would make it worth it? at aei what scholars have written about. they write well on this. we will leave this for remarks from ron rosenstein. people comment on the role of law this afternoon. -- he will comment on the role of law in this afternoon. >> as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of law day, a day established by president dwight the as in our -- dwight d. eisenhower in 1950 eight, to mark the nation's commitment to the rule of law. we look forward to hearing from the deputy attorney general today as he discusses the rule of law, the first amendment, and the mission of the department of justice. was sworn in as

the 37th deputy attorney general on april 26, 2017. to becoming deputy attorney general, he served as the united states attorney for the district of maryland from 2017, where he oversaw federal, criminal, and civil litigation and developed and implemented federal law-enforcement strategies in maryland. in total, mr. rosenstein has served in the department of justice for nearly three decades under five presidents, and nine attorneys general. moderator today is ronald collins. a constitutional law and first amendment expert, and the herald at the shulman woman scholar at the university of washington, school of law. a supreme court fellow after it -- under warren burger and in 2011, the supreme court fellows alumni association recognized him for his scholarly and professional achievements in

advancing the rule of law. for manylso a scholar years at our own first amendment center. is tossion of the newseum increase public understanding of the importance of a free press and the first amendment. more we opened the newseum than 10 years ago, more than 8 million visitors have expired -- have experienced the story of news, the role of a free press and major events in history, and how the five freedoms of the first amendment, religion, speech, press, petition and assembly, apply to their lives. the freedom for the institute our partner convenes programs like this one today so that people of all beliefs can come together to discuss pressing issues related to our first amendment freedoms. each and every day, through our exhibits and programming, the newseum and freedom form institute and form our visitors about the valuable role

journalists serve in our democracy. we would like to welcome and thank our newseum members and our friends of the first amendment society, whose continuing support makes these programs possible. in welcomingoin me our moderator, ron collins, and our guest, u.s. deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. [applause] ron: mr. deputy attorney general, thank you very much for participating in this event today. i would like to begin with a question that is on everybody's mind. [laughter]

gen. rosenstein: uh oh! [applause] -- [laughter] ron: i would appreciate a clear and direct answer. [laughter] ron: to set the record straight. how do you pronounce your last name? [laughter] [applause] senstein orro rosenstein? gen. rosenstein: there is no right answer. i have relatives who pronounce it stein. i will answer to either one. [laughter] ron: you agreed to do this with nonterview screened questions in advance. in the presence of the press. and without any reservations, other than pending cases. the question i have is why? [laughter]

gen. rosenstein: i couldn't turn down this invitation. particularly on law day, which , andry significant to me my career. i think it's important for us to take opportunities like this to get out the word about the rule of law to explain what it means and why it is critical to our democracy. think it would be a fair statement to say the office of the deputy attorney general has by and large over the course of history been one that has not been at the forefront of people's minds. i assume that most people, even those in the academy, couldn't identify past deputy attorney general's. so tell me, what happened? [laughter] gen. rosenstein: i'm looking forward to regaining my anonymity. it's funny, i had been in the department for almost 30 years, and for that, a may not have known the deputies to but i do, because i have been in the

department. we have superb attorney generals. i have been u.s. attorney for 12 years in baltimore. i family and i live outside d.c. really see meot much in the media while they were growing up. and my younger daughter was 14 at the time when she heard i was going to become deputy. gs me an important question to achieve said, does this mean you look at your picture in the paper? [laughter] gen. rosenstein: and i said, no. [laughter] gen. rosenstein: so it was quite unexpected. today is law day. given that, i think it is appropriate to ask, what do you think is the most serious threat to the rule of law and america today? gen. rosenstein: i don't think there is any threat to the rule of law and america today. the reason for that is the rule of law and america is protected by two things are the constitution and the culture. the president issued a

proclamation today in honor of law day. it is really a wonderful proclamation. it is one page. he speaks about the origin of law day. in 1950 seven. president eisenhower established i think thew day, first one was commemorated in 1958. one of the key speakers at the event in washington, d c, at the rogers,se, was william the attorney general. his portrait hangs in the cumbrous -- conference room. we have kermit -- commemorated it every year. the president's proclamation today come he makes two points per at first, he -- two points. scalia, whootes spoke about how the rule of law is not just about written words and a constitution. it is about the culture of the people. you can write a constitution that has the bill of rights, but

