sicking the justice department on e. jean carroll. sicking the justice department on michael cohen. you will recall a federal judge ruled the trump justice department retaliated against michael cohen by returning him to prison improperly, specifically as punishal for michael cohen writing a book critical of the president. that wasn't like some pundit saying that's what it looks like. that was a judge's ruling. that the trump justice department retaliated against cohen by wrongfully imprisoning him as retribution for him writing a book critical of the president. doesn't the biden era justice department have to clean that up now? the solution can't be we promise to do that never again. we're not like that. i mean, trump used the justice department to bring cases against omarosa manigualt newman when she wrote a book critical of the president. he used the justice department to bring charges against john bolton. he used the justice department to bring a case against stiffany will cough, when she wrote a book critical of the president. the president and first lady didn't just trash her p

justice is equality under the law. there's one law for all americans regardless of race, color, creed, or connection. is judge garland up to that task? i think he is, but today, our goal is to ask him questions to find out. the department of justice has taken important steps to live up to these ideals expressed by attorney general ashcroft and i think they have done well in that direction, particularly over the last four years. the department has undertaken many successful initiatives to reduce violent crime in all communities and has sought to maintain the rule of law by reforming consent decrees, guidance documents, protected our civil liberties, particularly our religious liberties, and pursuing elder justice. i hope the department of justice continues these initiatives under you, judge garland. what i do not want is a return to the obama years. i do not want in attorney general who brags about being a wing man -- and those are his words -- to the president. that was eric holder notoriously describing himself. i do

department of justice became the trump apartment of justice. general barr stated clearly that he believed the ag was the president's lawyer, not the nation's. the results? too many cast aside the rule of law. trump appointees sidelined career public servants. from line attorneys to fbi agents. limited their roles, disregarded their input, overrode their judgment, and falsely accuse them of being members of the deep state. and the department pursued policies of almost unimaginable proportions, from separating thousands -- thousands -- of innocent migrant children from their parents to banning innocent muslims from traveling to our shores, from defending and even ordering violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters to parroting baseless lies about voter fraud in the lead up to the 2020 election. the misdeeds of the trump justice department brought this nation to the brink. in fact as we have learned come , after president biden's inauguration, the senior official in the trump justice department, jeffrey clark, plotted with president trump for one f

it looks like justice. you have, to me, one of the most positions on planet earth for trying to create a more just society. the issues of race, and i was grateful in your opening remarks you talked about your agency coming about to deal with issues of justice in our nation. i want to talk to you about white supremacist violence that has been mentioned a lot. before i get there, i am concerned with something i consider pernicious and difficult to root out, which is the realities of implicit racial bias that lead to larger systemic racism. the issue of systemic racism has become something argued over. if i can walk you through for a second, does our justice system treat people equally in this country? judge garland: sadly, and as -- it is plain to me it does not. sen. booker: i'm going to stop you there. we have a common justice system that treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent because one's finances make a difference in what kind of justice one gets. judge garland: th

to equal justice? >> absolutely, senator. as i have said to many people, i think probably including yourself, ed levy is my model for the attorney general. his role was to be sure that justice was meted out fairly and impartially without any special favors for anyone. this is the definition in my view of the rule of law that the powerful and the powerless, one party and another party, one community in the united states and another community in the united states, all are treated equally in the administration of justice. >> the chairman's recitation of things that he perceives as being inappropriate at the department of justice, ended with the -- started and ended with the trump administration. but let me take you back a little further into the biden/obama administration. you're familiar with the press conference of james comey, the fbi director had in july of 2016? where he discussed the investigation of hillary clinton for inappropriate use of her email server. >> i remember it, senator, yes. >> accord

department of justice became the trump apartment of justice. general barr stated clearly that he believed the ag was the president's lawyer, not the nation's. the results? too many cast aside the rule of law. trump appointees sidelined career public servants. limited roles, disregarded their input, overrode their judgment, and falsely accuse them of being members of the deep state. the department pursued policies of almost unimaginable proportions, from separating thousands -- thousands -- of innocent migrant children from their parents to banning innocent muslims from traveling to our shores, from defending and even ordering violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters to parroting baseless lies about voter fraud in the lead up to the 2020 election. the misdeeds of the trump justice department brought this nation to the brink. as we have learned come after president biden's inauguration, the senior official in the trump justice department, jeffrey clark, plotted with president trump for one final stab at the results of the 2020 election. they wer

