and we're gonna prosecute it. >> do you have cases now that you think that will result in prosecution wall street banks? >> we have investigations going on. i won't predict how they're gonna turn out. >> has anybody at treasury or-- or the federal reserve or the white house come to you and said, "look, we need to go easy on the banks, that there are collateral consequences if you bring prosecutions. some of these organizations are still very fragile, and we don't want to push them over the edge"? >> steve, this department of justice is acting absolutely independently. every decision that's being made by our prosecutors around the country is being made 100% based on the facts of that particular case and the law that we can apply it, and there's been absolutely no interference whatsoever. >> the perception-- i mean, it doesn't seem like you're trying. it doesn't seem like you're making an effort, that the justice department does not have the will to take on these big wall street banks. >> steve, i get it. i find the excessive risk taking to be offensive. i find the greed that was manife

of all the federal prosecutions we bring one seventh are gun prosecution. all of the cases where people are denied the opportunity to get a gun are in fact reviewed for prosecution purposes and determinations made as to whether or not they should in fact be prosecuted. one of the things i want to look at, i'll be talking to the u.s. attorneys about is whether or not we need to bring more of those cases. if we are going to be really cracking down on gun crime, the number, i think, you know, there are reasonable explanations as to why we have the number. i want to make certain we're prosecuting all the people who we should who have been denied gun -- failing the background check system. >> crime not prosecuted doesn't produce deterrence would you agree with that? >> we have limited resource and we have to figure out where we are going to use the limited resources. one has to look at why the gun was denied and then make a determination whether or not we should use the limited resources to bring a prosecution against the person. >> you didn't answer my question

if you prosecute them and you win a prosecution, they lose their banking license.banking license they basically have to close down. we know what happens when the banks close in a chaotic manner. we saw it in lehman brothers, which was relatively small by the standards. >> you would wind up throwing tens of thousands out of jobs, throwing the entire segment into dissaray, and trying to add that up -- >> i think that felix is portraying a perspective in a world of gloom and doom that wouldn't happen. there is a rational way to say to a bank, such as this, what we do with three fel-- street felo say to them, if we have the third prosecution or guilty plea, we'll take you and restructure you and sell off the pieces of the bank. we're not throwing thousands of people out of work. we're taking the pieces of your institutions and giving it to others who will fill the void. the world has not failed to have account accountants, there are ways to mitigate the collateral consequences. if we don't say to the institutions you will be prosecuted, they felt they were not sanction

prosecutions and so on. so it's total sophistry. it's a pretend important statistic that is irrelevant to the functioning of government. >> also, this is the thing i don't understand. i interviewed the nra and asked them, it doesn't seem to be an either/or thing. it's not as if you cannot extend private background checks through private sales or gun shows and not also increase the prosecution of people who lie on background checks. it would seem you could do both of those things. >> it might seem so. but i mean, is it a practical matter? i think you know this, anderson. we live in a government of finite resources. as a matter of fact, there are some in government who would like them even more finite, perhaps no resources at all, but the criminal justice system works at maximum capacity now. the feds are prosecuting organized crime cases and a wide variety of criminal offenses, we're filling up the dockets with aggravated assaults, car thefts, domestic violence, and so on. yes, in a perfect world, people woul

cap deputy director is a former state prosecute we are a sexual assault prosecution experience. she previously served as directer of national center for prosecution of violence against women. she's a noted author in the field. d. cap established to support and enhance the defense bar, provide financial expertise, and standardized resources for defense counsel. the office leads training efforts and consults with details counsel through every phase of the court march process worldwide. in 2012, we hired two highly qualified experts. one to work at the headquarter level, and another to work in d cap. they are channeling significant sexual assault litigation experience in to enhanced litigation skills and practices for prosecution and defense teams in the field. we are now in the process of hiring another highly qualified expert to work in our trial counsel assistance program. we provide our litigators with extensive trial advocacy training throughout the course of the careers. the navel justice school in conjunction with the criminal justice division coordinate specialized training

