the doj's lawsuit is wrong and a victory in a courtroom or by settlement would set an ugly precedent.whatg... until now, with scotts ez seed. it's so revolutionary, it's guaranteed to grow grass... anywhere. that's because ez seed is a high performance mix of scotts best grass seed, starter fertilizer and a super absorbent growing material that absorbs water and expands to surround and protect the seeds, so you can grow thick, beautiful grass in even the toughest areas. the scotts ez seed mix even lightens in color to tell you when it's time to water. it's so fool-proof you'll get a thick, green scotts lawn even if you've never been successful with other seed before. the revolutionary scotts ez seed, you're guaranteed to be able to grow grass anywhere. go online to get a coupon for $5 off the purchase of scotts ez seed. ♪ for $5 off the purchase of scotts ez seed. .it's considered as one of the greatest dates on the sports calendar... /// openiig day in major league baseball... / bruce cunningham joins us now in sports unlimited... bruce... bruce... .coming up tonight on sports un. unlimi

we are funding it until we get the money, and we were able to get $750,000 from doj. we are going to work order about $95,000 to department of technology for installation and programming. the grant creates no new positions, and there are no matching funds required. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. supervisor mirkarimi: any comments or questions? seeing none, i think we are fine. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we take this without objection? so moved. thank you very much. anything else to add? ok, thank you. please read the next item. >> item two, hearing on assembly bill 109, regarding criminal justice realignment. supervisor mirkarimi: excellent. i had called for this particular hearing because we have been hearing a great deal about this issue in the press for some months now. it is related to governor brown and the state pose a desire to realign our state prison population -- the state's desire to realign our state prison population. it asks the state to return a certain amount of prisoners, state populati

>> host: your right in doj can actually sue to stop a merger, and that's exactly what their ultimate remedy is. but they try to get the parties to agree ahead of time for divestiture, other conditions like that. and so you say it's one time, but a divestiture can be rather permanent and longstanding. >> host: oversight, i guess, is what i was getting at. you do it, and it's kind of done. >> guest: sure. they're not the regulatory agencies for these industries ongoing. in an fcc context historically the fcc would impose conditions that the parties are agreeing to voluntarily ahead of time. and, of course, there is the opportunity for coercion. so companies, i think, come to the fcc and the department of justice realizing there's going to be a transaction cost or regulatory cost. that's the cost of doing business. and whether that's good public policy or not is a matter for debate, but that is historically what has happened. >> host: one of the conditions that michael copps discussed with regard to at&t/t-mobile was the issue of net neutrality. now, on the house floor this week represe

the doj budget is up dramatically. almost 50% in the last couple of years.his includes the grant program. you are trying to find a grant program where money went to fashion shows. i have to read this. fashion shows pool parties and doughnut eating contest. that is what you want to raise taxes to do. that is where money is going. this is the kind of stuff that makes people that come wonder what it is we are doing up here. after having been here three months i'm not sure i know what to tell them and i can certainly tell them we shouldn't be doing this and i yield back the belt balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields to mr. aiken for as much time as he may consume. >> having been your little while i think it may be helpful to just refresher many merry -- memory on the historic record here because as i recall, when we went into this crisis it was connected with real estate and mortgage is. specifically connected because a law had been created sometime ago through freddie and fannie to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay their loans. so what we we

fbi and doj are working with their counterparts on investigations proscutorial and training matters. treasury and dhs are working with pakistan on important matters related to terrorism finance and border security. even as we've endured serious challenges to the relationship, some of which have made headlines we continued civilian and military assistance throughout the country and solidified our cooperation. pakistan today is more willing to take on extremist groups that directly threaten pakistani targets such as military bases intelligence offices and police stations. the ttp, the pakistani taliban, is a prime example of such groups. nevertheless we continue to press pakistan for increased action against that group and to engage other allies on the dangers posed by taba and encourage all parties to take appropriate action against that group. yemen. well obviously we're talking here about a country smack in the middle of a transition and in the headlines every day but to put things in perspective let me back up a bit. the gravity of the aqap threat was clear to the obama administrat

historically, in many, many cases, there was a gap that could be very long between the time between doj or ftc ruled on a transaction or the state governments would have to do it and the fcc. and we brought that gap way down. it is the kind of thing that can legitimately dradrive a company crazy and end up with inconsistent decisions. so we worked very hard to make the process more efficient and we have. >> there are three democrats are now on the commission, two republicans. the fact that you're a democrat, does that mean that the president of the united states or white house staff can call you and say "this is what we think on things"? >> no. >> let me ask you about not neutrality. that is a buzzword for a while. can you explain in simple language what net neutrality is? >> a term that we use is open internet, which i think is a more descriptive term. net neutrality, fundamentally, is the right and ability for people to send and receive lawful content online. whether you're a person with a point of view and you want to put it on the internet for the audience to receive, whether you ar

historically, in many, many cases, there was a gap that could be very long between the time between doj or ftc ruled on a transaction or the state governments would have to do it and the fcc. and we brought that gap way down. it is the kind of thing that can legitimately dradrive a company crazy and end up with inconsistent decisions. so we worked very hard to make the process more efficient and we have. >> there are three democrats are now on the commission, two republicans. the fact that you're a democrat, does that mean that the president of the united states or white house staff can call you and say "this is what we think on things"? >> no. >> let me ask you about not neutrality. that is a buzzword for a while. can you explain in simple language what net neutrality is? >> a term that we use is open internet, which i think is a more descriptive term. net neutrality, fundamentally, is the right and ability for people to send and receive lawful content online. whether you're a person with a point of view and you want to put it on the internet for the audience to receive, whether you ar

a lot of our people get killed and were going to pose on them this doj can msm idea that we force youo be good people and at the same time even the democratic process here is very weak in this country because if any of you have come to the conclusion that there's not a lot of difference in the result, whether you have republican or democrat, you say where the alternative? you hardly have one. it's legal you can start the party, but if you get on ballot bz? communigate debate, get the recognition? no, it's all shine. so we die to spread democracy where he think we could learn a lot about taking care of her own business at home first. [applause] >> thank you, representative paul. i have a question about the money going to libya with the federal reserve. i was disturbed when i read that on your texas straight talk last week. why will no one at the federal reserve be held accountable for that? >> because the federal reserve is a government unto itself. they are very, very powerful, but they are also on the defensive, more so than they've ever been before. they've been doing everything in