what, to you, is justice? judge garland: everybody treated equally regardless of their position in society, powerful, powerless, rich, poor, democrat republican, black, white, equal treatment, equal justice under the law. senator kennedy: i want to press you a little bit on that. is it justice if you have an unjust law that applied equally? judge garland: that's a lack of justice. senator kennedy: let's tero it down to punishment and justice. if i suggested to you that justice and the concept of punishment is when someone gets what he deserves, would you agree or disagree with that? judge garland: i suppose that depends on what it means. yes, i think justice requires individuals -- individualized determination of a crime you did. there are mitigating circumstances. senator kennedy: let me put another way -- is a person who commits a crime a center and the moral sense -- a sinner in the moral sense or a sick person? judge garland: this is again probably beyond my competence. with justice comes mercy and so i th

both trump justices agreed he was not immune. the court said, you can go back and challenge the subpoenaed like anybody else would. that's what the president's lawyers did. they said they were overbroad. they lost in both the district court and court of appeals. they went to the supreme court with an emergency request saying, please, block this. today after that thing has been sitting there since october, the court said, no, we're not going to block it. there had been an agreement by the manhattan district attorney that he would hold off on seeking these documents from mr. trump's accountants until the supreme court acted. the accountants know what they have been asked to do. they are ready to go as soon as the court order becomes final today. it is now. this exhausts the president's abilities to try to block this in court. he is out of legal options. i would think within a matter of days, the accountants will begin to abide by the subpoena and turn these documents over. it's important to say, craig, this doesn't mean they will b

my job is to protect the department of justice. it is employees in going about their job in doing the right thing according to the facts and the law. >> it targeted pro-israel groups, it targeted tea party groups, it targeted individuals perceived to be on the opposite political side as the administration. will you commit as attorney general that you will not allow the department of justice to target those who are perceived as political opponents because they are political opponents? >> absolutely. i will not. >> also under the obama administration, operation choke point was used to pressure lawful organizations, lawful institutions, institutions, for example, that sell firearms to constrain their lawful activity, to abuse and force them to comply with the state administration policies. do you believe it's appropriate for the administration to use regulatory pressure to force lawful behavior to stop? >> senator, i'm not aware of the specific that you're giving, and i expect you don't expect that i would have been aware of it, but o

there is no equal justice in the united states unless everybody has equal access to justice. my own experience, the public defenders office needs resources. i tried my best when i was in an administrative position to apply as many resources as possible. the same for loggers who volunteer under the criminal justice act. the difference between having an excellent lawyer or not can make all the difference in the world. and i think we should give all the resources that we can, and with respect to local courts and local public defenders, having grant programs, but of course to the extent congress is willing, i'm strongly in favor. >> i appreciate that answer and i look forward to working with you and i hope the chairman and ranking member almost grant programs -- and finally i want to return to the discussion that we had earlier about pattern or practice investigations. i just want to urge you that if you are confirmed and as you take this office, and there will be so many demands on your time and your attention and important missions from the department to fight violent crime and

it looks like justice. have, to me, one of the most positions on planet earth for trying to create a more just society. the issues raised, and i was grateful in your opening remarks you talked about your agency coming about to deal with issues of justice in our nation. i want to talk to you about white supremacist violence that has been mentioned a lot. before i get there, i am concerned with something i consider pernicious and difficult to root out, which is the realities of implicit racial bias that lead to larger systemic racism. the issue of systemic racism has become something argued over. if i can walk you through for a second, does our justice system treat people equally in this country? judge garland: sadly, and as plain to me -- it is plain to me it does not. sen. booker: i'm going to stop you there. we have a common justice system that treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent because one's finances make a difference in what kind of justice one gets. judge garl

