chief justice roberts: justice -- justice thomas. justice thomas: thank you, mr. chief justice. mr.atyal, the -- you place, obviously, in your briefs and your argument today a lot of reliance on the fact that -- on your -- your point that css is a contractor. would your analysis of this case differ if, rather than receiving funds from the city or contracting with the city, css was a private organization that was regulated, solely regulated, as opposed to the contractual relationship? katyal: absolutely, justice thomas. that would be a very different case, that because this is the contracting circumstance, the government has far more leeway in what is actually similar when you heard all of those things about race and disability and the like. umbehr says courts must give deference to the government's reasonable assessments of its interests as contractor. and so, when you're looking to what is similar and what is different, i think it's very important to understand that it's not similar in the lukumi sense. the government is saying that those distinctions made on the best interests of

chief justice roberts: justice alito. justice alito: ms. blatt, i understand you to say that schools cannot discipline a student for things that the student says outside the school, not in connection with a school program about subjects such as politics, religion, morality, economics, et cetera, et cetera. the problem is when the student says something that implicates those subjects but links it in some way to a student or a teacher. what you say is -- and the solicitor general makes a similar argument -- it matters whether the speech targets the school. i have no idea what it means to target the school. now let me give you an example to make this more concrete. and since tinker occurred back during the vietnam war, it will relate to that. so, during the war, a student says, war is immoral, american soldiers are baby killers, i hope there are a lot of casualties so that people will rise up. even if that would cause a disruption in the school, i understand you to say the school couldn't do anything about it. is that right? ms. blatt: that's

the justice department will let the department of justice be the department of justice.rosecuted. they're not my lawyers. they're not my personal lawyers. you're turning this into a vehicle for your own law firm. you don't own that justice department, you pick the best people you can and you hope that what they're going to do is enforce the law as they see it. but can you remember any republican president going out there for former democratic president go find that guy for us. remember that? by the way, i'm being sued because a woman accused me of rape. represent me. represent me. personally represent me and the state of new york on my not allowing my tax returns. what's that all about? what is that about? >> yeah what was that all about? that was candidate joe biden last fall criticizing president trump for you turning the department into his own personal law firm, including the justice department telling the court, telling the federal court that trump was engaged in his official duties as president of the united states when he said about a woman who accused him of rape

justice thomas: thank you. justice roberts: justice dwyer? justice dwyer: what is it precisely that you are complaining about in this court? from much of what has been argued, i thought it was the injunction part. pages 119a, 47a -- in which the injunction in the court of appeals seemed to say ncaa, you cannot limit giving them musical instruments, computers, etc. and they add the cost of post-eligibility internships, vocational schools, does that mean like law schools? and there were a couple other things. is it that you think -- you know what the latter things are. that could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. i mean, law school is expensive. i don't know if it is a vocational school. they could be. they can be very, very extensive. so, that limit may come close to saying ncaa, you can let these schools get away with murder in terms of what they get the -- give the athletes, and you have to. or they may be minor things. but is that what you are attacking, or are you attacking other things as well, or what? seth waxman: let me start with t

justice department. now, that kind of communication from the white house to the justice department, that is a very stark, very obvious violation of longstanding justice department policy. for justice department officials to be even having that kind of a conversation with the white house chief of staff at all, let alone entertaining multiple requests for him to open these investigations? that is a serious violation of seriously important justice department policies. now, it is being investigated in the senate. the judiciary committee under senator dick durbin is reportedly investigating what went wrong inside the trump justice department that they were involved in this kind of stuff and fielding these requests, which they never should have been fielding. but under merrick garland and the justice department itself, apparently they're not investigating this. apparently they're just letting that slide, not looking into it. just, i guess, planning to do better and not make those same mistakes again, hope that

