you can watch this program and the other event we covered council earlier c-span.org. c-span's washington journal live day with news and policy issues that impact you. the supreme court ruled 5-3 abortion e texas access law and coming up tuesday

morning, national journal baker talks sam about this most significant ruling on abortion in almost two decades. president of the constitutional accountable center discusses the court's in the ex-the tex abortion act -- in the texas case.zation access air july 1st, 1976, the and space museum opened to the public with president gerald hand for the dedication. omorrow marks the 40th anniversary. we'll tour the museum and see viation and space artifacts including the spirit of st. apollo lunar

module. >> earlier today, hillary clinton held a campaign rally in with massachusetts senator elizabeth warren. it's the first time the two oliticians have appeared together on the campaign trail since senator warren endorsed month.inton earlier this is 50 minutes. ♪ ♪

[applause] crowd cheering]

whoa! thank you! [applause] crowd cheering] thank you for that warm welcome. i am always happy to come to ohio. the home to be in state of my great friend and great senator brown. applause] [crowd cheering] > yes! and it is good to be in the send ted 's going to

strickland to the u.s. senate in november. yes! now, i'm here today because i'm with her. yes, her. [applause] crowd cheering] >> we're all here today because we're with her. we're going to work our hearts out to make hillary next president of the united states. [applause] [crowd cheering] yes! [applause] [crowd cheering] >> i'm ready. you ready for this? eah! with someone who gets fights single day and for us. whole who has spent her life fighting for children, spent her life fighting for women, spent her life fighting families, fighting for healthcare, fighting for human

ights, fighting for a level playing field, fighting for those who need her most. to fight side by side with hillary clinton. [crowd cheering] applause] talk today, i want to about values. and ddy sold fencing carpeting. he ended up as a maintenance man. mom his heart attack, my answered the phones at sears to family above water. here's some of the values i personal.p close and my oldest brother, don reed, was areer military, 288 combat missions in vietnam. [applause] >> yep [crowd cheering] >> and i learned from him that honor our promises to our service members and veterans

always. yes. applause] [crowd cheering] >> and after my middle brother john got out of the air force, union job od operating a crane. pension because of that job. i learned from him that unions america's middle class and nions will rebuild america's middle class. and my youngest brother, david, got out of the army, started a small business. off.orked his rear end it was tough. and today all he has left is his social security. i learned from him that we honor hardworking people by protecting expanding social security. [applause] [crowd cheering] yes.

now, me, i was the baby. always wanted to be a teacher. i went to a commuter college $50 a semester. i opened a million doors for me. learned that america's public schools can build opportunities kids.ll of our [applause] crowd cheering] daughter of a maintenance man. made it all the way to the senate.tates [applause] >> and hillary clinton is the granddaughter of a factory worker who's going to make it the way to the white house. america! we that yes! ve in that america!

yes! in that america. but we're worried. worried that those opportunities slipping away. a lot of america is worried. angry.d and angry that too many times washington works for those at leaves everyone else

behind. you want to see goofy? hat. at him in that [laughter]

says when donald trump great, i ask great for who exactly? >> yeah. >> for millions of kids pay for an o education? seniors barely surviving on social security. don't fly to hat scotland to play golf? applause] [crowd cheering] [laughter] when donald trump says he'll great, he means make it even greater for rich trump.ust like donald [applause] crowd cheering] >> great for the guys who don't are how much they've already squeezed from everyone else. who always e guys

more. because that's who donald trump is. the guy who wants it all for himself. and watch out. because he will crush you into the dirt to get whatever he wants. is.t's who he britain's ed on i'll tell you what kind

roots for this. ecause hint will be the next president of the united states. right. hillary clinton knows what it a thin skinned andy who is driven by greed hate. she knows you beat a bully not

but cking tail and running by standing your ground and back.ing she's been on the receiving end attack after ing another for 25 years. never backed down. applause] >> that's right. wine or run to twitter to call her opponents or dummies.

[applause] [applause] [crowd chanting hillary] [applause] [applause] [applause]. so here's what it boils down to. [laughter]. >> hillary has brains, guts, she steady hands and but most of all, she has a good what america 's needs. and that's why i'm with her.

her?ou with are you with her? yes! yes! [applause] [crowd cheering] >> this election is about values. few. just do a donald versus hillary. [laughter] believes in mp defrauding students to benefit himself. illary clinton believes that every kid should be able to get an education without getting crushed by debt. means debt free college and refinancing student loans. fights for us. donald trump believes the poor, bankers e wall street need to be free to defraud they want. hillary clinton believes that we

need strong rules to prevent crisis.financial yes. for us.fights donald trump cheats his workers and wants to abolish the minimum wage. hillary clinton believes no one should work full time and live poverty and that means wage.ng the minimum hillary fights for us. [applause] cheering]. >> you know i could do this all day. i really could. but i won't. won't. okay. one more. more.

must ghts for us, and we fight for hillary clinton. she fights for us. to se join me in welcoming the stage our next president. applause] crowd cheering]

to be here elighted with my friend and a great warren senator elizabeth [applause] crowd cheering]

your house with a long table. not very k and

pleasant but it was decent, honest work. and he believed and he taught me that's what you do in america. that's the basic bargain. you work hard. your part. you will get ahead and stay ahead. make sure that basic bargain is alive and well. [applause] crowd cheering] elizabeth is leading the fight o liberate millions of americans from the burden of student debt. washington sure never again profits off of our students. federal agree the government should not be making money off of sending our young college to get an

education. harder to make never, never eet wrecks main street again. she's come up with a lot of but here's one that has already made a big difference. consumer d the .inancial protection bureau been around a few years under the leadership of a great ohio, richard the ay who is leading charge. it has already -- think about only been around a few years but it's already $10.8 billion to

