a law imposed security law imposed by beijing is not an acting laws on its own is it. well you better quote palling then why did the bar association did not support the trough national security legislation i championed back into law or to try very hard to help hong kong to and act national security laws on our own why did they object to that and in the course of the public scrutiny i gave then many concessions now the article 23 imposes a constitutional duty on the us to prohibit certain national security over answers but it does not preclude the p.r.c. of origins from acting under their constitution the problem with our pas so here is that it ignores the laws of china only focuses on the basic law of hong kong which is really it which sets out a constitutional arrangements for hong kong but the national people's congress is the highest of already in mainland china and the pas home station has persisted and in persistent in ignoring these realities so the national people's congress can just sweep aside the basic laws it feels like the bar association says it would appe

or hong kong law you don't know do you well know no it's in the basic law they must obey hong kong law whether i said this it is not clear yet what any new national security agency would be responsible for it could simply be responsible for public education publicized here and promotion you know you cannot come to the conclusion that they are they will be enforcing hong kong law that's what they broke that's what they do when they bring in their national security organs of the central police government does it it was sent to people's government that's what they are looking for education is it you don't know that again you aren't me. and you have no no factual basis for making those sort of statements you are simply making are sweeping allegations based on your own assumptions and bias when there's no assumptions and bias when you look at how the national security organs of the central people's government operate when they're in on the mainland we're not talking about mainland we're talking about one country 2 systems let's come back to hong kong. it doesn't look as though it's one coun

so those were the early gun laws.hose evolved mostly into carry laws and then as around the mid to late 90th century things become the modern laws that we talk about, firearms dealers, minors, dangerous people, things of that nature that should not have guns, that is really the modern beginning of gun control as we know it. >> which goes dprekt wli to your book, you could elaborate how it has evolved over the last 200 plus years. >> yeah. the original write isn't what we know it today. if you look at the founding documents if you look at everything, all of it hints to the idea of the federalized militia debate which was the arguments between states rights and individuals, well the constitution and states, who is the power of the militia. the federal government and george washington wanted more power to control them during war. when it came to the states, they're like, no, we want full control. so the concern in the constitution when it came in 1787 and then ratified in 1789, there was too much control. and there are p

the law. i do not pretend even for a moment to speak for the other leaders here but i am certain that we are -- we all want local leaders to have the confidence and the conviction to request and utilize all available resources to fight violence and to protect our communities. the u.s. marshals service is your partner, too. in summary, the u.s. marshals service will continue to perform our many day-to-day missions and we will also assist our federal, state, and local partners during this emergency. we will work urgently to keep citizens and law enforcement safe. i think are concerned -- i think are concerned citizens for their patience and continuing >> good afternoon prayed my name is regina lombardo, the acting director of atf parted for many special agent's, one of the proudest moments is when you raise your right hand to take the oath of office to support and defend the united states constitution. we take that oath seriously. moment, we don't know exactly what will be faced with. what chall

the major law firms? [laughter] justice ginsburg: i had three strikes against me. david: after 13 years, did you think you had a chance to be on the supreme court? justice ginsburg: no one thinks, "my aim in life is to be a supreme court justice." david: when you first got on the court, were other justices saying, "we're happy to see you here, let's go have dinner together"? justice ginsburg: justice o'connor was the most welcoming. she gave me some very good advice. >> would you fix your tie, please? david: well, people wouldn't recognize me if my tie was fixed, but ok. just leave it this way. all right. i don't consider myself a journalist. and nobody else would consider myself a journalist. i began to take on the life of being an interviewer, even though i have a day job of running a private equity firm. how do you define leadership? what is it that makes somebody tick? when you went to cornell, your grades were obviously very good. you applied to law school at harvard. you got into harvard law school.

the law. among our basic functions is the absolute duty to protect people who are exercising constitutional rights. however, rioters, arsonists, thieves, looters, and their protagonists are criminals. they have undermined peaceful and lawful demonstrations and protests. these criminals threaten our basic constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and they must be brought to justice. since the earliest days just after our nation's birth, u.s. marshals have worked to ensure the rule of law by making sure that the federal judiciary and the federal judicial process operate unfettered and unintimidated. we have also worked tirelessly over the years to bring thousands and thousands of and today,o justice one of our primary missions is to find and protect endangered children. in the last week, u.s. marshals have coordinated with u.s. attorneys and state and local partners to protect protesters and to address the criminal acts of others. deputy u.s. marshals are assisting wi

