case, to evaluate them on an individualized basis, and to exercise their discretion. not only that, but the form that the adjudicators are required to use when they deny a daca case lists the possible reasons for denial. there was one other thing i was going to mention. if anybody doubts that these instructions are being obeyed, more than 32,000 denials have already occurred on the merits. this is not count things that were rejected.

i hope this doesn't sound snarky. i worked at uscis. the uscis adjudicators are not a core of open borders advocates who are looking for ways to disobey the secretary's explicit instructions. they take their job seriously and they do exercise the discretion the secretary has told them to. >> i appreciate that clarification. i would invite any of the other panel members to disagree if they wish to do so but i would just like to clarify a point that was made earlier by my colleague and friend, senator sessions. loretta lynch i think yesterday clarified that she does not believe there is a federal right

to work for immigrants who are not in a lawful status. i believe the record will show that she did clarify that point. with that, if any of the other panelists want to comment on the question i raised earlier, i would invite you to do so. >> the proof will be in the pudding. people have looked at the structure of the proposed policy. it appears that the case-by-case discretion as built into this policy may well prove to be largely illusory. >> i think you have just really hit it on the head. the proof will be in the pudding as to what actually is done, as it is for every prosecutor. if i had decided i was not going to enforce any law rightly, i

would have been criticized, and the proof will be in the putting in the same way as i had to make prosecutorial decisions as every former prosecutor is a member of this panel. at least one is here now. it will be in what the record shows. we don't disagree if the result is to make an across-the-board wholesale, unexceptional rule, that would be wrong. if the president decides as a matter of his discussion -- discretion that these laws will not be enforced, i agree with you. when you say illusory, it will be the proof will be in the putting. >> i think we can try to evaluate the proposed policy just on the terms of the proposal. there's reason for skepticism even as the policy has been

proposed. you're right the facts will develop on the ground. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, senator blumenthal. let's pick up where we left off. i want to respond to a couple of the points that i think are relevant. with respect to the trade away and utah, this is somewhat familiar to us. we have salt flats in utah where we take cars out that can go hundreds of miles an hour. i assume he means a straightaway on an actual state road, but there is a difference between deciding not to post a police officer there in issuing a permit saying you may exceed the speed limit and if you are caught going up to 75 miles an hour, you will not get a ticket. there is a distinction there. there is, moreover, the fact that another hypothetical question i brought up that i was

disappointed that she did not agree to address head-on was one involving a hypothetical future president, somebody who decides i don't like our top marginal tax rates and i think it's morally wrong to enforce a marginal tax rate above 25% at the top marginal rate. i'm going to issue a series of letters to people saying you can pay at the 25% rate and no hire, and nothing will happen to you. i agree, professor, that something more like the answer you provided would have been helpful. i did not have even that and had she provided the answer, we could have gotten into a deeper discussion about whether or not congress did in fact a stone analysis of the text create something that could create an

exception to allow many, many millions out of the 11 million or 12 million people estimated to be inside the united states illegally. the congress really create something that could create an exception to potentially swallow the rule? let's turn to professor wrote rosencrantz -- professor rosencrantz. what would you do if someone in your class refused to answer it? >> i think your tax hypothetical is right and indistinguishable from the current situation. i do not understand a principled way on which to distinguish those two cases. i would think a republican president would be within his rights to cite this president -- precedent. >> there were more demanding at g.w. and georgetown in terms of how -- than georgetown in terms of how they answered questions.

>> help you put that in your applications -- hope you put that in your application for law school. another point that deserves to be mentioned here is within this framework, there has been discussion about the fact that there remain some discretion on the part of our immigration enforcement authorities in this country, even after the november memorandum after daca and so forth. it is different from the way prosecutorial discussion -- discretion usually works. normally you say, we have finite resources. we will sometimes not do it because perhaps we think the circumstances of the case don't trigger any kind of moral outrage. there's also the practical reality that says, you will not be able to get everybody. that operates as an exception to the normal rule that says you break the law, you can expect

the prosecution is at least some possibility. here even to the extent you can say there might be some discretion to decide not to enforce the law, they still make clear these executive decisions still make relatively clear that they intend as long as these criteria are satisfied, to not enforce the law, that they're not going to enforce the law, and a deep -- they do issue documents saying they may work. i refuse to accept this as an act of ordinary, garden-variety prosecutorial discretion, and i refuse to accept as an article of faith the fact that congress would ever or did in this circumstance is so much discretion to the president of the united states, attorney general, secretary of homeland

security so as to create a loophole that could swallow a very substantial chunk of the entire rule. this is not consistent with the way the constitution of the united states has historically functioned. i do think these are relevant questions. yes, they are different in kind than the kinds of questions a deal with someone's resume or someone's professional golf vacations, but we are looking at a very specific kind of job someone taking the role of attorney general of the united states. we have heard testimony from several of you today that this is a department that has some real, serious problems right now. problems that really make the hair stand up on the back of my neck sometimes. that was reiterated today with some of the testimony i heard.

i walked into that hearing yesterday wanting, hoping, frankly expecting to like ms. lyunnch, and i do like her. i expected i might be able to go either way on this, i might end up supporting her. i did not feel comfortable at the end of the day yesterday with the idea that i could vote for her because of the fact that i did not get answers to questions that i find very troubling. i found it somewhat cavalier to suggest that she needed more facts, when some of these were very basic questions. i see my time has expired. do we have any democrats -- just making sure we don't have anybody in the interim. i'm told the center -- senator cruz is next at bat. >> i want to thank each of the

members of this panel, a very distinguished panel to come together and address some very important issues facing this country. i want to at the outset extend my apology that earlier in the hearing the senator from rhode island characterize the testimony that we have heard from witnesses on this panel as quote, conspiracy theories, and soundbites for fox news. i do not think that is an accurate characterization of the learned testimony that this panel of witnesses has given to this panel, and i apologize that you are subjected to having your character impudent -- impuned in that manner by a united states senator. this panel has focused on some very important issues that need to be highlighted. i would note the constituent of mine and a friend, i have long thought highly of your

