eric holder eric holder would crawl under the desk and say please karl don't hurt me i'm just a child i don't have any power please don't hurt me isn't this kind of sickening i mean you're you're with the american banker magazine this isn't banking this is tyranny mark there's definitely a double standard you know i think i you know we did a story a few weeks ago after. around the time that holder made that shocking admission if you look at the mom and pop check casher out in l.a. they had the book thrown at her because she failed to file all the correct suspicious activity reports and c.t.r. is. you know there was a article a few months ago when the h.s.b.c. thing came out about how you know as a somali immigrants sends you know not even two thousand dollars back home to to a charity that's on the. you know the terror suspected terror list and she gets the book thrown at her yet h.s.b.c. gets relatively light treatment that is unfair a lot a lot like treatment for it for admitting to laundering billions in mexican drug money yeah they get like treatment a somali family somali fishermen who've had their completely lifestyle life wiped out by illegal fishing from other parts of europe they're struggling they're out there committing piracy is as a result of having their livelihoods destroyed by illegal fishing they're trying to send money through h.s.b.c. they get tagged as a terrorist or the same bank who admits to laundering billions in drug money and terror money and they get a slap on the wrist and eric holder once again hiding under his desk job don't make me do my job right you know you know it can be quite infuriating what when you when you look at the big picture for sure and you know if you talk a lot of community bankers up there because remember there's still seven thousand or so banks in this country you know the assets are very concentrated in the big guys but a lot of community bankers if you talk to them they are as angry about the sort of the special treatment that the guys get. perhaps almost more so than occupy wall street is the way to hear some of the talk and he even you know some of the mid-sized banks you know today kyra simmons who is the c.e.o. zion's bank which is you know definitely a relatively large banker not nor has because j.p. morgan they're sort of in that in that mid range you know he said that he thinks that we're just about one misstep away from the large banks being broken up at this point yeah that that that's not going to happen you know here we ar

eric holder eric holder would crawl under the desk and say please karl don't hurt me i'm just a child i don't have any power please don't hurt me isn't this kind of sickening i mean you're you're with the american banker magazine this isn't banking this is tyranny mark there's definitely a double standard you know i think i you know we did a story a few weeks ago after. around the time that holder made that shocking admission if you look at the mom and pop check casher out in l.a. they had the book thrown at her because she failed to file all the correct suspicious activity reports and c.t.r. as if you know there was a article few months ago when the h.s.b.c. thing came out about how you know as a somali immigrants sends you know not even two thousand dollars back home to to a charity that's on the. you know the terror suspected terror list and she gets the book thrown at her yet h.s.b.c. gets relatively light treatment that is unfair. there are a lot of like treatment for it for admitting to laundering billions in mexican drug money yeah they get like treatment a somali family somali fisherman who had their completely lifestyle life wiped out by illegal fishing from other parts of europe they're struggling they're out there committing piracy is as a result of having their livelihoods destroyed by illegal fishing they're trying to send money through h.s.b.c. to get tagged as the terrorists are the same bank who admits to laundering billions in drug money and terror money and they get a slap on the wrist miracle there once again hiding under his desk please don't make me do. you know you know it can be quite infuriating what when you when you look at the big picture for sure and you know if you talk a lot of community bankers out there because remember they're still seven thousand or so banks in this country. you know the assets are very concentrated in the big guys but a lot of community bankers if you talk to them they are as angry about the. sort of the special treatment that the guys get. perhaps almost more so than occupy wall street is the way to hear some of the talk and even you know some of the mid-sized banks you know today kyra simmons who is the c.e.o. zion's bank which is you know definitely a relatively large banker not nor has because j.p. morgan they're sort of in that in that mid range you know he said that he thinks that we're just about one misstep away from the large banks being broken up at this point yeah that's just not going to happen you know here we are in a rooftop and west side of manhattan i almost feel like we're at the thanksgiving day parade and bullwinkle in term of the frog and i'm floating by i think this year for the prey they should have a balloon of eric holder float by because he's so full of hot air the guy just yaps and yaps and yaps but he's actually not working for anybody but the banks there and let's move on to the f.c.c. nominee mary jo white she's still through senate confirmation what's your background what does her appointment say about what we can expect from this too big to jail going forward while you know they talk about this sort of two mary jo. why it's right she has in the past been an aggressive prosecutor she prosecuted the blind sheik behind the original world trade center bombing plus and here banker goldman for a while so i got that confused it's an easy mistake to make max i don't blame you but you know she's also been a white shoe lawyer representing wall street clients and you know when the lawmakers were questioning her the other day you know that was it was it was a it was a fairly decorous affair but they were. you know they did ask some pointed questions about that is how can we expect it to be theirs to

rand paul smartly took advantage of a huge mistake by eric holder. eric holdersked a simple question by rand paul and senator ted cruz of texas. if a u.s. citizen who is a suspected terrorist is sitting in a coffee shop having a cup of coffee does the president have the power to take him out with a drone strike. virtually everybody in the republican party and i is suspect a lot of democrats would say no, the president does not have authority to take out somebody who is sitting there having a cup of coffee who is not imminent threat. >> chris: we are running out of time. bill kristol says it looks like he is running to the left of barack obama. >> he is to the left of barack obama in this regard and not the thing rand paul talked about. he believes that the u.s. born clare rick who led al-qaeda in yemen should not have been taking out by a drone strike but should have been arrested and given legal representation and tried in a court of law. virtually all republicans i think would disagree with rand paul on that. that is where the division comes. rand paul took th

eric holder and why eric holder didn't say fl flatly said today, no, the answer is no, you can't do it. >> what i find sad about senator mccain's recent comments, both to ted cruz when ted cruz was frankly rising legitimate questions, and again yesterday with rand paul is when i first knew john mccain in the house, he was a maverick, in the senate for years, he was a maverick. of anybody in the senate i didn't know anybody better at bucking the leadership and marching to his own drummer. i think it's unfortunate, but frankly, it doesn't hurt ted cruz, it doesn't hurt rand paul, it hurts john mccain. and we're in a different era, and the questions are legitimate questions, when you attorney general sends a letter up that implies that the president has the right to kill americans who are not engaged in combat. it's an important distinction. if you're an american engaged in fighting the united states and an act of treason, the commander-in-chief has the right to target you as he did an american in yemen two years ago. but if you're an american who might be vaguely indirectly engaged in something and not been proven in a court of law, not an enemy combatant, you have every right to be protected under our constitution or the constitution has no meaning. >> sean: you know, do you feel-- i tell you the e-mails came flying in. twitter was going nuts. i felt the momentum shift between-- and we'll talk about this in the next segment about sequestration, the president overreaching his apocalyptic talk, between that and rand paul. i just felt a shift. you can feel it. did you feel-- >> and i just wrote in a newsletter at gingrich productions.com entitled pioneers of the future versus prisoners of the past. i think you just described a situation where you clearly have rand paul and others who are the pioneers of the future and unfortunately some former leaders who have become prisoners of the past in a way that becomes really pretty embarrassingly obvious in some of these things. >> and we'll talk more with speaker gingrich. new evidence proving the white house just outright lying to you about the effects of the sequester. also tonight, you're the producer of the program and you get to decide how to close the show tonight. it's simple. log on to hannitylive.foxnews.com and you participate in viewer choice night and you get to select one of the following three stories, number one, a video that was shot decades ago of ron paul defending the second amendment and choose that for the final segment. number two, what well-known left wing hollywood actor unloaded on the democrats during the paul filibuster and number three, decide this, the man who taught our president at harvard is now eulogizing venezuela's fallen dictator, we have the audio. it's viewers choice night. head over to hannity live spo live.foxnews.com. and more with bill richardson ahead. take theseags to room 12 please. [ garth ] bjors small busiss earns double miles on every purchase every day. produce delivery. [ bjorn ] just put it on my spark card. [ garth why settle for less? ahh, oh! [ garth ] great businesses deserve limited reward here's your wake up call. [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose double miles or 2% cash back on every purchase every day. what's in your wallet? [ crows ] now where's the snooze button? then i read an article about a study that looked at the long term health benefits of taking multivitamins. they used centrum silver for the study... so i guess my wife was right. [ male announcer ] centrum. always your most complete. but all i do to be broadcast ready damages my hair and scalp. then i uncovered head & shoulders damage rescue. it relieved my scalp and rescued my damaged hair. the proof? see it tonight, at eleven. head & shoulders damage rescue. i can't believe your mom let you see take her car out.ck!n. this is awesome! whoooo! you're crazy. go faster! go faster! go faster! go faster! no! stop...stop... go(mom) i rais my son to bester! careful... hi, sweetie. hi, mom. (mom) but just to be safe... i got a subaru. (announcer) love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. thank you orville and wilbur... ...amelia... neil and buzz: for proving there's nowhere we can't go. but, at some point... giant leaps gave way to baby steps... and with all due respect, you're history. if you taught us anything, it's that you can't cling to the past... if you want to create the future. that's why, instead of looking behind... delta is looking beyond. pushing u.s. aviation to new heights. all 80 thousand of us. busy investing billions in the industry's boldest moves. it's biggest advances in technology. bringing our passengers the best, the most spacious fleet in the sky. and earning more awards than any other airline... to show for it. so rather than simply saluting history... we're out there making it. >> and the problem is when you're cutting 85 million dollars in seven months, which represents over a 10% cut in the defense budget in seven months, there's no smart way to do that. there's no smart way to do that. you don't want to have to choose between, let's see, do i close funding for the disabled kids or the poor kids. do i close this navy ship yard or some other one? >> now, demagoguing by the president, choose between the disabled kid, the poor kid, what about mohammed morsi the 9/11 truther who thinks the israelis of descendents of apes and pigs. i say we don't give it to him we give it to the poor children and disabled children. and we have more proof yet that the white house is overinflating the white house cuts. accord to go abc news the canceling of public tours at the white house because of the sequester is saving the country, ready for this, 18 whole thousand dollars a week, just the kind of cut to make a dent in the 16 1/2 plus trillion dollar debt, not even close. now, perhaps the most best example we have comes from a hearing on tuesday, this is great when congressman andy harris took to the c.d.c. director, and took him to tax over the bogus claim that the sequester is affecting vaccine supplies to the children in maryland. watch this hysterical exchange. >> what did the president's budget do to 317. >> the president's prospective budget for 2013. >> does 58 cut sound familiar. >> what does the sequester cut, 30 million sound familiar? do you think that's around the ballpark, isn't it? so actually, the president cut the program twice as much as his budget, could i assume that the the president's proposed cut would have reduced funding to 4,100 children in maryland? >> as per the justification that was published with that, we've looked at ways that we can run the program more efficiently by helping state and local health departments, recruitment dollars for education. >> you can't do it under a sequester, but you can do it under the president's budget. the president's cut of 358 million dollar to the program do you think you can get around that to avoid cutting vaccines to children, but under a sequester, that the-- that the president blames on republicans, you don't know if you can do that? >> we're going to do everything we can to limit any damage that occurs because of the across the board cut, but affects our-- >> is it your testimony under the president's proposed cut of 58 million dollars budget to the program, you could have avoided cuts to vaccines to children in maryland? >> we believe that we could have maintained vaccination levels, yes. >> very interesting. >> sean: check mate. still with us, former speaker of the house, former presidential candidate newt gingri gingrich. just embarrassed, busted about firing janitors, about immunizations for kids and education department, firing teachers and pink slips being sent out. and the president just lied repeatedly demagogued this whole thing and then it's back fired, your reaction? >> i think it has back fired and it draws into sharp contrast any american willing to look at the fact that you can have an american people sequester applying common sense, flexibility, making choices, and you would save the money with dramatically less difficulty than this totally absurd obama model which maximizes rigidity and maximizes main. for the one thing, it's embarrassing to say this, but this president has been consistently dishonest in a way that absolutely undermines his ability to lead because almost everything they've told us about the sequester has either been totally false or closely exaggerated. second, they're not using any cleverness. you could raise the money to pay for keeping the white house tours open and nobody would notice it or the president, for just not going golfing that one weekend, appoint the congressman, just that one weekend would have paid for something like 50 weeks of white house tours. >> sean: well, but it's interesting you say that. i'm going to show you two things, one of these kids-- how embarrassing to the rest of the world that we had to shut down the white house because we can't afford to pay for it because the president wants to inflict the maximum impact. listen to the children begging to get into the white house. >> how big a deal is it to go to the white house? >> it's very important, they'll remember it for the rest of their lives and unfortunately, they might remember that this is the sign of their government that they couldn't get to go. >> the white house is our house. >> sean: they want to go. my friend and colleague at "the five" eric bolling, i was watching today. comes up with a brilliant idea, absolutely brilliant. >> i make you a deal, let the families make the white house tours next week and i'll cover the added expenses, word is costs around $74,000, if i can get the white house doors open, i'll pick up the tab, mr. carney, you know this is an offer you can't refuse, give me a call. >> sean: he said he'd pick up the tab for the the week, i think it's 18,000, i saw that and said i'm going to follow eric's lead and pay for a week, too, tweeted it out during "the five" and now we've got two weeks covered. the president wants to play games like this, we can play games back. >> let's see, first of all, ironically, my grandson robert, who you know, he and his class went to the white house tour about three weeks ago, they loved it. they made them feel very patriotic, they're fifth graders and they really had just a wonderful experience. john boehner organized the house budget so that the capitol visitors center is s