25 million americans. love to see do just how she gets under donald skin s thin [applause] [crowd cheering] [laughter] >> as elizabeth made clear, proves every day he's not in it for the american people. it only for himself. and elizabeth reminds us of that chance she gets because it is really impoant that voters across america understand this. him for what he is.

emperamentally unfit and totally unqualified to be united states.e now, some of the best tv since the senate is to actually on c-span. whenever you see her pressing bank executive or a regulator for answers, refusing to let them off the hook, remember she speaking for every single who is frustrated and fed up. she is speaking for all of us. thank her for that. i'm thrilled that elizabeth

could be with us here in this beautiful building that's been rehabbed and put to as a museum. we need to have an economy that works for everybody. just the rich and well connected. ne might ask, well, yes, that is what we believe. it sounds simple, doesn't it? honestly, i think it is. it shouldn't be ut there are too many politicians and corporations that don't agree. seem to get it. but you do. do. we and for the past now more than a traveling e been

across our country meeting who have told me their wages haven't budged. executives they see who give themselves big bonuses. yourself, well, wait a minute, why do the richest biggest and the corporations get away with manipulating the tax code so lower rates than you do? question.ood it doesn't make any sense. doesn't make moral sense. economic sense. historic sense. know what else doesn't make sense? when leaders in congress give more tax breaks to hedge fund millionaires instead of making investments in manufacturing that energy and education will actually create more good

jobs. >> it doesn't make sense when profitsions stash their overseas or send them to shareholders instead of making long term investments raising wages, training, and research. governors and legislatures use every trick in unions and weaken harder forer make it americans to organize themselves and benefits.es

it right. let's make it right for standrking americans like hall in cleveland who owns a small trucking company. for him nstop struggle to compete against the bigger guys. ut if we keep our economy growing and make sure small the esses like stand's get right support, we can give more under a chance to succeed bargain.rican basic

have toto go big and we bold. we need to take that frustration, the fear, the anxiety, the anger. and then we need to work of ther to achieve the kind changes that will give everybody in this country a better shot. set five ambitious goals for our economy. let's break through the wash and n in washing make the biggest investment in jobs since world war two. what we need to do

[applause] in infrastructure did president eisenhower with the interstate highway

system. we've got more work to do so set the goal of rewriting the rules so more companies profits with their mployees, not just their executives. instead of shipping profits and overseas, we've got the reatest country and the greatest economy in the world, let's start acting like it. let's make it clear that the be part of ve to of that greatness. let's set the goal that of street and the ealthy pay their fair share of

taxes. proposed the buffet rule buffet.arren no millionaire should pay a than somebody working for him like his secretary. the people -- the people who ave profited the most even since the great recession are now need to give back. his country has given so much to all of us. and everybody should share the burden. pledge.ve made a i will not raise taxes on the middle class but we are going to taxes on corporations and wealthy.

and don't you think it's about put american families first? we're not living in the 50s or 60s anymore. we've got to catch up to how actually live and work in the 21st century. many stressed out s i've met so many stressed out middle aged and trying to balance out the joys of their lives like for us and dson is our granddaughter. remember i was talking to elizabeth on the phone when she was visiting her family, her talked ldren and we about all this important stuff and what we have to do and then because i got to go have to go buy my granddaughter

some sparkly shoes. [laughter] >> there is no greater joy but struggling parents so hard, and to see older people of their parents, we've got work to do. so hould not make it difficult to do your job at home puts foodthe job that on the table and roof over your head. there are a lot of businesses thriving right here in ohio who employs the right way. they see them as assets to invest in. cut.costs to but unfortunately, too many take he opposite view and their behavior contributes to stagnant growth.d lower economic that's why as president i will

companies that share profits with their paying a on top of good wage. if they can do it for their executives, they can sure do it their workers. . >> unions helped bring back the ohio and they n will help bring back the auto coast.ry from coast to

here's our message to every corporate board room. do the right thing. by your employees and your country. will stand by you. employees, ur s, pollute r customer our environment and rip off will hold yout we

accountable. we will defend american jobs and workers by saying no to bad deals like the trans-pacific partnership and practices like when hina dumps cheap steel in our markets or uses weak rules of origin to undercut our car makers. to appoint a trade who will report to the president so we are going to end the abuse of our markets, workers, our people. we're going to compete and win n the global economy by not letting anybody take advantage of our workers. not china. not wall street. anyone. we're going to defend and

rules to the tough reign in wall street that were put in place after the crash. pay fines for ns breaking the law, those fines executive into if laws are individuals, not just corporations should be held

accountable. weaver got to liberate the by protecting er and helping the american worker. e're going to make more things in america and ensure that we have the most competitive auto industries in the world. applause] and when we invest in not just ture, we're going to be investing in roads tunnels and nd ports and transit and water systems. connect every home to high speed broad band so

the global into marketplace. going to fight climate change by making america the clean energy super power of the century. immateri i want to compliment your mayor. is already one of the biggest cities in the country to clean energy. ongratulations! [applause] crowd cheering]