without that, our justice could fall. we need justice all over america. we want justice for the floyd family, we continue to love you, we always will, we will always be part of your lives, there are so many other families that are here today that are also severing -- suffering and require that same justice, civil and criminal. that is what matters most. thank you all. >> not a lot to say that hasn't been said, but as a local minnesota lawyer, i want us to remember that we need all of you. we need the media, the activists, because the second we turn around and leave, we have to go back and ask ourselves, how do we get more justice for george floyd? how do we get justice for daunte wright? how do we get justice for winston smith. ? how do we get justice before the people who are regularly fought for, armstrong and her group, and without all of you we don't have the energy for that fight right here, we need you all to keep turning out and we appreciate it. because it allows the floyd family to get the most historic just as we have ever seen, but it is not en

justice department leak investigations are fairly routine. current and former congressional officials familiar with this inquiry said they could not recall any instance in which the records of lawmakers had been seized as part of one. n seized a part omoreover, just as it did n investigating his organizations the justice department under president trump secured a gag order on apple which expired this year. lawmakers did not know they were being investigated until apple was able to inform them of that fact last month. after the records provided more proof of leaks, prosecutors and d.c. discussed and in that piece of their investigation, but william barr's decision to bring in an outside prosecutor helped keep the case alive. there does not appear to have been similar grand jury subpoenas of records for members or staff of the senate intelligence committee, just the house. a spokesman for republicans in the house intelligence committee did not respond to a question about whether republicans were issued subpoenas. the justice department has decl

reporters' communications seized by the trump justice department secretly. and those communications that the trump justice department went after, they were all from 2017. the trump administration was frantically trying to find out who the sources were for those reporters when they were writing stories about the early days of the trump administration and the 2016 campaign. now, the reason this has come out now, the reason all of these stories about first "the washington post," then cnn, now we know "the new york times" -- the reason all of those have come out has been, i think in part, because of the change in administration. the reporters who had their communications searched by the trump justice department, which is hunting for their sources, in many cases, those reporters didn't know their communications had been seized until now. the trump justice department in some cases had secured gag orders so the reporters couldn't be told that they were being targeted. their news organizations couldn't be told. it couldn't be discussed. the reason these stories are

the department of justice and white house counsel's office take it very seriously. one thing to keep in mind is the extent to which the attorney general and department of justice are primarily responsible for enforcing these norms and it's the presidents direct authority to supervise the attorney general at the end precluding him with the advice and consent of the senate and to remove him but that authority while important is not easy and as we've seen can be politically costly. the president cannot open an investigation and the pardon power cannot propose. so is the attorney general who has the responsibility on a daily basis of making sure the department of criminal and civil decisions are made for the right reasons . so i think obviously there's been a lot of discussion about this in recent times but some of that comes from on the front end the investigation into president trump's campaign which we sort of inherited at the beginning of the trump administration. others come from the president was speaking about civil and criminal matters prior to being president o

but it is not justice. justice is george floyd being alive. justice is that they would have been doing this. had they done sentences like this before, maybe chauvin would not have thought he would have gotten away with it. >> that's right. >> so let us remember the people that you attacked that marched in minneapolis and we marched all over this country, we're not going to stop. one sentence does not solve a criminal justice problem. the united states senate must show the same courage this jury showed and hold police accountable for murder and make them pay in the court of law maximum for murder. not a token, not a donation but full accountability. >> amen. >> for the actions that you did. let us pray. dear god, we come to the same spot we bowed at the beginning of the trial, asking you to give this family strength and give them grace. and you brought us now to the end of this particular proceeding. they will say it is more time than any time in history. but we will say that history has been long underserving its citizens. and we humbly thank

he doesn't urge the justice department to investigate particular people. that's one very important norm. beyond that, the president doesn't urge the department to investigate his political adversaries or his political enemies. that is even a more important norm. and then, i think even beyond that, you have the specter of a president who is, himself, under investigation by our committee, calling for an unprecedented subpoena, unprecedented subpoenas for account information pertaining to members of congress, to staff members, to family members, even to a minor child. and that is, i think, a terrible abuse of power. it violates, i think, the separation of powers. but it also makes the department of justice just a fully owned subsidiary of the president's personal legal interests and political interests. and that does such damage to the department. so it's extraordinary, maybe unprecedented for the department to seek records like this of a member of congress or staff of a member of congress, or staff of a committee. to do so in a partisan way. to do so when th