prosecutions and so on. it's a pretend important statistic that is irrelevant to the functioning of government. >> also, this is the thing i don't understand. i interviewed the nra and asked them, it doesn't seem to be an either/or thing. it's not as if you cannot extend private background checks through private sales or gun shows and not also increase the prosecution of people who lie on background checks. it would seem you could do both of those things. >> it might seem so. but i mean, is it a practical matter? i think you know this, anderson. we live in a government of finite resources. as a matter of fact, there are some in government who would like them even more finite, perhaps no resources at all, but the criminal justice system works at maximum capacity now. the feds are prosecuting organized crime cases and a wide variety of criminal offenses, we're filling up the dockets with aggravated assaults, car thefts, domestic violence, and so on. yes, in a perfect world, people would get prosecuted for lyin

and it burdens them with reports that detract from prosecution -- prosecuting criminals. these are arguments that we hear all the time from the department and many other agencies that don't want congress overseeing them. of course i don't buy it and members shouldn't simply take their word for it. reports like this wouldn't be necessary if the department answered our letters and responded to our questions about oversight and particularly if they did it at hearings. just as an example, senator whitehouse and i pointed out to the attorney general yesterday that we still await answers to questions from the last oversight hearing we had with the attorney general in june of last year. with a response time like that, we may never know how the department's working. an annual report will require the department to provide us data regularly and likely faster than if we ask the attorney general himself. so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment so we can collect data. we need to ensure the department prosecute the laws on the books. i'd like to have a roll call vote please.

of all the federal gun prosecution's bring, one seventh are gun prosecution's. those caeses for people are denied the opportunity to get a gun are reviewed for prosecution and purposes and determinations are made as to whether they should be prosecuted. one of the things i want to look at is whether or not we need to bring more of those cases. if we are going to be cracking down on ugun crime, there are reasonable explanations as to why we have those numbers but i want to make certain we are prosecuting all the people we should who had been denied -- failing one of the background checks systems. we have limited resources and we have to try to figure out where we want to use those. one has to look at why the gun was denied and determination on whether or not we should use those sources to bring prosecution against that person. >> a crime not prosecuted does not produce the kind of deterrence we would want to prevent other people from committing similar crimes. do you agree with that? >> you are several minutes over. >> you have been very indulgent but i would lik

of all the prosecutions we bring, 1/7 of them are in fact gun prosecutions. all those cases where people are denied the opportunity to get a gun are reviewed for prosecution purposes and determinations made as to whether or not they should be prosecuted. one of the things i want to look at, and i'll be talking to u.s. attorneys about, is whether or not we need to bring more of those cases. if we are going to be really cracking down on gun crime, the number, i think, you know, there are reasonable expectations as to why we have those numbers. i want to make certain we are prosecuting the people we should who have been denied a gun, failing one of these instant background check. >> a crime not prosecuted doesn't produce deterrence, would you agree with that? >> well, we have limited resources and have to figure out where to use the limited resources. one has to look at why the gun was denied and make a determination whether or not we should use those limited resources to bring a prosecution against that person. >> you didn't answer my question. a crime not pros

i think this is a creative prosecution. these are the types of cases could be tough to get a defendant on. this is someone that they really truly believe is a menace to society, is dangerous and should be put away. the key is how do you go about doing it lawfully. what laws has the man broken. the defense will say this was a thought crime. you you can't prosecute someone for their thoughts he didn't act it out. the law you does not allow someone to sit there and fanta advertise aboufantasize about n commit the act and then prosecute them. the whole idea is to get them before they commit the crime. they prosecuted him under a conspiracy theory which means two or more people get together and talk about an idea and there is an over the act. a step taken towards completing it. here conspiracy it kidnap. he had specific target victims including his wife. one woman in particular he was going to be paid $5,000 to kidnap her and then carry out his plot. so the law says that is enough. they had sufficient evidence to prove that beyo

