mr. st. clair. mr. st. clair -- he is now dead. he never wrote a memoir or gave an interview. we do not know for sure. it is my belief that he played a role in getting these tapes made public quickly. once they were public, everyone saw that the tape of june 23 was a smoking gun, but the president knew that mitchell, as head of the committee for the reelection of the president, was aware of this break-in before it happened. agreedt the president with hold him and's suggestion and reiterated that the a cia should be told to tell the fbi that this is something the fbi should stay out of. that strategy did not work. the cia ultimately refused to go along with this approach. question that the president was involved in deciding to ask them to do that. quickly to the president's announcement on august 8 that he was going to resign and to his actual resignation on august 9. everything happened more quickly after the 8-0 decision. it was eight because justice rehnquist had recused himself because he had been involved in the case while working for the executive branch and appropriately

mr. st. clair. thank you, mr. jaworski, mr. lacovara. the case is submitted. >> you have been listening to julyral arguments from the 1974 case of the nine versus nexen. davis, one ofevan the leaders in the impeachment and watergate covert task force. thanks very much for being with us. >> good to be here. >> as you look back at the oral arguments and the unanimous decision written by the chief justice, what was the significance of that? to say lawyer, i have this is one of the top decisions of the supreme court of the united states. it is right up there with marbury versus madison. it is a very fundamental decision. and its principal holding is that no man, person, is above the law. that is the basic conclusion of the case. just a very quickly go of the four issues, earlier the court held that it did have jurisdiction. the court held that this was a totally proper dispute for the court to does -- to decide. rule governing subpoenas of time, and the court held there was no absolute executive rivulets, that there was a need for balancing

mr. st. clair. >> mr. chief justice and members of the court. my learned brothers approached this case i think in the traditional point of view, namely, this is an attempt by a special prosecutor to obtain what he thinks is desirable evidence in a criminal prosecution that he has a responsibility for. not once, however, have i heard him mention what i think is really involved, at least in a significant part, and that is the co-pendency of the impeachment proceedings before the house of representatives. and, the realistic fusion that has taken place with respect to these two proceedings and the promise of continued fusion, as i understand my brother's position. may i quote from page 50 -- >> none of our problems, are they? >> i think, sir, they really are. first, by way of factual background -- >> the sole authority to impeach this in the house -- >> that's correct. >> the sole authority to try this in the senate. >> right, and the court shall not be used to implement or aid that process which what

mr. st. claire and understanding mr. st. clare that case, today, no representation has been made by ffidavit or professional representation or otherwise that these materials have to do with defense or international relations. >> no, and no representation can made to the contrary either. >> no. the would be a matter for existing order under the review, to him ld be submitted later in camera. >> if this court finds -- under his existing orders? >> yes, that's right. yes. the president presumably if he was to comply with that a er would make such representation in an appropriate case. but fundamental point is that we reasons stated that he president's right to confidential advice is important and it's fundamental to the of his unctioning government. and in many instances, i uggest, is more important in military matters and matters of state, so to speak. the conversation is the course, that it might t ecome public involves the chilling effect under the first amendment. as a practical matter. the see it myself, and nications are

mr. st. claire had gone through all the tapes that were still not provided us pursuant to our subpoena, and came up with one shred of exculpatory evidence, tapes that the president had here to for said bore no relevance at all to watergate, one shred of exculpatory evidence that really was not exculpatory at all in examination, it dealt with hush money. now the president makes a big point of determining what use the defendants would put the money to which he was paying them, to determine its legality or illegality. that isn't the question. the question is for what purpose it was paid, not to what purpose it was put. and common sense tells you that a president of the united states does not condone the payment of over $400,000 to seven people occupying a d.c. jail cell because they have committed a burglary unless he wants something from them. that isn't compassion. that isn't a charitable institution particularly when it's done surreptitiously, covertly, fingerprints kept away from the money. that wa

mr. claire? guest: cordial, but there is a in the approach. what happened to some of my democratic colleagues in the house is they jumped through the trap too soon. they do not let the american public come to grips with what we are dealing with here. as people begin to understand ofrything, the level to die down and the decent american people get to comedie down and the decencye american people begins to come up. long enough,wait politically speaking, strategically speaking. they jumped at it. now, it becomes something not just in this moment, but for a long time, that is part of their legacy. springs national park, arkansas, elizabeth, independent caller. caller: i get disgusted when i hear congressman and senators who i feel are totally un-american when you come to this country and the people, the mexicans and people from latin america come here and do not become americans. they keep wanting more of their people coming in. i do not want to go to south america, i do not care for the people there. host: why would you say that? i am beingeel li

