know,lch institute, as we is devoted to the rule of law, and the will of law -- the rule of law is a rich and complex concept. by term is used and misused many people for variety of reason, but it includes a message written on the outside of the supreme court building, and that is "equal justice under law." systeme of law means a in which disputes are decided based on the law and not based on the mood of the person who happens to be deciding that dispute at a particular time. it means a system in which disputes are decided based on goals that are written down and publicly known, and perhaps most importantly, it means a system in which disputes are decided fairly. they are not decided based on political influence or family connections, or wealth, or social class, or ideology, or discrimination on any ground. it is an important concept, a vital concept for us here in the united states, and for other countries around the world. and we know why it is important. they know it is important for economic reasons. this is something, even autocrats can understand. adherencen shown that to the r

the fact that the president doesn't know the law, misstates 9 law and violates the law is not going to help pim. what's going to help him is existing department of justice policy which says you can't indict a sitting president. in an odd way, we have the president telling the truth. i would take it, i would be the call the fbi and everybody does it. i don't know about that last part. i don't think everybody does it. but the first two parts i would take it, there's nothing wrong with it, really is a window on to his soul. >> joining our discussioning is democratic congressman is raja krishnamoorthi. adding her voice to our discussion is jennifer rueben at "the washington post" and msnbc contributor. congressm congressman, i want your reaction to what the president said today. he said i think i'd take it. what he was talking about was help from a foreign power or a foreign national to win re-election. >> it was astonishing. i movie, he contradicted not only his fbi director but today in our intelligence hearing even fox contributor andrew mccarthy said he wouldn't take such a meeting wit

but this is about the law, the rule of law. does the hatch act mean anything, are we going to follow the rule of law, are we going to discard it. that's the core question here. these are blatant and repeated examples. this is not a close case. so, you know, i know there's a prevailing attitude and i could suggest where it comes from where some people in the administration don't believe the law applies to them. we see that repeatedly. congress has responsibility to conduct oversight. we have a request outstanding. miss conway knew very well about it. she decided not to come. it is another slap in the face to the rule of law and to this body of which you are part. now, you can make excuses why you're not doing your job but they're not valid excuses. i'm talking to the whole committee. i'm talking to the whole committee. we have a responsibility to conduct oversight. you can make an excuse and say it is not a valid subpoena, it is not necessary. we asked her to come, she didn't come. we have repeated attempts by various parts of o

it is a question of whether they owe bade the law -- owe bade the law -- obeyed the law. period. now things are getting worse. in response to the special counsel's report, the white house and ms. conway have gone on the offensive. by arguing that the hatch act esot even apply to her. tell that to all the other federal employees that have to adhere to this law. in a letter to special counsel on jewel 11, the white house counsel claimed there were no violations, quote, even assuming that the hatch act applies to the most senior advisors to the president in the white house, end of quote. similarly, ms. c conway stated this week, quote, it is not ite clear to us at the white counsel, that the hatch act applies to assistance of the president, end of quote. let me make this abundantly clear. the hatch act is absolutely -- absolutely applies to ms. conway. period. it is written in black and white. re the committee on jurisdiction over this law. and neither congress nor the courts have ever suggested that a president's advisors are exempt. finally, i want to address the white house's bal

constitutional law? >> well, i think, your honor and this court may still recognize it reasonably under the fourth amendment as a form of consent or if this court doesn't wish to do that as a reasonable condition of drive zmrg we normally take state law as it's given to us. we're not great inter preters. we normally defer to state authorities and assess how it proceeds under the federal constitution. if we're not sure what the state law is here, what are we supposed to do here? >> well, i'd say a majority of our court has recognized that a blood draw from an unconscious person is a reasonable search and there -- at the wisconsin supreme court there was discussion of both consent and search incident to arrest as i mentioned. i think there's sufficient evidence for this court to affirm it as reasonable. if this court disagree and in some way the wisconsin supreme court hasn't provided that clarity, this court could remand for further clarity. >> how do we remand for further clarity -- there's certification