pursuing individuals and there's a difference between prosecuting a bank and prosecuting a banker. so to some extent it's oh it's a it's a little bit of a red herring when we talk about prosecuting banks you know what are you going to do you going to take the articles of incorporation and put it in the cell or is the are the are is the articles of incorporation going to blush in shame you know that i think that. there are legitimate concerns i don't think i think that mary jo white put it a little bit better in her appearance the other day she didn't rule out prosecuting corporations but she did say yes you see nominee yes the yes the the obama administration has not came. before we get to mary jo white let's keep on this eric holder for a second because here that with this new request by i think it's n.s.a. to have access to the same transactional information available within the finance industry in terms of all the transactions are taking place elaborate on that tell us what's going on yes so there was a report on the reuters wire that the. treasury department is kicking around a

when you came out as a whistleblower and you were prosecuted for it and targeted i mean how did it feel to have the same establishment that you had dedicated so much of your life working for come down on you total betrayal. is important no i took an oath four times this one from the constitution that oath was not was not an oath to the president it was not an oath it was not an oath of secrecy it was not a security agency it was really an oath to look the other way when the government itself commits massive fraud waste and abuse and engages itself in wrongdoing illegality and that's precisely what the government did after nine eleven on a vast scale but we just came up on the fortieth anniversary of watergate and you know here we have one wiretapping scandal that brought nixon down and the supreme court rules that the president is not above the law i mean how did we stray from there to now prosecuting the messenger and where the president is now above the law . that's clear it's surreal i was a very young teenager in the one nine hundred seventy s. that was my civic awakening i actually

i sit here before you as the only person prosecute indicted. for the surveillance program which i blew the whistle on you had nothing to do with the program i was on offer the program i was on unable the program i ever engage in secret surveillance in violation of the fourth amendment or the foreign intelligence surveillance act yet i am the one that one point as achieves the original chief prosecutor my case stated in no uncertain terms at a secret f.b.i. facility how would you like to spend the rest of your life in prison mr drake unless you start talking that's how serious they were about protecting that secret surveillance program called stellar wind john kiriakou is the only person going to prison. because of the torture program a state sponsored program which we're now finding out is far vaster was far more expansive than it ever been revealed before at least perhaps more at least fifty four countries he's the only one going to prison why because he blew the whistle on it he knowledge of the former cia employee that torture was a state sp

demanded that law enforcement prosecute this case. they did prosecute this case. and we got a guilty verdict. so i applaud women across this country, who stood up for this girl, who could not speak for herself at the time she was being raped, and objected loudly to what happened. i think there's a lot of progress going on in this country on women's right, and specifically on rape and sexual assault. >> so, kathy, you have been through this. what's out there for the victim once the courtroom doors close? i mean, we've heard the threats. does she have any protections? does the state look at her? does someone make sure that someone doesn't act on these threats? >> no. no. the victim is out there really on her own and by herself. and we see with social media, of course, we just heard the positives, but we see some of the negatives. that is that kids are on social media all the time. they don't have a filter. they're throwing out these messages. they're constantly throwing out threats. and there really the no protection for victims. and i'm very appreciative for mike d

that the prosecution is from the most powerful branch in the judiciary? >> because prosecutors actually control the criminal justice system. they are the most powerful actors in the justice system because they make the charging and plea bargaining discussions in the criminal justice system and those decisions are the decisions that really drive the criminal-justice system. most people think about police officers being sort of the first people that, you know, are introducing the criminal-justice system and for the most part, that's true. police officers have a lot of discretion who they stop on the street and ultimately who they addressed. but the only bring individuals to the courthouse door. it is the prosecutor that has the power to entrench individuals in the system or not because once a police officer brings an individual to the court, to the prosecutor, the prosecutor then is the person who decides whether that individual will be charged with a crime and what those charges will be even if there is probable cause a person committed a crime even if the

them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy, and i think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large. again, not talking about hsbc. this is a more general comment. i think it has an inhibiting influence, impact on our ability to bring resolutions that i think would be more appropriate. and i think that is something that we -- you all need to

law enforcement does have legitimate needs for this data to prevent and prosecute crime. we fundamentally believe that the same procedural protections that apply when police want to search your home should apply when police want to search your online accounts for the same types of content and documents. there is no compelling legal or policy rationale in 2013 for making those types of distinctions. we believe that the updating ecpa should be the number one policy priority for the 113th congress and i think there is tremendous momentum right now behind that initiative. that is driven in part by the general petraeus incident which awakened users to the real gap that exists between rebel lot is and where there is reasonable expectations of privacy. there are now over 80 members of the digital due process coalition which includes consumer advocacy groups, trade associations, and corporations. a fair number of those organizations and corporations and advocacy groups joined in the last four months. these organizations are not always organizations that always agree with one anot

