[applause] mr. Meese thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Its a pleasure for know join john in welcoming you to the heritage foundation. And also to the first event in our preserve the constitution series, which we have each year at this time. And which well continue over eight programs starting today and running through november. Ill say more about that later on. Its appropriate, i think, that we begin our series on preserving the constitution by observing Constitution Day, which, as you know, is the 17th of september. This sunday. Commemorating the day when in 1787 the representatives of 12 states signed the original document and then sent to the states for ratification. I believe that my opinion this date, Constitution Day, in terms of the historical antecedence to our country, is second only to the fourth of july. I say that because as we know on independence day, 1776, 56 men signed the declaration of independence and pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Well, over the next seven years, in the war for independence, some of them lost their lives. Many of them lost their fortunes. But none of them ever lost their sacred honor. Indeed, it was their courageous actions and their sacrifices that they made, in many cases their families made as well, that ultimately made possible a new nation. But the job that theyd accomplished with the declaration of independence and with the war, the job was not yet finished because they also had to establish an Effective National government that would still preserve the liberty that had been won at great cost in that war. Thats why some of the original signers of the declaration, augmented by several others, who had come along into positions of prominence in their various states, gathered together in philadelphia in 1787. They produced, after much debate, and much discussion, the constitution that basically translated the principles of the declaration of independence into what you might call a Strategic Operational plan for the governance of the country. And thats why we celebrate the 17th of september as Constitution Day. To lead us on this commemoration we are fortunate to have as our guest the honorable rod rosenstein, the 37th Deputy Attorney general of the United States. Its interesting, when i was there, i was the 75th attorney general. It seems to me there must be better longevity for deputies than attorneys general. Rod was sworn in april of this year by Jeff Sessions, the attorney general. And he has a very distinguished background for this position. He graduated from the Warton School at the university of pennsylvania with a summa cum laude degree. He then went to harvard, received his j. D. Again, summa cum laude. He was editor of the harvard law review and then upon graduation from law school, he served his initial position as law clerk to judge Doug Ginsburg who served as an assistant attorney general earlier in his career. He was the clerk to judge ginsburg and the United States courts of appeal for the district of columbia. After serving as the clerk, he joined the department of justice through their attorney generals Honor Program in 1990. And has been in several divisions, in several positions in the department of justice. He was the counsel to the Deputy Attorney general. He served in the Criminal Division in the Public Integrity he served in the tax division. He was an assistant United States attorney for the district of maryland, where he worked with johnny who is here today who was the marshal of that district at the time. And of course ultimately was the United States attorney for the district of maryland, where he served from 2005 to 2017. You might note if you figure out those dates that he served in two different administrations for two different parties, with senators who were not necessarily the same party of his. And it is an indication, i think, of quality of his work and the respect that he had as the u. S. Attorney for that district. Well, he was ultimately confirmed by the senate on the 25th of april of this year. And i believe was one of the first deputies of a cabinet officer to be confirmed by the senate. We are very happy to have him with us today to commemorate the constitution. Please join me in welcoming rod rosenstein. [applause] mr. Rosenstein thank you for that kind introduction. I am the 37th attorney Deputy Attorney general of the United States. Iserage tenure is form 14 months. Im at about four months and two weeks. But whos counting . [laughter] its a remarkable privilege for me to be on this stage with ed meese. You are a legend at the department of justice. When ed meese served as attorney general under president reagan, he emphasized one thing. Over all else. The rule of law. General meese famously told the American Bar Association in 1985, we will pursue our agenda within the context of our written constitution of limited yet energetic powers. Our guide in every case will be the sanctity of the rule of law and the proper limits of government power. Those words resonate today. The rule of law is not merely a feature of america. The rule of law is the foundation of america. A generation after the era of reagan and meese, President Trump honored their legacy by nominating judges who administer Justice Without respect to persons. And by appointing department of justice officials who promote the rule of law. Attorney general Jeff