the justice department didn't have much to say. iowa senator chuck grassley, the ranking republican member of the senate judiciary committee, says that's unacceptable. he says it was a decision that most likely came from washington, and the highest levels of american law enforcement. >> we think it goes very high up in the justice department. but how high, i'm not sure. >> reporter: right now the justice department is trying to keep the investigation focused on arizona, sending cnn a copy of the letter to the senate saying "the operation was

nonpartisan leadership to the department of justice. jim cole is that type of person. he has the experience, he has the character, he has the commitment to fill this very important position in our nation. 13 years in the department of justice. experience in public interest law. his career has been devoted to the public interest in community service. i was listening to my colleague and friend, senator grassley, talk about his concerns about some of the private law practices of jim cole. here is a person who has devoted his life basically to community and career and public interest law. he has been a prosecutor, he has been a person who has dealt with white-collar criminals, and yes, he is an effective attorney. as we all know, those of us who are lawyers, we'll represent our clients aggressively but we don't lose sight of our system. that's been jim cole throughout his career. he will bring that expertise that he has had in his previous experience to represent our nation well. these are tough times. we're dealing with threats around the w

who looks after the justice department. i think when you have reason to believe there's mismanagement inside the justice department to leave that to the justice department is not acceptable to me. so i think that's been a concern. there's one department where you do not want mismanagement and abuse is the justice department. and i think your committee has every right to find out exactly what the conditions are. >> but is that hiding from the fact that if the attorney general and/or the president were to state that yes, something went awry there, does that give us more imperative to pursue those documents and comply with -- >> i think that does justify your inquiry, yes. >> congressman, if i could -- i disagree with mr. fisher but the concern at least one could envision in a situation like that, the way i would answer your question is no, i don't think it changed the calculus one iota in either direction. which is to say you do not want to find the committees position where they start to set a standard where you begin to sug

the justice department has a job to do. in some kind of way, we've got to find a way as the adults in all of this to make that happen. and make it work. i'm very serious about that. you got to, you know, life is short. i tell my staff that every day i look in the mirror and i face my own mortality, and the question is, how can i be most effective and efficient. when we go do this ring around the rosy stuff, what happens is that none of us are effective. you heard me make a commitment to that lady, miss terry. i shall not rest until everybody involved in this process and i mean that, i shall not rest, until all of that is addressed. now, the chairman said something that was very interesting. he a moment ago spoke about all this transparency and we need to read the whole document. i appreciate that. but the one thing he did not say about this memo on january 5th, he didn't read this piece. you remember mr. chaffetz mentioned this memo. they read a piece of the memo but didn't read all of it. let me just read this line so that

explain why that is with the justice department? >> it is under the criminal division of the justice department. their job is to look at public officials, by and large, and threw out wrong doing. the steven's case was less than their finest moment. even though they got the conviction, they did some things that were questionable. at the end of the day, while mr. stevens may have done some things he should not have been doing, the department has to be held to a higher standard in terms of how they prosecute. >> the judge of the time ordered a study done on what happened. did they ever published that study? >> i have to go back and look. i think that review is starting to wane. >> april 1, 2009. this is your report on ted stevens pierre >> last fall, the 40-year political career of senator ted stevens ended in disgrace. but today, attorney general eric holder pull the plug on the case, saying evidence was withheld and it was in the interest of justice to dismiss the indictment and not proceed with a new trial. >> the jury verdict here

do we know what level of the justice department was involved in all this? >> >> reporter: well, the frustration on capitol hill this week centers around the department of justice because the senators, the congressmen believe the department of justice is stone walling. five months now and the department of justice can't tell you who authorized this program? a program this size? this quote unquote groundbreaking. it should take five minutes, anderson. keep in mind this was what they call a t 3 investigation size and scope, would require approval from headquarters. and congressman darrel issa released e-mails -- a republican from california -- which seemed to insinuate the atf acting director, kenneth nelson, was watching these sales, knowing about these sales in real time. so for the department of justice to still not be able to tell us who authorized and at what level seems pretty ridiculous to the congress and the senators who are asking these questions. >> also, atf agents have testified this week about retaliation from their superiors for questioning the w