there are countries but they do not enforce those rights. the rule of law is in part about the character that people who are charged with enforcing the law. the other point the president makes is that the separation of powers and trying the rule of law in america, the fact that we divide our powers between congress, which and asked the law, the executive branch, which is responsible for implementing or carrying out the law, and the courts, which are responsible for interpreting it. there are always disputes at the margins between the branches, the differences of agreement over issues. set updamental structure by the separation of powers is really important to guarding the rule of law. i think it is partly about coulter, partly about structure. and partly about the rights of the constitution. ron: if you would permit me, and i hope you well, i would like to would likeberty -- i to hand you a piece of paper with words on it. gen. rosenstein: it's not a subpoena, is it?

[laughter] ron: he is stealing my thunder. but i am happy to give it to you. i would like to hand you a piece of paper with the words of a famous american. i would like you to take a look at it. and then if you would be so kind to read it slowly and out loud to the audience, here you go. gen. rosenstein: it's robert jackson! robert jackson was attorney ineral of the united states the roosevelt administration. his portrait also hangs in the conference room. he gave a speech in the great hall of the department of justice. april 1 of 1940. he spoke about the role of the federal prosecutor. for federal prosecutors. it really is a guidebook. later,w, many decades stands as the most significant articulation of the principles that govern prosecutors.

this particular excerpt reads -- ron: if i may. forgive me. --id not give him the name he said april 1, 1940. this is right from the top. i just wanted to make sure we credit you for that. gen. rosenstein: it's one of my favorite quotes. ron: yes, sir. i encourage you to read the whole thing. gen. rosenstein: it says the qualities of good prosecutor are as allusive and impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. you should read, or woman. and those who need to be told we -- would not understand it. toensitive know sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power and the citizen safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and to approach is his task with the ability. -- with humility. ron: i didn't even need to give it to you. gen. rosenstein: probably not. [applause] humility is not really a

word honored in this town. can you say a few words about humility and being in public service? gen. rosenstein: i have not spent much of my career in washington. my entire career with the department of justice. but half of it with the u.s. attorney's office in maryland outside the d.c. beltway. it is a different atmosphere. there is something different about washington. it's the intensity of media scrutiny, and the significant -- significance of the people you interact with washington that makes it different. for prosecutors, there is a discipline that comes from our role in the judicial system. the most significant aspect of it is that when we make an allegation misconduct, when we accuse someone of criminal wrongdoing, we have an obligation to prove it in court beyond reasonable doubt. we have to have admissible evidence, comply with the rules of evidence, we have to have

eyewitnesses, who are credible to testify about what they have seen, we present our evidence in the court before a judge who applies to the rules, we have a jury of 12 random citizens, and only if every one of those citizens agrees that the government's case do we prevail. on the other side, you have a skilled defense attorney who has the opportunity to introduce evidence. that imposes on prosecutors a discipline and humility because you recognize what it takes not to put these cases together. it causes us, and the best of times, to be much more cautious about allegations that we make. to be much more concerned about whether or not we will have the evidence to back up any claims we make. i think that does require a certain level of humility. admiration for the former attorney general and supreme court justice, robert jackson, i would like to redo another line from that speech and ask for your comments. at one point, mr. jackson said

-- he was speaking to attorneys in the department of justice that took place in the great hall -- he said," your responsibility for law enforcement and for its methods cannot be wholly surrendered to washington." how do you interpret that? gen. rosenstein: attorney general jackson was speaking to the u.s. attorneys, senior law enforcement, from around the country. i think it was the second annual gathering of the department of justice. that hall is where we hold our gatherings. it had only been built a few years before. it is very majestic. what the attorney general was conveying to the u.s. attorneys recognizing the tension between their traditional independence as u.s. attorneys making independent decisions in their judicial districts, and the leadership guidance from main justice in washington. this was a couple of generations ago.

