and in the specific case, a case called u.s. v. thomas a case involving a dog, a canine-sniffing dog. and in that case the ninth circuit said under rule 16 not necessarily brady but under rule 16 evidence of the dog's reliability is discoverable in order -- because it's relevant to raising a suppression motion. and so, i have argued that that approach, if it applies to the dog it applies to the technology, right? the dog tells you about the presence of contraband, and the government has argued that the dog-sniff cases basically support their use of technology that only looks for contraband electronic files like programs that are able to search a computer file's hash image in order to decipher whether it's a known image of child pornography, for example. to the extent the dog evidence is discoverable i would say any information about the reliability of electronic evidence gathering would be discoverable in the same vein. but you is to pin it to i want to raise a suppression motion. it is not discoverable for the sake of discoverable

of them had ever tried a capital case, in fact, may never have tried a case at all.o looking back on it, though they gave it their best effort, they simply were not skilled in this particular area and mr. ford did not have the benefit of adequate counsel by any stretch of the imagination. amy: when did you realize you may have sent an innocent man to death row, marty stroud? >> shortly after the case, as it is working its way through the appeal, i became concerned about the lack of funding that was afforded to mr. ford in the case, and the lack of visibility to have competent counsel due to the manner in which counsel appointed in louisiana. for the first two years, i was concerned about the trial itself. i still believed that mr. ford was guilty at that time however, i have doubts about the fairness of his trial and i thought he should be afforded a new trial. as the case continued and going through the appellate process, i testified on one or maybe two occasions. i was asked about evidence and police reports that i don't remember seeing. that caused concerns for me

have a case load of 10 or 11 cases and that means that the other cases go to other investigator additionally they not only interview witnesses and going out in the field et cetera but they do what is called intake so that means that complainants can walk into the occ during regular business hours and they are interviewed. they can also phone in for their interviews, and so the investigators who have the officer involved shootings or another high profile case they are relieved from intake so that means the remaining 10 or so investigators or 12 investigators are having to do intake once a week or so because there is intake and back up or every other week so it's like squeezing a balloon. >> seems like administrative support i am just wondering if some of the bar bers of the lack of -- barriers of lack of administrative support and other support for your office. >> well, the occ has a small clerical support staff and that clerical support staff the service that they provide is sending out disposition letters to complainants and to officers, and some other functions that aren't specific to a pa

we've talked about these cases before. tragically in my career as a legal analyst as a lawyer, and in my lifetime as an american citizen i've seen too many of these cases dating back to my childhood. but rarely do we see action taken at all. >> and even in cases where we have video. >> right. >> why did this jurisdiction do what they did as compared to staten island where you hear, i want breathe and yet the officers the process was allowed. >> obviously, the videotape helps. that's one factor, but we've had videotape in other cases the one you referenced, for example that's not the deciding factor. there are procedural reasons. some states requires to convene that delays the process in what seems indefinitely. there is something here that is positive. that is the civic process. meaning all of us coming together and it's not just black folks. people across the spectrum of the country, i would call it the ferguson affect. people are tired and they're voicing their exhaustion with what has been happening to black men, poor m

that's what this case is about.about to who gets to decide what the definition of marriage is, not what that definition must be, and it's about who gets to decide on two different levels, the judicial hierarchy has felt whether a district court can disregard a directly on point holding by the united states supreme court, namely baker versus nelson and the bigger picture, it's whether federal rights, if there is a creation of a new federal constitutional right if that should be done under the amendment process or by the courts under a doctrine. there is common ground in this state that the u.s. constitution does not directly address same-sex marriage, which means to turn to the question substantive due process. the right being asserted is objectively, deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition and puts it in the concept of the words liberty such that you can conceive of liberty and justice without it. same-sex marriage doesn't have the deep root. >> what do you do about the fact that one could have said the

