which justice? >> justice douglas. >> that is correct. >> which staunch defender of democracy declarative people want to go to how i will help them with the. >> oliver wendell holmes. >> that concludes the first category and now we will move on to before there were justices. >> this first question is about byron white took a leave of absence to play professional football. which team did he play for. >> he earned $15,000 per season. pretty impressive. next up which future justice had the first virtual bat mitzvah arguing that it's no less important than a bar mitzvah for boys. >> hagan. >> that is correct. >> another point for team madison. >> which chief justice married the daughter of thomas jefferson's lost love. >> this is king versus burwell again? [laughter] >> marshall. >> that is correct. when he popped the question to polly his love she was so shocked that she ran off without answering him and set a look of her her back to him with aes. >> which future justice worked as a page in the califor

tawney had been chief justice, even after the three justices are -- five justices are added. as the makeup of the court is shifting, he is there. he was old. time when heat the incidentally for in ever have lincoln on the steps of the capitol in 1861, so he is pointr-old at this and he is going to die in 2, 1864.1 in some quarters, the death of roger tawney is spoken of in a celebrity or a way. look no further than the words of republican senator charles sumner, who after hearing roger tawney dies, scribbles a note to abraham lincoln saying "providence has given us a victory in the death of chief justice tawney. it is a victory for liberty and constitution." a few months later, salmon p chase, who had made his long-standing reputation as an anti-slavery lawyer and politician is nominated by abraham lincoln to take the place of tawney. fulfilling this plan of putting on the supreme court individuals ,ho were prounion, anti-slavery certainly sympathetic to abraham policies, ands the sort of larger policies of party. is a postscript. this chart will indicate or summarize everyth

justice fortas. one of the great ironies of this is johnson, by trying to promote fortas from associate justice to chief justice gives the way for fortas to collapse entirely and be removed. the public had been exposed to this idea that fortas is a little ethically challenged. we have the $15,000 deal at american university. he seemed to be consulting with lbj inappropriately. it was clear this guy was not a paragon of ethics. press start looking into his background. fortas he was a very high-priced lawyer before he went on to the supreme court. being a public servant cost fortas a decent amount in terms of finances. in 1969, it comes out that fortas had been accepting a retainer. every year, a $20,000 payment from a financeur who was under criminal investigation. if you're planning a career as a supreme court justice, it is not a good idea to accept a payment from someone who is subject to criminal investigation. this is highly unethical conduct. this probably would have never come out if the press

it goes to something strange happening in the department of justice recently. casino billionaire and magnet sheldon adelson hates online gambling, for obvious reasons, competition for him. he wants people in casinos, not online. he spent millions lobbying to override 2000 opinion by office of legal counsel d.o.j. saying wire act prohibits sports gamble ogline, not gambling in the states, florida, pennsylvania, new jersey, lots of states have built important businesses for themselves online. congress wouldn't change the law according to demand of mr. edelson. he decided to get the department of justice to change the interpretation of the law and he threw million intoes a campaign to remake the d.o.j. and get the office of legal counsel to perform a complete reversal and say that the wire act bands kind of lotterys states run online, even though language prohibits only sports betting. when donald trump won and mr. sessions became age and you, reevaluation of the legal question and the office of legal counsel found invisible points of law that escaped the departme

the department of justice have anything to do with flagging these passports?miliar with the situation you are describing but am happy to look into it and get back to you. >> thank you. another question related to this issue, does the department of justice have an immigrant advocate watchlist? >> congresswoman, i'm not aware of the question you are asking me. or the answer to it. i'm happy to look into it and get back to you. >> thank you. >> that's not something unfamiliar and prepared for today.>> and look forward to the answers to those questions. switching gears a little bit, at the president's state of the union address he claimed that my community, el paso texas, "used to have extremely high rates of violent crime, one of the highest in the entire country". and he claims that we became one of the safest communities in america because of a wall. data from the sci uniform crime according program shows that el paso has historically been one of the safest communities in the nation and that we were such, long before a wall was constructed, do you have any reas

