that is michael mukasey talking about the indiana/crawford decision. michael mukasey. not eric holder. michael mukasey. >> thank you, mr. lungren. mr. watt is recognized. >> thank you, chairman. let me start by expressing my disappointment that some of my colleagues are spending so much time advancing the notion that we should be disqualifying people from exercising the most basic right that they have in our democracy. the right to vote. and that -- and this is the judiciary committee in which these arguments are being advanced is just disappointing to me. second, i want to applaud the justice department for some work that they're doing in my congressional district in particular. some very high-level cases, fighting drug trafficking. protecting against child predators. a bunch of money we spent on the c.o.p.s program and the most vigorous supporters of the c.o.p.s program are the most conservative sheriffs in my congressional district because they've been able to access funding to beef up their law enforcement capacities. so i won't go back to the voting rights part of

michael mukasey and the head of the atf where the false information came from, we are not asking them questions and we're putting blinders on. will the gentleman yield? >> the gentleman will yield. you were in the room when we quoted that the attorney general has retracted the statement about the former attorney general mukasey having actually been briefed. that's no longer accurately asserted. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'll yield. >> you know, mr. chairman brought that up earlier, so the staff went and found the actual later dated june 18, 2012 to senator grassley from applebaum, the acting assistant attorney general and what was apparently retracted was the assertion that the attorney general mukasey had been briefed on fast and furious and the correction that he had been briefed on one of the earlier programs. i ask -- >> without objection. >> that the letter and the materials related to it. >> just to clarify, the earlier program was also involving gun walking. so i stand by my statement. he was informed about the earlier program. it happened during the bush administration.

it would state in the report that committee on government reform has not had attorney general michael mukasey who testified before the committee or to meet with committee members informally to discuss the evolution of gun walking organizations in both sets and documents obtained during the investigation indicated that mr. mukasey was -- firearms interdictions. my request is to let that information be part of what's being presented to the full house so that members are aware of that. >> while i recognize and appreciate what my good friend the colleague on the other side at this point in time, i'm afraid that we may be going down a little bit of a red herring here, one more time. and i think it nids to go to the issue here, in which we have had substantial system regarding the concept of gun walking. and the thidistinction that occurred during the time that things were alleged to have happened during a previous administration and those that have happened during this administration. let me first begin by the fact thatth letter, which is now another time in which the current attorney general has

i know we've talked a lot today about former attorney general michael mukasey and i want to do it once more but in a different context on that. i want to read a quote from mr. mukasey from 2008 when he was writing then about a justification for then president george w. bush to exert executive privilege over the documents pertaining to the agency's proposed ozone regulation. i know others are doing it too is an excuse in your household or mine, but when people write a legal opinion and they're attorneys general people agree or disagree but it's an attorney general opinion and gives somebody not taking an excuse for doing it but at least in some people's mind a legal explanation for why it's done. this is what mr. mukasey wrote. the doctrine of executive privilege communications that do not implicate presidential decision making. as the supreme court has explained the privilege recognizes and he quotes, the valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist in the performance of their duties. he stops his quote there. going back

between what republicans are doing to eric holder right now and what the democratic majority did to michael mukasey and alberto gonzalez? >> well, i -- in the house, our con term. of congress was addressed to josh bolton. i can't speak to the other cases. they never came to a vote on the senate floor. in the house, however, we did take a vote on the floor and the circumstances are quite different. we were talking about political intervention in the hiring of u.s. attorneys or having them retain their positions, the political intervention from the white house & in a very political manner. i think far be it from me to speak about this issue because our elija cummings was so very, very proud of him and the way he had conducted his role in the hearing yesterday, in a very fair way, in a very fair way, but the particulars of the cases are very different and as you know, we won our case and the court ruled in our favor, and i can only speak to our own experience in the house. >> the ranking member yesterday said that if speaker boehner were to bring up the vote to hold it in contempt in the house that he