eric holder sent him a letter in response. eric holder did during a senate hearing this morning.ere is what the attorney general said. >> what i said in the letter was that the government has no intention to carry out any drone strikes in the united states. it's hard for me to imagine a situation in which that would occur. we have within the united states the ability to use our law enforcement capacity. the use of drones is from my perspective, something that is entirely, entirely hypothetical. >> mike, entirely hypothetical and hard for me to imagine. i understand tommy's point that those seem to say no, but it's not a one-word answer. no. >> i'm glad to hear from tommy that the president has ruled this out. i was almost relieved to hear from attorney general holder he said later in the hering he thought the use of a drone would be inappropriate. the question is whether it's constitutional. we don't know if the obama administration thinks this is constitutional because they've already said as we saw in the white paper last month that the obama administration doesn't feel any cou

ratcheted up again one more notch this week when attorney general eric holder told rand paul in a letter sent on monday that eric holderdministration would be justified under certain extraordinary circumstances but would be justified to use drones to kill american citizens here in the united states of america. on american soil. as rand paul pointed out yesterday, you know, we have some real questions about how far -- where the obama administration thinks it's getting its authority and how far they're stretching the authorization of force that was adopted by congress shortly after september 11th. >> the problem is as this war has drug on, they take that authorization of use of force to mean pretty much anything. >> pretty much anything meaning for george bush, it was torture. for president obama it is drones over there even against american citizens and now even here in the united states against american citizens. and so what congress is doing and we've seen this, senate judiciary committee, senator patrick leahy the senate intelligence committee senator dianne feinstein they've been asking and some others, too republic

eric holder. >> i see eric holder is here. no, he wasn't. >> that's cpac.eah, pretty likely. >> you need to draw that line there that. >> he did a whole slot on knotsberry farm that fell flat. nobody got it. >> two wig winners, rand paul and won the straw poll going away and receiving with his speech and marco rubio did really well. i think you see chris christie sitting there with 7% -- >> who? >> chris christie. >> he was not only excluded, he was insulted there by some extreme voice. >> insult chris christie, you only make him stronger. >> i know. ron, chris christie couldn't have had it any better. first of all, he didn't have to go to cpac and, secondly, he was on everybody's mind at cpac and, third, he fred ahead from the vice presidential nominee in the polling. all in all a big success. i would say the three big winners, rand paul and marco rubio and the guy who wasn't there, chris christie. >> i agree. the democratic party is always the worst three days of the year for the republican party when you have all of these whacko birds on the fringe fight

eric holder to this question: >> can the u.s. government carry out drone strikes against american citizens on u.s. soil? >> the attorney general, eric holder, has made a surprising statement, yes but only under extraordinary circumstanceses. >> stephen: like an endless war with a faceless enemy fought by remote control flying killbots. how often does that happen? [laughter] the first question was al qaeda enemy combatant. over the course of the 13 straight hours he raised a slippery slope question the answer to which he received this afternoon. >> the administration has responded with a letter from attorney general holder to rand paul. i'm quoting, it has come to my attention you've asked: does the president have the authority to use aid weaponnized drone to kill an american not -- the answer is no. >> there was one of shortest letters from an attorney general and it had a silent fu in there somewhere. >> stephen: f-u, of course stands for thank you for is asking. i want to thank rand paul for making this brave stance because it's good to know they cannot kill us. i'm sure there's not classified legal opinion overriding that one like we do

eric holder that i did a whole segment on. >> you've got eric holder, who is probably the most corrupt attorney general we've had ever in american history. and i think it's somebody that -- if -- the right way, can resonate with the american people. >> scott, bill maher talks about the bubble these people live in. they are in the party that had the only attorney general we have ever had convicted of a crime and go to prison as attorney general. john mitchell, republican attorney general. and they get to sit there -- and i think they believe this stuff about ericder. i mean, i wasn't in their presence the way you were. but that thing spoke to me of a kind of contamination that was all over that room that night. >> i think when you talk about the bubble, i think that is a bubble. when you can afford the $50,000 just to be there -- >> yeah. >> that's a whole new level above what the ordinary american can even dream of doing. most people -- most people don't even make that in a year. you know. and so that -- you know, i guess maybe that changes the way you think and maybe you do get wrapped into a bubble and you don't realize what everybody else goes through. and maybe when you just talk and keep amongst yourselves and talk amongst yourselves, i guess maybe that, you know, you start believing what the right wing blogs say, and, you know, the talking points and -- you know, you never leave that bubble, i guess you're not going to see the other side. >> all right. we're going to take a break and be back with more with scott prouty. thank you very m

eric holder. at the end of the day we had eric holder writing towards the middle of the debate. "it's come to my attention that you asked an additional question. does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil." the answer to that is no." sincerely, ericibuster became more about that. >> it started about drones, but it really went on to a re-examination of bush-era foreign policy and which necessarily means executive discretion, and it went on there to a general critique about domestic policy, as well. revival from the new guys in the senate one of which is sitting here, cruz of texas and lee of utah and lake of arizona and all the rest who are rediscovering the roots of modern conservatism, which were in the critique of executive power under franklin roosevelt and then lyndon johnson. traditional conservatism goes right back to the '30s when modern conservatism was born in reaction against the new deal has been congressionally oriented and a deep suspicion going back as far as the american revolution against executive prerogatives and george iii, deep suspicion of executive power generally. >> but it did reveal a big split right now inside the the republican party. >> absolutely. >> you saw lindsey graham and john mccain. i want to s

holder -- excuse me, eric holder. the article and attached to the picture says the senators are present eric holder on the use of military force. here's a little of what is he had to say. this was wednesday. [video clip] >> i think what you'll hear from the president in the short amount of time is -- we talked about the need for greater transparency in what we share, about. i'm really confident that if the american people had access to choices and some of this stuff can not be shared, but at least the representatives of the american people, if members of the intelligence committee would have seen some of the opinion, there would be a greater degree of comfort that people would have to understand the government does these things reluctantly, but we do it in conformity with international law, with domestic law, and with our values, as with the american people. so i think there will be a greater effort at transparency. a number of steps are going to be taken. i expect you'll hear the president speaking about this. host: sandra is on our republican line in empire, alabama. what you think about senator paul's filibuster end t

eric holder are on the same page about the cafe scenario and eric holder said, no, that's not what it's about. i would like you please to ask the senator the times square bomber who but for a bad trigger device could have blown up times square, if it there were a drone hovering there woorks th, wouldn imminent threat where we can e use -- >> to to clarify the concept of imminent threat, the times square bomber,s person almost blew up times square, would you consider that an imminent threat? >> yeah, anybody bringing a weapon to a place, assembly a weapon, using a weapon, that would be. and the reason we're so concerned about this is when you look at the drone strikes we're doing oversea, cnn has probably had the unclassified pictures on tv, they're driving in car, walking on paths, at home, and so the thing is that's not a standard it that i think is acceptable here. because the question is here you would be accused of a crime and we determine whether or guilty or not. i know we can't take people to court in battlefields and overseas locations, so it will be different. but the thing is the president needs to be explicit that the standard they're using overseas, there's also been accusations they're doing signature strikes where they don't know the name of the person and they say we think there are bad people here and a line of trucks coming out or going in so they bomb a caravan. that is probably how al awlaki's son was killed is they didn't target him. >> do you really think they would do that potentially in the united states, just bomb a cara spra van? >> no, but what worries me when i ask the specific and direct question, my job in the senate is to advise and consent. so i ask them these questions. it should be an easy answer. i've said all along it should be, no, obviously it would be unconstitutional to do signature strikes, to do targeted killing. but we are doing targeted killing and people not engaged in combat overseas. they may have proof that they were in combat yesterday or tomorrow, but that kind of standard can't happen in america. we can't say you were communicating with e-mail to somebody and we're just going to kill you. that's not the kind of standard we have in our country. and it's really important. and when barack obama was a senator, i think he would have been standing with me last night. i think he like senator widen would have come to the floor and supported me yesterday. i think he's either forgotten or needs to be more explicit in what his beliefs are because the barack obama of 2007 is not the barack obama who would not explicitly -- >> i'll play devil's advocate. maybe he's a barack obama who has a lot more information than do you about the threats to this country. >> the thing is that saying that i have some superior secret knowledge is why i'm allowed to kill americans without any kind of due process isn't good enough for me. >> any other questions? >> i want someone to give me a real good definition for imminent and i hope the parties will agree on what this definition will be. because it seems like the senator agreed with ericnd the sirkts of the times square bomber that would be one circumstance of imminence where you could kill an american on american soil without a trial. call me crazy, but that's what it sounded like to me. dana bash and please give our regards to the senator. thank you. way to hustle. you work hard. thank you, senator. >>> all right. so we'll move on. we have another case that has been making a lot of headlines. it's a police officer who is being accused of being a cannibal or at least plotting to be a cananibacannibal. the jury will make up its decision and if they believe he wasn't just fantasizing about it but was preparing to kill and eat victims, he could spend the rest of his life in prison. [ female announcer ] from tracking the bus. ♪ to tracking field conditions. ♪ wireless is limitless. [ female announcer ] from more efficient payments. ♪ to more efficient pick-ups. ♪ wireless is limitless. [ male announcer ] when it comes to the financial obstacles military families face, we