> the ksm case, has the department made any sort of determination similar to the determination that doj apparently had when it was going to be tried in civilian court, what happened if any or if all the defendants are found not guilty? >> i'm not aware of it. i mean, i don't have the if -- he's hypothetical answers for you. this is something that's going to be handled in the, you know, the military justice system although it's part of obviously our enterprise. it is a separate, you know, independent body that is -- that can provide due process in a fair trial for the defendants, and that's where it resides at this point. i'm not going to speck cue late on what, if, how, and when and so forth. >> general holder said if they were to be found not guilty in civilian court, they would still be in the custody of -- >> yeah, i don't have anything for you. yeah, let's go. i promised -- i didn't go to larry. larry, japan -- >> you never answered my question. >> i only have time for four more, so quickly, larry. >> secretary defense gates supported doubling the military. in the events of recent a

the same day the vote occurred, the doj and the white house say no, we are not enforcing contempt citation. so what does the house left to do. they have to come empower their lawyer to go to the federal court and to the d.c. court system to get a judicial order to enforce the contempt citation to exactly what they do. and the d.c. district court judge in the case ultimately issues an opinion that basically rejects the theory of absolute immunity. says there's no such thing, no such thing and lockout no such thing in history. it is baseless. however, the bush administration, and by the time this is going on, it's 2008. the administration is just whining out the clock. late 2008 in the bush administration decides to appeal the case to the circuit court. circuit court issued a stay, and the issue a brief, opinion things look, this is all moot. bush is leaving office, there's going to be a new president at the start of the year. there will be a new congress. since there's going to be new political branches, let them work out a compromise. ultimately, and epa? no, and u.s. attorney firing case,

sandweg deportations and national security doj inspector secretary napolitano janet napolitano bob ashbaugh general ashbaugh general ashbaugh david martin edward alden and alden the center for migration and development at princeton university program in latin american studies and the center for migration and development roundtables on deportations and national security.  >> up next, sheryl sandberg recently sat down talked about the evolution of her social network and its impact on its 500 million worldwide users. she also discussed its policies concerning privacy and content and its relationship with traditional news media. she spoke at a luncheon hosted by the american society of news editors in san diego, california. this is about 50 minutes. >> thanks, sheryl. visit on? thank you for joining us. the organizers have thought very hard about what television network would be appropriate, and we decided this bill would be perfect because audience of a certain age, really no -- kind of the state or industry these days. i love c-span by the way. i was looking at the newspaper in america numb

memorandum of understanding, which permitted this sort of cooperation, was entered into between the doj and the state of florida in 2002. there is a similar post-9/11 story which does much to explain why the tension has doubled. the old ins did not have the bed space to detain many of those it picked up on immigration violations. many were released and never seen again. catch and release was the shorthand for this progress -- program -- practice. it was considered acceptable in the pre-9/11 environment. post-9/11, authorities men discovered that one of the failed pre-9/11 plots -- authorities discovered that one of the failed pre-9/11 plots was individual who had been released. they took on the sizeable project of ending catch and release by building in that jail cells to incarcerate most of those arrested for immigration violations while they await their dates before the immigration judge. as a result, on any given day, we have 32,000, 33,000 of these people in jail, up from about 7000 in the mid-1990's. there are certainly some sound, national security reasons for improving enforcemen

requester and subject matter in the supreme court in two cases, one is national archives and when his dojmmittee in 1989 have felt neither the identity of the requester, nor the content of the request is relevant to the agency's obligations under foia. so these political criteria, identity of the requester, whether it released to rate agency priority, content of the request, supreme court has spoken instead of months the request implicates documents of nine exemptions and records must be disclosed and that's why i believe the political review process to be unlawful. he considers factors that the united states supreme court has stated are said irrelevant. >> mr. edwards, would you concur? and why? >> can you repeat the question. >> on the political review process been unlawful. i mean, we heard the words antithetical harmful, all negative. but unlawful steps up to a higher plane. >> well, unnecessary your critics have no place. so we think that the sophisticated reviews process just delays and there should be no delays. the secretary has overall authority over the personnel. so we don't th

we should tell doj about it and maybe if somebody else look at it.t have any doubt that can would've come along with that. you listen very carefully to his senior people. >> here's a question you've been asked not 100 times, but a thousand times. this had nothing to do with the initial matter that this was about, the initial matter that mr. fiske was asked to investigate. why not use prosecutorial discretion this is not about that. >> you're asking me? >> yeah. >> waited view it that way because you have to remember by the time it happens, we investigate a lot more than madison guarantee and whitewater which the mandates are broader than people realize. we investigated number of other things, some of which we have wanted and some of which have been thrust upon us and we have been asked to do by attorney general remount and none of this is news to people who followed this, but we were looking at an obstruction investigation because we found out during a period right before and during the time he was to be cooperating with us come he was $700,000 at le