Sessions reveres the rule of law. Thats why a portrait of ed meese enjoys pride of place today in the attorney generals conference room. Towering above our meetings, his vision serves as a reminder of the legacy we inherited and inspiration to carry it forward and an admonition that the right path is not always the easy path. On Constitution Day, it is appropriate to keep in mind that although the power of the federal government is vast, it is expressly limited. And those who are entrusted with the exercise of federal authority must be energetic in enforcing the law. But we must restrain ourselves from assuming authority beyond our lawful mandate. Our power is limited by law. And we are obligated to respect those limits even when no one objects. Unfortunately too few american citizens know the details of our constitution. And some discount the rule of law. If you ask whether a particular legal decision is right, most citizens focus only on whether they favor the policy outcome. Even many lawyers instinctively look to the result rather than the reasoning. Today i want to discuss the role of the executive branch, and particularly the department of justice, in maintaining and advancing the rule of law. Article 2 of our constitution states that the president must take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Those few words raised complex questions at the founding and they continue to challenge us today. Many citizens do not think about our legal system in terms of the words written in the constitution or the United States code. Instead they think of the people and the institutions they encounter in their everyday lives. Whether in person, on television or in social media. Politicians, Police Officers, prosecutors, court clerks, defense lawyers, and of course judges. Thats a practical reason why the people who run our institutions are so critical to the success of our democracy. They symbolize the democracy. But theres a deeper reason why the people matter. The rule of law is not just about words on paper. The rule of law is about the character of the people who are charged with enforcing the law. If they uphold it faithfully, the result will be a high degree of consistency and uniformity. Those features are among the primary reasons i why our nation has thrived reasons why our nation has thrived. Theres an insightful story about a remark made by benjamin franklin. After he finished deliberating with the framers in philadelphia. As the story goes, franklin was walking home from the Constitutional Convention when he encountered a woman named ms. Powell. Mrs. Powell approached him with a question. She asked dr. Franklin, what sort of government the founders had created. Franklin replied with these words, a republic, madam, if you can keep it. Mrs. Powells question illustrates that it was not inevitable that our nation would begin as a democratic republic. And franklins answer reminds us that it is not inevitable that our nation will remain a democratic republic. Franklin realized that the constitution comes with a condition. You need to keep it. When we use the word keep in modern english, we usually mean it in the sense of holding something in our possession. Heres a 20 bill. Keep the change. Keeping something in that sense is passive. But thats not the meaning that franklin intended. He used the word keep in the same sense that someone today might say, keep the sabbath. Its an active verb. It means there are things you need to do if you want to preserve it. Some people think that the duty to keep our government falls to politicians. But franklin spoke to an ordinary person on the street. More significantly, a woman who at the time did not even have the right to vote. Yet franklin said it was up to her to keep the republic. Franklins work was done. The words were written. On parchment. The decision whether or not to keep the republic, though, was left to others. The lesson is that were all keepers of the republic. More specifically, each of us has a duty to keep the republic. One of the most important things that we as executive Branch Officials do to keep the republic is to promote the rule of law. As attorney general sessions said just a few days ago, we inherited from the founders an unsurpassed legal heritage which is the foundation of our freedom, safety and prosperity. The attorney general explained the department of justice does not represent any narrow interest or any subset of the american people. We represent all of the american people. And we protect the integrity of our constitution. That is our charge. Those words convey a fundamental precept. The department of justice does not choose sides because of the identity of a party. We do not enforce the law against some people and ignore others based on our own biases or any other inappropriate considerations. We follow neutral principles. The point of the rule of law is to maintain a fair and rational system, characterized by impartiality. And universality. That is it applies equally to each person. Under the rule of law, the people tasked with enforcing the law need to do it impartially. That is active work. To say we enforce the law impartially does not mean that we enforce it mechanically. It means that we enforce it rationally. With different results must be based on different facts. And the differences need to be objective. That bring me back to my earlier point about the