It seems very much that the department of justice are in the headlines about all whats going on in t the country, if its not the protests in portland or in kenosha, if its not issues about covid and restrictions and whether they should be followed or not, if its not about the election and concerns about the legality of the election at the procedures to the election, not to mention the number of cases that involve administrative officials and the dojs role as those cases go through the system. We have a lot to talk about today at of what to start with the big question, and the big question is, does this look different to you . Doesnt look like a different environment than would you,ik fr example, the two of you at department of justice, or are we just overreacting . Lets begin with you because you were there the longest time ago, josh larocco come seeking give us some recent history. And i have the gray hairs. Thanks, karen. Its good to be here. I thought i would start with come to question of sort of what has the Department Look like and would talk about National Security today in particular. Lag us up to the present moment. In getting ready for todays conversation, i decided to go and look at the recent press releases, recent announcements on cases, see what is being publicly announced. I went back to the beginning of august, end of july. Drowning this conversation in National Security, i saw any number of cases in the National Security realm that you could have taken the same snapshot from five years ago, 10 years ago. I saw a Material Support case, attempted Material Support case for isis, one about al qaeda, some very interesting cases involving the cyber threat, the takedown of cryptocurrency terroristelated to organizations, and so forth. In that snapshot, on the one hand, you can say the study stream of National Security prosecutions that have been in place in one form or the other since september 11 and picked up steam with the founding of the National Security division in 2006 remains consistent. I have thought for a long time that the general public, who doesnt follow these issues on a daytoday basis, would generally be surprised to find that these cases are happening with some regularity. Isisugust, there was an case, or what have you. On that level, there has been a remarkable degree of consistency. The second thing i would say is you place that in the context of cases,you place those what is happening on the daytoday line level with the larger context. To use a phrase from davids book, what is the difference between institutional government and the political class, or the political set of factors that weigh in on any administration . That is the interesting dividing line, if you will, that i think he will get into today. Do you think the National Security following up the National Security division in 2006, as you say, is sort of what is true for them is true for other departments in the department of justice, or not . If you extrapolate out, there is a steady stream of what i would call regular bread and butter cases being brought across the department. Of course, do you everyone is well aware, unlike a lot of other executive Branch Agencies that have this dichotomy between the institution of main justice and individually appointed u. S. Attorneys separately president ial appointees confirmed in the district around the country. Again, i think there is a tremendous amount of that work that goes on daytoday. You in ons bring this. Your experience is more recent, having worked for the Obama Administration. I am just wondering how you see this. Particularly talk about the department of justice in the whole, but also if you like the nsd. Casesount of terrorism that joshua is referring to are down in numbers, have been since the end of the Obama Administration emma largely because of the defeat of the caliphate, a number of other reasons. National Security Division doing these days . Are some of the politically charged issues like black lives matter protests, the threats to them, is that in the National Security interest or elsewhere . I want to thank everyone for setting this up. Its a pleasure to be doing this with david, josh, karen, tackling such an important issue. To maybe make a comparison and build on what josh said, when people ask is the Supreme Court divided or polarized . You sometimes hear people say there are cases that are nearly unanimous that the public does not notice. That feels like a comparison to what josh is rightly calling our attention to. Prosecutions and other matters done primarily by career officials that are roughly continuing a pace at least in the National Security space, maybe not in the Voting Rights section or the environmental book, but in the National Security state. What people say about the Supreme Court is there are some highprofile cases that are polarized. Those cases happen to matter a lot. Again the analogy holds up here. There are some highprofile cases that are being handled very unusually now, and they matter a lot. It me zoom in and give may not seem like a big moment, but it reveals just how disruptive that Political Leadership of the Justice Department is to norms and traditions. Folks may recall when the Inspector GeneralJustice Department, michael horowitz, issued his longawaited and just plain long report on the origins of the Russian Investigation, for lack of a better way to civil if i what he looked into. He found there was no political bias to the opening of the investigation, though, he did identify problems with the fisa process at a granular level. Within hours of it being issued, john durham, prosecutor in the Justice Department, issued a statement, saying he disagreed with horowitzs conclusions, and that his own investigation might yield something different. Again, that may seem like a few sentences, and it was. It was also completely wild. That a prosecutor would do two things, one, disagree with the work of his own departments Inspector General that had issued pages and pages after months of investigations wild. Second, that he would comment about what is going on with his own investigation while the investigation was still occurring. I would say not just wild but inappropriate. That is just a piece of what the Justice Department is doing right now, to go back to josh, and his efforts to situate us. At the same time, the things under that political magnifying glass seem to me to be handled friendly right now from how we used to see them handled, and frankly, how we would like to see them handled. Karen david, part of your recent book focuses on the longterm scope. You talk about changes from one administration to another. There were politicized issues within the