as indicated the texas legislature passed a new butter id law, senate bill five that is a law in texas and has not been challenged. >> the keeper clarified the record, it is important today. could you walk us through how a generic case of the voting rights act, in other words what steps would they proceed? >> yes representative i would be happy to do that. that raises an important point that section two and section three of the voting rights act remain fully intact notwithstanding the supreme court decision in shelby county. i believe all the witnesses before the subcommittee today agree on that point. when somebody believes the victim of potential discrimination they can bring action under the voting rights act section two. if indeed the said conditions are those that resemble the conditions in 1965 that justified preclearance in the first place, section 3c provides a remedy to address that called the build process. the building process is a targeted form of required and big can be set for certain amount of time can cover certain areas, a surgical ability to impose a preclearance regi

law. i introduced this congress tries to we can make clear no one is en the he law not ev president of the united states. let's do right by the american gentle lady from arizona is recognized. u, mr. speaker. >> thank you. opposition of house resolution 430. it's disappointing we're debating a measure that will no impacts. instead fixing pressing issues, the democrats continue their the 2020 nfluencing expense, at taxpayer democrats claimed the president the ded to interfere in 2016 presidential election. 22 months, 40 fbi agents are spending $35 million special concluded there is no collusion between president trump and russia. im with ot charge h obstruction. my colleagues continue to ermine the und president of the united states because all i can think of is that they haven't accepted the he won the election. it's clear to me they're trying to influence the election. americans are real problems and tackling d should be instead. n may, the u.s. border patrol apprehended aaugh dropping 13

but this is about the law, the rule of law. does the hatch act mean anything, are we going to follow the rule of law, are we going to discard it. that's the core question here. these are blatant and repeated examples. this is not a close case. so, you know, i know there's a prevailing attitude and i could suggest where it comes from where some people in the administration don't believe the law applies to them. we see that repeatedly. congress has responsibility to conduct oversight. we have a request outstanding. miss conway knew very well about it. she decided not to come. it is another slap in the face to the rule of law and to this body of which you are part. now, you can make excuses why you're not doing your job but they're not valid excuses. i'm talking to the whole committee. i'm talking to the whole committee. we have a responsibility to conduct oversight. you can make an excuse and say it is not a valid subpoena, it is not necessary. we asked her to come, she didn't come. we have repeated attempts by various parts of o

to international law enforcement.join the ranks of 50,000 graduates from more than 170 countries. to put that in perspective, there are tens of thousands of those yellow bricks on desks and bookcases across the country and around the world. tens of thousands of bricks that have helped us pave the way for global law enforcement cooperation. that cooperation begins here but it cannot end here. your bricks do not just represent a challenge, they themselves are a challenge, a challenge to build on this foundation after you leave the academy, a challenge to stay in touch and continue helping each other throughout the rest of your careers. so, this session's ending, but your work is far from done. it is up to you to ensure that the network you see in this auditorium grows larger and stronger and that the yellow brick road becomes longer and wider. we all know that your jobs are far from easy. today you have more than 250 new partners standing by to help you in any way they can. that bond of trust, and teamwork represents th

is the law.s breaking the law, and it has been breaking -- doing something like this has been breaking the law since our founding. and i mean, what i find particularly astonishing, nothinging is fully surprising anymore but that the fbi director who has a unit that has been focused on this over the last two years just stays silent because he wants to keep his job or some other self-interested motivation? i think that's what's happening is that people are deeply fearful that we have a lawless administration, and it is increasing the pressure on impeachment. i think the issue here is really the president himself by basically announcing that he is willing to partake in a crime i think most americans think when you announce you're willing to partake in a crime, that is criminal behavior that should be sanctioned. >> ron klain, we need a normalcy reset from you tonight. i may be the only one who has your entire endless resume memorized including your service in the justice department, in of the office

