i was joined earlier by cass sunstein a professor of law at harvard. i've been paying more attention to the substance of the report to as and. to the feedback seems to be people's reactions are generally very positive which is gratifying so what was the most shocking practice that you discovered that the n.s.a. was telling. we didn't discover any shocking practices so our goal was to think about principles that are going to be helpful for the future and one thing we do is honor and respect the hard work of the intelligence community which is helping to keep our nation safe and helping helping to keep our allies safe and it's important to keep in mind some of the work is helping to prevent human rights abuses and then atrocities abroad so we want to create security foundations that are respectful of privacy and liberty and and not accuse anybody of anything so talk about the process your group went through to put this report together what kind of access for you granted into the national security agency's practice it complete so there were two things we

illegal and he shouldn't be the one going to jail for that sure now earlier today i spoke with cass sunstein he's one of the people that was on that review panel that suggested these recommendations despite having what he calls quote complete access to complete this review i asked him if there are any surprises and i want you to listen to what he had to say we didn't discover any shocking character issues. what do you think about that no shocking practice i don't know why you said that because certainly if you read the report of which he is an author there are forty six not four not ten twenty thirty or forty but forty six lengthy recommendations about how to reform these programs including terminating killing off the most central book collection of all phone call data innocent americans killing off the major program and numerous other significant reforms so maybe he had just already heard most of the information from edward snowden. that is a likely possibility now i also spoke with sunstein about the section of the report recommending how to deal with people like edward snowden who would h

michael morel, former deputy cia director, jeffrey stone, a university of chicago law professor, cass sunsteina harvard law professor who once worked in the administration, and peter swire, who served on obama's national economic council. record and quite public in my concern over the actual independent of this group. i am one of the 47 technologist that wrote a letter to the president saying we need technological acumen on a technological review committee. unfortunately, that was ignored. i'm concerned that administrative division -- the administration officials comprise the entirety of this group. i do not see how you can do a truly independent review of surveillance when so many people are tied in. i think this is epitomized by the fact that this review group is housed under james clapper, under the very agency that it is supposed to be independently revealing. what you mean it is housed there? >> if you go to their website, you actually go to dni, you go to the intelligence ministry here in the united states. that is were you can get information about the group. he reports to james clapper

house convenience thconvenes this panel close to president obama, people at university of chicago, cass sunsteintion who looked at michael morelba, the deputy director of the cia who looked at this and said we don't need these programs to say safe. they're menace to americans' individual liberty and privacy. you've asked us to tell you what should be done after a careful review. here's what we say. how does the obama white house turn around and say we're going to ignore our own panel's recommendations. we're going to simply disregard them even though we picked those people to do this job in order to tamp down the public scandal. i think it will be a great deal of difficulty they face if they do that. >> great to have the two of you on. thanks. >>> up next more breaking news the star of "duck dynasty" has been suspended by a and e for comments he made about homosexuality. >>> also you have more than 1,000 times a better chance of an asteroid or comet hitting you but two people actually won last night's 648 million megamillions jackpot. the question is it a dream come true or curse? we'll talk to

they met in retreat, laurence tribe, cass sunstein was there, according to "the new york times." they came out at the retreat. the retreat with a decision. the decision was to alter the ground rules of confirmations, and they immediately accepted the two nominees president bush had submitted that were democrats. one of them hadn't been confirmed under president clinton. he renominated them. they took those two and confirmed them. they blocked ten great judges, great nominees. the and this went on for over a year. there were votes after votes after votes, and they steadfastly -- senator schumer, the leader -- blocked those judges from being voted on by a filibuster because there weren't 60 votes to shut off debate to effect cloture. and so this went on at a extraordinary time. and at some point the threat was that the nuclear option would be executed and a group of senators met and said, look, let's don't change the rules of the senate by breaking the rules of the senate. let's reach an agreement. and this is what they said: they said, you shouldn't filibuster judges anymore unles

ritual -- richard clarke cass sunstein and peter swire for devoting himself to the separate and providing input file full and put for the administration to consider as we include the review of signals intelligence collection being led by the white house. now over the next several weeks, we will be reviewing the review group's report and its 46 recommendations as we consider the path forward including sorting through which recommendations we will implement, which might require further study in which we will choose not to pursue. it's a substantive lengthy report and it merits serious review and assessment. when we finish the internal review the overall internal review in january the president will deliver remarks to outlying the outcomes of our work. anticipating this question i will go right to the answer. while we had intended to release the review group's full report in january as i said earlier given the inaccurate and incomplete reports by the press about the report's content we felt it would be -- to draw their own conclusions and we will be doing that this afternoon releasing the fu

richard clarke, michael more rel, cass sunstein and peter squire several months for providing input for the administration to consider as we review signals intelligence collection being lead by the white house. it draws on the group members considerable expertise in intelligence, counterterrorism, civil liberties and law and privacy matters and on their consultations with the u.s. government privacy and civil liberties advocates in the private sector. as i mentioned yesterday over the next several weeks we'll review the review group's report and its more than 40 recommendations as we consider the path forward including sorting through which recommendations we will implement, which might require further study and which we will choose not to pursue. we would expect the overall internal review to be completed in january and the president will deliver remarks. as i mentioned yesterday the review group's report we expect to be released publicly. >> i'm sorry, released what? >> publicly. >> next month? >> i don't have timing on that but we do expect it to be released publicly. >> will the rev