how do we get justice for winston smith, _ how do we get justice for winston smith, how do we get justicebehalf, people — regularly fought for on behalf, people like carraway and her group, nick eva _ people like carraway and her group, nick eva levy armstrong and her group, _ nick eva levy armstrong and her group, and — nick eva levy armstrong and her group, and without all of you we don't _ group, and without all of you we don't have — group, and without all of you we don't have the energy for that fight i’ili'it don't have the energy for that fight right here — don't have the energy for that fight right here. we need you all to keep turning _ right here. we need you all to keep turning it _ right here. we need you all to keep turning it out and we appreciate it because _ turning it out and we appreciate it because it's allowed the floyd family— because it's allowed the floyd family to get the most historic justice — family to get the most historic justice we've ever seen. but it's not enough. thank you. as justice we've ever seen. but it's not enough. thank you.- justice we've ever see

the perfect apex now between civil justice and criminal justice. what we now have today we have proof that black lives matter, that they are valuable and that when you violate policies, you're going to pay and you're going to pay a lot of money. and when you violate the law, you're going to get prosecuted and you're going to go to jail and you're going to go to jail for a long time. and those two lines crossed today. and george floyd now equals justice on both civil and criminal. but the job isn't over. it's not over until we go state to state. reverend al, ben, you all said it so eloquently. we must have the george floyd police reform bill passed. >> amen. >> if that doesn't get passed, our justice could fall. the graph could fall. we need justice all over america. we want justice for george floyd. the floyd family, we continue to love you. we always will. we'll always be a part of your lives. but there are so many other families that are here today that are also suffering and require that same justice, civil and criminal. that's what matters most

professor tyler clerked for justice ruth bader ginsburg and their book justice shall pursue is an outgrowth of the visit to uc berkeley in 2019. tyler interviewed her about her life. on that it is a compilation of materials exploring justice ginsburg's life and her lasting legacy. we will hear more about her work to end gender discrimination, fighting for equality and protecting the constitution. a quick reminder to the viewers if you have a question please submit that question into the chat. professor, what a pleasure to talk about your book and i am going to begin by asking you where it all started. not the conversation, but the core thing that you did with justice ginsburg in the late '90s, early 2000. how would you describe your relationship at that time? a lot of people that have an opportunity to clerk for a judge wouldn't necessarily. how would you describe it? >> that's interesting because i had to absolutely amazing clerkship experiences and i was lucky to have bosses who became lifelong mentors and also friends. that isn't to say in both cases especially at the supreme court that

to trust our system of justice again and to get the people within the department of justice to trustustice without fear of favor. he has a really tough job, as did edward levy. the two were picked for the same reasons. they are very credible people. >> ari, barr fascinates me. it fascinates me when he chose to resign. i understand jill's point. i think barr might argue, he is the executive. he can call the shots here. does barr think that anything he did was illegal? that in the -- going back to barr's theory of executive power here, trump ultimately is the justice department. >> yeah, i think that's a fair question. i think you are giving it its maximal intellectual benefit of the doubt. >> generous there, i admit. >> as devil's advocate. i do agree with what you are gesturing at. between a general counsel who decides to just become a criminal, which is worse given their deep knowledge of where the lines are, with regard to their intent, and someone who can continues to skirt up to the end, even if critics and many doj veterans say he debuted him as going over the line and should be

you mentioned justice douglas, just as referred her -- justice frankfurter. the constitution of the court was what at this time? peter: eight of the nine members of the court with the exception -- seven of the nine members, with the exception of justices don't and jackson had been appointed by fdr. they were the new deal justices when fdr threatened to pack the court back in the 1930's by adding new justices, he finally got his wish. he appointed a majority of the court. these were people who owed some kind of personal and institutional loyalty to the president. peter: in this particular case, during wartime, it is very hard for anybody, including a member of the supreme court, to say as -- that the president was wrong and what would be the implications of that. susan: the court said, yes. and the second question, should fred korematsu's conviction be upheld? and the court said, yes. and it was a 6-3 decision. i want to read a lit -- little bit of the opinion. in your book, you noted it started out with the decline of racism. how did it switch? peter: because