no one is above the law. everyone will be held accountable, including the president of the united states. the people's house will continue to fight to make the truth known for the american people and will defend congress' role under article 1. i urge a strong bipartisan vote for this resolution to hold attorney general barr and former white house counsel mcgahn in civil contempt for their refusal to comply with congress' subpoenas and honor the oath of office that they take. with that i urge an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker yields back her time. the gentlewoman from arizona is now recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the representative from california, mr. mcclintock. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, there's a reason for the abuse -- abusive rhetoric from the left. for 2 1/2 years they peddled a monstrous lie that donald trump is a traitor, colluding w

not really because if you look at the law currently written, people they wa nt law currently written, want hong kong independent, down with the communist party, they are all within the law in hong kong. the key point is to make sure that if it is not an offence in hong kong, they will not be sent back. this is the misunderstanding and that is what the government is trying to tell the people. you can comment and you will not be extradited. as you suggested, this is becoming something else. when you look at the seams in hong kong, a lot of people are very, very unhappy with the probating legco. no, no, i think the unhappy with the probating legco. no, no, ithink the main unhappy with the probating legco. no, no, i think the main thing unhappy with the probating legco. no, no, ithink the main thing is they know the legco is going along with government. beijing is saying they did not start that. the main problem is afteri million people marched on sunday, the government came out saying we will continue with it. as a politician, i think they handled it very badly. they should have listened

the very existence of that law erodes respect for law enforcement in general. that's what we have right now. we have chaos, we have inconsistent laws, and it's going to just get worse, because we're not going to be able to roll back this rising tide of sensible marijuana policy from the states. and i'm excited that the federal government is seeing now might be a good time to reassess the prohibition. >> texas is next, for those who oppose legalization of marijuana. go ahead, you're with rick steves. >> caller: yes. i'm just totally appalled at all of this. they gripe and gripe and gripe about the smokers, the secondhand smoke. and the medical cost. what are we going to do when all of these people are out there smoking all this marijuana -- what about the medical cost? we're talking about plain jane people smoking regular plain jane cigarettes, and now we've got thousands and thousands and thousands of people who want to smoke marijuana. well, at least if it was controlled, there wouldn't be that much medical problems. but now we're just going to throw it out th

national law journal. we found out yesterday that tony is stepping down from full-time coverage of the supreme court something he has been doing since 1979. a career of great service and friendship for all of us involved. i would like to ask for a round of applause for tony. [applause] >> the we have a distinguished supreme court practitioner. >> there somewhat recovering from yesterday. they didn't feel like they could commit to be here. it was a cochair at covington and berlin. she was, for eight years head of the appellate section of the civil division of the department of justice and the obama administration. she practiced for more than two decades at the supreme court including a number of years as an assistant solicitor general. she is 25 supreme court arguments and a clerk for justice blackmun. so, she had some knowledge of the supreme court to bring to the floor. and with those introductions come i want to do this conversationally. i may throw a question that one person first but please feel free t

law. do you think that could be a way that we can resolve this issue? mr. kerner: i think that would be an excellent outcome. it would make me very happy. r. khanna: so i suggest that one way we can move forward and start doing the country's business is to have that reasonable compromise. where we're not attacking someone personally and we're upholding the rule of law. and my hope would be that ms. conway may just come to you and start abiding by the hatch act and we can start moving forward as a country to focus on other pressing issues. >> will the gentleman yield? >> will the gentleman yield? mr. khanna: yes. >> mr. khanna, you and i have worked in a bipartisan way on a number of issues. here's one of the things that i think today highlights. we have two different sides saying two different things in terms of their interpretation. mr. meadows: i think we would all agree that if you read the statute, it is very ambiguous. and in clarity for our federal work force, i'm willing to work wit