the obama justice department ended it. i understand that it has been reinstated during the trump administration. i'd like you to inform us about its progress as well as any other measures or programs or enforcement priorities of the department of justice with respect reducing gun violence in this country. >> thank you, congressman. as you know we served as united states attorney together until you went into politics, and i went into private practice. i want to talk specifically and it's a good question about project safe neighborhoods. in 2017 the attorney general sessions announced the expansion of project safe neighborhoods which encourages u.s. attorneys offices to work specifically with the unique communities they serve to develop a customized crime reduction strategy. one study showed when you and i were doing it, it reduce crime overall by 4.1% and with case study showing reductions up to 42% of violent crime. we had the project safe neighborhoods national conference as a mention in my opening statement and i can tel

that kind of delay will cause justice, justice delayed is justice denied, that old saw is very important to understand and respect. on the other hand, you have to be willing to admit when you make mistakes. and many of us forget that when you become a judge. there's a temptation to say, well, that's the way i ruled, i had to be right. or i can't look indecisive to others so i can't change my mind. i think that's an error. i think that you have to use judgment. you have to work efficiently at thinking about all the possibilities and coming to a decision, but every once in a while, you should pause and rethink something to ensure you got it right. one of the justices i most admire, john paul stephens, one of the speeches, last speeches that i heard him give just after he left the bench was at fordham law school in which he described the three areas of law where his views had changed over time. where he had become educated by learning that he had been wrong. and i hope that i can follow his example. i have in small ways, and so especially in trials, not all the time because you can't do it

justice fortas. so he wants to come up with a replacement for abe fortas as associate justice. he will have to make two nominations, rather than one. the name he is most interested in looking at is homer thornberry. here's a photograph of them. he knows him very well. thornberry had succeeded him in the house of representatives. johnson had been appointed circuitry to the fifth based in new orleans. the appellate court judge nominated by johnson, he is a former congressman. very friendly with southern politicians. with particularly friendly richard russell, the most powerful of the southern democrats. johnson senses thornberry is somebody who will appease these southerners. he will ensure that abe fortas will be confirmed. -- beforen announces johnson announces thornberry, he gets on the phone with several key figures. generally, when it johnson would call you, this was not a two way conversation. johnson was not soliciting information. he was basically encouraging you to think as he did. his first c

justice breyer: uh-huh. wesley hottot: i think that, no, there is no difference, and that if there is that tension between the excessive fines clause and the cruel and unusual punishment clause, that an appropriate case, this court should resolve it. justice ginsburg: the three strikes, it wasn't simply stealing a golf club. it was the third offense. so it was a punishment for recidivism. wesley hottot: absolutely your , honor. justice breyer: he also robbed the chicken coop. [laughter] >> this gets me back to the question i was asking before. if six years imprisonment is not a violation of the eighth amendment, and you know you said it might be -- i think you might have something of an uphill fight to prove that, but three years, two years? how low would the ceiling of permissible term of imprisonment have to go in order to justify a holding that a fine of $42,000 is a violation of the eighth amendment? what is the equation between the monetary -- between dollars, and a fine, and time imprisonment? wesley h

that is a key quality that we want in anybody running the justice department. i have had enough trouble with the justice department, i hope that he can respond to my request for oversight democratsn more than and republicans preceding him. with memmitted to work on my oversight requests, and i think my colleagues know that that is a responsibility that i take seriously. he will uphold the law. barr deserves our support, and you can tell from our remarks that i am proud to vote for him. i yield the floor. inwilliam barr was sworn thursday after being confirmed by the senate, 54-45. three democrats voted yes. senators doug jones, joe manson and kyrsten sinema, and republican senator rand paul voted no. william barr, as served as attorney general during president george h w bush's succeedsation, 60's -- jeff sessions. weekend, twois books with authors making headlines. joe abramson, and starting sunday at 7:00 p.m. with howard schultz and his autobiography from the ground up plan tos life, and his run for president and the controversy that followed. audience,tell

justice ginsburg at the time was the only female left. justice alito read the opinion.ile my charge. >> justice ginsburg has filed a dissenting opinion. >> the court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination. congress intended to govern real world employment practices and that world is what the court ignores today. initially you may not know that men are receiving more. only over time is there strong cause to suspect that discrimination is at work. >> she's hit the nail on the head because she definitely said they do not know what it's like in the real world. >> today the ball again lies in congress' court -- >> -- to correct the error into which the court has fallen. >> she was laying down a marker for congress. and in fact federal law was changed because of her dissent. >> 3/5 of the senators having voted in the affirmative, the vote is passed. >> it is fitting that the very first bill that i sign, the lily ledbetter fair pay restoration act, is upholding one of this nation's founding principles, tha