court justice, and later a failed nominee for the justice ship. but here he is a lawyer. and at the time that he is appointed to represent gideon, he is at the top of the legal profession. he is one of these great washington fixtures -- fixers and great lawyers at the time. and clarence gideon goes from not having any lawyer to having one of the greatest lawyers in the country in front of the supreme court of the united states. >> across from him was bruce jacob. prof. amar: i think we are going to see him maybe in the course of the evening. susan: he argued two cases before the supreme court and a really interesting history about both of them that we will learn about later. the other namesake, wainwright. louie wainright. he really has very little role to play in this case. he was the head of florida prisons. how are those names assigned to cases? prof. amar: that were based on which party is sued in the action. and the reason why this is wainwright as opposed to the state of florida is this sketch to the supreme court. as opposed to a direct app

sorry but the -- >> -- justice department. >> well speaking of justice department, the office of inspectoras you and i were talking. initiated a review of the use of subpoenas and other legal authorities to obtain communications records from members of congress. so that is -- the department of justice inspector general michael horowitz announcing this. so it looks like you're going to get your investigation. do you think that congress should investigate this as well? >> i do. i don't think -- i think we've learned that congress has to protect itself at some point in time. and i've heard that the senate is going to be looking into this and that is i think appropriate. i think it is probably best that others do it and not the intel committee, just because it's us. so i think it's a bit of a problem if we try to be involved with an investigation in which this committee was targeted. but i do think there are others in congress that could do this and that is part of it. but to my earlier point, i can't stress enough, this was a presidency that was willing to use the justice department as its la

. >> and to the department of justice and the white house and the notion for doj independence. use the term norm and the attorney general think of the law enforcement officers of the united states is w a member of the president's cabinet and serving at the pleasure of the president. it is a frequently topic and the administrations. and with that in its relationship with the white house let me start with former doj officials and turn to the former white house counsel. >> united states attorney general 2007 through 2009 serving as a judge for the southern district of new york with the courts cheat chief judge a graduate of late yale law school serving as deputy attorney not attorney general throughve 1997 serving as general counsel as department of defense with the bipartisan 9/11 commission a graduate of harvard a law school stephen for the office of legal counsel at the department of justice 2017 through 2021 deputy assistant attorney general 2006 through 2009 previously clerk for supreme court justice kennedy a graduate of yale serving as white house counsel 2009 through 2011

should the justice department -- whether or not reforms are passed, should the justice department bekstop to stop any of the three components of what we're up against right now? >> yeah, i think the justice department has got to be involved and aggressively involved. that fraudit going on in arizona now might seem for whatever reason as something republicans want to support for short-term gain, i don't know exactly what it is. but clearly will do long-term damage to our democracy if it raises in minds of people in this country doubts about the effectiveness, integrity of our electoral system. let me be clear, there is no indication that last election was conducted in anything other than appropriate way. record numbers of people got to the polls, had the ability to express their views, were counted in appropriate ways. republican state officials responsible for counting of the votes did their jobs well. trump's attorney general, who i have lots of problems with, indicated there was no fraud in the election. so all of these things they're doing now are counterproductive, within basis a

house and the justice department. say the legal judgments of the department of justice must be impartial and insulated from political influence. you then lay out in detail what that means. and as other attorneys general before you had done, lay out very specific rules about the very restricted number of people that can communicate from the white house to the justice department in the matter of any pending or potential criminal investigation. as far as we understand that memo is still policy at the justice department, it has not been rescinded, but yet this weekend there's "the new york times" headline trump white house chief of staff mark meadows pressed justice department to investigate election fraud claims. "the times" first to report this weekend that the trump white house had their chief of staff calling the justice department, calling the attorney general, telling him to go chase rabbits, to go chase down some of the craziest conspiracy theories about how trump was supposedly robbed of his rightful election resu