now we -- so to say that we are going to put this off so we can get an attorney general michael mukasey is a different issue. it is a different issue. i am committed to work with you and others to get to the bottom of gun walking. it was wrong then, and i wasn't here, but it's wrong now. and the idea that the -- that this obama administration, the department of justice continued to propel it forward is just fundamentally wrong, and if the department of justice is right and they make the assertion that the senior levels of the department of justice were not involved and they didn't know about it and they didn't authorize it. i disagree with that assertion based on the documents we've seen and if that's the case why not hand us the documents and why is it that president obama is suddenly invoking executive privilege on documents that we were told yesterday that we would be glad to give us. that doesn't really add up. there's something here that we need to know about. it should have been disposed of last year. we've been exceptionally patient and last year. chairman issa has been bent over

that is michael mukasey talking about the indiana crawford decision. michael mukasey. not eric holder, michael mukasey. >> thanks, mr. lundgren. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start by just expressing my disappointment that some of my colleagues are spending so much time advancing the notion that we should be disqualifying people by exercising the most basic right they have in our democracy, the right to vote. and that this is the judiciary committee in which these arguments are being advanced. disappointing to me. second, i want to applaud the justice department for some work that they're doing in my congressional district in particular, some very high level cases, fighting drug trafficki trafficking, protecting against child predators, a bunch of money we spent on the talks program, and the most vigorous supporters of the c.o.p.s. program are the most conservative sheriffs in my congressional district, because they have been able to access funding to beef up their law enforcement capacity. so i won't go back to the voting

. >> bob: mention a modern attorney general -- >> dana: michael mukasey. >> bob: who took the place of a political hack. >> dana: he was not, actually. gonzalez was not a political hack. the u.s. attorney thing turned out nothing was wrong. >> eric: i'll ask a question. >> greg: he has three white boards. >> eric: between here when they deny knowledge and when they retract their denial, if we find out that eric holder had knowledge, e-mail with his name on it -- >> bob: if there is an e-mail like that do you think it will show up? >> eric: i would hope so. i hope so. >> bob: i would be shocked. >> eric: 1300 tages is what we're talking about, out of 140,000 documents. >> bob: that is normal for congress, they request everything. they end up with a fraction. most leave it anyway. >> eric: president obama holds news conference shortly. we look at what some call the dream act light and what it means to the u.s. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> andrea: welcome back to "the five." now to fall-out from president obama's policy changes. he is wrapping up the final trip before the election and he is at the g-20 sum

joining me now for reaction, michael mukasey, the former attorney general of the united states underdent george w. bush. general, welcome back to the program. >> good to be here, megyn. megyn: your thoughts on what the supreme court did today? >> well, um, i guess judging from that last clip, the president thinks the supreme court offered him a cigar. i'd be very careful if i were him smoking it because it's an exploding cigar. what they said is that this can be defended only as a tax. it can't be defended as a penalty because if it's a penalty, a violation of the commerce clause. so it's going to to have to be defended as a tax. they also said that the medicaid mandate to the states, that is that they had to offer insurance to single people under 65, all single people under 65, or else face the withdrawal of all medicaid funds is unconstitutional. so they threw out that part, and they kept this. megyn: what do can you make of them discussing the commerce clause power? if we could get somebody's cell phone off, that'd be helpful. is it yours, general? bad general! [laughter] it's not

the difference between republicans are doing to eric holder and the democratic majority did to michael mukasey and alberto gonzales'? >> in the house, our contempt of congress was addressed to josh bolten and ms. meieirs. those others never came to a vote on the floor. the circumstances are quite different. we were talking about political intervention and the hiring of u.s. attorneys for having them retain their positions, political intervention from the white house and the very rigid in a very political manner. far be it from me to speak about this issue because he lies to cummings was --elijah cummings conducted himself well in the hearings yesterday in a very fair way. the particular is of the cases are very different. as you know, we won our case and the court ruled in our favor and i can only speak to our own experienced. >> ranking member cummings yesterday's said he would become one of the most extreme speakers that have ever watched over the house. do you agree? >> i defer to the superior knowledge and wisdom of mr. cummings on the subject. i know that this case is very different from