people who make up the department of justice. The ideal prosecutor is dogged, but not someone who proceeds all at cost. Nor is the ideal prosecutor a zealot who demands criminal punishment for every violation of the law. Robert jackson, another of our great attorneys general, observed that if the department of justice were to make even a pretense of reaching every probable violation of federal law, 10 times its present staff would be inadequate. Driving the point home, jackson explained, no local police force can strictly enforce the traffic laws. Or it would arrest half the driving population on any given morning. With an ever growing criminal code, those words are more true today than when jackson spoke them in 1940. His point was simple. Violations of the law abound. What every prosecutor is practically required to do, he said, is to select cases for prosecution and to select those in which the offense is the most flagrant, the public harm the greatest, and the proof the most certain. As jackson recognized the prosecutor necessarily chooses which cases to prosecute. And that ability to choose which cases to prosecute is an extraordinary power. Courts exercise the ultimate authority to rule on the strength of the evidence in the meaning of the law. But the decision whether or not to prosecute, as the Supreme Court has ruled, is illsuited to judicial review. Such unreviewable power calls for the exercise of discretion. And the wise use of that discretion. So when asked why did you prosecute this case, it will not do for the prosecutor to respond, because i can or because i must. The only right answer is, because i should. The task of enforcing the law is not devoid of discretion. Discretion is simply inherent in Law Enforcement. So when used by lawyers, the word discretion means freedom of choice. The power to make a decision according to ones own judgment. When someone decides to act on a matter that is trusted to their discretion, the decision is permissible regardless of whether it is wise. I chose to speak at heritage today. At not at brookings or cato. [laughter] that choice was within my lawful discretion. I made it in good faith. I hope you agree that it was a good choice. [applause] but youre free to criticize it. I dont need to prove that it was the best choice. By definition, discretion means that the rules allow a range of permissible options. Discretion is the power to make a choice that is wrong in the sense that it may not be the objectively best choice. But when government officials are vested with discretion, they have a special obligation to take care that they do make the objectively best choice. And that requires wisdom. A seventh circuit opinion described a challenge for federal prosecutors with these words. The department of justice wields enormous power over peoples lives. Much of it beyond effective judicial or political review. With power comes responsibility. Moral if not legal. For its prudent and restrained exercise. And responsibility implies knowledge, experience and sound judgment. Not just good faith. Not just good faith. Of course good faith is important. Its often essential in order to avoid doing the wrong thing. And good faith generally is a valid defense to a claim of misconduct. But the department of justice does not measure success by whether we acted in good faith. The issue of whether we use the right motive is not deposited. Our goal is to make the objectively right choice based on articulable reasons. The most difficult management challenges we face in the department of justice are prosecutors who act in good faith, but make unwise judgments. Acting with honor is no substitute for acting with wisdom. Its important to have the right motive. But it is even more important to do the right thing. So in our world, thats what it means to keep the republic. And to uphold the rule of law. We uphold it by making wise decisions. Usually in the absence of complete information, often in the presence of exigent circumstances and sometimes in the face of sincere criticism. Ive spoken so far about a prosecutors need to act and act wisely. Let me take a few minute also to about the consequences of not acting. Attorney general sessions observed last week, enforcing the law saves lives, protects communities and taxpayers, and prevents human suffering. Failure to enforce the laws puts our nation at risk of crime, violence and even terrorism. Inaction always comes at a cost. Although sometimes the cost is hidden. If government fails to enforce the law, then honorable people may be forced to choose between being cheated and becoming corrupt themselves. A society that allows crime to flourish may soon lose its commitment to the rule of law. Thats why i worry on local governments seemingly abdicating their duty to keep the peace and instead allow criminals to control their streets. Its why when i served as United States attorney, my office stood up to corruption in places where people needed to compromise their principles in order to run their businesses. Keeping the peace and fighting corruption is hard work. Turning a blind eye and ignoring the consequences is usually easier and often more lucrative. At least in the short run. But in the long run, defending the rule of law is the very best way to maintain liberty. And its important to keep in mind that the rule of law is not just about prosecuting people who violate our