MORE FALLOUT FROM THE ABNER LOUIMA CASE. OFFICER JUSTIN VOLPE SAYS THE OFFICER CONVICTED OF BEING IN THE BATHROOM WITH HIM DURING THE ASSAULT WAS NOT THE MAN WITH HIM.

ISSUE_NO = 2217A NO_OF_ITEMS = 5 COMMENTATOR = Leslie Mitchell ITEM_NO = 3 DESCRIPTION : The "Miranda", skippered by C.P. ADAMS, leaves Hull, to maintain a round the clock contact with trawlers off Iceland. CARD_FILE = 97693 CARD_TITLE : MIRANDA - FISHERY PROTECTION SHOT_LIST : GV bow of ship about to be cast off: MCU second mate on telephone: MLS skipper in mess room: CU skipper looking at meteorological report on machine: MS skipper comes up companion way onto bridge and shakes hands with fishery adviser: CU Radar scanner tilt down to fore deck: BCU radar display on PPI tube: MS electronics officer at teleprinter: MS radio officers at radio desk: CU ship's doctor with patient: pan ship's sick bay: MLS ship leaving harbour: MS stern of ship crew waving farewell. INDEX : Commerce and Industry, Medical, Shipping, Towns and Cities, Water, Weather MATERIAL : Issue DATE_SUBD = 00/00/0000

HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA - DECEMBER 9: Lin-Manuel Miranda attends the Los Angeles premiere of Disney's "Mufasa: The Lion King" at Dolby Theatre on December 9, 2024 in Hollywood, California. (Footage by Adam Jason Finmann/Getty Images)

Needs Description

COVERAGE IN NEW YORK CITY FOR A BILL REDEKER CS VO ABOUT POLICE OFFICER JUSTIN VOLPE ADMITTING HE ASSAULTED HAITIAN IMMIGRANT ABNER LOUIMA. COVERAGE IN BROOKLYN, NEW YORK FOR A BILL REDEKER CS VO ABOUT POLICE OFFICER JUSTIN VOLPE ADMITTING HE ASSAULTED HAITIAN IMMIGRANT ABNER LOUIMA. 02:00:17 EXT FTG OUTSIDE BROOKLYN FEDERAL COURTHOUSE. MWS PEOPLE. 02:00:37 STAKEOUT W/ STEPHEN WORTH, ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, POLICE OFFICER CHARLES SCHWARZ, WHO IS ACCUSED OF HOLDING LOUIMA AS VOLPE ASSAULTED HIM W/ A STICK, DELIVERING STATEMENT ABOUT HOW VOLPE'S GUILTY PLEA WILL AFFECT HIS CLIENT'S DEFENSE. 02:05:53 END OF STAKEOUT. 02:06:08 MWS NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT (NYPD) OFFICERS WEARING PALE BLUE WINDBREAKERS CLUSTERED OUTSIDE COURTHOUSE. 02:06:12 CU AFRICAN AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER IN UNIFORM STANDING GUARD OUTSIDE COURTHOUSE. 02:06:31 PAN ACROSS MORE OFFICERS IN UNIFORM STANDING WATCH OUTSIDE COURTHOUSE. 02:06:47 WS PRESS CLUSTERED BEHIND BLUE POLICE BARRICADES 02:07:17 MWS BURLY BLACK OFFICER STANDING ON FRONT OF PRESS. 02:07:39 SIDE MS POLICE SERGEANT STANDING WATCH. 02:07:51 MCU WOMAN HOLDING SIGN READING, TRUTH CRUSHED TO EARTH - WILL RISE AGAIN! 02:08:04 STAKEOUT W/ ERIC ADAMS, AN AFRICAN AMERICAN MEMBER OF THE NYPD, WHO IS APPALLED THAT VOLPE'S PLEA WAS ALLOWED. 02:09:53 STAKEOUT W/ ANTHONY MIRANDA, PRESIDENT OF THE LATINO OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, ABOUT WHY VOLPE'S GUILTY PLEA IS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE & INDICATION OF WHY THE BLUE WALL OF SILENCE IS AS STRONG AS EVER. 02:13:08 STAKEOUT W/ SERGEANT NOEL LEADER, ANOTHER AFRICAN AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER, ABOUT WHY THEY ARE NOT OVERWHELMINGLY ENTHUSED ABOUT VOLPE'S GUILTY PLEA. 02:15:07 STAKEOUT W/ VOLPE'S ATTORNEY, MARVYN KORNBERG, ABOUT WHY HIS CLIENT PLEADED GUILTY & CHOSE NOT TO IMPLICATE ANY OF THE OTHER OFFICERS. 02:21:04 CONTINUATION OF KORNBERG FIELDING REPORTER QUESTIONS AS HECKLERS SCREAM OFF SCREEN IN BG. 02:28:16 WS PROTESTERS STANDING BEHIND POLICE BARRICADE SHOUTING. 02:28:27 MS WHITE GUY WEARING BOSTON RED SOCKS BASEBALL CAP SHOUTING AMADOU! 02:28:48 MS KORNBERG LEAVING AS OFF SCREEN PROTESTERS SCREAM & SHOUT. 02:29:07 WS HECKLERS SCREAMING AT KORNBERG. 02:29:29 MWS POLICE APPROACHING SHOUTING HECKLERS. 02:29:46 WS KORNBERG'S WHITE JAGUAR DRIVING AWAY AS PROTESTERS CHANT, NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!

HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA - DECEMBER 9: Lin-Manuel Miranda attends the Los Angeles premiere of Disney's "Mufasa: The Lion King" at Dolby Theatre on December 9, 2024 in Hollywood, California. (Footage by Adam Jason Finmann/Getty Images)

14:10:00:15 ROUGH LOG : --- chair 14:02:48 This hearing will come to order. 14:02:56 mr atty general welcome to the hearing and welcome to this afternoone hearing. 14:03:14 our witness is the honorabl ...