of justice is in good hands. to my colleagues that vote against him, give him a chance. i think he will deliver for the country and to the committee and thank you for allowing the nomination to go through so quickly and to diane feinstein who is a great partner, i appreciate processing the nomination and we may have differences of opinion about what the right answer is but i could not have asked for a better process. i thought he was challenged but respectfully so but having said that, we are about to confirm a new attorney general at the time when we need one and this is just not somebody but the job this is a special person for the job and with that, i yield the floor. >> chairman. >> senator from rhode island. >> i guess i am here to follow my friend senator graham and bring the opposing view regarding mr. barr. i want to offer my appreciation to the chairman as he leaves the way he conducted hearing and i know he offered his appreciation to the ranking member but the hearing, i thought, was well handled, the

of the justice department and fbi of the justice department and fbi is the problem, but not the rank-and-filecaller: correct, correct. i do not know if one person coming in is going to be enough, just like that special counsel investigator. it's like, a dozen people, all big democrat donors to hillary -- i'd just don't see how that's fair. host: let's go look at more tweets that up and coming in from our viewers. ,ere is one from david roth saying the fbi is our last hope to stop this radical croak in the administration before crook inhis criminal the administration before they destroy our democracy. fbi when they stormed roger stone's home reminded me of nazi tactics. we have a clip from acting attorney general matt whitaker, having an exchange with republican tom mcclintock over the fbi for the tactics over the arrest of roger stone. here's what he had to say. >> let me talk about the apparent double stander and disproportionate show of force in cases like the rest of roger stone. 's i understand it, attorneys were in constant -- his attorneys were in constant , he doesith the fbi not own a

>> i have a very high estimation of the men and women at the department of justice. they are the most exceptional, hard working people that i have ever -- >> you disagree with the president's characterization because they don't deserve it, mr. whitaker, and you are -- you supervised, you managed them, you don't -- then you don't agree with the president's characterization of them, is that correct? >> listen, before, congresswoman, in all due respect, i feel very strongly that as the acting attorney general of the united states that i have to set the tone for the entire department of justice and what is so important -- >> if i worked for you, mr. whitaker and you thought i was highly principled and very talented and that was your answer when i was asked or you're asked about how do you view the people who work for you that's your answer, that's pretty pitiful. let me ask you this, you've only mentioned drugs coming through the southern border. the problem at the southern border as characterized by you and the president. could you please paint a picture of drugs flowin

and in fact, there were five justices, all of them conservative justices, who said that the administration could proceed with its policy. you don't usually, you don't usually get rid of a lower court injunction, unless you think that the side you are siding with has a pretty good chance of winning. has a likely chance of winning. so i think it's reasonable to assume that five members of this court, who have strong records, supporting executive authority, particularly in matters related to national security, in the military, that they will ultimately sustain this policy, if it ever comes to them. you know, these cases still have to be tried in a lower court, fully, and decided by the ninth circuit, and is not terribly important from here on into the trump administration, because they got what they wanted so there are not going to fight this tooth and nail to hurry up. >> this is one concrete evidence of the presence of brett cavanaugh and the absence of anthony kennedy on this issue. >> he could be. it's possible. but i don't know what justice kennedy would have thought about the question o

the chief justice split with the other four in the coalition of five justices and concluded that the affordable care act could be justified under the taxing power. only under the taxing power. so when we -- when congress in 2017 passed a bill as part of a tax cut bill, it undercut the constitutional foundation or basis for justifying the individual mandate in the affordable care act. it was no longer revenue raising. it couldn't be seen as a tax. i think other fellow panelists have said this, ilya, i think i heard him say, that that -- he agreed with that part, that the stripping away of the revenue and the tax law undercut the validity of that portion of the affordable care act. the question then is, how far does the relief go. is the relief limited to the individual mandate or does it have legs beyond that. here's where we get into our discussion about severability. basically i don't want to kind of redo this, but essentially, the bottom line on severability is, you leave as much of the law intact as you can and give effect to congressional will and then you ask. this was added in