equal justice?absolutely, senator. as i have said to many people, i think probably including yourself, ed levy is my model for the attorney general. his role was to be sure that justice was meted out fairly and impartially without any special favors for anyone. this is the definition, in my view of the rule of law, that the powerful and powerless, one party and another party, one community in the united states and another community in the united states all are treated equally in the administration of justice. >> the chairman's recitation of things that he perceives as being inappropriate at the department of justice ended with the trump -- started and ended with the trump administration. let me take you back a little further into the biden/obama administration. you are familiar with the press conference of james comey, the fbi director had in july of 2016 where he discussed the investigation of hillary clinton for inappropriate use of mail server? >> i remember it, senator, yes. >> according to the

it looks like justice. you have, to me, one of the most positions on planet earth for trying to create a more just society. the issues raised, and i was grateful in your opening remarks you talked about your agency coming about to deal with issues of justice in our nation. i want to talk to you about white supremacist violence that has been mentioned a lot. before i get there, i am concerned with something i consider pernicious and difficult to root out, which is the realities of implicit racial bias that lead to larger systemic racism. the issue of systemic racism has become something argued over. if i can walk you through for a second, does our justice system treat people equally in this country? judge garland: sadly, and as plain to me -- it is plain to me it does not. sen. booker: i'm going to stop you there. we have a common justice system that treats you better if you are rich and guilty than if you are poor and innocent because one's finances make a difference in what kind of justice one gets. judge

we talked about social justice.hat way that phrases on the surface unobjectionable until you actually unpack what is meant on the way it's used, each of the words is used. talk about diversity here but equity here but inclusion. who can object to diversity? who could object it equity? who in their right mind a right spirit object to inclusion? we start to unpack to help terms are used. in the cases we are talking about, it means activity of certain favored groups, equity means not balanced. rewards of being to favored groups. there's means only the inclusion wanting to be included. you don't happen to be a member of one of those quote unquote included groups, kiss goodbye to inclusion because you simply won't be included you won't even recognize existing perspective professor alice gemma, please please? >> i have a slightly more skeptical version of what social justice is about. what it means. never say promoting radical leftism is blatantly illegal to use a public institution to promote a political cause. so social

chief justice.think it's easy to lose sight what extensive analysis the fcc did here, because so much of that analysis is undisputed. the fcc concluded that because of a variety of alternative media voices are now available to consumers, the viewpoint diversity concerns originally rmt prompting the cross-ownership rules were far less acute today. the fcc also explained that if the ownership restrictions were repealed or relaxed owners could achieve economies of scale, for instance a broadcast station by buying a local newspaper could use resources with respect to the gathering and the dissemination of local news on both platforms and thereby provide better broadcast service to its consumers by using the resources of the newspaper. thank you, mr. chief justice. >> thank you, counsel. miss walker. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, may it please the court. in this case the fcc decided broadcasters should not have to operate under ownership restrictions dating back to a the roosevelt administration. i'd

but in order for justice to be fair justice must be open.the court's recent shadow docket decisions demonstrates that at a minimum more transparency is needed. knowing why the justices selected certain cases, how each of them voted, and their reasoning is indispensable to the public's trust in the court's integrity. today's hearing marks the first time that congress has explored the shadow docket in depth. as scholars and practitioners before the court, each of today's witnesses brings important insight into what the shadow docket has become, its impact on the law and on the american people and what could or should be done. i look forward to an informative and productive dialogue. and it is now my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from california mr. issa from his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for holding this important hearing today. at this time i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a number of articles from one of our witnesses professor moorly s

one tool for racial justice. we have to be looking at all levels. sentencing guidelines. actually, i do not think clemency should be limited to something that the president should do. it should be able to be done in courts, in federal courts, across the country so i think we , need to look at a top to bottom reform. representative bush: thank you. i yield my time. chair: thank you. our next congressman to be recognized that he was in the nfl so long ago he never played against tom brady. representative burgess owens. representative owens: thank you so much for that. good morning, everyone. this is truly an honor to be with you. what i'm hoping to do to bring to this committee is my lifelong passion for criminal justice reform. coming out of the judicial system and giving them a chance and when americas given that chance, a grandmother was given a life sentence. for a first offense. it took 22 years, and that was president trump, and, president obama. these pardons, the vast majority of pardons and commutations on