commitment to public engagement, your volunteer efforts to make a difference in our political discourse, and i wanted to ask you as a citizen who engaged in the political process, how did it make you feel to be covered -- targeted by the government for persecution? >> it takes your breath away when you don't know quite where true north is, and it begs the bigger question, what mrs. kutcher really -- and where am i raising my children, where is their safe harbor? this panel and questions are critical. we have to understand what we have just come through. i hope we want to head in a

decidedly different direction. >> president nixon attended to use the irs to target his political enemies. he did not succeed but he was roundly decried in a bipartisan manner. in this instance, the attempt sadly bore fruit. it has been well over a year since the news broke. do you feel in the over a year that has transpired, do you feel that the truth has been uncovered and justice has been served? >> no. just the fact alone that i have still not been interviewed or met with, nor have any of the other group signoff that were part of this targeting scandal. how you can continue on under

this ruse that that is ever going to arrive at any kind of conclusion is mystifying to me. we seem to continue to find more and more evidence, and he continues to get further and further. until they hope evil just forget. that's why i keep showing up. i hope they don't forget. >> yesterday i asked ms. lynch if she thought it was appropriate to have the department of justice investigation into the irs targeting an abuse of power led by a major obama donor and democratic donor who has given over $6,000 to president obama democratic party. she said she found nothing objectionable about that, and she flat out refused to appoint a special prosecutor, much as eric holder has refused to appoint a special process your. -- prosecutor. do you have faith in the impartial administration of justice with an investigation being led by a major democratic donor? >> i take so much exception to

that appointment and to the way that division has conducted itself that i don't even know where to begin. i think there's an awful lot wrong with it and it is sad they are not held to account to explain their actions. >> senator, i might just mention the constitutional dimension of this particular scandal. discriminatory enforcement would have horrified the framers, and this kind of discrimination would have fortified the more than any other, discrimination on the basis of politics. the single most erosive thing that can happen is for incumbents to use the levers of power to stifle their adversaries, and to entrench themselves it casts doubt on everything that follows. it would have been their deepest

concern constitutionally. >> thank you, professor rosencrantz. i agree with that observation. discriminatory prosecution is often intended to have the fact and has the effect of stifling further speech. ms. engelbrecht, have you heard concerns of citizen activists that they too might be targeted? >> absolutely. the irs is arguably the most feared agency and possibly the world, and there are an awful lot of folks who just packed up their tents and stop their community organizations because they did not want to be a party to what they saw unfolding. >> it was disappointing yesterday that ms. lynch also expressed no concern about the

first amendment rights of citizens, the effect of the irs targeting citizen speech, and the effect of bias and conflict of interest and the appearance of bias and conflict of interest on the impartial administration of justice. i want to shift to a different set of issues, the pattern of lawlessness of this administration. i want to focus on a line of inquiry we had yesterday with ms. lynch regarding prosecutorial discretion. i want to address this question to professor turley. i commend you for having the courage to speak out about your concerns about the constitutional dimensions of the conduct of the executive. i recognize that that has not been easy for you to speak out, and i suspect you have heard more than a little grief in the

faculty lounge for having done so. thank you for having the courage of your convictions. i wish we saw a lot more members of this body with similar courage of convictions. yesterday i asked ms. lynch if she agreed with the reasoning of the legal counsel -- council that under the theory of prosecutorial discretion, the administration could decline to enforce immigration laws against 4 million to 5 millino people -- million people and could print documents that purport to authorize them to violate federal law. ms. lynch said that she found that olc reasoning persuasive. do you agree with that assessment? >> i have serious problems with the reasoning for a couple of reasons of my own. first, much of what we do when

we look at separation of powers is to look for limiting principles. we're in a system of government shared unlimited in its nature. part of the problem i have with the administration's position on things like immigration is it lacks that type of limiting principle. the response to my colleague -- to respond to my colleague, i'm not sure if it does mean what my friend said, why they bothered even saying it. that would make it a standard prosecutorial discretion of people who are boots on the ground. i don't know why you would even issue this, if it meant what my friend has said. second if you look at that letter from immigration faculty as i did and once again it raised issue, what is the limiting principle? the letters seem to suggest that as long as you are deporting one person, everything before that point is a matter of discretion. i can't believe that could

possibly be true. if that were true, any law could be shut down except for one case, in which you could argue you are executing discretion. i think if i want to prosecutor and said, i would like you to give my guy a walk because this whole category he's a member of really should not be subject to this type of enforcement, i think most would look at me like i had two heads. they certainly would not give me much help on that. there is a legitimate question of prosecutorial discretion, but this is not one i recognize. my concern as a constitutional scholar is if this is prosecutorial discretion i don't know what would not be prosecutorial discretion, and this notion that has developed from prosecutors would swallow the obligations of the president. any discretion by fred talked about in terms of setting policies and priorities has to be defined within the context given to the administration by congress.

>> i agree, but i want to ask one final question. i agree with you that the question is where do you draw the line, if the president cancer discretion simply refuse to enforce a major portion of immigration laws is a concerns millions of individuals, what other laws can the president unilaterally refuse to enforce? yesterday i asked ms. lynch about a couple of examples. one, but a subsequent president is struck the secretary of the treasury, did not collect taxes in excess of 25%, and two did a subsequent president instructed department of labor, you should not enforce any of the federal labor laws on the books against the state of texas? the state of texas is hereby him in from every federal labor law ever passed. to both of those hypotheticals ms. lynch refused to answer, refused to say what i think is the obvious constitutional

answer, which is of course a president cannot do that. i want to give an opportunity for anyone on this panel who wants to engage -- does anyone on this panel disagree that it would be unconstitutional for the president to refuse to enforce the tax laws or the labor laws or the environmental laws, and if you think that would be unconstitutional, does that not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that the president's executive amnesty is likewise unconstitutional? >> i believe those examples would be unconstitutional if the president claimed that authority . >> i agree with both senator cruz and senator lee but there's a difference between saying we simply will refrain from prosecuting and saying we will give you different action and a work permit. on the specific question you