the obama justice department ended it. i understand that it has been reinstated during the trump administration. i would like you to inform us about its progress as well as any other measures or programs or enforcement priorities of the department of justice with respect to reducing gun violence in this country. >> thank you, congressman. as you know, we served as united states attorneys together until you went into politics and i went into private practice. i want to talk specifically, and this is a really good question about project safe nash neighborhoods. the attorney general announced the expansion of project safe neighborhoods to work with unique communities to develop a customized crime reduction strategy. one study showed when you and i were doing psn it reduced crime overall by 1.4% and case studies showing reduction of 42% of violent crime. we had the project safe neighborhoods national conference as i mentioned in my opening statement. and i can tell you that especially in our largest cities, our 29 major cities

the department of justice have anything to do with flagging these passports?miliar with the situation you are describing but am happy to look into it and get back to you. >> thank you. another question related to this issue, does the department of justice have an immigrant advocate watchlist? >> congresswoman, i'm not aware of the question you are asking me. or the answer to it. i'm happy to look into it and get back to you. >> thank you. >> that's not something unfamiliar and prepared for today.>> and look forward to the answers to those questions. switching gears a little bit, at the president's state of the union address he claimed that my community, el paso texas, "used to have extremely high rates of violent crime, one of the highest in the entire country". and he claims that we became one of the safest communities in america because of a wall. data from the sci uniform crime according program shows that el paso has historically been one of the safest communities in the nation and that we were such, long before a wall was constructed, do you have any reas

justice anthony kennedy explained it this way. in a rule of law system, when you apply to a government clerk for a permit and you meet the criteria, you're not asking for a favor. you have a right to the permit, and that clerk has an obligation to give it to you. in many countries, that concept of government officials bound by law to serve the people simply does not exist. now, a society can achieve the appearance of the rule of law without accomplishing it in fact. shacks peer's play "henry iv," a prince brags about his connections to the devil. he proudly proclaims, i can summon spirits from the vastly deep. a skeptical friend mockingly replies, so can i. but the question is, will they come when you call them? [laughter] mr. rosenstein: an agreed-upon set of rules is a necessary condition for a system that operates under the rule of law but it is not a sufficient condition. the rule of law is not just about written percepts. it's not just about the words. it depends on the vigilance and character of the individual men and women

there was no criminal justice to be had against trump. any candidate would have taken the same meeting with the russian lawyer. and a replacement for sessions could reduce the budget so low it could grind it to a halt. you said all those things. it's all in print. it answers mr. deutsche's question. the american people wondered just how is it that mr. whitaker becomes the acting attorney general of the united states in violation of existing statutes, was he put there for a particular purpose. that wasn't a question. it's a statement. i yield back. >> i observed that. the time of the gentleman is expired. who is next? mr. -- is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. whitaker, for being here today. i just want to quickly reference the letter that was sent to you from the chair on january 9th. in this letter in the chairman's own words, it said this committee was here to, quote-unquote, conduct oversight of the department. in this letter it is also important other topics to be discussed here today like immigration, gun vi

i was aware of everything going out of the department of justic justice. that general sessions wasn't recused from. i think the president was comfortable that you continue the momentum of that affirmative justice, we have established in addressing these important parity issues like reducing violent crime, combating the opioid crisis, and others of the president felt i was the best position to do the duties of attorney general. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will just say to mr. whitaker, my question -- in a normal oversight committee, it would be vastly different than the direction i'm going to go. because we have kind of wandered into this other stream over here. i'm going to ask you some questions. the long-standing constitutionally-based department of justice policy holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted. that's based on the last review under the clinton and administration. is that still in effect, or has a change? >> that is still the policy of the department of justice. >> have you spoken to deputy attorney general rosenstein about his state

i actually feel very confident about the department of justice.art of it is because of the people i work with, the folks we have appointed in this administration which is an outstanding group of political appointees working with our folks to enforce the rule of law. not everybody agrees with our policies. that's what elections are about. the principals of the department are being enforced. when we find people that there are credible accounts of wrong doing, we're taking action. it's not as quick as everyone would like because we follow a process. we're taking appropriate action and we are promoting the rule of law. when you look back -- in the long run it's hard when you're caught up in controversy to be objective about it. i'm very confident that when we look back in the long run on this era of the department of justice we'll be proud of the way the department has conducted itself. the president will deserve credit for the persons he's appointed. these are folks we can count on to preserve the rule of law. >> we got a question about what counsel