CLEANING UP FROM ANOTHER ROUND OF STORMS.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER House appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice hearing with Eric Holder. 16:00:00 UNDERSTANDS OR MAYBE THEY WERE OUT ON VACATION OR WITH THEIR 16:00:02 FAMILY, THAT'S NOT BAD, I'M NOT CRITICIZING THAT, BUT THAT WAS 16:00:05 MY POINT IS IT WAS CHRISTMAS DAY, SPUR OF THE MOMENT AND YOU 16:00:09 DO HAVE VERY GOOD PEOPLE IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND VERY GOOD 16:00:11 PEOPLE IN THE FBI WHO HAD THEY BEEN THERE AND PERHAPS SOMEBODY 16:00:16 FROM THE FBI IT COULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. 16:00:19 THAT'S THE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE. 16:00:20 >> I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE WITH YOU. 16:00:22 I THINK THE OPERATION ON THE 25th WAS DONE VERY WELL. 16:00:24 I THINK IT WAS DONE EVEN BETTER POST-DECEMBER 25th IN THE 16:00:28 INTERVIEW WE HAD WITH ABDULMUTALLAB BUT I THINK THERE 16:00:30 ARE THINGS WE CAN LEARN FROM DECEMBER THE 25th AND WE NEED TO 16:00:34 MAKE SURE WE DO IT BETTER EVERY TIME. 16:00:36 >> SURE. SURELY, BEFORE I GET TO THE LAST 16:00:38 QUESTIONS. ON THE BIN LADEN THING THAT MY 16:00:43 COLLEAGUE ASKED, MR. CULVERSON, YOU SORT OF DISMISSED IT AND 16:00:48 BRUSHED ASIDE, KIND OF A BUMP AND RUN AND MOVE ON. 16:00:50 THE REALITY IS YOU MAY VERY WELL CATCH HIM AND HE VERY WELL MAY 16:00:56 BE ALIVE -- >> I DON'T -- 16:01:01 >> WE DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T KNOW A LOT OF THINGS. 16:01:03 SOMETIMES WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW, BUT IF YOU DO CATCH 16:01:07 HIM, AND I THINK THE CONCERN IS THAT YOU MAY VERY WELL BE 16:01:10 SETTING A PRECEDENT WITH THE KHALID SHAIKH MOHAMMED CASE. 16:01:15 BEHEADING DANIEL PEARL, KILLING 3,000 PEOPLE, THE PRECEDENT THAT 16:01:19 YOU'RE SETTING THERE, THAT IF YOU SHOULD CAPTURE OSAMA BIN 16:01:23 LADEN ALIVE, YOU MAY VERY WELL BE SETTING A PRECEDENT, SO MY 16:01:27 QUESTION TO YOU IS IF YOU CATCH OSAMA BIN LADEN ALIVE, WILL IT 16:01:30 GO TO AN ARTICLE III COURT OR A MILITARY COURT? 16:01:34 >> I'M NOT TRYING TO DODGE THIS ONE. 16:01:36 I JUST DON'T THINK -- THE POSSIBILITY OF CAPTURING HIM 16:01:39 ALIVE -- >> BUT THAT'S -- 16:01:41 >> -- IS INFINITESIMAL. >> OKAY. 16:01:45 >> HE'LL BE KILLED BY US OR HE'LL BE KILLED BY HIS OWN 16:01:48 PEOPLE SO THAT HE'S NOT CAPTURED BY US, WE KNOW THAT. 16:01:51 >> ATTORNEY GENERAL, I RESPECT -- THAT WAS NOT A TRICK 16:01:55 QUESTION. SINCERELY, WHAT IF WE DO THOUGH 16:01:58 CATCH HIM ALIVE, THAT'S THE QUESTION. 16:02:00 >> AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT -- AND MAYBE I WAS BEING A 16:02:04 LITTLE FLIP WITH MR. CULVERSON. >> OKAY. 16:02:09 >> READING MIRANDA RIGHTS TO HIS CORPS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'LL 16:02:14 BE DEALING WITH. HE IS NOT GOING TO BE ALIVE. 16:02:16 >> THE QUESTION IS WHAT IF HE IS ALIVE, AND I THINK THE GENTLEMAN 16:02:19 RAISED A LEGITIMATE CASE, AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE -- OUR 16:02:24 GOVERNMENT IS SETTING A PRECEDENT WITH THE KHALID SHAIKH 16:02:28 MOHAMMED IN A CIVILIAN COURT IN NEW YORK CITY, AND I THINK 16:02:31 THAT'S THE REAL DANGER. TWO OTHER QUESTIONS I WANTED TO 16:02:34 ASK YOU. THE INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND 16:02:38 TERRORIST PREVENTION ACT OF 2004 EXPANDED TO OSI JURISDICTION 16:02:43 BEYOND NAZI-ERA CASES. WE HAD HEARINGS WHEN I WAS THE 16:02:48 CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE. SINCE THAT CHANGE, HOW MANY 16:02:50 HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS HAVE YOU SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED OR 16:02:54 REMOVED FROM THE COUNTRY? I'M TINNIALLY SEEING, I SAW THE 16:02:57 FELLOW INTERVIEWED THE OTHER DAY FROM SOMALIA. 16:02:59 WE'RE FINDING ALL THESE BAD PEOPLE SHOWING UP IN THE 16:03:03 COUNTRY, PEOPLE INVOLVED IN A GENOCIDE IN RWANDA WHERE 16:03:06 600,000, 700,000 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED. 16:03:08 WE'RE FIND BEING, YOU KNOW, CHARLES TAYLOR'S SON, CHUCKY 16:03:13 TAYLOR. FORTUNATELY THE ADMINISTRATION 16:03:14 DID GET HIM, BUT CAN YOU TELL US, AND MAYBE THIS IS NOT THE 16:03:20 PLACE, CAN YOU COMMIT THAT YOU'RE AGGRESSIVELY LOOKING AND 16:03:23 HOW MANY HAVE YOU PROSECUTED, BUT CAN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY COME 16:03:25 BY AND GIVE ME THE REAL INFORMATION, AN INVENTORY OF ALL 16:03:29 THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN GENOCIDE AND CRIMES 16:03:32 AGAINST HUMANITY THAT ARE NOW LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES, AND 16:03:36 YOU KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, THAT YOU'RE AGGRESSIVELY GOING AFTER 16:03:40 THEM TO AT LEAST -- TO AT LEAST DEPORT THEM. 16:03:44 >> YEAH. I CAN ARRANGE A BRIEFING SO THAT 16:03:46 I CAN SHARE WITH YOU WHAT THE EXACT NUMBERS ARE BECAUSE I 16:03:48 DON'T KNOW THEM. ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE TRYING 16:03:53 TO DO. WE NEED SOME CONGRESSIONAL 16:03:56 SUPPORT FROM THEM. >> WHAT SUPPORT? 16:03:58 >> TO MERGE THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS WITH ITS 16:04:03 COUNTERPART THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROSECUTIONS OF PEOPLE 16:04:05 LIKE CHUCKY TAYLOR, BECAUSE WE THINK IF THEY PUT THOSE TWO 16:04:08 GROUPS TOGETHER IN OUR CRIMINAL DIVISION WE CAN BE MORE 16:04:13 EFFECTIVE AT THE PEOPLE YOU'RE SPEAKING OF. 16:04:15 >> I WILL OFFER THAT AS A MOTION IN THE MARKUP AND JUST TO TELL 16:04:19 THE GENTLEMAN FROM WEST VIRGINIA, I'LL OFFER THAT AS A 16:04:21 MOTION, IF YOUR PEOPLE CAN COME UP AND GIVE ME THE LANGUAGE AND 16:04:24 I'LL SEE IF I CAN GET THAT PASSED, AND I'LL ALSO INTRODUCE 16:04:27 A BILL IN CASE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DOESN'T, I CAN LOOK 16:04:30 FOR ANOTHER VEHICLE, TOO, BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE AN 16:04:32 OBLIGATION TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN PERSECUTE WHO HAD HAVE 16:04:35 GONE THROUGH THIS TO HAVE THESE PEOPLE THAT THEY THEN SEE LIVING 16:04:38 IN THE UNITED STATES TO BE PROSECUTED AND DEPORTED. 16:04:41 >> AND I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. WOLF, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT 16:04:44 WE CAN WORK TOGETHER ON THAT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. 16:04:46 >> THAT WOULD BE GOOD. A GOOD THING TO WORK TOGETHER. 16:04:50 THAT WOULD BE GOOD. THE LAST THING IS, I WANT TO GO 16:04:53 BACK TO THE PRISON RATE. THIS IS AN ISSUE I CARE DEEPLY 16:05:05 A ABOUT. 16:05:12 I THOUGHT YOU WERE READING. >> NO. 16:05:14 >> EXCUSE ME. >> I'M SORRY GO, AHEAD. 16:05:17 >> THE PRISON RAPE. MY OFFICE TALKED TO SOMEBODY WHO 16:05:22 WAS INVOLVED IN A PRISON RAPE AND CONNECTED TO THE JUSTICE 16:05:25 DEPARTMENT. WHEN SENATOR KENNEDY AND BOBBY 16:05:26 SCOTT AND I PUT THIS IN, WE WANTED THIS THING PASSED. 16:05:29 >> SURE. >> I CAN SEND YOU, AND I WILL 16:05:32 SEND YOU AND WOULD I ASK YOU ON THE RECORD IF YOU PROMISE ME 16:05:35 YOU'RE GOING TO READ THEM. >> OKAY. 16:05:37 >> SOME THE CASES OF SOME OF THESE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN 16:05:40 RAPED. SOME ARE VERY YOUNG, TOO, AND WE 16:05:45 SENT A LETTER BACK IN JULY OF THIS YEAR. 16:05:47 SENATOR KENNEDY, CONGRESSMAN SCOTT AND MYSELF. 16:05:51 WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE DUPLICATING EVERYTHING THE 16:05:54 COMMISSION HAS DONE. YOU'RE GOING OUT ON A CONTRACT 16:05:56 NOW TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING, AND JUST BECAUSE SOME PRISON WARDENS 16:06:00 DON'T LIKE THIS OR THE BUREAU OF PRISON MAY NOT LIKE IT, THE 16:06:04 LONGER YOU DELAY, THE MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE RAPED, 16:06:08 PERIOD, AND NOW WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US IS THAT THIS WILL NOT 16:06:12 BE IN PLACE UNTIL 2011 AND MAYBE 2012. 16:06:17 THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU DID IT. 16:06:21 I DON'T KNOW THE OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT. 16:06:22 THIS WAS LOOKED AT CAREFULLY, AND I THINK TO -- TO REDUCE THE 16:06:27 FUNDING FOR IT, TOO, SENDS ME A MESSAGE THAT THE JUSTICE 16:06:31 DEPARTMENT, WHOEVER IS PUT BEING THIS TOGETHER, DOESN'T REALLY 16:06:34 CARE. I WANT A COMMITMENT THAT YOU'RE 16:06:36 GOING TO EXPEDITE THIS, MOVING IT THROUGH, KNOWING THAT EACH 16:06:40 AND EVERY DAY YOU DON'T DO IT, SOMEONE IN SOME PRISON, MAYBE A 16:06:43 STATE PRISON, MAYBE A JAIL, MAYBE A FEDERAL PRISON IS GOING 16:06:46 TO BE RAPED, SO WHAT I WANT TO DO IS WE WANT TO PASS THIS 16:06:48 THING. WE WANT TO MOVE THIS THING. 16:06:49 WE WANT TO GET IT OUT AND GET IT UP AND RUNNING, AND 2011, IT 16:06:55 WILL BE A YEAR AND A HALF TO TWO YEARS LATE, SO WHAT CAN YOU TELL 16:06:59 ME THAT YOU'RE GOING TO KIND OF DO AWAY WITH THIS CONTRACTING 16:07:02 THING OUT AND DO WHAT THE COMMISSION SAYS TO DO SOMETHING 16:07:05 TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN FAST? >> WELL, IN TERMS OF JUST 16:07:08 FUNDING, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT HERE. 16:07:11 WE HAVE TOTAL FUNDING OF OVER $16 MILLION AVAILABLE TO US IN 16:07:16 2010. OUR $5 MILLION IN 2011 PLUS OUR 16:07:20 CURRENT FUNDS IS REALLY SUFFICIENT TO FINISH THE SURVEY 16:07:24 PROCESS AND TO PROVIDE IMPLEMENTATION AND HELP TO OUR 16:07:27 STATE AND LOCAL PARTNERS, SO THAT WE THINK WITH THE MONEY 16:07:29 THAT WE HAVE WE ARE CAPABLE OF DOING THE JOB THAT YOU WANT DONE 16:07:33 AND THE JOB I WANT TO HAVE -- I WANT TO HAVE DONE. 16:07:36 WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS IN A SLIPSHOD WAY. 16:07:41 WE WANT TO EFFECT SUBSTANTIVE REAL CHANGE SO THAT THE HORRORS 16:07:46 THAT ARE TOO OFTEN VISITED UPON PEOPLE IN OUR PRISONS, THAT 16:07:50 HORROR IS ELIMINATED. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH 16:07:54 YOU ON THAT. I MEAN, WE ARE EXACTLY ON THE 16:07:59 SAME PAGE ON THIS ONE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK 16:08:01 NEEDS TO BE DONE, NOT TOMORROW BUT YESTERDAY, AND TO THE EXTENT 16:08:07 THAT WE ARE NOT BEING AS EFFICIENT, NOT BEING AS 16:08:14 AGGRESSIVE AS WE NEED TO BE, IT'S -- IT'S GOOD FOR YOU TO, 16:08:18 YOU KNOW, BRING THAT TO MY ATTENTION, BUT I CAN TELL YOU. 16:08:21 I AM SINCERE IN MY DESIRE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THIS DONE 16:08:26 AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. I THINK WE HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDS 16:08:30 TO DO IT. I THINK THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE 16:08:32 LAID OUT WILL MAKE SURE THAT THE CHANGES THAT WE IMPLEMENT WILL 16:08:37 BE ONES THAT WILL HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE IMPACT. 16:08:40 IT WILL NOT SIMPLY BE THINGS THAT YOU SEE ON PAPER AND DON'T 16:08:46 AFFECT THE LIVES OF PEOPLE IN PRISON. 16:08:48 THAT'S OUR GOAL. >> MOST MEMBERS OF THE 16:08:49 COMMISSION DON'T AGREE WITH YOU, AND I THINK YOU KNOW THE 16:08:53 CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMISSION, REGGIE WALTON, SO WITH THAT, 16:08:55 MR. CHAIRMAN, I -- I YIELD BACK. >> MR. SCHIST. 16:08:59 >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST WANT TO QUICKLY ADDRESS A 16:09:02 COUPLE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE ABOUT GUANTANAMO. 16:09:09 IN ADDITION TO COLIN POWELL AND PRESIDENT BUSH ADVOCATING THE 16:09:13 CLOSURE OF GUANTANAMO, THE ASSESSMENT OF MILITARY 16:09:20 COMMANDERS WITHIN D.O.D. IS THAT CLOSING GUANTANAMO, WELL, IT'S A 16:09:25 NATIONAL SECURITY IMPERATIVE IN THE WAR AGAINST AL QAEDA. 16:09:28 THAT'S ACCORDING TO JOHN BRENNAN, THE ASSISTANT PRESIDENT 16:09:32 FOR HOMELAND SECURITY AND COUNTERTERRORISM. 16:09:34 SECRETARY GATES, ADMIRAL MULLEN AND GENERAL PETRAEUS HAVE ALL 16:09:37 STATED THAT CLOSING GUANTANAMO WILL HELP OUR TROOPS BY 16:09:40 ELIMINATING A POTENT RECRUITING TOOL. 16:09:42 MY COLLEAGUE I THINK SETS UP A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT THAT BECAUSE 16:09:46 MANY OF US, INCLUDING THE DEFENSE SECRETARY, BELIEVE THAT 16:09:49 GITMO IS A RECRUITING TOOL, THAT WE'RE SOMEHOW ARGUING THAT IF 16:09:52 YOU CLOSE GUANTANAMO IT WILL END THE WAR ON TERRORISM. 16:09:54 OF COURSE, NO ONE HAS EVER MADE THAT CLAIM, BUT I'VE YET TO HEAR 16:10:00 THE ADVOCATES OF KEEPING GUANTANAMO OPEN ACKNOWLEDGE ANY 16:10:07 MERIT TO THE -- THE PROPAGANDA TOOL IT HAS SERVED FOR AL QAEDA 16:10:13 AND THE DOWN SIDE OF KEEPING THAT OPEN. 16:10:18 I ALSO, AGAIN, IN TERMS OF THE CRITICISM REGARDING THE ARREST 16:10:24 AND MIRANDA ADVISEMENT OF ABDULMUTALLAB, I THINK THAT 16:10:29 ARGUMENT WOULD HAVE A LOT MORE POLICY WEIGHT AND A LOT LESS 16:10:32 POLITICAL OVERTONE IF THESE SAME FOLKS WHO ARE ATTACKING THIS 16:10:36 NATION NOW HAVE LEVELLED ANY CRITICISM OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 16:10:40 ASHCROFT WHEN THE SHOE BOMBER WAS ARRESTED WHICH 16:10:43 COINCIDENTALLY WAS ALSO A DECEMBER ALMOST CHRISTMAS DAY, I 16:10:46 THINK DECEMBER 21st EFFORT TO BLOW UP AN AIRCRAFT, AND HE WAS 16:10:52 ADVISED OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS WITHIN THE FIRST FIVE MINUTES 16:10:56 AND WAS ADVISED A TOTAL OF FOUR TIMES WITHIN 48 HOURS, AND I 16:11:01 DON'T REMEMBER HEARING A PEEP OF CRITICISM OF THE BUSH JUSTICE 16:11:04 DEPARTMENT AT THAT TIME, SO, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE 16:11:12 OUGHT TO TRY TO KEEP THE POLITICS OUT OF THIS AND NOT BE 16:11:16 SELECTIVE IN OUR CRITICISM. LET ME TURN TO ANOTHER SUBJECT 16:11:21 THOUGH, AND THAT IS -- THAT WAS ONE RAISED BY MY COLLEAGUE, MR. 16:11:25 HONDA, AND THAT IS THE -- THE SPIRALING OF VIOLENCE IN MEXICO. 16:11:29 I HAD A CHANCE TO SIT DOWN WITH YOUR COUNTERPART, THE MEXICAN 16:11:34 ATTORNEY GENERAL, TWO MONTHS AGO WHO TALKED ABOUT THE MUTUALLY 16:11:39 DESTRUCTIVE TRADE BETWEEN OUR TWO COUNTRIES WITH NARCOTICS 16:11:42 FLOWING NORTH AND WEAPONS FLOWING SOUTH, AND IN PARTICULAR 16:11:46 JUST THE PREVALENCE OF AMERICAN WEAPONS BEING IMPORTED INTO 16:11:54 MEXICO, SOLD THROUGH STRAW PURCHASERS OR ACQUIRED AT GUN 16:11:58 SHOWS OR THROUGH WHATEVER MECHANISM, AND I WANT TO ASK YOU 16:12:02 HOW WE CAN DO MORE TO STEM THAT FLOW OF WEAPONS INTO MEXICO. 16:12:07 YOU KNOW, WE'RE -- WE WERE DEVASTATED TO SEE THE LOSS OF 16:12:13 OUR CONSULAR OFFICIAL AND HIS WIFE. 16:12:17 WE LOST MR. SALCITO, A COUNCIL MEMBER FROM CALIFORNIA IN SOME 16:12:21 HORRIFIC VIOLENCE, AND, OF COURSE, THOUSANDS OF MEXICAN 16:12:24 CITIZENS ARE DYING EVERY YEAR IN WHAT LOOKS INCREASINGLY LOOKS 16:12:33 LIKE WHAT COLUMBIA USED TO LOOK. I WANT TO KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY 16:12:38 LEGAL CHANGES NECESSARY TO CRACK DOWN ON THIS HIGH VOLUME OF 16:12:41 TRAFFICKING OF WEAPONS INTO MEXICO, YOU KNOW. 16:12:44 ONE DISPARITY, FOR EXAMPLE, IS YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE I 16:12:49 GUESS IF SOMEONE BUYS FIVE OR MORE HANDGUNS A MONTH, BUT IF 16:12:52 THEY COME AND BUY FIVE OR MORE ASSAULT WEAPONS YOU'RE NOT 16:12:56 REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE IT, AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE LAW 16:12:59 ENFORCEMENT KIND OF LEADS. AS WE SAW IN THE EX-CALIBER 16:13:04 CASE, SOME OF THE EFFORTS TO CRACK DOWN ON EVEN HIGH-VOLUME 16:13:10 SALES TO STRAW PURCHASERS ARE PROBLEMATIC, AND IN ONE OF THE 16:13:14 ISSUES, TOO, MAY BE DO WE HAVE THE RESOURCES AND THE PRIORITY 16:13:19 AMONG THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICES TO GO AFTER EVEN THE 16:13:22 STRAW PURCHASERS IN A WAY THAT WILL LET US CLIMB THE CHAIN MUCH 16:13:26 AS SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO GO AFTER THE DRUG RUNNERS TO GO 16:13:29 AFTER THE CARTEL LEADERS. SO IF YOU COULD SHARE YOUR 16:13:34 THOUGHTS ON HOW WE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE EFFORT IN 16:13:36 MEXICO BY STOPPING THE FLOW OF WEAPONS INTO MEXICO. 16:13:38 >> WELL, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO IS TO 16:13:41 MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE AN ABILITY FROM OUR MEXICAN 16:13:45 COUNTERPARTS TO LOOK AT REALLY BASIC THINGS, THE SERIAL NUMBERS 16:13:48 OF GUNS THAT ARE FOUND IN MEXICO SO THAT WE CAN TRACE THEM AND 16:13:54 FIND WHERE THEY ARE BEING SOLD. I MEAN, WHAT OUR HISTORY TELLS 16:13:58 US IS THAT A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF GUN STORES SUPPLY A 16:14:06 DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF GUNS THAT ARE USED IN VIOLENT CRIMES, 16:14:09 BOTH IN THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAINLY IN MEXICO, AND THEN TO 16:14:14 FOCUS OUR ATTENTION USING OUR ATF, STATE AND LOCAL 16:14:19 COUNTERPARTS, TO FOCUS ON THOSE PLACES WHERE THERE IS AN 16:14:25 EVIDENT -- WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE, WHERE THERE IS A 16:14:28 PREDICATE TO BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE ENGAGED IN THE SALE OF 16:14:30 WEAPONS THAT END UP IN MEXICO THROUGH STORE PURCHASES, THROUGH 16:14:35 ILLEGAL -- STORE PURCHASES, ILLEGAL SALES PERHAPS TO, YOU 16:14:39 KNOW, PEOPLE WITH FELONY RECORDS. 