was not justice or two systems of justice that means no justice at all more on the department of justiceestigation, check out this article. merrick garland, attorney general says d.o.j. will strengthen rules on obtaining lawmakers records. it's interesting, i didn't hear anybody on the democrat side calling for that one devon unisys phone records were received. mark, there are important questions that must be resolved by the department to obtain records with it to members of congress and congressional staff. do you think? maybe you could have had that opinion again when it was devon nunes but because he's republican again, lady justice isn't blind, only blind to democrat. one eye wide open for republicans. you never will believe who's leading the investigation into the big scandal trump administration getting phone records from congress. mr. usa today article, inspector general can initiate investigations based on information from a variety of sources including its own hotline. in this case, the deputy attorney general lisa monocoque made the request. [laughter] are not laughing, sometim

donald trump said we want the justice department to investigate and the justice department went out and investigated chair adam schiff. it looks like an abuse of power and it's hard to see it as anything but that. >> house speaker nancy pelosi issued a statement tonight in response to this breaking news. she said, recently it has become public that the trump administration sought account metadata of the staff and their families. the news about the politicization of the trump administration justice department is harrowing. these actions appear ton yet another egregious assault on our democracy waged by the former president. i support intelligence committee chairman adam schiff's call for an investigation into this situation and other acts of the weaponization of law enforcement by the former president. >> they will probably conduct their own investigation if they haven't already, but i wouldn't be surprised if we have hearings about this particular issue, whether it's in a classified setting or otherwise, but this is something that, you know, is unprecedented and it deserves an incredibl

this justice department will not tolerate any such abuse of authority.he national strategy explains that it is critical that we condemn and confront domestic terrorism regardless of the particular ideology that motivates individuals to violence. although we often describe violent extremist motivations by reference to different violent ideologies, the purpose of those characterizations is to help us categorize and understand motivations. that is why, even as we're here today to discuss domestic terrorism-related violence, we are addressing violent crime more broadly, including through a directive to reduce violent crime that the deputy attorney general and i announced last month in the form of a new initiative. it is also why, even as we augment our efforts against domestic terrorism, we remain relentless in our focus on international terrorism perpetrated by foreign terrorist organizations like al-qa'ida and isis. our focus, as members of the department of justice a“ and as a federal government a“ is to our focus, as members of the department of justice

the justice department used -- what were you aiming to get at in this editorial?uest: judicial watch had sued for secret subpoenas that schiff had issued that targeted the phone records of the president's lawyer, rudy giuliani. he got those phone records, then he used those records to uncover more phone records. you call people when you are talking on the phone, obviously. he published those phone records. he secretly subpoenaed phone records and then publish them. they included the phone records of rudy giuliani, devon nunez, the president's lawyers, a journalist, john solomon, so then i hear this noise about schiff being the target of a grand jury subpoena, and him complaining about it. when in fact, he is telling us in court that we can't get access to the records and he is telling the court that this is essentially unreviewable. that the congress can issue subpoenas without going through a grand jury, without going through a federal court, without having to tell anyone. it was rudy giuliani and president trump, but it can be anyone. anyone watching now can hav

the cause of justice won. we're not going to have something who believes these conspiracy theories running the justice department. that meeting was about georgia. that meeting was about donald trumps true belief something happened in georgia. he had the call in georgia trying to get him to do something to find votes and fraud. to find evidence to cast doubt who had won the state. we see this really tense and awful meeting happen. it's after that meeting that you see rosen's deputy e-mail bj pack. a few minutes after the entire justice department debriefed op what happened in the meeting. president obsession with georgia is known. the fact something is going to probably happen to bj pack or mentioned. is known. and that point that the number two official calls pack. and you can assume he likely explains to him what has just transpired in the meeting. and president trump's obsession with georgia. and he presents him with a a couple options. if you are bj pack i don't know what you would do. i don't know for sure