the laws that were -- this law and laws like the gun control act that many people at the time thoughtas not really designed to control guns, but to control urban blacks who were rioting in 1967, the worst race right riot detroit and newark. these laws designed to restrict access to black radicals in urban areas like the black panthers, ended up sparking a backlash among white rural conservatives who were convinced that government was coming to get their guns next. >> i want to take you forward from there to the debates over gun control and gun rights that we've seen in the last five or ten years. why do you think the advocates of the second amendment rights, the right to bear arms, have become so dominant? there is just about zero chance of passing in any state legislature or in congress anything that would smack of gun control today. what has changed politically over the past decade or two, to put us in that situation? >> i think the major push for gun control in the 1960s especially and the early 1970s was reflection in part of a great society philosophy, there are social problems,

before that, there were no such laws other than a brief chicago law. i believe chicago enacted their law in 1908 but it didn't stay on the books very long. that law's really important because new york at that time was the epicenter of the united states in terms of population, new york city, i think cities number 50 to 100, if you take the 50 to 100th city at that time and you add them up, the populations, they still didn't equal new york city. that's how central new york was to the united states at that time. obviously they had a big fear. plus you've got to remember that the nra is organized chartered out of new york and that's where most of their members are and their headquarters is at. that's when they start talking about the second amendment, more so in passing than in depth though. >> on the auspices of the weapons crossing the borders. we had robert bareson in the 20th century, the mob violence and gang violence. how did that affect the debate in this country? >> well, there's an interesting thing about the mob. i think everybody in the united s

law enforcement officials spoke about progress made in criminal justice reform and the need for law and order. >> thank you very much. it's a great honor to have some of the true leaders in our country of law enforcement. and that's what they've done. they've enforced the laws.ru they've done a fantastic job of it.ha we have among the best numbers we've ever had in terms of recorded history, certainly. but this has been a very strong year for less crime. let's put it that way: less crime. and there's a reason for less crime, and it's because we have great law enforcement. i'm very proud of them. there won't be defunding. there won't be dismantling of our police. and there's not going to be any disbanding of our police. our police have been letting us live in peace. we want to make sure we don't have any bad actors in there. and sometimes you'll see some horrible things, like we witnessed recently. but 99, i say 99.9, but let's go with 99% of them are great, great people. and they've done jobs that are record setting. record setting. so our crime statistics are at t level that they haven

the laws. in october of 2019, the president established the first commission on law enforcement since the 1960's, and i am meeting with them later this month and i've been talking with law enforcement leaders around the country. in the weeks and months ahead, we will be working with community leaders to find constructive solutions so that mr. floyd's death will not have been in vain. we will work hard to bring good out of bad. unfortunately, the aftermath of george floyd's death has produced a second challenge to the rule of law. while many have peacefully expressed their anger and grief, others have hijacked protests to engage in lawlessness, violent rioting, arson, looting of businesses, and public property, assaults on law enforcement officers and innocent people, and even the murder of a federal agent. -- such senseless acts of anarchy are not exercises of first amendment rights. they are crimes designed to terrify fellow citizens and intimidate communities. as i told the governors on monda

before that, there were no such laws other than a brief chicago law -- around 1908. it didn't stay in the books very long. that law is really important because new york at that time was the epicenter of the united states in terms of population. new york city -- number 50 to 100. if you take those cities and you had a mola, that population still did not add up to new york city. that's what central new york was. we gotta remember that the nra has organizing short charter -- that is where the most of the members are in the headquarters. that is when they really start talking about talking about the second amendment. >> of course, the auspices of these weapons crossing borders in the 19th century where you had the robert parents than. the 20th century you had the mob violence and the gang violence. how did all of that effect the debate in this country? >> there is an interesting thing about -- i think everybody knew united states agree that there is a problem. the only disagreement is more or less in terms of, how do you solve that problem? there was a movement and the u

so those were the early gun laws. those evolved mostly into carry laws, and it was around the mid to late 19th century things really start to become those modern laws you're talking about firearms, dealers, you know, minors, dangerous people, things of that nature that should not have guns. that's really the modern beginning of gun control as we know it. >> can you elaborate how it has evolved over the last 2 plus years? >> yeah, the original right isn't what we know it is today. if you look at all the founding documents and everything all of it hints to the idea of the federalized militia debate which was the arguments between state rights and individuals. well, the constitution and states. george washington obviously wanted more power of state malaysias to control them during war. when it came to the states they were like no, we want full control. the concern of the full constitution was the federal government may have too much control of the state's militia emphasis the second amendment is more or less a reflection