case. go to the courthouse right now. >> outbursts are not to be expected. you can bring in the jurors. e into the courtroom and the judge didn't want the jurors to appear on camera. that's why that happened. we'll go back to the courthouse directly as soon as the jurors are seated. just take us through the process, mel, would you. what will happen shortly? >> what's going to happen is the jury will be seated. they'll ask whether or not they reached a verdict. what are reporting is that a verdict has been reached, which means they have an answer on all of the counts carol. and then the foreperson of the jury will stand up and read the verdict count by count. and the judge has already admonished the folks in the courtroom that she does not want any outburst. she does not want there to be a reaction. and i would imagine that you will hear gasps or some sort of reaction because it is very hard for people to contain themselves in a case that's this emotional and that's been going on for this lo

case. >> that is a case that people are queuing up for. they will discuss same-sex marriage licenses under the 14th amendment all stop -- amendment. they will decide if they will recognize same-sex marriages in other states. here is what some had to say. >> we have appealed to congress to restrain the judges and congress has heard our cries. steve king has introduced hr 19682 restrain -- 1968 to restrain the judges. the case before the supreme court is appellate. congress has the ability to remove appellate jurisdiction. we can take out their right to rule on marriage before they rule on marriage. >> i am from birmingham, michigan and we were married a year ago. we are here to listen to the oral argument and i hope the judges say "i odo." >> i'm here to see the supreme court wrangle with and hopefully come up with the right decision so that i can travel from california to other states and have my marriage go with me. i'm scared of entering a state that does not recognize it. >> coverage of

there is a discussion about the upcoming cases and their positions on cases. this is about one hour and 10 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> hello, we are grateful to the folks at c-span coming in who are filming the discussion today and we want to be conscious of their presence here. my name is rick scarborough and myself and others who are here, matthew staver and mr. jackson are the original authors, there are copies you can see one if you'd like. you can read the pledge and see the key signers and over 6000 have signed the pledge. all of that will be discussed in the course of the presentations today. we had to members that could not be here because of one case that we had and they both submitted a copy of their position and that includes mr. jackson. [inaudible] >> another by the president of the caucus for american [inaudible] [inaudible] >> let me say that again into the microphone for those that are watching. we are passing out to handouts, one by mr. jackson who is in europe today who wanted to g

they have essentially put their case forward in the prosecution case.they very much left to do. what, show the film again? the film is horrible. you watch that film and you say to yourself as bob said if anyone deserves the death penalty, this guy does. walks past children knowing he is going to blow these children up. then he buys a bottle of milk and goes back. the prosecution is just going to repeat it and the jury is going to say, well we heard this already. >> the defenses is under that he is under psychic control of his older brother. then he tweets out stay safe. this is not somebody that is under the mental control of somebody else. it allows judy clark to put together many mitigating factors. i i don't think they'll save this guy from death because he was under the influence of his brother. they'll use that as a way of looking at it and thinking about all the emotional factors in his life, how he was treated as a child, and then he is going to be looking to see if there's anything mitigating that could save him from what his crime clearly deser

other cases. these words open justice stevens's fame must concurring opinion in craig versus boren. this is the first case the court applied intermediate to gender based classification. third tier equal protection analysis between strict scrutiny andrx rational basis scrutiny. craig was decided in 1976 at the begin of justice stevens's long and distinguished tenure on the court. with these words he served notice that he was an independent thinker and that he was to be a justice of standards, not a justice of rules. here was a person not going to claim he could avoid making normative judgments in applying doctrinal frameworks or enforcingologynal meaning of the constitution. what does justice stevens mean when he says not withstanding all these articulated tiers there is only one equal protection clause? i will interpret his statement as making two important jurisprudence exare sortation. one he is making exhortation to paraphrase chief justice marshall in mccullough versus marylander we must never

lawrence case. five 2003, we finally got rid of the sodomy problem. the argument could no longer be made that can't argue for constitutional rights for gay people because you could be put in jail. that case definitively got rid of that. it did two really useful things. it said you could no longer at -- that discrimination against gays is justified on moral grounds. for now on, we are going to recognize it is not up for the government to decide who you spend your life with. it is the choice of the individual. the other, it recognized that gay couples have the same lifelong relationships as everyone else and deserve respect. when you take those elements and put them together, the argument for marriage equality is strong. if you do not believe me, justice scalia said so at the time. we have been waiting since 2003 for the other shoe to drop. this is not an easy process either. but the movement at that time was to go back to the state-by-state strategy to chip away at sodomy laws. first, successfully in

