-- officer parker found marijuana and field-tested it for thc and he'd knowledge it was false. unless there are any further questions, we submit. >> thank you, counsel. mr. kim, four minutes remaining. >> i have a few points. first to clear things up. >> i don't know if i agree completely with your opposing counsel that the wealth of the neighborhood should make a difference. i suspect that if police officers arrived at a wealthy home and it was white teenagers having a party and one of them says, my dad just bought this and i told the kids they could have a party, and it became, joe told me to come and

larry king told me to comment, those kids would not be arrested. maybe the kid who live might be but that those kids would be arrested. different? case same set of facts, sparsely dirty, lightsn are on, that sort of thing. shouldn't we have a rule that if we are going to require mens rea at all that police officers should be treating people equally? >> absolutely. police officer should treat people equally. my clients take seriously their obligation to do so and there is no selective enforcement claim in this case and with good reason. the officers took their time and investigated thoroughly. >> 21 people en masse arrested for trespassing. for going to a party.

does that feel right? >> yes. they were responding to a community complaint. this community took this seriously. it was abuse of a vacant home in the community. >> peaches had keys. we know there wasn't forced entry. >> there is no evidence of that. we don't know if the officers thought peaches had keys. this was a vacant home. in the sense that no one was living there, not in a technical loss ends. that thereeported was no one supposed to be living there. that is the type of home trespassers can target in any socioeconomic status. >> you said you had a few points. you want to run through those? >> to clean up the fact that everyone was interviewed is supported by the record in multiple spots including page 131. as to whether or not the

competing motion came before the court at this point, it is not that they didn't raise the dispute. they firmly said in their opposition, this is the factual background and if you look on page one of the , saying also a waiver here are the essential, undisputed facts. and finally, i need to close with a reminder, both questions here need to be considered from the perspective that of the on-seen officers who were trying to do their jobs that night. we put ourselves in their shoes and asked if what they did was reasonable, or at least arguably reasonable. they investigated thoroughly. they had much evidence, circumstantial, but much evidence as to either knowing or at least negligence, trespass. given all that, what they did

was reasonable, or at least arguably so. they did not have to think that peaches was the only trespasser that night. not thenizing this is legal question before us, i'm curious as to what your answer is. if you are giving counsel to the police department and they said, in a situation like this, what should we do? a very different question from the legal question before us, but what would be the answer? i think it is difficult. it depends on the totality of the circumstances. >> these circumstances. i think community policing is a fraud endeavor with many pressures and competing responsibilities. i'm not an expert and i would not endeavor, especially in this form, to answer the question. but again, what we are being asked or is not whether what the officers did was right, there whiteod arguments

was. the argument is, are we going to set a nationwide policy where officers do not arrest in cases like these. >> thank you. the argument is submitted. cases, a series about the supreme court. live on c-span, beginning in february. >> president has just signed an executive order expanding post-9/11 emergency powers to recall retired officers back into service. we will bring live coverage of today's white house briefing when it begins. while we wait, look at this morning's washington journal, where we review this week's

hearing with attorney general jeff sessions. [crowd noise]

>> sessions said he could not executive privilege on behalf of the president and until the president decided to do so he was unable to discuss a number of topics related to confidential communications he had with president trump. and he said that was a long-standing practice in the executive branch, that had been honored over many, many generations.

host: we continue our conversations with carrie johnson about jeff sessions. here are the numbers come on your screen. one of the conversations that call me.as about jim with senatorion, dianne feinstein talking to attorney general jeff sessions about fbi director james comey. center: what was your role in firing director call me? sessions: it'sl a matter i can share information about because the president himself is talked about it, and revealed it in that letter. he asked that deputy rosenstein and i make a recommendation in writing. repaired those recommendations and submitted it to the president.

senator feinstein, i don't think it has been fully understood, the significance of the error that mr. comey made on the clinton matter. i am aware oftime in all of my experience, and i don't think i have heard of any situations, in which a major case in which the department of justice prosecutors were involved in an investigation, that the investigative agency announces a closure of the investigation. and then, a few weeks before this happened, he was testifying before the congress, james comey was, and he said he thought he did the right thing and would do it again. pedro: give us some context, for that exchange. : jeff sessions and rob rosenstein both recommended that it yet director james comey be

fired, citing his many failures, what they believed to be many failures and handling the hillary clinton email investigation. and you just are jeff sessions, saying james comey doubled down on congressional testimony this year, to announce no charges against hillary clinton. there's a problem with that though, pedro. and the problem is, president trump later said he fired call me to lift the cloud on russia. and when jeff sessions was asked about that my senator feinstein and he said he couldn't answer because of executive privilege. the possibility that the president would eventually invoke executive privilege. pedro: does this have anything to do with the investigation being done by robert mueller? carrie: good question. robert mueller has not publicly spoken about the matter but the justice department has refused congressional attempts to interview senior officials at the fbi about comey's firing, because robert mueller may be

looking into those matters as potential obstruction of justice. that is a big clue that this could be under mueller's authority at this point. and a bit of news, sessions stumbled and fumbled in answering those questions but eventually said he had not been interviewed by mueller and would cooperate when he is asked for an interview. ms. sanders:? were you surprised by that? ? carrie: i was surprised by that because we know that the deputy attorney general, rob rosenstein, has been interviewed by mueller. but in these investigations, you interview the most important people last. jeff sessions was in the room with donald trump and in a lot of conversations with donald trump, and he may be expected to be interviewed further down the line. that hearingn find with the attorney general at c-span.org i go to our video library. 202-748-8001. republicans.

