Transcripts For CSPAN Trump Administration And The Rule Of Law 20170630

So before we begin the discussion, its worth saying a word on the concept of the rule of law. The concept of rule of law goes back a long way. The greeks and romans talked about it and its meaning has evolved over time. But eventually what its come to mean is basically a fundamental way in which society prevents the situation in which there is an oligarchy or dictatorship. Internationally, the understanding is that it has several requirements. The most important is that government officials and their agents are accountable under the rule of law. Second is that laws are protective of the fundamental right of citizens, including among others the rights to the freedom of speech and the freedom of press. A third is that laws are made in an open and public manner and that they are fair minded. And the fourth is that the enforcement of law as done by independent tribunals, by adjudicators that are independent of the forces that be. With that, i will begin by asking our commentators to talk a little bit, before we turn to the more immediate issues, for their perspective drawn from their backgrounds. Neil is one of the nations leading Supreme Court advocates. Hes argued 34 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, and one of those involved the guantanamo detainees, so, neil, if you could talk a little bit about that experience and how that illuminate the idea of the rule of law. Mr. Katyal thank you, and thank you, sally, for being here. [applause] mr. Katyal so that was my very first case, and you know i come into the clinton administration, and i was National Security advisor to the Justice Department there and i just loved it and i thought my dream job to be one day to be National Security advisor to the president. And i taught constitutional law and my students would always tease me and say you think whatever the president does is constitutional, youre such a hawk on these issues, and then on november 13, 2001, i was watching cnn a couple of months after the nation had been horribly attacked and i saw that ticker at the bottom. It said president issues military tribunal for prisoners at guantanamo bay. I said that is interesting. We tried to do that after the Embassy Bombings and it was absolutely unconstitutional. How is he doing this . And i looked at this violation, and it had the same violations, no accountability, not an independent tribunal. The president was hand picking everyone for these tribunals, in essence creating a black hole in guantanamo. I thought to myself i should try to bring a case. I had never litigated a Supreme Court case before. I started working with the jag attorneys and be created a test case and i respected bin ladens driver. And i had argued the case in the District Court, and for 10 months i was trying to meet him, bin ladens driver, or try to go to gitmo. And at first the department of justice said, oh, you have no security clearances. I said look me up, i have more clearances than you ever heard of. They said, yeah, it looks like you do. So you have no need to know. So you have the requisite level of clearance, but you do not need to do this. You are a law professor you can , make these arguments and you dont have to actually meet your client, the theoretical constitutional requirements. I am such a deferential list to the government, deferentialist to the government, and i thought, no, wait a minute, hes the client, the driver, i should get to meet him. So i asked for that in writing, so i got to go to gitmo right away because they knew i would give it to the New York Times. If i go to gitmo, the pentagon was really savvy about it. They made it a 30hour trip for me. It takes three hours when they do it, the prosecutors do it. But eventually i get there, after 30 hours and i meet my client for the first time, mr. Hamdan. He looks at me, he kicks the military attorneys out of the room. He says everyone has to leave the room except you and the translator. He had not seen a human face for 10 months. Food was passed through a slot. Any time there was a face, they were wearing a mask. You do this to someone for three days and it causes permanent psychosis. 10 months, so i think he is going to yell at me, and he gives me a smile and says, why are you doing this why are you , representing me . Your last client was al gore, and that didnt turn out so well. [laughter] mr. Katyal why are you doing this . And i paused for like 40 seconds when he asked me that, and i remember in my head thinking about this, i thought this is why you cant be a law professor neil, because you cant answer a simple question. What kind of lawyer are you question another five seconds passes, and maybe it is ok. Justice ginsburg when you ask her a question, shell often pause up to a minute before answering it. Maybe i am ok. Another five seconds passes, and i thought about telling him that, and i thought, he doesnt know who the hell Justice Ginsburg is. This is the answer to your question, jeff, sorry for the long leadup. I said, look my parents came here from india, they came here not for the quality of its sports team, they came here for a simple idea that they could land on the shores and their kids will be treated fairly. Maybe not perfectly, but fairly impaired any nation on earth. And i told this driver that was always my experience, having the