um, what the way the justice department should make its points? well, first of all, it should provide most of the important documents. it doesn't start by withholding, it starts by providing. secondly, for anything that it doesn't deliver right off the bat, it should issue an invitation for them to be viewed by members and staff. i heard the chairman describe that an inadequate invitation had been made, heavily redacted documents under circumstances it couldn't be viewed. that's not the right way to proceed. and finally, if they do say we're going to withhold some documents because they're highly prejudicial in if a concrete way to an open place, then they have to provide a privilege log so the committee itself can decide what should be withheld. i might say during the recent litigation over the u.s. attorneys terminations in the previous administration, one of the arguments that prevailed in court on behalf of the congressional inquiry was that the administration had not provided that privilege log, a document withholding claim is not valid unles

, the congressmen, believe the department of justice is stone walling. and the department of justice can't tell you who authorized this program. a program this size, this quote unquote groundbreaking, it should take five minutes, anderson. keep in mind this was what they call a t 3 investigation, size and scope would require approval from headquarters. and congressman darrel issareleased e-mails, republican from california, which seems to insinuate the atf acting director, kenneth nelson, was watching these sales, knowing about these sales in real time. so for the department of justice to still not be able to tell us who authorized and at what level seems pretty ridiculous to the congress and the senators who are asking these questions. >> also, atf agents have testified this week about retaliation from their superiors for questioning the wisdom of the program. >> yeah. even though they were raising red flags from the very beginning. they're getting shunned in their offices. wei we talked to one agent who's literally retiring over this because he's sort o

america and the grand jury hearings in the wiki leaks case continues today so what will the justice department dig up against julian assange and is it a all part of a larger war against whistleblowers. all you need to know this a major development in the wisconsin labor battle lasting last night yesterday evening as governor scott walker's union busting bill is now the law of the land so what exactly happened now although a lower court did decide to belong to walker's budget repair bill from going into effect the wisconsin supreme court yesterday evening decided to overturn that ruling effectively making it completely illegal for state workers in wisconsin to collectively bargain now don't forget that we're talking about wisconsin here this is the birthplace of collective bargaining rights now well this is is in fact a major blow to the workers' rights movement we shouldn't be surprised after all the deciding judge in the high court's forty. the ruling was none other than justice david prosser a familiar name since he was the same guy who conveniently one reader lection after twelve thousand m

the justice department says no.ning to do if lawmakers try to ban these patdowns, that's in 60 seconds. introducing purifyingncer] facial cleanser from neutrogena® naturals. developed with dermatologists... it's clinically proven to remove 99% of dirt and toxins and purify pores. and with natural willowbark it contains no dyes, parabens or harsh sulfates. dirt and toxins do a vanishing act and my skin feels pure and healthy. [ female announcer ] new purifying facial cleanser from the new line of neutrogena naturals. align can help. only align has bifantis, a pantented probiotic that naturally helps maintain your digestive balance. ♪ ooh baby, (what) can i do for you today? ♪ try align today. ♪ ooh baby, (what) can i do for you today? ♪ and my dog bailey and i love to hang out in the kitchen. you love the aroma of beef tenderloin, don't you? you inspired a very special dog food. [ female announcer ] chef michael's canine creations. chef inspired. dog desired. vietnam, 1967. i got mine in iraq, 2003. u.s.a.a. auto ins

were significantly more egregious, that impacted the outcome of a race rather than just the justice department seeking justice. and making a point about what edwards, with the purpose of it wa so it seems a strange use of the justice department resources to go so deep on this case and not on so many. other cases where there seem to be violations that are more meaningful. >> and just to emphasize the point that mark made. a lot of the transactions at issue in this caseere after edwards had already withdrawn his campaign. i mean he had already stopped running for president. now the cover-up continued. but you know, it's hard to argue that the public was much damaged by you know, failure to report campaign contributions for a campaign that was defunct. and again, that raises the question of the appropriateness of this ca. i doubt a jury's going to be much persuaded by that but it is question about whether this case should have been brought. >> rose: mark, did everybody know about this affair in the campaign and just didn't, couldn't find the acts-- facts or -- >> no, i think based on the reportin