to give you historical perspective, at the founding of the country, there was an attorney general, there were u.s. attorneys, but there was no department of justice. there was no bureaucracy in washington. anddepartment of justice don't believe was created until 1860, 1870 or so. the time, and in dutch and are where jackson was speaking -- you have to imagine what it was like during the early days. if you are the attorney general sitting in washington, your u.s. attorney in maine is not available through email. you need to defer to the decisions made in the field. for jackson, he had to consolidate in the department and propose consistency in uniformity because when you have independent actors throughout the country, enforcing their own interpretation of the law, you will get different interpretations and places her

jackson was addressing that tension between the desire to have level of uniformity and control from main justices in washington and the need for each u.s. attorney in their district to be able to tailor their priorities to the local needs. we are obviously several generations later now. we still see that tension flareup from time to time. for the most part, it is but the department has generated. the u.s. attorneys manual and former policies that govern the department. we have a greater degree of uniformity around the country. we still have different priorities. if you are in a district with little violent crime, you will not devote a lot of resources to violet crime -- violent crime. that was the issue that jackson was referring to. it was a coordination within the executive branch. ron: i want to turn to the attorneys manual in a moment. i would like to read a statement made during your confirmation hearing for your current position. "if you confirm my

nomination, i will work to defend the integrity and independence of our justice department." can you elaborate on what you meant by saying, independence? what -- in what sense is the justice department independent? gen. rosenstein: it is independent of inappropriate considerations. it is not independent of the executive branch. the department has a in accordlity to be with the priorities of the administration. that is what elections are for. we have changes of priorities to we change our emphasis. we change some of our policies. in the independent -- in the individual decisions we make about who to prosecute in particular, those decisions have to be made without regard to politics. we decide we are going to focus on violent crime, or public corruption, but then in making the decisions about which cases of people to prosecute, we need

to apply neutral principles. but is what we mean about the independence of the justice department. justice,department of as he mentioned, part of the executive branch. it is also charged with an fortunate -- and forcing the rule of law. given how human nature works, there are certain to be conflict between the two. can you tell us how you go about managing those complex? gen. rosenstein: conflicts between which? ron: demand made by the chief executive. gen. rosenstein: no. there are no such complex. [applause] ron: i'm just saying this is part of human nature. it's nothing particular to our time. -- peculiar to our time. gen. rosenstein: the way this administration operates is not the way you see it characterized in the media. there is no doubt by anyone in the department of justice that we are complying with the rule of law. we are enforcing the priorities of the administration. there have been changes in some of the departments priorities. what we apply them in a way that is consistent with the rule of law.

ron: as mentioned earlier, you served under five presidents, nine attorneys general, you have served both republican and democratic administrations. that in itself is a remarkable feat in these days. i'm curious, i asked you about law with the rule of the concerns in the executive. i would like to ask you something about the other branch of government. the congress. how do you go about balancing the departments need for confidential investigations against other branch demands for information concerning them? if you have an investigation on one hand and demand for information about that, how do you go about balancing those two things? gen. rosenstein: funny you should ask that question. [laughter] gen. rosenstein: it's an important issue. we in the department and executive branch, we strongly support appropriate congressional oversight. oversight is very important.

it's one of our obligations to comply to the extent we can. interesting historical point, as the president proclamation today mentioned, there are three branches with three distinct authorities. there is actually not a constitutional basis for oversight. that has been viewed as implied power and has developed over the years. there are conflicts between the executive and legislative branch over oversight throughout history. i have been in the department for almost 30 years. going back hundreds of years, these conflicts have arisen. what we have been told in the few instances where this has been litigated, the courts have said, but the branches have a responsibility to try to compromise. responsibility to get along. there have been repeated articulations over the years principles -- the redline dark-haired where it is not appropriate to conduct congressional oversight or justice jackson, when he was