we've already had state and obviously the attorney general eric holder is a holdover from the last cabinet. but other than eric holdercabinet -- >> there are a few positions currently transportation and commerce, the only two still open. so we're hopeful that one of those positions will be filled by an african-american. >> explain to people why you think it's important. >> well it's important for a number of reasons. all you have to do is look at the discussions that have been held around things like sequester. where poor people, minorities have been hit especially hard because sometimes we're not at the table. if you look at the pay force for the dock fix, which disproportionately affected high-important t high-poverty areas, because we weren't at the table. if you think about some of the policies coming out of washington if we're not at the table and no one is speaking out for our interests, we get left out of the process. >> but the man sitting at the head of the table is the first african-american president. >> that is correct. and you have to understand that the president is there to represent all of the people

eric holder the questions. he said it's constitutional to use it for president obama to make decision. kill an american on american soil with a drone. after questioning he got eric holder to say yeah, i guess you're right. it's not constitutional. ted cruz is doing a fantastic job. rand paul saying i need more answers. almost as bad on the stand besides ericas jodi arias. two deer in the headlights. >> andrea: could you talk that long, greg? >> greg: i couldn't stand that long. for sure. i get tired. i love that he is fighting drones with drones. he is just going to drone for hours and hours. genius. by the way, i think his name should go from rand paul to rand personal. we havperm. we have drones in benghazi. like they are misunderstood lady bugs wit. he is fearful of rifle with mass death from above from an ominous government. >> andrea: kimberly, this is scary stuff when you look at it. the president basically, i think came out and said we are allowed to kill americans and they put out the memo to the justice department with a drone. that was a cyb, cover your butt memo because they have technically killed american sits they consider to be terrorists. where do you fall on this? >> kimberly: the legal arguement is they feel they have clear and convincing evidence that the individuals while they're american citizens turned. in fact, pose

eric holder. gave a preview what we expect to hear from the president when he does address this point in the next few days. eric holder when asked about i expect the president will speak to the american public about this. and there will be a greater effort at transparency on these particular issues. bill: with regard to the president's statement as one report suggested it may come today. do you have anything on that or what is your understanding? >> i have nothing more than what ericolder said yesterday. i haven't seen that report but i know eric holder said this will be a subject of further discussion and discussion coming from the white house in the coming days. bill: state of the union, i mean there was a comment in that speech about being more transparent about the drone program, what the policy is on behalf of the administration. what would you expect the president to say? >> well, at the very least i think what rand paul did in this filibuster was force this issue, sort of onto the front burnerer if you will. this is something that hasn't been getting much attention. the overseas, the overseas side of it or the prospective use of drones here at home. if he did nothing else, he forced that discussion. he made it much more urgent for the white house to speak out on this. you have people who haven't been paying very close attention to the drone program now focused on it. bill: probably some in his party who are eager as you have stated, eager to stand up to thi

eric holder. catherine herridge with that catherine? >> well, shep, a simple answer of no had to be forced out of attorney general eric holder. >> does theonstitution allow a u.s. citizen on u.s. soil who doesn't pose an imminent threat to be killed by the u.s. government? >> i do not believe that again all of the facts. on the facts you have given me, this is a hypothetical. i would not think use in that situation lethal force would be appropriate. >> i find it remarkable you still will not give opinion on constitutionality. move on to the next topic because we have gone round and round. >> translate my appropriate to no. no. >> it's not clear holder's response today is a reversal of this march 4th letter to senator rand paul we told you about it last night where holder left the door open to the possible use on lethal force of americans on extraordinary circumstances on u.s. soil while describing the senator's drone sebaali narrows as too hypocritical. lawmakers could not block drone use. >> congress has the constitutional authority to pass the law preventing the president's ability to use drone aircraft. to use lethal force against u.s

eric holder has said in the past one of those examples might be an attack like pearl harbor. so you have this whole sort of controversy of eric holder being stuck. rand paul could have filibustered just by raising his hand and saying filibuster, but rand paul was smart enough to say filibuster, and oh by the way, i'm going to talk to get some attention. >> michael: thanks to david shuster of current tv always the smartest guy in the room. now to the issue that is really a life-threatening national disaster, that's guns. the 82 days since gnutown, 2,496 people have died from gun violence. that's the equivalent of more than one newtown tragedy every single day sense the tragic event. today, gabby giffords called at attention to the issue, and urged congress to act. >> be bold. be courageous. please support background checks. >> michael: the tragic thing is, this issue is being completely overshadowed by all of the other madup washington storms. late this afternoon, background check talks ended in a stalemate. and background checks with the proposal that had looked most likely to pass. democrats might now press on on their own. the east coast storm didn't turn out to be as bad as predicted, but that didn't stop the house committee to cancel the hearing on -- wait for it -- climate change and extreme weather. yeah, i said that right f. back in 2010 they cancelled a hearing on climate change because of another big storm and the same thing happened in 2007. back then wolfe blitzer called it ironic, and no it's just kind of sad. house republicans will be right back where they started come september just in time for hurricane season. coming up, we'll talk about the legal side of the drone debate with alan dershovitz, plus the air force, how do you fix an image without first mixing the institution. plus where the spanish moss sprawls, they are fixing for an lex election. it's wednesday night in "the war room," and we're just getting started. stay with us. billy zane stars in barabbas. coming in march to reelz. to find reelz in your area, go to reelz.com lobsterfest is the king of all promotions. there's nothing like our grilled lobster and lobster tacos. the bar harbor bake is really worth trying. [ male announcer ] get more during red lobster's lobsterfest. with the year's largest selection of mouth-watering lobster entrees. like our delicious lobster lover's dream, featuring two kinds of lobster tails. or our savory, new grilled maine lobster and lobster tacos. my favorite entree is the lobster lover's dream. what's yours? come celebrate lobsterfest and sea food differently. [ male announcer ] visit redlobster.com now for an exclusive $10 coupon on two lobsterfest entrees. alright, in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. >> michael: welcome back to "the war room." several sen trors up in arms over an air force general who was able to single handedly overturn the sexual conviction of an air force officer. a jury of five kearns threw him out of the air force, and sentenced him to jail. then lieutenant general craig franklin reversed the decision saying there just wasn't enough evidence. the reaction has not been kind. here is senator claire mccaskill at a hearing yesterday. >> and with a stroke of a pen last week, a general dismissed those charges against him. a general with no legal training, a general that had not sat in the courtroom, and this general did it against the advice of his legal counsel. now my heart is beating fast right now. i am so upset about this. as we are trying to send the signal to women -- now the victim in this case wasn't a member of our military. i question now whether that unit that that man returns to whether there's any chance a woman who is sexually assaulted in that unit would ever say a word. >> michael: joining me now is a "war room" favorite christine pelosi. she chairs the california democratic party women's caucus as a former district attorney of san francisco she has always prosecuted sexual assault cases. christine thanks for being here. you tweeted about this, you said that chuck hagel has to fix this, right? what specifically should he do? >> first the air force should be ka mended for having a women leader. when chuck hagel was nominated, senator boxer, and senator [ inaudible ] sent him a very clear message, we want to know what you are going to do to help stop military sexual assault and rape, and chuck hagel said he was going to solve the problem. now over to you, secretary hagel, solve the problem. do a review. reinstate the conviction and take a very careful look at why it was that the general acted the way that the general acted. and put steps in place so one person can't throw out a jury. >> michael: and is that typical of military justice as we know it? the generals can just go ahead and do that? >> he could revisit that. in the interest of justice the secretary can go ahead and overrule the ruling of the person underneath him, but in the interest of broader justice, because we have a host of females on the committee who are dedicated to solving this problem, we have to say zero tolerance means zero tolerance, fix this case and all of those cases, the estimation of 19,000 a year in the pentagon most of them aren't even going to trial. >> michael: the defense department, their own numbers are showing one in three military women are sexually assaulted. but then hagel starts on the job. he has the budget problem issue where does this fit in? how can he prioritize something like this? >> this is a top priority you have to protect and defend the service men and women who are protecting and defending the country. how can our military be a force for peace around the world, if we don't even acknowledge violence against women in our own military. >> michael: absolutely. that's clear. and you mentioned the"the invisible war" at the top. i want to look at a clip from this film and how hagel sees this. >> they let this man get away with everything but murder. >> they give him military personnel of the year award. >> he said you are the third girl to report rape this week. are you guys all in cahoots? do you think this is a game? >> michael: so how does this film impact how the military looks at sexual assault. >> they peeled back the curtain, they took the shame away from the victims and put it where it belongs, which is on the perpetrators, and they made this issue too hot to handle. some of the women who had been punished for coming forward are now getting more protection. not only has their cause been embraced bisek tear pen that ta and secretary hagel, but also by members of the house and senate. but we said in the campaign that there was a real problem when it came to military rape in this country, so this is a test for president obama, and secretary hagel. i'm confident they are going to pass it, but it is only through "the invisible war" that we were able to have a cultural shift in this country. >> michael: right. and it got an oscar and also in the forefront of what we're talking about today, and it makes you think of course about funding the arts when you hear something like that as well. let's go to michelle johnson she is the major general who was just given command of the air force. how important of a message does that send to the military? >> first -- first of all, everybody should be proud to see such a competent leader taking charge of the air force, second of all, i'm so proud of her as a woman, and i think it sends a very strong message in terms of zero tolerance, in terms of discrimination against women, lesbians, and discrimination against women in combat. she is terrific. she is inheriting a very very proud institution. millions of people who have served with distinction and honor. >> michael: and she is the made of the air force academy. >> true. however, but the academy is the training ground -- this is where many assaults have occurred before. this is where we set the tone. this is where you're setting course as a member of the air force. this is what is accepted. this is what is not accepted. this is where they tell you what the rules are, and show you where the priorities are, and that's why it's so key to have her in charge of the instructors who will be shaping how people serve their entire career. >> michael: and this story should not be as under the radar as it is and i think by talking about it here, it brings it to the light. we're going to come back plenty of theatrics on the hill today, but at the heart of rand paul filibuster was a legal question. >> only on current tv. break the ice with breath-freshening cooling crystals. ice breakers. >> do you not get a chance to explain yourself in a court of law before you get a hell fire missile dropped on your head? i think we really -- it just amazing me that people are so willing and eager to throw out the bill of rights and just say oh, that's fine, you know, terrorists are a big threat to us, and, you know, i'm so fearful that they will attack me that i'm willing to give up my rights? i think we give up too easily. >> michael: that's kentucky republican senator rand paul railing against the use of drones during his filibuster of john brennan's nomination to head the cia. he says the drone program is unconstitutional and raises questions about whether it would allow the government to target u.s. citizens on u.s. soil. joining us now to talk about that alan dershowitz joining us tonight. welcome into "the war room." >> thank you. >> michael: attorney general ericder said that a drone strike against an american could be constitutional. do you agree with him? >> could be constitutional. that's the danger of answering hypothetical questions. of course anybody can imagine a situation where a drone stroke would be unconstitutional, if you had a terrorist about to fire a rocket and there is is -- and the only way to stop them was to fire a drone rocket yes, it would be constitutional. and the bill of rights which i wish rand paul would study a little bit more, every year hundreds of americans are killed by police because they pose an imminent danger and they are shot while fleeing from the scene of the crime, and the supreme court has upheld that by virtually unanimous decisions. of course a hell fire is a greater form of lethal force, but if you can kill a felon who is about to commit a crime against an individual obviously you can kill a potential terrorist who is about to kill hundreds or thousands of people. >> michael: and following along with

