i want to address this question to professor turley. i commend you for having the courage to speak out about your concerns about the constitutional dimensions of the conduct of the executive. i recognize that that has not been easy for you to speak out and i suspect you have heard more than a little grief in the faculty lounge for having done so. so let me say thank you for having the courage of your convictions. i wish we saw a lot more members of this body with similar courage of convictions. yesterday i asked ms. lynch if she agreed with the reasoning of the legal counsel -- council that under the theory of prosecutorial discretion, the administration could decline to enforce immigration laws against 4 million to 5 millino people -- million people and could print documents that purport to authorize them to violate federal law. ms. lynch said that she found that olc reasoning persuasive. do you agree with that assessment? >> i have serious problems with the reasoning for a couple of reasons of my own. first, much of what we do when we

and president turley, i've seen you many, many times. the house republicans have hired you to sue the administration in another area and taxpayers will pay your fee. this could cost as much as $3 million. they're not paying you $3 million, are they? [laughter] >> i'm certainly open to that senator leahy, but, no, no one's offered me $3 million. >> what is the hourly rate you do charge? >> i think it's -- the hourly rate's set by the contract, not by me, it's top at $500. i seem to recall that. i want to correct something. i'm actually working not for the house republicans but for the house of representatives. they voted to approve the -- >> republican vote. partisan vote, you know. not to put two -- do you get paid for your testimony here today? >> oh, no, of course not. >> thank you. i thought i would ask out of fairness to you. actually, the question i asked first was probably the one that i appreciated the answer the most when no hands went up and i hope we can move on. many of you have questions about past operations of the departmen

next we have jonathan turley, j.b. and morrisy shapiro professor of public interest law, george washington university law school. david clarke, sheriff, milwaukee county and served for over 36 years as a law enforcement professional. next, nichlas rosenkrantz is a professor of constitutional law and federal jurisdiction, georgetown university law center and a senior fellow at the kato -- cato institute. finally, we have katherine engelbrecht. she's the founder and chairwoman of truth the vote, an election integrity organization, the founder of king street patriots, a citizen led liberty group, and the co-owner of engelbrecht manufacturing, a small business she owns with her husband in her home state of texas. now we will start with ms. attkisson. >> thank you. >> if i didn't maybe i should say i think you have all been informed but we'd like to have five minutes. go ahead. >> i have been a reporter for 30 years at cbs news. i have been a reporter for 30 years at cbs news pbs cnn, and local news. my producers and i prob

turley says that his interest today is not to discuss ms. lynch as much as the department she wishes to lead. but he goes on to say he has no reason to doubt the integrity and intentions of ms. lynch, who displays obvious leadership and strength of character. sheriff clarke is here and wishes the nominee well. but he goes on in his testimony to say, i want to spend some time critiquing eric holder's tenure. professor rosenkranz takes no position on the nominee, but comments on the tenure of eric holder. is that correct, professor? and ms. engelbrecht -- did i say that right? ms. engelbrecht is an advocate for voter identification laws who would like ms. lynch to agree that voter identification laws are not efforts to suppress voting, but took no specific position on the nominee. is that correct? >> most specific positions, i have all the hope in the world it will work out. >> so let me say two things. one, some many years ago george washington set for himself what he called his rules of civility and decent behavior. he wrote 110 rules of civ

next we have jonathan turley, j.b. and morrisy shapiro professor of public interest law, george washington university law school. david clarke, sheriff, milwaukee county and served for over 36 years as a law enforcement professional. next, nichlas rosenkrantz is a professor of constitutional law and federal jurisdiction, georgetown university law center and a senior fellow at the kato -- cato institute. finally, we have katherine engelbrecht. she's the founder and chairwoman of truth the vote, an election integrity organization, the founder of king street patriots, a citizen led liberty group, and the co-owner of engelbrecht manufacturing, a small business she owns with her husband in her home state of texas. now we will start with ms. attkisson. >> thank you. >> if i didn't maybe i should say i think you have all been informed but we'd like to have five minutes. go ahead. >> i have been a reporter for 30 years at cbs news. i have been a reporter for 30 years at cbs news pbs cnn, and local news. my producers and i prob