department of justice, and then sort of a recalibration after. Do you want to put this in perspective in how you see it, given your knowledge of the history of the department . David i want to thank you as well for setting this up. Knowned both joshs who more than i do about the Justice Department. Thank you for the institutional government plug. [laughter] i still have more on that. And i am a nerd, so let me get that out there. Him that much about the Justice Department, i had worked more overseas as a journalist. The key thing for me is understanding the modern Justice Department, and you understand it through the example of john mitchell, Richard Nixons attorney general, who used his office to investigate the vietnam war protesters, black panthers, and other groups, as a way to reinforce president nixons messaging about chaos in the country, the need for law and order. Mitchell, he left his post as attorney general and then famously chaired president nixons Reelection Campaign and then ended up going to jail for his actions as his role in the campaign. You had these massive reforms in the 1970s. You had president ford appoint edward leavy as attorney general. You know him, i think many love him. President of the university of chicago. Many people watching may know this already but he created this idea that the attorney general should carry out justice programs, Law Enforcement priorities that the president asks to do. Barack obama wanted to crackdown on environmental, or Voting Rights, lets say, violations, and President Trump wants to crackdown on crime, that is his right. He is a democratically elected president. But the difference is if the president wants to crackdown on pharmaceutical companies, he can say that to the attorney general, but it should not be mr. Attorney general, go after this certain pharmaceutical ceo because he did not give me a campaign donation. All of this is old to you, but it helped me understand the modern Justice Department, the modern attorney general, edward leavy embodied it. We can talk about the ups and through billm all barr. To have people trust the politically neutral enforcement of the law. And i do think that is being questioned. I agree with josh, the institution is functioning. Dangerous people are being prosecuted across the country. People should not overreact to the headlines about what is happening, but i think the department is being used in a way to aid a president s Political Goals and reelection efforts in a way that it has not been used since watergate. Karen that is interesting. Are you all making a distinction between the doj on the one hand and the office of the attorney general on the other hand, that you can sort of separate them and assess them differently . I think this attorney general is making that more of a distinction that we are accustomed to seeing. We are having this conversation just hours after the attorney general gave yet another interview again, attorney generals sometimes give interviews, sometimes they speak, but to do so in the way that this is attorney general does the where he deliberately replicates words chosen by the president , whether that is how he described a rush investigation in 2016, how he talks about mailin ballots, despite telling congress under oath he had no evidence to support his characterization, and again saying it on national tv last night when he creates his mouthpiece as something as prominent as it is and as allied with the president as it is, i think it is the attorney general who makes that office and that person, in some ways, a distinction below from the department from a greater degree than we have been accustomed to in the past. Karen let me ask you to weigh in onhere. There have been attorney generals in the past that have been close to the president. John f. Kennedy had his brother as his attorney general. It is not the closeness in and of itself that matters but the office. Is there a distinction to be made . Maybe david can talk about this. In the past, there have been suggestions that the attorney general role and the department of justice role should be rolled out as a completely independent entity. Answer let me try to that in the lens of National Security. One of the challenges when you talk about National Security is, in some ways, is more a subjective area than other areas of the law. We can talk about certain types of violent crime, homicide of course prosecuted at the state level. There is not a lot of debate around homicide. There is certainly debate around punishment and that sort of thing, but not National Security. The National Security priorities of the country are always changing. There are a variety of components that go into that. When you talk about National Security, you talk about the nature of the threat, the Threat Landscape has changed dramatically as always changed cyber, the area that i working a lot, is the biggest headline in terms of the changing nature of the threat. When you say, what do prosecutions look like, what are the enforcement priorities of the Department Looking like at any given time . There are always prosecutorial choices being made. In the National Security arena, if you start with what are the priorities of the country, and how do you protect them, taking action and so forth . That will change over time. The example i would use in terms of saying what parts of the institution are consistent, what parts of the institution are dynamic across administrations, i think the sanctions regime is a good example. Enhanced sanctions, the increased use of sanctions is a well told story at this point since september 11, even though sanctions have been in place under different regimes before september 11. But the expanded use of sanctions has been moving in one direction under various administrations for quite some time now. So you have that line happening, but you have choices being made by different administrations at Different Levels about who will be sanctioned and for what purpose. The sanctions regime, as everyone knows, is incredibly complex, very dynamic, changes on a daytoday basis. For example, if you are on the backside trying to keep up with who to keep out of the u. S. Financial system. On the one hand, you see consistency. It is a tool that has been used by lots of different types of administrations. On the other hand, you are making strategic choices about who will be sanctioned when, and what purposes. Karen one of the questions that comes to us and it fits perfectly into this conversation is from johnny dwyer. Is the nature of National Security changing, the definition of National Security changing . We hear about the protests themselves being a National Security concern of major