asked just now, i do think a decision to not enforce the entire immigration laws are not enforce the entire tax laws would clearly exceed the president's legal authority, but that's not close to what we have here. even after these new policies are fully operational, there will still remain in this country 6 million to 7 million undocumented immigrants to which these laws will not apply, and the president will only have so many resources to go after fewer than 100,000 of them. >> let me ask clarification on your example. the reason you said the executive amnesty is constitutional is because there exists some substantial subset of people against whom the laws are enforced. let's take the labor law example. if texas were exempt, there would be 49 states, whole bunch of people you could enforce

labor laws against. would that satisfy the test you put forth? >> in the interest of time, we will have to turn this over to frank. >> i want to make sure i understood the hypothetical correctly. the president enforcing the law in one state but not in the other state, and vice versa. one of the limitations is that the particular priorities have to be rational, and discrimination against the president for one state would fail that test. my friend says that the law professor's letter was making the claim that as long as even one person is deported, it is ok. there was no such claim in the letter. there was certainly no implication in a letter that all you would have to do is deport one. the president is fully spending all the enforcement resources congress has provided. the president is not a magician. he can't spend resources he doesn't have, and that is why that example is very different

from the ones that have been hypothesized. >> thank you very much. mr. franken? >> thank you. i want to thank all the witnesses for being here today and for your testimony and your patients. i want to talk to some of you who know ms. lynch. mr. barlow, thank you for your service to the justice department, and for coming here today to speak on behalf of ms. lynch. the attorney general must be both an excellent leader and open-minded collaborator. the attorney general must develop and coordinate policies among the various components of the justice department with other agencies. based on your experience serving with ms. lynch the attorney general's advisory committee how would you characterize her leadership style? >> she's a leader among leaders senator.

i would describe her style as being inclusive thoughtful, careful, deliberative, and she is someone who is seeking consensus wherever it may be found. i have also seen her recognize that occasionally consensus cannot be reached, and when he could not be reached, making sure there was space for dissent so all parts of the issue could be fully examined. >> thank you. figure for your service to the fbi and for being here today. you served with the fbi's new york office for 25 years, and have worked with many u.s. attorneys. in your testimony you noted a wide range of cases that you worked on with ms. lynch, and the window that this gave you into her legal acumen, her leadership style her character -- how would you rate ms. ly

nch's performance as u.s. attorney, and can you elaborate on the skills that you have observed that would speak to her ability to serve in the role of attorney general? >> thank you senator. i was in new york for two years before i returned. i had the opportunity to work with loretta in her capacity as the united states attorney. we undertook any range of significant and complex investigations ranging from national security to the complex financial frauds all the way through the criminal violations that include a violent gangs and other types of violent offenders. i had a very close opportunity to observe loretta during the course of these investigations but also beyond the conduct of

making decisions about cases and timelines for takedowns and the operational considerations although those were extraordinarily important, clearly, because the symbiotic relationship is such that the new york office, and the fbi, cannot do its job without that kind of symbiotic relationships with the u.s. attorneys. my observation of loretta in that role was that she led from the front, she instilled qualities within her office, gave them the resources, the opportunities to take on and grow themselves as leaders within the office but she was not afraid to become intimately involved because she wanted to know what was going on with the cases and not to micromanage. that is one quality of a true leader, to empower her people to

do a great job by backing off a little bit but still staying involved with the cases and knowing what is going on within her office. one of the other characteristics i noticed that i don't think i see a lot in executives is her ability to understand vertical organization, but at the same time develop horizontal relationships, particularly within the community. in a very structured environment, she was very comfortable, whether she was talking with an executive or all the way down to a brick agent or line police officer, the ability to talk to individuals, make them feel at ease, make them feel they are contributing and she is listening to what she's talking about and what they are talking about. likewise when we talk about a horizontal view across the community, she was very engaged with not just the law enforcement community from local

, state, tribal, federal, but also can -- also the communities we were serving. that leadership, leading her office to understand the concerns of these communities was integral to supporting the successes of the offices. >> let me ask you about that. that's about community engagement. let me ask you about that style. that's very important with the u.s. attorney. i see how important it is in minnesota. what was her style of engagement in terms of the community? >> very engaged and someone who was not afraid to engage many different community groups and have very frank discussions about concerns and issues, giving everybody an opportunity to provide input, and that's is incredibly important because

understanding the community you serve is part and parcel of representing the system of justice and making sure that if there are disparities in those communities, if there are issues in those communities, that you understand what they are so you can help drive change to make the system of justice better in addressing those concerns. with respect to the law-enforcement community, she was actively involved in many of the task forces, very supportive of them as a concept that brought departments and agencies large and small together to tackle entrenched crime issues terrorism, and would personally attend executive briefings, and her philosophy was that we were all in this together, that it was incumbent on law enforcement across the board to work shoulder to shoulder to really protect this country and tackle issues that no one agency could do by themselves.

i personally thought her leadership skills were outstanding. i viewed her as somebody i could go to for sound judgment as a sounding board, and receive recent advice in return. >> i'm getting the picture of a very impressive leader with those kinds of impressive skills but you came and testified today on where that comes from in a moral sense. can you speak to where that comes from in terms -- >> thank you, senator, for the opportunity. let me try to be as the sink about this as i possibly can. -- succinct about this as i can. we worked on a project when i was dean of the howard school of divinity.