a former justice department official named j.t. smith. j.t.mith searched at the cia and defense department and that fall of 1973 he was serving in the justice department and one of the closest advisors to the attorney general elliott richardson and the executive assistant. and j.t. smith was there, was there when richardson asked the head of the olc robert dixson to come up with an official justice department answer to the suddenly very pressing question about whether a sitting vice president could be indicted. and what j.t. smith told us in an interview for bagman is that robert dixson, that pressure packed fall of 1973, robert dixson really wasn't sure what the right answer was to that question. listen. >> he was asked by the attorney general as one should do to write an objective legal opinion on the amenability of the vice president to criminal process. >> right. >> and his office dug through 200 years of constitutional deliberations and opinions and ended up being in sort of a head scratching place where the opinion could come out either

and that history, but justice ginsburg and justice thomas and his concurrrring opinion, bototh wrote e at length about the history of the excessive fines clause which goes back to the vendor card a. but their emphasasis on the fa that after the civil war, excessive fines were used by re-isrn states really to like bla people. they passed all caps a provisions in opposed very steep fines people who violated those laws. and when they uldot pay those fines, then literally sold people to private companies for labor. it was convi labor. and that was a notorious practice throughout the south and even in some no -- northern states. during reconstruction and after. today, important because fines, fees, and forfeitures disproportionately affecect blak people and other communities of color in the united states. and by citing that history, the supreme court says to th states, we understand what is happening and that is a reason to be particularly concerned about the a position of these excessive nes. nermeen: lesa,a,ould you e expln in what caseses it is considered justified for local and state

[applause] justice kagan: well, thank you so much. thank you for all the historical society does for the court and for the country. your programs really educate all of us in the history of the court, in the history of american law, and it's a really terrific institution. and we're glad you all do what you do. and we're glad somebody people show up to these events. i'm going to explain the reason why i'm going to rush out of here pretty soon. i'm subbing. i wasn't intending to introduce this one, but one of my colleagues couldn't make it. i feel like i've seen other audiences for this series and it's great that so many of you are coming to hear about the supreme court and world war i, which is the topic of this leon silverman lecture series. the lecture today is on the free speech cases of world war i and honestly, this is the high point of the series. [laughter] justice kagan: this is the most interesting part of what happened in law and at the court during world war i in the years immediately thereafter. and it's being given today by

and how did you become the head of the department of justice. hopefully you can help me work through this confusion. mr. whitaker, that was a statement. if not a question. i assume you know the differenc difference. the investigation into the possible trump-a russian collision on the 2016 election has resulted in 37 indictments, is that correct? >> i believe that number is correct but most of those folks were russian citizens. >> 34 individuals have been indicted, true? >> while i have encountered those as i prepared for my hearing preparation, i believe those are consistent with the numbers. >> three corporate entities have been indicted, correct? >> i believe so, correct. >> the investigation has identified 199 different chemical criminal acts, correct? there have been seven guilty pleas, correct? >> yes, there have been seven guilty pleas. >> four people have already been sentenced to prison, true? >> i believe so, but i do not have this information in front of me so to the extent that i disagree with you, it's because these are facts. >> tru

in that fall of 1973, he was serving in the justice department.ers to the attorney general and j.t. smith was there, was there when richardson asked the head of the olc robert dixon to come up with an official justice department answer to this suddenly very pressing question about whether a sitting vice president could be indicted. and what j.t. smith told us in an interview for "bag man" is that robert dixon, that pressure-packed fall of 1973, robert dixon really wasn't sure what the right answer was to that question. listen. >> he was asked by the attorney general, as one should do, to write an objective legal opinion on the amenability of the vice president through criminal process. >> right. >> and his office got through 2 years of constitutional deliberations and opinions. i think they ended up being in sort of a head-scratching place where the opinion could come out either pro or con criminal process for the vice president. and at that stage, one evening i took a phone call from the late robert dixon who said, do you have any idea how the at

chief justice. the first question is what did the manufacturer know or should have known at a particular point in time. and then the next question is what did the fda understand about that. because if you take the statute that i started my argument with, it's always on the manufacturer to stay up to date. remember, the manufacturer has superior information about these drugs to the fda. the budget of the fda's drug safety division was less than the annual sales of this very drug, and so you're talking about a massive resource disparity between what the agency has and what the drug company has. >> what we're talking about is what they told the fda, what the fda understood, and if when they told the fda about, and we heard the different citations to the joint appendix from your friend on the other side, about the notion that stress fracture included the things that the atypical fractures, and if that is what merck understood, they gave to the fda what they had, and if that's what the fda understood, th