attorney general wrote a well-known attorney general opinion around 1941 where he addressed that issue. he refused to give congress access to fbi records. that was the policy in 1941. policies have evolved somewhat since then. when the issues flared up from time to time, as it did for example in 1989, william barr, who became attorney general, wrote a similar opinion letter in a dispute with congress and explained how these controversies and disagreements are bound to occur. journey the assistant -- attorney general did it again. it is not a novel issue. but what has been established over time is that we have a responsibility to work with the congress. but they have responsibility to understand that their duty is not to interfere with ongoing investigations with the department of justice. not to do anything that might nationale

security. we have different responsibilities than they do. as long as everyone understands that, we are able to work these issues out. one of the things a developed was the inspector general to we have an inspector general in the department of justice. he is bound by the confidentiality rules in the department of justice and has greater access to the department records then it would be appropriate to give congress. that really is the purpose of the inspector general. are among some people, a misunderstanding about what the inspector general does. the inspector general is a fully functionallyully law enforcement who have the ability to conduct investigations and gather evidence and what we have developed over the year with our inspector general -- this is not easy because there have been complex over the years -- but we reached an accord where the department freely shares information with the inspector general that would be highly inappropriate for public release, with the understanding

that that inspector general one not publicly disclose the information. their responsibility is to determine that there was wrongdoing. if there is, to make sure appropriate punishments are imposed. but not to release that information publicly cleared -- publicly. allegations of misconduct. and in terms of dealings with the congress, that is an issue that really needs to be worked out in a case-by-case basis. i do think historically, over the years, everybody thinks the current moment is an unprecedented moment. but it really is and. these incidents do flare up from time to time. ultimately, they are resolved. i have a responsibility, as does the attorney general, duty -- to defend the independence and integrity. towe were to open our doors allow congress to come rummaged through the files, that would be a serious infringement on the separation of powers. it might resolve a dispute at a, but it would have a negative

repercussions on the long run. we have a responsibility to defend the institution. the only thing i would add there is theat president of the united states, which you are also accountable to. in those situations where there is a conflict with congress, how does the interaction with the president, how does that come into play? gen. rosenstein: well, there may be issues in which it is appropriate to consult with the president. i do not talk publicly with my communications with the president. there are situations where we communicate with white house officials or with the president about issues that arise in the department of justice. we have rules of what we can and can't discussed we are faithful to those rules, as is the white house. we work things out. ron: can you see for the is ance -- i think there lot of misunderstanding about this -- can you tell us about

the difference between special counsel's and independent prosecutor? gen. rosenstein: how much time do we have? [laughter] ron: don't take too much time. gen. rosenstein: the u.s. senator asked me this and got upset when i try to give a full answer because i only have 30 seconds. different.ically i worked for an independent counsel. i taught a course of the university of maryland for quite a few years where we did an entire session on the role of the independent counsel. the differences between an independent counsel -- counsel and a federal prosecutor. the fundamental difference is an independent counsel under the from thewas in place watergate era until 1999, with a couple breaks, that law involved the appointment of the prosecutor by the court. far from our traditional model. everyone in the department of justice is accountable to the attorney general and the president.

the prosecutor appointed by the court is not. that was the purpose of the law. after was passed, there was a in which the case constitutionality of the law was challenged. i'm sure you have talked about this case. ted olson challenged the to conduct that investigation. the supreme court overwhelmingly rejected the challenge. and found the independent counsel statute was constitutional. a lot of people have her reservation -- have reservations about that. --y are can to give waited articulated by justice scalia. he pointed out in his dissenting opinion that independent counsels who are not accountable to the executive branch operate differently from ordinary prosecutors. a special counsel is very different. a special counsel is like an acting u.s. attorney. we now have a number of u.s. attorneys confirmed around the country. they have been approved by the senate. we also have a number of u.s. attorneys where there were vacancies.