16:14:41 I MEAN, WHATEVER IT IS, BUT TO FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE BACK TO 16:14:45 THOSE PLACES THAT ARE THE SOURCES OF THESE GUNS, AND I 16:14:48 THINK ONE OF THE WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN DO THAT IS BY HAVING A 16:14:51 GOOD INTERACTION WITH OUR MEXICAN COUNTERPARTS AND JUST BY 16:14:55 LOOKING AT THE WEAPONS THAT ARE SEIZED. 16:14:58 I MEAN, WE HAVE SEEN THESE THINGS. 16:15:00 WE HAVE WEAR HOUSES OF THESE THINGS, AND THEY NEED TO BE 16:15:05 PRESERVED AT LEAST LONG ENOUGH FOR AMERICAN LAW ENFORCEMENT TO 16:15:09 GET THERE AND TO OBTAIN SERIAL NUMBERS AND THEN TO TRY TO TRACE 16:15:13 THE SERIAL NUMBERS -- TRACE THE SERIAL NUMBERS BACK. 16:15:15 >> DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE SENTENCING PROVISIONS AS 16:15:19 WELL? I WAS INFORMED AT A MEETING WITH 16:15:22 SOME OF YOUR COLLEAGUES AND ATF AND WAS INFORMED ABOUT A RECENT 16:15:27 CASE WHERE SOMEONE WAS CONVICTED OF GUN RUNNING INTO MEXICO. 16:15:32 I THINK 1,000 WEAPONS WERE INVOLVED, AND THE SENTENCE WAS 16:15:36 30 SOME ODD MONTHS. THAT SEEMS LIKE AN AWFULLY LIGHT 16:15:40 SENTENCE FOR SOMEONE THAT IN ILLEGALLY EXPORTING TO MEXICO 16:15:46 1,000 WEAPONS, YOU KNOW, MAY SEE SEVERAL KILLINGS AS A RESULT OF 16:15:52 THOSE GUNS BEING ILLEGALLY TRAFFICKED INTO THE COUNTRY. 16:15:55 DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHETHER WE HAVE SUFFICIENT SENTENCING 16:15:58 DETERRENTS IN PLACE? >> YEAH. 16:16:00 I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT CASE, BUT I THINK THAT'S A VERY 16:16:02 LEGITIMATE QUESTION THAT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD ASK AND MAYBE 16:16:06 LOOK NOT ONLY THAT CASE BUT A LARGER NUMBER OF CASES TO SEE 16:16:11 WHO IS IT THAT'S GETTING CONVICTED OF GUN RUNNING TO 16:16:14 MEXICO AND WHAT KINDS OF SENTENCES ARE THEY GETTING? 16:16:19 IF THEY SEEM TO BE LOW, IS IT BECAUSE THE STATUTES -- THE 16:16:22 PENALTIES THAT WE HAVE IN THE STATUTES ARE TOO LOW, OR IS 16:16:25 THERE SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S GOING ON? 16:16:27 BUT I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A VERY LEGITIMATE 16:16:31 INQUIRY THAT WE SHOULD -- THAT WE SHOULD ENGAGE IN. 16:16:35 WE HAVE TO HAVE A DETERRENT EFFECT. 16:16:37 WE CAN'T MAKE THIS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE DO WITHOUT THE 16:16:42 THOUGHT THAT IF CAUGHT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO FACE A VERY 16:16:46 SUBSTANTIAL PENALTY GIVEN THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS IN MEXICO BUT 16:16:49 NOT ONLY IN MEXICO THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS IN THE UNITED 16:16:52 STATES. IT MAKES THE CARTELS STRONGER IN 16:16:55 MEXICO AND GIVES THEM A GREATER CAPACITY TO SHIP DRUGS TO OUR 16:17:00 COUNTRY, AND, YOU KNOW, THE VIOLENCE THAT WE SEE ALONG OUR 16:17:03 BOARDER IS ONLY FUELED BY THESE -- BY THESE SAME WEAPONS. 16:17:07 >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I YIELD BACK. 16:17:10 >> MR. CULVERSON. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 16:17:13 MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE MIRANDA CASE, OF COURSE, IS 16:17:16 DESIGNED TO PRESERVE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN A 16:17:23 COURT PROCEEDING. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT MIRANDA IS 16:17:27 ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN 16:17:31 CRIMINAL COURT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE, FOR EXAMPLE, THESE 16:17:37 ENEMY COMBATANTS BROUGHT TO TRIAL IN ARTICLE III COURTS? 16:17:39 >> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. 16:17:42 FOR INSTANCE, THE -- THAT INITIAL INTERACT WITH 16:17:46 ABDULMUTALLAB, THERE WAS NOT THE NEED FOR MIRANDA WARNINGS UNDER 16:17:49 THE EXCEPTION TO MIRANDA, THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION. 16:17:53 THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXCEPTIONS TO THE MIRANDA RULE THAT I THINK 16:17:57 ARE APPROPRIATE AND THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT CAN USE IN 16:18:02 QUESTIONING, GAINING INTELLIGENCE FROM. 16:18:04 >> EXCITED UTTERANCE. >> EXCITED UTTERANCES, A WHOLE 16:18:08 VARIETY OF THINGS. THE SUPREME COURT SAID NOT TOO 16:18:11 MANY YEARS AGO THAT THE MIRANDA WARNING REGIME WAS OF 16:18:20 CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION. >> OKAY. 16:18:21 >> 7-2 OPINION I THINK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 16:18:24 >> YOU MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO, SIR, THAT THE PEOPLE ON THE 16:18:27 SCENE MADE THE DECISION TO PROVIDE MIRANDA WARNINGS TO THE 16:18:31 CHRISTMAS BOMBER. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT, IF 16:18:35 I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY. WHO DID AUTHORIZE THE MIRANDA 16:18:37 WARNINGS TO BE GIVEN TO THE CHRISTMAS BOMBER? 16:18:38 >> THAT WAS DONE BY PEOPLE ON THE SCENE, BUT ALTHOUGH I WAS 16:18:42 NOT INVOLVED IN THAT, I THINK THAT THAT DECISION WAS CORRECT. 16:18:48 >> AND THE PURPOSE OF THE QUESTIONING, IF THE PURPOSE OF 16:18:51 THE QUESTIONING OF AN INDIVIDUAL IS TO GATHER INTELLIGENCE, ARE 16:18:54 THEY ENTITLED TO MIRANDA WARNINGS? 16:18:58 >> WELL, AGAIN, IT DEPENDS -- I MEAN, A BY-PRODUCT OF THE 16:19:02 QUESTIONING THAT WAS DONE OF ABDULMUTALLAB, JUSTIFIABLY DONE 16:19:06 UNDER THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION, WAS THE ACQUISITION 16:19:10 OF INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION WHILE WE WERE ALSO TRYING TO 16:19:12 DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE IN OTHER PLANES, 16:19:17 OTHER PEOPLE IN THE SAME PLANE THAT HE WAS ON. 16:19:18 YOU KNOW, I'VE HEARD A LOT SAID ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HE WAS ONLY 16:19:21 QUESTIONED FOR 50 MINUTES. THAT'S A FAIRLY LONG PERIOD OF 16:19:25 TIME. CERTAINLY NOT AS LONG AS WHAT 16:19:26 HAS HAPPENED SUBSEQUENT TO -- SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, BUT IF YOU 16:19:31 LOOK AT REPORT OF INTERVIEW THAT WAS GOTTEN FROM HIM IN THAT 50 16:19:35 MINUTES OR HOUR, THERE WAS A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL OF 16:19:38 INFORMATION THAT WAS GOT FROM HIM -- GOTTEN -- RECEIVED FROM 16:19:42 HIM THAT PROVED TO BE ACTIONABLE, THAT PROVED TO BE 16:19:45 TIMELY AND THAT CONTINUES TO BE, AT LEAST IN SOME WAYS, THE BASIS 16:19:51 FOR A LOT OF THE COOPERATION THAT HE HAS SHARED WITH US. 16:19:54 >> SINCE YOU'VE MADE THE DECISION TO TRY KSM IN A -- IN A 16:20:01 U.S. COURT, WOULDN'T ALL OF HIS INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS BE 16:20:06 INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT ADVISED OF -- NOT GIVEN HIS 16:20:15 MIRANDA WARNINGS? >> THERE ARE -- THIS IS 16:20:19 SOMETHING I REALLY CAN'T GET INTO TOO MUCH. 16:20:21 THERE ARE A VARIETY OF STATEMENTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE 16:20:30 FOR OUR USE IN THAT TRIAL, SOME OF WHICH HAVE NO MIRANDA ISSUES 16:20:39 AT ALL. >> SO WHEN HE RAISED THE 16:20:43 OBJECTION IN -- AS HE WILL, WHEN HE IS BROUGHT BEFORE A FEDERAL 16:20:49 JUDGE THAT -- WHEN HIS LAWYERS RAISE THE OBJECTION THAT HE WAS 16:20:51 NOT GIVEN A MIRANDA WARNING WHAT, WILL BE THE POSITION OF 16:20:53 THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE? >> IN THE ARTICLE III TRIAL THAT 16:21:01 WE WOULD PRESENT THERE WOULD NOT BE A BASIS FOR A MIRANDA 16:21:07 CHALLENGE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN AND MR. ATTORNEY 16:21:08 GENERAL, THIS IS WHY THIS IS SUCH -- I MEAN, THIS IS JUST ONE 16:21:11 PIECE OF WHY IT REALLY IS A SINCERE CONCERN TO -- TO THE 16:21:17 PEOPLE OF TEXAS THAT I REPRESENT, TO MANY OF MY 16:21:19 COLLEAGUES. THE APPROACH OF THE DEPARTMENT 16:21:21 OF JUSTICE AND THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS THAT THIS IS A 16:21:26 LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION, THAT IN THIS WAR ON TERROR IS 16:21:32 FUNDAMENTALLY A LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION LIKE THE WAR ON CRIME AND 16:21:35 IT IS NOT. WE ARE AT WAR, AND TEXANS 16:21:38 UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU'RE AT WAR THE GOAL IS TO HUNT DOWN YOUR 16:21:41 ENEMY AND KILL THEM OR CAPTURE THEM, AND IN PARTICULAR IN THIS 16:21:45 CASE THIS -- THIS WAR REQUIRES THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 16:21:50 STATES AS COMMANDER IN CHIEF BE GIVEN FULL DISCRETION AND 16:21:54 AUTHORITY TO USE WHATEVER TOOLS ARE AT HIS DISPOSAL AS THE 16:21:59 SUPREME COURT HAS RULED D REPEATEDLY, AND SPECIFICALLY 16:22:05 REFERRING TO THE HAMDI VERSUS RUMSFELD CASE, THE SUPREME COURT 16:22:08 SAID THAT IN REVERSING THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT'S DECISION 16:22:14 ON PADILLA, THAT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, QUOTING THE 16:22:18 SUPREME COURT, NO LESS AN ALIEN CAN BE PART OF OR ENFORCING 16:22:28 PARTNERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ENGAGE IN COMBAT AGAINST THE 16:22:32 UNITED STATES AND A CITIZEN IF RELEASED WOULD POSE A THREAT OF 16:22:35 RETURNING TO THE -- TO THE BATTLEFIELD AS PART OF THE 16:22:38 ONGOING CONFLICT, THAT THAT U.S. CITIZEN CAN BE HELD IN DETENTION 16:22:47 AND USED THROUGH THE MILITARY TRIBUNAL SYSTEM BECAUSE WE'RE AT 16:22:54 WAR AND THAT'S MY CONCERN. IT'S A VERY DEEP-SEEDED AND 16:22:57 EARNEST AND PROFOUND DISAGREEMENT WITH THE APPROACH 16:23:00 OF THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THIS IS NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT. 16:23:01 WE'RE AT WAR. AND YOU'VE, AS MR. WOLF QUITE 16:23:05 CORRECTLY SAID THROUGH THE KSM CASE SET THE PRECEDENT, THAT 16:23:09 WHEN OSAMA BIN LADEN IS CAPTURED, AND YOU DIDN'T ANSWER 16:23:11 THE QUESTION DIRECTLY, BUT IT IS A VERY LEGITIMATE ONE, IF OSAMA 16:23:16 BIN LADEN IS CAPTURED ALIVE BECAUSE HIS -- HIS ROLE IS 16:23:22 EQUIVALENT TO THAT OF KSM, WOULD YOU TRY HIM IN A CIVILIAN COURT? 16:23:27 >> AS I SAID, I DON'T EXPECT THAT OSAMA BIN LADEN WILL FACE 16:23:34 JUSTICE IN ANY MILITARY COMMISSION, IN AN ARTICLE III 16:23:38 COURT. >> RIGHT. 16:23:39 >> ODDS ARE, BUT IF HE IS CAPTURED ALIVE, WHERE WILL HE BE 16:23:43 TRIED? >> AGAIN -- 16:23:44 >> IF HE'S CAPTURED ALIVE. >> I THINK THAT IS SPECULATION 16:23:50 THAT IS -- YOU'RE ASKING ME TO SPECULATE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT 16:23:53 ON THE BASIS OF ALL THE INTELLIGENCE THAT I'VE HAD A 16:23:56 CHANCE TO REVIEW, I DON'T -- THE POSSIBILITY JUST SIMPLY DOES NOT 16:24:05 EXIST. >> IT IS PROFOUNDLY CONCERNING 16:24:07 TO ME, TO THE PEOPLE OF TEXAS, I KNOW I SAW IT IN THE POLLS IN 16:24:13 MASSACHUSETTS, THAT BECAUSE OF THE PRECEDENT YOU'RE SETTING IN 16:24:16 THE KSM TRIAL, BECAUSE OF THE PRECEDENT YOU'RE SETTING IN THE 16:24:21 GHAILANI TRIAL, BECAUSE OF THE PRECEDENCE YOU'RE SETTING IN 16:24:24 GRANTING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TONE MY SOLDIERS IN TIME OF WAR 16:24:28 THAT YOUR APPROACH TO THE WAR ON TERROR IS AS THOUGH IT IS A WAR 16:24:34 ON CRIME AND FIGHTING GANGS OR MURDERERS IN THE CITIES OF THE 16:24:38 UNITED STATES, AND IT'S NOT. WE'RE AT WAR, AND IT IS 16:24:41 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. >> WHAT I HAVE SAID I DON'T KNOW 16:24:44 HOW MANY TIMES IS THAT I KNOW WE'RE AT WAR, AND LET ME MAKE 16:24:46 THIS CLEAR. LET ME MAKE THIS VERY, VERY 16:24:50 CLEAR. IF YOU WERE TO TAKE AWAY FROM 16:24:54 THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FROM THIS GOVERNMENT, FROM THIS 16:24:57 ADMINISTRATION AND SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATIONS THE ABILITY TO 16:24:59 USE ARTICLE III COURTS, YOU WOULD WEAKEN OUR ABILITY TO 16:25:04 FIGHT SUCCESSFULLY THESE WARS. IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT. 16:25:10 THIS TOOL THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS ONLY ONE TOOL THAT WE 16:25:15 HAVE IN OUR ARSENAL, AND TO TAKE THAT TOOL AWAY AND TO SAY THESE 16:25:20 ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T BE TRIED WOULD WEAKEN OUR ABILITY TO 16:25:27 ULTIMATELY BE SUCCESSFUL. YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT -- BEFORE 16:25:29 YOU ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE CAUGHT ON THE 16:25:33 BATTLEFIELD AND PROSECUTED IN COURT. 16:25:35 >> FOREIGN NATIONALS. >> FOREIGN NATIONALS. 16:25:38 >> THIS WOMAN SADIQI, CAUGHT IN AFGHANISTAN AND INDICTED IN NEW 16:25:45 YORK BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. AN IRAQI-BORN DUTCH CITIZEN 16:25:51 TRIED IN D.C. FOR PLANTING ROADSIDE BOMBS, TARGETING U.S. 16:25:54 SOLDIERS IN IRAQ. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, MINOR EXAMPLES. 16:25:59 PERHAPS YOU WOULD SAY THAT, BUT NEVERTHELESS EXAMPLES, YOU KNOW, 16:26:02 OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE COMMITTED ACTS OVERSEAS AND TRIED HERE IN 16:26:07 AMERICAN COURTS, BUT THE THING THAT I WANT YOU TO FOCUS ON -- I 16:26:11 MEAN, IN THE GHAILANI CASE IS CONSISTENT, AGAIN, WITH WHAT 16:26:14 HAPPENED IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WITH THE OTHER 16:26:16 PEOPLE WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EMBASSY BOMBINGS. 16:26:18 IF YOU TAKE AWAY THIS ARTICLE III TOOL, AND IT IS NOT THE ONLY 16:26:23 THING THAT WE USE, IF YOU TAKE IT AWAY, YOU ARE TAKING AWAY 16:26:28 UNNECESSARILY AN EFFECTIVE TOOL AND ONE ONLY HAS TO LOOK AT WHAT 16:26:31 HAS HAPPENED THIS YEAR IN TERMS OF WHO WE HAVE INCAPACITATED, 16:26:34 WHO WE HAVE GOTTEN VIABLE INTELLIGENCE FROM, WHO WE'LL BE 16:26:37 SENTENCING FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME IN THE COMING MONTHS. 16:26:39 >> AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING TAKING AWAY. 16:26:42 IT'S THAT YOU JUST TURN TO IT TOO READILY AND THE APPROACH OF 16:26:45 THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THIS IS A WAR 16:26:47 ON CRIME, AND IT IS REALLY NOT. WE ARE AT WAR, AND -- AND THE 16:26:50 TWO CASES YOU MENTIONED, I WANT TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE THIS IS 16:26:53 THE FIRST TIME IN PUBLIC TESTIMONY YOU'VE EVER 16:26:55 IDENTIFIED, TELL ME AGAIN THE NAME OF THOSE CASES BECAUSE I AM 16:26:59 UNAWARE OF ANY EXAMPLE IN AMERICAN HISTORY. 16:27:01 >> DON'T ASK ME TO SPELL THEM. >> OKAY. 16:27:05 >> AFIA SADIQI, THE WOMAN CONVICTED IN NEW YORK. 16:27:10 SHE WAS CAUGHT IN AFGHANISTAN, SHOT AT MILITARY SOLDIERS, 16:27:13 INDICTED IN NEW YORK BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. 16:27:15 >> AND SHE'S A FOREIGN NATIONAL. >> FOREIGN NATIONAL. 16:27:16 >> OKAY. >> AND THEN WASAM AL DHALIMA, 16:27:23 IRAQI-BORN DUTCH CITIZEN TRIED IN D.C. FOR PLANTING ROADSIDE 16:27:28 BOMBS TARGETING U.S. SOLDIERS IN IRAQ. 16:27:29 >> AND BOTH OF THOSE WERE SENT TO CIVILIAN COURT BY THE BUSH 16:27:33 ADMINISTRATION. >> YEAH. 16:27:34 >> OKAY. >> I WILL RUN THOSE DOWN. 16:27:38 THOSE ARE ONES THAT NONE OF US HAVE EVER BEEN AWARE OF BEFORE 16:27:42 BECAUSE IN GRANTING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO THESE 16:27:44 FOLKS AND GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO AS IN THE 16:27:46 GHAILANI CASE FILE A MOTION TO BE RELEASED OR THE CHARGES 16:27:52 DISMISSED BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO PROVIDE A SPEEDY TRIAL, IT 16:27:55 OPENS -- IT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO OUR ENEMIES NOT ONLY TO -- TO 16:27:59 HAVE THESE PEOPLE RELEASED AND FREED, CHAIN OF EVIDENCE WASN'T 16:28:05 PRESERVED, CAN'T PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, SPEEDY TRIAL, 16:28:08 ET CETERA, THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE IN MILITARY TRIBUNALS. 16:28:12 THAT'S A HUGE CONCERN. >> BUT TO THE EXTENT -- YOU 16:28:15 RAISE GOOD POINTS THERE, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT LOOKING AT AN 16:28:19 INDIVIDUAL CASE THAT HAD THOSE KINDS OF PROBLEMS AND IF I WERE 16:28:25 CONVINCED THAT THOSE APPROXIMATE EXISTED AND THEY COULD NOT BE 16:28:28 CURED IN AN ARTICLE III COURT, WOULD I HAVE THE OPTION OF 16:28:33 TRYING TO TRY THAT MATTER IN THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS. 16:28:35 THERE ARE A VARIETY OF FACTORS THAT GO INTO IT, AND THAT'S WHY 16:28:38 I SAY IT'S DONE ON A CASE BUSH DAY BUSH CASE BASIS. 16:28:41 >> YES, SIR. >> WHAT WOULD BE BEST FOR THIS 16:28:43 CASE. >> I'M SURE I'M ABOUT OUT OF 16:28:45 TIME. THE CHAIRMAN IS VERY GRACIOUS. 16:28:46 >> WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU IN ANOTHER ROUND. 16:28:49 WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU. >> MR. CERRANO HAS WAITED A LONG 16:28:53 TIME. WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF ROUNDS. 16:28:55 FEEL FREE TO ASK YOUR QUESTIONS. WE'LL GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY. 16:29:01 >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR BEING LATE. 16:29:03 I WAS INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH AT A HEARING WHERE WE WERE DISCUSSING 16:29:07 COMPENSATION FOR THE VICTIMS OF 9/11. 