the word impressive doesn't get it. she is a rare individual. i study people from the standpoint of a religious biographical perspective so that when you begin to look at what i might call the genius of character, it has come down through the generations. i mentioned in my written statement that her grandfather was a baptist minister, but three grandfathers before then. they serve their congregations and their communities with daring, with distinction, and above all, wisdom, and that wisdom was born of a depth of insight into human nature as to how leaders should best behave

and be effective in garnering a following, and leading them in a way that works for the good of all. loretto -- i have seen this throughout the years -- is a kind of person who can relate transparently enough to inspire trust and confidence so that you don't have to work a long time, wondering if what you are seeing is truly honest. this place on its way out in the sense that she is a due diligence kind of person. i understand the hypothetical kinds of issues and questions but my own background as a scholar would say at best a hypothetical only approximates a real-life situation. in a real life situation character really comes forth when you do the kind of due diligence that puts you in a position to make the quality of judgments that makes for a positive difference.

this is in her bloodline line. this is in her spiritual dna. i don't know if her father is still in the room, but i can tell you that it has played out in the way that he has provided leadership in north carolina whether he had to stand alone or stand with 1000, it was the true the right thing, and the right thing, and character, and character, and character all over again. i don't want to trivialize this process by using a sports metaphor, but i am an old broken down football player who played at duke when we were still winning games. >> that was quite a while -- >> quite a while ago. but we tend to think in terms of a franchise kind of player. she is an exceptional human being, and i cannot avoid the sense of passion i feel right now for the good that would come to our nation in having a person

who would be good, absolutely superb, and even healing our nation through the responsible discharge of her duties as the u.s. attorney general. >> so you would be for her? >> i would be for her. >> that was very powerful testimony. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator franken, senator sessions. [inaudible] >> thank you for recalling for us that a lot of people we have disagreements with can be wonderful people. i do sense that about her. she was raised right. i can tell that. sometimes you just get caught up in things. issues become a big, and an individual becomes the focus of

a controversy. sheriff clark, thank you for your leadership. i have a piece put out saying there were 36,000 convicted criminal aliens in detention the they were released, and a group of people were convicted of crimes such as homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. i noticed one individual was just arrested for murdering a 21-year-old convenience store

clerk on january 22 of this year after having been in custody on a drug and gang related felony burglary conviction, but was released on bond after a few days. if you release 36,000 people who have been convicted of crimes based on your experience in law enforcement, can't we expect that group is likely to commit the kinds of crimes i just mentioned? isn't that predictable? >> thank you, senator. if for no other reason because of the recidivist nature of crime regardless of what demographic is involved with that, i would say releasing 3600 into communities that don't have the support structures is at

best dangerous policy. they don't have the support structures in place. we start talking about criminal aliens, the first thing they will do is flee. my experience in working with ice -- we do cooperate with federal agencies in the pursuit of justice like we do any other federal agency -- they come with many aliases, difficult, and it takes a long time to identify them, but they realize the individual released on bail, they realize it is in their best interest to flee. then they turn up in another community. we have had those same horror type stories, individuals who have been brought to ice's

attention, and for what ever reason, they decided not to put a detainer on the more had a detainer and released it. it goes on to engage in even more heinous acts. the easy ones are the ones who are involved with murder, sexual assault. those folks are probably not going to get out on bail. we don't have to worry too much about them. >> well, this report indicated in number of them, like 193 of the 36,000 that were released were homicide convictions. you are right to assume that serious crimes would be almost unbelievable if they were being released, but data shows that a lot of them are the most serious crimes that are being released. >> sometimes some of the reports are some of the rhetoric used in

the discussion is on the lenient side. they call the low-level offenders, but some of the stuff that i see are not literally low-level offenders. >> you're responsible for protection of people in milwaukee and that area. the federal statute says someone convicted of a serious felony shall be deported. it doesn't say ice has an opinion about this. it says they shall be deported. does it make your lives more difficult? the place the people of milwaukee at greater risk of the officials are not following the law and deporting people who have been convicted of serious crimes? >> sherry does. -- sure it does. in my limited knowledge of legal language it is not discretionary.

>>. you think it is common sense and just that if a person is in the country illegally and they commit a serious crime, they should be deported? >> yes. it's beyond common sense. we have a duty to protect people. >> and a lot requires that. -- the law requires that. >> senator, i think sheriff clark just made one of the strongest arguments in favor of the president's executive actions. the main point of the new prosecutorial priorities is to be able to focus resources on precisely the individuals whom he is describing, and hopefully it will have that effect. i don't know why in this case the state authorities released a person while the person was pending trial. they must've thought it safe to release them. i'm not sure why the onus is shifting to ice. >> this isn't a matter of

discretion. i know you served with the uscis. this part is mandatory the point of racing. nothing congress passes apparently, has the ability to be effectuated in reality. that is a problem. congress will pass things, and they don't happened. we mandated a fence 700 miles. it did not happen. he said there should be annexed to -- be an exit-entry visa. it still hasn't been completed. are you aware that the group that you work with, the federation of government employees who represent ucsis has opposed this bill vigorously

and say it will not work, and is not helpful? >> this is the very same group whom some people are suggesting will refuse to obey the secretary's instruction to exercise discretion and will instead rubberstamp these cases. >> professor eastman in his testimony before the house on discretion says there is nothing in the memo to suggest that immigration officials can do anything other than grant deferred action to those meeting the defined eligibility criteria. indeed, the overpowering tone of the memo is one of woe to align immigration officers who do not act as a memo tells them they should, a point that has been admitted by the department of homeland security officials in testimony before the house.

in the house chairman goodlatte of the house judiciary committee said quote, dhs has admitted to the judiciary committee if an alien applies and meets the daca eligibility criteria, they will received deferred action. in reality, the immigration officials do not have discretion to deny daca applications if the applicants meet these criteria. professor rosencrantz, you indicated it might be an illusory thing here. isn't that proof that it really is illusory discretion, in fact it is mandatory? >> absolutely. >> the memo says the opposite. it says these are cases that, quote, present no other factors that in the exercise of discretion make the granting of deferred action appropriate.