going e're at it, we're to raise the national minimum is a poverty wage. better.deserve they deserve a living wage and a dignity. families deserve paid family for women.qual pay [applause] crowd cheering] now, i know when i talk about hese things donald trump says i'm playing the woman card. well, tell you what, if fighting playing the is in! n card, deal me [applause] crowd cheering]

bring jobs back to up state new and help new york city heal and rebuild after the 9/11 attacks. served as secretary of state and i didn't just represent democrats. represented all americans we're , you know what, all on the same team. acting like start it. there's no limit to what we can achieve if we do. confess, it's i true. i can be a little wonky. [laughter] >> but i have this old-fashioned

you're running for president, you should say what you want to do and how you will et it done [applause] crowd cheering] heard some ofu've my plans for the economy, ask donald , what are trump's plans? has noest i can tell, he credible strategy for creating

jobs. this is a man who mocks people with disabilities. talks about banning an entire eligion from entering our country. who advocates getting rid of gun schools.s in letting more countries have nuclear weapons. defaulting on our national debt. turning back the clock on equality and just like on.zabeth, i could go on and this is someone who has reaction

whose horrific -- reaction to the horrific mass to ting in orlando was publically congratulate himself. and on friday when britain voted leave the european union, he crowed from his golf course about how the disruption could creating higher profits for that golf course. within 24 hours, $100 billion from our 401ks. he tried to turn a global an omic challenge into infomercial. sitting in ld trump the oval office the next time crisis. faces a

if you believe donald trump is rong for america and our best days are ahead of us, please join us in this campaign. we are stronger together. stronger when we grow

together, when we lift each ther up, when our economy is working for everyone, not just those at the top. ohio.get to work, let's knock on doors and register voters. to theend ted strickland senate. back to d reese columbus. god bless you, america, and thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> during the election i had the occasion of meeting a woman who my campaign. me in she decided to come to shake my

photograph.ke a a wonderful woman. she wasn't asking for anything. i was very grateful that she took the time to come by. an unexceptional moment except for the fact that she was her name was nd lewis, an african-american woman born in ouisiana in the shadow of slavery, born at a time when lynchings were common place, orn at a time when african-americans and women could not vote. >> took our country from the time of its founding until the mid-1980s to build up a national debt of $850 billion which was this so-called stimulus package when it came over here. about real g borrowed money.

>> the argument this morning in 15474, mcdonnell versus united states. >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court. in government argues that quid pro quo bribery, official action encompasses anything

the range of official duties. in order to reach that it asks you disregard the 9-0 conclusion of this court. engage in official action an official must either make a government decision or someone else to do so. the lines between access to ecision makers and trying to influence those decisions -- >> that's the sun demand case, 9-0 case? ? yes, your honor. the sun diamond case. confirmed is s that when an official simply to another ne official for an objective decision, he has not crossed that line into prohibited fficial action >> i take it all parties can see act of the university official to undertake or not to wouldake a research study be an official action? >> yes, your honor. did the uestion is vernor cross the line into

influencing officials to undertake that action. >> can you tell me the posture case with reference to under virginia law the governor's authority or lack of to tell the university you will engage in this research or you will not engage? >> sure, your honor. what is the state of the law and do the parties agree on this point? honor, i think that the parties agree that the governor pulpit had a bully

authority. can i ask the line you're exercise and n influence and access? suppose that somebody knew that who was a contractor going to award a very large or three o one of two he was meeting with and a company paid to make sure that they were on the list to be one of those two or three firms. in other words, bribed an official in order to become one of those two or three firms from the pool from hich this billion dollar emerge.t would

the only way you could get your being on ould be by list. >> let me just -- let me just hypothetical a little bit. suppose that a governor is going to eventually make a decision that will help either a or b and hurt either a or b and the overnor says i'm going to have a preliminary discussion about this with members of my staff.

to any t going to come decision but we're going to talk bout it and whichever of you pays the most money will be able to sit in on this staff meeting. what about that? i would want to know are there facts suggesting it's payment to sit on in the meeting. to really ent meeting.e the >> the more facts you put on to suggest it's more of an attempt

not fluence a decision and just a meeting, the more likely you are to get to that official act. we do with hat do the evidence in the case that individuals who were assessing whether or not to studies themselves felt pressured? testimony and ocuments inform which pros and cons of accepting these studies in the -- it and was the governor really wants us this.

thought this crime was taking money knowing that it was being influence an official act. examples all of these of official acts whether they are or they aren't irrelevant, is what was his intent that the moment he took moment he - at the took the money and why couldn't infer at that moment that he took it with the intent o commit an official act the way mr. williams wanted it

committed. in the absence of direct corrupt agreement the argument was that you can of r one from a pattern actual official act aides on the other hand and the pattern of -- connection between the two. >> is it your position that page 0 of the supplemental joint appendix, the instructions it hard mbered making but the judge instructs the jury actions are set forth in the five paragraphs of the indictment.

and is it your position that at of those are not acts.ial the jury in this case could have completely agreed with our version of the facts. it could have agreed that as we that the y vigorously most that governor mcdonald did here was refer -- gets back somewhat to the hypothetical about arranging meeting and we can up the ante to see how close the an official to be act. that at some point your position is that a

officialtal -- that an act must be the exercise of governmental power. position?ur >> your honor, it's either making a decision on an exercise f governmental power or trying influence it. >> do you concede that there's evidence in this ecord but that could go back and a jury could be asked did a governor try to influence decision on the part of the medical faculties?