law for all people and senator scott mentioned before. not to be pro law enforcement or to be pro communities of color, but to be pro american in the process. >> one, i want to thank tim for taking on this task for all of us. he's the right person at the right time and god has a plan for you and you're fulfilling that plan and you're trying to bring us together as a country. i've spent time with john and ben and others on the judiciary committee listening yesterday and it was a fascinating hearing. there's a process in the air force called listen, learn and lead. to my colleagues on the other side who said we talk too much, we don't need to listen anymore. where were you for the eight years of the obama administration? i'm getting a little tired of beég lectured to by my democratic colleagues that all of this is trump's fault. you had eight years under president obama, the justice and policing act, none of it was taken up virtually. so let's not-- you're making no points with me trying to suggest that we're bad and you all are not when i

extent of the law. i asked my staff to speak with them ask if they want anonymity some may want to some may not. another thing that i would do is think training so when new employees are on board at the cia they have to go to link the training and it's very important to have a solid training program with whistleblowers to explain their rights and how they communicate and provide information. also to cia managers with regard to the law also working with caa leadership whatever that culture is i want to work with leadership to try to strengthen the culture the way they look at the caa whistleblowers they don't look at the processss as a way to get somebody in trouble or the gotcha moment that something that you should do and have an obligation to do to make the agency better not to destroy the agency your harm it or create a lack of confidence in the american public but to make the agency better. >> thank you. let me ask you a specific question. do you believe michael atkinson as the inspector general for

to follow the law. to certainly cooperate with the agency and to work collaboratively with agency components. to work collaboratively with this committee. to be transparent with this committee. to report to this committee. but i don't think the inspector general's office needs to run around with a flag of independence but i think, you know, we absolutely are certain of independence in everything we do whether it's requesting information from the agency, we would, you know, we would push back on that. for example, if we ask for information from the agency and they were hesitant to give it or refused to give it, under the statute the i.g. is entitled to it, i would take their views into account. but if i thought it was still important to pursue it, we would exercise our independence and still pursue that information. thank you. > thank you, mr. chairman. mr. thompson, i'm going to go over some points you made in your testimony. at the outset, let me just say, in our meeting, i was impressed by your demean

one law and order. and that is what it is — one law. we have one beautiful law. once that is restored and fully restored, we will help you, we will help your business and we will help your family. america is founded upon the rule of law. it is the foundation of our prosperity, our freedom and our very way of life, but where there is no law, there is no opportunity. where there is nojustice, there is no liberty. where there is no safety, there is no future. we must never give in to anger or hatred. if malice or violence reigns, then none of us is free. i take these actions today with firm resolve and with a true and passionate love for our country. by far our greatest days lie ahead. the official post mortem examination of george floyd has declared his death a homicide as a result of compression to the neck while being restrained. the official report was published shortly after an examination commissioned by the floyd family, concluded he died from asphyxiation. earlier, his brother, terence, spoke at the scene of his arrest. in every case of police brutality, the

and law enforcement has, too. that's one thing i understand from being attorney general 30 years ago. what makes me very optimistic today is that the law enforcement leaders that we deal with, and you all know this, no one is more committed to reforming the criminal justice system and the profession of policing today. there hasn't been a president recently who has been more committed. he didn't require the crisis we have today to get started with the first step act, and with establishing a condition which has been -- commission that has been looking at the very issues we are dealing with today. i know there's a lot of interest among police leaders for clarity and guidance on the use of force and some of the issues you were just talking about, sheriff. making sure the standards are out there, making sure they are trained, and making sure they are adhered to. we are looking forward to working with you to get that done. the time for waiting is over. it's now incumbent on us to bring good and bad -- to bring good back

you applied to law school at harvard. you got into harvard law school. was the class half women and half men, or? [laughter] justice ginsburg: in those ancient days, i went to law school from 1956 to 1959. in my entering class at harvard law school, there were over 500 in the class. nine of us were women. a big jump from marty's class, he was a year ahead of me. there were five women in his class. and today, the harvard law school has about 50% women. [applause] david: now, in your harvard law school class, you did extremely well, and you got onto the harvard law review, and you were near the top of your class, maybe first or tied for first in your class. but then when your husband needed to move to new york, you wanted to transfer to columbia law school, and the dean of the harvard law school didn't think that was such a great idea, if you wanted to be a harvard graduate. is that correct? justice ginsburg: yes. he said i had to spend my third year at harvard. the reason i didn't was marty was diagnosed with a testicular tumor in his third year of law sc