a rule also suggests this -- maybe it is a case by case question.officers culpability, that it would be relevant to deterrence and relevant to the cost benefit and it has this now that we think this has the free-standing culpability question and you run into how do we mez ush culpability -- measure culpability and if there are five officers whose culpability was measured and then you are stuck in a defense perspective when the courts take that approach saying the violation was fundamental or egregious that here we should say the officer is culpable and the difficulty is when the claim is based on an evolving legal standard or a novel legal claim is that it will be hard to argue that an officer was cul possible in violating a rule that didn't exist at the time that the officer was acting. not impossible. because you try to root it in a broader framework. you say, well, this is not a novel application of the law, this is a fundamental prison pal that requires warrants and the perception is carefully construed. and what we're waiting for is eventually

not the case with the plaintiffs in this case. we agree that they're bonded to their kids and have their best interest at heart but when we're talking about justice kennedy over decades when laws change, when societial views on marriage change, there are consequences to that and what this comes down to is no whether you agree or disagree with me on whether that could happen, it's whether in drawing these policy lines, every marriage definition includes and excludes some people. the poshl harms -- >> what directly is your response to the fact that if we assume, a, basic purpose of marriage is to encourage and really bond between parents and children, that allowing gay people to marry will weaken it. after all, some nongay couples have children. many and some don't and some gay people marry have children. and some don't. so, what's the imperical connection? that's what i have a problem with in your argue. >> it's simple. if you delink marriage from creating children you would expect to have more children created outside the bonds of

arose in those cases we didn't charge. there was cases where we didn't have enough evidence or concerns about the evaluation evidence and see if that is linked to the officers. >> >> and we're hoping to have cooperation of the police department it have a larger look. the concern is this goes beyond these case and but we're committed to working hopefully collaboratively with everybody to identify the breath of this problem and make sure that we root it out. the thing we don't want is conduct a look back. go through 3,000 cases and in a year or two find ourselves with another scandal on the desk and another situation to unravel. obviously the work we do is exceptionally important. we're dealing with people's lives and liberty and has to be done with integrity and not a game but with severe consequences and we need to do it to the best of our ability. if i could address the systemic conditions that we may want to consider. create a mandatory disclosure to our officers and making that immediate upon referral to ia so we can fl

is this a case by case approach to the exclusionary rule?or the more of a rule-based approach the exclusionary rule. right now there's a lot of uncertainty. you hope you get a judge who takes a narrower approach rather than a broader approach to the exception, to the exclusionary rule. but it's ultimately going to be something the supreme court has to resolve and then i can't get to all that is from a defense standpoint you want to keep the supreme court out of this case out of this issue as much as possible. obviously, if you have a plausible addition you will file the petition to try to get relief for your client but i think the current justices on the supreme court are disinclined to apply the exclusionary rule. i think there hasn't been a winning remedy to the exclusionary rule case in a long, long time. maybe 1990, maybe the 1980s. it's been a long time probably reflecting interestingly i think the policies of the reagan justice department from the 1980s which influenced the current justices. you have this weird historical lack why don'

with 300 cases, you have a lot of cases to compare. and this is a lot of paperwork a lot of individuals, a lot of minutes of time going into these lawsuits. documenting these lives. the most interesting psychological fact that i discovered, that i learned from this was about the fact that none of these people filed lawsuits impulsively. they knew what they were doing. they took their risk at a particular time. they thought about it. often they had a claim for freedom long before they filed the suit. but they needed some further trigger that meant that staying in place would be about much more uncomfortable -- would be that much more uncomfortable than going through the suit. they knew that if they went through the suit they might end up in general as lydia's children were put in jail for several months. the filings were not done impulsively or recklessly. these individuals always had to calculate the strategies of survival with the resources that they had. and that is the psychology that i found most interesting. >> my question did not