the attorney general point -- appointed someone. the person is accountable to the department of justice and the attorney general. is very muchel like that. the special counsel model is not new. the have been used over years and what is significantly different is they are accountable to the apartment -- d department through the chain of command. when you are a special counsel, you have an ongoing relationship with the attorney general and we now have a regulation that guidancesupplemental

so in a relatively brief. per of time. violations ofny department policies or principles or prosecution standards, they can be corrected because the special county report -- special counsel reports to the attorney general. >> the interest of the tissue was a charge of exuberant security fees for figures on campus. the department of justice filed would like to read you a passage from that. it says the united states has an

interest to protect the individual rights guaranteed by the first amendment. theyou explain to us what are and the heart of the would you comment on feed,nt story in buzz deleted language from internal manuals. can you tell us why you felt the need to do so. >> that change was made last fall. i don't know if anyone saved it or why it popped up in the particular day, but it is a great talking point. misleading.tely beh section is what used to referred to as title i, section

seven and we wrote the whole manual. we did that part at the beginning because we wanted to clarify the department -- department's position on confidentiality. it focuses on the obligation of our employees and emphasizes when you get information you should assume you have an obligation to keep that public. you have an obligation to keep that confidential. if you read the whole thing, it is actually pretty well done, hadthere was a section that

first amendment and that is no longer there. the first amendment is protected here. in the u.s. constitution it is protected by the department of justice, so i can assure you our employees are employees that deal with the media. defensenot pay viable if you expose classified information. where you haveob a current eagle obligation not to disclose it, that obligation is accepted voluntarily. that is different from the media. that is one of the ongoing battles we face and our interest is in preventing people from leaking. point, does the department have any plans to regarding theicy

subpoena of summer -- subpoena of reporters? >> it has been modified over recent years. there have been some concerns a of the policy.ts it gives reporters special privilege. it requires elevated approval in so, there are and some aspects that we are evaluating. we discussed proposed changes with them. we have not made any changes, but it is possible. there are some aspects we are reviewing. be ablethe department to meet members of the press?

they call it the media advisory group. it includes reporters and executives. i think there are about eight people who attended the last meeting. we value the feedback. >> as i understand it, the department reversed its recommendation on bump stocks. is that true and if so, why the change? character of the policy. what we have done this year, we are looking at regulating bump stocks. i'm not sure if it is a matter of changing positions. i don't think it should be taken to court.

we should figure out whether or and solicited a look comments. we got a lot of public comments and i don't think a decision has been made about whether to proceed with that. ,> in this majority opinion justice scalia made the following statement. >> nothing should be made to castel and imposing conditions on the commercial sale of the arms. given that language, the think a federal law banning the ar-15, semiale of automatic weapons would which stands for in the under the 14th and second amendment? >> it is not really appropriate for me to answer. when these issues come up, i

don't just pop up with my opinion. we have lawyers who will do an analysis. many of these issues are complex legal issues. would you say the statement i -- should be would it be fair to say that given that, the second amendment right is not absolute? >> supreme court opinions often have significance in future cases. in the law, we wait for a particular case, look at the circumstances and look how to apply.

>> there are 93 us attorneys around the country. we have one u.s. attorney that serves guam. i believe we are more than two thirds of the way through. it is a lengthy process. approved, you go through a background investigation that can take two or three months they can take a long time to get people through the pipeline, but there are only a handful of have a that do not senate confirmed nation -- confirmation are in place. >> this past march, general

session said they were committed to moving aggressively on .ederal gun prosecutions can tell us what is going on in that area? exampleis a very good about how we make a policy decision. the attorney general will notify that we want to devote more resources and the aggressive against people make false statements in the course of wine firearms. the guidance goes out from the and the bureaul of alcohol, tobacco and firearms

is responsible for investigating meet federal prosecutors , but youing resources would anticipate over the next six to eight months, we will see an increase number of false statements. i another deletion as understand it, can you tell us about why that decision was made? this after thet statute of yesterday in my understanding is some people assume that i am micromanaging things. issues would come to my

attention if there was a dispute . in this case, the civil rights division reviewed the u.s. attorneys manual and the changes they made were recommended by the career prosecutors and approved by the political staff and so there were no issues. my understanding is that particular issue, the guidance outdated.ssary and it was not useful to our prosecutors. the goal is to have a ready canurce that prosecutors refer to.