> your honor, we don't concede there was sufficient evidence but regardless, we also argue hat the jury was improperly instructed on this which goes to the point i think you were aking, if the jury was improperly instructed, you don't actually assume all of the of the in favor government. the question is would the jury been required to convict. here, even if the jury completely agreed with us and they very well may have under erroneous instructions, they still would have been required to convict because instructions simply referring somebody to a meeting without trying to influence the meeting f that constitutes official governmental action. arranging a meeting could be official government action if that were your job. in other words, you're not just secretary but your job was to manage the governor's schedule, decided who met with him. you decided when. that's your job.

on that?follow up you could suppose that there were a scheduler for a governor or the president or whatever and scheduler was selling meetings. so you would think that's part and if i just understood you correctly, that falls within the statute? your honor, i think that would be a very close case. case.ould be a very close b at the end of the day if you're not making a decision or outcome of a decision i think you might be lot of other laws including the separate provision in prohibits you undertaking any act in violation f your official duties in in money.ge for

you're making a decision on behalf of the government or to do urging someone else so. wait, i you say urging, can go back to a lot of different commissions, the brown senate s 1, the language of the statute and i official action. something quite similar to the here.te

influence is too brad because every day of the week on behalf of ite constituents letters to the rent parts of government asking could you please look at the case of so evicted last week. that's so common. but then you use the word urge. that's not exactly a legal word. looking for is a set of we'll describe in both positions what we should the words that describe activity involved influencing the

erson who does create the official act like award a vote, ct, give a pardon, like et cetera. now, those are the words that i find. i'd appreciate your opinion. >> sure, your honor. i think the answer is what do is t courts have to general rule which i think at some level has to be an attempt to influence and then flesh it out in a way that's appropriate to the facts of the case. >> you want to use attempt to influence? my goodness, letters go by the dozens over to the secretary of or the secretary of hhs, to he secretary of the assistant secretaries and they say my constituent smith has a matter has been pending months. we would appreciate it if you take review that and action. and then an official says to smith i did my best on this and

good, he's used his influence. >> right. >> a crime? my goodness. absolutely not, your honor. >> all right. fine. you say absolutely not. hat's what i thought you would say. so i want to know -- but the ords you used for attempt to influence and so i don't think that's the right word. want to know what the right words are in the instruction is going to give.

all these letters going over at ng please look mrs. smith's eviction notice, took me to lunch last week. >> i agree. >> the one you just read won't it. >> that's why in our proposed instructions it needs to be oflored further to the facts the case. we went on to say in our case erely arranging a meeting or making a speech are not standing alone official acts. the key to the word in there is merely. >> yes, your honor. because sometimes skid. >> yes, your honor. >> and somebody might have the merely sing question when it can or merely when it can't give me a little

enlightenment. your honor, i think that the shows is if the evidence and i hate to go back to the word i know you don't like here that the evidence shows there really wasn't an attempt to try to push the separate that you're r supposedly trying to influence one way or another but you just sending it over for a meeting and that independent decision maker is independent judgment, then you haven't that line. he's concerned about is with intent to influence action.ficial we can hardly fault the district words this court used. >> i agree, your honor. very good t was a attempting to define it because he went further and continues along the lines that we proposed in our instructions that, quote,

mere favoritism by willingness or meeta telephone call with a lobbyist is not an official act. idea, your honor, influence itself doesn't totally it e the problem but what does is explain to the jury what they mean by influence. > where can we find the best definition in your view of an official act? the best nor, i think definition of an official agent s essentially the one that i tried to articulate in the outset. you need to either make a of the on behalf government or try in some way to pressure nfluence to or urge or persuade or cajole else with governmental power to make a decision on an action. >> i just don't see the limiting in the second part. >> your honor, i think in any -- in some cases, i think the limiting principle

difficult. precise. but in this case i think it's particularly easy because here he jury wasn't giving any instruction on the line at all so justice in your hypothetical that letter over is an official act under the instructions as given and under theory pushed by the solicitor general's office in this case. >> i'm not sure. governmental power to require citizens to do or not the something or to shape law that can -- that governs their conduct. completely agree. >> and under your view, the around, thels thrown janitor who gets clean your classroom first is that it? my view. so the janitor, for example, if

using government money to buy supplies, that's an exercise of governmental power. you're simply cleaning out a lassroom, i don't think you're power.sing governmental so when you don't try to put your thumb on the scales of the decision, you haven't crossed line. some very do have serious vagueness concerns with the hobbs act. sure it depends on who is making the referral or the call. if it's a congress person and saying body could you look into this matter for my constituent, the person look at it i suppose and that's one thing. if it's the president who calls look at i want you to this matter for my constituent, that might exercise considerably more influence. two things, your honor. first, you still do need to tell

the jury that's what they have to find. and here the jury was never told in any way, shape, or form that an attempt to d influence. i think that is sufficient in at the very to trial here.er a new justice kennedy, in the letter being sent over from a senator ince that is within the range of official duties, that counts under the jury instruction as it is after all a settled practice of officials to letters.e kinds of that's why it's incumbent upon court to -- even though he was the governor of the state, mr. chief justice, he the ot try to influence actual decision. he simply made the same type of in andl that he made day day out in this administration sent them to the appropriate official. >> you said something before and

you.ht have misunderstood do you think of the five listed acts do you think none of them meet the standards that you're suggesting, or do you do and some them of them don't? >> two answers. first of all, we don't think any them meet the standard. secondly, the jury certainly ould have agreed with us on that given the evidence that we forward and therefor erroneous instruction was critical to this case. have been required to convict under that erroneous instruction. concluded that was an official act and the only basis to convict. might be right. it might be that you still have argument even if some of the five are fine. focus on could just them for a bit. i mean, for example, the third one -- 60. ge >> 6091.