we'll be watching these cases as they unfold.let's go to allyson for an update on the forecast. >>> thanks, andrea. we're tracking cloudy skies. we did have a lot of sunshine to start but as expected they're moving on in and partsly to mostly cloudy skies. for the rest of the afternoon the clouds are still moving off to the south so those of us in fredricksburg, the northern neck, it's still sunny there. if you're sneezing and coughing lately, tree pollen is probably doing it to you. grass and weeds not so much in the air right now but mold spores are low. so tree pollen is kind of the culprit there. 68 degrees right now. that's it. we'll see another day below -- 60 degrees right now. that's it. we'll see another day below average. the winds are picking up out of the north. they'll turn out of the northwest later 10 to ten mile per hour winds for the afternoon. here are the temperatures across the area. you can see how it's nice and warm in culpeper, 61 degrees. waldorf at 56. 55 for gaithersburg. now that the clouds have pushed

criticisms of this case focus on the fact that this case is inconsistent with cases like -- the pod case. this case is problematic because it treats religions of and allows them to gain exemptions from neutral laws. i'm not going to focus on that. that is a general criticism. that particular focus here is on the attention between the religious autonomy and on discrimination and employment, which is the central feature of title vii. i think that tension is -- in particular, i'm going to focus on comparative constitutionalism, a distinction between higher and lower lawmaking. and i'm going to articulate a structural weakness in the united states approaches nondiscrimination employment. this is something that scholarly work has not realized enough. ok. what will my brief outline -- ok. i am going to mention a philosophical framework of how we should view this particular attention between religious autonomy and nondiscrimination. that i'm going to suggest looking at the constitution at the republic of south africa and contrasting it with the united states constitution. i will tell you what i

i know that case.ed stevens was a dear friend of mine and i testified as i said understand the only after he was convicted in we were that the justice department prosecutors intentionally hid exculpatory evidence that could have helped his case. there were not these were not mistakes. they were cropped ask that violated every prosecutors duty to turn over exculpatory evidence so that the trial will be fair. now i recommend that you read this book because if if even half of it is true and i believe it is true, you have a lot of work to do to clean up that department. will you consider doing that for a? >> thank you, sir. i will. >> i appreciated. pics mr. guerre. >> before i called senator feinstein, i'm going to ask just ask the finance committee convenes will offer amendments so i would ask the most senior republican to watch the time and call on the next person in seniority order to senator feinstein. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. ms. lynch, i sat through six opening statements by potential a

adele foe's case barely caused a ripple. case is now at the center of a movement to rethink the juvenile justice system and rite old wrongs. >> i see people walk out of here every day. i always will have hope. my day would come. >> reporter: in the summer of 2012 davis found a new reason for hope in the case of miller v alabama, the u.s. supreme court issued a landmark ruling - mandatory life without parole for juveniles were unconstitutional. patricia works for a law center. >> at the time of the sentences, no court considered their youth or the characteristics that come with youth, the facts of the role that they played in the offense >>> on this point the u.s. supreme court was clear - a child's circumstances matter and its cruel and unusual punishment to impose life sentences on them. father dave kelly met a young adolfo davis when locked up at 14. barely 5 feet tall and over 100 pounds. what was your first impression of him? >> scared. he was scared but a strong little guy one on one there was a level of fear of what th

but it's been said with respect to this case if this case isn't the classic death penalty case franklylso with the classic death penalty jury at this point, a white middle class jury, then there isn't a better case that can be made for the imposition of the death penalty. >> judy clark, the defense attorney in this case one of the defense attorneys in this case she has been very successful in arguing against the death penalty in other high profile cases. what you know of her other cases, nothing's exactly like this, but the way she's defended other people do you have any insight as to how she might go about arguing against having him put to death? >> there is. this defense team has been called the death penalty dream defense team. they have highly talented lawyers led by judy clark, and what she's done in other cases is really tried to get the jury to empathize with the defendant. they will never understand how he got to the place he did, and participated in these mass destruction. but what she needs to do is try to get them to have some empathy for his upbringing his adolescence, his

we've done that in this case and every other case. i'm proud of the work that goes into these cases. again we never get to this result without the commitment of so many people. i'm grateful to that. >> bill you -- >> bill -- >> you had -- bill -- >> [ inaudible ]. this family very well decision like this feel personal in a way? >> it's definitely personal. i have gotten to know this family and again, we -- we myself drew strength from just the dignity and the class and the commitment that they showed to let this go out and there's a responsibility that we have to make sure that we do everything [ inaudible ]. and while i'm talking about that i just wanted to thank my family and i know i speak for everybody else, people -- people make sacrifices. we made a sacrifice because we're committed to seeing this thing through and as a result our families wives, kids significant others sometimes we're not there for them and -- but i'm very grateful to them because they understand that we've been so blessed in our lives and when something, some