some jurisdiction will announce you for to practice law -- you fit to practice law. or a young thurgood marshall, who at 26, started representing the naacp and rights cases -- you have taken the same oath as all of them and you will face your moment of truth. many of those moms of truth occurred as -- and many of those moments of truth occurred "in the room where it happens." my father emigrated at the age of 2, but a generation later, i have been fortunate enough to be in the room where it happens. decisions of life and death, terrorism, financial crisis, and the corruption of public officials and persons are made. i can tell you two things about the room where it happens. room, the cheers in the are not reserved for those with the fancy legal credentials. clerksseen supreme court stumble and fail to measure up in their first days on the job, and those with less goldplated credentials become legal superstars. getting a credential is not the important thing. it is how you perform in the job once you are there. let me give you an example of why the credential is not a

it is difficult to be a law enforcement family.heshoulder the stress and involved in your loved one's work, and you make the sacrifice. i would like to thank all of you for being here. know thattes, you all today, from a wide variety of backgrounds. 49 states, and 35 foreign nations. you share a common mission, and a record of personal excellence. national to the academy is highly competitive, and select the, and you represent the best of the in the ranks of law enforcement, in this country and around the world. to thing that is manifest me, just coming in after 28 years is the pride that we can take in law enforcement's high level of professionalism. professionalism that has been achieved over the past decades. you exemplify that, focusing on besting, technology, practices, and above all, cooperation. law enforcement in the united states and among our allies has reached new levels of excellence and allows us to achieve historic reductions in crime. alwaysse, we are striving to reach greater heights, and the national academy remain

body of established law. so for example, in nbc, the public interests, convenience and necessity certification for licensing was an established body of law that it was a certification that states had made to public service industries since roughly the 1870s. there's no existing body of law to give context -- >> if you compare what we have before us with a statute that authorizes the attorney general to devise a rule to protect public safety, feasibility, and consideration of individual rights, that's the difference between improper delegation and proper delegation? >> perhaps. >> civil context, let's start there. >> certainly the congressional guidance is the difference. this comes back to the purpose of the test itself. the idea of the intelligible principle test is that it is not a delegation of legislative authority because congress itself has made the key legislative decisions. here with respect to pre-act offenders, congress has not made any of the decisions despite the extremely detailed framework that

the laws. stop vilifying the law enforcement agencies is possible for carrying out the laws. they need to start looking at their own issues and what they are not doing, what needs to be done to safeguard this country. lou: and of course enforcing the laws is counter to everything that the chamber of commerce stands for. which is cheap labor and wide open borders irrespective of the harm it does to working men and women. in small business in this country. the ignorance of the chamber and the koch brothers. it is palpable and it is propelling. obviously, the interest of both the republican and democratic rino establishments. >> that is a great point. when these migrants are coming here and they have to pay money to take this truck with the cartel you know getting bridge a billion-dollar industry, those individuals coming here, the exploitation does not stop at the border. once they get to the united states to continue to be exploited. whether it is from sexual exploitation or being forced to take

we know what the law is. we want to comply with the law. everybody up here favored the law. he would have favored a law that was more ex-pansive, and i think other people would have, too. don't accuse us of being criminals. next item, please. >> clerk: line item 7, public comment on item listed below, closed session, including whether to hold closed session. >> president hirsch: all right. any public comment on closed session? all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. next item. >> clerk: item 8, closed session. >> president hirsch: is there a motion? >> motion. >> president hirsch: is there a second? >> second. >> president hirsch: okay. there's a motion and a second. all in favor? opposed. okay. the motion passes. we're going into closed session. . >> i love that i was in four plus years a a rent control tenant, and it might be normal because the tenant will -- for the longest, i was applying for b.m.r. rental, but i would be in the lottery and never be like 307 or 310. i pretty much had kind of given up on that, and had to leave san francisco. i found out about th

i went to law school. i do very straightforward job at a big law firm in new york. and then circumstances became the newsroom for the daily news. i graduated from journalism school. really interested in journalism. it was an incredible education. the job at the times opened up because of something that has been very, very good good for america. now the supreme court correspondent of the new york times. a tremendous reporter. he had my job and he decided to try life as a journalist. the job opened up on very short notice. i'd been at the daily news doing the same sort of things that adam had done. in particular, what was interesting because i don't have any of the credentials that you would have, i graduated graduated from albany law school it is a regional law school. university of illinois as an undergraduate. there were a group of former daily news reporters who at that point worked at the times. it is now 2002. after 9/11. they wanted to get the documents from the fire department that showed how the rescue and recovery operation had taken place. they were hearing