government r officials to encourage virginia universities to initiate clinical studies. o that's the one that seems to own fall within your definition. do you disagree with that? >> i don't. if they had proved what was in in this case we would be making a different argument here. tried dn't prove that he to encourage anybody. >> so your argument is a sufficiency argument >> yes. than this was -- this is not an official act. >> yeah -- yes, your honor. be clear, we have two separate arguments here. one is on the jury instructions even if argument is they agreed with all of our view of the facts, they would still convict given these erroneous jury instructions. is the sufficiency argument. be clear, you said you don't think any of those are

i heard acts but then you say that third contacting other government officials as art of an effort to encourage state research is not an official act? >> that's the indictment, your honor. actually proved -- >> is that an official act? if it actually -- yes, if they had proved that he tried to them to do that, that would have been an official act. first, the jury was never properly instructed on that question. and second he never did in fact researchers to do anything. f i could just conclude before reserving the remainder of my time for rebuttal, at the one where he had contact with university researchers, all the testified as to two things with respect to the governor. irst, he simply asked neutral questions that didn't try to push decisions one way or another and secondly the one johnny williams asked him for something support before

funding he ission gave johnny williams a very polite no. my time. reserve >> thank you, counsel. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court. etitioner seeks a category cal carve out for things like meetings, phone calls, events view do not further advance or attempt to influence a particular government action provide someone with access to the government. >> he's not the only one. here's an extraordinary ocument in this case, the micus brief filed by former white house counsel to president bush, president president h.w. bush,

reagan.t it says it would -- i think it's people inary that those agreed on anything. [laughter]. >> but to agree on something as sense tiff as this and to be to put their names on omething that says this cannot be prosecuted conduct, i think social security extraordinary. >> it may be extraordinary, mr. justice, but that doesn't make it correct. on several ests fundsmental misconceptions about what government actually does. and nk it's port to pause look at the implications of what pay to pay theory of government is. that they can be charged to have meeting or have a direction made to another government official to take the meeting. it would mean in effect that if somebody came to me and said i lot fe lot having a of college tuition issues, we can help you with that, the not giving ision is us a meeting whether to appeal a

case, just call them and see if the an get them to take meeting. somebody in the government whose client comes to hem and says we would really like the solicitor general's he wants to do is sit down with you and persuade you why you should file case.ef supporting his >> but getting in the door, mr. chief justice, is one of the bsolutely critical -- >> so is your answer yes that's a felony? me -- omebody pays >> that's quid side. talking about the quo side. >> taking a meeting is actually -- > so if the president gives to high dollar donors to have meetings with government officials, that's a felony? justice nly not, kennedy. >> why certainly not? >> because the critical issue

whether the government can prove a quid pro quo. into the 're moving realm of campaign contributions very this court has given strict guidance -- >> he takes them to lunch. an expensive lunch at that. not a campaign donation. side is not limited. in for a penny, in for a pound. okay. so we don't have the limitation on the quid side. a possible limitation in frame of mind and now we're looking to the quo side and you any limitation there. think now, why do i that's a problem? two very fundamental reasons. it's not because i'm in favor of dishonest behavior. it.against some listed has been dishonest. the problem is criminal law as

the weapon to cure it. criminal law is the weapon that goes as far as you want, there are two serious problems. one, political figures will not know what they're supposed to do supposed toy're not do. and that's a general vagueness problem. is i call it a separation of powers problem. department of justice and the executive branch becomes ultimate arbiter of how executive officials are behaving state, nited states, local, and national. as you describe it, for better at risk rse, it puts behavior that is common particularly when the quid is a or a baseball ticket throughout this country. now, suddenly to give that kind power to a criminal virtually who is uncontrollable is dangerous in powers.ration of

in my mind, writing this case, nothing to do with this petition and nothing to do with him, but case as fundamental, a real separation of powers as i've seen. and i'm not quite certain what words are. hey will leave some dishonest conduct unprosecuted. they won't be perfect. hey will put some politicians at risk. but i'm searching for those said, this isas i a very basic separation of powers problem for me. >> so -- appreciate your help on what the right words are. now, if l you right those words aren't going to say when a person has lunch and then writes over to the antitrust division and says i would like constituent ith my who's just been evicted from her house, you know, if that's going behavior, ize that i'm not buying into that i don't

think. that will ome words help with what i see as naughty complicated and difficult and basic a problem as i can think of. justice, let me first argue the position that i came here to is that official action is not limited by some rbitrary litmus test that was proposed by petitioner that would exclude things that he access. i don't think that that's the right way to look at it. i think that the right way to is to this statute recognize that it has multiple elements. statutes ing multiple but the bribery offense has very similar elements. first you have to decide whether is engaging in an official act. going to lunch is not an act. ial >> no one said it is. wine happens the worth,he quid and that's like, $500. restaurants those

anymore. underthat it's the other side that.you understand >> i understand but i think it's helpful for the court if i could multiple elements at issue going to lunch is not going to be. third you need a quote. -- quid pro quo. allowed to be influenced by the conduct. which is to say that somebody is basically saying i'm going to make a referral to another agency. only if you buy me lunch. that is not honorable behavior. there are honorable -- many regulations that carve out permissible gift situations. the cars out an issue that it is protection. >> a problem you have set forth is that you can imply an agreement over time. you can imply a contract overtime.