to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt we're able to have action on many moment this is not the case one hundred percent of the time unfortunately, that is for a variety of reasons sometimes we're looking for dna dna or additional witness not enough we found one of the police officers arrived there are a variety of reasons thirty percent gets problematic but would i'll urge to do speak with usful about a case or individual certainly we can do something better we'll make the corrections we take into account our charter to make sure we are charging the cases that come to us and we're vigilant about the work that's our mandate to take that seriously if you have a violent individual. >> actually, i mentioned the burglary the arms robbery i was so stafrld a lot of the property crime are the issues i understand that they're low open the pecking order in terms of the concerns and urgency, however, if we have serial folks that are breaking into thirty and 40 vehicles over time to me getting those are one or two people off the street allows the police to use their resources better and it prev

or this case. it is whether or not even though you know the defendant, you look the defendant like the defendant's team and you have read about this in the newspaper seen it on television, barring all of that, can you still be fair and impartial in rendering a verdict? that is the test. if you ask people have you heard of him or heard this crime in day and age of all these big cases no, i haven't, i know that person, i never heard of it, i doesn't want them on my jury they have been living and you stone or they're lying. >> if you said you have been a juror and i have not, seriousness people take their oath the jury should not have known he is facing life, correct, judge? >> yes. >> jurors are not supposed to know what the potential -- martha: sentence is not jury's issue. guilt or innocence is the jury's issue. >> they would only know that if they went on google or online. >> probably common knowledge, particularly in light of other events in massachusetts this type of conviction -- bill: they kno

rights cases. in two of these cases, white business owners denied african-americans hotel rooms. in two, they were denied him -- admission to the opera. in one, railroad officials refuse to allow an african-american woman to ride in the ladies car of the train. in 1883, the supreme court declared the civil rights act to be unconstitutional. congress, the court declared, did not have authority under the 13th amendment to pass the law. being denied access to the opera, they said, was not slavery. the court's majority concluded the 14th amendment provided redress only on the operation of state laws, like the black codes or actions by state officers, not private individuals. nor shall any states, that means the state government, not private citizens, it did not give congress the authority to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights. in his majority opinion, justice bradley added this rhetorical flourish, which looks unfortunate in hindsight, given what some -- what occurred i

cases.louisiana adopted the law to give the monopoly in the louisiana legislators and some didn't want to work had a challenge into the court rejected the challenge and interpreted every tradition of 13th and 14th amendments. for for example the supreme court said that the equal protection clause can be used only to protect african-americans from discrimination but that's not what it says. it says no person. what did you know that because of that case it wasn't till 1971 the supreme court found anything other than race discrimination they found that it was unconstitutional. in the same opinion in the slaughterhouse cases, the supreme court effectively read a provision of the amendment out of the constitution. one of them i didn't mention is in section number one exercise no state can deprive any citizen of the privileges or immunities of the united states citizenship its picture states can't deprive people of the most fundamental rights but the supreme court and the case said the typical cou

firearm in this case. there are firearms and the pressure cooker in the eyes of the law which is a firearm. i need to re-emphasize they're not a wait game. it's a feeling you get as a juror. you i did clark has been employing mitigation specialists to build up that giant basket of things that might save him. >> that will be key. a that is the only thing that might save him. we will see. i want to recap what we've seen happen so far. we've had new counts come in. a firearm count pertaining to the ruger, the gun used during the watertown carjacking and atm theft. the young man that spent 90 minutes with dzhokhar and tamer land tsarnaev. counts 23 and 24 25, 26, 27. we're a waiting three in the case. the now guilty boston marathon bomber. i want to bring in our panel. before i do i want to share some of the color we're getting from inside the courtroom. important to note since we cannot see it what is dzhokhar tsarnaev doing right now? he has been standing as the counts are read one by one. his hands clasped