they have enforced the laws. numbersamong the best we have ever had in terms of recorded history certainly, but this has been a very strong year for less crime, let's put it that way. reason for less crime. we had great law enforcement. i am proud of them. crime. we had great law enforcement. i am proud of them. there won't be defunding or dismantling of our police. there will not be any disbanding of our police. the police have been letting us live in peace, we want to ensure sure we don't have any bad actors in there. sometimes we see horrible things, but i say 99% are great people. they have done jobs that are record-setting. so our crime statistics are at a level that they have not been at. i want to go around the room and just ask each one of the folks to say hello in say a little bit about themselves and the success they have had, then we will go and have a meeting as to where we go from here. ok? thank you. >> mr. president, thank you. thank you for hosting this meeting, for the ability to talk about impor

he has published in leading law reviews like yale law journal and the university of chicago law review, and has been set up by the supreme court of the united states, united states court of appeals, district courts, and congressional testimony and legal briefs. we will begin this morning with daryl as we noted his work provides the framing for this work that's all does. i >> thank you so much for that introduction. thanks to the national history center for this invitation to speak to you. i should start with a disclaimer. i am not a historian. i am a legal academic, a lawyer. i am interested in the way history influences the way legal doctrine develops. professor cornell saw will be much better at speaking with authority and detail on the historical regulations. instead, i want to offer a framing for you about how the supreme court does and may use history to justify its conclusions. in the 2008 decision, district of columbia versus hell, or the court resolved one important but narrow issue. that issue was whether the second amendment right to keep and bear arms applied to rights to ha

the law struck down was a law in washington, d.c. it was a ban on handguns, but also the ban on the use of long guns for anything but recreational purposes. you could own a rifle or a shotgun, but you could only -- it had to be locked or disassembled and only unlock it or assemble it for recreational purposes like hunting or shooting, target shooting. a d.c. court held specifically that if a burglar is breaking into your home, you are not allowed to assemble your gun for self-defense and use it for self-defense because that wasn't a recreational purpose. you could take your gun and maybe bang someone over the head with it, but you weren't allowed to shoot someone if they were threatening your life. the supreme court stepped in and ruled on this case. one of the remarkable things about the case was that the lawyers who pursued it, although they were trying to invigorate and find judicial protection for the nra's view of the second amendment, the nra was opposed to the lawyers and the lawsuit from the get-go and did everything they cou

as a way to make the laws uniform.and to do it in a way that if i was traveling interstate from indiana to ohio, if ohio had stricter laws and i was traveling by car back i would not be affected by that. their uniforms firearms act, that they convinced the new york assembly, by an overwhelming majority to enact the legislation. he then governor roosevelt decided to veto the legislation. he vetoed it, and the nra really ramped up its efforts, and they start putting advertisement for recruitment, that were expressly targeted at the fire arms laws. they head objectives, and the first three are related to firearms legislation. i think that's the genesis of what the nra becomes, but for many decades let me caution and say, the 1930s the attorney general of the united states, knew who the nra was. and they became very well aware what the nra was doing. the general american public wasn't though. so they continue to do this for decades, and it's not until jfk gets its fascinated, that the american public gets a wake up call. a

and not just find ways that working with law enforcement and community leaders to improve law enforcement, we want to improve the lives of african-american families in every city in this country just as president trump has been doing, as you said, every step of the way with record unemployment, opportunity zones, educational choice that criminal justice reform and a whole range of issues that were in the process of achieving real are results which is what we're about at this white house.

a law school to support hong kong as in the scared new world. are going to take the story now to albon chunk he is a research fellow at new york university school of law he's also worked as a barrister and lecturer in hong kong he joins me tonight from new york city it's good to have you on the program let me ask you you've worked as an attorney in hong kong before this new security law what does it mean for a pro-democracy protester who is arrested will they have access to an attorney and legal representation as has been the case well frankly there is still a lot that remains to be disclosed about how this new law and i use the term very loosely will operate we've seen from the cole 55 sussan nebulously defined serious cases may be sense to mainland courts for trial and prosecuted by mainland procuress those and in those instances the ability to access legal representation may be very much in depp's but in any event even for those and put national security cases that are tried in hong kong quotes it remains to be seen just how much access to la