first,lunch takes place there is no precondition on the wink, node is wink nod, contact takes place. clear in this data criminal law there is conspiracy. >> i agree with you justice kennedy. that is the position that your honors opinion explained through the proper means of administering a quid pro quo acquirement -- requirement. there is a critical protection here. requirement of showing something beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. if you have ordinary conduct in accordance with regulation which sucks a can receive. the relation. does apply to federal employees. what did they have to do with the governor or the state?

>> they don't. the case has been litigated on the submission that section 201 and the meaning of official actions for purposes of the house and on the services statute. as a result, the parties have engaged heavily on the effective federal officials. i think just the price question was primarily directed at them. i do think there are different issues that arise with respect to state officials, but the requirements i've been talking about are going to be fully applicable. >> that does not answer just the price question. -- justice breyer's question. don't worry, the jury had to convict beyond reasonable doubt and that is tough. that was your answer. >> justice kennedy, i do think the requirement of the criminal law proving something beyond reasonable doubt are substantial. >> what are they trying to

prove? this is a state case, not a federal case. federal law but state official. peripherallyeen involved in political campaigns but my peripheral observations say that the candidate will go out and have hundreds of lunch. he wants to meet as many people as possible. he wants to be friendly. ormight receive a raincoat archives of things. at some point it becomes very dishonest. that is a matter for campaign laws. i've also been involved in the justice department. we would received many letters and antitrust division. well that thatwe senator just wants to get back to the constituent and says i did my best. that is all.

you are seeing to the jury, take those acts i just give you -- f you and youve look at the state of mind where the amount given will be indicative of the nature of the letter will be indicative of whether he rights and personal writing at the bottom, will be somewhat indicative and be will let you 12 people worked out what was really in the senator's mind. i would say that is a recipe for giving the department of justice and the prosecutors enormous power over elected officials. were not necessarily behaving honestly. i'm looking for the line, i'm looking for the line that will control the shift of power that i fear without allowing too much honesty through this law though other laws exist. that is what i want your view on. >> i will push back.

i think the line the petitioner has urged is one that is a recipe for corruption, not a recipe for drawing a safe harbor for public officials. what he has basically urged the court to hold is that paying for access that somebody does not put a thumb on the scale of decisions, i tell the criminal position -- division, make whatever recommendation is in your best judgment, take the meeting. i can take money for that. i think the message that would couldt is that this court put a scheme of government in which officials were not committing bribery when all they did was arrange meetings with other government officials without putting in his metaphorical way a thumb on the scale for the ultimate decision. it would send a terrible message to citizens. >> what we're looking for some limiting rentable. -- principle. this is not fall campaign contributions but a contrary --

campaign contribution can be a quid. gaining access by making campaign contributions is in every day occurrence and maybe a bad thing. it is very widespread. how does that play out? as a result of campaign contributions is not a crime when it is done as a quid pro quo. then it is. if i could follow up on that, if a senator registered federal agency and says this union or critical to the economy of my state, and by the way, he does not say this but they're the biggest contributors, would you please me with them? notfact that the jury would find beyond reasonable doubt

that the reason why he was urging this meeting was because this entity happened to be a very big supporter, i would be the only thing separating lawful from unlawful conduct? >> in response, this court has addressed that very issue in the mccormick case. and established that merely taking favorable action at or around the receipt of campaign contributions is not sufficient to show a quid pro quo and not a crime. there's abts that if quid pro quo for a vote, i'm not sure why, does not personally exercise sovereign power the legislator tesd dissenting vote from majority action, but nobody disputes that that is a crime. therefore, this court has ordered part out evidentiary and its doctrinal -- instructional safeguard that prevents against a jury from the quid pro quo really from the quittance of timing.

i want to come back to something more fundamental, the role of the first amendment. the petitioner has sought to wrap himself in the middle of the first amendment probably because of the gives he received nothing to do with the first amendment. they have to do with personal loans and lectured its. this is not a case about campaign conservation. when campaign cut emissions are at issue, he relies heavily on citizens united while ignoring a critical piece of citizens united. the court looks back to circumstance of that prompted the federal election campaign act in 1972 and those of all circumstances delineated in the buckley decision. the court cited those practices. they involved the american book producers paying $2 million in campaign contributions spread out over a variety of committees to get a meeting at the white house. that is all they did. in order to gain a meeting with white house officials, they paid the money.

other corporate executive testified that pay money was a calling card, something that would get as in the door and make our point of view heard. 356,court said on page the practice is noted for become covered by the bribery laws. if a quid pro quo were proved. to provey difficult the arrangement and that is whether our campaign finance limitations to candidates. the courts had no doubt that paying for access was a criminal violation. >> if you have a governor who and a ceo is jobs speaking about looking implanted in his state, you can only do what he says if he gets tax credit so that governors talking to him and says if you, why don't you come down to my stream and we will talk about this.