importance. That . O you think about do we need a rethink in terms of the National Security division . Its portfolio become broader, is it focusing domestically in ways it has not before, how do we think about it . Joshua it is a great question from johnny, who has written about these issues. The recognition that it is not that there is a set of cases that is obvious and objective, that any Justice Department simply needs to pick up and do. Instead, there are policy choices, leadership choices about where to find cases in the first place. Or as josh said, to use an established tool but how to direct it. NotJustice Department is just a place that turns out law but also makes policy choices. A National Security division was created in part to enhance the Justice Departments policy role, voice in the interagency process. It is incumbent on the National Security division amidst the broader Justice Department to keep up. When i had the pleasure of working there, folks like lisa monico, mary mccord made sure the division, while never taking its eye off of the terrorist right, realized cyber thing was getting bigger and more consequential. Josh is the real cyber expert in this crew. But that is an important pivot you seek,he expertise who you hire, what parts of partnerships you forged with the fbi, how you work with u. S. Attorneys offices. That evolution needs to happen. And johnny put his finger on what i think needs to be a big part of that evolution, dealing with this surging domestic terrorist threat, what i call the white supremacist terrorist threat. Increasingly it has transnational links. Unfortunately, it is global. We see a little bit of innovation on that front. We saw the fbi and the broader Justice Department disrupt a plot in colorado that the doj and fbi said was the first public manifestation of new cooperation between the counterterrorism investigators and hate crimes investigators. These are people that use different tools and tend to come at things differently. Domestic terrorism in some ways slices between them. So there was adaptation, a new collaboration in that which hate crimes investigators look to know for, and the tools that counterterrorism folks use, tools often focused on stopping a crime, or catching someone when they have committed a crime without people getting hurt, bringing that together in a useful way that may save lives. I think more is needed, and i think this Justice Department over all has not made that pivot toward addressing the rise of what supremacist threat as much as it could or should have, but you see some indications of that adaptation. Things if the you just sent to the normal educated reader of the media, what are the National Security concerns that the department of justice is involved in right now would mention the durham investigation. Intoct investigation igins of the Russian Investigation taking about how that was handled, there is a question about what the political dimension of it is. Attorney general barr has refused to say that he will not release the report prior to the policy thaten it is within six days of an election, Justice Department 60 days of an election, Justice Department does not affect things that could affect an election. Do you have a sense, david, about how the durham investigation has brought a spotlight onto the department of justice and how maybe that is unfair . David it has. We are talking about hate crimes. Terrorist,define a how do you define a National Security threat. That can be a political thing. The president talking about these protests in terms of antifa, and that is the threat to security, so my revolutionary is your terrorism, so to speak, and Justice Department is a difficult position deciding who is a criminal and who is pushing for change. In terms of the durham investigation, it is surprising that barr will not rule out announcing what they will find before the election. That would be a clear effort to boost the president s reelection chances. , in theked about barr interview last night, talking about voting and voter fraud. What is amazing is the power of the Justice Department in so many realms, whether who is in a hate group, who is in a legitimate political movement. , but you to meander all mentioned digital. I talked with senator mark warner. Too. Edia is at fault here, we have no rules of the road for the digital age. Everything from hate speech to disinformation to monopolies that is back to the Justice Department, antitrust vision division. It is vital for the institution to not be seen as political but it is also an extra ordinarily challenging time for the Justice Department. Elected, it iss a difficult time to navigate. Karen and we will get to that before we go. We have a question that builds on what we were talking about n. Om matt olso what are the implications for the National Security division because of the fact that the ag has turned to other prosecutors like durham . I see you nodding, josh. Go for it. Joshua what i really like to do is get matt to answer his own questions because he will have more thoughts on all of us combined in this area. Are twoes me there things worth saying about it. I think it adds to the sense look not wants a situated in understanding how these sorts of investigations tend to get open, the purpose, even the fact that they seem to be interviewing people in the Intelligence Community at the analyst, providing an assessment of counterintelligence is a threat, all of this so adjusting the desire to upend how things are done properly, rather than grappling with how they are normally done. The other thing is this Justice Department is having to work to find people to carry out its will. When the president seemed like he wanted to take another run at adding a Citizenship Question to the census, after the Supreme Court knocked down his first attempt, they had to collect volunteers from across the department who would be even willing to try defending Something Like that before eventually backing down. Again, somes to, highprofile cases, some very unusual approaches right now. Speaking of highprofile cases, there was a decision yesterday in the ninth circuit that went as close as you can to declaring section 215, the warrantless surveillance authority, unconstitutional. What do you think about that . I thought 215 was in the past. What is happening with that . Joshua i will just refer to josh on that. I saw that the ninth circuit handed down this lengthy opinion yesterday. It does feel like a blast from the past, talking about the telephone metadata program. Such things are still alive to the extent that things collected then, even under a program that butn reoriented since if it is being used in a case, active