law firms?ughter] justice ginsburg: there wasn't a single firm in the entire city of new york that would take a chance on me. ♪ you say that customers make their own rules. let's talk data. only xfinity mobile lets you switch up your wireless data whenever. i accept! 5g - everybody's talking about it. how do i get it? everyone gets 5g with our new data options at no extra cost. that's good. next item - corner offices for everyone. just have to make more corners in this building. chad? your wireless your rules. only with xfinity mobile. now that's simple easy awesome. switch and save up to $400 a year on your wireless bill. plus get $200 off a new samsung galaxy s20 ultra. david: from the harvard law review and the columbia law review, you were flooded with job offers from the major law firms? [laughter] justice ginsburg: i had three strikes against me. david: after 13 years, did you think you had a chance to be on the supreme court? justice ginsburg: no one thinks, "my aim in life is to be a sup

a law school to support hong kong as in the scared new world. straight to hong kong venue where we join the correspondent to feed be a welcome thing so this law is now in effect i believe you've read it so what more can you tell us about it. as mentioned on the overall were regulates 4 main categories of time to the session suppression terrorism and collusion with foreign forces so all of the categories of crimes would carry a maximum penalty is a life sentence in prison so this is much posher than expected to me for and on and and. the. point is that people feel. the definition often times it's not it's not that it's not clear enough that. the law is right some poll one of the clauses saying that. people trying to. induce a hatred to was home home or china's government could be the final calming of national security of the people you worry about like the definition of the law it's not clear and i was small is that the law may further the hong kong independent judiciary which has seen. hong kong's autonomy along that case since the handover but

enforcement is not the law and george of the law in georgia happens in courtrooms you cannot use. non you cannot use lethal force to match a non lethal force there is a case of tennessee versus gardner united states supreme court case stands for their proposition so i think that this case is going to end up in the superior court of phone johnny with murder charges against both officers. those are told have been sworn investigative journalist and co-host of all things being bust who explained why the use of force by places spunk such outrage in atlanta. in almost every case where we're seeing black lives matter protests it comes down to use of force and it really seems to be the overwhelming theme that we see over and over and again so the point you're making here it's critically important that some people will say yes why that you should unlike others will say you came across a man who was asleep in a drive through and he wasn't moving his car and that when the drive through you gave him a sobriety test he resisted being handcuffed so at what point is it incumbent upon an officer

by law and order i mean for everybody we've got to reestablish respect for law respect for law and order a concept that's existed since the founding fathers the catch phrase that helped take richard nixon to the white house during mass civil unrest and race riots. around 200 people died back then in clashes martin luther king was assassinated so waving in a new era for society nixon proposed an agenda in which police powers were about to increase in 1968 the green light was given for the use of stop and search and powers have expanded since in new york it became infamous stops dramatically increasing under me and michael bloomberg in the 2 thousands. but it raised a key issue racial prejudice during the peak of the program more than half of the people stopped were black but the black community made up just over one quarter of new york's population 1st started new york 7 philadelphia. california. first. as new ways to keep order were introduced laws became tougher since 1928 states have adopted some form of what's known as the 3 strike practice it meant lengthy sentences for repeat offend

the louisiana law, 620 is identical to the texas law and was expressly modeled on it. after trial the district court ruled 620 is unconstitutional finding no material differences between this case and women's health. unburdened it found act 620 would leave louisiana with just one clinic and one doctor providing abortions. at the same time it found act 620 would do nothing for women's health. in reversing the district court decision the fifth circuit committed two fundamental errors. first, it usurped the role of the district court and disregarded all of its factual findings. second the fifth circuit accepted legal arguments that this court rejected four years ago. nothing has changed that would justify such a legal about-face. even more medical organizations joined the a and 8 is admitting privileges impose barriers to abortion with no benefit patients and this impact -- the state's eleventh hour objection to third-party standing runs up against still more binding precedent. the court squarely held that it is waivable in the state liberally and strategically waived the

it's right now as a matter of law, a violation of law for any law enforcement officer to willfully deprive a person of any right protected by the constitution. but it's almost impossible for prosecutors to prove willfulness and the department of justice doesn't prosecute many cases in a nation of 18,000 law enforcement agencies. this bill with revise the intent standard known by latin, to knowingly or with reckless disregard. so the change of that standard under law would make it more likely that successful prosecutions can be brought when constitutional rights are violated in a criminal manner. the second constitutional violation provision speaks to civil liability, reforming our civil liability laws often referred to by a particular doctrine, qualified immunity. cases where a citizen is a victim of police misconduct. this is a constitutional violation when it happens. currently, a police officer who violates an american's constitutional rights are often protected by a liability shield that we know as qualified immunity. this doctrine has been questioned by many. at least two supreme cour