eric holder on that question. do you really mean that americans could be targeted by their own government with a drone in the united states? after the filibuster eric holder wrote rand paul a very brief letter yesterday clearing it up. here is jay carney leading that letter. >> quote, does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil? the answer is no. >> bill: boom. at least we got the answer. and by the way the answer is exact opposite of what ericted, at least in his first letter to rand paul at the beginning of the week. so good job by rand paul. and he raised the issue and got americans talking about drones. even president obama said these are very serious questions. we have to develop some real guidelines on drones and he said they are going to do it within the next few months. it seems like we should have had the guidelines before we started killing people with drones but i hate to get picky about it. but again, rand paul got praise from a lot of quarters among others from harry reid. >> i have learned from my experiences with talk filibusters is this. to succeed you need strong convictions, but also a strong bladder. it's obvious that paul has both. [ laughter ] >> bill: strong convictions and a strong bladder to go along. but if harry reid and i paraded rand paul, not everybody did. john mccain and lindsey graham attacked him yesterday on the floor of the senate and accused him of being way out of line. and the more i hea

eric holder, top law enforcement making a statement that has us scratching our head. eamon javers, live in washington. eamon? >> a surprise question with eric holder on whether some banks are what they call too big to jail. whether the size of financial institutions inhibits department of justice from going after them for fear of economic consequences. take a look what they said just in the hour. >> i'm concerned about the size of some of the institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them, when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy perhaps even the world economy. >> now, holder went on to tell senate judiciary committee that the size inhibit them to what they call resolutions. tyler and sue, i can tell you that there are senators on capitol hill, including chuck grassley, who are very upset by that. they say it is not the department of justice's job to take on economic conditions. they say department of justice should just go after crimes wherever they see them. guys? >> michelle caruso-cabrera jois us. is there a distinction? >> there a distinction. we have seen the government prosecute other financial institutions in the past, they have failed. when you prosecute an entire institution, it is extremely problematic. individuals, very have heard other members of the administration say things like sometimes you're too big to jail and you work for the bank. they are talking about individuals. i don't buy that. any rule that you can't enforce, any law you can't enforce because you fear consequences, go back and look at where that law stems in the first place because that's a problem. >> eamon, i'm thinking of prior instances. bp was prosecuted and pleguilty felony counts. that's a pretty big company. you look back it bernard edwards, they went after him. >> a >> arthur anderson. >> they put arthur anderson out of business. so do they go after case of criminal conduct or what? >> no. department of justice said they would go after crimes where they see them but in this case, it seems clear in the context, and we have to get more, that what they are talk about is institutions. they said in the testimony this morning that they think the biggest ternment out there is going after individuals. but here he talks about the size of thence tugss themselves and economic consequences of bringing actions against them. there are a lot of senators on the hill who feel like they should go after institutions if they did something wrong. holder, here, seems to be suggesting that they've got to take a lot more broader approach here and look at the economic consequences. >> whatever, michelle. looks like a hornet's nest has been stirred here. michelle, thank you. eamon, thank you. sue, back to you. >> thank you. if you think you're too late to get in on the gain at new record highs, think again. jim cramer made that point to tiger. he made that point yesterday. jackie, deangelis is looking a the the sectors for us. hey, jackie. >> hey, sue. hopefully i can pick up where jim left off. that's the million dollar question. is it too late to get into this market? and if not, where do you look? it appears there is opportunity out there. consider this. of the s and p large cap sectors there are still six showing meg performance. now financials doing the wrors et as a group still down nearly 50% since the last peak. materials, utilities, industrials, energy, they are still showing single-digit losses. some analysts say these underperformers could outperform this year. take industrials for example. ge still down more than 40% since the peak. within the financials, keycorp, and bank of america. still down more than 70% each. also looking promising with names like dow chemical down more than 25% since the last bull run. so start looking for some of that gold. back to you, sue. >> thank you very much, jackie. mary thompson joins us now. she has a market flash. >> hey, sue. take a look at johnson controls. popping up from reuters saying the sale of its interiors unit and it hired j.p. morgan for that. it has other businesses. mo it could focus on some of the higher-profit businesses it is involved in. investors seem to like the news. up 5.5%. reuters exploring its auto interiors unit. thank you very much. >> when the market goes this high, there is a course of investors who believe they are due to go the other way. that would be down, of course. there are, and justifiably, skeptics. some folks make money by going short. that is selling borrowed shares of the stock in hopes of buying them back at a lower price in the future. william dove gordon. market in london, watches the u.s. market for those shorts. mr. gordon, welcome. good to have you with us. where do you think, right now based upon your research. . the most juicy targets for shorting are? >> that's a very good question. and one of the areas seeing huge increases is the high yield. high yield bond etfs. jnk, hyg. there is a lot of speculation and high-yield that go up in price everyday. yield is coming down but short-sellers are piling in. borrowing more and more and more of that. there is imaging and things looking scary in the high yield bonn space. >> that's where some of that short money seems to be going right now. are there any other equity sectors or elsewhere drawing attention of the shorts? >> yeah. clearly, short sell is an evaluation game, thinking that in a low growth companies going to survive? so people underweight the utilities, these kind of things. but there is not massive short interest. but you are in select of things like game stop. high street retailer definitely a retailer. you there are a few companies, u.s. steel, materials place. previous analysts with those sectors not where they were in 2007. 2 and that includes snanames we t talked about. >> thank you. hope you come back again soon. sue? >> since march 2009 lows, dow jones industrial average more than doubled. in just the last year, up 10%. where is all that money coming from? jane wells has been snooping around. she's live in los angeles for us. hi, jany. >> hi, sue. money came from me. >> excellent. >> like most regular joes, the vast of my investment is through 401(k). william blair says as employment recovers, more people are eligible for 401(k)s, helping the market. and betsy blair says she is seeing confidence recover. >> where my business is focused, primarily on the coast, is the housing market, people feel more comfortable putting money into their 401(k) and not see a drop into the proverbial black hole. >> but people who were burned in '08-'09 may not recover emotionally. you hear that in their voices. >> happy, but then like people have been saying, you've got to be careful right now. so i think you just have to use common sense. >> my 401(k) is in a money market fund. i'm happy with that. >> what goes up, must come down. >> by the time i'm eligible to draw that money out, i hope it'll be a large guess game but we will see. >> people are trading their personal accounts. schwab saw a jump in january compared to a year ago. etrade saw 6% year over year jump and up 18%. sue and tyler, schwab now has $10 billion in its etfs but compare that to total u.s. etfs of over $1 trillion. back to you. >> thank you, jane. >>> big snowstorm hitting a big chunk of the country. from the center of the country on east. video after school bus crash in illinois. now some pictures of virginia where it is snow, snow, snow on route 29 moving down through the center of the state. schools cancelled down in virginia. virginia for lovers, not for snowstorms and snow men. nick walker is following the storm. how bad is it likely to get, nick? >> we've already seen upwards to around 20 inches of snow here in the mountains of west virginia. wide varience around washington, d.c. area between 0 and 4 inches right in town. and it is all rain out towards the coast. but very gusty wind, from delaware up towards the coast of new jersey. we will continue to see power outage problem from heavy west show as it turned to move toward new york cite, rain turning to snow. five to eight inches of snow and into boston, through tomorrow, and even into friday morning. some areas here, south and west will get up to a foot an a half. sue? >> yikes! it is headed our way. thank you so much, nick. i think, anyway. >>> the fed behind the rally. and what happens, if and when, they change the way they want it do things in terms of qe2 and qe3? we will have answers for new two minutes time. at a dry cleaner, we replaced people with a machine. what? customers didn't like it. so why do banks do it? hello? hello?! if your bank doesn't let you talk to a real person 24/7, you need an ally. hello? ally bank. your money needs an ally. >>> house speaker john boehner speaking out to larry kudlow. >> we are going to shut down the white house during the easter season when washington is overrun with visitors is just silly. i want to know who is being laid off at the white house. is this what is going on? all i can say is the capitol is open for visitors. we welcome to the american people to come to their capitol. we have been preparing for the president's sequester for months. >> more of larry kudlow's interview with the speaker tonight at 7:00 eastern time. on the kudlow report. sue? >> wall street watchers believe one of the reasons the dow reached historic highs is because of the federal reserve decision to keep interest rates at historic lows. is this a federally and does the fed even care what dow jones industrial average does? steve liesman is our man following the fed and bob pisani has wall street's take on this. i would perhaps in normal times the fed doesn't watch the market as closely as it is now but given the fact they are intimately involved in qe3, is it different this time? >> it's been different for several years, now, sue. when fed policy did not make a secret that they are targeting the stock market, targeting a couple things. they also want it crowd investors from bonds into stocks. that's an explicit goal of federal reserve policy right now and i think they believe it is having success. >> it seems to be, bob. a lot of people do point to the fed as one of the reasons why this mark set being supported. they wanted to push people out of the safer investments to take on slightly more risk. it seems ooze though they have succeeded. but is that all that's under pinning this market and what happens if the fed decides it change its qe stance. >> no, that's not all that's pending. there are a lot of people at war with the feds. new highs? oh, it's the feds. everyone agrees the fed had some impact on stock prices. any reasonable person would say the fed can influence stock prices but cannot by itself overcome fundamentals involved. and fundamentals haven't been getting better an corporate earnings have been improving. since the bottom in 2009. hitting lowest age in 2008. 2009 getting better. since then earnings are up about 60% on the s&p 500. stock market, since the bottom in beginning of 2009, is up about 60%. earnings matter an they have been getting better. we dent lion't like the quality cost-cutting but -- >> but steve that is also the argument for those who are bearish. okay, if the stock market manages to continue new highs. and as bob pointed out, earnings are better and the economy is better, what is to stop the fed from easing back on its qe? >> inside the question, sue, is the answer. if the fed eases back "onq" e, we will do so amid lower unemployment and better economy and economy will meet the fed less. look, the fed doesn't want to be where it is by any stretch of the imagination. it would much prefer ton buy $85 million in bonds every month and prefer the government not be in the process of cutting spending, not leaving all of the stimulus to the federal reserve. if we get into position where those things turn around with, you can imagine the market being okay with that. >> thank you gentlemen, very much. >> stocks at all-time highs sue, someone might make them go higher. see who has the power to do it and when they may be likely to pull the trigger. if you'd like vc money. who wouldn't? don't move. >> coming up, power pitch. start-ups that give us their 60-second pitch. >> my name is nathan richardson. i'm the co-founder of way wire. >> we give you the fast pitch of venture capitol. >> i think my primary concern is in the execution. >> do these founders have what it takes? >> in or out on waywire? >> stay tuned it find out. [ indistinct shouting ] ♪ [ indistinct shouting ] [ male announcer ] time and sales data. split-second stats. [ indistinct shouting ] ♪ it's so close to the options floor... [ indistinct shouting, bell dinging ] ...you'll bust your brain box. ♪ all on thinkorswim from td ameritrade. ♪ series, power pitch. we go behind new companies and see if they have what it takes to make it in today's competitive landscape. >> i'm brian sullivan. this is the power pitch. start-ups get 60 seconds to make their pitch and we get a chance to react and provide insight into the fast-paced world of venture capital and how companies get the green light. nathan richardson and corey booker are co-founders of waywire. they have changed the way you share video. here is their pitch. >> hey there. my name is nathan richardson. i'm the co-founder of waywire. waywire is the next on-line video site for generation. who is generation ny? the children that parents have subscriptions. the market for this is expected to a $4 million ad market growing 47% to year. here's the rub. the geny people don't like youtube. they think it's broken. so we created waywire.com. can you create, share videos for you. whether it is entertainment, politics and news, we are the site where that generation can go, find videos they like, share them with friend and create their own video identity. i hope you will check outweigh wire.com. >> nathan and corey or on the right side of your screen. they can't react to our critique just jet. with us is jackie of cnbc and stephan paternon, from slated co-founder and chairman. introductions aside, let's huddle up. steph, obvious concern is line, and nathan mentioned it in the pitch. youtube. >> i think the cure rated video makes sense. but execution and the devil's really in the details. how will they lure over teenagers particularly fickled? >> i'm thinking, how do they mon advertise this? we have traditional means we but we have to see a monetary model that's better. >> okay, try to pry into the business model of waywire and they will get the chance to defend themselves. right now, nathan, the vernacular is, youtube it. it has become a verb. how do you make it, i'm going to waywire it. >> if you search for a song, stuck in a moment, by u2, you will find the karaoke versions or armpit versions but not the one you're looking for. taking youtube and putting it into your tool bar to drag a video from another site like cnbc, you're not capable of it. >> nathan, you are trying to target gen y. their attention span is short. how do you keep their attention? >> by creating wires of interest and letting you follow and see wires of your friends. they can see a video stream of things that might be interesting to you or brian or corps corey. >> steph, jump in. >> how hou do you get masses to upload, share on waywire when there is countless other ways to do it. >> right now, there are so many voices, so many passions,some interests just lost in the large ocean that is youtube and are very difficult to discover. in my city, people who pull video up and really have no place to post that video, the way you get that video and by creating an integrated social system where people are taking videos and uploading, their friends are seeing them, and they can become a part of the national conversation in a bt much better way. to me, that's how they do it. nathan, how are you -- >> like other ceos, like ericf google -- >> yes. >> there is a huge opportunity with video and a huge opportunity to be embedded with the existing social graphs that doesn't exist today and can't be done by the incoumbentome bent*s incumbents. >> jackie, are you in or out? >> right new, i'm out. they will create a better mouse trap, put it out there and the model could be duplicated. and i'm concerned about the monitorization. >> i'm out as well. i think nathan has an amazing mayor as partner, however i believe the competitive landscape is too great. too early to see traction. that said, i never saw instagram coming. >> youtube, too easy to get lost, but v invios is okay. oprah is investing, mayor booker is investing. i think the public is looking for a different place it look at and find videos on-line because youtube is so 1998 right now. so i'm in. nathan and corey, thank you for your time. that is the pouch pitch. >> how but? are you in or out on waywire? go to powerpitch.cnbc.com. >> american eagle plummeting