we have magistrate justices, and bankruptcy justices that are selected a different way. but in terms of what we call article three of thear constitution, judges are appointed under the constitution they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. every president has a slightly different way of picking up judges. for the very longest time, the way that it happened at a particularly in my states, and in others was that the president for district court judges, the trial level judges would take recommendations from the senators of the state. i stay his date because the presence back then were all men because they are to the times. but, senators of each states in particular if they were the same party as the president, could nominate people for the president to consider. if the senators of particular states were of the other party, than the presidents could or could not listen to their nomination out of courtesy many people in other states had different senators from am different party and they were still appointed. but in a new york, there was an odd for arra

i would also like to compliment justice douglas. he was very happy to try and greatly starts in my draft case in 1972. as for the lady from aclu, very nice lady, i would like to ask her what she is doing about the crippling of free speech. at my parents alma mater at berkeley in california. and the conservative speakers that have been banned there. >> >> thank you so much, charles. i wish i had the power to control what happens at berkeley. i am doing what i can, speaking on many campuses, including hopefully berkeley soon. the whole reason i spent much of the last year writing my book, which is defending freedom of speech or hate speech, advocating counter speech and other measures to deal with actual problems of hatred and discrimination. but the reason i felt it was necessary was, clearly we free speech advocates have not persuaded too many college students and members of the public. i hope this book will make the case more persuasively and the berkeley students will start showing more respect on free speech. >> we are on a campu

and it's fair to say why this was a per curium justice, it was first written by justice fortis before he resigned in a financial scandal and then justice brennan edited it and at least some scholars have reported that he really changed this language from the clear and convincing test to really make this new test of intentional incitement and likelihood of incitement. >> this is a unanimous 8-0 decision. are per curiums always unanimous? >> no, i was surprised to reof fresh my memory that bush versus gore was a per curium resulting in george w. bush becoming president for those who don't remember and there were many, many separate opinions that individual justices issued, but-- and the vote was as split as it could be 5-4 and yet there was a per curium opinion. >> what was the story about judge fortis? >> it's could many -- it's complicated because there were some allegations he had too close a relationship with president johnson with whom he had been close politically, that continued after he was on the court, which was improper, violating separation of powers concerns and impartialit

department of justice became the trump department of justice.e attorney general was the president's lawyer, not the nation's. and what were the results? too many in the department's senior roles cast aside the rule of law. trump appointees in the department sidelined career public servants from attorneys to fbi agents, limited their roles, disregarded their nonpartisan input, overriding their professional judgment and falsely accusing them of being members of the deep state and the department pursued policies of almost unimaginable proportions. from separating thousands, thousands of innocent migrant children from their parents, to banning innocent muslims from traveling to our shores, from defending and even ardoring violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters to parroting baseless lies about voter fraud. the misdeeds of the trump justice department brought this nation to the brink. in fact, as we learned after president biden's inauguration, a senior official in the trump justice department jeffrey clark plotted with president trump for one fina

all eight justices on the court join. they wrote separately just to emphasize that whatever the majority decision said, that the court should not and would not in any way embrace the previous clear in present danger standard because whereas justice holmes wanted that standard to have teeth to it and use it as a way to only be able to punish speech that in fact is an emergency, an emergency situation, that the standard had been used in ways that could actually be applied very vaguely, to just people teaching marxism and leninism. black and douglas wrote separately really to emphasize that clear and present danger standard should not, was being abandoned. >> i have read that initially the opinion had been assigned to and was drafted by justice portis before he retired from the court. he had language that was similar to past clear and present danger standards and justice black said he would not sign the opinion unless that language came out. he left the court, brennan was the one who redrafted it, and did take out that langu

david: justice sotomayor, for everyone watching, became a justice, and associate justice of the supreme court in august of 2009. she had previously been a circuit court judge, the second circuit in new york and the second district and a district court judge before that. she is a native of the bronx, she's a summa commodity graduate of princeton university, winner of the pine prize, given to most outstanding undergraduate and a graduate of yale law school where she was an editor of the yale law journal. that's an impressive background. but when you were growing up, did you say you wanted to be a lawyer? with that clear from the early days that you wanted to be a lawyer? jutice sotomayor: it was, but for reasons that were not self-evident. i grew up in a housing project in the south bronx and there were no lawyers or judges in the projects in which i lived. but when i was seven, i developed diabetes and i understood back then, it's not so true now, but back then, if you had juvenile diabetes, which i did, you work permitted to become a law enforcement agent. i wanted to become a detective