particularly when one reads justice thomas' concurrence on severability. it's not a given that there's four justices who automatically think the whole thing is going to be unconstitutional, though there are some who have kind of there are said that. in conclusion for those hong that it's as simple as chief justice roberts this gives him an opportunity to say they was wrong, i think that will prove to be wrong. thank you for the opportunity to be here. enjoy the conference. i think it's an exciting program and, again, thanks not sponsors for the opportunity to be here. thank you. [ applause ] >>> thursday, the house ways and means committee will hold a hearing to discuss legislative proposa proposals related to presidential and vice presidential tax returns. live coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org, and on the free c-span radio app. >>> there are nearly a hundred new faces in congress following the midterm elections. three are from tennessee, all republicans. voters in the second district elected tim burchett, who has held

the obama justice department ended it. i understand that it has been reinstated during the trump administration. i'd like you to inform us about its progress as well as any other measures or programs or enforcement priorities of the department of justice with respect to reducing gun violence in this country. >> thank you, congressman. as you know, we served as united states attorneys together until you went into politics and i went into private practice. i want to talk specifically, and it's a really good question about project safe neighborhoods. in 2017, attorney general sessions announced the expansion of project safe neighborhoods which encourages u.s. attorneys' offices to work specifically with their unique communities to work to develop a customized crime reduction strategy. a study showed it reduced crime overall by 4.1%, and with case studies showing reductions of up to 42% of violent crime. we had the project safe neighborhoods national conference, as i said in my opening statement, and i can tell you that especi

he decided to get the department of justice to change the interpretation of the law. he throw ifs into the campaign and get the office of council to perform a rehearsal saying the white republicans -- everyone though its language plainly prover it is sports spreading. wh >> it talks specifically about sports betting. >> now, were you involved in that decision? >> congressman, the general session was recused at the time the decision came out. >> were you reaccused, too? >> did you talk to sheldon alideson about it? >> no. >> did you talk to charles cooper about it? >> no. you can ask the chairman for time, we only have five minutes. >> the gentleman control the time at the conclusion of his five minutes, i will afford a witness sometimes. the gentleman controls the time. >> january of february 2018, the chairman of wild road casinos and resorts in iowa, each donated $2,006 to your senate campaign which was over four years before when you lost that campaign. how did these omnivore raters come to donate your campaign several years after you lost? did you talk to them? >>

what are we doing justice for? we are doing justice for the law as it should be because we are not just looking at the case before us and there are some who would argue that is what the supreme court should be doing but every time we announce the principle of law we are or are integration of law we are deciding not just that case but the cases that come after it and so it is not uncommon in the supreme court for a supreme court justice to ask a litigant if we follow your rule isn't the natural outcome this other extreme. i will give you an example that occurred on the court of appeals but happens regularly on the circuit court and i had a case involving the first amendment and a judge had issued a gag order stopping the press from reporting on information that had been disclosed in court. and the appeal came to us by the litigant by the newspaper who claims that was an abridgment of the first amendment because anything said publicly in court was subject to public dissemination. one of the questions that i asked was

is that obstruction of justice from your perspective? >> i wouldn't go far as to say it's obstruction of justice. there's a lot you need to prove to show that an individual act or a question that was asked is obstruction of justice. it seems from the reporting in the article that you've described that matthew whitaker didn't take any action, that nobody did unrecuse himself, and that it's possible that the question was phrased innocuously. although i tend to have my doubts about that. it is not obstruction for someone to ask the question in an inquiry, you know, what are the rules about recusal and would it be possible for someone who he might think is more favorable to him to not be recused any longer? i think you need a bit more to show something is obstruction, but you don't need much more to draw sort of a common sense conclusion if you're a citizen of the country that it is another example of the president of the united states, who may not meet the standard for criminal obstruction of justice, certainly meets the standard for improp