so, eric holder sent a response, the attorney general, and his response says haven't killed anyone yet. i don't intend to kill anyone, but i might. >> in eric holder's response, the attorney general's response to me, they maintain they're not going to do this, just trust us. it's not really about them, though. it's about the law. so when we asked the president, can you kill americans on american soil with your drone strikes, which is part of the military, it it should be an easy answer. >> it's a pretty direct question, it's a question i've been asking all morning, it's a question i've been asking for a month and a half. >> and tonight, senator rand paul is declaring victory, now, we spoke with him a short time ago. senator, nice to see you, sir. >> good to be with you. >> well, today the attorney general of the united states wrote you a letter and says in part it's come to my attention that you've now asked an additional question he, does the president have the authority to weaponize drone noncombat kill an american on american soil. the answer to the that question is no. >> apparently it was sent to the media outlets and announced on tv and callin

eric holder replied in a letter -- >> friday, attorney general eric holder makes remarks. it is an event established to be against crime. -- financial crimes. that is live on c-span2. >> this is one of the few federal agencies that is designated to exist in the constitution. and patented trademarks are a fairly modern invention. the first patent would be royal grants given for monopolies. they were popular in england and continental europe. the constitution takes it one step further. this is for useful inventions. from the beginning, novelty was a key aspect of the patent office's role. you will notice everyone of the models has a tag with it. each tag was tied on by a piece of red ribbon. each is one of the suppose it originations of the phrase, red tape. it is hard to tell. this was originally red ribbon each one of these was tied on. it was not until the tag was tied on and the pattern was approved that you would cut through all the red tape. originally, pat and models were required to show the operations of an item. each one of these models work in the way a full-scale version would work. >> the national inventors hall of fame museum on american artifacts sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> the u.n. security council voted today for new sanctions against north korea. the unanimous vote by the 15- member council. the resolution puts new restrictions on north korea. [speaking foreign language] >> the agenda is adopted. under rule 37 of the council's provision of rules of procedure, i invite the representatives of belgium, canada, denmark, italy, japan and the philippines to participate in this meeting. if so desired. -- it is so decided. the security council will now begin its consideration of item 2 of the agenda. members of the council also have before them document 2013 stroke 136, the text of a draft resolution submitted by australia, belgium, canada, denmark, italy, france, italy, japan, morocco, the philippines, the republic of korea, rwanda, togo, the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland and the united states of america. it is my understanding that the council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before us. i shall put the draft resolution to the vote now. will those in favor of the draft resolution contained in document s stroke 2013 stroke 136 please raise their hand? the result of the voting is as follows -- the draft resolution received 15 votes in favor. the draft resolution has been adopted unanimously. resolution 2094 of 2013. the security council has not concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda. the meeting is adjourned. >> following the meeting, members spoke with reporters. you will hear from susan rice. this is 30 minutes. >> today the security council unanimously adopted resolution 2094, strongly condemning north korea's highly february 12 nuclear test and imposing significant new sanctions under chapter 7 of the u.n. charter. the strength, breadth and severity of these sanctions will raise the cost to north korea of its illicit nuclear program and further constrain its ability to finance and source materials and technology for its ballistic missile, conventional and nuclear weapons program. first, resolution 2094 imposes tough new financial sanctions. when north korea tries to move money to pay for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, countries must now block those transfers even if the money is being carried in suitcases full of vault cash. likewise northern banks will find it much harder to launder money for the nuclear program. today's resolution also imposes new travel restrictions. if, for example, a north korean agent is caught making arms deals or selling nuclear technology, countries will be required to expel that agent. countries must also now prevent the travel of people working for designated companies involved in the nuclear and missile programs. states will now have new authority to inspect cargo and stop north korean arms smuggling and proliferation. if a country has cargo on its territory that might be carrying prohibitive items like nuclear or ballistic materials, this resolution requires that the cargo be inspected. it will also make it harder for north korean vessels to offload such prohibited cargo if a ship refuses inspection on the high seas. thus forcing it to return to its port of origin. and airplanes carrying smuggled items can find themselves grounded. this resolution will also counter north korean efforts to abuse diplomatic privileges to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile activities. it will now be much harder for such diplomats to procure technology or divert funds to the nuclear program without being detected and expelled. resolution 2094 further bans the transfer to and from north korea of specific ballistic missile, nuclear and chemical weapons-related technology. it lists new prohibitive -- prohibited items and calls on states to block any item at all that could contribute to these activities. it names additional north koreans and north korean companies whose assets will be frozen and those individuals will also be subject to a travel ban. this resolution lists a number of luxury goods that cannot be sold to north korea. as a result, north korea's ruling elite who have been living large while impoverishing their people will pay a direct test. this can be found on the u.n. mission web site www.usun.state.gov. these sanctions will bite and bite hard. they increase north korea's isolation and raise the cost to north korea's leaders of defining the international community. the entire world stands united in our commitment to the denuclearization of the korean peninsula and in our demand that north korea complies with its international obligation s. if it does not then the security council committed today in this resolution to take further significant measures if there is another nuclear test or missile launch. we regret that north korea has again chosen the path of prove occasion. instead of the path of peace. far from achieving its stated goal of becoming a strong and prosperous nation, north korea has instead again opted to further impoverished its people and increase its isolation. we hope instead that north korea will heed president obama's call to choose the path of peace and come into compliance with its international obligation. >> thank you. if they do not comply with sanctions, there is no obligation. no penalty. how would you make sure it will be implemented? >> this strengthens not only the sanctions itself, but the mechanisms available to the council. as other sanctions, resolutions, including iran, they will be held accountable. we are of the view that every member state is legally obliged to fulfill, to the letter, the terms of this resolution and the prior resolution with respect to north korea. we have unanimously passed this resolution and are committed to ensuring its effective implementation. >> this is a very strong resolution. i was wondering whether you really think this resolution could really break repeated patterns of sanctions. what do you think is needed? if any? apart from implementation? >> the answer to your question relies with the decisions the north korean leadership make. we have been very clear we are united that north korea comply with its international obligations or face increased pressure and isolation. as you can see, that pressure is increasing. the aim we share. should north korea wisely make changes, to in fact he the opportunity to take concrete steps to dismantle nuclear program, coming in compliance with international obligations, there is an opportunity for the future of its people to be much brighter. >> thank you. there were increased and escalating threats that north korea would make a pre-emptive attack against the united states. would you comment against that? are you more worried than you were before? >> north korea will achieve nothing by continued threats. these will only further isolate the country and its people and undermine international efforts to promote peace and stability in northeast asia. we have urged the north korean leadership continually to see president obama's call to choose a path of peace and come into compliance with international obligations. that is what they ought to do. thank you all very much. >> good morning, everybody. china is a country of principle. we are fully committed. we are committed firmly to safeguarding international and nuclear proliferation. promoting denuclearization. we are committed to peacefulness of relevant issues through negotiation and dialogue. the resolution adopted by the security council is a reflection of the view of international community against nuclear programs, nuclearization of iran. this is not for the sake of adoption and sanctions. we want to see full implementation of the resolution. the top priority now is to diffuse the tension, bring down the heat, focus on diplomatic, and bring the future back on the track of diplomacy. the negotiations. this resolution is very important. we have to realize to have a nuclear-free peninsula, to denuclearize, is a hard, tedious, difficult, and long journey. denuclearize, is a hard, tedious, difficult journey. the resolution itself is important. we need more steps. we need comprehensive strategy. we need to bring the future back to the right track of negotiations and dialogue. we need wisdom. we need persistence. perseverance. we need teamwork. we have to bring down heat. this is our focus. to bring back peace and stability in the region. thank you very much. >> you have said several concept this resolution should be part of a competence of strategy. could you say what is the next step? what is the next step taken in china's view to bring them back into the normal track and negotiate? what can be done? >> the resolution step -- you resolution sends a very important message. it stresses the importance of six-party talks. it is a very important opportunity, very important and a channel, as a vehicle. that is why we encourage all the stakeholders to talk with each other, to address their differences through peaceful means, through dialogue and negotiations. china would like to work along with the international community and make sure that we can achieve the peace and stability in the region. thank you very much. the last question. >> this resolution has some provisions. china has opposed four years ago [indiscernible]the inspection of the vessels. what has changed in the chinese position? what has changed in your attitude from last time to this time? >> china's position is consistent. and firm. we believe that action taken by the security council must be a balanced one, must be proportionate to address the nuclear issue. and to prevent escalation of tensions. i think that is why we voted in favor of this resolution. .hank you very much a >> good morning. the republic of korea welcomes and supports the unanimous adoption of the security council resolution 2094 this morning. north korea's nuclear test is a great threat to the key san security of the korean and insula as well as -- the korean pencil as well as the region and beyond and it undermines the very foundation of the nuclear nonproliferation regime and it also undermines the credibility and the authority of the security council and the united nations itself. the adoption of this resolution reflects the will of the international community in this regard. the international community will never tolerate north korea's repeated violations and north korea's nuclear and ballistic missile program. each violation will be met i stronger responses -- met by stronger responses and measures. today's resolution is a logical and appropriate response by the international community. as investor rice has elaborated just now, resolution 2094 contains credible and strong measures strengthening existing sanctions as well as introducing new elements. it also includes a strong trigger to take further significant steps, significant measures against north korea's future revocation. north korea will pay a dear price for its illicit activities and wrongdoings. it is also deplorable that pyongyang makes a series of inflammatory statements directed at the republic of korea and other un member states. it threatens to notify the armistice agreement and return -- and to turn the enemies in a sea of flames, claiming the right to preemptive nuclear strike. north korea's provocation, whether rhetorical or physical, is completely an acceptable -- completely unacceptable and we will deal with it resolutely. >north korea must wake up from its delusion of being a nuclear state and make the right choice. the victim from this nuclear pursuit and publication will be that the -- will be none other than north korea itself. it must cease its revocation and become a responsible member of the international community. north korea, once again, stands at a crossroads here -- crossroads. it can either choose the right path toward a bright future and prosperity or it can take the bad road toward further and deeper isolation and eventual self-destruction. the choice is simple, but consequences will run deep. inth korea's future rests its own hands. therefore, we strongly urge north korea to comply fully with the obligations of the relevant security council resolution. thank you. i will take a couple of questions. >> has there been any movement toward the dialogue for six party talks? has anybody been in contact with the north korea's -- with the north koreans to move the six party talks forward? >> the short answer is no. we have not yet had any contact with north korea an. we have all seen the announcement coming from pyongyang. they have blocked themselves from our side board. today's not the right time for a talk about talking about dialogue. today is the time for adopting this resolution and talking about the future implications of what has been captured in today's resolution. >> which part of the resolution, which measure in the resolution do you feel is most important and would be very effective? >> you know, out of 10 fingers, all are important. there are several different kind of strengthened measures as well as some elements that were newly introduced this time around. there are the additional individuals and entities. there are policies on introductions and on luxury goods and so on and so forth that will be available for you on the website. all in all, in a comprehensive manner, everything that was captured in resolution 2094, those are all important. >> immediately after the vote, the secretary-general put out a very detailed statement. do you think that the secretary general or dpa, is there any role they could play? would you like to see them somehow bridge the gap? >> i am not in a position to speak for the secretary-general and the office of secretary it. but from what i understand, the secretary-general has shown his interest, his continuing interest that he might play some role in the future should the circumstances become right. and you have to address the question to the secretary- general himself. >> is there anything you wanted to include in this resolution -- it you couldn'tn do because of negotiations? >> this is a long list. it is a strengthened one and i am quite satisfied with it. you can add whatever you want to add. his is not complete in its entirety as of now. but currently, i am quite satisfied with the contents of the resolution. >> mr. ambassador, how will the republic of korea harmonize this very strong resolution with the new policy to deal with north korea under the new presidency? >> the policy of the government of the republic of korea is that we want dialogue and confidence building between the republic of korea and north korea. but first, we need to obtain the proper environment to establish this mutual trust. once north korea abandons nuclear program and abandons their provocative and hostile policy towards south and the outside world, then the republic of korea will stand ready to talk about all the measures that will strengthen the inter-korean the sharedp and development. thank you very much. >> thank you. i think today the security council acted in a prompt, unanimous and measured manner and deliver the response to the latest new there tests by the kp rk, which is an appropriate measure and, as far as the russian federation is concerned, it is important that the high- priority that is expressed in the resolution is a need to return to the six party talks. there have been many questions today about threats which were heard from the prk. -- from the dprk. all those things may be taking us away from the need to resume six party talks. even if it may well be that today or tomorrow it would be unrealistic to be expect that come under the circumstances, the six party talks would be resumed today or tomorrow, it should be a high priority on the minds of all those who per dissipate in the six party talks and certainly the high- priority for the russian federation. generally speaking, we do need to think in terms of a system of peace and security in northeast asia waste on equal security, of course, given the need to achieve denuclearization of the korean peninsula. dprk wellat thedpk reduce its course and open its way to dialogue and negotiations in order to achieve greater security for the region and greater security for the the prk and the political resolution of the problem. >> in terms of the talks, you say that it is in some future date. >> much will depend on the reaction from the prk. of course, i don't think we should all be thinking only in terms of top responses. the cycle of provocation, ballistic missile launches, nuclear tests, this is all very unfortunate. you should recall that that has not been the choice of the security council or the choice of the russian federation or other members of the six party talks. in our dialogue, in are paralleled by a cop -- parallel dialogues with the prk, we have continued to maintain this dialogue in advance and made it very clear that the consequences of this nuclear test would be very negative for the prk and for the entire region. but our warnings were not heeded. that meant that the response from the security council was inevitable. that is not our choice. so now it is the choice for the prk to make and also for other interested parties who must behave responsibly. i think the competition in terms of threats and counter threats will serve no good purpose. so let's act and talk with restraint. let's keep our minds cool. and keep talks open for the only rational course of resolution itches the six party talks. -- resolution which is the six party talks. >> eluded to the fact that you did not want to have an open debate. can you have at least the next clinician of vote? >> i think it signifies that the members of the security council. eastern here on c-span. >> the top us envoy for north korea policy testified before the senate foreign relations committee thursday. the hearing comes on the heels of north korea threatening a pre-and didn't strike on the us and the un security council additional sanctions. this is two hours 20 minutes. >> this highlights the growing threat to united states and our friends in the region and the increasing dangers of severe instability for the korean peninsula. i think these actions are a step in the right direction. i congratulate the administration in moving things forward so effectively with the united nations. i also believe that we need to do more to better the term and how the united states can combined effect of sanctions and military countermeasures with and realistic diplomacy aimed at north korea and china and with a their goal of korea's abandonment of its new their programs. north korea yesterday made what i consider to be an absurd threat of a "preemptive nuclear attack to destroy the strongholds of the aggressors." there should be no doubt about our determination, willingness and capability to neutralize and counter any threat that north korea may present. i do not think the regime in pyongyang wants to commit suicide, but that, as they must surely know, would be the result of any attack on the unid states. but even as we assure that effective military countermeasures are in place to safeguard the united states and our allies, there should also be no doubt about our determination to work with the international community, through peaceful diplomatic means, to achieve a denuclearized korean peninsula. today it is estimated that north korea has accumulated between 20 to 40 kilograms of plutonium, enough perhaps for six to eight nuclear weapons. it has now conducted three nuclear explosive tests. it has developed a modern gas centrifuge uranium enrichment program to go along with its plutonium stockpile. and it is seeking to develop the capability to mate a nuclear warhead to an intercontinental ballistic missile. taken together, these developments present a growing danger that north korea may well become a small nuclear power -- a scenariohich, while bad enough on its own, could well have additional dangerous effects if it leads other nations in the region to reconsider their own commitments to non-proliferation. reover, there is also the continuing danger of further conventional military procation from north korea that results in a seris military clash between north and south, and the potential for unintended escalation that could draw in the united states and china and result in a deadly and dangerous confrontation on the peninsula. and, beyond these security concerns, there are also on- going questions about human rights and the lot of the north korean people. security concerns may be our most important priority on the peniula, but they are not our only priority. it has now been a little over a year sce kim jung un took power amid speculation that this transition could lead to a period of instability inside the north, perhaps even leading to collapse. yet that instability does not appear to have materialized -- although of cose we can never be sure about the future in north korea. by all appearances, kim has asserted control over the military and strengthened party institutions. and, contrary to some media hype focused on his education in switzerland, he has not proved to be a reformer. it is unclear whether he has any objeives other than maintaining tight control of his political and economic system. above all else, north korea clearly represents a real and growing threat to u.s. national security interests, and therefore deserves our close attention. in time, if its present course remainunaltered, north korea will pose a direct threat to the united states. today, north korea certainly poses a growing that to our allies and to american forces in region. it also threatens to undermine the international nonproliferation regime -- particularly, as its arsenal grows, by spreading its threat to other counties through a transfer of nuclear technology and materials. we know, for example, that north korea has made efforts to proliferate nuclear technology in the past, building a plutonium separation plant in syria which israel destroyed by bombing it before its completion, and we know that there is a long history of north korean-iranian military cooperation. i hope that this hearing, as well as a continuing dialogue with the administration on this issue, we help us explore several key questions that are critical to informing our future policy towards north korea -- does north korea pursue a nuclear weapons program as a deterrent, for defensive purposes, or does it pursue a nuclear program as part of a policy intended to reunify the peninsula by force? could the current regime ever conceive of parting with its nuclear capability, or does it view these weapons as essential tools to deter the united states and continue its hold on power? getting these answers right will be critical to determining if there is hope for diplomacy or if a different approach is necessary. it is also important to note the coming to power of a new south korean administration led by president rk at this difficult time. and i offer her my congratulations on her inauguration last week. there no basis for successfully dealing with the north absent a solid foundation for policy rooted in the us-rok alliance. with president park?s inauguration we have an important opportunity to consult and work closely with a cle ally to chart out future crse in dealing with