16:29:11 MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, I AM IN A VERY, VERY, VERY UNIQUE OR SMALL 16:29:15 MINORITY. I'M THE ONLY ELECTED OFFICIAL IN 16:29:18 NEW YORK WHO STILL THINK IT'S FINE TO HAVE THOSE TRIALS IN NEW 16:29:21 YORK, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHY I FEEL THAT WAY, BUT 16:29:24 IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO KNOW HOW IT CAME TO BE WHAT IT IS NOW. 16:29:31 WHEN IT WAS FIRST FLOATED OR INTRODUCED AS A THOUGHT THAT WE 16:29:36 COULD DO IT IN NEW YORK EVERYBODY SAID THEY WERE IN 16:29:40 FAVOR IT AND EVERYBODY SAID IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND 16:29:43 THEN SOMETHING HAPPENED. WHAT HAPPENED WAS NOT WHAT 16:29:45 PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THINK HAPPENED. 16:29:47 IT WAS NOT THE COMMUNITY THAT SPOKE UP, NOT THE ELECTED 16:29:50 OFFICIALS, IT WAS THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT SAID THAT THEY 16:29:52 WERE CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC JAMS IN LOWER MANHATTAN. 16:29:56 TRAFFIC JAMS IN NEW YORK CITY, THAT'S REDUNDANT. 16:29:59 THERE'S -- THIS SHOULD NOT BE A SHOCK TO ANYBODY. 16:30:03 IRONICALLY THE PEOPLE WHO LOST SO MUCH BUSINESS DURING THE 16:30:07 ATTACKS AND THE AFTERMATH OF THE ATTACKS WERE NOW COMPLAINING 16:30:11 ABOUT THIS CONGESTION IN DOWNTOWN MANHATTAN, AND LITTLE 16:30:13 BY LITTLE YOU BEGAN TO SEE THIS TURNING AROUND OF ELECTED 16:30:17 OFFICIALS, COLLEAGUES OF MINE, FRIENDS OF MINE, PEOPLE I'VE 16:30:20 SERVED WITH FOR MANY YEARS WORKS WERE RAH, RAH, RAH FOR HAVING 16:30:25 THEM IN NEW YORK AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY ARE AGAINST IT. 16:30:28 NEXT THING YOU KNEW, SOMETHING WHICH I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND 16:30:31 BUT THAT I RESPECT, THE FAMILIES OF VICTIMS TURNED AGAINST HAVING 16:30:34 THE TRIALS IN NEW YORK. SOMEHOW THIS WAS AN INSULT TO 16:30:38 THEIR -- TO THEIR MEMORY TO DO IT IN NEW YORK. 16:30:40 I SEE THE WORLD DIFFERENTLY. THE BEST RESPECT YOU CAN PAY 16:30:45 VICTIMS IS TO SAY THAT AS A COUNTRY THEY MAY HAVE KILLED 16:30:49 SOME OF US. THEY HAVE MAIMED MANY OF US, BUT 16:30:52 THEY HAVE NOT DEFEATED US AS A COUNTRY AND THAT WE'RE NOT 16:30:56 AFRAID TO TRY PEOPLE AT SCENE OF THE CRIME AND THAT WE'RE NOT 16:30:59 AFRAID TO TRY THEM WITHIN OUR COURT SYSTEM. 16:31:02 THAT'S THE WAY I FEEL. I WAS ONE OF THE FEW ELECTED 16:31:05 OFFICIALS WHO WAS NOT IN WASHINGTON THAT DAY. 16:31:07 I WAS IN NEW YORK CITY. MY SON WHO IS NOW A STATE 16:31:10 SENATOR WAS RUNNING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. 16:31:14 VERY FEW PEOPLE WROTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT ELECTIONS WERE 16:31:17 INTERRUPTED MIDDAY. AMONGST ALL THE THINGS THAT THE 16:31:19 TERRORISTS ACCOMPLISHED, ONE WAS TO DISRUPT AN ELECTION WHICH 16:31:23 STANDS AT THE CENTER OF OUR DEMOCRACY, AND I REMEMBER THE 16:31:26 PAIN THAT DAY AND THE AFTERMATH OF THAT PAIN AND EVERYTHING THAT 16:31:31 WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING TODAY, AND YET THERE'S THIS FEELING 16:31:34 THAT SOMEHOW IF WE DO IT IN A CIVILIAN COURT AND IF WE DO IT 16:31:37 IN NEW YORK WE'RE DISHONORING THESE FOLKS AND WE'RE OPENING 16:31:41 OURSELVES TO MORE TERRORIST ATTACKS. 16:31:43 WELL, IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE UPSET AT THE FACT THAT WE'RE 16:31:46 GOING TO PUT PEOPLE ON TRIAL, DOES IT MATTER WHETHER WE PUT 16:31:49 THEM ON TRIAL IN NEW YORK, IN DULUTH, MINNESOTA OR WAUKEGAN, 16:31:56 ILLINOIS, WITH ALL RESPECT TO DULUTH AND WAUKEGAN? 16:31:59 THEY ARE GOING TO BE ANGRY REGARDLESS OF WHERE WE DO IT. 16:32:01 IF WE DO IT IN A MILITARY COURT, THEY WILL BE ANGRY. 16:32:04 IF WE DO IT IN A CIVILIAN COURT, THEY WILL BE ANGRY. 16:32:07 IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE ANGRY, THEY WILL BE ANGRY. 16:32:09 AND IF NEW YORK CITY IS GOING TO BE UNDER THE POSSIBILITY OF AN 16:32:12 ATTACK BECAUSE OF THAT, I WOULD SUBMIT TO ALL OF US THAT NEW 16:32:18 YORK LIVES WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS STILL 16:32:20 THE MAIN TARGET FOR ANY TERRORIST GROUP. 16:32:22 IT IS THE MAIN TARGET. IT IS THE BIG APPLE THAT PEOPLE 16:32:25 LOVE TO HATE, BUT IT IS A SYMBOL OF WHO WE ARE AS A COUNTRY, THE 16:32:31 BIGNESS AND THE STRENGTH AND THE FINANCIAL COMMUNITY, AND SO I 16:32:37 KNOW WHEN AN ISSUE HAS LEFT ME, AND IT'S NOT ONE I'M GOING TO 16:32:40 DEVOTE A LOT OF TIME TO IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. 16:32:43 THAT TRAIN MAY HAVE LEFT THE STATION ALREADY. 16:32:45 IN FACT, I THINK IT HAS, BECAUSE EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL NOW 16:32:49 THINKS THIS IS THE WORST THING YOU COULD DO, BUT AT LEAST KNOW 16:32:51 THAT THERE'S ONE ELECTED OFFICIAL IN NEW YORK CITY WHO 16:32:55 FEELS THAT THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH TRYING THEM THERE. 16:32:58 ON THE CONTRARY. I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY DRAMATIC 16:33:01 TO SAY WE'RE NOT AFRAID OF YOU. WE WILL TRY YOU AT SCENE OF THE 16:33:05 CRIME. WE WILL TRY YOU IN OUR COURTS, 16:33:06 AND WE'LL SHOW YOU THAT YOU CAN'T DEFEAT OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM 16:33:12 AND YOU CAN'T DEFEAT US AS A PEOPLE, AND I JUST WANTED TO 16:33:15 MAKE THAT STATEMENT TO YOU, SIR. >> WELL, THANK YOU, SIR. 16:33:18 I MEAN, FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN 16:33:22 NEW YORK CITY. I WAS BORN IN THE BRONX. 16:33:24 SPENT MY FIRST YEARS IN MANHATTAN. 16:33:27 RAISED LARGELY IN QUEENS, WENT TO HIGH SCHOOL, COLLEGE AND LAW 16:33:30 SCHOOL IN MANHATTAN. I'M A NEW YORKER. 16:33:34 MY BROTHER LOST MANY PEOPLE. HE'S A PORT AUTHORITY, RETIRED 16:33:38 PORT AUTHORITY LIEUTENANT. HE LOST COLLEAGUES, PEOPLE WHO 16:33:41 WENT TO TRAINING SCHOOL WITH HIM THAT DAY. 16:33:45 THE DECISION THAT I MADE I THOUGHT WAS THE RIGHT ONE FOR 16:33:50 THAT CASE, BUT THERE WAS, VERY FRANKLY, AN EMOTIONAL COMPONENT 16:33:54 TO THAT AS WELL, AND WHAT WAS I DOING TO MY CITY? 16:34:00 I THINK THAT THE DECISION THAT I MADE WAS GOOD FOR THE CASE AND 16:34:05 ULTIMATELY THAT'S WHAT I HAD TO FOCUS ON, BUT I APPRECIATE THE 16:34:09 OBSERVATIONS THAT -- THAT YOU HAVE MADE. 16:34:12 I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE GREAT FAITH IN THE RESILIENCE OF 16:34:16 OUR SYSTEMS, THE RESILIENCE OF OUR PEOPLE AND THE TOUGHNESS 16:34:21 THAT HAS ALWAYS SEPARATED AMERICANS FROM OTHER PEOPLES IN 16:34:26 THIS WORLD, AND WHAT'S MADE THIS COUNTRY GREAT. 16:34:30 YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THE TRAIN HAS LEFT 16:34:34 THE STATION. IT IS CERTAINLY A FACTOR THAT WE 16:34:37 ARE WORKING WITH AS WE TRY TO DETERMINE WHERE THESE TRIALS -- 16:34:40 WHERE THIS TRIAL SHOULD OCCUR, BUT JUST IN A VERY PERSONAL 16:34:45 LEVEL THAT'S WHAT AT LEAST WAS A PART OF MY -- MY THINKING. 16:34:48 >> THANK YOU. MR. CHAIRMAN, DO I HAVE TIME TO 16:34:53 ASK A QUESTION? >> YOU HAVE ALL THE TIME YOU 16:34:56 WANT. >> THANK YOU. PAST. 16:35:00 IT KEEPS GROWING AS AN ISSUE AND THAT'S HATE CRIMES AGAINST 16:35:06 IMMIGRANTS. AS WE GET CLOSER TO PERHAPS 16:35:09 DISCUSSING IMMIGRATION, AS THE ECONOMY CONTINUES TO HURT, AS WE 16:35:17 CONTINUE DEPORTATIONS AND RAIDS, I THINK IT COULD ONLY GET WORSE 16:35:22 BEFORE IT GETS BETTER. I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN STRONG ON 16:35:26 TRYING TO -- TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS WHOLE ISSUE, BUT I -- 16:35:29 I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO CALL THE ATTENTION OF THIS 16:35:34 CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS 16:35:38 ANOTHER CATEGORY OF HATE CRIMES, AND THAT'S PEOPLE WHO ARE 16:35:42 ATTACKED BECAUSE THEY ARE IMMIGRANTS, BECAUSE THEY LOOK 16:35:44 LIKE IMMIGRANTS, BECAUSE SOMEHOW BEFORE THEY WERE ATTACKED NO ONE 16:35:50 ASKED WHETHER HE WAS HERE ILLEGALLY OR NOT. 16:35:52 THAT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BUT IT ENCOMPASSES A LOT OF 16:35:55 PEOPLE THE AND, AGAIN, I WANT TO BE CLEAR. 16:35:57 WHAT I WAS SAYING IS BECAUSE YOU'RE ILLEGAL YOU SHOULD BE 16:36:01 ATTACKED, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER TO PEOPLE IF YOU'RE AN IMMIGRANT 16:36:03 OR YOU LOOK LIKE AN IMMIGRANT, THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK, AND 16:36:05 IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH, AND I'M WONDERING 16:36:10 JUST WHAT NEW PROGRAMS ARE YOU PUTTING IN PLACE, NEW ACTIONS 16:36:14 THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL BE LOOKING AT AS WE DEAL WITH 16:36:16 THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE? >> WE CERTAINLY HAVE A NEW TOOL, 16:36:19 A VERY SUBSTANTIAL TOOL, THE MATTHEW SHEPARD AND JAMES BYRD 16:36:25 ACT THAT WAS FINALLY ENACTED. I TESTIFIED ON THAT ISSUE WHEN I 16:36:30 DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 10 OR 11 YEARS AGO. 16:36:32 IT WAS FINALLY PASSED IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR. 16:36:35 THAT GIVES US TOOLS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE, AND SO THAT 16:36:39 IS A TOOL THAT WE WILL USE TO GET AT THE KINDS OF VICTIMS, 16:36:45 PEOPLE WHO ARE VICTIMIZED IN THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED. 16:36:47 WE HAVE IN OUR BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR A $1.4 MILLION INCREASE SO 16:36:51 THAT WE CAN HIRE 14 ATTORNEYS IN OUR CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION. 16:36:55 THIS IS A PRIORITY FOR THIS DIVISION. 16:36:58 TOM PEREZ IS THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL 16:37:01 RIGHTS DIVISION. HE'S ENERGIZED THAT PLACE. 16:37:05 HE HAS THE DIVISION FOCUSING ON THE THINGS THAT HAVE -- THAT IT 16:37:08 HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN FOCUSED ON, AND HATE CRIMES PREVENTION, 16:37:14 HATE CRIMES PROSECUTIONS ARE ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT I'VE 16:37:17 ASKED TOM TO FOCUS ON IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, AND I'M 16:37:21 CONFIDENT THAT WITH THESE ADDITIONAL LAWYERS AND WITH THIS 16:37:24 ADDITIONAL STAT YOU'RE THE THAT WE WILL BE SUCCESSFUL, BUT THAT 16:37:27 IS A PRIORITY FOR US. >> THANK YOU. 16:37:32 >> I THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND, AGAIN, I REITERATE THE OBVIOUS, 16:37:36 THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID PUBLICLY, AND HE CERTAINLY TOLD 16:37:38 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT WENT TO SEE HIM LAST FRIDAY, THAT HE 16:37:43 WANTS TO WORK ON IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL, AND THAT'S GREAT 16:37:49 NEWS, CONTINUES TO BE GREAT NEWS. 16:37:50 AS YOU KNOW, THAT WILL ONLY INSPIRE SOME, A FEW PEOPLE IN 16:37:54 THIS COUNTRY TO COMMIT EVEN MORE HATE CRIMES BECAUSE SOMEHOW 16:37:57 THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LEGALIZED AND THEY HAVE TO BE 16:38:00 DEALT WITH AND TAUGHT A LESSON, SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE STAY 16:38:05 VERY VIGILANT AS THIS PERIOD TAMES PLACE. 16:38:07 >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 16:38:09 >> THANK YOU, MR. SERRANO. MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE 16:38:12 PREMISE EVIDENTLY FOR THOSE WHO ARE QUESTIONING, TRYING PEOPLE 16:38:19 IN THESE TERROR SUSPECTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN CIVILIAN, 16:38:23 ARTICLE III COURTS, THE PREMISE OR THE CONCERN AROUND THE 16:38:29 MIRANDA RIGHTS ARE THAT WE WON'T GET GOOD INFORMATION FROM THEM, 16:38:34 SO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF QUESTIONING, LINE OF QUESTIONING 16:38:38 WITH REGARD TO THAT. FIRST OF ALL, WITH REGARD TO 16:38:45 ABDULMUTALLAB, THE CHRISTMAS BOMBER, A TIME LINE. 16:38:51 HE WAS, AND CORRECT ME TO THE EXTENT THAT I'M IN ERROR HERE, 16:38:55 BUT I'D LIKE TO LEAD YOU THROUGH THIS A LITTLE BIT HERE. 16:38:57 HE WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY SECURITY OFFICIALS AT THE 16:39:04 AIRPORT FIRST, I BELIEVE, AND THEN TAKEN TO THE HOSPITAL AND 16:39:08 THEN INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI TEAM WHICH AS YOU DESCRIBED WAS A 16:39:14 PRETTY SOPHISTICATED GROUP OF PEOPLE. 16:39:18 >> I BELIEVE -- I'M NOT SURE BUT I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S THE 16:39:21 CORRECT TIME LINE AND THE CORRECT PEOPLE WHO INTERACTED 16:39:24 WITH HIM ALONG THE WAY. >> YEAH. 16:39:26 AND SO UP TO THAT POINT, MIRANDA RIGHTS ARE ALL PRESERVED BECAUSE 16:39:32 THAT'S OBVIOUSLY I THINK AN EXEMPTION TO THE NECESSITY FOR 16:39:35 ISSUING MIRANDA RIGHTS, PUBLIC SAFETY, QUESTIONING SOMEBODY IN 16:39:39 THE HEAT OF AN ARREST AND -- AND QUESTIONING WHICH IS GOING TO OR 16:39:48 IN THE AFTERMATH OF AN EVENT BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE PUBLIC 16:39:51 SAFETY CONCERNS SO YOU'RE MORE INTERESTED IN THAT THAN YOU ARE 16:39:55 IN -- >> YEAH, AND I THINK YOU COULD 16:39:57 ALSO ARGUE, AT LEAST IN THOSE INITIAL TIMES, YOU MIGHT EVEN 16:40:01 ARGUE THAT IT WAS NOT A CUSTODIAL SITUATION. 16:40:03 >> OKAY. >> AND SO HE WAS QUESTIONED FOR 16:40:08 SOME PERIOD OF TIME WITHOUT MIRANDA RIGHTS, CORRECT? 16:40:10 >> CORRECT. >> AND THEN HE WAS TREATED IN 16:40:12 THE HOSPITAL AND THEN AFTER HE WAS RELEASED HE WAS MIRANDIZED. 16:40:16 >> HE WAS. >> IS THAT CORRECT? 16:40:18 >> HE WAS MIRANDIZED BY A DIFFERENT TEAM, A CLEAN TEAM AS 16:40:24 WE CALL IT, AND I THINK IT WAS INTERESTING THAT THEIR VIEW WAS 16:40:29 THAT HE CAME OUT OF THAT PROCEDURE A DIFFERENT PERSON, 16:40:34 THAT HE WAS MORE, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, MORE WARRIOR-LIKE, 16:40:39 AND I'M NOT SURE THAT IS -- I'M NOT CONVINCED, AND THIS IS JUST 16:40:42 MY PERSONAL OPINION, THIS IS ERIC HOLDER'S PERSONAL OPINION. 16:40:47 I THINK -- I DON'T THINK IT WAS THE MIRANDA WARNINGS THAT MADE 16:40:49 HIM DECIDE NOT TO TALK. I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING WITHIN 16:40:55 HIM THAT TOOK HIM BACK TO, YOU KNOW, WHERE HE WAS IMMEDIATELY 16:41:00 BEFORE HE IGNITED THE BOMB OR WHATEVER. 16:41:04 HE BECAME THAT PERSON AGAIN, AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK HE 16:41:09 DECIDED -- HE -- HE ANSWERED A FEW QUESTIONS IN THAT SECOND 16:41:16 INTERACTION BUT NOT MANY AND THEN ULTIMATELY DECIDED THAT HE 16:41:19 DID NOT WANT TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION. 16:41:21 BUT, I THINK WE SHOULD NEVER FORGET THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE 16:41:25 DAYS THAT FOLLOWED THAT, ACTUALLY IN THE WEEKS THAT HAVE 16:41:27 FOLLOWED THAT HE HAS BEEN TALKING. 16:41:30 >> YEAH. >> WELL, AND YOU'RE GETTING MY 16:41:32 POINT, BUT YOU'RE GETTING AHEAD OF MY POINT. 16:41:35 MY FIRST POINT IS THAT HE WAS INTERVIEWED BY A QUALIFIED TEAM, 16:41:40 AND TO UNDERMINE THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE TEAM I 16:41:45 THINK IS -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT JUSTIFICATION THERE WOULD BE FOR 16:41:48 THAT. THESE ARE PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE 16:41:49 OUT IN THE FIELD WHO ARE TRAINED IN THIS AREA. 16:41:52 >> THE PEOPLE WHO DID THAT FIRST ONE--HOUR AND 50-MINUTE 16:41:58 INTERVIEW WERE GOOD, TRAINED FBI AGENTS. 16:41:59 >> YEAH. >> AND ONE THING I SHOULD FOR 16:42:04 THE RECORD. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE 16:42:05 DETERMINATION WAS MADE BY THEM ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE WHOLE 16:42:09 MIRANDA WARNINGS QUESTION, THAT WAS NOT DONE ONLY BY THEM. 16:42:12 IT WAS ALSO DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH PEOPLE AT FBI AND JUSTICE 16:42:16 DEPARTMENT HEADQUARTERS. I WAS NOT INVOLVED, BUT OTHER 16:42:19 PEOPLE AT HIGHER LEVELS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT MADE THOSE 16:42:21 DECISIONS. >> OKAY. 16:42:23 SO THE SUSPECT WAS INTERVIEWED PRIOR TO BE BEING MIRANDIZED, 16:42:28 WAS MIRANDIZED AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY QUESTIONED AFTER 16:42:31 BEING MIRANDIZED, INITIALLY WAS DIFFICULT RIGHT AFTER GETTING 16:42:38 OUT, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY YOUR TIM HAS BEEN OFFERED A NUMBER OF 16:42:42 TIMES THAT A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION OR PERFECTLY GOOD 16:42:45 INFORMATION WAS GOTTEN AFTER BEING MIRANDIZED. 16:42:47 >> AND WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE -- THERE 16:42:51 ARE STUDIES IN THOSE BRIEFS THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT. 16:42:54 I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, THAT SUBSTANTIAL NUMBERS OF 16:42:58 PEOPLE WILL EVEN AFTER THEY ARE MIRANDIZED CONTINUE TO TALK, 16:43:04 ONE, AND, TWO, ONCE THEY ARE PROVIDED WITH LAWYERS, THE 16:43:08 LAWYERS CAN MAKE A MORE OBJECTIVE DETERMINATION OF THE 16:43:11 FIX THAT THEIR CLIENTS ARE IN, AND THE LAWYERS, THE DEFENSE 16:43:15 LAWYERS, FREQUENTLY BECOME NOT ADVOCATES FOR THE GOVERNMENT, 16:43:20 ADVOCATES FOR THEIR CLIENT IN THE SENSE THAT THEY TELL AN 16:43:26 ABDULMUTALLAB, UNLESS YOU WANT TO SPEND THE REST OF YOUR LIFE 16:43:29 IN A SUPER MAX FACILITY YOU BETTER START SHARING INFORMATION 16:43:32 WITH THE GOVERNMENT, AND -- AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE 16:43:35 SPECIFIC CASE, BUT THAT FREQUENTLY HAPPENS THAT THE 16:43:39 DEFENSE LAWYER HELPING HIS CLIENT ALSO HELPS THE 16:43:42 GOVERNMENT. >> AND I THINK THAT'S THE POINT 16:43:44 I REALLY WANT TO GET TO IS THAT IF THE PREMISE OF THE -- OF 16:43:50 THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT A PERSON SHOULD BE QUESTIONED WITHOUT 16:43:52 MIRANDA RIGHTS IS THAT BETTER INFORMATION IS RECEIVED PRIOR TO 16:43:56 OR BY TECHNIQUES WHICH ARE EMPLOYED WITHOUT MIRANDA RIGHTS, 16:44:00 THAT'S A PREMISE THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVE, AND IT IS CERTAINLY 16:44:05 CONTESTED IN THE -- IN THE PUBLIC DEBATE, BUT IN ORDER 16:44:09 TO -- TO EVEN GET TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER HE SHOULD BE 16:44:12 MIRNDIZED FOR THE QUALITY OF THE INFORMATION PURPOSES OR NOT 16:44:18 MIRANDIZED WOULD STAND OR FALL ON THE BASIS OF WHETHER GOOD 16:44:21 INFORMATION -- BETTER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY 16:44:24 INTERROGATION OF PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT MIRANDIZED AND THAT'S A 16:44:27 PREMISE THAT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED OR LAID BEFORE, SO 16:44:32 LET'S NOT PRESUME IN THESE QUESTIONS, I GUESS IS MY POINT, 16:44:37 THAT PRE-MIRANDIZED INFORMATION OR NEVER MIRNDIZING SOMEBODY IS 16:44:43 BETTER INFORMATION THAN NOT. IT'S SIMPLY AS I UNDERSTAND IT 16:44:49 NOT VALID AN ACCEPTED PREMISE AMONG PROFESSION. 