litigation, the issue still remains. I want to sit down and read that opinion and see what it was. I gather the ninth circuit said this prosecution would not be affected by it but passed out on the locality of the program itself. Karen it also games on the heels of unrelated these two announcements of fisa reforms that attorney general barr put out. Did any of you get a chance to look at those . David i did not look at them in great detail. I wanted say i think its important for us to realize how Little People trust the surveillance programs, how littleth they trust the National Security division. This gets back to problems that go beyond the kind of trump biden dynamic. I think there is a problem with the fisa process. Its not transparent enough. I speak as a journalist. People dont trust me either. Im the definition of the mainstream journalist. I trust you, david. Writing this book i met lots of committed Public Servants who put an incredible amounts of time into these fisa applications. But what happened with the fbi lawyer, kevin kleinsmith, thats outrageous. There is a need for nst to look at that and the fisa court itself being seen as a rubberstamp, back to Edward Snowden leaks. Thats the challenge for the institution. The ruling yesterday was a play into this in the book, the spheres of improper government surveillance, of f a big brother government that is everywhere, a deep state that is victimizing ordinary americans. What are we to make of the way in which the flynn case has become sort of a football that is being passed back and forth . Thats the kind of thing where people are confused. They look at, you can interfere with the case, just tell a case to be dropped and tell a judge what to do . That seems to me people when you talk about trust to violate certain ways in which we expect our courts to operate. Is that incorrect . I will jump in there, care. Stepping back fromer the flynn case, there are lots of interesting question from very small criminal cases two very big b criminal cases about whats in the discretion of the prosecution versus what the court can weigh in on. And plea deals, for example, are rife with this sort of difficulty. When it comes to, again, if an agreement is reached between a prosecutor and a defendant and it is brought before a court, is the court obligated to accept that, right . There are different regimes within different systems in this country. So the federal system works differently than where i start in new york in the Manhattan Das Office in terms of how judges look at deals and please and arrangements that are made between prosecutors and defense counsel on behalf of their clients, right . In the federal system you have these 11 c1 c please come then theres the question of is a court obligated to impose that sentence as is it presented versus as you plead guilty and court will impose the sense it seems appropriate or in a lightens, alignment with the guidelines. There are different, i would just say theyre different regimes are thinking about this that sometimes dont have a clearcut answer. With the flynn case is very clear cut answer we think thats also something that would fit into what youre describing as a more normal backandforth that we dont may not even understand as a public . I would just say i dont think its cut and dried in terms of the considerations, those considerations happen all of the time i think in terms of. What you think twisting a window into our department of justice that maybe we shouldin have a little more knowledge all around about what goes on because for me ill put a word on it. Extremely uncomfortable with the interventions in the flynn case. I think a lot of people are. And so i think of it as an outlier not as the normal course of events. Josh geltzer, do you have a sense of that . Its important to distinguish whats a court might do which is fraught with all sorts of hard questions. Fact judge sullivan someday and he scheduled a hearing to move forward with have to confront exactly the hard questions that josh is describing so well. Thats one set of questions for the judge. What happened in the Justice Department, thisju strikes me as very worrisome. I guess im close to you on this, karen, insofar as someboy who pleaded guilty twice as it were, and for justification offered by the Justice Department for abruptly dropping the charges before sentencing, ive never seen it in any of the case. I dont think this Justice Department or any of the future what will apply to many of the cases, the idea that some of the materiality aliment was missing because of the lies flynn told the fbi agents that were asking the questions. It seems taken out of thin air and arrived for one day only. Thats not what justice should be. It should not be one day only, when the thing to deliver the interventions in these cases dont seem to be happening coincidentally or randomly. They seem toid be happening sto, they seem to happening to flynn, they seem to be happening to people are personal friends, personal associates of people who may know damning things about this president and theres every reason to worry about that, even if all those are questions for what the judge should do now that this uncomfortable situation foisted upon them remains. But at a minimum the idea he might hold a hearing as he intends to and have the benefit of thinking through those hard questions with the briefing of the advocacy appointed, that strikes me as well within what the federal rules contemplate as of course thats what the d. C. Circuit said, that there was not at least a high bar for them to a degree and shut that down before it even happened. Have not been met by flynn supported by barr Justice Department. It delayed what needed to happen in the way that represents the judge being able to do what he is empowered to do . At least ask questions. The federal rules as that a court can dismiss charges with leave of court. That raises the question of, is there going to be something . Does a federal judgment something other than a rubberstamp, abdomen and and might ask questions like why and what led to this conversation. In particular i dont mean just what theory of mitrione is being offered up by the papers filed in the court to justify it. What led to this behind the scenes . That in theis sense was the stone case is all about. To go back to things attorney general barr has been saying, he got quite heated in his recent testimony g before congress on e change in sentencing recommendation under his watch at the last minute in the roger stone case. He got quite an embedded signal, the judge ultimately landed in the range would recommend, how could i did anything wrong . That to me is a fundamentally wrong view