our goal isn't to restate the constitution or restate all of the principles in the attorneys manual. it is to give guidance on issues people may need. determinedstaff there is no need. >> i have several more questions, but in the interest of wide-open discussion here, we will be turning in and about four minutes questions from the audience. i would ask -- like to ask another question. last year, he made the following statement, the constitution comes with condition. we need to keep it. can you share with us your ideas ?

commentrelated to a that benjamin franklin made. --lived in independence hall he was in independence hall and when he was walking home, he came across a woman named a little and she asked him what kind of government he created. when you think about it, it is a thet teaching point for monarchy. it wasn't clear what sort of structure would have -- structure -- what structure we would have. was a republic, if you can keep it. it was up to the people whether the constitution would be faithfully executed.

that mrs. aspects is howell did not even have a right to vote at the time, the franklin said it was up to her at the time. >> with that, i would like to allow a little bit more time for questions from our audience. please keep in mind you will be allowed one question, no a quite a long diatribe. at theidentify your self -- et and lisa rimmer

with that, let us turn to the public. please introduce yourself. >> hi, i'm with rumored news. i'm wondering what your mindset is on whether a sitting president can be indicted and if considerationany given policy? >> that was to questions. this innot answer context of any current matters. data from the justice in the a sittingpined that president cannot be indicted.

>> my name is richard green. happy law day during in any .egal transaction or contract if there is fraud or eli gala the, that contract can be rescinded. or, if we have found collusion or any other illegality in the 2016, what can't the election the rescinded , declared void and redone? >> the best of my knowledge, there is no procedure to avoid -- void and-- avoid

election. ensure that people that >> the short answer is i investigations. i don't comment on what we are not investigating. seet of times things people sure.t sure -- not -- not true. >> i would like to ask you a historical question. one of your more famous

predecessors, how would you assess his character for choosing instead of firing archibald cox, choose to resign knowing that someone down the chain of command probably would carry out that order? >> this watergate reference. the attorney general made a commitment to the senate that he would not fire the special prosecutor and he felt obligated to fulfill that commitment and therefore resigned. the deputy attorney general did as well. i don't think there was any regulation at the time that restricted the firing. i don't know all the details, but i think that richardson made

what they thought were principled decisions. >> laura from cnn. as you think about the importance and -- of separation >> theys, interaction can't even resist leaking their own draft. >> i saw that draft. i don't know who wrote it. importantates the principle of the rule of law. we make mistakes. the way we operate is if we can accuse someone of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and be able to prove our case in court and fix our signature to

the charging documents. there's a lot of talk about liza applications and many people i see talking about it seem not to recognize what a pfizer application is. it is like a search warrant. in order to get a pfizer search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a career federal law enforcement. , that person is going to face consequences are rated if not, you can face discipline or even prosecution. that is the way we operate. we have people who are accountable. i don't have anything to say about documents like that that known as the courage to put their name on an leaking that way. there have been people that have been making threats privately

and publicly against me for quite some time and i think they should understand by now the department of justice is not going to be extorted. we will do what is required by the rule of law and any kind of threats will not affect the way we do our job. needed --his job he need to be appointed by the president and confirmed the senate and then you raise a right hand and swear and host to defend the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic. that is your responsibility. everybody in the department takes that both. if they violated, they know they will be held accountable.

>> could you comment on the length of time that investigations take? is there something that was a time limit on this? i will not talk about the mueller investigation. in general, our goal is to conclude every investigation has expeditiously as we can. we recognize the need to move them as expeditiously as possible. greenberg,is laura i'm neither a member of the press. you said at the beginning you

are not concerned about breakdown in the rule of law and you cited several factors, one of which is the cultural integrity and believe that the people who are implementing laws were doing so fairly. if we have a president who is conveying the opposite message and impugning all of those people, is that not a reason for concern? >> the responsibility for the rule of law is the department -- in the department of justice. forpresident is responsible according the leadership. i can tell you he has appointed a leadership team that respect to the rule of law and that is why i'm confident we will comply