i do believe in the rule of law.m a former law enforcement official, united states attorney, federal prosecutor. we've got to be able to recognize that while we have some that need to be removed, law enforcement officers that have acted totally inappropriately, we also have so many out there working hard to protect the public day in and day out and we have to recognize that balance. >> shannon: they do that voluntarily and they are out there in very tough situations across the country. i want to play you something from new york city mayor de blasio who has said, thanks, but no thanks, on the national guard -- i'm not sure if he said the first thanks. >> the national guard should not be brought here. we have 36,000 police officers. and, do you know what will happen with the situation? not the national guard, the people of new york city are much more powerful than anything the national guard can do. >> shannon: governor, i've talked to several friends in manhattan who were terrified last night. you know, these are nice

hong kong has those laws.nts is the sort of law that would be unacceptable to people in hong kong because it would take away some of their basic freedoms. that's what the argument is about, not whether there should be national security law. yvonne: that was the former hong kong governor speaking to stephen engle. some lines crossing from local media. ming powell reporting that china is to holder press briefing on the security law -- is to hold a press briefing on the security law this tuesday and they will publish it in the government gazettes. this could perhaps be the first time see the full language and text of the national security legislation. we did have early reporting that said the law committee will be meeting later today immediately after this was passed, to discuss the insertion into the basic law. perhaps we will get more detail later this afternoon. we have a and continuation of the rhetorical but also the cheerio tit-for-tat between the u.s. and china -- but also the material tit-for-tat between

the equality act-- state law does. so if i live in new york, state law would protect me.ederal protection that exists, and in some cases, no state law protection. 29 states in this country, 29, do not have comprehensive protections for l.g.b.t.q. people. we also have to fight against violence for the transgender community. this year alone, we've lost at least 15 members of the transgender community. they've been killed. last year, 27. we have so much work to do. but i don't want to detract from this ruling. it's fantastic. it provides us with meaningful protections but we have a lot of work to do. >> trevor: people said, "well, if you see, from this ruling alone, if you work to create laws that protect black people's rights, because of where black people are in society, especially in america, those laws will protect and help so many other people, that the law wasn't intended to help. do you think that this helps to bridge a gap? because we've seen even within the l.g.b.t.q. community where, you know, some people have said, i'm black and i'm gay and i feel like these two w

they need to change their law rather than just shooting people down i feel that law should be changed. you shouldn't be able to shoot somebody when it's not life-threatening. you it has to stop. as far as the caller about the statutes. when i was 5-year-old, i seen a confess rat statue, and as a little girl, something was wrong with it it seems too much of a superior figure that was not good. i didn't know anything about the conphet rat, none of that at that time. it affected me. i remember likes it was the day when i was a little girl. then if you don't want -- there are black conphet rats, too. rewrite the history book. ku klux klan had taken over the confederate flag and made it something bad, this would not be happening. but there's nothing wrong with that, because there were black confederates, too, but it's because of what you let them take that flag over. this is why you're having that problem now when america goes to war, they fight, when they go to other countries and your own neighborhoods, but you're not listening. you're not listening. you're still not listening to the cry

let's work towards having equal justice under the law for all people and not to be pro-law enforcement or pro-communities of color but pro american. >> i would like to thank tim for taking on this task for all of us. the right person at the right time. god has a plan for you and you are fulfilling the plan to bring this together as a country. i spent five hours with john and others on the judiciary committee listening yesterday and it was a fascinating hearing. there's a process called listen, learn, and leave. to my colleagues on the other side who say we talked too much and don't need to listen anymore where were you for the eight years of the obama administration? i'm getting a little tired of being lectured to by democratic colleagues that all this is trump's fault, eight years under president obama, justice and policing act, none of it was taken up, let's not that up. you are making no points with me trying to suggest that we are bad and you are not when it comes to this issue. you had eight years, no attempts to ban show colds or do any of the things we all agree we need to do no

one law. we have one, beautiful law. once that is restored and fully you, we, we will help will help your business, and we will help your family. america is founded upon the rule of law. it is the foundation of our prosperity, our freedom, and our very way of life. but where there is no law, there is no opportunity. where there is no justice, there is no liberty. where there is no safety, there is no future. we must never give in to anger or hatred. if malice or violence rains, then none of us is free. i take these actions today with firm resolve and with a true and passionate love for our country. by far, our greatest days lie ahead. thank you very much. now i'm going to pay my respects to a very special place. thank you very much. >> governors jared polis of colorado, river of michigan, and hutchinson of arkansas, testified before a house subcommittee on how their states are responding to the coronavirus pandemic. 11:30live, tuesday, at a.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio ap