best schools, opportunities in the government, you know, to be in the Deputy Attorney generals office. All sorts of things, and that when the president issued this order, for the first time in american history, a president had said if you are one of the 5 billion foreigners, or the 12 million green card holders and you are accused of a crime, you get sense to gitmo. But if youre an american, you get the cadillac of justice, the american civilian trial. That had never been done in american history. Made thater distinction. I said thats why im doing this. I didnt tell him this, but ill say it to you, words of equal protection, the First Amendment is to all persons, not to all citizens. Why . Because the writer of the line in dregs scott versus sanford said that only citizens have constitutional rights. So to me, thats what the hallmark of the rule of law is, those things this jeff mentioned, but i would also add quality to that. And that is what i think we need to fight for in the days to come. [applause] mr. Stone if i can add just one thing to that, i actually wrote an amicus brief in the Supreme Court from almost 60 years earlier in which the Supreme Court from almost 60 years earlier in which the Supreme Court upheld the internment of japaneseamericans. He actually wanted to be a party to this, to make his voice heard in this case. I think you have heard of sally yates. Sally has served for 27 years in the department of justice first , as United States attorney for the Northern District of georgia. In that capacity, she litigated a wide range of cases including issues involving cases of political corruption and terrorism. In 2015, president obama appointed sally to be Deputy Attorney general of the United States, and during her confirmation hearings i love this fact then senator Jeff Sessions asked sally offensive she would refuse to enforce a president s unlawful order, to which she replied that she would have an obligation in all circumstances to follow the law and the constitution. A commitment that she later had an opportunity to fulfill. So, sally, on this initial point, perhaps you can talk about the historic independence of the department of justice. The core for the department of justice is the concept of the actual application of the laws, that the law is to be applied impartially. Thats why lady justice has the blindfold on, that it applies to the rich and the poor, the weak and the powerful exactly the same and that the department of justice should not be making decisions on outside influence, particularly not political influence, that the law should not be use punish your political enemies or to protect your political friends. These are concepts that are not actually law. This is not law, this is not provided in the constitution per se, its not a statute, its part of the fabric of the law thats developed over the years. This was driven home to me just shortly after i became u. S. Attorney, and all of the u. S. Attorneys went to the white house for what was really a photo op. The president comes in and one of his aides had given him talking points to read to us which he promptly tossed aside. And he looked at us and he said, i appointed you, but you dont represent me. You represent the people of the United States. And he was absolutely right. But the fact of the matter is, that wasnt a particularly bold statment, that is a concept of the department of job justice of drawing a line between doj and the white house. And doj is really different than any of the other federal agencies. The department of justice is obviously part of an administration, but there absolutely has to be an independence and a separation from that. And thats been a timehonored concept through democratic and republican administrations at least going back to the postnixon world. I think the doj is the only agency that has a written memo that lays out what the rules are for compacts between the white house and the department of justice on specific cases. Not necessarily on policies because the department of , justice will be involved in policy decisions in specific cases and the rules in effect now according to eric holders , memo of 2009, that there are really only two people at the department of justice that the person can contact and that is the attorney general or the Deputy Attorney general. And there are only three people youre supposed to be contacting at the white house, and that is the president , the Vice President , and the white house deputy. Eric holder was the last but one, this has been a tradition of the Department Going back administrations. I think its absolutely essential that that tradition be protected. Not just to insure that decisions are not politically impacted, but theres merely the appearance of it. Because with the appearance of it i think that can destroy the publics confidence in the department of justice and if the public loses confidence in its own criminal Justice System, then we are in a world of hurt. A longwinded rambling. Both of these individuals have been involved in different but important ways, in the travel ban issue, and i want to turn our attention to that. Neil by the way represents the state of hawaii in that case in the Supreme Court. And sally, of course, was involved in the department of justice there. So, sally, i would like to begin with you. How did you get involved in this . What were you views . Why did you hold the views you did . Why did you do what you did and were you surprised by what happened . Ms. Yates yes to all of it. Ill try to make this brief because i dont want to hog the whole thing here. I got involved in this, it was friday evening, late afternoon, i was in the car on the way to the airport on friday, january 27. I had actually just finished a meeting at the white house thats now known as the mike flynn situation, and i was in the car going back to a dinner honoring my husband. I got a call from my principal deputy. During the time i was acting attorney general, i was able to so it is about 5 00 or so, and he calls me and says youre not going to believe this. But i was just on the New York Times website and it looks like the president instituted some sort of travel ban. That is how we found out about ofon in the department justice. I onim on my way to the plane, am ive got my ipad. Im seriously trying to figure out what it was. Im literally going online to try to find a copy of the executive order so we could get some sense of what this was. And so over the course of that weekend, it was a whole lot of trying to figure out what the heck is this thing and to whom does it apply. Because at the time i made my decision, it was the First Executive order, not the second one that neil is litigating now. And at that time we were getting conflicting signals, but when the music stopped, the white house told us it applied to l cards. Eople with green so we spent most of the weekend trying to figure out what is this and what are they trying to accomplish here. And by the next morning, we had to have people in court to defend actions on behalf of people around the country. Whether we sought we saw it was lawful, my thought was you can defend on procedural grounds, meaning if a case is muted out, you can continue on procedural grounds. But we are not going to take a position on constitutionality until we have to actually figure out if this is constitutional. Come monday morning, i learned that the next day, we are going to have to take a position on whether its constitutional. So we gathered all the folks who were involved in this in the Justice Department in my conference room. And that included the Trump Administration appointees, as well as the doj career people. Civil Division People and otherwise that were involved in this litigation and i had gone through, i mean this is all happening so fast, im willing i am literally going online to find the briefs and challenges to see what the challenges are to the travel ban. So we went around the table asking them, tell me why this is lawful, how are we going to defend this . And without revealing sort of our internal discussions here, at the end of that, i was not comfortable that it was in fact lawful or constitutional and kept the senior trump appointee back to tell him that i was very uneasy with where we were and i wasnt sure what i was going to do. And i went back to the office and talked to a few people and came ultimately to conclusions that are defending this travel ban would require me with the lawyers in the Justice Department to say that this ban had nothing to do with religion. It was all based on National Security, nothing to do with religion. And i do not believe that to be a defense that was grounded in truth. I couldnt send department of justice lawyers in to defend something based on a defense that i did not believe was grounded in truth, which then left the dilemma of, ok, so do you just resign at this point then or do you direct the department not to defend the travel ban . And this is all happening in a very compressed time. This is monday afternoon now. I went back and forth on that. There is certainly an argument and i understand that some people think i should have just resigned. But sort of the bottom line on that was is that i didnt feel like i would be doing my job if i just essentially said, im out of here, you guys figure this out, its up to you to go in there and to make a defense that at least we were not comfortable was grounded in truth, but at least i wouldnt be part of it. That would have protected my personal integrity. But i didnt believe it would protect the integrity of the department of justice and it wouldnt have been doing my job. So i issued a directive to the department of justice, unless and until i was convinced it was lawful, that the department of justice would not defend the travel ban. That was late in the afternoon, and not surprisingly, i got a memo, or actually a letter about 9 00 that night firing me. So that was that. [laughter] [applause] mr. Stone are you aware of other situations where an attorney general or acting attorney general refused to obey the orders of the president . Im not, but this was a very unusual situation, in that i have learned in the course of this, that our office of Legal Counsel had been instructed not to tell me about the work on the travel ban until after it was over, until after the president had executed it. So normally, what you would have would be a process in this kind of situation, where its a if there is a National Security reason to do something, you would confer with the National Security agencies before doing it. And you would also confer with the National Security experts at the department of justice who were going to have to defend it and that would apply to our civil securities