>> it is a privileged discussion and a discussion the agency has had with the department justice. we have been asked not to comment on that by the department of justice. >> i am asking you to comment on it. >> i'm afraid i cannot do that. >> will you tell me how you voted yesterday? >> based on inquiries from your office yesterday regarding this ongoing litigation, i asked counsel to enquire and receive advice and confer with the justice department. the justice department asked i emphasize to things in my response. first of all, that the justice department has told litigating authority and is the sole decision maker on any federal government involvement in this matter. >> but you can and apparently did make a recommendation to the department justice, correct? >> there are interagency -- the litigation posture of the united states is under active deliberation by the justice department and a half asked will not comment any further. >> i will not waste a lot of time by asking all the commissioners. i suspect i get the same answer and i find it a disturbing answer. let me ask the chair

. >>> the justice department is under fire for its criminal indictment of john edwards on six chargestemming from his attempt to cover up his affair. prosecutors are being challenged now for their theory of the case. mainly that money that edwards solicited from wealthy supporters was not a gift, but an illegal campaign contribution. edwards had very little to say in his own defense, except to suggest no crime was ever committed or even thought of. >> i did not break the law. and i never, ever thought i was breaking the law. >> so does the justice department have enough evidence to convict the former presidential candidate? we're joined by the "washington post's" ruth marcus who is a lawyer and plays one. >> that's about all i do these days. >> ruth, you wrote and got a lot of people sort of raising eyebrows because you wrote memorably that edwards may be pond scum -- >> that's a technical legal term. >> right. pond scum, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of violating campaign -- you're saying basically this may not -- it is not just that it may not be winnable, it may not be a smart

surveillance video being done, all of that requires approval up the chain all the way into the department of justice the ground it's unimaginable that high up people in the department of justice, including holder himself, at least didn't know about it. >> so now you have the acting director of the atf, this guy kenneth melson expected to step down in the next day or two because of this program. is he just the fall guy? >> he seems to be being set up that way. the question i think to ask is, for justice, does this end? justice obviously is trying to get this behind them as quickly as possible. if they can replace kenneth melson, get somebody else in there and try to smooth this over with congress, they think they can move on with their own internal investigation and maybe come out with something in a few months. but members of congress say no way. congressman darrel issa head of the house oversight committee is going to press hard. we got a statement from senator chuck grassley the republican from iowa who's been pushing hard on this. he said, "it would be a shame if the justice department makes mr.

host: what is the role of the department of justice and all this? -- in all this? guest: in the kennedy administration was before the modern era of redistricting. this is one of the new frontiers of 2012. not only is there a democratic appointed justice in place but the majority of the legislature and the self in states that are covered by the voting rights act, section 5, or controlled by republicans. you have this role reversal from the way it has been in touch past decade. in many of these legislatures, maps are being drawn to keep the number of african majority seats at 1 per state from alabama and mississippi. there probably be four african- american states. the justice department, the question were asking was were the happy with keeping just one average american jury district would they put stacks so far, when they have signed off on new maps, we have not seen them draw a firm line on the way the boundaries are drawn. that have been flexible in their approach so far. this may not be a really contentious fight between state legislators and the justice departme

2009, e-mails indicate that there was a meeting of senior law enforcement officials at our justice department. it appears to have included the heads of every law enforcement component of the department, including directors of the fbi, the dea and the atf. it also included the u.s. attorneys for all the southwest border states, the director of the organized crime drug enforcement task force, and the chairman of theattorney general advisory committee. sounds like a pretty big, important meeting, doesn't it? on the agenda at the meeting was a document describing the department's strategy for combatting mexican cartels. in a section called "attacking the southbound flow of firearms" it says, and i quote from the document, "merely seizing firearms through interdiction will not stop firearms trafficking to mexico. we must identify, investigate, and eliminate the sources of illegally trafficked firearms and the networks that transport them." well, the message in that document's pretty clear, isn't it? trying to identify networks of traffickers is more important than seizing weapons. this document wa