laws, its also about protecting people even when they offend our sensibilities. We see this play out when government officials are called upon to defend protesters, even when the cause is repugnant. In recent months weve watched Police Officers protect marchers who disparage them and extremists who reject their values. The professionalism of those courageous officers demonstrates their devotion to the rule of law. But not everyone shares that commitment. A senator recently expressed concern about the number of Young Americans who think the First Amendment is dangerous. Because someone can use freedom of speech to hurt another persons feelings. That is actually quite the point of america. As the senator observed. We would all do well to remember the words of a young state legislator in 1838. At age 28, Abraham Lincoln had recently moved from a small struggling pioneer town to the capital city of springfield, illinois. Lincoln was alarmed by the rising political passions and mob violence of that era. In a nearby town, a proslavery mob had set out to destroy the Printing Presses of an abolitionist publisher named elijah lovejoy. The mob raided a warehouse, burned a building and murdered lovejoy. According to lincolns friend, the future president was revolted by the episode. That murder influenced lincolns First Published address. He gave a speech a prophetic title. The perpetuation of our Political Institutions. He spoke about the necessity of the rule of law. Lincoln recognized that adherence to the rule of law is what makes selfgovernment possible. If people reject their responsibility to obey the law, Political Institutions may collapse. And lincoln offered two vivid examples to illustrate his point. The first involved the death by hanging of people that lincoln referred to as, and i quote, regular gamblers. I dont know what other type there were. Regular gamblers. These were a set of men, certainly not following a very useful or very honest occupation. Those are lincolns words. In his words, those gamblers were worse than useless and their execution in an abstract matter was never a matter of reasonable regret with anyone. But the executed gamblers had received no due process. By turning a blind eye to extra judicial killing, the government set a snowball rolling down a hill. Next, said lincoln, they went after men who were caught up and hanged in other parts of the state. Then friends of the earlier suspect. Finally, strangers from neighboring states where in many instances subjected to the same fate. Thus according to lincoln, went on this process of hanging until dead men were seen literally dangling hanging from the bows of trees upon every roadside. His second example was similarly vivid. As he described it, a man in st. Louis was seized in the street, dragged away, chained to a tree and actually burned to death. All within a single hour from the time he had been a free man attending to his own business and at peace with the world. In this case there were suspicions that the victim was himself a criminal. Who had murdered one of the most worthy and honorable citizens of the city and had he not died as he did, he would have died by sentence of the law a very short time afterwards. But that was not the point. Lincoln observed that when men take it in their heads today to hang gamblers or burn murderers, they should recollect that in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn someone who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is. And that acting upon the example they set, the mob of tomorrow may and probably will hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake. Its worth noting that lincolns stories predate by about a century the better known quotation which concludes, had they came for me, there was no one left to speak of. Robert bolt illustrated the same point in his brilliant play about sir thomas moore, a man for all seasons. In bolts version, moore defends the rule of law in argument with his soninlaw. Roper is angry that moore would give the benefit of the rule of law even to the devil. Analogizing laws to trees, roper insists he that he would cut down every tree if necessary in order to destroy the devil. Moore replies, oh. And when the last law was down and the devil turned round on you, where would you hide, roper . The laws all being flat. The point is if we permit the rule of law to erode when at first it does not directly harm our personal interests, the erosion may eventually consume us as well. The rule of law is not selfexecuting. And if it collapses, if people lose faith in the rule of law , then everyone will suffer. So what was lincolns solution . The declaration of independence and the constitution were his guide stars. Just as the patriots of 1776 and the founders of 1787 revered the constitution and the rule of law, so too should future generations. Let reverence for the law be breathed by every american mother. Let it be taught in schools, in seminaries and in colleges. Let it be written in primer spelling books. Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls and enforced in courts of justice. And lincoln concluded, let it become the political religion of the nation. Let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and all sexes and tongues and colors and condition, let them all keep the rule of law. When that fails throughout the nation, lincoln said, efforts to subvert liberty will be fruitless and vain. Abraham lincoln understood that the best way to ensure the survival of our edifice of liberty and equal rights is to enshrine reverence for the rule of law in the hearts of the people. And not just in the words of the law books. So in that spirit, as we celebrate Constitution Day this weekend, i want to thank each of you, and especially ed meese and the heritage foundation, for everything you do to defend the rule of law. And to keep the republic. Let me close with a toast to the generation of 1787 might have uttered to celebrate our founding contract. To the rule of law at the beginning, to the rule of law today, and to the rule of law for generations to come. Thank you very much. [applause] mr. Meese rod, thank you very much for an outstanding talk on behalf of the constitution and for the commemoration of this particular day. I hope that this is something that heritage can publish so that it will be a lasting remembrance what have you had to say here today. But also as an instruction for people. Because i think one of the problems today is that not enough people understand the constitution, know enough about it, particularly dont understand its origins. I know youve agreed to take a few questions. Ill ask the first one. What can be done, particularly in the absence of Civic Education in our schools and colleges, in order to get the kind of message that you gave us today to more people, particularly young people . Mr. Rosenstein thats a challenging question. What can be done in the absence of Civic Education because my answer would be, we should have Civic Education. And i think to some extent we do. My children are in schools where they learn a fair amount about the constitution. But i do think we all need to take it upon ourselves, we hold events like this one. We recognize Constitution Day every year. And we should take every opportunity we can to focus on the fact, as we say, that liberty should not be taken for granted. That we havent always had it. Theres no guarantee we always will have it. And the constitution is a fundamental guarantee that we have here in america. So i think that the solution really is education. If not in schools, then in other venues. But as lincoln said, we should take every opportunity to promote the rule of law and to teach it for the next generation. Mr. Meese this is a rare opportunity that this audience has and that is to have the one of the ranking members of the department of justice here. And im sure there are at love and im sure there are a lot of questions that many of you have. Ive received one of the questions is, how badly have you and Jeff Sessions been hampered by the very slow pace of executive appointees being confirmed . Mr. Rosenstein its been very frustrating. We have some superb nominees for the leadership positions in the department of justice and the process has been extremely slow. The confirmation process, for reasons having nothing to do with the merit of the candidates, has been slowed down. I think thats what to me is most depressing about the current circumstances. It would be understandable if occasionally there are issues with a particular nominee. But for the most part, the just a matter of being mired down in process for people that we know are exceptionally qualified and ultimately will be confirmed. So thats not my responsibility, the legislative branch. But i do think it would be certainly better for everybody if the congress could at least identify folks who really arent controversial nominees, who are going to be confirmed eventually, and rather than delaying their confirmation, rather than disrupting their lives, and creating difficulties not just for the department of justice, for other agencies of government, to allow that process to move a little quickly. Theres going to be situations where legislators have legitimate concerns about particular nominees. But what weve seen really is just acrosstheboard obstruction of good people who really deserve to be confirmed and really should be permitted to come onboard and get started. Mr. Meese another question thats come up, and that is, theres been quite a bit of talk about leaks. I think its a perennial subject with any administration, but is the Department Going to revisit its policy on how to deal with the press in terms of conducting leak investigations . Mr. Rosenstein in the department of justice, obviously, were bound by the constitution of the laws. Then we have policies and practices. And the policies and practices are not written in stone. Its a continuing effort, i think, in the department to identify ways that those policies and practices might be changed to more effectively accomplish our work. So this policy that the attorney general made research to, made reference to theres a , longstanding written policy in the department on regulation, governing the way we conduct investigations that may implicate news media interests. That policy was revised a few years ago and were reviewing it to determine whether or not its appropriate to make any other changes. I think people should withhold criticism unless and until we do make change. There are legitimate concerns on all sides. But from the departments perspective, we really are making a good faith effort to consult with our prosecutors and our agents. Were going to talk with media representatives and if we got it exactly right, in