you've spent a lot of time covering this case.us your analysis of what we should be bracing for. >> reporter: whether or not they do find conspiracy on the first charge and also how they divide the counts that follow that specifically where he intentionally meant to kill both crystal camable, martin richard, lindsey lu as well as sean collier. i just read over the language of the verdict form. you have to believe that the jury was in there comparing the wording in the indictment against that verdict form to see exactly what that language indicated. they were very specific this morning in their questions asking about a conspiracy and whether it was over a certain period of time asking about aiding and abetting because there are some charges that say that did dzhokhar tsarnaev use and carry a weapon of mass destruction to commit this crime or did he aid and abet? and so they really had to look at both parts of how that was written to come to their conclusion. there's no question that in terms of martin richard and lindsey lu they we

something was not working so there are cases to remedy it or are

2014 cases that we received. looking at the investigator's case load the median case load for investigators last calendar year was 24 cases, but only 13 journey level investigators had full case loads at the close of 2014. two of these were acting 8126's so two of the journey level investigators were acting as supervising investigator and i indicated 16 per investigator is best practices according to the 2007 controller's report. the occ continues to receive cases of note high profile cases and require more investigator time and meaning a investigator that receives one of these cases whether an officer involved shooting, a death in the hospital, the bicycle's case involving the bicyclists killed in a collision with a truck and those have the case load reduced to focus on the high profile cases which means that the other investigators accumulate higher case loads. >> >> in addition to these cases we also called to investigate the valencia gardens incident and we had a complaint from the sexual assault victim who w

it is unclear how many cases are involved or how much money is involved here. sandusky is serving a lengthy prison sentence. they believe that the university shouldn't continue paying for the actions of the former assistant football coach. >>> in the meantime joe pattern on's widow is touting the success of a new program aimed at preventing child sexual abuse on college campuses. sue pattern on was in harrington harringtonisburg to talk about that it's called circles of safety for higher education. sue paid nearly the entire $220,000 to fund the program at pennsylvania's 14 state schools. >>> this program is about helping people have the courage, the comfort and the confidence to take those initial conversations when they hab to see something even vaguely like the warning signs. >> the seed for the program was a journal entry her husband made in the days before his death. the legendary penn state coach wrote that some good could come out of the jerry sandusky scandal and sue pattern on took thatta an invitation to start the program and create a culture of child

certainly it was a major case the case gained national attention.fair trial was provided to the defendant. in the end, he's a celebrity, he's a patriots football player. that attracts everybody, but in the end he was a man who committed a serious murder and was convicted of that by a jury of his peers. >> reporter: what did you think of the jury not coming up with the -- coming up -- >> i respect the jury system as i said. that's their decision based on what they do in the privacy of deliberations. he was convicted of first-degree murder, a brutal murder of odin lloyd. >> reporter: how important do you think robert kraft's testimony was? >> i think every piece of the testimony put together a strong case for conviction. >> reporter: might be extreme atrocity cruelty, but couldn't prove premeditation? >> we asked an instruction based on the evidence. it was props based on the evidence that you heard. >> reporter: obviously -- do you think aaron hernandez -- >> i would say that you heard the evidence that was presented, certainly one could conclude tha

it's a sympathetic case. to get this out of the way, no means no, doesn't matter if it's your wife or not your wife. when you have two people like this, found love again together in 2007, they were smitten with each other with the testimony also established when he went there. >> no doubt he loved this woman. >> and she loved him and they were so -- all nursing staff they bonded together were beautiful together so to have the adult children step in, of course, they want to protect the mom, but to have the insinuation there was -- there was sex that was not consented to and otherwise he abused someone he loved was troubling and the jury agrees he gets acquitted a god day in america, better day in iowa. >> do you think it should have gone to trial? >> this was a case not about forced sex or consent, but about the capacity to consent and that was the legal issues at trial. the prosecutors did all they could to make that clear to the jury. the other thing i think that was a challenge for them, is what happened be