of what the rest of us think has gone awry under barr at the Justice Department. The question isnt did the judge settle on a a number that happen to fall in the same range of recommended. The question is why did you change . If the edges because this is somebody who we all know the president wanted us to go easy on, thats not equal justice under the law. Which kind of raises the elephant in the room which is the election. These elections are coming up two months from today. And you referred to the agreement yesterday with a glitch in which he said he didnt know if it was legal or not to vote twice, or something of that sort. Everybody was a little taken aback but make people wonder why he said it. In other words, what was the purpose of saying it . David, i wonder if you, i know you have, given some thought to what the challenges between the department of justice as it is currently playing itself out and what wee are saying and the election. I want to goo further than that and avoid as the others of you to enter this. Is there a way for the department of justice to help make people relax and trust in the election process . First, david to you is to think this is a problem, trust in the election coming up and what barr said yesterday, et cetera tranthree into huge problem what he said and that is hes increasing peoples distrust and anxiety about the vote counts and inflating the chances of fraud. That specific answer though where he said maybe you can vote twice, i think thats the moment we havenk all seen throughout te trump years, which was a cabinet member fearing publicly disagreeing with the president. We saw with dan coats and intelligence hearings. He knows that you cant vote twice, but the president , again im going to be very negative about the president for a minute but he has created a situation where the top Law Enforcement official in the country, the top intelligence chiefs are afraid of contradicting him in public, and thats extraordinary. The intelligence chiefs are not even giving testimony to do that. The other way the Justice Department can help or hurt is this dispatch a a federal agens of the song in portland. Clearly trump wants to do this, this is where again barr helped him rhetorically talking about dominating the streets and law and order and barr in initial days after George Floyds murder talking about antifa and how they were deeply involved in all these protests when they virtually no cases involving antifa. Josh and josh can talk about this better. The institution should be reassuring and calling the American Public that it could take weeks for this election to be decided call me the judicial system will work, have confidence in give it time, dont rush it, and barr isnt doing that. Hes doing the opposite and that is what iss so concerning about the situation. Josh larocca are there ways the department of justice can do, calm things down to provide a reassuring role or are they should just stay out of it completely . I would go back to where i started, which was, which is that there is lots of good work they gets done on an institutional basis by career professionals, and theres been a long history again in this country of folks of all stripes praising career officials. Its interesting, if you look at just any particular news story about a prosecution, National Security or otherwise, you typically dontna see, i would k david farr is perspective on this, you typically dont see the article cites the names of the prosecutors, right . Its just prosecuted from this office for this district brought this case. The defendant is typically name and the charges and so forth. But the prosecutors are almost amos, right . That to me is where you derive faith in your institutions of government, right . Its not me or is that someone else, its that the. Institution itself brought charges that were upheld in a court. There was a jury trial and so on. Those other things that mean something sort of free from the institutions matter. Josh geltzer, turning to you. You get the hard questions, i do have this happens. Josh larocco is going to the fact which i hadnt meant to bring into this conversation there could be litigation afterr this election on a whole bunch of levels both in terms of how the voting works, how the voting booth works, but the disinformations, is, who knows, cyber issues. What do you foresee there . How do you think this should be handled . Should it be handled within the Justice Department as some sort of special, whatever, administrative body that is set up . What didalev you think . I think the Justice Department should stay out of that. In fact, theres current Justice Department policy not to get involved in any sort of election resolution issues because resolving election and beverly means weighing in on one side or the other, whether directly or indirectly, just by the position adopted. Instead its the less formal tool that this Justice Department seems to be using to put a thump on the skill. Its not that they are actively filing briefs in support of Trump Campaign litigation against drop boxes or mailin voting. That would be just abysmal if the happening but it is not happening and it shouldnt happen. One hopes it wont happen. That doesnt change the fact that the things that are being said about whether theres some reason to worry about the legitimacy of an election, if mailin ballots have been used in higher numbers before it. That does its own damage and thats part of whats interestingan about this particular attorney general. Its not just the position he has taken in court. Its the bully pulpit, the mouthpiece function that is mayc be more political even at a lot of what the Justice Department itself is doing day in and day out, working their actual cases or enforcement actions, or the other things that they do. But i do think that notion of whats being said, how it lines up with what the president , the candidate is saying, and then whether things like the Durham Report are timed and designed to influence how people think about election. Even the fact wet referring toa Durham Report. Why is there a Durham Report . Hes an investigator. He has found the charges brought against one fbi lawyer. Why is therere a Durham Report . The Inspector General put out a report covering much of the same territory. We should normalize the notion that this is something in which a report is a typical last step. Not to mention that bill barr is apparent interpretation of the 60 day admittedly more normal than policy, something davids wonderful book deep state talks about how much is in the realm of norm rather than loss of policy but theres norm of not doing things in the last 60 day window. It seems from barrs comity