the most recent version we wont need to change it, but the possible that it is possible there are some provisions that might warrant revision. Mr. Meese the attorney general has given a number of talks already. I think its been very interesting to that hes gone around both with lay audiences and Law Enforcement audiences about the department of justice and the policies of this administration. What do you see as some of the major policy initiatives and emphasis of this administration in the department . Mr. Rosenstein how much time do we have . [laughter] i can give you a few highlights. The attorney general has been very energetic in implementing policies and making policy changes. I should emphasize that you should understand the department of justice is a large institution. They have 115,000 employees and tens of thousands of contractors. A lot of different functions. The majority of the work of the department goes on from administration to administration. There are some significant changes, but most of the work goes on. In terms of the highlights, the most significant change that any administration brings is a sense of what its priorities should be. Thats reflected in where we put additional resources, what things were tracking on a daily basis. The attorney generals made clear that we are elevating Drug Enforcement and Violent Crime enforcement and Immigration Enforcement because theres been a lapse of enforcement. Where do we see the impact of that . We see it in crime rates. I think Drug Enforcement is the area where its most obvious and most devastating. The number of americans who are dying of Drug Overdose deaths has been skyrocketing. And theres an increasing amount of publicity but i still think not enough, as a parent of teenagers. I think its important for people to recognize that we are losing a lot of people around the country to Drug Overdose deaths. The preliminary totals for 2016 were 64,000. 64,000 americans lost their lives to Drug Overdose deaths last year. And a large proportion of them, i think its about half, were due to opioid drugs. Thats heroin, oxycodone and increasingly fentanyl which is a synthetic drug that has many analogues, most of which are produced and then imported from china. They are causing devastation throughout the country. And so the question is about priorities. Whats the logical thing to do if more people are dying of illegal substances . It makes sense that we should invest more of our resources in prosecuting that. So were ramping up the commitment of resources to drugs. Similarly with Violent Crime, weve seen significant increases in Violent Crime in many places in the country. And the academics debate whether what we see is a trend or a blip and whether it is uniform or merely a matter of increases in many cities. We know its increasing. I saw a dramatic increase in baltimore where i was u. S. Attorney. Its continuing to rise. The murder toll is devastating in places like chicago and many other american cities. And so we are making that a priority and devoting our resources to combating that. In terms of policy changes, one concrete thing that weve done is to change what we refer to as the departments charging policy. I dont want to go into too much detail today but theres a policy written by the attorney general that instructs our prosecutors, our assistant u. S. Attorneys, about how they should go about determining what charges to bring. I talked earlier about discretion. What charges to bring this their in their discretion in a particular case. The traditional policy of the department was in place for a very long time. Certainly through the meese era. But theres a written policy that was first codified by attorney general around 1979 that said we should always as a default charge the most serious readily provable offense. That is our baseline. And about three or four years ago, the department varied somewhat from that policy in drug cases. And prohibited prosecutors from charging the most serious readily provable offense unless certain conditions pertained and the attorney general has changed that policy. Really vested discretion back in our prosecutors. And one of the goals of that is to allow our prosecutors on the front line throughout the country in appropriate cases to bring serious charges that are going to allow them to dismantle violent gangs and drug organizations and we think that can have an impact on Violent Crime and drugs. I could talk a very long time. But i know you have other questions. Ill stop there. Mr. Meese theres another question thats on that point. Particularly what is the policy of the department in regard to enforcing title 21, the federal marijuana laws, particularly in states that have now under state law legalized it, at least in part or sometimes beyond that . Mr. Rosenstein im not allowed to take a pass, right . [laughter] just kidding. This is an interesting challenge. The attorney generals been very clear. Our position and the position of the United States. Because its reflected in law. Marijuana is illegal. And its a controlled substance and there are no authorized uses for it. With very limited exceptions for research approved by d. E. A. But there are several states that have decriminalized marijuana. Theyre not enforcing it under state law. And in some states theyre licensing certain marijuana growers. The department responded to this several years