the former attorney general michael mukasey wrote op-ed, plugging the national leaks.esident has a role and he could order any of the infinite number of public officials to come forward and talk to congress because they have a role to play. it's bipartisan now. if they got the intelligence and armed forces committee together they could get to the bottom of it. >> eric: even you have to admit it's dangerous. >> some of them are quite dangerous. the question is where do they come from? first, usama bin laden was brought out immediately. kill list for the drones if you remember george bush had a stack of cards in his desk. every time he killed somebody he told us about it. >> dana: created by -- >> bob: excuse me. bush administration, covert agent was outed. you can play the game and put it on obama's plate. the fact of the matter is with the exception of the computer leak in iran, which had every indication came from international seize of leaks. you are making politics out of nothing. didn't say anything about valerie plame. >> dana: we talked about it for ten years. go

. >> dana: what happened to michael mukasey? >> juan: man, scandals going back to jeannett janet reno. he was on -- >> dana: waterboar waterboardin. >> juan: outside -- 'canes you want to go to planet stupider? if you don't think that -- [ overtalk ] >> juan: if you don't think they are going after holder on new black panthers to gitmo, they don't like eric holder. >> greg: all of those things are examples of his incompetence. you go after him. the guy is a loser. >> eric: we have to get to this. juan, deflect. they want to divert. nancy pelosi. they want to move on. president obama. but we need to stay focused on fast and furious. you need a reason? here are two. >> something they don't want us to know and there is something to hide. >> i think they are hiding something. they're lying and hiding it. >> after a while when you feel like throwing the tv through the front window, because you get tired of hearing the constantly lies you know they are doing. >> eric: those were border agent brian terry's parents in a heart wrenching

committee never held a hearing or even conducted an interview with the former attorney general michael mukaseyg me now is jonathan capehart for "the washington post" and an msnbc contributor. first of all, jonathan, thanks for being here. >> thanks, rev. >> i want to first mention we called all 23 republican members of the oversight committee that voted against eric holder and none could join me tonight. none. many were traveling today, but we do hope to have someone from their side on the show very soon. now, jonathan, let me go back to you. shouldn't the bush attorney general at least be interviewed about a program that started during the bush administration that he had knowledge of? >> sure. if the committee is truly interested in getting to the bottom of the fast and furious program, how it got started, why it got started, the ups and downs, and how it was possible an agent was killed in the process of carrying out this operation, then yes. former attorney general mukasey should be interviewed. as you said in the setup for this segment, the republican-controlled committee isn't interested

pursuant to the statement that you referred to about attorney general michael mukasey, it has now been retracted from the testimony of attorney general eric holder where he claimed his predecessor then attorney general mukasey had been briefed about gun walking in operation white. now the department is retracting that statement and claiming holder inadvertently made the claim to the committee. >> i repay my time. it would be wonderful if we could have them as a witness and find out what the facts were. the idea of asking for testaverde the case was to find out what it actually was. there's the reason why he shouldn't be allowed to testify and why mr. melvin shouldn't be allowed to testify about who, what, when and why. we just want people to testify. now moving on and knowing what happened in this case let's do the rest of the job. >> i appreciate it gentleman and i might note that kenneth nelson testified for two days before this committee and may well be that before the committee in the future. the gentleman from -- >> mr. mchenry do you seek recognition? the gentleman from oklahoma'

. >> why not call before your committee, republicans, the michael mukasey, the justice department, the attorney general during president bush's time, why not call them to get to the heart of the matter how this all started. >> yake -- jake these pages no problem with them voluntarily give us a lot of things in terms of incrimination. our subpoenas cover that information. we have said that we want it. the whole point of this thing is a little bit like when you do something wrong and lie about it as a young person, you can't say, oh, after you get caught, my brother did it, too, but there were things that we didn't approve of. that we didn't think were well out out. by the way, the bush administration thought that wasn't well thought out. but the point is, we're past that part of the discovery, relative to contempt. we know there's a lot of wrong things. we want to get to fixing it. what we're talking about now is when we get lied to, when the american people get lied to, there can't be oversight when there's lying. the supreme court held pretty clearly, there cannot be executive privile