the governor does this. they talk about whether they can get tax credits come at different taxes if the ceo opens his plant in the state. if that a felony? he accepted an afternoon of trout fishing and discussed official business. >> i don't think so, but if you change the hypothetical and say instead of an afternoon of trout fishing, i will point out to hawaii and you and your family can have a vacation and during that time we can go over my policies. >> i didn't think the government put any weight on the amount of the quid. i don't know how much an afternoon of trout fishing is worth, but i gather you can be charged for that and paper that. i thought that did not matter. i thought it was whether he was engaged in official act under circumstances in which a jury would defy he did it because of the gift. doing is talking about

ways to get jobs to virginia and is talking with the person who will make that decision from the private sector based in part on whether or not he gets tax credits. it would seem to me that under your definition, the governor is guilty of a felony. >> i'm not sure he is guilty of a felony but the reason i changed the hypothetical because the implication of carbon to out for official action is that it can be sold and it is lawful to be sold and when you change the trout fishing to a trip to hawaii, it becomes more and affairs and the message that it sends to citizens. >> that is the point. exactly what the chief justice asked. what is the government's opinion on the quaid? if you're going to say $10,000, i feel quite differently. if you say an afternoon of trout fishing, i feel quite

differently. if you exempt the campaign contributions, but i do not think that was the government's position. what is the government's position? you tell me. and for a pound. in theout it is not government's position that a trout fishing afternoon is sufficient to be a quid. if you said that, i will feel differently about the case. [laughter] >> tempting. to run this through all the elements of the offense. saying, positioner is some the hypotheticals are suggesting that the on thing we could do to remedy this issue is to shrink the definition of official action with no factual basis with 201 or -- >> that is why i asked you at

beginning and you said you would push back. if i thought the definition was so perfect, i would not have asked you. exactly, you tell me how to do this. i'mends a terrible message, not in the business of setting messages in a case like this. i'm in the business of trying to figure out the structure of the and that is part of separation of powers and i expressed my concern. united,ted in citizens whatever that said there. [laughter] the point is the one i raised at the beginning that every single one of us has raised. we are worried. like any other organization, the prosecutors, too can be overly zealous. that can happen. we need some protection from both sides even though the line

once be perfect. won't be perfect. i understand that. i would to know your view. it helps a little, but not a lot. isant to know what your view to the language rewrite. i i don't think you and agreed where the line should be. i can't write language that will satisfy you. you were not satisfied with petitioner's language which required that there be influence on some other governmental decision. you suggested that was too broad. i think it is too narrow. if the court is going to regret -- reject. when the governor called the secretary of health and says take the meeting with my benefactor, he does not disclose it is his benefactor, but that person can have a preferential

opportunity that other citizens who do not paid will have to make the case before you. i think that is official action. petitioner say it is not official action unless he further sends and message. he tried to influence the ultimate outcome. they will return to government positions in the case then i think the fallback position for the government is when you have an undisputed official action such as with the universities of virginia study a particular product or with the tobacco committee -- commission be funded, then when a public official takes action to direct that decision and influence that decision, or to advance his benefactors interest with respect to that decision, that constitutes the crime of robbery. >> -- bribery. >> given the difficulties we have on settling what the words mean, there's an argument and the petitioners british that you

have responded -- brief that you responded to that it is constitutionally vague. we're talking about multiple statues. contact absorption. ballot upon the proof of a quid pro quo when the official asserts his action will be controlled by thing of value he has received. now we're talking about the question of what constitutes official action for purposes of a common-law crime at goes back centuries and was incorporated into the hot act. --also talking about the >> it could be construed. three votes to find it unconstitutional and the others say, no, you can narrow it this way. the experience we had

here, the difficulty of clear enough suggestions, the caution of the court was ill advised. stunningk it would be if this court said bribery and corruption laws which have been on the books the beginning of this nation and have been consistently enacted by congress. >> would be stunned to say the government has given us no workable standing. >> it is a stated that comes from this court's 1914 decision where the court says things that government officials do much like this are covered by official action and not limited to things. >> perhaps you are talking about how evil the conspiracy is. it is not evil to fish or have a bottle of wine. but it is evil if you up the ante. is that what you are saying? >> what i'm try to say is that it will be externally difficult for anyone to really believe

that you can buy a governor's position on a multimillion on an tech-support afternoon of trout fishing. that is why this case is ok brought. it is not even clear there is a quid pro quo. question, butere the official acts here, it is allowing tony williams to invite individuals important to the business to exclusive events. that is essentially hosting a party and allowing mr. williams to invite people. why does that, like that an official act? >> he was not hosting an official party. we're talking about two events. one was a product launch hosted at the governor's mansion where he was giving credibility to a brand-new product in the end dissertations -- invitations were critical to some up universities for the studies. this,uess my question is

the official act statute requires that there be some particular matter proceeded in controversy. if i understand, the theory of this case, the controversy is the attempt to get the university of virginia to do clinical studies of this product you'd is this correct -- product. if that correct? >> essentially correct. >> if the indictment and the instruction based on the indictment had said the official act is getting the university of studies,to do clinical that reads very differently from the way this indictment was structure. what this indictment does is it takes a lot of different pieces

of evidence that might relate to the official act and charges them as official acts themselves. so that the party becomes an official act or that calling someone to talk about the product becomes an official act. you see what i mean? this might have been perfectly article -- chargeable and indestructible. but i'm troubled by these particular charges and instructions which seem to make every piece of evidence an official act rather than just saying the official act was the attempt to get the university of virginia to do something that they would not have done otherwise. here was thee was governor accepting things of takenin turn for being official action to legitimize and promote.