ago in a series of memos that were intended to provide guidance for u. S. Attorneys in those districts about when they should prosecute marijuana cases. It was largely an effort to codify the traditional principles of federal prosecution. That is, as i mentioned, we have discretion, we have limited resources. How do we determine which cases were going to pursue . And so it set forth certain conditions for evaluating which cases to pursue. Thats been perceived in some places almost as if it creates a safe harbor. But it doesnt. And its pretty clear that it doesnt. That is, even if under the terms of the memo youre not likely to be prosecuted, it doesnt mean that what youre doing is legal or that it is approved by the federal government or that youre protected from prosecution in the future. So we are reviewing that policy, we havent changed it. But we are reviewing it. Were looking at the states that have legalized or decriminalized marijuana. Trying to evaluate what the impact is. I think theres some pretty significant evidence that marijuana turns out to be more harmful than a lot of people anticipated. And its more difficult to regulate than i think was contemplated ideally by some of those states. So were going to take that all into consideration and then make a determination of whether or not to revise that policy. Mr. Meese i have one last question because i know the time is marching on. But that is, in another area, in terms of white collar crime, does the Department Plan to revisit its policies and guidance concerning corporate prosecutions . Mr. Rosenstein i clarify, when i said earlier, take a pass. That was a joke. Im willing to take any question. Yeah, with regard to corporate prosecution, once again this is an area where theres discretion and there have been various policies written from time to time. Most recently my predecessor, sally yates, wrote a memo a couple of years ago which was an effort to articulate how we would go about corporate fraud prosecutions. And one of the goals was to clarify when we were going to prosecute individuals as opposed to resolving cases against corporations. Corporations of course dont go to prison. They do pay a fine. And so the issue is, can you effectively deter corporate crime by prosecuting corporations or do you in some circumstances needs to prosecute individuals . I think you do. The yates memo was an effort to advise federal prosecutors and civil attorneys in the department of justice about how to go about making that decision, whether to pursue individuals or accept corporate resolution. Once again, its under review and i anticipate that there may be some changes to the policy on corporate prosecutions. And to clarify again, were talking about not changing the constitution of the law, its the policies and practices of the department. And thats really pretty routine. Every administration i think looks at these issues and determines whether or not the internal guidelines that have been written in the last administration are effectively addressing what we think is the crime problem of the present. And so i dont have any announcement for you today about that but i do anticipate we may in the near future make an announcement about what changes were going to make to the corporate fraud principles. Mr. Meese on behalf of heritage and this audience today, we appreciate very much not only your words about the constitution, your eloquent speech, but also your candor in answering the questions that have been presented to you here. Thank you very much. Mr. Rosenstein thank you. [applause] mr. Meese ladies and gentlemen, before you leave, let me mention the fact that on tuesday, the 19th of september, thats next tuesday, we will continue our preserve the constitution series by having a preview of the Supreme Court cases for the 2017 term. We will have with us the honorable paul clement who is a former solicitor general of the United States and a partner in the law firm of kirkland and ellis. As well as a partner in the firm of akin and others. It will be hosted by Elizabeth Slattery from our legal center here at heritage. We invite you all to come back there and at the same time to get further information on further meetings that we have such as this, concerning the constitution. Thank you all for being with us today. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the Progressive Policy Institute David Osborne examined the Charter School movement and offers his thoughts on the future of public education. He is interviewed by the president emeritus of fordham institute. Also this weekend, law professors talk about how military technology is changing the way we fight wars and defend ourselves against old and new threats. That all this weekend on cspan2s booktv, television for serious reader. Now we kick off the weekend with New York Times science reporter Henry Fountain the report on the largest earthquake recorded in north america that happened on march 27, 1964 in alaska. It measured 9. 2 on the richter scale, killed over 130 people and affected the southern half of the state. [inaudible conversations] good evening. Im bradley graham, coowner of politics and prose love with my wife, and on behalf of the entire staff, welcome. Thank you very much for coming. So if youre like me, you pick up henrys new book, the great quake and you immediately
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.