regards that is basically bringing charges against thehe cat, where as that would affect most of us wouldve thought about that as doing things to help her candidate. Those are very, very different scopes. T thats what where i see this je department potentially intersecting with the campaigns, with the election in the coming months. Forgetting what was going to happen in the election, if there were some structural change that could be made to sort of stop the sense of politicization of the acts of the attorney general or department of justice in a larger sense, can you recommend any . Like if contraceptives you or if the powers that be said we are going to reorganize things to make the optics if nothing else look better, what would be the structural change that should be made . Can i speak as a pieinthesky journalist . The attorney general doing interviews is good and i would say a sort of an outsider, more interaction with the public, interaction with the press for the National Security division, if the fisa court could be more open and this is where i wont criticize trump. We are facing the largest crisis of legitimacy for the Justice Department i think sinceou watergate. But it began come trump is taking advantage of the suspicions that are there. In the stone case he talked about the format women on the drinking a democrat is being biased. Fromg my reporting the presidet doesnt believe that nonpartisan Public Service exists. He doesnt believe that journalists try to write stories that are down the middle. I will describe this a bit more, but i think Many Americans agree with him and its vital for us to face that. You know, he thinks sure, there are career Civil Servant in thear Justice Department, but they like some president s better than others and they work harder for others. Th he thinks everybody is selfserving and puts the spent on the ball. This is a little bit of him coming out that the new York Real Estate world, and thats hurtful. It frustrates me as a journalist that we are all kind of making things up to make ourselves famous. Im sure it is in for your rating to prosecutors and Civil Servants, but a lot of americans have always thought that and he is sort of voicing it. I dont have great recommendations here, but i think we are over classifying. Things are kept generally to secret. I agree with josh, ive covered, i dont know, josh, you mightve been in an elevator in the 100 Center Street in manhattan together. I covered the robert morgenthau, the da in new york city. I advised as a journalist but the public more interviews by the prosecutor in these cases, by the u. S. Attorneys in these cases, more transparency would help. This is a problem thatre goes beyond Donald Trumps rhetoric. People dont trust the press. Me, too, im guilty. They dont trust the Justice Department, particularly the National Security division. Josh larocca, what do you think . You think that the nationals could position, given a part of it, a large part of what it does involves classified issue, National Security issues come classified information . Is her way to make it more transparent or is that just a pipe dream . I dont think i is a pipe dream at all. We are in 2020, 14 years into the nst story. I was a four piece of it. I have think folks with their for longer chapters of. Was there, there was a sense that itow was still figurg out some of its mandates, right . And again theres a complicated relationship not just between nst and the u. S. Attorneys offices but all a u. S. Attorneys offices in some respect and main justice. Classification, which can present real challenges, right . We do all this work in the name of the people. You know, classification is required in certain instances and in certain instances there is over classification area who held a clearance would say, generally agree with that or be hope to that interpretation, i would say. You know, going back to what david said, you know, the general statement, i mean, and this is not just doj, i mean, you could say this for a lot of institutions of government, and the publics view is low of a lot of our institutions, but going back to, you know, 100 Center Street and you know, one of the two things i learned there is that you want to see similarly situated people treated, you know, in the same way, right . Similarly situated defendants to be treated in a similar fashion. And i think to the closer you get to that norm. Were talking norms here in some regard, then the institution is bolstered. I want to turn a little to the future. And ask a few questions about what we might expect. And one is a little off beat, but i have to ask it because i am who i am, which is if biden is president , im curious what will happen at guantanamo or to guantanamo. The New York Times reporter and central reporter Carol Rosenberg has been told by the Biden Campaign that mr. Biden continues to support closing the detention center. Josh, you were there when obama tried to close the detention center. The plan is still probably on paper. Do you think thats possible, that biden could do this . Or is this a nonstarter . I hope its possible, but it will take a change in political mr. In congress. You were kind enough to say, karen, i put a lot of hours alongside many, many, many other people in trying to first, you know, reduce the detainee population as much as possible consistent with security and humane treatment obligations and then to develop a plan that was presented in early 2016 to congress of what comprehensive closure would look like. And it would involve those who are going to the military justice system, continuing to go through that system. Slow as it has been, extraordinarily slow as its been. Those for whom criminal prosecution in civilian courts might still be a possibility, to have that go forward and to the extent at that theres still some number of detainees those final ones held under law of war on u. S. Soil except that not everyone likes about you that frankly would be the only feasible path to closure. Even that wasnt feasible in the political sense, feasible in the logistical and legal sense, but not the political sense because to do those things, in fact, to bring any detainees to u. S. Soil would require a change in law that only congress can provide and it would take a willingness to acknowledge that those sorts of individuals can be held securely on u. S. Soil, the way so many extraordinarily dangerous people are already held securely on u. S. Soil at wildly lower cost to the taxpayer than the now 40 detainees in guantanamo. So it strikes me as very much a political problem at this point. Yes, there is legal complexity, theres even logistical complexity in terms of what the facilities would