laws. and congress must be responsible for determining whether they are -- competition problems in a modern economy. today's hearing is the first step in this process for examining these trends. your free and diverse press is the backbone of our vibrant democracy. justice -- wrote in 1927, those who won our independence early that public discussion is a political duty. with greatest threat to freedom is uninformed citizenry, and that the freedom of thought and speech are indispensable in the discovery and spread of political truth. over the past decade, the news industry has been a date of economic freefall. from 2006-2017, advertising revenue has fallen from $49 billion to $15.6 billion. resulting in mass layoffs that newspapers, or newspaper folding altogether. this year alone, roughly 2900 reporters and other new staff have already lost their jobs. these massive cuts are happening to traditional news companies and online news sources alike. for example, earlier this year, the cleveland p

law again that 2nd reading of the proposed law was supposed to take place on wednesday that's when we saw those those clashes she said that it brought a lot of disharmony to hong kong what we saw over the last week so it is her responsibility she said to take a better look at the law to better explain the law she said there's a lot of misunderstandings about it so that's very interesting this is something she said kind of straight the way through she believes that people don't really understand what it's all about but again as we were discussing before housing my lot of people here pro-democracy protesters who came out to the streets here in hong kong they see this yes they are against the specific extradition laws because that means criminal suspects can be extradited to china mainland china beijing but they also see it as a further power grab from xi jinping the president of china so that's also why they're out there proposed protesting this law but again as we heard she believes that there's a lot of misunderstanding what this law is about it's her duty she said legislative council

the talk of rights and the cost of such a law was something we kept hearing, even from some in law enforcementfrom people. is that really what you want to give your rights up to? a subjective ruling from law enforcement applying to a court to say that someone‘s rights should be terminated? i‘m telling you... but if it means it could potentially save lives? so, at what cost? at what cost? at the cost of taking someone‘s firearms away for potentially a short time. well, so what i‘m telling you is as a government official, as a law enforcement person, i don‘t think law enforcement should have this power. and many sheriffs across several states feel the same way. touch firearms rules in america, even if it is today guns from those in mental crisis, and to stop people getting killed, and you‘re sure to arouse strong feelings and angry resistance. aleem maqbool, bbc news in colorado. not many artists can claim to have changed public opinion by painting — but the portugese artist paula rego can. her series of paintings on abortion were created in response to the narrow defeat on a referendum to legal

the david a clark school of law. associate for the center on privacy and technology at georgetown university law. i did the best i could with what i had. thank you very much. also, dr. cedric alexander. if you would all please stand and raise your right hand, i will announce you in. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so have you got -- help you god? the witness has entered in the affirmative. the microphones are extremely sensitive, please speak directly into them. they sure it is on when you speak. without objection, your written statements will be made part of the record. you are recognized to give an oral presentation of your testimony. >> thank you gala committee members for the opportunity to testify. i am an algorithmic bias researcher. i have conducted studies that show some of the largest recorded racial and skin type i ibm, devices sold microsoft and amazon. they have some flaws. facial recognition technology has flaws. on the face o

that no one ought to be above the law. >> no one is above the law. even the president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> tucker: no one is above the law, they thunder, except of course for the more than 20 million foreign nationals currently living in our country illegally all under the care and the protection of the democratic party. they are, by definition, above the law. we can't punish them democrats tell us, that would be racist. drug dealers, too they're suddenly above the law as well. according to the left. so are people who defecate on sidewalks and people who spray paint overpasses and shoot up in subway stations and leave dirty needles in park. all crimes allowed to acknowledge as crimes. human classes of people who are literally above the law. and this category is growing thanks to the activist left. just last night in the state of virginia, prosecutors backed by george soros unseeded incumbents in two large counties outside of washington, d.c. both candidates have pledged to roll back criminal enforcement in a massive way. the