the department of justice was investigating. there are congress must rein in the abuse of pardon power. the resolution by the chairman put a number of strong proposals-- pardons issued for corrupt purposes. even without a constitutional amendment congress has the power to otherwise check the abuse of the pardon. in the 116th congress included in the protecting our democracy act provides important oversight, transparency, and anti-bribery and self-dealing protection. we urge this reintroduction and passage this congress. in the meantime, congress should investigate whether president trump pardoned associates and share what it learns with the american people. congress should explore the idea of independent clemency boards to review clemency petitions and advise the president. this could eliminate biases inherent in the current system which often relies on prosecutors and the department of justice to serve as a check on their own prosecution. members of such a clemency board should reflect our country's diversity and represented as

tool for racial justice.e have to be looking at all levelse and sentencing guidelines i don't think clemency should be limited to what the president can do it should be done and federal courts across the country. so looking at this from top to bottom reform. >> the next person who played in the nfl so long ago he never played against brady. >> thank you for that perspective. thank you for that. good morning everyone. into my colleagues to the chairman and ranking member this is truly an honor to be with you, you. and my passion for criminal justice reform i have an issue for decades what was coming out of thehe juvenile system and i was pleased when americans were given that second chance. a grandmother given a life sentence for the first offense which was 22 years before someone heard her voice and that was president trump but to talk about these pardons the vast majority would go out to those individuals those cases that were championed byy advocates for those in low-level offenses. and with the four founde

we have seen the justice department, the u.s. department of education, hud, and a number of poor federal agencies really abandon the project of enforcing and instituting the protections afforded by our federal civil rights laws. as a result, what we've seen has been a resurgence of discrimination across the country. we have seen the resurgence of discrimination in the fair housing market and affordable housing opportunities for vulnerable communities. we have seen abandonment of the principal, the principle of diversity abandoned. we have seen the resurgence of -- -- suppression is adjusted to barb and turned its back on important work that must be done. we have seen rampant police abuse, police misconduct and police brutality that has largely gone unchecked because again this justice department over the past four years has abandoned the work of investigating systemic policing misconduct. we also know hate crimes have been on the rise across the country and we have not seen this justice department do enough to hold the perpetrato

it looks like justice. you have to, perhaps, one of the more important positions on the planet earth for frying to create a more just society. the issue of race, i was grateful in your opening remarks talked about your agency coming agent to deal with issues of justice in our nation. i want to talk to you about white supremacists violence which has been mentioned a lot. before i get there, i'm concerned with something that i consider pernicious and very difficult to root out, which is the realities of implicit racial bias that lead to larger systemic racism. the issue of systemic racism is something argued over. if i can walk you through a second. does our justice system treat people equally in this country at this point? >> sadly and it's plain to me that it does not. >> i'm going to stop you there. we have a criminal system that treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent because ones finances makes a difference with what kind of justice ones get? >> it's no question there

was the senate actually going to confirm a new supreme court justice in theweeks before a presidential election ? was going to win the presidential election, which party would have control of the senate following the georgia runoff so there's always been some other piece we needed to know and now january 25 is where here, sort of core ppieces are in place and as the big answer looms, we've assembled a tremendously knowledgeable group of speakers today to discuss these really important issues. a note to everybody watching, you can submit questions for speakers by emailing events@brookings.edu or by twitter at brookings golf, all one word or by using the hashtag tort reform. as i mentioned i have a really remarkable panel today and we're fortunate to have eric holder, attorney general of the united states and a partner at covington and berlin was here to issue opening remarks both in his time and government, holder has been a leading voice on matters of essential issues of democracy including fair redistricting, voting rights and tort reform and immediate following his keynote remarks we