the ultimate judgment as to whether an immigrant is granted deferred action will be determined on a case-by-case basis. the memo refers explicitly to discretion. >> we said we will do and exit-entry visa. the officials are going to approve the people if it meets the memorandum standards. >> the important thing to notice is it flips a presumption. the presumption is that the law will not be enforced, and somebody might have discretion to enforce the law in a particular case but this is turning prosecutorial discretion on its head. presumption is that the law will be enforced, and discretion will be used to exempt some to create an exemption to the rule. here the enforcement will clearly be exception to the rule if it happens at all. >> check that the deferred memo is ---- this memo lays out an exception. if you meet the following criteria uscis has the

discretion on a case-by-case basis -- >> if the people don't meet the standards, and someone does get turned down -- the projection is less than half the people, 5 million out of 11 million -- what if somebody is turned down? are they going to be deported? >> generally i would think yes. if they bring their presence to the attention of the enforcement authorities, and if it fits within the prosecutorial discretion priorities, i can't think of any reason -- >> they are not going to be deported. the only ones being deported today are people who commit serious crimes are and we found that even they are not being deported. we reached a lawless stage in immigration. the american people are not happy about it. they have a right to demand that their laws be enforced and the president's actions are some of the most dramatic steps to violate plain law that i've ever

seen in my experience. thank you, mr. chairman. my time is over. >> we were preparing for yesterday's hearing. i found a quote i would like to talk about in a minute, a quote from a speech given by ms. lynch about a year ago in which she made the following statement that caught my attention because it raises some alarm bells. it says, 50 years after the march on washington, 50 years after the civil rights movement, we stand in this country at a time when we see people trying to take back so much of what dr. king fought for. we stand in this country, and people try and take over the statehouse and reverse the goals that have been made in voting in this country, but i'm proud to tell you that the department of justice has looked at these laws and looked at what is happening in the deep south and in my home state of north carolina, has

brought lawsuits against those fight -- voting rights changes. close quote. when i read this, i became concerned. i was wondering what was she was talking about, what laws were out there, what legacy of the civil rights era that was trying to be overturned. ms. engelbrecht can you guess as to what she might have been talking about, referring specifically to her home state of north carolina? >> i can't. i reviewed the same comments that you referred to, which i think was taken from a speech in february in los angeles. what continues to boggle the mind is that the vast majority of americans want, understand, and appreciate the need to [indiscernible] our elections. the thought that asking a voter

to prove they are who they say they are is somehow discriminatory -- it seems to me to be more about pushing a political agenda than protecting the people. >> i wondered about this, so i asked one of my colleagues on this committee with me, senator thom tillis, who at the time she gave this speech was the speaker of the house in north carolina. i asked him what she was referring to. these are pre-bold statements, and if someone is going to accuse a state legislative body of moving to undo the legacy of dr. martin luther king and trying deliberately to diminish voting rights in this country, i feel like we need to know what that is. he suggested to me that it might have been directed towards a voter id law passed by the state of north carolina at the time to senator tillis was the speaker of the north carolina house of representatives.

i asked him about this law and he told me that when it came forward, there was concern about voter fraud, the risk of voter fraud in north carolina. he said, i want to find the most fair statute that there is on the books anywhere in this country, and i want to make it that much fairer. i want to put the belt and suspenders and another belt and another set of suspenders on it, make sure no one's voting rights are diminished at all. they started with the model of an indiana statute, a model that was itself quite cautious. it continues to allow no excused absence he voting without -- abs entee voting without an id. it pays for an id issued by the department of motor vehicles without any charge to the voter. they start with that as the model, then they added additional protections that neither indiana nor any other state that is adapted and evolved like this has had. a two-year ramp-up

period, a program designed to allow homebound individuals to vote but also allows for documents for a register of deeds or the department of health and human services that can be used to verify id. it establishes a $1 million trust fund to reach out to those people who might not have id's. this is the most cautious carefully protective statutory scream -- scheme i can imagine in this area. if this was the target of this description, do you think it's fair to describe this legislation this way, as an attempt to undo the gains of the civil rights movement and the gains of martin luther king and those who fought with him valiantly to protect voter rights in america? >> absolutely not. i don't think it is appropriate or fair. if that is truly the believe

that is held, we need to understand what's behind that. it belies anything you have just read in making sense. >> with your involvement in efforts to prevent voter fraud what would you say to those who have made the argument that there is no such thing as voter fraud and therefore we need not be concerned about it, and the only reason somebody could push for it would be because they subjectively want to undermine voting rights? what would your response to that be? >> i think our history is replete with examples of voter fraud. it is something we should take very seriously. you don't need a whole lot of fraud, you just need a little bit in the right places. the less that you create a system that secures everyone's votes, the more open it is to these kinds of manipulations

that further divide our country in ways that serve no purpose. >> thank you. >> sheriff clark, i wanted to talk you about the relationship between the department of justice and law enforcement right now. how would you describe the relationship between law enforcement and the department of gecko quick>> i will not engage in the hyperbole or exaggerate. the mission statementz that i decided early ona talks about partnerships and from the milwaukee experience, we need the help of the u.s. attorneys office in the eastern district of wisconsin to deal with instances of the violent crime of the repeat your -- repeat

offender. we are not talking about people who may deserve some remedy for some transgression they made. i talked about the 10-year-old. both of those individuals, convicted felons. the prohibition of not being able to be armed with a firearm means nothing to them. the state has not shown a willingness at that state level. i think it is a legitimate question to ask, what are they doing at the state level with some of the cases? too much leniency. i will tell you one thing from a deterrent standpoint, criminal fear the federal -- the justice system. they just do. if we would have, for instances, cases -- there was a case where

the assistant u.s. attorney who we do have a great relationship with use the -- used the hobbs act to charge a man who had gone on a robbery spree and i believe one of them received a 15 year sentence and class, they use the firearm -- a firearm in the commission of those crimes. they do not have to charge all of them. i know they have not heard about the prosecutor -- prosecutorial discretion that i think if we take this elephant and tried to eat at one spoonful at a time, the elephant being violent crime ravaging all kinds of urban towns in america but if we take the worst offenders and subject them to federal sanctions, that will first of all ensure a better chance at a conviction, a

better chance of more link the sentence. -- more lengthy sentence. for the person who is just not care about the sanctions applied. that is the sort of help we need from the federal prosecutors office in milwaukee. i will not really wrap the u.s. attorneys office of law enforcement. not bringing in the cases. the ones they are they are doing well. the armed violent offenders are the ones i would like to see go to federal route. >> thank you. today we have heard from a number of witnesses that have testified to move lynch qualification, which are in itself impressive. i know of no finer lawyer or human being traders and david.