north korea. finally, we need to consider how recent transitions in other countries in the regio-- including our close ally japan, as well as china -- may present new opportunities in building a more effective approach to dealing with pyongyang. whatever one's views on the various policy efforts of the past two decades -- what has worked and what has not worked and why -- there can be little question that these efforts have failed to end to nth korea?s nuclear or missile programs, failed to reduce the threat posed by north korea to our allies, and failed to lead to greater security in the region. certainly there are no easy answers when it comes to how to be successful when dealing with a regime like north korea. but i am hopeful that today's hearing, and the conversation we start today, may help us to get to a place where, twenty years from now, we can look back at successfully having ended north korea's nuclear and missile programs, and built greater stability and security on the peninsula and throughout the asia-pacific region. t me call on the distinguished ranking member, senator corker. >> north korea's nuclear weapons program, missile program, and proliferation activities pose a threat to the united states' security interests. policy makers have attempted to influence north korea's behavior through deterrent tools, including inducements and punitive measures. u.s. officials have used diplomacy, a system of financial sanctions, and counterproliferation tools, including proactive interdiction activities. despite the combination of tools, the united statesas failed to persuade the north korean regime to abandon its nuclear weapons program. we know north korea continues to engage in a range of illicit activities to generate hard currency to support the regime. simultaneously, the situation for the north rean people has continued to deteriorate, with rampant human rights abuses, the continued expansion of north korean prison camps, and some analysts estimate they may hold as 200,000 prisoners. china continues to serve as north korea's primary benefactor, accounting for 60% of north koreatrade. beijing remains pyongyang's source of food and fuel. policy-makers have not been able to persuade china that the cost of beijing's continued support far outweighs any benefit. it is clear we must maintain our efforts. i recognize that north korea is a complex policy conundrum and there is no silver bullet solution. after 20 years of unsuccessful policies by successive administrations, is logical that we ought to undertake a comprehensive review of our north korean strategy, including new tools to crack the north korean policy knot. that is why i will work with senator menendez and other members to work on the accountability act which would requir-- undertaking the review does not require abandoning efforts, nor terminating sanctis. it necessitates we redouble efforts to think outside the box. in recent months it has become increasingly clear to me that u.s. policymakers often pay closer attention to the non- military aspects of deterrence, including efforts to weaken and debilitate the north korean gime. in particular, we often do more to expose the north's hostility toward its own citizens as a means to influence the kim regime. we should promote the flow of information, including our broadcasts. do not mistake my interest in the non-military aspect as a call to abandon the miliry posture security aspects of our north korean policy. i believe that a robust u.s. nuclear deterrent is the central to u.s. security and remains critical to maintaining our security commitments to allies in the asia-pacific, including japan and south korea. ambassador joseph will speak about our deterrent later during this hearing. i look forward to hearing from you in regarding the administration's efforts, including efforts at the security council on new sanctions resolutions. i look forward to hearing from you and all our expert witnesses about our capabilities tdeter north korean provocations, options to elicit enhaed chinese cooperation, and opportunities to improve the lives of the north korean people. thk you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. our panel has put together the top decision mers on north korean policy from several previous administrations. they represent decades of experience i can think of no better group to analyze what has worked and what has not. i expect they may hold in some cases different views in this regard, and that is only natural considering the importance of addressing north korea, and we are going to look forward to this discussion. we start off with the distinguished ambassador glyn davies. he oversees u.s. involvement in the six-party talks process, as well as aspects of our security assistance policies regarding north korea. he is a career member of the foreign service, serving previously as a permanent representative to the u.s. atomic energy administration and the u.n. office in vienna, as well as the principal deputy assistant secretary of state and executive secrary of the national security council staff. an extraordinary wealth of knowlee. we look forward to your testimony. >> thank you very much. thank you for inviting me to testify today on u.s. policy toward north korea or, as it is called, the democratic people's republic of korea. north korea's announcement of its third nuclear test and its threats to conduct even more are only the latest in a long line of reminders that the nuclear weapons programs proliferation activities pose serious threats to u.s. national security, to regional security in the asia- pacific, and to the glob nonproliferation regime. pyongyang continues to violate its commitments, and its human rights record is deplorable. its people are impoverished. it pours huge sums into nuclear and ballistic missile programs that are forbidden by the united nations. north korea's provocative threatening actions, meanwhile, continues to grow to take advantage of the alternatives available. the united states offered -- and has continued to offer -- pyongyang an improved relationship with the united states and integration into the international community, provided north korea demonstrate a willingness to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and address other concerns. the dprk rebuffed these offers and instead responded with a series of provocations that drew widespread international condemnation. 60 countries criticized the december launch. the february 12 announcement of a nuclear test which was proclaimed as targeted against the united states represents an even bolder threat to national security, stability of the regime, and the global nonproliferation regime. the international response has been unprecedented over 80 countries condemning the test. we are working with the international community to make clear that north korea's nuclear test has costly consequences. in adopting a resolution 2087 in january, the u.n. security council pledged to take action in the event of a nuclear test. we're working hard at the united nations security council to make good on that pledge, and, mr. chairman, that is occurring even as we speak. we're hoping that the council adopts a resolution that the united states put forward, that the security council will deliver a strong response that further impedes the growth of north korea's nuclear weapons and ballistic weapons programs and its ability to engage in proliferation activities. the resolution tod that we tabled builds upon, strengthens, and significantly expands the scope of the strong u.n. sanctions already in place. the sanctions contained in this draft relution will impede north korea's ability to proceed in developing its nuclear and missile programs and expand the scope of the choices the u.s. has availablto counter these and other elements. we are strengthening our cooperation with our allies, working closely with partners the department of defense and other agencies. we will take steps necessary defend our allies, particularly the republic of korea and japan. multilateral and national sanctions will remain a vital component of our effort to impede the dprk and its activities. we continue to exercise national authorities to sanction north korean entities and those that support them and facilitating programs that threaten the american people. most recently, on january 24 the department of state and treasury designated a number of north korean individuals and tities under executive order 13382. we will continue to take national measures as appropriate. sanctions are not a punitive measure, but a tool to impede the deployment of north korea's nuclear missile programs and its proliferation, as well as to make clear the cost of north korea's denial of its international obligations, and working toward our end-game will require an openness to dialogue with the dprk. we are committed to negotiate since the implementation of the september 2005 joint statement of the six-party talks and to bring north korea into compliance with its international obligations through irreversible steps leading to denuclearization. the united states will not engage in talks for talks' sake. it will require a change in north korea's priorities, demanding that pyongyang will meet its obligations on denuclearization. this leads to a few important other principles. first, the united states will not accept north korea as a nuclear state. we will not compensate them for returning to dialogue. we will not tolerate north korea for bullying its neighbors. the united states cannot approve without improvement in inter- korean relations. in the meantime, at the u.s. diplomacy on north korea on a wide range of issues continues. close coordination with our treaty allies, including japan, remain absolutely central to our approach. we have expanded our engagement might develop a new dialogue key global actors who have joined the rising chorus of voices, calling on the dprk to comply with obligations. china does remain central to altering or korea's calculus, and close u.s.-china confrontations will remain a key china coordination will remain key focus of diplomatic efforts. while a denuclearized korea is a goal, so too is the welfare of north korea's 25 million people, the vast majority of whom bear the brunt of the government's decision to perpetuate an unsustainable self-impoverishing military-first policy. improving human rights conditions is an integral part of our overall north korea policy, and hothe dprk addresses human rights will have an impact on prospects for improved u.s.- dprk ties. the entire world is increasingly taking note of the grave human rights violations in the dpr the united nations high commissioner for human rights has called for an inquiry to document abuses. we support this call. next week my colleague will travel to attend a session where he will call attention to north korea's human rights record and urge adoption of an enhanced mechanism of inquiry into the regime's abuses. the obama administration's policy of engagement and pressure recognizes that only a policy of openness to dialogue, when possible, combined with robust pressure of sanctions when necessary, can maxize prospects for progress in denuclearizing north korea. genuine progress requires fundamental shifts in north korea's leadership. the leadership must choose between provocation and peace, isolation, or integration. north korea will not achieve security, economic prosperity, and integration into the international community while it pursues weapons, while it threatens its neighbors, and while it tramples on international norms and abuses its people and refuses to fulfill its longstanding obligations and commitments. the leadership in pyongyang faces increasingly sharp choices, and we're working with our friends and allies to further sharpen these choices, if the north korean regime is going to embark on a path to denuclearization for the benefit of the north korean people, the northeast asian region, and the world. thank you again for this chance to appear before you today, and i am happy to try to address any questions you may have. thank you. >> thank you. we will start a round, and let me just take off of that, your almost closing comment that you made, that progress depends on north korea changing its sttegic calculus. the question is, what is it that we and our allies can do to affect that calculus so it moves in a different direction, and in that context, it isn't the key here china and its potential influence th the north koreans? and if thais the case, how is it that we get the chinese to be more robust in their efforts to get north korea to change its calculus? >> you have asked the biggest question that can be asked about north korean policy, and you are hitting on key themes. changing north korea's calculus is proving to be a challenge. administrations of both strikes have been at this at least since ronald reagan was president, and one can argue even before that. what we are trying to do is continuing to present a united front in terms of concentric circles, extending to our partners in the six-part process, and going beyond that to try to build an international coalition that understands the threat that north korea poses to the international system, not just on proliferation, but on human rights and how it comports itself with the international financial system and so forth. north korea appears not yet to be absorbing those lessons, but we will continue to sharpen them, working with colleagues and with our friends. on a more basic level, we are working very closely as we have for decades with our south korean ally to ensure that should north korea miscalculate and we call on them not to do that, once again, in the face of these new threats emerging from pyongyang, even in recent hours and days -- and how we work with the uth koreans to make sure we are ready from an alliance standpoint militarily to deal with any threats that arise. that is very much at the macro level, how we are dealing with thisroblem. you mentioned china. you're absolutely right. china is a critical piece of this challenge. they are north korea's closest neighbor. they are often north korea's protector, and certainly an ally of north korea. they have had a special relationship of sorts for quite a while. we're concentrating a lot of diplomatic energy and effort on deepening our dialogue with china, to present the proposition that there is still a peaceful diplomatic way forward to deal with the north korean issue. it will not work and cannot work unless china steps up in bringing home to pyongyang the choices it faces and setting the table for any return to negotiations. i am afraid the history of trying to draw north korea into talks that can deal with its nuclear prram, its missile program, and all the other issues we're concerned about has not been fully successful, because the north koreans have been able to split us. we think it is time to work more closely with china, but also of course with our close allies and other partners in the six-part process to bring home -- >> for china, it seems to me there are two calculuses here. they can deal with us at united naons, which is pursue a new set of sanctions, and that will rattle the north koreans, or they can choose to cut back on that which is essential to north korean existence, which is its assistance in fuel as well as other sources. that would be far more significant. from your perspective, what is the chinese calculus? they have not chosen -- now they are joining us, which is a welcome thing that that has occurred at the council, but they have a much bigger, more significant ability by virtue of the incredible assistance it gives north korea. >> the safest thing to say about china is it is cooperating. yesterday we were greeted with the news that chairman mao's grandson, a general in the people's liberation army, called on north korea to move forward on denuclearization. they are developed in china. one could describe it as the beginning of debate about how chinwill deal with its neighbor. relations have not always gone smoothly of la between the two countries. i do not think it is up to us to figure out how to engage too deeply in that internal dialogue and china, but those are helpful sides. you're right, china is always the get-out-of-jail-free card for north korea. they can pvide ways for the north koreans to export, import materials. china is part of the security council. i have been given a note that the resolution has passed. china has played a bger role in crafting that resolution that contains the provisions we talked about. there are signs that china is beginning to step up more robustly to play its role. they say they enforce these sanctions. we take them at their word. we trust to verify at the front, and will continue to engage the chinese to deepen our dialogue and to insure the chinese do the maximum amount they can to deal with this problem. >> senator corker. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your testimony. i hear of the things that you are working on, and we thank you for your work, and we understand this has been going on for 20 years in too many administrations, but when you talk about verifiable denuclearization, it seems to me that we can just continue to go in the opposite rection, and while we talk about additional sanctions in the security council, it feels to me more like we're at a crossroads, that this is not about additional stages, but we're at a crossroads where if something it does not happen soon, there is no way that we can begin talking about verifiable denuclearization. do you agree with that, or to you think adding on additional pressures and the way have been doing it will work? >> i think it has been a combination of all the above, plus more. we need to continue to press north korea wh necessary, and right now it is necessary to do that because they are in a provocation staged, so you are getting a reaction from the security council. pressure to sanctions is important. we need to stay strong, and our alliance with the rok, japan, continues to sharpen and deepen our capabilities. it is important to build this international coalition. 80 nations is somewhat stunning, nations like south africa, brazil. even the communist countries laos and vietnam are condemning this most recent nuclear test. the greek chorus out there in the world is growing in volume. you're right, that is only good as far as it goes, because what is most important is to change north korea's calculus, so we also need to be ready to engage north korea in authentic talks if we can ever see that they are prepared to take a real step to denuclearization and address our concerns. i think all of those can things are exceedingly important, and also very quickly we need to take account of what we have achieved over the last 60 years. in south korea, we have worked with them, helped them create a bit of an economic miracle. i think the ratio is now 36-1 in terms of the amount of goods and services produced per capita versus the average north korean. things are not going well in terms of the correlation of forces when it comes to north korea right now. i think we move on all these fronts, diplomatically, militarily, in terms of the international coalition. we need to keep drawing attention to their human rights, and by continuing toress them and continuing to present to them the opportunity should they choose to accept it, to come talk to the international community and find a different way forward, away from provocations, away from threats and move toward a different feature that is absolutely available for them. i am at least guardedly optimistic that at some point they will see that is the way to go, and i think that is why we need to stay te to that. >> you talked about insuring japan and south korea and allies understand we are going to be there to protect them, and yet you are aware we are not investing in modernization i our own country regarding our nuclear armament. does that concerns the allies that we are not doing the things in our own country to ensure that that deterrence is there? >> to be fair, i work for the state department, and that is a question for our defense planners, but i can take a bit of a stab at it. i have not seen in my frequent travels in japan in the rok that there are deep concerns that our commitment to them is that all in jeopardy, and because we have begun this pivot to asia, we have begun to devote even more research into the asian theater, and that is going to reassure them. >> the mechanism that is funding this nuclear activity uses illicit activities, and we have ways of countering that. there are people who are saying we should call the entire north korean government as a money- laundering conrn, and we could then invovlve the third- party candidates, some of which might reside in china. can you talk to us about ways of getting involved in stopping illicit activity so it is not finding what they're doing from a nuclr standpoint, and what are your thoughts about us being involved in cutting down on entities that are allowing that money to flow through? >> some of the sanctions that have been part of the many resolutions to get at this, it is important we rein vigilant >> at present they are not doing what needs to be done. some of the sanctions get at that, but we are still not stopping the flow of money to these nuclear activities from a list of concerns. is there more that we should be doing there? >> we are slowly doing that, and that is good because it makes it more difficult for the north koreans to gain the input they need for their program. it is important that in a kind of all aspects of policy to look at that, that is something we continue to work on, and it is interesting if you look at the trend of great number of years there was a time that, not too many years ago, these problems with methamphetamine exports, with counterfeiting cigarett and drugs, this was really epidemic. i am not saying it is not a problem. it is, and we are vigilant about it, but a lot of the steps we're taking did a good job of making it more difficult for them to do that. a lot more work to do, no question about it, and it ought to be a focus of attention. >> my time is up, but i want to say i agree with efforts to point out thhuman rights issues that are taking place. that would help usuild an even greater coalition, and i would like to share some point how we might influence citizens through better broadcast activity taking place there. take you for your testimony, and i look forward to the rest of your answer. >> thank you. thank you, ambassador, for being here, and i very much appreciate your service and willingness to go in to these difficult situations. could you tell us with regard to the wmd programs, what is the current estimate on when north korea would have a warhead- missile combination that could strike the united states, and what are the most effective means of this occurring or-- n emeans of precurring or slowing down progress in that area? >> great question. it is a subject of a lot of debate among some highly qualified experts in the government and among the experts community beyond, people like a professor at stanford, who has expertise. >> he was the director of our laboratory at los alamos. >> that is exactly right. what i am going to have to do is take a dive, because you're asking a question that does good deeply into intelligence matters, and i do nowant -- i would rather not get into what i know, and i got to be honest, i am not an expert on these matters. as a general pop the -- as a general proposition, what is written in the literature, they from theo firs far-off estimates as alluded. i'm sorry, i cannot get into those highly classified intelligence matters. >> i want you to give us a general answer as you did. i think various folks have talked about a matter of months or even a year or so in those kinds of situations. i'm sure we will be hitting briefings on that. a lot has been said about china's great cyber wall, which blocks information critical of the communist party or policies from the chinese people. but my understanding is that north korea has an even more robust restrictive policy in terms of the internet. it seems to me that one of the things we are seeing around the world, when you see democracy movements, is the internet playing a role, people being connected, people turning out in the streets as a result of that interconnectedness. you may have noticed recently and i know the administration didn't ess this, but our former governor, governor richardson and eric schmidt recently visited to promote an open internet in north korea. should the united states be actively engaged in helping to create aess the internet in north korea? and do you believe that this is in the interest of the north korean people as well as other countries in the region? >> great question. and it is in our interest to do that but it's a tough target to convince the north koreans to open up. while we weren't crazy about the time of the trip to pyongyang, i was interested to see him make tho statements. funny things are happening in north korea that could eventually have an effect. you have 1.5 million cell phones now ,mostly among the elite and on a closed system. hume limits there, not able to access the outside. but nonetheless it promotes the spread of information within north korea. we know from lots of good studies that have been done by prive organizations interviewing these 23,000 north korean refugees who found their way to south korea that there is a surprising d