kennedy justice department. by name.re going to see a large number of investigations that will be launched. it is not just usual the barriers of lawyers but the laws to enforce and the problem is since 1965 through 2013 we had the voting rights act section 5 requiring southern states trying to change the voting laws to have it approved by the justice department staff in washington d.c. or by a federal court. that was struck down by the supreme court in a 5-4 vote in 2013. i'd argue the same issue in 2009 and upheld and then four years later they flipped and the loss of that provision is why a dozen states in the last few moths enacting 22 different restrictive voting laws. some would have never sufficed under section 5 so this is great. the staff action is good but legislation is also needed to restore section 5. >> so that's federal legislation that needs to restore section 5. short of that what can they do? we'll take one state as an example. georgia has passed their voter restrictions predicated in the words of republ

department. >> everyone's asking the justice department.hat more do we know about exactly what happened here? >> we know that the justice department has not talked directly at this point, that we know of, to the people potentially involved here, congressman schiff indicated that, what we've got from our reporting is that it's been legislative affairs staffers at doj and communication. we still haven't heard word from the justice department, it's interesting, john, because in just about two hours the attorney general merrick garland is scheduled to give remarks concerning voting rights, but we know there will be a room full of reporters, no doubt he will get questions about this, and to manu's point, why didn't they alert chairman schiff, he got notice in may, we understand, why weren't they alerted here? >> let's walk through this, carrie, this is your wheel house. the government has every right to try to protect sensitive information. the government, though, as rules it must follow. we know #00 plus accounts targeting schiff, including a m

opinions of some of the justices who voted for the times, justice white and justice stewart in particularindicated that a criminal prosecution could be brought, and might have succeeded. bear in mind, of course, the case came up very quickly and the members of the court, as some of them complained, were not deeply enmeshed in the facts of the case. they really left it to the government to persuade them, which the government failed to do, that publication would do great harm. but when you read those opinions, a majority of them thought it would do harm. i think it is worth saying it did not. but a majority of the members on the court thought publication would do harm, and nonetheless, that the times and the post could publish. susan: this series is about our constitution. so at the outset, we always look at the constitutional provision that is under examination. this is a first amendment case. the first amendment reads as such, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or o

chief justice. first of all we understand there has been a trial we are perfectly prepared to explain as we have in the brief 91 - - why notwithstanding the reversal is required in antitrust laws do not permit the court to impose the decree that it didid that we think in order to avoid the situation we currently have with endless line drawing and supervision , punctuated by request for damages it's important for the court to speak clearly given we have at the government acknowledges is a street extreme with the restraint on competition and that is procompetitive. >> as we look at the quick look doctrine only to strike them down. >> with the rule of reason as explained in town dental. and that a form of review may well be appropriate to those kind of rules and more broadly the court has adopted clear standards to overcome dismissal and the rationale for the approach to advocate the court that is a deferential review. >> and that one limitation that is troublesome or lack of limitationay and with $500

benban it oh are still at the justice department and ensuring mr. biden's appointees including attorney general merrick garland would have a full understanding of the investigations. leading off our discussion tonight, democratic congressman of illinois, he's a member of the house intelligence committee, also matt miller, former spokesperson for attorney general eric holder and an msnbc contributor. congressman, let's begin with you. i want to give you an open mic here for your reaction to this breaking news tonight. >> it's an outrageous trampling of democratic norms. we knew donald trump had politicized doj, now we know he weaponized the doj as well. now we absolutely must have a full investigation of what occurred at doj. secondly we must hold those accountable who may have even broken the law in this affair and third, we have to put in guardrails to prevent this from happening again. there are a number of questions that need to be answered with regard to that last issue, and i can go into that if you wish. >> how do you feel about those justice

that's what happened at the trump justice department. trump leaned on senior officials at the justice department to act on this crazy stuff and they didn't just sit on it.th they fielded it out to actual federal prosecutors and u.s. attorneys. they did it a bunch of times. this to me is a shocking part of the story. certainly the more urgent matter for the current justice department under merrick garland to act on and investigate to get to the bottom of it, clean up and make sure it never happens again. we have it all in black and white. december 14, 2020.toagit the time stamp here is 4:57 p.m. subject from potus.ta it's got an attachment.fr this nonsense conspiracy theory stuff about michigan. a cover-up on voting crime. laws have been broken.e a capitol c cover up is happening. regarding the voting machines in michigan.th this is a seditious conspiracy. this is flier you find in a bathroom somewhere and make you decide to leave the place and not come back. the president of the united le states sent this to a top justice department offi