always great to see you and each of you have put a lot of thought into your testimony. i appreciate your written testimony and what you spoken to us today. the records for the hearings will remain open for a week for members to submit written questions for the record. the hearing will be adjourned. thank you. thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

quick after two days of testimony the nomination of the ritalin -- loretta lynch to

the benefit attorney general complete. we will show you all of today's testimony from the nine witnesses this evening here on seas and at 8:00 eastern. we will take a few minutes here to get your final thoughts from you what you heard from witnesses today and yesterday. the questions we've been asking your priorities were the next attorney general? republicans use -- make sure you mute your radio or telephone calling and this afternoon. we will also check facebook and twitter. a couple of comments on facebook. kathy jones who says please do not confirm her. she says the job of the attorney general is to enforce all of the laws as they are written, no more, no less. jerry says -- gary says another obama yes woman, do not confirm.

a post from sandy who says close our borders, no amnesty for illegal aliens. just a sample of what people have written over the past couple of days. mac up in new york -- newark new jersey, democrats line. we lost back and will go to hampstead, new york. the republican line. dorothy. >> i am a registered republican and have always had with that for my party but it is coming now to where it is almost be ashamed of. it seems like our party just wants to hurt another party. instead of us working together, they put people today that had nothing to do with confirming mrs. lynch. if we are not going to gather, our party will soon die and go away. it is a disgrace was so many things they are doing.

that is all i have to say. thank you very much. suzy independence line in texas. what did you hear over the past couple of days? caller: she is just going to be another obama yes woman i guess. she does not seem willing to enforce our immigration laws. just kind of basically a rubberstamp. i think she might be a little bit better than eric holder, but not a whole lot. i wish somebody would actually get in there and enforce the laws we have on the book. >> comment here on twitter from sheldon whitehouse from rhode island. a member of the committee tweeted this out a short while ago. turning the hearing into a soundbite factory for fox news is need the dignity of the committee. this is our democrats line. martha, go ahead. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

caller: i am just really sad. it blows my mind that they continue, they continue downloading everything -- downing everything the president wants for america. give us a break out here. the republican party do not listen to the will. they say they do, but they do not. they do not listen to the middle class. for this catherine, i don't know who she is that i just looked her up online, and she is just a fox contributor. it just rights my heart. may god help us. thank you. >> let's to the republican line. jim is up next. caller: i think they need to disqualify mr. murphy for two reasons. she does not want to enforce

the existing laws about immigration. she wants to include certain law just like president obama does that they don't like, and they only enforce the laws they want to enforce. according to what the oath of office is, they have to say -- enforce the constitution's and existing laws. if they do not do that, they are actually just alibi from being attorney general. that is all i have to it. >> let's take a look at twitter. here is one from tony referring to a couple of esther this afternoon. senator cruise and senator mike lee always interrupt. always -- who refute their nonsense. diane says thank you senator cruz for correcting the root insulting comments made by senator whitehouse. and from thinker, grassley wants to look at complete record

before deciding his ag vote but accuses lynch of waffling because she wants facts before answering hypotheticals. billy says the past practices of the attorney general office are relevant. there is more to a person that their resume. here is troy, michigan. independent line. laura, go ahead. caller: i got a chance to see some of the hearing yesterday and i came in about the last hour and a half. i have, did anybody ask her any westerns about benghazi -- asked her any questions about benghazi. also, the famous rifles carried across the border. i thought the republican party was going to be different. mr. mcconnell, please. thank you. >> thank you. the issue of benghazi certainly came up today as former cbs

journalists sheryl atkinson testified before the committee is one of the witnesses here he is not sure if it came up yesterday in all of the western he, nine hours worth of lessening by loretto lynch and questions from senators that you can find all of that online at www.c-span.org. democrats line. roy, welcome. caller: yes, thank you. i think senator whitehouse got it right. i think he explained it well. what i did not like senator lee was asking this lady and pretty much putting words in her mouth saying he did not understand about the person and north carolina. they kept it to one thing. they have done a lot of things in north carolina. i am here and 53 years old. what they have done is cut back on the day you can vote and

timeframe it can be done to make it harder because they do not want to bring -- windy reelection fairly. they have to cheat to win. it is a shame. thank god for good white americans and black americans who speak up and stand together in this country. that is really what it is going to take. >> when do those laws take effect in north carolina caps off caller:? caller: it will take effect in 2016. voter id in 2016. it has already been mandated and passed but just giving time for people to get the id. i ashamed sometimes to be an american and north carolinanian. >> debbie on the independent line from virginia. caller: hello. i believe when you vote you should have to show proper

identification. that is not taking away from your right to vote, and you should have specified times. the voters have to have time to tabulate the amounts of botvotes coming in. if everyone would realize that i think they would stop complaining. we had too many illegal americans in this country. we have immigration laws. no other country in the world if you go to the country and are pregnant, you have a baby, that baby is an american citizen. you have to apply for dual citizenship. in these country you walk in have a baby and automatic citizen. that is wrong. that needs to be changed, and everyone who is fighting in the shadows needs to either come out of the shadows and ask wayne

themselves, and if they are guilty of a crime, be deported. our government is roque -- broke from having to pay for these people. that is wrong. >> certainly immigration one of the key points of contention questioning over the past couple of days and a number of other issues, to. that caller asked about voting rights. we will point you in the direction of www.c-span.org where the entire testimony is in the number of clips created, a number of them created by viewers on issues such as miss lynch's views on marijuana laws. you will find all of that at www.c-span.org. president obama will speak to house and a retreat in philadelphia. you will find that life on c-span networks. here to give us a sneak peek of what he may talk about.