films case. i'm not certain, congressman. >> now the deference review board that was referenced as part of the l.a. film regional center issue did that in fact exist after this l.a. film regional center issue? >> i learned from the inspector general's report that it was not convened since the l.a. films case. my hope is that, number one the agency was not issuing incorrect decisions. >> i understand. i just want to know if the the board is ever used. your answer is it was not. >> based on my reading, it appears it was not. >> well, you were working there. >> i left some time after. and so i did not keep track of the conduct of the deference review board especially because of the changes that i made in our administration of the program, the knew leadership that i brought, the new office that i created, and the new processes that we put in place. >> thank you, now with respect to the deference review board, was it ever used before the l.a. films regional center case? >> to the best of my recollecti

and their positions on the cases. this is about an hour and ten minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> i want to start right on time. we're grateful for the folks at c-span coming in and filming the discussion today so we want to be conscious of their presence. i appreciate the audience of c-span. my name is rick scarborough. myself, along with several others who are here most especially matt st. stavor are the originators of the marriage pledge. there are copies available for everybody. they were stacked outside. defend marriage.org where you can both read the pledge, see the key signers we now have as of yesterday morning over 6,000 who signed the pledge. we have been adding several hundred a day of late and all of that will be discussed in the course of the presentations today. we had two esteemed members of the press coverage who could not be here because of the -- one case being out of the country. they've both submitted a printed copy of -- of their position, one is harry jackson in the d.c. area. another by rabb

and every case has a suspension the police officer witnesses the sale have to be to a youth an officer witnessed that we're trained to be somewhat consistent you know argument or questions raushldz for that why that considers they think the victim is keeping with the practice it was that one time unfortunately we don't have the resources to be watching two times a week. >> i'm sorry. >> do you know if there are suspension directly recommended to e cigarettes. >> yes. there's been several suspensions because we know that 19 sales rate of e cigarettes from september to preservation we've been working with sfpd to ask for e cigarettes sales tyler or there has been several maybe appeals. >> right. >> that's part of reason to give you an update those are new laws it is actually old this is the e cigarettes beulah's have been on the books in the last 5 years it is the sting operations not for e cigarettes but all the tobacco retailers have been selling cigarettes for years and being techt to see if they sell e cigarettes and there's continued to see if in they're in coincidence. >> you spoke

so the case goes all the way at the contract case. certain kinds of contracts you can't enforce lake contracts to sell sex were babies or organs in some cases. these are against public policy. the supreme court decided the contract to lobby was against public policy. because there is no evidence of bribery, that if we allow this gentleman to hire a lobbyist while the great corporations of our day while all higher adventures. and that will make their case in the state houses and every right-thinking man would call that corrupts. so that gradually fades away and then the shakespearean dirty seconds we are now in the 1970s. benjamin franklin thought it would last 200 years. didn't think you'd be so precise. and the supreme court for the first time strikes down limits on campaign spending, limits every european country has. they take it for granted you can limit campaign spending. the last 40 years we've had the site about whether congress can pass what congress can do theirs anticorruption laws or not. the court especially in the last 10

this case is so far working. a fatherly judge who talks to kids at their level and doesn't take no for an answer. >> unless something happens which is doubtful with you because you've done so well, you probably don't need to see me but maybe one more time before official graduation, as long as everything is going okay, you got your world, with your friends telling youal this stuff, da da da da da. then you got your world. >> now these are boys who have landed in the system because of aggravated assault or robbery. of the 140 who have gone through program less than a handful have reoffended david. the program is still young but the people involved are very hopeful. >> heidi zhou-castro, reporting from dallas thank you very much. >>> as the juvenile system attempts to reform these, soledad o'brien goes inside a juvenile detention facility. to see those boys getting their lives back together. >> when i was first getting here, i got three incidents a day so things have changed a lot. >> richmond police, drop the gun,

all those on the case by case basis. is it your understanding that if you are the attorney-general you're in the middle of that process? >> not aware of the regulatory framework as to how that authority is delegated exercised. >> but that is to be done in the department of homeless security what is that a statutory basis but that statute that the attorney general is in the middle of that decision to make as presented to me i am not familiar how that has been of the size so i cannot provide you with specifics. >> will have to fall but for the fourth time but that is the central question in the plan is not for the attorney-general to the in the middle of this of all. why are we following the statute? that senator hatch brought up earlier this your comments regarding the department of justice initiative smart on crime initiative? as i read it it is a way of mandatory minimums of their crimes to us a good debate but they are with they are so what are we falling that statute to a mandatory minimum? >> with those narcotics law