is on prosecuting. >> clearly it is not on prosecuting people who fail background checks. if you have not done any, how could you not agree? >> i do not agree. >> the point is if you are going to fail background checks, we ought to start forcing the lot that is on the book because almost 80,000 people fill the background check and 44,000 people are prosecuted, what kind of deterrent is that? the law is of italy -- obviously not seen as that important if it is just such an important issue, why are we prosecuting people who fail a background check? there are 15 questions not hard to understand. i am a bit frustrated we would say one thing, how important it is, and in the real world, we do nothing to enforce the laws on the book. >> for the record, from my point of view -- it does not matter, it is a paper-thin. >> i ask the questions. >> i want to stop 76,000 people from buying guns illegally. that is what a background check does. [applause] >> how many? how many cases? >> if you would withhold for just one moment, please. no expressions one way or another. let's keep this s

i made in a compass prosecute hill attorney. i think you guys in georgia are about to make the same mistake that we made i think there are attorneys to have elective cases and said maybe i shouldn't have gone in that direction and the second part of the question was to defense attorneys handle guilty parties? and i'm sure that occurs as well in law school you're trained to take on the role of advocate. is my role to do the best job and i can on behalf of the defendant as though it was my life on allied. it's not my job to be judge and jury. those roles are already taken. even if someone admits to you as a defense attorney and even though the -- view of the there telling you the truth so again, both parties are trying to do the best they can in this adversarial system. but given that every party in the system is human and humans are mistakes and those laws can windup press wrongfully executed the victim. >> host: richard stack is the author of "grave injustice: unearthing wrongful executions." it's published by potomac books. wha

now we can read this metaphorically we don't have to read it as a prophecy about prosecution the reason that we do is because the. persecution mentality is so useful when it comes to defending out and sort of making claims and sort of discussions about society where would modern christianity be without the persecution stories and do you find these same or similar persecution stories in others of the world's major religions right where would we be without it that's a really interesting question so prosecution language means that your innocent your bright and those other people they don't have legitimate grievances they just hate you so if we could get rid of that then we would have to try and think about why it is that those who disagree with us make the claims that they do we have to try and empathise with their position we have to try and understand it would be more compassionate and we'd have much better dialogue we'd be able to collaborate about things in ways that we currently can so so that the martyrdom story of the persecution story actually prevents conversation it's polarizing

i intervened, and he was never prosecuted. he was 14 years old, he was put into what would be thought of now has a psychiatric facility. it was a child psychiatric facility. he underwent all kinds of treatment, training, came out, went back to school. it really went through recovery. and then graduated high school, went to community college, and i would like someone to guess what profession he wound up going into. law enforcement. he was not with the lapd. he was with a smaller police department for 30 years. he has since retired. he has been married twice. he has raised four children. he has lived an extraordinary life. i am grateful for having had him in my life as a guidepost. i do think it is the ultimate irony that he turned out to be a police officer. >> we have some other questions. very good questions. we do not have much time. i work at san quentin prison. they segregate inmates based on color and gangs. why do prisons not work on educating inmates on social relations, racial tolerance, and why don't they find a way s

professor davis, what do your colleagues on the prosecute side say about "arbitrary justice"? >> guest: when i wrote the book, i expected a big backlash from prosecutors, and, interestingly enough, i have not gotten that much of a backlash. what's interesting is a lot of friends who are former prosecutors are saying, yes, you know, you're right, that the this stuff happened. the current prosecutors, those i know who are saying that many of them are saying, yes, but the things we write about don't happen often, just a few bad apples, painting too broad a brush. i got that criticism. other prosecutors who admit the system encourages this behavior thing that what we need to do is we need to have more training for prosecutors, that there's a lot of offices when a young prosecutor comes in, they are zeal louse, jump in there, and they are not trained properly which is why they do not exercise discretion as well as, for example, a more seasoned prosecutor, and i think that's true. a lot of time when prosecution's been in the office for awhile, that sphr of them, you know, learn that