doesn't involve the rule of law. it's very personalized and it's a conduit for corruption as anyone who has read about the way the belt and road project, development investment projects as any say it is spread across urjia. it has done sew on the back of corrupt deals and bribes and so on. so i think this -- above all else this will just -- the day after this is passed in will put america on a moral and operational platform to reinvig rate the capitalism that made you great and that should continue to for in to be an american century, frankly. thanks i'll hand it back over. because running out of time. >> thank you, nate. and the way you are approaching that from the foreign policy perspective how this weakens u.s. foreign policy and jeopardized national security, that perspective is so so valuable. and i agree that that it gets short solicit especially at the sanctions perspective when sapgss are being used again and again. the number one thing we could do to strengthen sanctions is get something like this in place.

aleem:alk of rights and the cost of such a law is something we kept hearing, even from some in law enforcement. one sheriff may have campaigned for the law, but others in the state say they would rather go to jail than take away guns from people. >> is that reay what you want to give your rhts up to, a subjective ruling from law enforcement applying to a court to say that someone's rights should aleem: but if it means it could potentially save lives? >> so, at what cost? at what cost? aleem: the cost of taking someone's firearms away for potentially a short time. >> what i am telng you is as a government official and law-enforcement person, i don't think law-enfo have this power. aleem: and many sheriffs aseoss ral states feel the same way. touch firearms rules in america, even if it is to stop people getting killed, and you areure to arouse strong feelings and angry resistance. aleem maqbool, bbc news, in colorado. utne: the british government has announced plans toarbon emissions to almost zero by the year 2050. if it moves forward, the u.k.ul be the first major economy to adopt such a legal

and this is state law prior to facial recognition we are just leveraging that state law it is already in place with the attorney level at the state level. >> and with that facial recognition coming into existence, i am just wondering whatever lies you are referring to is like facial recognition. >> it is my understanding the states establish those laws because of fraud and abuse of drivers license reviewing each of the state laws to be sure we can leverage that because there are laws that are out there without the facial recognition and now the fbi has decided it would take advantage of those lots. is that a fair statement? the federal driver license protection act and then obtained with motor vehicle record without official function. >> we have seen significance to provide this level of access it with a may 22nd hearing but that fpa one - - fbi use of the database is that correct quick. >> i'm not aware of that. >> it is accurate. so how many states have provided this level of direct access to the fbi? . >> we don't have direct access first 21 states. what we did over the last two ye

ignore the law."ing is, as long as we comply with the law, that's fine. we are amoral, we have no interest in what's happening. i think it's for governments to determine what is right and wrong. that is their sovereign — their sovereign duty. you make money out of it. we are a commercial organisation. right, you would. can i have an answer to my question? my answer to the question is the same as it was earlier. is it fair to compare you to them? i don't know the circumstances around them. this weekend saw large protests in hong kong against a controversial extradition bill which would allow suspected criminals to be sent to mainland china for trial. britain handed the territory back to china back in 1997, but agreed that hong kong would remain semi—autonomous for at least 50 years, under a joint declaration lodged with the united nations. mps have been debating whether the new law might be seized upon by china to target political opponents in the territory. yesterday's huge protest march, peaceful rig

we're just leveraging that state law. that state law is already in place. we did work with the officer of general counsel at the fbi and the attorney level at the state level. >> well, it was prior to facial recognition coming into existence, i'm just wondering do you think that whatever law you're referring to anticipated something like facial recognition? >> it's my understanding that the states established those laws paubecause of fraud and ab of driver's license. we are just reviewing each of the state laws and working with the representatives in those states to ensure we can leverage that for criminal investigation. >> so when you say leverage, i guess you're saying that there were laws that were out there. these laws did not anticipate something like facial recognition and now the fbi has decide decided it would basically take advantage of those laws, is that a fair statement? >> the federal driver's license privacy protection act, it allows the state to disclose personal information and including a photo or image obtained in connection with the motor