faith, how strong of a case do they have? >> i think they have a case.n cases and lawsuits filed on less than what they have here. i think the challenge for them is going to be like the challenge is in most civil defamation claims and that is proving damages to the fraternity's reputation, and that means proving damages against this fraternity as the organization because remember there were no individuals named in "rolling stone's" article. it was just the fraternity as a whole. so that's going to be the biggest challenge for them. i think coming on the back end of columbia journalism school's report that "rolling stone" never should have published this article, they centurysimply didn't have enough to support jackie's claim, i think that helps them in their case going forward. >> eric which means that they could be guilty of the lawsuit, but the damages be little to nothing because it's hard to show any individual damage and it would be questionable how much the fraternity was damaged, or at least they'd have to establish that. >> and that is the case b

fellow commissioners or inspector i wasn't here in march when the case was heard was that case about the remadeline as the attorney said or the merits of case merits of hazard >> the same hazard. >> we upheld it. >> we were hearing a different issue. >> we were hearing the actual appeal. >> thank you. >> so in terms of i'll just opine a little bit we're not talking to like to like in consistent we're hearing something separate that is about the directors hearing. >> yeah. this is not deciding on the merits of who to upheld the abatement but really about whether or not there was an appropriate process with the directors hearing with the person present at the directorshearing. >> that's the caution for the board. >> public comment. >> sxhaishg. >> one thing excuse me. in those quiz fy to this staff when there's a situation where the it is being asked for us to send it back for a rehearing like this providing communication on both sides of the issue is helpful as far as evidence so we can counter it because anyone can say they didn't get a notice but there was confusion but overwhelm fr

i think sometimes that's the case.t is the moderate muslims and radical ones and the united states. it's necessary to deal with those breaking the law, and deal with them legally. >> you wouldn't agree most mosques have been radicalized in the united states. >> i think most is strong. there are a few that have been. >> okay fair enough. >> you sound like you moderated your position since the start of the iraq war, where you suggested after 9/11 that iraq had something to do with it and we needed to be forceful going into iraq. have you had a change of mind. >> no we showed that by going in and by the success that we had in the surge, that we could have taken saddam out and helped to bring a lot more order and democracy to the country than we did. we fault the wrong strategy we ignored people who are counterinsurgency, and thought in some ways the way we fought in vietnam which was a bad idea then. in terms of the justification of the war in iraq we admit it was a mistake to suggest that you and others had something to

>> i don't think that is the case. this is what i think is the case. comprehensive effort by the united states against al qaeda and its leadership has resulted in a safer america. that in fact we have been able to decimate al qaeda's leadership, that we've been able to reduce the threat to our forces in afghanistan and our interests around the world and in the united states. my own judgment is that absent these operations like the president described on thursday, absent these kinds of operations, a comprehensive effort against al qaeda there would have been further action against u.s. interests perhaps at the homeland. i don't have any doubt about that. >> let's talk about the constitutional rights of the two americans turned al qaeda operatives. the legal situation here is murky. according to the president they didn't know they were targeting, that these two individuals would be there. had they known these two americans turned al qaeda operatives were there would the strikes have happened? >> let's go through the analysis. these two al qaeda senior op

there's all kinds of cases here she's documented. you know, specific cases. are the people -- miss lerner, you don't want to get involved in the person of the person who did -- who retaliated against the whistleblower. you're primarily concerned that the whistleblower is restored. is that correct? >> generally, our intention is on relief for the whistleblower. >> do you then report these issues to her department then so she can act on those? >> sure. yeah. we are working with her in the office of accountability review to expedite their identification of cases where disciplinary action is appropriate. i also just want to mention we know of at least 40 disciplinary actions against employees who were complicit in the wrong doing identified by whistleblowers. so on the disclosure side, where people come to us and make a disclosure of health and safety problems, it is part of our review of the agent's investigation. we look to see if they've taken disciplinary action. on that side of the equation, we know of at least 40 since about two years ago. that's a little b