eric holder. we don't have kelly and having some issue here but the bottom line as i understand it a letter in exchange. let me read the information. after the epic filibuster yesterday, eric holder sent a two-sentence letter to kentucky senator rand paul. in it holder wrote, quote, it's come to my attention that you have asked an additional question. does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an american not engaged in combat on american soil? the answer to that question is, no. and as we understand it, from senator paul -- senator rand paul is that he's satisfied with that response and according to kelly o'donnell's reporting, coming shortly we'll hear more from senator rand paul but he is, quote, satisfied with that brief response from ericolder so this continues and we'll get hopefully more for you from kelly o'donnell. also a few minutes ago, the president said he was satisfied with the advanced of a bipartisan federal gun trafficking bill to the full senate despite a setback for a key ilt m on the president's agenda. universal background checks for gun buyers. senator tom coburn, a key republican working on the background bill withdrew the sponsorship and leaving it without republican backing. coburn explained the objection on "morning joe" this morning. >> most gun owners and i'd say well in excess of 98%, 99% don't want to transfer a gun to somebody that's not on the list and those that do aren't going to follow whatever we do anyway. >> so the setback on a day that the senate judiciary committee considered four gun control bills, including a democratic version of the background check and senator dianne feinstein's ban. a poll shows americans support a measure requiring background checks for all gun buyers with 88%