the paper reports that the justice department was insisting that edwards serve 6 months in jail if he pled guilty. edwards pled not felty on fryer -- guilty on friday and he was indicted on six counts he misused campaign funds to cover up an affair. >>> the third largest wild fire in arizona history is burning and growing. there's still no containment on wall of fire that's burning near the mexico border. more than 2,000 firefighters are on hand battling the blaze trying to prevent it from reaching homes. some families have been evacuated from the area. and officials are saying the windy forecast and lightning could spark even more fires. >>> 20 people suffered minor injuries what tour bus got into an accident with two other vehicles. the accident happened along chicago's dan ryan expressway. 31 people on that bus refused treatment. the crash comes less than a week after a tour bus crashed in virginia on the highway killing four people and sending more than 50 others to the hospital. >>> hey, -- he was charged for careying a handgun into a nightclub and later today plaxico bur less wa

it is a privileged discussion and a discussion that the agency has had with the department of justice. it is something we have been specifically asked not to comments on it by the department of justice. >> i'm asking you to comments on it. >> i'm afraid i cannot do that, senator. >> one of the i guess -- let me ask -- commissioner -- forgive me. will you tell me how you voted yesterday? >> senator, based on inquiries from your office regarding this legal -- this ongoing litigation, i asked my counsel to inquire and receive advice and confer with the justice department. the justice department asked that i emphasize two things in my response. first of all that the justice department is -- has the litigating authority is sand the sole decision maker on any government involvement in this matter. >> but you can and apparently did make a recommendation to the d.o.j. is that correct? >> there are interagency -- the litigation posture of the united states is under active deliberation by the justice department and they have asked that in our testimony today we not comment any further. >> i won

the justice department is charging him based on his word versus andrew young's word. they would argue this is basically prosecuting john edwards, if it comes to that, for being a really bad guy to his wife and banking on the fact that a jury will dislike him so much that they'll do something unprecedented. the justice department, if they charge him, thinks that's a good enough case or they have a strong case and juries aren't going to be that friendly to this man who nobody really feels that fondly toward right now, and john edwards is smart enough to know that in front of a jury he's going to have an uphill climb. >> candy, what's so extraordinary about this case and whole saga is how close this man came to power, not only as a vice presidential candidate but as a presidential candidate. and just the hoopspa of not only having the affair and the child and continuing to lie about it, but even when he had his big confessional interview on tv, he still continued to lie in that interview. >> well, you know, politics is full of people where hoopspa is given new definition

the justice department says it's going to put them on trial in a civilian court down there. you are saying no way. they need to be tried at guantanamo. isn't that setting kind of an odd precedent here because these people are not people arrested overseas. they were people who were arrested in your state. >> well, you know, they're enemy combatants. the things they're accuse of doing, their finger prints were found on i.e.d.s in iraq. they got into this country as a mistake. these are enemy combatants. let's get the terminology right. these are not american citizens. they're enemy combatants. attorney general said the other night our biggest weapon in the war on terror was the u.s. civilian court system. i don't know what planet he's living on. if osama bin laden were alive today i think he would say our biggest weapon are u.s. navy seals. look, foreigners are not entitled to be tried in the u.s. court system particularly if they are enemy combatants. that's what these are. enemy combatants. the attorney general has the choice. he just made the wrong choice. they ought to be

the indictment has triggered unusual criticism of the justice department. even among those usually pleased to see a politician prosecuted. >> i think that john edwards is a lousy human being, but i think this is a really lousy and flimsy criminal case. >> reporter: a "washington post" editorial said it is troubling that the justice department would choose to devote its scarce resources to pursuing this questionable case. >> i did not break the law. and i never, ever thought i was breaking the law. >> reporter: for this to be a criminal violation, prosecutors also must show edwards knew he was breaking the law. >> i think this is going to be a tough case for the government to prove. by no means, i don't think it's a slam dunk. >> reporter: some argue this case is critical to cracking down on campaign abuses. >> there has to be a line. john edwards crossed that line. we believe it's criminal behavior. and that's why we saw an indictment. >> again, that's was nbc's lisa myers reporting. if edwards is found guilty, he would face 30 years in prison and up to a $