16:44:54 YOUR COMMENT. >> I THINK YOU RAISE A VERY GOOD 16:44:56 POINT, AND THAT IS ONE THAT I WOULD THROW BACK AT THOSE WHO 16:44:58 HAVE CRITICIZED US FOR USING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE 16:45:07 MIRANDA REQUIREMENT. TO SAY, WELL, WHAT IS YOUR PROOF 16:45:11 THAT IF HE WERE WHISKED OFF TO A MILITARY FACILITY, QUESTIONED BY 16:45:16 MILITARY PEOPLE, EVEN WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF A LAWYER, THAT 16:45:20 THE INFORMATION YOU WOULD RECEIVE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE 16:45:23 VOLUMINOUS, WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER? 16:45:28 THERE ARE PSYCHOLOGISTS WHO WE'VE CONSULTED WHO SAY THAT, 16:45:30 YOU KNOW, THE PRESENCE OF MILITARY PEOPLE IN UNIFORM MAKES 16:45:39 THEM PERHAPS WARRIOR-LIKE, I DON'T KNOW. 16:45:41 YOU KNOW, THERE ARE -- AGAIN, I WOULD TRY TO LOOK AT THE FACTS 16:45:47 AND THE EXPERIENCES THAT WE HAVE HAD, AND THE USE OF THE CRIMINAL 16:45:55 JUSTICE SYSTEM TO GET INFORMATION FROM ABDULMUTALLAB, 16:46:01 FROM ZAZI, FROM HEDLEY, FROM A WHOLE HAVE A RIGHT OF CASES THAT 16:46:06 WE HAVE HAD THIS YEAR, I THINK SHOWS THE EFFICACY OF THAT 16:46:11 SYSTEM AND THE EFFICACY OF THAT APPROACH. 16:46:14 >> OKAY. WELL, I -- MY -- MY POINT IS 16:46:18 THAT THE PREMISE THAT'S I THINK ASSUMED IN THIS LINE OF 16:46:25 QUESTIONING THAT INFORMATION IS BETTER WHEN THE PERSON IS NOT 16:46:28 MIRANDIZED AS OPPOSED TO WHEN THEY ARE MIRANDIZED IS NOT 16:46:32 PROVEN AND IS CONTRADICTED IN A WHOLE LOT OF TESTIMONY, 16:46:36 INCLUDING YOURS HERE TODAY. WE JUST HAD THREE BELLS. 16:46:39 THAT MEANS WE HAVE A VOTE IN -- WE HAVE 15 MINUTES TO VOTE. 16:46:44 IT WILL PROBABLY LAST LONGER THAN THAT THE. 16:46:46 WE'RE GOING TO DIVIDE UP THE REMAINING TIME BETWEEN MYSELF 16:46:49 AND THE OTHER MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE ROUGHLY EQUALLY SO IT WILL 16:46:51 BE KIND OF A RAPID FIRE HERE, MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THEN 16:46:55 AFTER THAT THEN WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN THE HEARING. 16:47:00 I WANT TO GET ON THE RECORD CLEARLY THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A 16:47:06 SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TERRORIST CASES TRIED IN ARTICLE III 16:47:13 COURTS DURING DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS, DEMOCRAT, 16:47:17 REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT ADMINISTRATIONS. 16:47:18 IS THAT CORRECT, SIR, AND CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE DETAIL ON 16:47:22 THAT? >> YEAH, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY 16:47:25 CORRECT. THERE WERE TERRORISM CASES THAT 16:47:27 WERE TRIED IN ARTICLE III COURTS IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. 16:47:32 I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER HERE, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE IT'S 16:47:36 CLOSE TO ABOUT 150 OR SO. YOU KNOW, RAMSEY YOUSEF, THE 16:47:41 ORIGINAL WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBER WAS TRADE IN ARTICLE III 16:47:47 COURT, THE BLIND SHEIKH. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF 16:47:50 HIGH-PROFILE TERRORISM CASES THAT WERE TRIED SUCCESSFULLY. 16:47:52 >> IN ARTICLE III COURTS, IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, IN THE 16:47:57 BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND NOW IN PRESIDENT OBAMA'S 16:47:58 ADMINISTRATION. >> RIGHT, THAT'S CORRECT. 16:48:00 >> TERROR SUSPECTS TRIED IN ARTICLE III COURTS, CONVICTED? 16:48:03 >> CONVICTED, YES. >> AND SERVING TIME IN -- 16:48:07 >> FEDERAL PRISONS. >> FEDERAL PRISONS IN THE UNITED 16:48:10 STATES. THANK YOU. 16:48:13 WHITE COLLAR CRIME, MR. SECRETARY, QUICKLY. 16:48:17 THERE IS A LOT OF INTEREST IN THE EXTENT TO WHICH CRIMINAL, 16:48:26 FRAUDULENT CONDUCT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE 16:48:30 FINANCIAL CRISIS THAT THE COUNTRY WAS JUST EXPERIENCING 16:48:33 COMING THROUGH AND TRYING TO FASHION REGULATIONS TO PREVENT. 16:48:37 CAN YOU SPEAK TO YOUR DEPARTMENT'S ADDRESSING THAT 16:48:43 QUESTION, AND WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THAT, OF YOUR INVESTIGATIONS? 16:48:46 >> WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER A FINANCIAL FRAUD ENFORCEMENT TASK 16:48:50 FORCE THAT MARIS A GROUP OF FEDERAL AGENCIES WITH OUR 16:49:03 COUNTERPARTS. >> IS THAT THE FRAUD ENFORCEMENT 16:49:07 TASK FORCE? >> THAT'S RIGHT, WITH STATE 16:49:10 ATTORNEYS TO LOOK AT A VARIETY, EVERYTHING FROM MORTGAGE FRAUD 16:49:14 TO SECURITIES FRAUD. A CASE JUST BROUGHT YESTERDAY IN 16:49:17 THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK INVOLVING A BANK AND ONE OF 16:49:23 THE FIRST T.A.R.P. CASES, A T.A.R.P. CRIMINAL CASES WAS 16:49:27 BROUGHT BY THE -- BY THE FINANCIAL FRAUD ENFORCEMENT TASK 16:49:31 FORCE, SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY PROUD IN SCOPE TO LOOK 16:49:35 AT THE ENTIRETY OF FINANCIAL FRAUD ACTIVITY THAT MAY HAVE 16:49:42 CONTRIBUTED TO THE -- TO THE ECONOMIC DOWNFALL THAT WE SAW, 16:49:46 BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THESE CRIMES EXIST, WE ARE DETERMINED 16:49:50 TO -- TO FIND THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE AND TO HOLD THEM 16:49:58 ACCOUNTABLE. >> THE TASK FORCE INCLUDING THE 16:50:00 TREASURY DEPARTMENT, H.U.D., S.E.C. AND VARIOUS INSPECTORS 16:50:04 GENERAL. IT LOOKS LIKE A BROAD BASE. 16:50:06 DOES YOUR BUDGET REQUEST ANTICIPATE GREATER ACTIVITY WITH 16:50:09 REGARD TO THAT TASK FORCE GOING INTO 2011? 16:50:16 >> YES. WE HAVE INCREASES WITH REGARD TO 16:50:22 CORPORATE FRAUD OF AN 11% INCREASE AND AN INCREASE REQUEST 16:50:29 OF 23%. >> IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ADAM 16:50:33 WALSH ACT, MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE ADAM WALSH ACT PASSED IN 16:50:36 2006 AS YOU KNOW. BUT WE'RE STILL STRUGGLING TO 16:50:39 FULLY IMPLEMENT IT DUE TO A LACK OF FUNDING. 16:50:44 HAS THE DEPARTMENT QUANTIFIED WHAT IT WOULD COST YOU TO FULLY 16:50:46 FUND AND IMPLEMENT THE ADAM WALSH ACT? 16:50:51 IF YOU HAVE NOT, COULD YOU SUBMIT THAT FOR THE RECORD? 16:50:54 >> SURE. RATHER THAN TRY TO -- LET ME 16:50:56 SUBMIT SOMETHING FOR THE RECORD JUST SO THAT I CAN BE MORE 16:50:59 PRECISE IN MY ANSWER. >> I WAS -- JUST TO GET A LITTLE 16:51:04 SUPPORT ON THE RECORD FROM THE EXECUTIVE FOR ADAM WALSH I WAS 16:51:08 HARDENED TO HEAR THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA RECENTLY COMMITTED TO JOHN 16:51:13 WALSH HE WOULD GET THE ACT FULLY FUNDED. 16:51:17 ALTHOUGH CLEARLY THE 2011 REQUEST DOESN'T DO THAT, DO YOU 16:51:20 HAVE A STRATEGIC PLAN OR IS ONE BEING DEVELOPED TO RAMP UP THE 16:51:24 PROGRAM OVER TIME? >> YEAH. 16:51:26 WE ARE DETERMINED TO MAKE REAL THE ADAM WALSH ACT. 16:51:30 AS THE PRESIDENT INDICATED, WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT A 20% 16:51:33 INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR NEXT YEAR. 16:51:35 AND I THINK THAT YEAR OVER YEAR, WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THOSE 16:51:39 KINDS OF INCREASES, EVEN IN SPITE OF THE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN 16:51:45 THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH AND THE DEFICIT REDUCTION WE HAVE TO 16:51:49 ENGAGE IN. >> YOU'RE GOING TO SUBMIT FOR 16:51:50 THE RECORD WHAT IT WILL COST TO FULLY IMPLEMENT THAT ACT? 16:51:54 >> YES, I WILL. >> AND IF YOU WOULD, YOUR PLAN 16:51:56 FOR FULLY RAMPING IT UP AND HOW MANY YEARS THAT WOULD TAKE. 16:52:00 LET ME NOTE QUICKLY WITH -- CERTAINLY WITH APPROVAL, AND I 16:52:04 APPLAUD YOUR INTEREST AND THE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET REQUEST WITH 16:52:07 REGARD TO INDIAN NATION'S LEADERSHIP COUNCIL, YOUR 16:52:12 ESTABLISHMENT OF THAT, AND I FEEL CONFIDENT IT WILL HELP THE 16:52:16 DEPARTMENT COORDINATE TRIBAL LEADERS AND BE MORE RESPONSIVE 16:52:19 TO THEIR NEWS AND CAMPAIGN. I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE 16:52:25 AMBIGUITIES AND JURISDICTIONAL DIFFICULTIES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT 16:52:28 ON INDIAN TERRITORY AND THE ATROCIOUS CONSEQUENCES THAT THAT 16:52:37 RESULTS IN. THIS COMMITTEE CERTAINLY -- OUR 16:52:43 BILL LAST YEAR REFLECTED OUR INTEREST IN INCREASING RESOURCES 16:52:48 FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT IN INDIAN TERRITORY AND EVEN GIVEN THESE 16:52:51 JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGES. AND I WANT TO COMPLIMENT YOU ON 16:52:55 YOUR BUDGET BECAUSE YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED FUNDING 16:52:59 FOR MAYBE ONE OF THE MOST UNDERPAID ATTENTION TO ISSUES IN 16:53:03 THE COUNTRY WITH REGARD TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. 16:53:09 MR. WOLF? >> I THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 16:53:12 I'M GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF QUESTIONS, FOR THE RECORD. 16:53:15 BUT ON THE ISSUE OF TIMELINESS, THE PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT MATERIALS 16:53:20 PROVIDED TO THE CONGRESS LAST FULL STATED THAT THE PRINCIPAL 16:53:25 FUNCTION OF INTERROGATIONS OF HIGH VALUE DETAINEES IS QUOTE, 16:53:28 INTELLIGENCE GATHERING RATHER THAN LAW ENFORCEMENT. 16:53:31 SECONDLY, I'VE TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE, SO MANY AT THE 16:53:34 DEPARTMENT WHO ARE EXPERTS, THEY SAY YOU MISSED IT ON THE 16:53:39 TIMELINESS. SECONDLY TO SHOWN PICTURES OF 16:53:42 GUANTANAMO PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN SENT BACK, TO SHOW PICTURES OF 16:53:44 THE CHRISTMAS DAY BOMBER, COULD HAVE SAID DID YOU SEE THIS MAN, 16:53:47 DID YOU SEE THIS MAN, DID YOU SEE THIS PERSON. 16:53:49 YOU DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO THAT. 16:53:52 ALSO, WHAT LOCATION WERE YOU IN? WERE YOU IN THIS LOCATION? 16:53:56 WHAT BUILDING WERE YOU IN? WHAT ADDRESS? 16:53:59 WHO DID YOU SEE? WHO WERE YOU WITH? 16:54:01 WHO ELSE WAS IN THE CLASS? THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT WERE 16:54:06 MISSED THAT COULD HAVE BEEN -- AND DID YOU TALK TO -- SO THERE 16:54:11 WAS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WAS MISSED AND WE'LL NEVER GET IT 16:54:14 BACK AGAIN. >> THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. 16:54:16 >> YEAH. IT IS TRUE. >> IT IS NOT TRUE. 16:54:18 >> WE MISSED OPPORTUNITIES. >> THAT IS NOT TRUE. 16:54:20 >> WELL, IT IS TRUE! >> I KNOW. 16:54:23 >> I SAY IT IS TRUE AND YOU SAY IT ISN'T TRUE. 16:54:25 PEOPLE THAT I TALKED TO SAY YOU MISSED AN OPPORTUNITY, YOU NEVER 16:54:30 HAD THE PICTURES WITH YOU TO SHOW THEM IN DETROIT AT THAT 16:54:33 TIME. >> IT IS NOT TRUE. 16:54:34 >> YOU NEVER HAD THE PICTURES TO SHOW. 16:54:38 LASTLY, I'M GOING TO READ SOMETHING -- 16:54:40 >> FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S NOT TRUE. 16:54:41 >> I BELIEVE IT IS BASED ON THE INFORMATION I HAVE. 16:54:43 ON THE PRISON RAPE THING I'M GOING TO END BY READING THIS. 16:54:45 THIS IS FROM HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH. NO ESCAPE. 16:54:50 MALE RAPE IN U.S. PRISONS. PREFACE, OF A SENTENCE FOR A DUI 16:54:56 OFFENSE, MY THIRD ONE. WHEN I FIRST CAME TO PRISON, I 16:54:59 HAD NO IDEA WHAT TO EXPECT. CERTAINLY NONE OF THIS. 16:55:04 I'M A TALL MALE WHO UNFORTUNATELY HAS A SMALL AMOUNT 16:55:07 OF FEMININE CHARACTERISTICS AND VERY SHY. 16:55:10 THESE CHARACTERISTICS HAVE GOTTEN ME RAPED SO MANY 16:55:15 TIMES I HAVE NO MORE FEELING PHYSICALLY. 16:55:17 I'VE BEEN RAPED BY UP TO SEVEN MEN AT ONE TIME. 16:55:20 I'VE HAD KNIVES AT MY HEAD AND THROAT. 16:55:22 I'VE FOUGHT AND I'VE BEEN BEAT SO HARD THAT I DIDN'T EVEN THINK 16:55:26 I'D SEE STRAIGHT AGAIN. ONE TIME WHEN I REFUSED TO ENTER 16:55:28 A CELL I WAS BRUTALLY ATTACKED BY STAFF AND TAKEN TO 16:55:33 SEGREGATION. I ONLY WANTED TO PREVENT THE 16:55:35 SAME AND WORSE BY NOT LOCKING UP WITH MY CELL MATE. 16:55:40 THERE'S NO SUPERVISION AFTER LOCKDOWN. 16:55:41 I WAS GIVEN A CONDUCT REPORT. I EXPLAINED TO THE HEARING 16:55:43 OFFICER WHAT THE ISSUE WAS. HE TOLD ME OFF THE RECORD HE 16:55:46 SUGGESTED I FIND A MAN I COULD WILLINGLY HAVE SEX WITH TO 16:55:49 PREVENT THESE THINGS FROM HAPPENING. 16:55:51 I REQUESTED PROTECTIVE CUSTODY ONLY TO BE DENIED. 16:55:53 IT IS NOT AVAILABLE HERE. HE ALSO SAID THERE WAS NOWHERE 16:55:57 TO RUN AND IT WOULD BE BEST FOR ME TO ACCEPT THINGS. 16:56:01 I PROBABLY HAVE AIDS NOW. I'VE HAD DIFFICULTY RAISING FOOD 16:56:04 TO MY MOUTH FROM SHAKING AFTER NIGHTMARES OR THINKING HOW HARD 16:56:07 THIS ALL IS. I'VE LAID DOWN WITHOUT PHYSICAL 16:56:10 FIGHT TO PREVENT SO MUCH DAMAGE AND STRUGGLES THAT WHEN FIGHTING 16:56:13 IT'S CAUSED MY HEART AND MY SPIRIT TO BE RAPED AS WELL. 16:56:17 SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL EVER FORGIVE MYSELF FOR. 16:56:19 THIS HAS GONE ON. THE LONGER YOU DELAY IT, THE 16:56:23 MORE THIS WILL HAPPEN. I YIELD BACK. 16:56:24 >> AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, I SHARE -- AS I INDICATED BEFORE, 16:56:29 THE CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE EXPRESSED. 16:56:32 THAT STORY IS A HORRIBLE ONE. AND WE ARE COMMITTED TO DOING 16:56:35 ALL THAT WE CAN AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN TO DEAL WITH THOSE KINDS OF 16:56:41 SITUATIONS. >> THANK YOU. 16:56:47 MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MR. 16:56:51 CHAIRMAN, IT'S MY CONCERN AND I KNOW THE CONCERN OF MY 16:56:54 CONSTITUENTS AND COLLEAGUES, NOT JUST THE QUALITY OF THE 16:56:56 INFORMATION THAT WE WOULD OBTAIN WITH OR WITHOUT MIRANDA, IT'S 16:56:59 OUR WORRY IS THAT THESE PEOPLE WILL BE RELEASED ON 16:57:02 TECHNICALITIES. THAT THEY WILL GO FREE BECAUSE 16:57:05 THEY WERE GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS BY THIS 16:57:09 ADMINISTRATION THAT FOREIGN NATIONALS IN TIME OF WAR HAVE 16:57:12 NOT BEEN GIVEN PREVIOUSLY. I'M STILL TRYING TO RUN DOWN THE 16:57:14 TWO INDIVIDUALS YOU GAVE ME. MR. CHAIRMAN, I DO KNOW FOR A 16:57:18 FACT THAT RICHARD REID WAS ARRESTED AT A TIME WHEN THERE 16:57:21 WAS NO MILITARY COMMISSION. THAT'S WHY HE WAS SENT TO 16:57:25 CIVILIAN COURT. I'M NOT -- YOUR TESTIMONY IS, 16:57:28 MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT SIDDIQUI WAS SENT TO CIVILIAN 16:57:34 COURT AT THE TIME THERE WERE MILITARY COMMISSIONS IN 16:57:37 EXISTENCE? >> I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE 16:57:40 DATES. I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. 16:57:42 >> OKAY. WE'RE VERY, VERY SHORT ON TIME. 16:57:44 MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANTED TO ALSO ASK IF I COULD THE ATTORNEY 16:57:50 GENERAL IF THE CHARGES AGAINST KSM ARE DISMISSED BECAUSE OF 16:57:54 SOME LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT HE RAISES UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OR 16:57:58 SUPREME COURT CASE LAW, HIS CHARGES ARE DISMISSED BY THE 16:58:01 FEDERAL COURT, AND HE IS ORDERED RELEASED, I THINK I'VE HEARD YOU 16:58:04 SAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO -- THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD ORDER THAT 16:58:06 HE CONTINUE TO BE HELD. IS THAT CORRECT? 16:58:08 >> YEAH. I DON'T -- FIRST OF ALL, IN 16:58:11 TERMS OF THE PREMISE, I DON'T THINK THERE IS AN INSTANCE OF A 16:58:16 TERRORISM CASE WHERE SOMEBODY -- A TERRORIST CHARGED IN AN 16:58:19 ARTICLE 3 COURT GOT OFF ON A SO-CALLED TECHNICALITY. 16:58:22 I DON'T KNOW OF ONE CASE. >> EXCUSE ME. 16:58:25 I'M TALKING ABOUT KSM. YOU'VE ASKED -- YOU HAVE ORDERED 16:58:28 THAT HE BE SENT TO BE TRIED IN A CIVILIAN COURT. 16:58:30 >> THAT'S RIGHT FINE. >> REGARDLESS OF WHERE THAT 16:58:32 TAKES PLACE -- >> I'LL CERTAINLY DEAL WITH THAT 16:58:35 QUESTION. I'M JUST DEALING WITH WHAT YOU 16:58:36 SAID AT FIRST. I DON'T WANT TO LET THAT GO 16:58:39 UNREBUTTED. >> I'M SORRY IF YOU 16:58:44 MISUNDERSTOOD. >> LET'S LOOK AT THE FACTS AND 16:58:45 LET'S LOOK AT HISTORY. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AS FAR AS I 16:58:48 KNOW A TERRORISM TRIAL THAT ENDED IN A PRETRIAL RELEASE OF 16:58:52 SOMEBODY ON THE BASIS OF SOME TECHNICALITY. 16:58:55 >> IN A MILITARY TRIBUNAL. >> IN AN ARTICLE 3 COURT. 16:58:58 >> OKAY. BUT THAT'S THE DANGER WE EXPOSE 16:59:01 OURSELVES TO. THAT'S OUR CONCE

HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA - DECEMBER 9: Lin-Manuel Miranda attends the Los Angeles premiere of Disney's "Mufasa: The Lion King" at Dolby Theatre on December 9, 2024 in Hollywood, California. (Footage by Adam Jason Finmann/Getty Images)

01:00:01:27 MS Katy Perry posing with wings / CU Rihanna / MS Jennifer Lopez / PAN DOWN Lopez's legs / CU LL Cool J / MS Miley Cyrus / MS Justin Bieber / UNID Britt Loren, Jamie Foxx and Elva Hsiao / ...

23:12:25:05 movie poster (1:06) / 23:14:24:22 Matt Letscher arv/intv (1:51) / 23:16:18:00 Flea arv's (0:36) / 23:17:20:00 photographers (0:20) / 23:17:41:00 Simon Helberg arv (0:16) / 23:18:51:10 Dawn ...

HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA - DECEMBER 9: Lin-Manuel Miranda attends the Los Angeles premiere of Disney's "Mufasa: The Lion King" at Dolby Theatre on December 9, 2024 in Hollywood, California. (Footage by Adam Jason Finmann/Getty Images)

The House Judiciary Committee conducts a hearing on Justice Department oversight with Attorney General, Eric Holder SPEAKERS: REP. JOHN CONYERS JR., D-MICH. CHAIRMAN REP. HOWARD L. BERMAN, D-CALIF. REP. RICK BOUCHER, D-VA. REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y. REP. ROBERT C. SCOTT, D-VA. REP. MELVIN WATT, D-N.C. REP. ZOE LOFGREN, D-CALIF. REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, D-TEXAS REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF. REP. BILL DELAHUNT, D-MASS. REP. LINDA T. SANCHEZ, D-CALIF. REP. STEVE COHEN, D-TENN. REP. HANK JOHNSON, D-GA. REP. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, D-ILL. REP. BRAD SHERMAN, D-CALIF. REP. CHARLIE GONZALEZ, D-TEXAS REP. ANTHONY WEINER, D-N.Y. REP. ADAM B. SCHIFF, D-CALIF. REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, D-FLA. REP. TAMMY BALDWIN, D-WIS. RES. COMMISSIONER PEDRO PIERLUISI, D-P.R. REP. DANIEL MAFFEI, D-N.Y. REP. MIKE QUIGLEY, D-ILL. REP. JUDY CHU, D-CALIF. REP. TED DEUTCH, D-FLA. REP. JARED POLIS, D-COLO. REP. LAMAR SMITH, R-TEXAS RANKING MEMBER REP. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., R-WIS. REP. HOWARD COBLE, R-N.C. REP. ELTON GALLEGLY, R-CALIF. REP. ROBERT W. GOODLATTE, R-VA. REP. DAN LUNGREN, R-CALIF. REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF. REP. J. RANDY FORBES, R-VA. REP. STEVE KING, R-IOWA REP. TRENT FRANKS, R-ARIZ. REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, R-TEXAS REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, R-UTAH REP. TED POE, R-TEXAS REP. TOM ROONEY, R-FLA. REP. GREGG HARPER, R-MISS. WITNESSES: ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER 13:27:34 FURTHER, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS FOUGHT TIRELESSLY TO COMBAT 13:27:37 TERRORISM. THE ATTEMPTED CHRISTMAS DAY 13:27:39 BOMBING ON A NORTHWEST AIRLINES FLIGHT AND THE FBI'S 13:27:44 INTERCEPTION OF A RECENT PLAN TO ATTACK THE NEW YORK SUBWAY 13:27:48 SYSTEM REMINDS US OF THE CONSTANT STRUGGLE AGAINST THOSE 13:27:52 WHO WISH TO HARM AMERICANS. IN THAT REGARD, I'M EAGER TO 13:27:57 HEAR WHAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT MAY PROPOSE IN THE WAY OF 13:28:02 LEGISLATIVE CHANGES REGARDING THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION TO 13:28:06 THE MIRANDA WARNINGS. I, BEING A STAUNCH ADVOCATE FOR 13:28:15 THE PRESERVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, I'LL BE 13:28:19 LOOKING CAREFULLY AT THAT. IN ADDITION, I WANT TO THANK YOU 13:28:22 FOR REVITALIZING THE ANTI-TRUST DIVISION. 13:28:25 YOU HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE ANTI-TRUST LAWS ARE GOING TO BE 13:28:29 ENFORCED AND THIS MEANS IMPROVED COMPETITION AND REAL PRICE 13:28:33 PROTECTION FOR CONSUMERS. AS CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 13:28:37 COURTS AND COMPETITION POLICY I'M GRATEFUL FOR YOUR FOCUS ON 13:28:41 ANTI-TRUST ISSUES. GENERAL HOLDER, I LOOK FORWARD 13:28:44 TO HEARING YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY. I APPRECIATE THE JUSTICE 13:28:47 DEPARTMENT'S EFFORTS IN PROTECTING THE SAFETY AND 13:28:51 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND RESOURCES OF THE AMERICAN 13:28:54 PEOPLE. I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY 13:28:58 TIME. DARRYL ISA, RANKING MEMBER ON 13:29:01 THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE AND THE PERSON WHO MAY HOLD MORE 13:29:09 COPYRIGHTS THAN ANYBODY ON THIS COMMITTEE EXCEPT PERHAPS OUR 13:29:13 NEWEST MEMBER JARED POLIS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 13:29:18 WELCOME. WE NOW HAVE TWO NONLAWYERS WHO 13:29:20 ARE, IN FACT, HOLDERS OF THE ENTREPRENEUR OF THE YEAR AWARD. 13:29:24 SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE DEFINITELY -- 13:29:26 WE'LL LEAVE THE RECORDED PORTION OF TODAY'S HOUSE 13:29:29 JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING AS THE COMMITTEE IS RESUMING LIVE 13:29:32 WE TAKE YOU BACK TO CAPITOL HILL ON C-SPAN 3. 13:29:37 BEFORE I POSE A MOTION, LET ME SUGGEST THAT BY THE OPENING 13:29:43 STATEMENTS OF THE MEMBERS YOU HAVE HEARD A NUMBER OF CONCERNS 13:29:48 AND I WOULD ONLY ADD TO THOSE CONCERNS AND NOT KNOWING ALL IN 13:29:52 TOTALITY IS A VERY SERIOUS MATTER OF MERGERS AND IN 13:29:55 PARTICULAR THE MERGER BETWEEN CONTINENTAL AND UNITED. 13:29:59 I KNOW WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE A VERY 13:30:02 IMPORTANT QUESTION EITHER TODAY OR PROSPECTIVELY. 13:30:07 SO WE ARE AT THE POINT OF QUESTIONS, AS I INDICATED. 13:30:10 BUT I WOULD LIKE TO INDICATE TO YOU THAT OUR CHAIRMAN WHO HAS 13:30:16 PRESIDED OVER THIS COMMITTEE WITH EXCELLENCE AND GREAT 13:30:22 LEADERSHIP AND PRESIDED EARLIER TODAY WAS APPROACHED BY MEMBERS 13:30:28 ON THE FLOOR HAVING A NUMBER OF CONFLICTS AND FLIGHTS TO CATCH 13:30:35 ON IMPORTANT DISTRICT BUSINESS BECAUSE OF HIS LEADERSHIP. 13:30:44 IF WE COULD ADJOURN THE HEARING AND SCHEDULE IT AT A LATER DATE. 13:30:49 THEREFORE, I AM ASKING UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ADJOURN THE HEARING 13:30:53 AT THIS TIME. MADAME CHAIRMAN I OBJECT. 13:30:56 I WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED TO EXPLAIN. 13:30:59 THE RANKING MEMBER OBJECTS. I WILL YIELD TO HIM FOR HIS 13:31:04 EXPLANATION. THANK YOU, MADAME CHAIRMAN. 13:31:08 THE CHAIRMAN AND I HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER WE 13:31:11 SHOULD ADJOURN NOW BECAUSE WE ARE FINISHED WITH VOTES FOR THE 13:31:14 DAY AND PERHAPS RETURN NEXT WEEK OR THE WEEK AFTER WE GET BACK 13:31:17 FROM THE MEMORIAL DAY BREAK. HAD THE A.G. BEEN ABLE TO ASSURE 13:31:21 US THAT HE WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE US A TIME AND A DATE TO HAVE THE 13:31:27 HEARING AND CONTINUE THIS HEARING AND ASK QUESTIONS I 13:31:31 CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE AGREED TO DO THAT. 13:31:32 I UNDERSTAND THE A.G.'S TRAVEL SCHEDULE. 13:31:35 I CAN APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT HE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO GIVE US 13:31:38 A HARD DATE. BUT I AM UNCOMFORTABLE 13:31:42 ADJOURNING THIS OVERSIGHT HEARING WITHOUT THAT TIME AND 13:31:46 DATE SPECIFIC. THAT'S WHY I FEEL THAT WE SHOULD 13:31:49 GO FORWARD AND WE HAVE A CRITICAL MASS OF MEMBERS TO DO 13:31:54 SO. MADAME CHAIR, I WOULD YIELD TO 13:31:56 THE A.G. WHO LOOKED LIKE HE WAS GETTING READY TO RESPOND AS 13:32:01 WELL. THANK YOU. 13:32:05 I'M NOT SURE IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN BEING YIELDED TO 13:32:09 AT THIS POINT. ARE YOU INTERESTED IN BEING 13:32:11 YIELDED TO AT THIS POINT? OTHERWISE I HAVE A MEMBER THAT I 13:32:14 WILL BE CALLING ON. I'M READY TO PROCEED. 13:32:21 LET ME -- DID YOU RAISE -- MR. SCHIFF, CALIFORNIA. 13:32:28 THANK YOU. I WAS GOING TO RESPOND TO MY 13:32:32 COLLEAGUE FROM TEXAS. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN HE HAS. 13:32:37 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEMONSTRATED NO 13:32:40 RELUCTANCE TO COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. 13:32:42 NOT ONLY THIS COMMITTEE BUT OTHERS. 13:32:44 I'M CONFIDENT HE WOULD RETURN AT THE FIRST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY. 13:32:49 IF THAT'S THE CASE IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE FULL 13:32:54 REPRESENTATION. I KNOW A LOT OF MEMBERS WOULD 13:32:58 PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING AND THEY WILL LOSE THE OPPORTUNITY 13:33:01 IF WE GO FORWARD WITHOUT THEM. WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? 13:33:06 I WOULD BE GLAD TO. THERE ARE SEVERAL RESPONSES. 13:33:09 FIRST IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INDICATED A 13:33:12 WILLINGNESS TO STAY AND ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR AS LONG AS THEY 13:33:16 MIGHT BE. SECOND WILL HAVE ALL, ALL 13:33:18 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WERE ON NOTICE THAT WE EXPECTED TO BE IN 13:33:21 SESSION UNTIL AT LEAST 3:00 OR 4:00 THIS AFTERNOON. 13:33:24 THE FACT THAT THE VOTES ENDED EARLIER WERE NOT ANTICIPATED. 13:33:28 SO MEMBERS HAVE NOT HAD TO CHANGE ANY PLANS IF TWHANTED TO 13:33:35 PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING. THARDLY, AS I SAID, TO REPEAT 13:33:39 MYSELF, HAD THE A.G. BEEN WILLING TO COMMIT TO A DATE 13:33:42 SOMETIME IN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS I WOULD HAVE CERTAINLY GONE 13:33:46 AHEAD WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT WE ADJOURN BUT WITHOUT THE 13:33:50 COMMITMENT FROM THE A.G. AND DESPITE THE ASSURANCE OF THE 13:33:53 GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA HE SEEMS MORE CONFIDENT IN THE 13:33:56 APPEARANCE OF THE A.G. IN THE COMING WEEKS THAN THE A.G. 13:34:00 HIMSELF OR THE A.G. WOULD HAVE GIVEN A COMMITMENT TO A SPECIFIC 13:34:03 TIME AND DATE. ABSENT THAT IT'S BEST THAT WE 13:34:08 PROCEED. MADAME CHAIR, THAT BEING 13:34:12 SAID, WE'LL GO FORWARD. THANK YOU. 13:34:17 THE OBJECTION BEING HEARD ON UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ADJOURN AND 13:34:25 THE OBJECTION BEING RAISED, THE MEETING WILL NOW PROCEED. 13:34:31 AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO YIELD FIVE MINUTES FOR HIS 13:34:35 QUESTIONING TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM VIRGINIA, THE CHAIRMAN OF 13:34:39 THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, MR. SCOTT. 13:34:42 THANK YOU. MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE LAST 13:34:46 TIME YOU WERE HERE I ASKED YOU WHETHER OR NOT IF SOMEONE HAD 13:34:50 BEEN TORTURED TO DEATH WHETHER OR NOT A CRIME ALMOST CERTAINLY 13:34:56 WOULD HAVE BEEN COMMITTED AND YOU ANSWERED IN THE POSITIVE. 13:34:58 MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR 13:35:01 TORTURE IF SOMEONE DIES AND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IF 13:35:04 SOMEONE DOES NOT DIE? I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND IF 13:35:08 YOU WOULD PREFER TO RESPOND IN WRITING, THAT WOULD BE FINE. 13:35:14 I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND IN WRITING TO AT LEAST THE SECOND 13:35:17 PART OF THE QUESTION. WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST PART 13:35:19 THERE IS NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHERE DEATH RESULTS. 13:35:21 THANK YOU. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF 13:35:26 CONTROVERSY ON MIRANDA RIGHTS. THE LAST CASE WAS RULED ON A 13:35:32 CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS, NOT STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. 13:35:35 IF WE TRY TO CHANGE THE STATUTE MIGHT WE NOT CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS 13:35:39 THAN WE SOLVE? NOBODY WOULD KNOW UNTIL THAT HIT 13:35:44 IT IS SUPREME COURT WHETHER WHAT WE DID WAS CONSTITUTIONAL OR 13:35:47 NOT. HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT THE 13:35:49 PRACTICE ON THE GROUND IF A POLICE OFFICER HAS TO SIT UP AND 13:35:52 WONDER, WELL, I HAVE ALL THESE EXCEPTIONS. 13:35:54 I MAY HAVE TO GIVE A MIRANDA WARNING, MAYBE NOT. 13:35:58 MAYBE THEY'RE A CITIZEN, A TERRORIST. 13:36:03 MIGHT YOU END UP MESSING UP CASES WHERE MIRANDA TURNED OUT 13:36:08 TO BE REQUIRED? WOULD WE MAKE MATTERS WORSE BY 13:36:12 CHANGING ANYTHING? I THINK IT'S OUR VIEW THAT 13:36:15 THE USE OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION AND I WANT TO MAKE IT 13:36:19 CLEAR THAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON THE POTENTIAL MODERNIZING, 13:36:25 CLARIFYING OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION. 13:36:28 NOT THE MIRANDA RULE ITSELF BUT TO COME UP WITH A WAY IN WHICH 13:36:32 WE GIVE TO AGENTS, POLICE OFFICERS, GREATER CLARITY AS TO 13:36:35 HOW THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION CAN BE USED. 13:36:38 THE EXCEPTION WAS CRAFTED BACK IN THE 1980s IN CONNECTION WITH 13:36:43 CASE QUARRELS THAT INVOLVED A POLICE OFFICER ASKING A PERSON 13:36:48 W WHERE IS THE GUN? 13:36:50 WE FIND OURSELVES IN 2010 DEALING WITH COMPLICATED 13:36:53 TERRORISM MATTERS. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT HAVE 13:36:57 OCCUPIED MUCH OF MY TIME. WITH REGARD TO ONLY 13:37:00 TERRORISM-RELATED MATTERS, NOT IN ANY OTHER WAY, JUST TERRORISM 13:37:04 CASES THAT MODERNIZING, CLARIFYING, MAKING MORE FLEXIBLE 13:37:07 THE USE OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION WOULD BE SOMETHING -- 13:37:11 BUT THE POINT THE INTERROGATION STARTS THE POLICE 13:37:14 OFFICER MAY NOT BE ABLE TO TELL WHETHER IT'S TERRORISM OR NOT 13:37:17 AND THINKING WRONGLY THAT IT IS TERRORISM YOU CAN MESS UP AN 13:37:22 OTHERWISE FAIRLY GOOD CASE. WE'LL LOOK TO SEE WHAT YOU COME 13:37:26 UP WITH. THE BUREAU OF PRISONS IS UNDER 13:37:29 YOUR JURISDICTION. IS THAT CORRECT? 13:37:32 THAT'S CORRECT. FEDERAL PRISON INDUSTRIES IS 13:37:34 AN IMPORTANT PROGRAM. DO YOU HAVE ANY STATEMENT ON HOW 13:37:38 WE CAN MAKE THE PROGRAM STRONGER AND ANY SUPPORT YOU WANT TO GIVE 13:37:43 TO THE PROGRAM FOR WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT? 13:37:46 IT'S A CRITICAL PART, I THINK, OF AN EFFORT TO MAKE 13:37:50 PRISONS MORE THAN PLACES THAT WAREHOUSE PEOPLE TO GIVE PEOPLE 13:37:55 AN OPPORTUNITY TO GAIN SKILLS THAT MAKE THEM SUCCESSFUL UPON 13:37:58 LEAVING PRISON. I THINK WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO 13:38:00 FOCUS ON IS THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO GO INTO 13:38:03 PRISON COME OUT AT SOME POINT. TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN 13:38:07 PROVIDE REHAB TODAY TIF SERVICES TO THEM THROUGH THE VOCATIONAL 13:38:12 OPPORTUNITY THAT IS THE PRISON PROGRAMS PROVIDE, I THINK THOSE 13:38:15 SHOULD BE SUPPORTED. I'M A BIG SUPPORTER OF THE 13:38:19 PROGRAM. THANK YOU. 13:38:20 I MENTIONED IN MY OPENING REMARKS THE OFFICE OF LEGAL 13:38:25 COUNSEL MEMORANDUM THAT ESSENTIALLY SUGGESTED THAT 13:38:28 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT OF 1993 PROVIDES A VIRTUAL 13:38:34 BLANKET OVERRIDING STATUTORY NONDISCRIMINATION PROVISIONS. 13:38:40 HAS YOUR OFFICE REVIEWED THAT MEMORANDUM AND IF SO, COULD YOU 13:38:44 TELL US THE STATUS OF WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO WIT OR WOULD 13:38:48 YOU WANT TO GET BACK TO US IN WRITING ON THAT? 13:39:02 WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK TO YOU IN WRITING ABOUT 13:39:04 THAT. -- A FEDERAL GRANT YOU CAN'T 13:39:18 USE THE MONEY FOR THE PEOPLE YOU HELP AND YOU CAN'T DISCRIMINATE 13:39:20 AGAINST THEM OR AGAINST THE -- SEEMS FAIRLY UNUSUAL THAT YOU 13:39:36 WOULD ALLOW DISCRIMINATION ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. 13:39:39 DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON WHERE WE ARE ON RESTORING THE CIVIL 13:39:43 RIGHTS FOR EMPLOYEES THAT EXISTED FROM 1965 UNTIL 2001 OR 13:39:52 2002? I THINK THE ADMINISTRATION IS 13:39:54 COMMITTED TO PARTNERING WITH FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS IN A 13:39:57 WAY THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW, CONSISTENT WITH OUR VALUES 13:39:59 AND CONSISTENT WITH THE WAY IN WHICH I THINK THIS 13:40:03 ADMINISTRATION HAS CONDUCTED ITSELF. 13:40:05 THE DEPARTMENT WILL CONTINUE TO EVALUATE LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT 13:40:09 ARISE WITH REGARD TO HOW WE DO THAT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, 13:40:15 BUT OVERALL. I THINK THE LAW APPARENTLY 13:40:18 ALLOWS DISCRIMINATION AS A POLICY.