202-748-8000 four democrats. you are on with npr's carrie i think it is time we get rid of all those people. sessions, comey come everyone is corrupt. we the people run this country and we the people are coming after them. do you understand? : the attorney general was confirmed by his former colleagues in the senate this year. there is no sign he is going anywhere, at least not now. of hisnt trump went out way to publicly criticize jeff sessions on a number of occasions. sessions, i am told, offered to resign at one point but the white house didn't accept his resignation. he may not go anywhere for a long time. jeff sessions has said this is the best job he has ever had in his life, and that includes 20 years in the u.s. senate.

he's having the time of his life and making very big decisions on behalf of the united states government. pedro: tucson arizona, jill is next on the democratic line. jill, go ahead. to turn the tv down, like she asked me. pedro: go ahead, jill. you are on. >> hello? pedro: we will put joint on hold for second and if you could turn down your television, we would appreciate it. the president, tweeting matters about jeff session and the fbi. comeyd this, james drafted a letter exonerating hillary clinton long before the investigation was complete. comey stated under of that he didn't do this. obviously a fix. where's the justice department? any context in this. i know between's are just coming. carrie: sure.

president trump has been critical of james comey for letting hillary clinton off the hook him in his view. there is controversy now over whether comey prematurely dropped at a station -- drafted a statement exonerating clinton. my sources tell me there were ny interviews over months, with respect to the hillary clinton email investigation last year and career prosecutors came to the conclusion, more or less, that there was no criminal intent on behalf of hillary clinton to break any law with respect to her email server. so comey, anticipating a public outcry and the need for a public statement, before the end of the statement had begun thinking about it way to craft a statement. president trump used that as some kind of problem when he some kind ofm -- problem. when you talk to former and current investigators, that is standard practice, more or less. they don't view this as the controversy president trump is making of it.

pedro: letter from john come , on our independent line. >> i was wondering why comey, and not sessions, said that hillary clinton, there was nothing further to be done with hillary clinton. isn't that the job of the attorney general? carr that the next question and that is the nature ofie: jeff sessions' and rob rosenstein's complaint with james comey. sessions only became attorney general in 2017 but comey said he made the call. that he sought nothing wrong with hillary clinton -- saw nothing wrong with hillary clinton clinton's actions, at least nothing prosecutable. that is the province of the attorney general and the justice department, not the fbi director. a couple of things, here. james comey was deputy attorney general during the george w. bush and ministration.

he also said he viewed loretta lynch, they then attorney general, and her meeting with resident clinton on the tarmac last year in the run-up to the election, and the decision to close the hillary clinton email investigation, that something that called into doubt the independence of the investigation. he thought he had more authority and more neutrality to make a call about hillary clinton and the end of that investigation, then perhaps attorney general loretta lynch did. but if you talk to current and former prosecutors they are still a little uncomfortable with that decision. pedro: let's try jill come into some. >> my comment on this jeff sessions is, he is stonewalling. he has had plenty of opportunity to get this executive privilege lifted if he really wanted to do that. so he is stonewalling with president trump, and he's a racist. very racist. he's got a lot of things he's

been doing behind the curtains. howi want to bring up senator franklin was so correct. meetid at first he did not with the russians at all, and then we find out later that there were three different occasions. so he needs to get his lies straight. asked: senator franken jeff sessions at his confirmation hearing what he would do if there were any ntacts between president trump and the russians, started this issue in january. jeff sessions has in fact said that franken and senator patrick leahy, democrat from vermont, that he had no contact with the russians. but it came out in the washington post that he had at least two meetings with the then-russian ambassador. there are questions about a third meeting. -- sessions'unts

accounts have evolved, overtime n said there were major inconsistencies and sessions' testimony. he also didn't understand why sessions never reported those contacts on his security clearance forms in connection with his justice department job this year. those are questions to which we have no firm answer. stonewalling,o democratic senator richard blumenthal from connecticut argued that sessions was stretching the concept of executive privilege to the breaking point. there is a challenge here from democrats, which is, in order to action with any contempt against jeff sessions, you need the cooperations of republicans, chuck grassley, the chairman of the judiciary committee. and there is no sign the republicans are buying in. >> my question has to do with,

she just had a comment about comey exonerating hillary, that there was no evidence of any intent. when you i understand, disclose national security information it does not matter about intent. and i refer to a case where you person on a nuclear submarine took a photograph in the control room of his friends. that got out and from what i understand, he was prosecuted. not because he had any intent to do vault security information, but because it happened. then-fbi director said onlyjuly, he could find one instance of prosecutions in the last 99 years, with respect to the statute under which hillary clinton had been investigated. and he said, in connection with her three and a half hour interview with fbi agents, he found no evidence of lying or

intentional misleading of investigators. he said based on those facts he could not believe that any prosecutor, any reasonable prosecutor, would bring the case in front of a jury or even charge it to begin with. one exchange that took place was between the attorney general and the senator from minnesota about freedom of the press. about freedom of the press. we talked about it at your last hearing and you said you wanted to look at what is going on with ongoing regulations. now takenment has action, and i will ask of the same question. we you commit to not putting reporters in jail if they are doing their jobs? sessions: ieral would not make a blanket statement to that effect by will say we will not take aggressive action against the media at this point. but we have matters that involve the most serious national security issues, that put our country at risk. and we will utilize the

authority that we have, legally and constitutionally, if we have to. we are we try to find an alternative way, as you probably know, senator klobuchar, instead of directly confronting a media person. but that is not a blanket protection. the attorney general, saying he's not taking aggressive action. what are we talking about? e: senator amy klobuchar is the daughter of a newspaper man. her father was a reporter. she has been asking attorney general sessions and others at doj this question, all your long. in part because president trump the news mediaks via his twitter account and public appearances. open questions about whether his justice department is willing to subpoena news organizations and individual reporters to try to get their sources.