let's not forget during this campaign, yes, the greek people turley and empaly emphatically rejectedusterity but told us in opinion poll after poll that they wanted to stay in the euro. sent % want to stay in the euro. other potential partners the associatedist party that dominated greek politics in the '80s and '90s and 2000s, now just a path he etic husk of its former self, perhaps scraping some 5% of the vote. other potential partners known as the independent greeks on the right. so not natural bed fellows with souza but they are greek nationalists. they i suppose paradoxically could go in. they have said they are prepared to go in because they too, would stand up for grease if you like. that's how they would put it in negotiations with european partners. we will have to see how that plays out, whether syriza have enough enough. these will have convulsions across europe. thank you. the u.s. is prepared to do more to help nigeria fight boka haram. the u.s. secretary of state is visiting lagos ahead of next month's presidential election. he has been meeting both contenders. good goo

. >> you think turley is a serious witness? >> not in this situation. he's testifying about his lawsuit in which he's representing john boehner. >> he's talking about executive orders and whether they are legal and whether she's going to agree with them. >> and whether it would be an overstep in terms of the office. so i think it is relevant. >> good question, whether she thinks it is legal. are they legally binding when they come out of -- >> she would ask the question for example, about the immigration order and she thought it was a reasonable resolution. if we wanted that information, we got it. >> oh, you know what come on. let them show up. was president obama wrong when he called the united states a tight-knit family? what americans are actually saying about our country. that's next. >>> welcome back. according to a new fox news poll, the country is as divided as ever. 37 73% see america as a dysfunction family. i took to the polls. watch. >> we're a strong tight-knit family who has made it through some very, very hard times. >> so is america tigh

. >> well-known constitutional law professional jonathan turley he said france has been leading the way in a crack down on free speech is that fair? >> i don't always agree with him but he cites a number of occasions where he points out and has pointed out over time concerns with the french government's actions, also points to the british government and even our own where we are beginning to allow our speech to be restricted because of our fears about our security. and you know the old saying if you want to sacrifice your liberty because you are afraid of your security then perhaps you deserve neither. that's his point. >> one case in england was -- somebody was prosecuted for antimuslim speech so the issue is all over the place it's certainly a difficult issue, difficult conversation. >> being too rationsary can be too danger are you. >> pleasure to see you. >> pleasure to see you. >> now for other stories around the world. we begin in washington, d.c, where the scandal plagued secret service has done some housecleaning. reassigning four of its most senior officials. four of its direct

for women like elizabeth turley who don't want to get their tubes tied essure is pitched as the perfect option for permanent birth control. >> i knew at that point, i did not want to start off with a newborn in my life with everything that was going on. >> she had the device implanted and experienced side effects like pain and nausea. she says laid her out. and she's not alone, tonight at 11:00, the abc 7 i-team digs in to show you how often complications have been reported to the feds. >> we want it off the market. it's not helping. it's hurting more than it's helping. >> but anyone who claims they've been harmed by essure can't sue. >> you get hurt you're powerless. >> as this d.c. attorney explains, it's all because of something called an f.d.a. exemption. >> if companies comply with certain standards it would allow products to come to market and have a safe harbor if they do certain things if they would not be sued for economic damages. >> but a philadelphia law firm is trying. it's suing bayer that originally bought essure. >> it's not fair! >> bayer did not respond when we asked a

jonathan turley a critic of the administration. a george washington university law professor, and a gun right's activist after that all on the same panel. clearly republicans anticipating that loretta lynch will ultimately be confirmed, trying to throw some red meat to the conservative base. >> mike viqueira for us in washington. mike as always thank you very much. jamie floyd, the question then has to be asked what exactly should loretta lynch not say? >> right, first of all i want to underscore something that mike pointed out. this is very much theater. i have been in that room many many times out there my career going all the way back to clarence thomas. remember that? those were two sets of hearings. the original set, and then the anita hill follow-up. so this is very much theater, and i have also done vetting inside the white house when i worked in the white house. so there's a lot of preparation that goes on before she ever sets foot. she doesn't just walk in cold right? there's a lot of preparation that goes on before the he