matthew miller is here, former chief spokesman for the justice department and msnbc justice and securityso joining us, "washington post" contributing columnist and msnbc political analyst, our friend, former congresswoman donna edwards, and katie benner is here, justice department reporter for the "new york times." i'm glad to have you on what i'm sure is a busy day. i want to read some more from your reporting on roger stone. actually, just take us through what that looks like. because merrick garland is going to take over justice department that may be entering into some of the most parts of the investigation and contemplating some of the most serious charges and it sounds like some of them may be considered associates of donald trump's. >> absolutely. so, we saw in the hearing today that judge garland vowed to make sure that the department remained free of political influence. however, we do know that that could be trickier than we want to believe it will be as the investigation into the capitol riots moves closer to donald trump's inner circle, especially with roger stone. keep in mi

we have a criminal justice system in this country. we have civil litigation. and formerd presidents not immue from being accountable by either one. i believe the senate was not touched have power the constitution does not give us. avicenna was right not to intervene some sham process to try to outrun the loss of jurisdiction. took both sides more than a week just to produce their pretrial briefs. the speaker policies on scheduling decisions conceded what president biden publicly confirmed . before inauguration day was no thought. during this time, the senate doesn't argue this. the framers dialogue held up again. on january the sixth, we returned to her post and be certified the election. we were not intimidated. they finished the job. and since then, we resisted the climate to defy our own constitutional guardrails. in hot pursuit of a particular outcome. we refused to continue the cycle of recklessness by straining our own constitutional boundaries in response.se the senate's decision today is not condoning anything that happened on or before that terrible d

justice story and the same on the constitution where in justice story analyzes impeachment is ina applicable for those that are no longer in office. justice story noted that he's not coming to a firm pause on this. this is his belief and his thought process. there's much more on the remark that impeachment is a proceeding purely of a political nature. it's not so much designed to punish an offender but secure the state against gross official processes. i divests him of his official capacity. professor phillip bob bit. this is insulting. professor phillip bobbit is from columbia university who along with professor charles black wrote the handbook on impeachment used for many years. he's an expert on impeachment. he's written there's little discussion in the historical question. professor bobbit which has a rich history in the democratic party, l.b.j., also asserted the following as recently january 27,2021. arguing against holding this trial. he said "there's no authority granted to congress to impeach and convict persons that are not civil officers of the united states. limiting congress to

"justice with judge jeanine" is next. remember i'm watters and this is my world. [♪♪♪] judge jeanine: hello and welcome to "justice." i'm judge jeanine pirro. thanks for being with us tonight. i'm in orlando, florida for cpac. we'll have all the can't miss moments along with reaction from congressman matt gaetz. but first my open. in he fascist step towards takedown is shutting down your voice. the second step is taking away your weapons. big tech, the mainstream media and the democrat party have already kren secured and chipped away your first amendment, now they are working on the second. the second amendment clearly proclaims the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the united states supreme court repeatedly affirmed the right of americans to keep and bear arms. as a result, estimates are 45% of u.s. households have guns and there are 45 million guns privately owned in this country. the left refers to. obama commented on strong town midwesterner. they get bitter, they cling to guns or relig

an agency of criminal justice. and their budgets are beholden to whoever runs the agency. that's one issue that came out that's important to think about. talking to lab directors they will tell me the district attorney lab that's great because i am in a police lab and for me it's hard to justify my budget because my boss basically has to decide if i will use this money or will i use it to buy another instrument for the dna unit. i think the attention for forensic scientist is how do i make my case in a way that i am intelligible but also legitimate. here is what i found and the tension is in the lack of control. >> i will tell you a story somebody told me about a case he was involved in. he did a comparative analysis of the evidence he did shoe print analysis so basically what happened, there was a crime scene somebody kicked in the door there was a footprint on the door. his job was to figure out the size of the footprint from the photograph because the door was broken. he had a photograph of the door, the shoe pr

it looks like justice. you have perhaps one of the more important positions on the planet earth for trying to create a more just society. and the issues of race, and i was really grateful that you, in your opening remarks, talked about your agency actually coming about to deal with issues of justice in our nation. i want to talk about white supremacist violence which has been mentioned a lot, but before i get there, i am actually concerned about something that is pernicious and difficult to root out, which is the realities of implicit racial bias that lead to larger systemic racism. i've been kind of stunned that the issue of systemic racism has become something argued over, but if i can just walk you through for a second, does our justice system treat people equally in this country at this point? >> sadly, and it's plain to me that it does not. >> i'm going to stop you there. we have a criminal justice system that treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent because one's fi