obama's 2016 budget to bus sequestration budget caps. the administration releasing the budget monday according to her report. back to all. dolores in massachusetts on the independence line. caller: hi, i listened to loretta late yesterday with an open mind because i thought let me hear what she has to say. at first i thought she was being very open and and forthright. as the western and went on she started to dodge. one of the areas she dodge was with the illegal aliens whether or not they have a right to work in this country. they don't. she is supposed to be law enforcement. doesn't she know the definition of any legal? right then and there she lost me as far as her being confirmed. i do not think she should be

confirmed. she was not forthright as the question got harder. >> going back to the empty and michigan. democratic caller. caller: hello. i think whoever becomes attorney general should uphold the constitution. and for years, if you read judge bork's folks it is being stripped and tore down, and our country is going more toward communism than capitalism. according to the bible, all of this bad is happening because we are not keeping the law of god and that is jesus christ, and we did from the founding until the 1950's and 1960's, and then the fabrics darted tearing down and

our country is being decimated. god is allowing that because of everything bad happening. >> do you think of candidates religion has an impact or should have an impact on how they conduct themselves in the office of attorney general or any office they are appointed to? caller: most certainly. your religion you grow up with from the time you are a child. if you grow up with idolatrous religion, what good is that in a country that is christian? because even though barack obama would like to say we are not risk country, we are. everybody i know. not only that, but the constant -- consensus is, even by the state office in washington d.c., this is a christian country. >> a couple of more cobblers.

and on the republican line. -- ann on the republican line. is this ann? caller: this was something that was just curious to me. it is about miss lynch's father. i keep see him wandering around in there so he can go anywhere he wants and he will go up to a senator like he did with lee at the end and lobby him on behalf of his daughter, and i just thought that was inappropriate. i do not know if there are any rules against it but i did think it was in poor 10taste. >> you made a good point, her father was in attendance, and i believe her husband and one of her brothers. it is not unusual a family member or friend or associate

may attend a second day of testimony, but it would not be the nominee herself, you would not likely see her in the audience. what is more, she is a working attorney, the u.s. attorney for the eastern districts or she is a job to get back to i guess. this is from kelly o'donnell. let us know where we are on the senate side of things as they judiciary committee gavel that early. 62-35 senate moves keystone to the next age with bipartisan vote. full passage expected later today but not enough democrats to override veto. you can find the folks on our companion network, c-span2. one more call. jacksonville florida. this is larry. caller: i think she is, loretta lynch she is super. her qualifications precede her. she is outstanding. matter of fact, i will make a

prediction, she will be the attorney general not only for the outgoing president but the incoming president, hillary clinton. now watch it. i have said it, you heard it first. >> we will mark your comments. we -- thank you for all of your comments and questions. look for all of today's hearing to reenter beginning at 8:00 tonight here on c-span. you can find bits and pieces of all of yesterday's as well online at www.c-span.org. next up to her on c-span, we will show you the hearing from this morning as it began with the chairman gaveling the second day into session.

>> for the members who are present, except for the ones here already, it will be on sin you're ready, then other people that come in you will be called in according to how the respective staff keep track of you in the order of your appearance. before chairman leahy and i give our opening statements, i'd like

to go over some things i said yesterday. first of all, we welcome everybody back to this second day of hearing on ms. lynch's nomination to be attorney general. as i said yesterday, and everybody abided by this, and i want to thank everybody that was here yesterday for their courtesy, i want everyone to be 44fable to watch the hearing without obstruction, and if people stand up and block the view of those behind them or speak out of turn, it's not fair, considerable to the others. so officers would remove those individuals. that's what i want to thank because we didn't have any of those incidents yesterday. before we begin the opening statements, take care of a couple housekeeping items, and explain the process, first of all i want to thank everyone for their patience yesterday. looks like we are going to have more votes today, so again i'm asking for your flexibility.

after opening statements, the plan is to start the first round of questions, then recess so members can vote. we would then return after the first series of votes, and i am assuming that will be around 12:45. you folks answering questions for us, you can't necessarily count on that. then we would keep going through -- there's four votes this afternoon. we won't adjourn at that particular time, we'll do like we did yesterday. we will take time to -- take turns going and voting. senator leahy then and i will now give our opening statements. then we'll return -- turn to our witnesses for their opening statements. following their statements we'll begin with the first round of questions in which each senator will have 10 minutes after the first round. then we'll go to eight minutes

of questions. and -- so then i will give my opening statement. obviously welcome everybody, audience as well as witnesses, to our second day of hearings on ms. lynch's nomination to be attorney general. 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. 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 leading the department of justice in a new direction. there's obviously people here that are going to speak about the direction the department in a different way, and we'll listen courteously to that as well. we'll hear from sharyl attkisson as one example of a personal who was an investigative journalist who's been bullied, threatened and literally 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 engelbrecht who was targeted by the i.r.s. simply because she's a conservative who's had the courage to stand up in the defense of freedom and the constitution. the department has paid lip service to the investigation that is supposedly leading. so i would like to know how ms. lynch will take seriously the targeting of fellow citizens based on their political views. then we have sheriff david cooke, milwaukee, who will testify about how thousands of local law enforcement officers across this country feel as though their current leadership doesn't fully appreciate the work their law enforcement does every day. that's important to see how ms. lynch might do to mend the broken relationships.