the justice department has a job to do. in some kind of way, we've got to find a way as the adults in all of this to make that happen. and make it work. i'm very serious about that. you got to, you know, life is short. i tell my staff that every day i look in the mirror and i face my own mortality, and the question is, how can i be most effective and efficient. when we go do this ring around the rosy stuff, what happens is that none of us are effective. you heard me make a commitment to that lady, miss terry. i shall not rest until everybody involved in this process and i mean that, i shall not rest, until all of that is addressed. now, the chairman said something that was very interesting. he a moment ago spoke about all this transparency and we need to read the whole document. i appreciate that. but the one thing he did not say about this memo on january 5th, he didn't read this piece. you remember mr. chaffetz mentioned this memo. they read a piece of the memo but didn't read all of it. let me just read this line so that

so you just got to you wouldn't you would have your justice department prosecute of course you would have them prosecuted prosecuted on the basis of of fraud of having broken the law but what they broke was they made horrible decisions that instead of instead of existing in a free market system where they would have been rewarded for those bad decisions they'd have lost all their money they were made whole by you and i and that's the rub the government picked winners the government picked losers we seem to be on the losing end of this we picked up the tab for all this i'm outraged by it so now i'm curious he said the american dream of course is that anybody in this country and what they want to be heard and i know that that's always been the american you think of the american dream still exists that and many ways no no because house was part of that american dream and now millions of americans have lost their homes now they're underwater should everybody own a home well of course not and arguably the mortgage collapse was caused by the government making loans so available that the pr

this is going on between the state of texas and the department of justice. you might be caught in the middle, you, the traveler. the texas house of representatives passed legislation last month prohibiting tsa screeners from conducting invasive searches. the justice department warning against passage down by the senate that the lawmaker who introduced that bill and demonstrators at the cap titol yesterday in austin are urging passage. >> we shouldn't have to have people put their hands all over our bodies, because it is invasive, it is sexual assault. people are not asking to be touched in that way and it is really inappropriate. >> there's no federal law that we're couldn't convenientraveni. there's no federal law that requires they touch us in our private parts as a condition of travel. that's outrageous. police officers can't even do that. >> the justice department contends the ban on searches conflicts with the law. the justice department would order the cancellation possibly of flights into and out of texas. we're talking about one state here but certai

for a grand jury investigation of the entire -- if that does not work, and i'm going to the justice department to come here and investigate what goes on here at city hall. i cannot go to the city attorney, he is running for mayor. i am asking that. thank you very much. >> could afternoon, supervisors. i and stand this is the proper occasion to speak about item 30 which is the taxi resolution. ahead in ceremonies of the horsemen, even upon must hold a grudge. we taxi drivers are the pawns. where large than the same page on these issues. we support a centralized this- system. we support taxi permits as long as they are properly structured and regulated. we support the open taxi access system which will give people direct access to taxicabs on the street without having to go through this package. this issue has been pushed to the side. when i say that cabdrivers' need a meter increase, and i want you to understand that this should not be depended upon issues over which we have no control. i think that facts are important. there has been a 19% increase in the cost of living since 2003. gas prices

it is a privileged discussion and something we have had with the department of justice. we have been specifically asked not to comment on it by the department of justice. >> i am asking you to comment on it? >> i am afraid i can't do that, senator. >> let me ask the commissioner. will you tell me how you voted yesterday? ? >> based on inquiries from your office regarding this ongoing litigation, i asked my counsel to inquire, receive advice and confer with the justice department. the justice department asked that i emphasize two things in my response. first of all, the justice department has the litigating authority and is the sole decision making for the federal government in this matter -- >> but you can and apparently did make a recommendation to the d.o.j., is that correct? >> there are interagency -- the litigation posture of the united states is under active deliberation by the justice department, and they have asked in our testimony today we not comment any further. >> madam chair, i won't waste time by asking all the commissions. i find that a disturbing answer. l