-- pick two great justices. people have asked me since i left, how did you do it? it's interesting to be here at the reagan library, because so much of what president reagan did inspired me to do what i did on my team -- inspired me and my team to do what i did. a few after -- for years after we got the federalist society certificates, i hung it on the wall. even at a young age, i was kind of edgy on wearing it on my sleeve. i remember a federalist society dinner at the mayflower. i remember i didn't know anyone. i was looking for a seat at the dinner. someone pulled up my jacket and said why don't you sit here, son. this person said i am can grip -- ken crip. i was very excited. this very nice person said i'm ed neese. i said, of course you are. i thought washington, d.c. was going to be like this every night. it was not. [laughter] mr. mcgahn: when i came in the front door, they have the trustees and -- and ed's name was there. i really look back to what they did and i remember when neil gorsuch was put on the

this is an important issue to our department of justice and our justices work hard every day to adjudicate those cases. quite frankly, the number of immigration judges we have have been overwhelmed by the number of asylum seekers. over 80%, and really over 90% of those that are enkourcountered the border and detained and arrested claim some sort of asylum. that causes those folks to be put into the immigration court system and then requires that a hearing be held by an immigration judge, and meanwh e meanwhile, most of those folks, the 800,000 that are pending, are not part of the detained docket, they are part of the released docket. and those cases take longer, the ones that are not der tatained, non-detained docket, and they have caused since 2008 that number to go dramatically up. what we have done about that situation is general sessions and i have issued attorney general orders changing some of the specifics as to how those cases are adjudicated, and in addition, we have, together with the help of congress, which you've authorized and funded more immigration judges. we've put a drama

obstruction of justice is a crime.know, we spend lot of time on television talking ability what might be proven, what mueller might find. looking merely at the evidence in front of us, the collection of evidence and the statements pie the president, it's clear that he's obstructing justice. i think i could prove that beyond a reasonable doubt given all the evidence that there is publicly including his own statements. that should be shocking. that should be astonishing to people. people should be concerned, and what do we have? republican senators, republican congressmen doing nothing. it's not even news anymore when the president of the united states calls someone a trait, calls for law enforcement to be locked up. that's just another day. it's just a monday in this country right now, and that's a disgrace. and it should be a concern. >> "the times" also -- go on. >> it's not just obstruction of justice is not significant. i absolutely believe that and believe if only that existed, that's enough. what is of concern is

like every prosecutor, we have lls, justice, justice shalt thou pursue. other people have quotes from and aobout mercy and justice mighty streams. as i prepared to give that speech, two things happened to me that were quite remarkable. the weekend before the speech, my older son celebrated his permits for. barmitzvah.but isaacebrates the story of . what my son talked about was the fact that abraham, when told by god he would, destroy sodom begs for the forgiveness of people he does not know. whenn's take was, abraham being tested as a leader, chose to stand up for those who, some of whom may have been sex -- falsely accused. innocent.ave been in addition to that, i want to hear valentino's take in a m barmitzvah project was to go to these prisons and teach them how to use cell phones and technology. two days later, president obama came to newark to talk about president -- prisoner reentry. there with a background just like valentino's. those two things helped me figure out the principles of judaism and our need to do better, our need to help others. that

you cover the fbi and the department of justice. is that a view that was shared -- i won't say widely but beyond mccabe? is that a small minority view of a danger with this president? or is that concern shared well beyond him? >> it was shared with the small group of folks mccabe describes in his inner sanctum making the decision about whether to open these investigations on president trump in the first place back in 2017. so mccabe outlines how he had a whole recommendation from folks who looked at the cases, people working on the russia investigation and they came to him and recommended this so there were at least more than one including the former general counsel of the fbi, james baker, who described he thought there was a perfect possibility the president was completely innocent but they thought it was the fbi's obligation, duty, they thought to get to the bottom of what happened in case the president was, in fact, working on behalf of the russian governme government. >> since you're so tapped into the doj, is there concern tha

oversight role over republican-led justice department? >> i'm sure like any official who goes up to capitol hill and testifies, the justice department will go back and look at it. i don't know anything beyond that that would be there. i can imagine this will be an issue that the democrats will continue to bring up time and time again. to try and get whitaker to try and pin him down. you sort of see the problem at times with allowing members of congress to ask someone a question. there are different ways that whitaker provided different answers that don't necessarily provide complete clarity to what went on. perhaps, in follow-up questions from the committees up there, whitaker will explain actually aefr everything that went on here. a reading of the transcript is not entirely career what the conversations were with the president and when they may have happened. >> glenn kirchner, it's a good point. congressional committees do give witnesses an opportunity to clean up sometimes something they said. let me put up one of statements that he m