next we have a jonathan turley. a professor of public interest law at george washington university law school. david clark, sheriff of the lucky county -- no walkie county -- milwuakee county. he is a professor of constitutional law at georgetown university law center and a senior fellow at the cato ins titute. finally we have catherine engelbrecht. she is in charge of an electric election integrity organization. and the co-owner of engelbrecht manufacturing, a small business she owns with her husband in the home state of texas. now we will start with ms. atkinson. >> thank you. >> maybe i should say we would like to have five minutes. go ahead. >> i've been a reporter for 35 years at cbs news. yesterday, i will get a little closer. can you hear me now? i have been a reporter for 40 years at cbs, pbs, and local news. my producers and i have probed countless organizations, ranging from iraq waste under bush, two green waste under obama, to consumer stories in the industry. most recently, investigative any nominations

things we've never seen before. >> and do you agree with professor turley that one of the most significant overreaches is the president's executive actions with regard to amnesty? >> yes, i absolutely do. i think it's inconsistent with his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed in particular the immigration and nationality act. >> it seems to me that they're arguing that take care that the laws be ectscutesed means you have to do the best you can to enforce the laws. under the circumstances, which have some legal basis. but in truth, dobalt they go well beyond that and create whole new laws that are not even on the books and they're not authorized to do that, are they? >> you're quite right. this action looks a lot more like a legislative action than like executive discretion. >> senator, may i jump in and comment on that, please? >> yes. >> thank you. we've heard a lot of very broad general statements to the effect that separation of powers is important, which of course it is. that the president is not above the law, and of course he is not. but i have yet to hear an

the hill's kevin turley wants to know why harry reid doesn't just focus on what the government is doingball on so many other issues. [laughter] all good points. kevin, why the need to feel that washington has to weigh in here? >> well, thanks for having me neil. it's not just senator harry reid, by the way it's also senator dean heller a republican from -- neil: oh no, you're right. they're all in on it, you know? >> the pile-on, here we go. they're pushing for answers. they're not really worrying about economists' deflation forecasts, they're spending more time on tom brady and deflation with this football. so it really is just another example of -- neil: well, exactly. it's a wedge issue and a stupid wedge issue but i'd worry about the other d word like the debt. it's out of control, and neither party, to your point is really addressing it or talking about it. >> well, you know, and on the flip side of that we see this all the time with lawmakers always making these cheap football metaphors. just the other week chris christie was grabbing headlines for saying he's a cowboys' fan. can'

joining us right now, george washington university law professor jonathan turley.t has france been doing to restrict free speech that still got them into trouble? >> the great irony is that the editors and the writers of this magazine were pry may remember concerned with prosecution. they were in continual struggle with the government and people that wanted them prosecuted for the exercise of free speech. one of the editors, one of the surviving editors recently lashed out at people who were protesting saying where have you been for years when we were fighting these domestic laws and fighting these efforts to shut us down. >> give us some examples of how they are criminalized free speech in france. >> across europe -- not just france but france is one of the leading countries on this trend -- has been criminalizing all types of speech that criticize folks for their religion or sexuality or sexual orientation or gender. there is a trend towards prosecution of people who engage in hate speech or speech seen as discriminatory and these laws are often generally written

jonathan turley, who is a shapiro professor of law at george washington university, nationally recognized constitutional scholar testified before congress many, many times most often as a democratic witness who has said he supports president obama and voted for him he said this: "i believe the president has exceeded his brief. the president is required to faithfully execute the laws. he's not required to enforce all laws equally or commit the same resources to them, but i believe the president has crossed the constitutional line." he said that again yesterday at the judiciary hearing on the attorney general. he says, "this goes to the very heart of what is the madisonian system. if a president can unilaterally change the meaning of laws in substantial ways or refute -- refuse to enforce them, it takes off-line that very thing that stabilizes our system. i believe the members" -- he's talking about members of congress -- "will loathe the day that they allow this to happen. """this will not be the last president. there will be more presidents who seek to claim this same authority." close qu