michael mukasey has said it. brad, let's get back to the "fast and furious" and the fact.he fact is that the committee, darrell issa, the chairman of the committee, has refused to call the atf agent who gave bad information to justice who says, he didn't realize something. he gave them bad information. that is why the original letter that was misleading was sent from justice to the committee. that has been corrected. this whole operation has been stopped. people at atf have been fired. i don't understand why the republicans would let something like this distract them, pull them down and to really horrible polarized politics. bill: we'll find out whether it is a distraction or not. brad, do you see it that way? >> not at all. i think republicans are being tenacious and rightfully so. we need to get to the bottom of what happened. it is not enough to say it stopped. obviously the white house is trying to cover up something, juan, i will tell you this, if president bush were to blame for this. there wouldn't be executive privilege. documents would be released and former admin

. >> i know we talked a lot about former attorney general michael mukasey and i want to do it in a different context. i want to read a quote from 2008 when he was writing then about a justification for then-president george bush to assert executive privilege over the environment protection agency documents pertaining to the agency's proposed ozone regulations. i know the others are doing that, too. but when people write a legal opinion and may our attorneys general, then many people agree or disagree, but it is an attorney general's opinion and it gives off -- not an excuse -- and at least some people's mind, it is a legal explanation for why it is done. this is what mr. mukasey wrote. "the document of executive privilege also encompasses delivered of communications that not implicate president decision making. as the supreme court has explained, the privilege recognizes the valid need for protection of communications between high government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." going back to mr. mukasey comments, based upon this princip

three, hold a bipartisan public hearing with testimony from the former attorney general, michael mukasey who, according to documents produced to the committee, was informed during his tenure that although efforts to coordinate firearm interdictions with mexican law enforcement officials in 2007 have not been successful, the a.t.f. would like to expand such efforts. four, conduct a bipartisan transcribed interview of ellis fisher who served as the assistant attorney general for the criminal division of the department of justice from 2005 to 2008, about her role in authorizing wiretaps in operation wide receiver. five, conduct a bipartisan transcribed interview of kenneth blanco who serves as deputy assistant attorney general at the department of justice and also authorized wiretaps in operation fast and furious. six, take such further actions as the committee with bull bipartisan consultation deems -- full bipartisan consultation deems appropriate a full investigation of this matter. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 708, the gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell, and t

republicans are doing to eric holder right now and what the democratic majority did to michael mull casey and -- mukasey? >> in the house our contempt of congress it was addressed to josh bolten and ms. meyers. i can't speak to the other cases. they never came to a vote on the senate floor. in the house, however, we did take a vote on the floor and the circumstances are quite different. >> leader pelosi giving her weekly briefing. we'll leave it at this point and go back now live to the u.s. house. 4480. will the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. emerson, kindly take the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 4480 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide for the development of a plan to increase oil and gas exploration, development and production under oil and gas leases of federal lands under the jurisdiction of the secretary of agriculture, the secretary of energy, the secretary of the interior and the secretary of defense in response to a drawdown of petroleum reserves from the strategic pe

mukasey, under whom this started? >> can i ask -- very quickly, michael. >> that's probably true but that's going back in time before the. we're talking about the management under this administration. the bush administration had pretty much walked away -- >> michael, once they found out about this, chairman holder -- agent holder shut it down and started an investigation himself. why did the program start in the first place, it's valid to say. >> what do the parents of the border agent who was killed deserve from the justice department? they say they want answers. >> i think michael and i would agree, of course they deserve answers. >> absolutely. >> but the problem -- this is the point democrats have been making, what chairman issa is doing now has nothing to do with what actually happened. it has nothing to do with investigating how these guns got out there and how we can get the guns off the street. that investigation was actually had been ongoing under ag holder because when he found out about the program he stopped it. >> i'm going to stop this here because we have a little bit of bipartisan agreement on the fact t