well i don't think first of all would you tell your justice department to at least take a good look all these people are getting away scot free could say that dodd frank also is not putting any real strict barriers on them here here's here's the here's the rub for me when it comes to wall street is that we bailed out wall street we should have allowed them to fail but we did it so well you know now well so so now are we supposed to prosecute individuals that their prosecution would have been failure that would have been their prosecution that would have been just a sound i have made now they're making record profits now they are making record but also that they actually sold and go you know when that americans want to see some kind of justice they want they want some retro the justice went by the wayside when we decided to bail them out in the first place the so you just you wouldn't you wouldn't have your justice department prosecute them well of course you would have them prosecuted prosecuted on the basis of of fraud of having broken the law but what they broke was they made horrible

weise from the justice department. this will not be an easy hearing for you either but i know that you too are here because you want to improve this process. we look forward to talking with you about ways we can meet both the department's obligations for the prosecution and the committee's obligations for oversight. we thank each and every one of you for your service to the country. we will have tough questions today but you all deserve our courtesy and respect. on the substance of today's hearing, the allegations that have been made are very troubling. and new information we have attained raises additional concerns about the role of various actors involved in these incidents. based on the interviewed committeed -- conducted by the committee so far and the documents we have reviewed to date, i have two concerns i would like to explore. first, we will hear testimony that surveillance of suspected straw purchasers was discontinued repeatedly, seemingly for no reason. so agents could return to gun stores to start over wit

yes, the justice department has now indicted john ed wars on six counts, claiming that he lied about affair and set up a secretive conspiracy to protect and advance his candidacy for president. this afternoon, john edwards, with his daughter by his side, said he will fight the charges against him and win. >> there is no question that i've done wrong, and i take full responsibility for having done wrong. but i did not break the law, and i never, ever thought that i was breaking the law. >> reporter: but the government charges he did just that, alleging he illegally s ly solyd donations during the campaign to hide his affair with rielle hunter and the child they their. the indictment stating that the public revelation of the affair and pregnancy would destroy his candidacy. the indictment lays out how the money was spent. to keep hunter away from the attention of the media and in the lap of luxury. there are pricey flights for hunter on chartered jets, including one for $29,000. payments to resorts in florida, colorado and california, one hotel bill alone costing $8,000. a $58,000 bill

. >> the justice department is investigating the nation's largest home improvement retailer. why home depot is accuse it of violating the law. >> and talks to avert a crisis over the nation's debt will never a new phase tomorrow. a look ahead next. >> leigh: a beautiful day across the bay area. check out the visibility over the bay, and of course san francisco there. we get one more really nice day, and then you know what? showers return to the bay area. we'll look at the seven-day >> alan: the u.s. department of justice is investigating home depot for possible violation of the buy american act. a san francisco attorney filed a lawsuit against home depot claiming the company provides chinese-made products in violation of the act. then 1933 law is aimed at protecting u.s. jobs. it requires that all materials used in construction of public projects originate in the united states or designated countries. home depot is accused of providing chinese-made products to government customers. a company spokesman says home depot, quote, would never knowingly sell prohibited goods under a

the justice department has a job to do. in some kind of way, we've got to find a way as the adults in all of this to make that happen. and make it work. i'm very serious about that. you got to, you know, life is short. i tell my staff that every day i look in the mirror and i face my own mortality, and the question is, how can i be most effective and efficient. when we go do this ring around the rosy stuff, what happens is that none of us are effective. you heard me make a commitment to that lady, miss terry. i shall not rest until everybody involved in this process and i mean that, i shall not rest, until all of that is addressed. now, the chairman said something that was very interesting. he a moment ago spoke about all this transparency and we need to read the whole document. i appreciate that. but the one thing he did not say about this memo on january 5th, he didn't read this piece. you remember mr. chaffetz mentioned this memo. they read a piece of the memo but didn't read all of it. let me just read this line so that