the banks because if we prosecute the big people will lose faith in the banks then and people might not invest well what does that mean i mean the banks are going to trickle down i mean if they hoard all this wealth in is just insane telling us that they can't prosecute anyone and these financial to do sometimes talk about the gambling thing that you were saying earlier about the volcker rule we have occupy the s.e.c. suing j.p. morgan wells fargo to push for the volcker rule similarly we have of course pushing to reinstate glass steagall but i mean even if these initiatives went through what they're really address the problem here is wall street just way too far gone completely controlling the government at this point. whatever role they and they bring in wall street to figure out ten ways to go around the world the rule and you're right they're too afraid to prosecute these. and it's a mafia model where they say the best of the buying protection you can buy protection from wall street bankers like hank paulson we went to congress and got seven hundred fifty billion for goldman sac

and having each relationship where we thought -- were we prosecuted, they prosecute there. we think i can have a meaningful impact in sending a strong message one, to the public that we are able to do in fact prosecute these cases successfully -- success would also send a strong message regards over your base, track you down, and bringing to justice. >> craig, i want to turn to you with regard to the moneygram case. moneygram, that is a preferred -- deferred prosecution agreement, is moneygram does not abide by that agreement, what is the result in that matter? >> i think this goes perfectly awful we were just talking about the it is important to hold these individuals, fraudsters, accountable, to arrest them, to put them behind bars. but it's also important in working with these gatekeepers, the financial institutions that they're using, that in our prosecution of them we require them, not on hold them accountable for what they did, but to help prevent these things in the future. that's exactly what we've done with deferred prosecution in moneygram. we've held them account

purpose of the prosecution it's not for rick tribute. and it will not settle the problem politically for the has to be a settlement and i believe the settlement with the rules for that settlement or fairly clear most people agree that what one needs is a jewish state within the forty eight forty nine brandy's palestinian state on the other side of the region with east jerusalem as its capital and some compromise arrangement in respect of the return of refugees i can understand that israel finds it difficult to accept the notion that all refugees and their descendants should be allowed to return to israel because that would flood the state of israel with palestinians i can see israel's point of view so some compromise arrangement will have to be made in respect of refugees but the other was that the lines are fairly clear one needs two states with east jerusalem as the capital of palestine what of the main problems with achieving the two state solution then is the determining factor in the middle east israel wishes to expand its territory

of all the federal gun prosecution's bring, one seventh are gun prosecution's. those cases for people are denied the opportunity to get a gun are reviewed for prosecution and purposes and determinations are made as to whether they should be prosecuted. one of the things i want to look at is whether or not we need to bring more of those cases. if we are going to be cracking down on gun crime, there are reasonable explanations as to why we have those numbers but i want to make certain we are prosecuting all the people we should who had been denied -- failing one of the background checks systems. we have limited resources and we have to try to figure out where we want to use those. one has to look at why the gun was denied and determination on whether or not we should use those sources to bring prosecution against that person. >> a crime not prosecuted does not produce the kind of deterrence we would want to prevent other people from committing similar crimes. do you agree with that? >> you are several minutes over. >> you have been very indulgent but i would like

there are still banks that are too big to prosecute.ination of mary jo white as the next chair of securities and exchange commission has gotten progressives even more riled up. >> federal prosecutors are instructed by doj that they have a long line of factors to consider and one of them is that the collateral consequences of a criminal indictment to inspect shareholders employees or the public. >> michael: meanwhile, on the very same day that white also admitted some institutions are too big to prosecute senator elizabeth warren had choice words for republicans on the senate banking committee who tried to block richard cordray's appointment to the consumer financial protection bureau. liberals take on corporate fat cats, and the president is in the crosshairs, i go to david sirota. how are you david? >> i'm doing well. let's go to the new sheriff of wall street mary jo white. doesn't her statement prove why every-day americans are so distrustful of the relationship between government and banks? >> absolutely. you're absolutely right. i