0930 KAVANAUGH HRG SIDE CAM 2 FS4 82 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 3) Full Committee DATE: Thursday, September 6, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley INTRODUCERS: The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Former Secretary of State Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution Professor at Stanford University Stanford, CA The Honorable Rob Portman United States Senator State of Ohio Ms. Lisa S. Blatt Partner Arnold & Porter Washington, DC PANEL I The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt Lake City, UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville, TN PANEL III MAJORITY Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley, NY The Honorable Theodore B. Olson Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven, CT MINORITY: The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville, TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring, MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis, IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York, NY PANEL IV MAJORITY: Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington, DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Foxpoint, WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington, DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles, CA MINORITY: Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland, FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover, PA Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk, ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City, OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington, DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Hamilton, VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA MINORITY: Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston, MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus, OH LEAHY >> I tried to give you a good heads up and I appreciate the meeting, but has anybody else told you, this is what Leahy's 11:30:48 AM staff is asking to do at the hearing tomorrow? KAVANAUGH >> Again, I think this might be a different kind of process because you all were very transparent when I met with you in looking around saying here's what I'm focused on, here's what I'm going to ask you at the hearings and it turns out you were telling -- you were accurately telling me your concerns. But anybody hand you anything marked highly confidential about any one of these senators? >> No, I'm not remembering in like that, but you all did talk about the ish use. In other words, there are no surprises. Well, there are not no surprises but, you know, you gave me basic concerns. LEAHY >> I want to make sure you understand this. Nobody handed you material marked confidential but that is the material you received from Miranda. Days before an extremely controversial hearing for fifth 11:31:48 AM circuit nominee Priscilla Owen, Mr. Miranda sent you an e-mail with the subject line highly confidential, informed you that senator Biden's staff was asking him not to attend the meeting that day. On March 18th, 2003, Mr. Miranda sent you several pages of talking points that were stolen, verbatim, stolen verbatim from democratic files. The talking points revealed arguments Democrats were making on another controversial nominee, Miguel Estrada. The subject line is not available for distribution meaning Mr. Miranda was asking you not to share the information. This has now been as of 3:00 this morning made public. So yesterday you said you didn't have any recollection. 11:32:49 AM LEAHY I'm not going to ask you if you remember receiving this e-mail. I'm going to ask you this. Why would you ever be asked to keep see ved democratic talking points if they were illegally obtained? KAVANAUGH >> I am looking at these, senator, and it looks like Biden's staff is asking him not to attend the hearing. I don't know why that -- LEAHY >> Look how you received it. KAVANAUGH >> I know. Highly -- I don't know why that's even confidential because it -- LEAHY >> Whether it is or not, would you consider that somewhat unusual, to be receiving from a Republican staff member? KAVANAUGH >> As I explands yesterday, senator, my understanding of this process is that the staffs do talk to one another, that they're not camps with no communication. That was my experience when I worked in the white house so this -- it looks like Biden's 11:33:49 AM staff is asking him not to attend the hearing. That would be pretty standard information. LEAHY >> Not really. I would be amazed if somebody handed me a memo saying this is a confidential memo that senator grassley's staff has prepared for him. I not only would not read it, I would be on the phone immediately to senator grassley, say I'm bringing over something that just a arrived and we distributed a letter to, he said I received that letter. You were asked specifically by Mr. Miranda to take no action on the e-mail without his, his instructions. You never asked him how he obtained the letter sent in 11:34:51 AM strict confidence to me. July 30th, 2000, you received an e-mail on 100% that I was receiving a meeting about a controversial meeting. Then further on August 13th, 20200, e-mail bsly being taken from my eye view. Did any of this raise a red flag in your mind? KAVANAUGH >> It did not, senator, because it all seemed consistent with the usual kinds of discussions that happen and sometimes people do say things of here's what my boss is thinking but don't share it around. I must have had, you know, so many conversations in the course of my life like that where someone's saying like that about something. In other words, trying to give you a heads up on something. 11:35:53 AM And that just seemed standard senate staff. So nothing -- the direct answer to your question is, for example, Biden looks like hearing. LEAHY >> Not even where it came from? On June 5th, 2003, you received an e-mail from a Republican senate staffer with the subject line, spying. That is not overly subtle. 1,000 documents. She says she has a mole for us and so forth. None of this raised a red flag for you? KAVANAUGH >> It did not, senator. Again, people have friends across the aisle who they talk to. At least this was my bag then. 11:36:54 AM LEAHY Maybe it's changed. There is a lot of problems account staff. People would talk about I have a friend on senator hatch's staff. That information sharing was common. >> I was born at night but not last night and if I found -- if I had something that somebody said we've stolen this or this is highly -- don't tell anybody we have this, I think it would raise some red flags. Now we only have a fraction of your documents. As you know, the president asserted executive privilege. The first time we've had to face 11:37:54 AM this on a nominee of 102,000 pages of material, 102,000 from just your time in the white house. That includes a lot on judicial nominations. Can you confirm for me today that in that 102,000 pages there are no e-mails from Mr. Miranda marked highly confidential, or do not share, or take no action on this describing what he has found out the Democrats are thinking? KAVANAUGH >> Senator, I am not involved in the documents process so I don't know what's in them. LEAHY >> Well, that is convenient. We don't know what's in them either because we've never had 11:38:54 AM so much held before. We don't know what's in all of the documents that are still being gone through by the archives because this is being rushed through and we don't get a chance to see them. That's not fair to us and, frankly, judge, it's not fair to you. You probably have been told you have to be confirmed so you don't care but I care. I care about the integrity of the supreme court. I care about who's on there. I think you should care what's in that just as we should care what's in it. There are even more documents than I have time to discuss today. I find it impossible to reference out what you're regularly being told. It's your testimony you've received nothing stolen and no reason to suspect nothing was being stolen when, frankly, as we now know, Republican Manny Miranda 11:39:56 AM stole things and some of the things he stole went directly to you. Let me ask you another one. You testified in 2004 that aside from testifying in a moot court argument you did not work on the nomination of judge William Pryor. Now he was a controversial nominee, called roe versus wade the worst abomination in history in regard to constitutional law. He said same-sex marriage would go to necrophilia. You did work on the prior practice group, did you not? KAVANAUGH >> We all were met -- just so you know the process, there's something called the white house I think judicial selection 11:40:57 AM committee, and judge Gonzalez, the counsel to the president chaired that committee. That started immediately after president bush came into office in 2001. So we would meet with memos and individual members of the staff would be assigned to different -- LEAHY >> Did you interview William Pryor? KAVANAUGH >> I don't believe so. It's possible, but I don't believe so, but if I did, it would have been part of the general process where people came in -- LEAHY >> I'd put in the record our exhibit C which said you did interview him. KAVANAUGH >> It's possible. We interviewed hundreds of nominees, as I said, senator, and -- and we met every week for several years to go over nominees and we worked closely with the home state senators. I had various district states. I had Illinois, California, senator Feinstein, senator boxer's staff, Maryland, senator 11:42:00 AM sarbane. Then we would meet and go over the memos. We met every week with the president before September 11th. After September 11th those meetings became less frequent. LEAHY >> You had recommended him internally for the 11th circuit seat, had you not? KAVANAUGH >> Well, I can't -- I have no reason that I wouldn't have recommended him because he was a highly qualified attorney general of Alabama and senator sessions, of course, knew him well and he was well respected. LEAHY >> The only reason I ask is one of the e-mails we have up here, Brent, at your request I ask to speak with Pryor about his interests. I'm not -- I'm not asking these questions to get you in a bind, judge, I'm asking them because it is so easy on these hearings 11:43:01 AM to say I don't remember, and often times that's the case. But you mentioned Mr. Gonzalez. He had difficulty remembering when he came here. He had one hearing where -- so he wouldn't have that problem I gave him I think 35, 45 of the questions ahead of time. On everyone of them he said, I don't remember. I don't recall and then every question -- almost every question answered I don't recall, I don't remember. Shortly after that he went into private practice but T-- I think it is -- I think it is so difficult when -- that you don't remember the things done by 11:44:01 AM somebody who I think on both sides of the aisle we would both agree is one of the most egregious breaches of committee confidentiality, Manny Miranda stole material from here, stole it to send it to you and others at the white house. You have no recollection of that? KAVANAUGH >> I obviously recall the e-mails or have seen the e-mails, but your question -- your larger question was did that raise a red flag, and I've answered that no. KAVANAUGH >> Well, I -- LEAHY when you were in the White House was it your job to coach president bush's judicial nominees how to answer 11:45:02 AM Democrat's questions about Roe versus wade? KAVANAUGH >> Part of our job would have been to prepare nominees more generally and it was common for senators to ask that question then as it is now and so, kwa, I assume that I would have been involved in going through mock sessions. I know we were involved in going through mock sessions, which is very standard for democratic -- LEAHY >> You've been going through some mock sessions with at least one Republican senator from this committee and other Republican senators, and I'm not saying that is a gotcha thing. You have every right to do that. You did advise Sal Owen how she should respond to that. My last question is do you agree that a plastic firearm created with a 3-d printer so that we would not have been in 11:46:03 AM the minds of our founding fathers at the 18th century, would you agree that that could be regulated or banned without creating any second amendment questions? KAVANAUGH >> I think there might be litigation coming on that, senator so, consistent with judicial I Independence principles I shouldn't comment on that. Thank you. >> I've actually written out your answer ahead of time, and I just wrote it so that you did not see what I wrote. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> Senator. GRAHAM >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to introduce into the record an op Ed from the "L.A. Times" editorial board entitled can the supreme court confirmation process ever be repaired, from 2003 from judge Kavanaugh's class, a letter from 11:47:04 AM Georgia's secretary of state Brian Kemp, an op Ed by Mississippi governor bill Bryant. So I ask that that would be allowed. Just say without objection. That's good. Thank you, judge. There are several things I want to go over with you. One, I want to complement senator Leahy in this regard that he worked with senator grassley to get what had been previously committee confidential released to the public and sort of that's the way it works around here. You don't always get what you want but you try to work with your colleagues and many times you can succeed. From the public's point of view, it's got to work this way. You just can't do everything you legislative body. There are rules and it's frustrating to be told no on something you're passionate 11:48:04 about, but I'm often asked, people wonder are these hearings turning into a circus. And I want to defend circuses. Circuses are entertaining and you can take your children to them. This hearing is neither entertaining nor can you take your children to it. Now some of my colleagues I respect greatly are trying to make a point. I don't know what that point is, but I do know this. If you want to be president, which I can understand that, it's hard. And what you do will be the example others will follow. Back to the subject matter. The Morrison case. Was that about separation of powers? KAVANAUGH >> That was a separation of powers case. GRAHAM >> Okay. It was about a congressional 11:49:06 AM statute and the authority of the executive branch and how they cooperated, is that correct? KAVANAUGH >> That's correct. GRAHAM >> And apparently Kagan and Scalia agreed. KAVANAUGH >> Yes. GRAHAM >> Kagan agreed with Scalia's dissent. >> She's called it one of the greatest ever written and she's added, it gets better every year. >> I don't want to get into the habit of saying, listen to Elena Kagan, but listen here, because she's a fine person. The situation about Mr. Mueller, that's not a separation of powers issue, is it? Mr. Mueller was appointed through department of justice regulations. KAVANAUGH >> Sir, I don't want to talk specifically about current events, but I will just refer back to what I've written about special counsel. >> I'm not asking you how to decide a case, I'm just asking you, do you read the paper? Do you watch television?statute 11:50:11 AM counsel in question doesn't exist anymore. KAVANAUGH >> The statute does not exist anymore. It's the ordinary way that outside investigation. GRAHAM >> Is that an executive branch function? KAVANAUGH >> That is appointed by the attorney general. GRAHAM >> Who is a member of what? KAVANAUGH >> Executive branch. GRAHAM >> That's time I checked that's not separation of powers issue. KAVANAUGH >> That's been an executive branch. GRAHAM >> The question is, if someone's appointed as special counsel by the department of justice regulations who has authority over implementing those regulations and overseeing those regulations, all I can say is that's different, legally and factually the morrison situation where you had a statute. Let's talk about the law regarding the president. 11:51:12 AM Clinton V Jones tells us that you can be president of the United States, you can still be sued for conduct before you're president and when you invoke executive privilege, the court said wait, you have show up at a deposition because it happened before you were president, is that correct? KAVANAUGH >> In the civil case of Clinton versus Jones or suit involved activity before Clinton became president. >> It's pretty well understood through supreme court precedent that if you're the president of the United States and you engaged in conduct that allowed you to be sued before you got to be president, you can't avoid your day in court on the civil side. GRAHAM The Nixon holding said what? >> In the context of the specific regulations there that a criminal trial subpoena to the president for information, in that case the tapes, could be enforced. 11:52:12 AM Notwithstanding the executive privilege recognized in that case. >> That's the law of the land as of this moment? KAVANAUGH >> United States versus Nixon is the law of the land. GRAHAM >> Whether or not the president can be indicted while in office has been a discussion that's gone on for a long time, is that true? In the legal world. KAVANAUGH >> That's correct. The department of justice for the last 45 years has taken the consistent position through Republican and democratic administrations that a sitting president may not be indicted while in office. The most thorough is written on Randy Moss who was head of president Clinton's office of legal counsel in the late and 2000. He's now a district judge appointed by President Obama. GRAHAM >> I think you've written on this topic as well. KAVANAUGH >> I've not written on the constitutionality. GRAHAM >> Talking about whether it would be wise to do this? KAVANAUGH >> I've made my thoughts known for congress to examine in the wake of September 11, I thought 11:53:13 AM one of things congress would look at is how to make the presidency more effective. GRAHAM >> I just want my democratic colleagues to remind you that when president Clinton was being investigated you took the position that he's not above the law but in terms of indicting a sitting president, it wod be better for the country to wait. The person who echoed that the most was Joe Biden. There's nothing new here, folks. When it's a democratic president they adopt the positions that their arguing against now. That's nothing new in politics. Iure we do the same thing. This man, judge Kavanaugh, is not doing anything wrong but talking about this issue the wap -- way he talks about it. What we're doing wrong is blending concepts. To justify a vote that's going to be inevitable. 11:54:13 AM You don't have to play the games to vote no. Just say you don't agree with his philosophy. The thing I hate the most is to talk concepts and turn them around, upside down to make people believe there's something wrong with you. There's nothing wrong with you. The fault lies on our side. Most American, after this hearing, will have a dimmer view of the senate, rightly so. I don't want anybody to steal anything. Did you steal anything from anybody why you were working at the white house counsel? KAVANAUGH >> No. LEAHY >> Did you know that anybody stole anything or did you encourage them to steal anything? KAVANAUGH >> No. GRAHAM >> Did you use anything that was stolen? KAVANAUGH >> No. GRAHAM >> You can talk about Mr. Miranda and he deserves all the scorn you can heap on it. I don't want the pulpit to believe that you did anything wrong because I don't believe you did. 11:55:13 AM It's okay to vote no. It's not okay to take legal concepts and flip them upside down and act like we're doing something wrong on the Republican side when you had the exact same position when it was your turn. Roe V. wade, you've heard of that case, right? >> I have. There's a lot of people like it. A lot of people don't. Emotional debate in the country. It's there anything in the constitution about the right to abortion? Anything written? >> The supreme court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 roe V. wade case. >> My question is did they find a phrase in the constitution that said that the state cannot interfere with a woman's right to choose until medical viability occurs? Is that in the constitution? >> Supreme court applying -- >> It's a pretty simple. No, it's not. Those words. KAVANAUGH >> I want to be very careful. This is a topic on which -- GRAHAM >> If you'll just follow me. I'll let you talk. The point is will you tell me, yes or no, is there anything in the document itself talking about limiting the state's ability to protect the unborn before viability? Is there anything phrase in the constitution about abortion? KAVANAUGH >> The supreme court has founded under the liberty clause, but you're right that specifically -- GRAHAM >> Is there anything in the liberty clause talk about abortion? KAVANAUGH >> It refers to liberty. GRAHAM >> Okay. Last time I checked, liberty didn't equate to abortion. The supreme court said it did. Here's the point. What are the limits on this concept? You had five, six, seven, eight or nine judges. What are the limits on the ability of the court to find a 11:57:18 AM number of rights that apply to a particular situation? What are the checks and balances of people in your business if you can find five people who agree with you to confer a right with the public likes it or not based on this concept of a number of rights. What are the outer limits to this? KAVANAUGH >> The supreme court in in case in the lay '90s, is the task that the supreme court uses to find unenumerated rights of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. That refers to rights rooted in the history and tradition of the country so as to prevent -- GRAHAM >> Let me ask you this, is there any right rooted in the history and traditions of the country where legislative bodies could not intercede on behalf of the unborn, medical liability. Would you agree with that or not? I don't think that is part of our history. So fill in the blank. What are the limits of people applying that concept to almost anything that you think to be liberty? KAVANAUGH >> That is the concern that some have expressed of the concept of unenumerated rights. 11:59:25 AM GRAHAM >> You've got one word that has opened up the ability for people people, you can't go there. Off the limits for a democratic process. Whether you agree with roe V. Wade or not, just think what could happen down the road if five people determined the word "Liberty" means X. The only real liberty is a constitutional amendment. Do you agree with that? KAVANAUGH >> I am not trying to come down my comment on potential constitutional amendments. GRAHAM >> If we passed it tomorrow saying that congress can regulate abortions for medical liability, wouldn't that fly in the face of roe V. Wade? 12:00:25 PM KAVANAUGH >> So the supreme court has said that a woman has a constitutional right -- GRAHAM >> So all of us could vote, as we have said, liberty means that the state has no interest year. The compelling interest for medical viability. That we could pass all the laws that we want, it doesn't matter. The only way that we could change that is if it's requires two-thirds of the senate, three fourths of the state. Is that pretty correct legal analysis? >> When they have issued a constitutional amendment. Do you agree with that? KAVANAUGH >> I am not trying to come down my comment on potential constitutional amendments. GRAHAM >> If we passed it tomorrow saying that congress can regulate abortions for medical liability, wouldn't that fly in the face of Roe V. Wade? KAVANAUGH >> So the supreme court has said that a woman has a constitutional right -- GRAHAM >> So all of us could vote, as we have said, liberty means that the state has no interest year. The compelling interest for medical viability. That we could pass all the laws that we want, it doesn't matter. The only way that we could change that is if it's requires two-thirds of the senate, three fourths of the state. Is that pretty correct legal analysis? KAVANAUGH >> When they have issued a constitutional ruling -- GRAHAM >> Not by changing it. 12:01:02 PM Here is the point. Would you agree -- the reason some legal scholars object to this concept is a breathtakingly unlimited. Whatever five people believe that any given time in history, in terms of the word "Liberty," they can rewrite history and come up with a new history. I think that the best way for democracy to make history is to be a check and balance on us, not to take one word and create a concept that is breathtaking in terms of its application to restrict the legislative process. Now, whether you agree with me or not, I think there is a genuine debate. And you would agree with me if it was something you liked or you were supporting that got shut out. Are you opposed -- you couldn't do. So I hope that one day the court will think long and hard about the path of they have charted. And not just about abortion. Whether or not it is right, or 12:02:05 PM on any given day, based on any given case of controversy, to say that the word "Liberty," looking at the history of the country, that it means X, that all of us have gone to the battle box and gone through the test of being elected, all I ask is that you think about it. Also, I want to ask you about something else to think about. You said you were in the white house on 9/11. Is that Christ? KAVANAUGH >> That is correct, senator . GRAHAM >> Did you believe that America was under attack? KAVANAUGH >> Yes. It was under attack. GRAHAM >> Right. Do you believe that if the terrorists could strike any city in the world, they said I can get one shot at the world, based on your time in the white house, do you believe that they would take an American city over any other city? KAVANAUGH >> Well, it certainly seems that 12:03:06 PM New York and Washington, D.C., were the two targets. GRAHAM >> The only reason that I mention that, my good friends, who believe that America is not part of the battlefield, it sure was on 9/11. The law, if an American citizen goes to Afghanistan and it takes up sides, and they are captured, the current law is that you can be held in spite of your citizenship. Is that correct? KAVANAUGH >> That is what the supreme court said with appropriate due process findings. GRAHAM >> Absolutely. This is what I want people in your business to think about. Are you aware of the fact that the radical islamic groups are trying to recruit Americans to their cause? Over the internet? Trying to get Americans to take of? KAVANAUGH >> Yes. Because the likelihood of an American citizen joining their cause is real. Because it has happened in the past. The likelihood of it happening 12:04:06 PM in the future, I think, is highly likely. If an American citizen is attacking the embassy in kabul, can be held as an American citizen, here's a question. Can an American citizen collaborating with other terrorists who are not American citizens be held as an enemy combatant? And if they can't, you are incentivizing the enemy to find an American citizen because they have a privilege that no other terrorists would have. So you said something was very compelling to me. That you apply the law, and you have to understand how it affects people. Right? KAVANAUGH >> Yes, sir. GRAHAM >> I hope you will understand that this war is not over, that this war is coming back to our shores. It is just a matter of time before they hit us again. We have to be ready all the time. They have to be right one time. 12:05:07 PM I hope we don't create a process where if you can come to America, you get a special deal. Makes it harder for us to deal with you and find out what you know. We treat you as a common criminal, versus the warrior you've become. That's just my parting thought to you. And you will decide the way that you think is best for the country. Is there anything you want to say? About this process? That would help us make it better. Because you are going to get confirmed. I worry about the people coming after you. Every time we have one of these hearings, it gets worse and worse and worse. You sit there patiently for a couple of days. My colleagues have asked you tough questions. Sometimes unfair questions. Your time is about over. 12:06:08 PM You're going to make it. And you would probably be smart not to answer at all. But I will give you a chance to tell us what could we do better, if anything? KAVANAUGH >> Senator, I am just going to thank all the senators on the committee and all that I met with who are not on the committee for their time into their care, and as I said, each senator is committed to public service and the public good in my opinion. I appreciate all of the time with the senators. I am on the sunrise side of the mountain and I am optimistic about the future. GRASSLEY >> Before we break, I want to bring up some information. I was wondering how long it would take the national archives to get the material that we needed because you have heard several times that the archives, that it is their responsibility. At the national archives has 13 archivists who handled it 12:07:09 PM George W. Bush's presidential records. They can only review about 1,000 pages per week, and we could not have gotten these documents for 37 weeks. If we didn't get president bush's team to expedite to the review process for the benefits of members of the committee. We received all of the documenst such we would have received from the archivists just as at a faster time. We will now take 15 minutes and resume at 12: 22. HEARING TAKES BRIEF BREAK

20:45:16:18 MS Harry Connick Jr and daughter Georgia Connick/ WS Connick and Connick walking, posing / MS Alec Bladwin and brother Stephen Baldwin / WS UNID group posing / MS Jack Klugman and wife / V ...

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE - NOVEMBER 20: (EDITORIAL USE ONLY) Miranda Lambert attends the 58th Annual CMA Awards at Bridgestone Arena on November 20, 2024 in Nashville, Tennessee. (Footage by Adam Jason Finmann/Getty Images)