perhaps justice gorsuch. i have really strong gets that there are five justices that would go all in on a strict history approach to the second amendment. but i do not think that is the whole game. right? the fact that it is in the water in some sense ends up shaping that other kinds of questions that get presented to the court. why? if you know that some of the justices are inclined to be skeptical of some other type of test the briefing is going to look different. justices can only make decisions on what they see. whether or not you have five votes for a history test doesn't necessarily mean that history won't be influential just in terms of a practical supreme court litigation. i say this as a former litigator, but not a supreme court litigator. >> thank you. as you and i were talking about history itself is kind of a contested terrain. there is information we can find in history. with the sources of the information are and how they can be contextualized or radically different. people are not necessarily t

justice you should pursue is very meaningful to you. why? what about that particular phrase has let you down this course in life? >> of course is a quote from deuteronomy and was inscribed of the chambers of the late justice ruth gaiter ginsberg's courts chambers. it is something for my own personal experiences growing up visiting my own parents behind bars celebrating passover as a child. that's really profoundly inscribed as a person. my nieces and nephews or the people whose criminal cases crossed my desk at as the san francisco district attorney. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> this week california said goodbye to one of its visionary leaders. a man who was known as a spiritual godfather to members of the beat generation. the poet and publisher, french admirers gathered around the bookstore in san francisco. he cofounded the bookstore 1953 it became a gathering spot for poets. here is him reading from his own poem the world is a beautiful place. >> the world is a beautiful place to be born into. if you don't mind happiness

and i pray that while justice was not done in this trial, _ while justice was not done in this trial,by the american people who are above any of— the american people who are above any of us _ the american people who are above any of us in — the american people who are above any of us in this chamber determine the destiny— any of us in this chamber determine the destiny of our great nation. and that was chuck _ the destiny of our great nation. jifuc that was chuck schumer, the senate majority leader wrapping up his comments, saying that even though the senate had failed to bar donald trump, disqualify him from any further office, he hoped that the american public would remember the events ofjanuary six american public would remember the events of january six and make sure you never took office again. we have also had a statement from... actually, let'sjust also had a statement from... actually, let's just listen to what the senate minority leader, mr mcconnell, has to say. the used terrorism _ mcconnell, has to say. the used terrorism to _ mcconnell, has to say. the used terrorism to t

right now if your look at where our justices are from, we have justices that reflect the regional diversityonwealth. and so this is really a solution in search of a problem, and the only problem republicans seem to have is they have a problem with democracy, they have a problem with every vote counting and they have a problem when judges and justices do what they're supposed to do and uphold the rule of law. >> what was your reaction to your republican senator from pennsylvania voting guilty in the trial of donald trump? >> my reaction is for the first time in a very long time, pat toomey has voted in the right way. but i don't have a lot of tears for pat toomey, because what he has done for years is what the republican elected have been doing as well. they have been feeding their supporters lies, disinformation, grievance, and now they've created a monster that they can no longer control. so all of what pat toomey is dealing with, this is of his own creation, and i know that the chairman of the washington county republicans said that he doesn't want a senator that's going to do the right t

this is this as to this is the 1st step the road to justice is long i'm one of the goals is to bring back al assad and his in a circle before a court and it's the shuttle a soft eyes for them get us so getting. the syrian government denies that it is prisoners the rules of universal jurisdiction allow german courts to try allegations of serious crimes in other countries effect or be accused or actually in germany foreign minister heiko mouse welcomed the verdict steve species trials taking place outside syria are a glimmer of hope and a clear signal to the victims that justice must be done for them. to destroy it you know find. out garrett's lawyer says he plans to appeal the sentence. or more we're bringing in the middle east analyst daniel gary locke he is the editor in chief of zenith magazine he joins me tonight from here in berlin daniels' good to see you again we have spoken many times about the atrocities that have taken place since the war in syria began a decade ago this verdict against a former syrian official how important is. it is a political message of course for the 1s