many supreme court justices were chief justices sent the letter out to their entire bench, every judge in the state. in arizona, the chief posted the letter online. and judges all over the country realized that what they had been doing was unconstitutional. now fast-forward to the new and attorneyn general jeff sessions, fairly early on in the administration, announced that he was retracting that letter, together with pieces of guidance that the obama administration had issued. i don't think it had the effect he intended because many, many states, supreme court, particularly the chief justices, reinforced to their judges that despite the actions of the attorney general, that their colleague letter still applied. nermeen: do you expect the new attorney general william barr to address the issue differently? >> no. i don't think the department sees its role as advising the states were working with the these to change practices. amy: i want to go back to 2016 when we spoke to a woman named janice. she is a native of little rock, arkansas, who said she wrote a check for $1.07 for a loaf of

you were in fact, this is quite remarkable, you worked at the department of justice for 10 years, youked in 3 federal yodistricts under 9 different united states attorneys. it's not that you changed, it's they changed over the course of time when the new administration comes in or what have you and the u.s. attorneys were appointed by presidents in both parties. >> exactly. >> and you also had been counsel, lead counsel in more than 500 federal appeals, 350 of them in united states attorney and appellate chief in northern districts of texas, i want to audience to know how significant that is, you were one of them. >> thank you. >> and i want to tick a very close look at robert mueller's office, a lot of people focus on robert mueller and they should, but it's the number two guy that mueller relies on everything, andrew, let's focus on andrew so the american people know who he is and knows who really is the -- in many cases the wizard of oz, tell us about andrew weismann. >> the poster boy for prosecutorial misconduct, mueller appointing him to that position. >> where was mueller at th

mark: every justice said no. >> exactly. mark: what happened to mister wiseman? . >> absolutely nothing. he was director of the enron task force and by that time when anderson was reversed he already set his sights on the merrill lynch and indicted for executives on a multicount indictment that they also made up a crime. mark: what happened to anderson? . >> it was destroyed the minute it was indicted it collapsed not only under criminal indictment so it lost all clients but 160 civil plaintiffs piled on with multiple lawsuits. mark: it was crushed bark all those people lost their jobs and investors lost their money. >> all the partners lost their money. >> in a case reversed by the united states supreme court mister wiseman was in charge. >> yes and anderson was the hallmark or the benchmark for accounting standards they were the gold standard. a venerable accounting firm. mark: was wiseman involved in merrill lynch? . >> yes. not the company but one of the reasons they indicted anderson was to send a message to other companies that if they knock on your door yo

i want to thank justice kagan. i also want to thank the supreme court historical society for inviting me and hosting this series. and many thanks to all of you for attending this evening. it's heartening to see so much interest in legal history. the hundredth anniversary of the armistice has generated a wave of excitement about the wartime cases, and i'm thrilled to be able to unpack the significance of this historical moment for you. adjust the podium. okay, so in our polarized political culture, few features of our nation's constitutional history command consensus. the free speech cases of the first world war stand out as an exception. amidst heated debate over constitutional interpretation and judicial role, there's broad-based agreement that the rampant prosecution of political dissenters was misguided, and that the judicial decisions upholding their convictions were wrong. on this account, the supreme court's cowardly concession to iarian suppression was an indefensible departure from american values. yet judi

>> this if this is not an attempt to obstruct justice, i don't know what is. we need to put a lid on this investigation before it impacts me, i think that's the only rational, reasonable read on what he said to whitaker. now the president denied it yesterday. but we know that conversation happened. because remember when whitaker was testifying a week or two ago he was asked about you ever discuss the mueller probe with trump? he said no. >> we have that moment. >> right. >> let's just play that and then you can analyze it for us. >> yeah. >> watch this. >> did you communicate to dump or any white house advisers about investigations from the southern district of new york? >> congressman, i mentioned that -- i said other investigations in my opening statement. i really don't have anything further to add. >> i want to know whether you talked to president trump at all about the southern district of new york's case involving michael cohen. >> congresswoman, as i've mentioned several times today, i am not going to discuss my private conversations with the president