0930 KAVANAUGH HRG SIDE CAM 1 FS3 81 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (Day 3) Full Committee DATE: Thursday, September 6, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley INTRODUCERS: The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Former Secretary of State Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution Professor at Stanford University Stanford, CA The Honorable Rob Portman United States Senator State of Ohio Ms. Lisa S. Blatt Partner Arnold & Porter Washington, DC PANEL I The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt Lake City, UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville, TN PANEL III MAJORITY Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley, NY The Honorable Theodore B. Olson Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven, CT MINORITY: The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville, TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring, MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis, IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York, NY PANEL IV MAJORITY: Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington, DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Foxpoint, WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington, DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles, CA MINORITY: Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland, FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover, PA Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk, ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City, OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington, DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Hamilton, VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA MINORITY: Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston, MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus, OH LEAHY >> I tried to give you a good heads up and I appreciate the meeting, but has anybody else told you, this is what Leahy's 11:30:48 AM staff is asking to do at the hearing tomorrow? KAVANAUGH >> Again, I think this might be a different kind of process because you all were very transparent when I met with you in looking around saying here's what I'm focused on, here's what I'm going to ask you at the hearings and it turns out you were telling -- you were accurately telling me your concerns. But anybody hand you anything marked highly confidential about any one of these senators? >> No, I'm not remembering in like that, but you all did talk about the ish use. In other words, there are no surprises. Well, there are not no surprises but, you know, you gave me basic concerns. LEAHY >> I want to make sure you understand this. Nobody handed you material marked confidential but that is the material you received from Miranda. Days before an extremely controversial hearing for fifth 11:31:48 AM circuit nominee Priscilla Owen, Mr. Miranda sent you an e-mail with the subject line highly confidential, informed you that senator Biden's staff was asking him not to attend the meeting that day. On March 18th, 2003, Mr. Miranda sent you several pages of talking points that were stolen, verbatim, stolen verbatim from democratic files. The talking points revealed arguments Democrats were making on another controversial nominee, Miguel Estrada. The subject line is not available for distribution meaning Mr. Miranda was asking you not to share the information. This has now been as of 3:00 this morning made public. So yesterday you said you didn't have any recollection. 11:32:49 AM LEAHY I'm not going to ask you if you remember receiving this e-mail. I'm going to ask you this. Why would you ever be asked to keep see ved democratic talking points if they were illegally obtained? KAVANAUGH >> I am looking at these, senator, and it looks like Biden's staff is asking him not to attend the hearing. I don't know why that -- LEAHY >> Look how you received it. KAVANAUGH >> I know. Highly -- I don't know why that's even confidential because it -- LEAHY >> Whether it is or not, would you consider that somewhat unusual, to be receiving from a Republican staff member? KAVANAUGH >> As I explands yesterday, senator, my understanding of this process is that the staffs do talk to one another, that they're not camps with no communication. That was my experience when I worked in the white house so this -- it looks like Biden's 11:33:49 AM staff is asking him not to attend the hearing. That would be pretty standard information. LEAHY >> Not really. I would be amazed if somebody handed me a memo saying this is a confidential memo that senator grassley's staff has prepared for him. I not only would not read it, I would be on the phone immediately to senator grassley, say I'm bringing over something that just a arrived and we distributed a letter to, he said I received that letter. You were asked specifically by Mr. Miranda to take no action on the e-mail without his, his instructions. You never asked him how he obtained the letter sent in 11:34:51 AM strict confidence to me. July 30th, 2000, you received an e-mail on 100% that I was receiving a meeting about a controversial meeting. Then further on August 13th, 20200, e-mail bsly being taken from my eye view. Did any of this raise a red flag in your mind? KAVANAUGH >> It did not, senator, because it all seemed consistent with the usual kinds of discussions that happen and sometimes people do say things of here's what my boss is thinking but don't share it around. I must have had, you know, so many conversations in the course of my life like that where someone's saying like that about something. In other words, trying to give you a heads up on something. 11:35:53 AM And that just seemed standard senate staff. So nothing -- the direct answer to your question is, for example, Biden looks like hearing. LEAHY >> Not even where it came from? On June 5th, 2003, you received an e-mail from a Republican senate staffer with the subject line, spying. That is not overly subtle. 1,000 documents. She says she has a mole for us and so forth. None of this raised a red flag for you? KAVANAUGH >> It did not, senator. Again, people have friends across the aisle who they talk to. At least this was my bag then. 11:36:54 AM LEAHY Maybe it's changed. There is a lot of problems account staff. People would talk about I have a friend on senator hatch's staff. That information sharing was common. >> I was born at night but not last night and if I found -- if I had something that somebody said we've stolen this or this is highly -- don't tell anybody we have this, I think it would raise some red flags. Now we only have a fraction of your documents. As you know, the president asserted executive privilege. The first time we've had to face 11:37:54 AM this on a nominee of 102,000 pages of material, 102,000 from just your time in the white house. That includes a lot on judicial nominations. Can you confirm for me today that in that 102,000 pages there are no e-mails from Mr. Miranda marked highly confidential, or do not share, or take no action on this describing what he has found out the Democrats are thinking? KAVANAUGH >> Senator, I am not involved in the documents process so I don't know what's in them. LEAHY >> Well, that is convenient. We don't know what's in them either because we've never had 11:38:54 AM so much held before. We don't know what's in all of the documents that are still being gone through by the archives because this is being rushed through and we don't get a chance to see them. That's not fair to us and, frankly, judge, it's not fair to you. You probably have been told you have to be confirmed so you don't care but I care. I care about the integrity of the supreme court. I care about who's on there. I think you should care what's in that just as we should care what's in it. There are even more documents than I have time to discuss today. I find it impossible to reference out what you're regularly being told. It's your testimony you've received nothing stolen and no reason to suspect nothing was being stolen when, frankly, as we now know, Republican Manny Miranda 11:39:56 AM stole things and some of the things he stole went directly to you. Let me ask you another one. You testified in 2004 that aside from testifying in a moot court argument you did not work on the nomination of judge William Pryor. Now he was a controversial nominee, called roe versus wade the worst abomination in history in regard to constitutional law. He said same-sex marriage would go to necrophilia. You did work on the prior practice group, did you not? KAVANAUGH >> We all were met -- just so you know the process, there's something called the white house I think judicial selection 11:40:57 AM committee, and judge Gonzalez, the counsel to the president chaired that committee. That started immediately after president bush came into office in 2001. So we would meet with memos and individual members of the staff would be assigned to different -- LEAHY >> Did you interview William Pryor? KAVANAUGH >> I don't believe so. It's possible, but I don't believe so, but if I did, it would have been part of the general process where people came in -- LEAHY >> I'd put in the record our exhibit C which said you did interview him. KAVANAUGH >> It's possible. We interviewed hundreds of nominees, as I said, senator, and -- and we met every week for several years to go over nominees and we worked closely with the home state senators. I had various district states. I had Illinois, California, senator Feinstein, senator boxer's staff, Maryland, senator 11:42:00 AM sarbane. Then we would meet and go over the memos. We met every week with the president before September 11th. After September 11th those meetings became less frequent. LEAHY >> You had recommended him internally for the 11th circuit seat, had you not? KAVANAUGH >> Well, I can't -- I have no reason that I wouldn't have recommended him because he was a highly qualified attorney general of Alabama and senator sessions, of course, knew him well and he was well respected. LEAHY >> The only reason I ask is one of the e-mails we have up here, Brent, at your request I ask to speak with Pryor about his interests. I'm not -- I'm not asking these questions to get you in a bind, judge, I'm asking them because it is so easy on these hearings 11:43:01 AM to say I don't remember, and often times that's the case. But you mentioned Mr. Gonzalez. He had difficulty remembering when he came here. He had one hearing where -- so he wouldn't have that problem I gave him I think 35, 45 of the questions ahead of time. On everyone of them he said, I don't remember. I don't recall and then every question -- almost every question answered I don't recall, I don't remember. Shortly after that he went into private practice but T-- I think it is -- I think it is so difficult when -- that you don't remember the things done by 11:44:01 AM somebody who I think on both sides of the aisle we would both agree is one of the most egregious breaches of committee confidentiality, Manny Miranda stole material from here, stole it to send it to you and others at the white house. You have no recollection of that? KAVANAUGH >> I obviously recall the e-mails or have seen the e-mails, but your question -- your larger question was did that raise a red flag, and I've answered that no. KAVANAUGH >> Well, I -- LEAHY when you were in the White House was it your job to coach president bush's judicial nominees how to answer 11:45:02 AM Democrat's questions about Roe versus wade? KAVANAUGH >> Part of our job would have been to prepare nominees more generally and it was common for senators to ask that question then as it is now and so, kwa, I assume that I would have been involved in going through mock sessions. I know we were involved in going through mock sessions, which is very standard for democratic -- LEAHY >> You've been going through some mock sessions with at least one Republican senator from this committee and other Republican senators, and I'm not saying that is a gotcha thing. You have every right to do that. You did advise Sal Owen how she should respond to that. My last question is do you agree that a plastic firearm created with a 3-d printer so that we would not have been in 11:46:03 AM the minds of our founding fathers at the 18th century, would you agree that that could be regulated or banned without creating any second amendment questions? KAVANAUGH >> I think there might be litigation coming on that, senator so, consistent with judicial I Independence principles I shouldn't comment on that. Thank you. >> I've actually written out your answer ahead of time, and I just wrote it so that you did not see what I wrote. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> Senator. GRAHAM >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to introduce into the record an op Ed from the "L.A. Times" editorial board entitled can the supreme court confirmation process ever be repaired, from 2003 from judge Kavanaugh's class, a letter from 11:47:04 AM Georgia's secretary of state Brian Kemp, an op Ed by Mississippi governor bill Bryant. So I ask that that would be allowed. Just say without objection. That's good. Thank you, judge. There are several things I want to go over with you. One, I want to complement senator Leahy in this regard that he worked with senator grassley to get what had been previously committee confidential released to the public and sort of that's the way it works around here. You don't always get what you want but you try to work with your colleagues and many times you can succeed. From the public's point of view, it's got to work this way. You just can't do everything you legislative body. There are rules and it's frustrating to be told no on something you're passionate 11:48:04 about, but I'm often asked, people wonder are these hearings turning into a circus. And I want to defend circuses. Circuses are entertaining and you can take your children to them. This hearing is neither entertaining nor can you take your children to it. Now some of my colleagues I respect greatly are trying to make a point. I don't know what that point is, but I do know this. If you want to be president, which I can understand that, it's hard. And what you do will be the example others will follow. Back to the subject matter. The Morrison case. Was that about separation of powers? KAVANAUGH >> That was a separation of powers case. GRAHAM >> Okay. It was about a congressional 11:49:06 AM statute and the authority of the executive branch and how they cooperated, is that correct? KAVANAUGH >> That's correct. GRAHAM >> And apparently Kagan and Scalia agreed. KAVANAUGH >> Yes. GRAHAM >> Kagan agreed with Scalia's dissent. >> She's called it one of the greatest ever written and she's added, it gets better every year. >> I don't want to get into the habit of saying, listen to Elena Kagan, but listen here, because she's a fine person. The situation about Mr. Mueller, that's not a separation of powers issue, is it? Mr. Mueller was appointed through department of justice regulations. KAVANAUGH >> Sir, I don't want to talk specifically about current events, but I will just refer back to what I've written about special counsel. >> I'm not asking you how to decide a case, I'm just asking you, do you read the paper? Do you watch television?statute 11:50:11 AM counsel in question doesn't exist anymore. KAVANAUGH >> The statute does not exist anymore. It's the ordinary way that outside investigation. GRAHAM >> Is that an executive branch function? KAVANAUGH >> That is appointed by the attorney general. GRAHAM >> Who is a member of what? KAVANAUGH >> Executive branch. GRAHAM >> That's time I checked that's not separation of powers issue. KAVANAUGH >> That's been an executive branch. GRAHAM >> The question is, if someone's appointed as special counsel by the department of justice regulations who has authority over implementing those regulations and overseeing those regulations, all I can say is that's different, legally and factually the morrison situation where you had a statute. Let's talk about the law regarding the president. 11:51:12 AM Clinton V Jones tells us that you can be president of the United States, you can still be sued for conduct before you're president and when you invoke executive privilege, the court said wait, you have show up at a deposition because it happened before you were president, is that correct? KAVANAUGH >> In the civil case of Clinton versus Jones or suit involved activity before Clinton became president. >> It's pretty well understood through supreme court precedent that if you're the president of the United States and you engaged in conduct that allowed you to be sued before you got to be president, you can't avoid your day in court on the civil side. GRAHAM The Nixon holding said what? >> In the context of the specific regulations there that a criminal trial subpoena to the president for information, in that case the tapes, could be enforced. 11:52:12 AM Notwithstanding the executive privilege recognized in that case. >> That's the law of the land as of this moment? KAVANAUGH >> United States versus Nixon is the law of the land. GRAHAM >> Whether or not the president can be indicted while in office has been a discussion that's gone on for a long time, is that true? In the legal world. KAVANAUGH >> That's correct. The department of justice for the last 45 years has taken the consistent position through Republican and democratic administrations that a sitting president may not be indicted while in office. The most thorough is written on Randy Moss who was head of president Clinton's office of legal counsel in the late and 2000. He's now a district judge appointed by President Obama. GRAHAM >> I think you've written on this topic as well. KAVANAUGH >> I've not written on the constitutionality. GRAHAM >> Talking about whether it would be wise to do this? KAVANAUGH >> I've made my thoughts known for congress to examine in the wake of September 11, I thought 11:53:13 AM one of things congress would look at is how to make the presidency more effective. GRAHAM >> I just want my democratic colleagues to remind you that when president Clinton was being investigated you took the position that he's not above the law but in terms of indicting a sitting president, it wod be better for the country to wait. The person who echoed that the most was Joe Biden. There's nothing new here, folks. When it's a democratic president they adopt the positions that their arguing against now. That's nothing new in politics. Iure we do the same thing. This man, judge Kavanaugh, is not doing anything wrong but talking about this issue the wap -- way he talks about it. What we're doing wrong is blending concepts. To justify a vote that's going to be inevitable. 11:54:13 AM You don't have to play the games to vote no. Just say you don't agree with his philosophy. The thing I hate the most is to talk concepts and turn them around, upside down to make people believe there's something wrong with you. There's nothing wrong with you. The fault lies on our side. Most American, after this hearing, will have a dimmer view of the senate, rightly so. I don't want anybody to steal anything. Did you steal anything from anybody why you were working at the white house counsel? KAVANAUGH >> No. LEAHY >> Did you know that anybody stole anything or did you encourage them to steal anything? KAVANAUGH >> No. GRAHAM >> Did you use anything that was stolen? KAVANAUGH >> No. GRAHAM >> You can talk about Mr. Miranda and he deserves all the scorn you can heap on it. I don't want the pulpit to believe that you did anything wrong because I don't believe you did. 11:55:13 AM It's okay to vote no. It's not okay to take legal concepts and flip them upside down and act like we're doing something wrong on the Republican side when you had the exact same position when it was your turn. Roe V. wade, you've heard of that case, right? >> I have. There's a lot of people like it. A lot of people don't. Emotional debate in the country. It's there anything in the constitution about the right to abortion? Anything written? >> The supreme court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 roe V. wade case. >> My question is did they find a phrase in the constitution that said that the state cannot interfere with a woman's right to choose until medical viability occurs? Is that in the constitution? >> Supreme court applying -- >> It's a pretty simple. No, it's not. Those words. KAVANAUGH >> I want to be very careful. This is a topic on which -- GRAHAM >> If you'll just follow me. I'll let you talk. The point is will you tell me, yes or no, is there anything in the document itself talking about limiting the state's ability to protect the unborn before viability? Is there anything phrase in the constitution about abortion? KAVANAUGH >> The supreme court has founded under the liberty clause, but you're right that specifically -- GRAHAM >> Is there anything in the liberty clause talk about abortion? KAVANAUGH >> It refers to liberty. GRAHAM >> Okay. Last time I checked, liberty didn't equate to abortion. The supreme court said it did. Here's the point. What are the limits on this concept? You had five, six, seven, eight or nine judges. What are the limits on the ability of the court to find a 11:57:18 AM number of rights that apply to a particular situation? What are the checks and balances of people in your business if you can find five people who agree with you to confer a right with the public likes it or not based on this concept of a number of rights. What are the outer limits to this? KAVANAUGH >> The supreme court in in case in the lay '90s, is the task that the supreme court uses to find unenumerated rights of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. That refers to rights rooted in the history and tradition of the country so as to prevent -- GRAHAM >> Let me ask you this, is there any right rooted in the history and traditions of the country where legislative bodies could not intercede on behalf of the unborn, medical liability. Would you agree with that or not? I don't think that is part of our history. So fill in the blank. What are the limits of people applying that concept to almost anything that you think to be liberty? KAVANAUGH >> That is the concern that some have expressed of the concept of unenumerated rights. 11:59:25 AM GRAHAM >> You've got one word that has opened up the ability for people people, you can't go there. Off the limits for a democratic process. Whether you agree with roe V. Wade or not, just think what could happen down the road if five people determined the word "Liberty" means X. The only real liberty is a constitutional amendment. Do you agree with that? KAVANAUGH >> I am not trying to come down my comment on potential constitutional amendments. GRAHAM >> If we passed it tomorrow saying that congress can regulate abortions for medical liability, wouldn't that fly in the face of roe V. Wade? 12:00:25 PM KAVANAUGH >> So the supreme court has said that a woman has a constitutional right -- GRAHAM >> So all of us could vote, as we have said, liberty means that the state has no interest year. The compelling interest for medical viability. That we could pass all the laws that we want, it doesn't matter. The only way that we could change that is if it's requires two-thirds of the senate, three fourths of the state. Is that pretty correct legal analysis? >> When they have issued a constitutional amendment. Do you agree with that? KAVANAUGH >> I am not trying to come down my comment on potential constitutional amendments. GRAHAM >> If we passed it tomorrow saying that congress can regulate abortions for medical liability, wouldn't that fly in the face of Roe V. Wade? KAVANAUGH >> So the supreme court has said that a woman has a constitutional right -- GRAHAM >> So all of us could vote, as we have said, liberty means that the state has no interest year. The compelling interest for medical viability. That we could pass all the laws that we want, it doesn't matter. The only way that we could change that is if it's requires two-thirds of the senate, three fourths of the state. Is that pretty correct legal analysis? KAVANAUGH >> When they have issued a constitutional ruling -- GRAHAM >> Not by changing it. 12:01:02 PM Here is the point. Would you agree -- the reason some legal scholars object to this concept is a breathtakingly unlimited. Whatever five people believe that any given time in history, in terms of the word "Liberty," they can rewrite history and come up with a new history. I think that the best way for democracy to make history is to be a check and balance on us, not to take one word and create a concept that is breathtaking in terms of its application to restrict the legislative process. Now, whether you agree with me or not, I think there is a genuine debate. And you would agree with me if it was something you liked or you were supporting that got shut out. Are you opposed -- you couldn't do. So I hope that one day the court will think long and hard about the path of they have charted. And not just about abortion. Whether or not it is right, or 12:02:05 PM on any given day, based on any given case of controversy, to say that the word "Liberty," looking at the history of the country, that it means X, that all of us have gone to the battle box and gone through the test of being elected, all I ask is that you think about it. Also, I want to ask you about something else to think about. You said you were in the white house on 9/11. Is that Christ? KAVANAUGH >> That is correct, senator . GRAHAM >> Did you believe that America was under attack? KAVANAUGH >> Yes. It was under attack. GRAHAM >> Right. Do you believe that if the terrorists could strike any city in the world, they said I can get one shot at the world, based on your time in the white house, do you believe that they would take an American city over any other city? KAVANAUGH >> Well, it certainly seems that 12:03:06 PM New York and Washington, D.C., were the two targets. GRAHAM >> The only reason that I mention that, my good friends, who believe that America is not part of the battlefield, it sure was on 9/11. The law, if an American citizen goes to Afghanistan and it takes up sides, and they are captured, the current law is that you can be held in spite of your citizenship. Is that correct? KAVANAUGH >> That is what the supreme court said with appropriate due process findings. GRAHAM >> Absolutely. This is what I want people in your business to think about. Are you aware of the fact that the radical islamic groups are trying to recruit Americans to their cause? Over the internet? Trying to get Americans to take of? KAVANAUGH >> Yes. Because the likelihood of an American citizen joining their cause is real. Because it has happened in the past. The likelihood of it happening 12:04:06 PM in the future, I think, is highly likely. If an American citizen is attacking the embassy in kabul, can be held as an American citizen, here's a question. Can an American citizen collaborating with other terrorists who are not American citizens be held as an enemy combatant? And if they can't, you are incentivizing the enemy to find an American citizen because they have a privilege that no other terrorists would have. So you said something was very compelling to me. That you apply the law, and you have to understand how it affects people. Right? KAVANAUGH >> Yes, sir. GRAHAM >> I hope you will understand that this war is not over, that this war is coming back to our shores. It is just a matter of time before they hit us again. We have to be ready all the time. They have to be right one time. 12:05:07 PM I hope we don't create a process where if you can come to America, you get a special deal. Makes it harder for us to deal with you and find out what you know. We treat you as a common criminal, versus the warrior you've become. That's just my parting thought to you. And you will decide the way that you think is best for the country. Is there anything you want to say? About this process? That would help us make it better. Because you are going to get confirmed. I worry about the people coming after you. Every time we have one of these hearings, it gets worse and worse and worse. You sit there patiently for a couple of days. My colleagues have asked you tough questions. Sometimes unfair questions. Your time is about over. 12:06:08 PM You're going to make it. And you would probably be smart not to answer at all. But I will give you a chance to tell us what could we do better, if anything? KAVANAUGH >> Senator, I am just going to thank all the senators on the committee and all that I met with who are not on the committee for their time into their care, and as I said, each senator is committed to public service and the public good in my opinion. I appreciate all of the time with the senators. I am on the sunrise side of the mountain and I am optimistic about the future. GRASSLEY >> Before we break, I want to bring up some information. I was wondering how long it would take the national archives to get the material that we needed because you have heard several times that the archives, that it is their responsibility. At the national archives has 13 archivists who handled it 12:07:09 PM George W. Bush's presidential records. They can only review about 1,000 pages per week, and we could not have gotten these documents for 37 weeks. If we didn't get president bush's team to expedite to the review process for the benefits of members of the committee. We received all of the documenst such we would have received from the archivists just as at a faster time. We will now take 15 minutes and resume at 12: 22. HEARING TAKES BRIEF BREAK

<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p>Disney+</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p><pi>The popular franchise "Percy Jackson & the Olympians," following the half-man, half-god son of Poseidon and based on a fantasy YA series of books by Rick Riordan, is about to receive lavish new treatment in a Disney+ series that was teased on Friday.</pi></p>\n<p><pi>The footage for the show showed actor Walker Scobell taking on the role of Jackson. Scobell was previously seen in the Ryan Reynolds Netflix movie "The Adam Project."</pi></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p></p>\n<p>http://www.cnn.com/2023/08/18/entertainment/percy-jackson-and-the-olympians-teaser/index.html</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>'Percy Jackson and the Olympians' teases a bold look for the new fantasy series</p>\n<p>By: Dan Heching, CNN</p>\n<p></p>\n<p>Percy Jackson is getting a jolt of new energy.</p>\n<p><pi>The popular franchise "Percy Jackson & the Olympians," following the half-man, half-god son of Poseidon and based on a fantasy YA series of books by Rick Riordan, is about to receive lavish new treatment in a Disney+ series that was teased on Friday.</pi></p>\n<p><pi>The footage for the show showed actor Walker Scobell taking on the role of Jackson. Scobell was previously seen in the Ryan Reynolds Netflix movie "The Adam Project."</pi></p>\n<p>The teaser doesn't show too much, except a glimpse of a faun, and perhaps a menacing minotaur, two fixtures from the mythical world of Greek gods.</p>\n<p>Jackson's friends Annabeth Chase, played by Leah Jeffries, and Grover Underwood, portrayed by Aryan Simhadri, are also heavily featured in the teaser.</p>\n<p>The story of Percy Jackson has been told before, in two feature film adaptations starring Logan Lerman as the titular hero and Alexandra Daddario as Annabeth -- 2010's "Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief" and "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters" from 2013.</p>\n<p>Other notable cast members in the new "Percy Jackson & the Olympians" series include Megan Mullally, Lance Reddick, Jason Mantzoukas, Jay Duplass and Lin-Manuel Miranda.</p>\n<p>The series starts streaming on December 20.</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TEASE--</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SUPERS</b>--</p>\n<p>Disney+</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VIDEO SHOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--LEAD IN</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--VO SCRIPT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--SOT</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--TAG</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--REPORTER PKG-AS FOLLOWS</b>--</p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>-----END-----CNN.SCRIPT-----</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--KEYWORD TAGS--</b></p>\n<p></p>\n<p><b>--MUSIC INFO---</b></p>\n<p></p>