mr. claire? guest: cordial, but there is a in the approach. what happened to some of my democratic colleagues in the house is they jumped through the trap too soon. they do not let the american public come to grips with what we are dealing with here. as people begin to understand ofrything, the level to die down and the decent american people get to comedie down and the decencye american people begins to come up. long enough,wait politically speaking, strategically speaking. they jumped at it. now, it becomes something not just in this moment, but for a long time, that is part of their legacy. springs national park, arkansas, elizabeth, independent caller. caller: i get disgusted when i hear congressman and senators who i feel are totally un-american when you come to this country and the people, the mexicans and people from latin america come here and do not become americans. they keep wanting more of their people coming in. i do not want to go to south america, i do not care for the people there. host: why would you say that? i am beingeel li

mr. claire has that we want these kids treated the same way as we treat mexican kids, because it is not an equity issue, trust me. it is an issue of due process. we feel very strongly about drawing the line on this portion of the law, because we have seen what the experience has been with the mexican kids. the u.n. commission said there may be up to 50-60 present -- percent of mexican kids in those areas fleeing for their lives. law, their of the only interviewed by a border patrol agent and the assessment as to whether or not they have a right to claim asylum or go through the process is secondary to the primary issue, the border. worth not passing anything over the 2008 law? >> it is a difficult question. if we're talking about passing something of convenience, something that is more of a political coverage for people, the law becomes an issue thrown out, yes. nation, the humanitarian values, asylum values, the values we have established in law and can -- and tradition and practice, are that important. it is a difficult question because you want to process the kids. if nothing is done, t

mr. st. clair concedes there is a shift in the unit's way of acting, but he said the purpose he failed toe. tell us why they had sterile phones in this little cubbyhole and why you would need special passes to enter and why in total defiance of the law and the cia they regularly violated that prohibition against security matters of the cia. he testified and said there was no area of violation of federal or criminal laws which was not covered by statutes and if there thean additional it goes to department of justice. this was political and unlawful from the beginning. the names came later. if the president says there is an epidemic of leaks, that is not substantiated by the evidence. let me quote one justification which has come out today and a minority report which demonstrates hysteria is ill going. that foreignt says espionage agents can read english, and they can read the new york times. the time of the gentleman has expired. i recognize the gentleman from maine for three minutes. >> i would lik

mr. st. clair it gone through stille tapes that were not provided us pursuant to our subpoena, and came up with one shred of exculpatory evidence, tapes that the president had to for said bore no all to watergate, one shred of excullatory was not that really exculpatory at all in examination, it dealt with hush money. president makes a big point of determining what use the defendants would put the to which he was paying them, to determine its legality or illegality. that isn't the question. purposetion is for what it was paid, not to what purpose it was put. sense tells you that a president of the united states payment ofndone the seven people to occupying a d.c. jail cell have committed a burglary unless he wants something from them. isn't compassion. a charitable institution particularly when it's done surreptitiously, covertly, fingerprints kept away from the money. that was to buy their silence and succeeded in buying their silence. look at this case without feeling a deep sadness deepereeper a

even claire mccaskill, democrats and an independent who caucus together, saying, mr. reid, bring these to the floor. and how can harry reid for one minute stop any movement on that va reform bill is beyond me. >> one thing that lawmakers are saying that are working on the bill, they're waiting to get the proper projects from the congressional budget office so they have the numbers right and can put forward a proposal that makes sense. craig, what do you think about that? do we need to take that sometime you're a business guy. >> you know, jenna, you know as well as i do, because you have covered it more, since when is cbo ever gotten it right? the reality is they're projecting 44 to $50 billion worth of costs. let's just assume that is right. and everybody is balking at the number. it's not going to just take money. it's going to take somebody that is empowered to make the tough decisions, and here's where i think the glitch is. i think you -- senator mccain and bernie sanders of all people, came together and said, let's empower the new secretary with the ability to f

senator claire mccaskill chairs the subcommittee, while senator john thune serves as the ranking member. we're expecting mr. feinberg to appear first.