in a fft of laws if the government becomes a law breaker it breeds contempt for the law. >> this is a bright day in the history of the house. we're going to provide relief to people who are innocent. we're talking about children brought here through no decision of their own and then, went to school here and began a career here, built a family here, served in the military here ask this is about three and a half million dollars in federal taxes and one, university of vermont head cal school. brought here at nine years old. and now, he's dedicating his life to cancer research and treatment. what a win for this country to have services of this bright young man. in this legislation, this is going to allow him to have security that we all need. to with the best we can be. i yield back. >> it would like to yield two minutes to the representative from north carolina. >> gentleman is recognized. >> i noticed a trend. save the internet act. equality act. and american dream and promise act. i rise in opposition to this bill. hr 6 gives green cards to the potentially millions of illegal aliens. t

could they consider it if congress passed a law?bsolutely and that would be within their judicial role. simone: a lot of americans who might not have heard of the judicial crisis network heard from your organization this week are in the democratic debate. you had an ad running on both nights this week. tell us more about what that ad was intended to achieve and how that reflect your political priorities going into 2020. carrie: we all saw during 2016 the significance of trump having a list of judges for the supreme court. a lot of people have pointed to that as a key reason he won in that election. people saw the importance of the supreme court, but this is someone not just giving platitudes and historically, we get someone who is saying it or i want some one who is going to support the constitution and that is vague enough to encompass a wide range of philosophies. in a negative supreme -- extreme, i will appoint someone with a particular result. i will vote this -- appoint this way for labor or women or something else. but saying

and every state writes the law according to what they think will pass in their law. and legislators in the states tweak the laws to make them more smart. i know when we legalized marijuana in 2012 in washington state we got a if you things wrong. and then the legislature tweaked it. colorado had to learn to package it smartly in the interest of kids -- children safety and so on. each state is struggling with this. but you got to remember, can you complaint about the new laws but the alternative is poem getting arrested and having lives derailed because they are caught with a joint in their pocket. what motivates me to get out and talk is a race issue. it's not rich white guys it's por people and people of color arrested. to this day, i mean in 10u9d we have six hundred thousand or 700,000 in jail for non-mienlt marijuana -- no 70,000 in jail and six or seven thousand people a carrier arrested for non-violent marijuana overs. it's a flatout racist issue. i hear people complaining about the laws. but for me it's a huge step is to move toward legal sayings where we stop

which is federal law as well as international law recognizes that asylum seekers i.e. refugees are going to sometimes be forced to enter a country through irregular means and because they are fleeing persecution i would also just note that while presenting oneself to a customs and border protection officer at a port of entry is the legal way to apply for asylum c.b.p. officers have been turning asylum seekers away from the ports of entry by the thousands for several years now and so an absence the federal government creates the illegality of which it complains about and then seeks to create inhumane policies to control that illegality if we could have a federal law enforcement that would take their oath seriously and up hold all federal law including the laws that they don't agree with such as processing asylum seekers then we might face less border crossings at irregular points i want to bring into the conversation the vice president mike pence he was speaking a week ago about illegal crossings on the u.s. border have a listen to him. as president trouble is made clea

who publicly even gleefully tells americans to break the law, you break the law and you break the law, let's all break the law together. i don't think this is something we've dealt with before. and every government official who is not the president has to decide every day how to navigate this new terrain. joining me now, chuck rosenberg, the former u.s. attorney and senior fbi official and formerly the acting head of the d.e.a. he's also an msnbc contributor. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> we used you in the setup to explain what happened when you were the acting head of the d.e.a. and the president made those comments about not being so nice and the position you took. you had to take it upon yourself to write an email to your staff to say, this isn't the way we do business after donald trump made his comments about accepting foreign campaign help. a number of law enforcement veterans said this had undone months of work essentially hiding with foreign spies and demoralizing the agents trying to stop them. tell us what the effect of this is. >> i think that polit