we hear from the justice department that they're independent of the biden white house. joe biden complains about subpoenas to journalists so the justice department says they're going to stop doing that practically speaking, and then separately now we have the justice department shutting down this investigation into schiff and by the way it implicated eric swalwell as well. i just think it's interesting how quickly the justice department jumps to squelch investigations into the president's allies in the media and in congress. >> tom fitten is our guest, he leads judicial watch. your calls are welcome 202-748-0801 for republicans, democrats 202-748-8000 and for all others, independence and all others 202-748-8002. in 2018 your group filed suit against adam schiff and the house judiciary committee on obtaining records. what happened in that lawsuit? >> well, we didn't win. you know, the lower court ruled the speech or debate clause protects the secrecy of these records and the upper court, the appellate court also agreed. it's interesting because we didn't sue under foyia

any moment now we expect merrick garland to speak to the department of justice. he's under growing pressure to address jeff sessions and donald trump who used his pow gore after trump perceived enemies. we know they collected data from reporters and fair families. the deputy a.g. is asking the inspector general to investigation. >> here's what we know. that trump subpoenaed apple for records of more than 100 accounts. among them, two democrats, adam schiff and eric swalwell including their staff and family members, including a minor. there wug a gage order that expired three times after trump left office. >> this was all part f an effort by president trump to find out who was behind the reports of contacts between trump associates and russia. >> i can't go into who received these subpoenas or whose records were sought. i can't say that it was extraordinarily broad, people having nothing to do with, you know, the intelligence matters that are at least being reported on. it just shows what a broad fishing expedition it was. >> okay. so two top democrats are now cal

and i of course said the justice department, because this is what the justice department does. i thought he was going to pop out of his chair. but anyway, this one just always comes up. and it does have a danger of opinion shopping. that is, the white house could go to one or the other and say that it has gotten the opinion that it needs. indeed, this is happen. so that's not a hypothetical. two of of the comments i would make. one is doj is the arbiter of the position of the united states in the courts, as steve said. it doj that has to stand there and defend the administrative actions, for example. but there are often disagreement among agencies when one agency wants a particular position taken. and in our administration, our solicitor general blackstone was spending time from time with those agencies tried to get to a common view and sometimes that didn't happen, and in the end his opinion prevailed. that didn't mean that people didn't go to the white house to say this is wrong. so that does happen. and there are occasions which is why bob needs to speak last on this, where

he said the risk of doing this is that it makes justices more political which will erode justices which will erode confidence in the court. >> does he have a point? >> i was surprised that he weighed in on something as political as this. as the court. they the fact of the matter is, his statements and statements of others show us just how much work we have to do in convincing the american people of the inequities. and the inequities are shown in what congressman jones talked about. democrats, represent 40 million more people. chris talked about the imperative that was found years ago, with the circuit court i was surprised by it, i was surprised by his lack of clear evidence or evidence and evidently his knowledge of history. yes i am very surprised. vested >> any of the other panelists think he had a point there? or do you feel like he is missing the point of this? >> it was horrible. and it was not rooted in anyone's experience over the last several decades. and i looked around as i did a double take, because similar demands i didn't understand why he was weighing in on the legislatur

justice department and whether the biden justice department is doing enough to repair it. and on that front, we have breaking news just this evening, with the house judiciary committee announcing a formal investigation into the trump justice department's secret seizure of communications records of journalists, members of congress, and their staffers and families. judiciary chairman jerry nadler says tonight, quote, recent reports suggest that during the trump administration, the department of justice used criminal investigations as a pretext to spy on president trump's perceived political enemies. congress must make it extraordinarily difficult if not impossible for the department to spy on the congress or the news media. we should make it hard for prosecutors to hide behind secret gag orders for years at a time. we cannot rely on the department alone to make those changes. it is also possible that these cases are merely our first glimpse into a coordinated effort by the trump administration to target president trump's political opposition. if so, we must learn the full ex