mr. speaker. a 40 year old mother was murdered -- in rotting tail on the 17th of march. the introduction of claire's law, or the right to know, to find out if your partner has a history of violence in this case, surely did note of his history of violence, must be faster by support by both the police and the probation service to those in this situation know the potential dangers they face so we will not see another tragedy like the death of sharon lee. >> can i say it is good is an honorable friend i can displace and make an important point which is introduction of claire's law. i think has made a real difference because it gives people the right to the information about potential dangers from a partner and i'm proud of the fact that it's now been rolled out across the country. he's right, we did to do more with the police and the probation service and the prison service to make sure more warnings are given in more cas cases. >> the prime minister will be a where of housing crisis in london. but is he aware of his colleagues -- jus this think of contribution? to his 110 million family pound family fi

during that hearing, senator claire mccaskill called for the removal the company's general counsel. here's a look. >> mr. milli can, i want to spend my time on my first round with you. i want to make sure everybody understands what punitive damages are. what punitive damages are. for lawyers, that is a blinking red light. punitive damages in our system are designed to punish corporations. or people. for conduct that is outrageous and egregious. it is a method by which justice can be done by punishing bad behavior. a pattern was emerging at general motors for almost a decade about these cars. there was some confusion because of deceit on the part of at least one engineer. but in october of 2010, your lawyers -- this wasn't a plaintiff's lawyer that was out there making a frivolous lawsuit. your lawyers that you hired said, you are possibly subject to punitive damages over the way you have handled this problem in this automobile. that was in october of 2010. and i believe you were general counsel then, correct? >> that is correct. >> again, in july of 2011, your lawyers told you that there is a potential

mr. speaker. a 40 year old mother was murdered -- in rotting tail on the 17th of march. the introduction of claire's law, or the right to know, to find out if your partner has a history of violence in this case, surely did note of his history of violence, must be faster by support by both the police and the probation service to those in this situation know the potential dangers they face so we will not see another tragedy like the death of sharon lee. >> can i say it is good is an honorable friend i can displace and make an important point which is introduction of claire's law. i think has made a real difference because it gives people the right to the information about potential dangers from a partner and i'm proud of the fact that it's now been rolled out across the country. he's right, we did to do more with the police and the probation service and the prison service to make sure more warnings are given in more cas cases. >> the prime minister will be a where of housing crisis in london. but is he aware of his colleagues -- jus this think of contribution? to his 110 million family pound family fi

senator claire mccaskill chairs the subcommittee, while senator john thune serves as the ranking member. we're expecting mr. feinberg to appear first. >>> all right, this hearing will come to order. today we revisit the tragic management failures at general motors that killed people. first i want to acknowledge in my opening remarks then from my viewpoint the ceo of general motors, mary barra, has stepped up and with courage and conviction has confronted head on the problem and the corporate culture that caused it. some see the record number of recalls at general motors as a problem. i see it as a good sign. second, i want to briefly say that i think i speak on behalf of all members of congress who have asked very difficult questions surrounding these tragic events that while we are asking tough questions, we have great respect for the workers of general motors. i would like to take this moment to thank the workers at general motors. you are terrific. you build good cars. and you are also the victims of outrageously incompetent management. management was the problem here, not the workers. the valukas repor

mr. st. clair concedes there is a shift in the unit's way of acting, but he said the purpose was legitimate. he failed to tell us why they had sterile phones in this little cubbyhole and why you would need special passes to enter and why in total defiance of the law and the cia they regularly violated that prohibition against security matters of the cia. he testified and said there was no area of violation of federal or criminal laws which was not covered by statutes and if there was any residual jurisdiction, it goes to the department of justice. this was political and unlawful from the beginning. the names came later. if the president says there is an epidemic of leaks, that is not substantiated by the evidence. let me quote one justification which has come out today and a minority report which demonstrates hysteria is ill going. this statement says that foreign espionage agents can read english, and they can read the new york times. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. i recognize the gentl

mr. st. claire, and advising them of what had occurred two-and-a half months prior. and then, on the following morning, advising judge rico of what had occurred in camera and pointing out at the necessity of this being used in connection with the arguments on a motion to quash because of their relevance and the necessity of these matters being made a part of the proceeding. now, the special prosecutor joined counsel for the president in urging that matter be heard in camera, which, was done. three of the defendants had joined the special prosecutor in moving for the subpoena. all of the defendants, at the time of argument in camera to judge sirica, opposed the motion to quash. >> i don't see the relevancy of the fact that the grand jury indicted the president as co-conspirator. the legal issue, as to the duty to deliver pursuant to the subpoena that you are asking for -- >> the only relevance, mr. justice, lies in it being necessary to show under rule 17c that there is some relevance to the material that we were seeking to subpoena, and -- >> yes, but 17c presupposes