need to look like. The biggest obstacle right now is the politics on capitol hill. So just to followup there with you, josh, do you have any or does anyone you know have any sense that this is something that would matter to President Biden . All i could say is this is a part of administration who put a tremendous amount of effort in the eight years of obamabiden in which there was, from day one, a focus on this. It was famously a day one executive order, even if closure didnt happen on the timetable that was hoped for then. But the work didnt stop and folks worked, well, really right to the end. In fact, there were some detain tee transfers at the very end at the chagrin of president elect donald trump. And it was extraordinary and i think it speaks to the effort made then to reduce that population as much as possible and then to create at least a comprehensive pathway towards closing the facility, if congress did facilitate it. David, do you have any thoughts on this . I think its going to be harder politically simply because troubles in my business in the media, and then, you know, i think we have kind of the greatest crisis of disinformation. Anyone who wants to argue to close guantanamo, theres going to be more false Information Online the danger that each of the detainees represents. Were living in two separate, and again, its not just President Trump and so thats and i think that congress has been a huge problem here in all the issues that were talking about, the need for new legislatures across the board from guantanamo to cyber crime to society. And i think the lesson will cathartic and i hope one of the two wins decisively. I hope that people accepts the results. Thats blow off steam and every four years. The pandemic shows were having a trouble in society on basic facts. How many people are dying and do you have to wear a mask. I think that closing guantanamo will be harder. So my question to each one of you, i always think that guantanamo is going to close, by the way. Im hopeful about it, but my question to all of you is, in a biden administration, do you have a sense who might be a candidate for attorney general . I cant say i do. I will say this about how biden has talked about the Justice Department and i have loved what he said. Especially in the following respect. Hes been asked this question in a couple of different permtations of, well, what approach would you do in investigation or prosecuting this or how would you go at that, and he said some variant of i look forward having nothing and leaving that in the hand of the Justice Department. And that seems like a return to norm. Those norms have been broken before as davids book articulates so well and hes saying in the course of this conversation, there were trends here. We cant treat the donald trump era or the barr Justice Department as just popping up without a basis of trends in the you believe about and in trends in information and trends in politics, theres a story behind all of that that wont go away whenever it is that the Trump Administration comes to an end, but the idea of a president who says, Justice Department calls on investigation and prosecutions are the realm of the Justice Department. I love every time i hear that answer from him. And do you think thats possible . I mean, its not like its been such daylight between any of the president s and their attorney generals in recent history. Do you think thats possible . Excuse me, go ahead, josh. Well, i do very much think thats possible. I mean, i dont want to overstate it. You know, sometimes people refer to a no contact policy between the white house and Justice Department, thats a misnomer. Its a policy of restricted contact for particular reasons through particular channels. It would make no sense to have a no contact policy. An example, if youre about to arrest a high profile person you want the rest to know that. This could lead to attacks on embassies, it could lead to attacks on u. S. Soil, and military bases. It would be foolish not to have some people know about it, but you have to have a particular reason and do it through the right channel and similarly, prosecutors, economic he is pe e espionage. If theyre members of for example, the chinese pla which of course has happened, it would foolish not to coordinate that, but there has to be a reason and there has to be a responsible way of doing it and by and large, this should be left to the Justice Department. If only those particular complex incidents, reasons, arrests, cases, whatever it might be that leads to more of a back and forth between the white house. The white house is basically the home of politics and the Justice Department, sure, it has Political Leadership. We want it to be a lot more law than politics, ultimately. Youre going to weigh in . I would love to see a republican federal judge from missouri, a person like william webster, who was chosen to be fbi director, you know, not political, not a major figure in the Obama Administration, to restore confidence in the Justice Department. I think we and at that time in the 70, levy, webster, church, tower, those on the committee that generation faced the exact same crisis of legitimacy that we face, they enacted reforms that restored credibility to the Justice Department and our government evolved and i think thats the kind of bold, nonpartisan appointment that needs to be made to restore confidence in the Justice Department and including the National Security division. Josh, any thoughts about the future . Yeah, you know, im going back to something that david said that really caught my mind a minute ago. Again, going back to just pure sort of National Security thinking, which is a lot of things, karen, and i think this is especially true to the work that youve done and at the center, a lot of questions that i think were sort of top of mind. We were talking about guantanamo, about a lot of the issues there, in many so regards have become settled in the sense that theyve been fully briefed, right . Everybody knows what the positions are, what the issues are, right, and i think josh, ma inbound this is sort of what you would saying a little bit, right . If youre following National Security in this country, regardless of what side youre on. You know what the issues are with regards to guantanamo, right . And terrorism prosecution more generally, now what those issues are. David, what you said which i found particularly interesting, how do you translate those issues, again, if you use my loose terminology are settled, generally speaking to the way that we talk about things. To the way that information is shared, to the way that, you know, we think about the threat environment, right, which, you