and then we'll hear from professors turley and rosenkrantz who will address how the department of justice under eric holder has rubber-stamped the president's lawless actions from the unlawful recess appointments in the unlawful executive action, specifically 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 ms. lynch will restore the office of legal counsel to the impartial role it used to play on the check of the president's authority. i look forward to the hearing today. now it's senator leahy's turn to give his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a second day of the

committee's consideration of loretta lynch to serve as our nation's attorney general. we had a long day yesterday. today we'll hear testimony from outside witnesses about ms. lynch, i would especially be 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 and independence she would bring to the office of the attorney general. she testified how she would make its priorities national security and public safety, but still preserve the values that we as 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 past attorney general who told us

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

i was not surprised that we have been friends for decades, and i know you well. we are going to hear from law enforcement officials who actually worked with ms. lynch. these are the people who have the best knowledge of her. they strongly support her nomination. their presence today will speak of the support ms. lynch has among republicans and democrats, similar to the letter that one of the finest f.b.i. directors we've ever had has submitted on her behalf, louis freeh. barack obama is not the nominee. that may come as a surprise to some who lettered some of the questions. eric holder is not the nominee. loretta lynch, the daughter of lore reason and reverend lynch twice unanimously confirmed by

the united states senate, has been applauded for her law enforcement work, that's who is being called upon to consider. i'm confident after hearing her testimony before the committee and after reviewing her record no 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 facing americans today. she's met with over 50 senators in both parties. so i hope we can come together in the senate, support this historic confirmation. for an outstanding public servant and move quickly doing it. thank you. >> can i ask you, there is no reason to make these people stand for an oath. can they do it sitting down? >> sure. >> i want to know what's legal -- do you affirm that the testimony -- would you raise your hand, please. do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the

committee will be the whole truth -- let me start over again, please. do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god. thank you. i'm going to introduce everybody at the table all at once instead of separately when one person gets done speaking. be patient with me. sharyl attkisson is an investigative journalist and author for over 20 years she worked for cbs news, winning multiple emmy awards for her investigative journalism pieces. including her reporting on the 2012 benghazi report and fast and furious. next we have david barlow we know well. he served as u.s. attorney for

the district of utah, 2011 2014. prior to his tenure as u.s. attorney, he served on this committee as senator leahy's chief counsel. he's now a partner of sydney, austin washington, d.c. next is reverend newsome. reverend clarence newsome is president of the national underground railroad freedom center in cincinnati, ohio. next is janice fedarcyk. she served as assistant director in charge of f.b.i.'s new york division, 2010-2012. she currently runs a consulting firm in washington, d.c. i know i pronounced it wrong. next we have stephen legomsky, professor at john s. lehman university professor at washington university school of law. next we have jonathan turley j.b. and morrissey shapiro professor of public interest law, george washington university law school.

david clarke, sheriff, milwaukee county and served for over 36 years as a law enforcement professional. next, nicholas rosenkrantz is a professor of constitutional law and federal jurisdiction georgetown university law center and a senior fellow at the cato institute. finally, we have catherine engelbrecht. she's the founder and chairwoman of truth the vote, an election integrity organization, the

founder of king street patriots, a citizen led liberty group, and the co-owner of engelbrecht manufacturing, a small business she owns with her husband in her home state of texas. now we will start with ms. attkisson. >> thank you. >> if i didn't, maybe i should say i think you have all been informed but we'd like to have five minutes. go ahead. >> i have been a reporter for 30 years at cbs news. i have been a reporter for 30 years at cbs news, pbs, cnn, and local news. my producers and i probed countless political, corporate charitable, financial stories ranging from iraq contract waste and fraud under bush to green energy waste under obama to

consumer stories relating to the drug industry. some of these reports have been recognized for excellence in journalism, most recently investigative emmy nominations and awards for reporting on tarp, benghazi, green energy spending, fast and furious, and a group 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 that 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 whistle blowers 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 chill 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 cussed me out. the justice department used its authority over building security to handpick reporters allowed to attend a fast and furious briefing, refusing 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 in which taxpayer paid white house and justice department press officials complained that i was out of control and vowed to call my bosses to stop my reporting. let me emphasize 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 of potentially embarrassing interview with the president. 50 news organizations, including cbs and "the washington post” wrote the white house objecting to unprecedented restrictions on the press that raised constitutional concerns. a "new york times" photographer likened the white house practices in some cases to the

soviet news agency tass, former "washington post" executive editor len downy called the obama war on leaks by far the most aggressive he's seen since nixon. david sanger of the "new york times" called this the most closed control freak administration he's ever covered. "new york times" public editor "new york times" public editor said it's the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press. months before we knew that the justice department had secretly seized a.p. phone records and surveiled fox news' james rosen 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 that the government was likely secretly monitoring me due to my reporting. three forensic exams concerned the intrusive long-term remote surveillance. that included key stroke monitoring, password capture 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 knowledge of the case. it has stonewalled my freedom of information request, first saying it has no responsive documents, then admitting to 2,500 of them but never providing any of them. in 2013, reporters without borders downgraded america's standing 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. 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'll 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 chart a new path and reject the damaging policies and practices used by others in the past. if we aren't grave enough to confront these concerns, it could do serious long-term damage to a 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 ecothat sitting here -- 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 understandlyback 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. the speaker pro tempore: 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 dukedy vinity 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, he she has the capacity to maintain the strength of her own convictions. third, she is morally grounded and principleled -- 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. >> 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 of the -- attorney general of

the united states, i would like to comment on three areas that form the foundation of my recommendation. sound judgment, legal acuemen, 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 clib brat 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 foreunited states attorney which called her exceptional any-- exceptionally well qualified. i never known her to base a decision on politics.

she showed fairless, 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 entrinched 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. the speaker pro tempore: -- >> thank you very much. professor. >> 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. it is 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 legality or these actions. i have submitted detailed statement that documents these uses and identifies all legal objections that the president's critics offers. none of them can withstand scrutiny. i will hit a few key points and refer you to the written statement for all of the other points. i think all now, in a world of limited resources, a discretion is unavoidable. you cannot go after everyone in the case of -- everyone.