that a supplemental j eight working. it then alleges he would do this as opportunities arose in the course of his official actions. because he is the governor and has a tremendous amount of influence route the government, he appoints the visitors of pcu and uva and he kept the budget. he has lots of opportunities to visit different ways over time. if you look at the pattern of what he did, directing people to meet with representatives, arranging events at the mansion to bring together is chosen guest list of the doctors who wanted to influence, the government -- governor is taking every step he can do short of saying uba, to the study. -- uva, do the study. if you look at the indictment the way it is structured, it talks about a person who as

opportunities arose, going to engage in official acts. validated by said mayor's decision in the second -- 's decisionomayor into the second district. did he intend to allow his official conduct to be controlled by the things of value that he received and taking them altogether, even if the court has trouble with any individual one, they allowed a rational jury to infer that indeed he did. the only way the petitioner conclude is if you jury instructions must exempt certain types official action like directing your secretary of health to take a meeting which is a very kind of significant event in the life of a cabinet member or governor. or hosting an event -- hosting an event at imagine

should be viewed as social when in fact what the governor is doing is allowing his benefactor to get all the people in the room who he wants to influenced you the studies. in my view, there's nothing indictmente way the structured. the crime in the case, the official site for exemplary, approved and the jury could properly either. thank you. >> mr. francisco, five minutes remaining. >> i have three basic point i would like to make. i would like to start out with the government's argument that a lot of province of the theory are solved by the print quote crow -- quid pro quo. it has the same act requirement but no quid pro quo environment -- requirement. if you take someone to a fancy you took them to the fancy lunch to thank them for referring you to a meeting with a mid-level staffer, even if

there was no suggestion at all that you do anything other than call that staffer and hear him out and exercise are independent judgment, david malaysia it federal gratuity act. anything within the range of official duties count. if you took the person out to that lunch as it thanks for giving a tort to the capital building, he would likewise violate the federal gratuity statute. point two. >> there's a difference between someone saying thank you independent of the gift. and someone buying you an expensive lunch and saying i'm paying for this lunch, but make sure i get a tour. you don't see a difference? >> the federal gratuity statute is not to prohibit thinking

somebody for giving aid official act. it is a tour of the capital building or a meeting with a staffer. then you have in fact violated shefederal opportunity that -- statute. the first part of the to make, if we don't figure out a problem, then i think there are some serious vagueness problems. the penal code, i've read all divers to get language, i've looked up at the statute, i think i can limit itselfcause the statute seems to cover things like voting, contracts and things like that. but it is also true that the person who try to influence those things has committed bribery. i think that is correct. birdsall and with had we write those words -- how do we write those words so that

we do catch people who hard doing this -- are doing this dishonestly without allowing the to deal with these ridiculous cases. not that this is a ridiculous case. >> understood. the right answer, start out with the d c circuit decision. you look at the listing of boards. words. those are actual decisions the government makes. then you ask if you're making a decision on that. or if you are not, because of your official powers, you have the ability and authority to influence other decision-makers. then are you doing that? argument, if we set as you are urging, then every government official saying that they want to have a meeting,

$80,000. corruption, inherent in the position. ok to facilitate a meeting. say i will do it for you if you pay me $1000. that is your view, that would be ok. >> this is leading to my third point which is if there is really just away, meeting, the reflect the fact that these statutes are not comprehensive. there are others statute that prohibit precisely what you are suggesting justice o'connor. i'm very sorry, justice ginsburg. [laughter] my apologies. they're lots of other statute

that would prohibit that statute. >> just take mr. treatments dreebens example. thatere's a statute prohibits supplementing your public salary with private money , essentially taking outside money for the performance of your official duties, that is illegal. there's another statute that takingts you from doing, anything from anybody who's interest could be substantially affected by the performance or not performance of your duties. that is another one. it would prohibit. there's another prohibit statute separate but you from taking any action in violation of your official duties. what you are saying is, holding a meeting, taking a

phone call, having a party is not illegal. that that is something you are entitled to do, so why would of the statutes -- >> they may well be in certain circumstances. the civil service act sibley says you can't take anything from anybody who is a covered person. that is not vague. you can't take anything from anybody in your job. that is why you don't take it from anyone. the problem here is that we had a state regime that was much less stringent than the federal regime and the government one it sees the open ended hobbs act to fill that cap and what they perceived as state law. that is inappropriate use of federal power. >> could i buy you to return to the lectern. our records reflect that this was your 100 oral argument

before the court. you're the second person to reach that rare milestone. i distantly recall your first argument in january 1989. throughout your career you have consistently advocated positions on behalf of the united states exemplary manner. on behalf of the court, i sent manyppreciation for the years of advocacy and dedicated service during your tenure in the solicitor general office and as an officer of the court. we look for to hearing from you many more times. they can. the case -- thank you. the case is submitted. >> no, we get reaction from the supreme court ruling in whole women's health first heller step -- hellerstedt. and we will show you the oral argument to that. and