know, has changed dramatically again, you know, specific things about cyber threats. So to me thats interesting. How do those issues or those conversations sort of get updated to the moment that were in . And i dont know that, you know, the answer to that. But its given me something to think about, right . Which is again, how do we think about the moment were in and these issues, you know, with regard to National Security . And i think that to me is good food for thought. And maybe we should think about what were going to be in as well. Because it seems to me that every time we think about something, things are moving so fast, changes are moving so fast, potential threats are moving so fast, as we have discovered with covid. So part of that becomes sort of guessing. Particularly in the National Security sphere, but not only. So were coming to the end of our time or were at the end of our time. And we also end Center Events with a question, which is what gives you hope that were going to work this all out . David, im going to start with you. I think theres a huge opportunity in terms of National Security for a political concensus about privacy, and surveillance. I think the far left and the far right, you have the funny alliance, you may not like either between ron wyden and rand paul libertarian from kentucky and thats an opportunity. If there are Workable Solutions or being transparent, pie in the sky, you know, im optimistic, again, past generations of faith that these kind of crises, legitimacy if were transparent and enact reforms and we go with nonpartisanship, you know, i think we can come out of this stronger, so im optimistic. Not all the time, but im optimistic. Optimistic. Nonpartisan, and josh, how about you . Im optimistic as well and ill end where i started. Which is some faith and in this country. And thats my experience and thats what i bring to this table, to the table for this discussion. And having seen it upfront, folks of all background and stripes and table to do their job. I was talking to a friend of mine in government, most people get up, they go to the office. The task is put in front of them and they try to do the best job they can and worry about their kids and mortgage and you know thats a very important tradition here, and people are going to, you know, their career positions and doing the best they can. And that kind of raises something else, which is how much has the covid age and sitting at homan a watching the world and not having the regularity of our lives that we just referred to, made us focus on things, maybe in a more anxiety ridden way than we might otherwise have done . I mean, it is talk about changes, this is a very changed environment from which to view the world outside of your protected home, or your protected space, whether it includes home and work. Okay. So the final word of hope from you, joshua. If you want to let me get away from it, ill take two. Ive had my share of doom and gloom. To this point, josh began us talking about and i think quit rightly emphasized throughout this conversation, which is the backbone of our government, for all we talk about the political, for the good or damaged the political can do, the backbone are the servants, the Public Servants of the military officers, Intelligence Officers and this is going to be a funny thing to find good news in, but the arrest and charges against steve bannon, i dont any glee in seeing steve bannon charged, but people had to work hours, days, weeks at the investigatory level, and knowing theyd roll out charges to steve bannon and theyve seen what happened to other people, even line prosecutors worked on cases, targeting Close Associates of President Trump. People who have overruled, who have been forced off cases, who resigned from the department and they still did that work, still followed the investigatory leads and still rolled out those charges, so its not ban nongetting charged that encourages me, its they did what josh is talking about, they went and did their job in a fierce and fraught political environment because thats what they signed up to do and thats the most important part of that story and overlooked one. The other thing that gives me hope, people are talking about the laws in ways they didnt use to. You have to talk a lot about the Partys National convention, it probably a sign that something bad has happened. But theyre talking about the hatch act, right . Theyre talking about what it means and why we have in that case, ethics law and policy to act as guardrail and as people if that conversation about the hatch act or the impoundment act during the impeachment process, if those conversations speak to a thirst for law in a sense and to understand the rule of law and to recommittee ourselves in the country, to the rule of law, i think thats good news. I think you kind of nailed it with the there is an awful lot of attention to the law and i think theres an awful lot of questioning of how firm can the law hold. And so its yes, we should all be hopeful with you that, you know, that in the end result, it looks like its it looks just and fair, but i think, right now were in some kind of turmoil over that. Thank you, gentlemen, so much for this conversation. I will have you back after the election and then were going to really talk and then youll tell me who should be ag, so start working on it now. And thank the audience, if you want to check out central security. Org, see our full list of events and daily and weekly publications, our podcast and online forum and whatever is on the site that miss might assist you. Thank you, everybody. With many schools shifting to online learning, cspans Online System engages in conversation. Middle and High School Students for a five film what they want in 2021. The creators of the constitution were looking at giving americans justice as shown in the amendments. Its present day spoken issues with equality. It needs a forum. When youth are given the opportunity and the skills to become informed voters and engaged citizens, democracy, must be learned. From inequity and decade long waits, to a pathway to citizenship, for children who were born here and parents who legally migrated here were awarding 1,000 in cash prizes including a cash grand prize of 5,000. For the deadline, rules and trips how to get started, go to our website, student cam. Org. The Senate Homeland security and Governmental Affairs committee voted 86 in a Party Line Vote to authorize chair ron johnson to issue subpoenas to approximately 40 individuals involved in the russia investigation. The ranking democrat, senator gary peters, said the committee should be focused on the coronavirus pandemic, not partisan politics