folks been really concentrating on different tactics i mean there's been meetings with the justice department but there's a recall effort to get rid of judge perry even though he's in los angeles and i think people or really trying to sell a different way to make this move not only statewide but nationalized because obviously. symbolizes a problem the systemic seems to be taking place weekly all over the united states one of the things we found out yesterday that since there's been ten in the bay area alone there's been a large number of police shootings that are very questionable in the fairly amongst the immigrant community we find is going on in other states or in a lot of these things don't have the type of coverage because it wasn't caught on film it cetera et cetera so i think people are really about movement building in a different sort of way ok. anger and frustration and more importantly the determination to see this to see justice prevail is still there i'm just curious to how was the city preparing for this because last year we of course we saw swat teams lease our police are in ri

changed in the way the community highlights this case and is there any chance of the obama justice department might step in and join with us because this is favor hop journalist david thanks so much for joining us tonight now you were at a protest in oakland yesterday from what i understand and there were hundreds of people marching like i just mentioned last year right after we saw when mr lee was convicted there were people who were arrested about seventy eight paid for then in november when the sentencing was put out there we saw more than one hundred fifty people arrested in oakland and we saw violence we saw people looting like i said and from any other parts that i see now i didn't see any arrests i didn't see any violence yesterday so what's changed. oh well people are still committed people are still angry there was a couple of the rest yesterday but i think what it is is that folks are in really concentrating on different tactics i mean there's been meetings with the justice department all of this a recall effort to get rid of the judge perry even though he's in los angeles and i thi

it's not a case of a republican justice department going after a democrat.- one is fred baron who's deceased. one is a 100-year-old woman unlikely to appear in court and the key witness is andrew young, an admitted liar. >> thank you, lisa. >> fascinating. >> nbc today's kathie lee gifford will be joining the table. but first carol king is here. don't go away. we'll be right back. down the hill? man: all right. we were actually thinking, maybe... we're going to hike up here, so we'll catch up with you guys. [ indistinct talking and laughter ] whew! i think it's worth it. working with a partner you can trust is always a good decision. massmutual. let our financial professionals help you reach your goals. [ technician ] are you busy? management just sent over these new technical manuals. they need you to translate them into portuguese. by tomorrow. [ male announcer ] ducati knows it's better for xerox to manage their global publications. so they can focus on building amazing bikes. with xerox, you're ready for real business. ♪ wild horses ♪ couldn't drag me aw

the justice department is simply wrong here.n citizens and not entitled to the protections of the bill of rights. the focus out to be on interrogation and detention, not prosecution. maybe after intear xwags and detention occurs at an appropriate place like zbaun an opportunity know off of u.s. soil. some kind of prosecution might be in order. the way to do that, of course, at that point, would be military commission which were set up specifically for the purpose. the answer to justice department is that you can make these trials occur in bowling green, kentucky. but shouldn't. there is no reason to. >> i want to shift your subject to other issues. you are the leader of senate republicans. biggest debates on capitol hill, does the president have the legal authority to continue the military operations in libya? the white house has just sent up this memo. i have it here making the case the united states is not acting alone. the united states does not have ground troops on the ground and the president is not subject to the war powe

now it will be up to the justice department to prove that case.s senior investigative correspondent lisa myers joins us from washington with more on that. hi, lisa. >> hey, richard. usually when a disgraced politician gets indicted there is widespread applause. but not this time. even some who find edwards' behavior despicable question the strength of this case. john edwards faced a media throng reminiscent of the high point of his political career. but this time he just had been charged with six felonies, booked and fingerprinted. >> i did not break the law. >> reporter: edwards spent the weekend out of sight, at his estate, focused, the spokesman said, on getting daughter emma claire ready for camp. a friend of edwards' late wife elizabeth told nbc that despite john's betrayal, nobody wanted him to face criminal charges. they worry about the couple's young children, jack and emma claire. local reaction is less forgiving. >> i have no trust in someone that continually lies. >> john edwards has become a rather pathetic figure. >> reporter: edwards