in 99 that puts him and eric holder released the terrorist that claimed my father's murder and now united eric hoyou have holder talking about how we are going to bring these terrorists to justice and we will never stop. my feeling is with politics anything can happen with these guys. he is not being charged with murder. he's being charged with conspiracy. now they changed the story saying these guys weren't charged with murder they shouldn't be in prison theest are of their lives. i want the american people to be first and foremost on our politician's minds and not some political agenda. >> joe connor, thanks so much for sharing your personal story. >> thank you for having me. >> sex education for kindergartners is about to be reality. is that really appropriate for 5-year-olds to discuss? >> is your personal ality making you fat? we have the character traits that could be packing on the pounds. >> show you the character traits. try falling into one of these categories. i'm a conservative investor. but that doesn't mean i don't want to make money. i love making money. i try to be smart with my investments. i a

eric holder during a hearing. he was asked. he was walking him through the legal analysis that we think it's in one of these legal memos. and eric holdert trying to answer the question buff there is kind of these, you know, odd answers. and then finally, he said, well you would really understand this better if you actually saw the l.l.c. opinions, the legal opinions, which he is not turning over to the house. >> yeah. >> maybe you have a fuller understanding if you saw them. and senator lee, of course, said, wait. i am supposed to be basing what i am doing on opinions? i don't understand it because i don't see them. >> yeah. we are not a country of secret law. you can't operate a country that way. you can't have a real democracy that way. >> i think it is incumbent upon the president to sends those -- to explain to the the american people what that policy is. if a winner happens, a lot of it will be as a result of the pressure from the american citizens and from members of congress of both parties and the good work with chris anders. 866-55-press, your comments on twitter or facebook. >> radio meets television now on current tv. >> >>

eric holder was saying -- >> do you trust dick cheney with drones then? >> stephanie: no. >> okay. then there is going to be another president that you don't trust. >> stephanie: give me pat layhey and eric holderto use a drone to strike an american citizen on u.s. soil. >> the government has no intenning of carrying out any drone strikes in the united states. it's hard for me to imagine a situation where that could occur. >> however that policy stays in place -- >> stephanie: right. >> there are domestic ways to take care of situations. we have an fbi. >> stephanie: yeah, that's true. lisa in houston. >> caller: hey, stephanie. i was doing good until i heard chris, and then i got really ticked off. >> stephanie: welcome to my every day. >> caller: i want to say briefly to chris, don't ever argue with a black man about due process of the law. you are going to lose every time. don't ever, ever think you are argue with a black man about due process of the law. but what i wanted to say stephanie is when we talk about waco, let's not forget we had 21 innocent baby's die. what wasn't a law created right then. wasn't clinton president -- when you have a person who takes -- okay the aft, going in and