with the rule of law. wondering what you think is the difference and priorities for the current administration for first amendment rights about firing,nt, so hiring, how is freedom of speech changing in the employment category? changesot aware of any specifically. >> there has been a lot of things coming up like the nfl and other issues where the what is the ability of some of to protest while they are in an employment situation. >> a specific answer is i'm not aware of any change with regard

to hiring or employment. reuters correct the fbi search recently involve the president's personal attorney office. there has been a lot of dialogue in the press about attorney-client privilege. cannot speak case,ically about this but can you talk about the policy and procedures and how there are safeguards in place to protect attorney-client privilege? >> i have been in this business a long time. it is not unknown that we have cause. crimesys are involved in

to it when there's situations additionalave safeguards. the department has a policy. the threshold is we have a aneral agent swear under of probable cause. it has to be approved by the attorneys office. theydition to that, require a consultation in washington. they are hard to come to the criminal division department and they consult and the primary purpose of that is to ensure appropriate precautions are taken.

that.'t want we establish what we call weeening teams to make sure don't get privilege information so that requirement exists, so in cases that may be significant the general policy is you because we prefer to hear about things from our own staff. andrequirement is elevated it is going to require a review with the u.s. attorney's office and the criminal division and ultimately, this is all up to a federal judge. they federal judge needs to review that and a short it establishes probable cause. sometimes, people make the mistake of assuming a search warrant someone has committed a

crime. it doesn't mean there is probable cause that there's evidence related to a crime. get to questions and -- to questions in -- drawing from your experience , woulde past few years you comment on the morale of the attorneys in the department and the special agents of the bureau? is verynk the morale high and the reason i think that is because i talk with them quite often. just last week, i was in the illinois chicago and spoke with support staff in the i meet with heads

in the message we get consistently from folks is they feel we have their backs and we are doing what we need to do to help them suppress crime. 85% of law-enforcement officers are state and local and so that is the feedback i get. no one likes the criticism of news media, but these are career folks who have chosen this career and they understand the issues will he do from time to time. they are indicating that as long as we are protecting their ability to do their job and they are investigating and prosecuting the right cases, i think in a will remain high. >> i think our time has pretty much run. it is hard for them to say no. this will be the last question. student.high school

media plays a big role in my life. previously, you said there are a lot of things you see that are incorrect immediate and for my opinions. yourhave two daughters age. one of them wrote for the school newspaper. i told her one of the things was not sure. needas taught that you reliable, credible sources. people leaking are

people who have a personal motive. they want to get their side of the story out. sometimes when you see leaks, i -- whate that there is you do if you are a student trying to figure out what is an authoritative source? give is you should be skeptical if there is not a named source. if there is a named source, you have to evaluate whether he or she is credible. readmportant thing is to probably because if you read broadly, you develop a sense of what is and is not right, so that is the best advice i can give you. >> what you have witnessed is a rare moment in this time, --

this town. on that note, we please join with me in thanking our attorney deputy general. [applause] >> if you missed any of this conversation with deputy attorney general rosenstein, you can watch it on our website c-span.org.

coming up later, dr. priscilla chan, the wife of facebook ceo mark zuckerberg was at a recent event. also tonight, book tv in primetime. your professor examines tribalism in america. south carolina republican senator tim scott discussed their friendship and time in congress. their work is called unified. nick adams talks about president trump in his book called the case against the establishment. and, american history tv is on prime time tonight as well.

-- author of the book sex matters. it is american history tv prime time tonight starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span three. q&a, contributing editor on his new book rocket man about the 1968 apollo mission to the moon. >> it was impossible to disregarded. all three of them believed but otherwise, they cannot have pulled this off. it was the -- apollo eight was the most daring mission that

nasa had ever done to it was rushed and done very quickly, to these men needed wives who were absolutely supportive and also did not reveal to their husbands how much they were suffering and how terrified they really were. >> connect with c-span to personalize the information you get from us. just go to c-span.org and sign up for the female. the program guide is a daily him out with the updated primetime vegetal. tv newsletter is an insiders look at upcoming authors and the american history theewsletter gives you

letter exploring our nation's past. and connect.org today. [applause] >> thank you. forally want to thank you eventing what is a major for hudson institute.