division. There was none of that consultation at all, not even notification at all. So im not aware of another situation like where the attorney general has done that, but im also not aware of a factual situation like this before either. And then there was the saturday night massacre, where elliott ms. Yates throwing me a softball. Mr. Stone Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshaus both refused to comply with president nixons order that he fire special press curator archibald special prosecutor archibald cox. And they of course took the choice of resigning and rather than simply disobeying and waiting to be fired, which of course they would have been. Neil as i mentioned is representing the state of hawaii in this case, in the Supreme Court. Why dont you talk about your experience in the case, and whats happening and whats going to happen and all that cool stuff. Mr. Katyal ok, sure, i just want to situate sallys remarks within the role of the Justice Department. When youre the solicitor general or sometimes the attorney general you have two , kinds of traditions that are not about zealously advocating for winning cases but just to do justice. Those two traditions are being willing to every solicitor general, i did this and my democratic and republican predecessors did. They go to the Supreme Court and say, Supreme Court, the case that we won, we should have case,so please grant this here it, and rule against the Justice Department. I dont think theres a better way of underscoring what sallys initial remarks are about about , being the publics lawyer, not the administrations lawyer. And so i think sally, when she did what she did on monday, she was harkining back to the best traditions of what the department is about. And resignation does not preserve that set of rejections. It does not explain the reasons, so im glad you wrote the letter that you did. After that letter was written, various folks that have these lawsuits, including the state of washington over the First Executive order, and after they won in the District Court, President Trump called them a socalled judge, the judge who ruled against it and so on, and if it went to the court of appeals and was unanimously struck down there as well. The president then pulled back, issued a new executive order a month later, and that new executive order is very much like the First Executive authority, except it has six countries covered, iraq is not covered instead of 7, it has a , more extensive description of when someone can apply for a waiver and it says in there that green card holders are not covered. It tried to provide some facts, because in the court of appeals argument over the First Executive order, the Administration Lawyer was constantly being asked by the judges, what National Security justification do you have . And it was as you said, as sally said, nothing in the First Executive order. They spent a month and they came up with two things, one that two citizens from iraq had come to the United States and a engaged in terrorism. They forgot that they exempted iraq. And the second is that the somalia child that had come as a refugee they forgot that they were exempting children as part of the executive order, so the idea that were going to bar refugees who are two years old who need to be here on humanitarian grounds because one day 20 years later might go out and do something, really strikes me as not where the country is on this set of issues. So in any event, after the First Executive order was issued, i represent the state of hawaii in Supreme Court matters, or the chunk of them, and i started talking to that Team Including the attorney general of hawaii, doug chin who is an astounding individual who carries, i think, the best traditions of justice that sally exemplifies to the state of hawaii and brings a challenge. To that point, there are other challenges in the system. And others went forced first. For the second executive order, we are ready to go, we thought it was virtually the same, we filed the lawsuit right away and blocked it from going into effect on the day it was supposed to go into effect, march 15, and then argue would it last month argued it last month. And this was probably the most unusual oral argument i have ever had because it was live carried on all the news networks. Normally Supreme Court arguments there are no cameras at all. So it did change, i think, a bit the dynamics of the argument. But also so cool for the public to be able to see this, and people all over the world to see a full argument. Won it in the court of appeals last week, or two weeks ago. Then yesterday we had a Supreme Court decision on this and the details, its a complicated decision, they have set the case for argument in the fall, so well argue in the first or second week of october. But they did cut back a little bit on the injunction that the District Court had issued in our case. The District Court had said no travel ban, that is, the six countries, people from the six countries who are blocked from coming in, they said all of them could come in, plus the refugee ban. The block on refugees for 120 days, that was also something the president couldnt do, because as sally was saying, this is motivated by religion, and thats basically what the president campaigned on. He said im calling for a complete and total shutdown of all muslim immigration. Even when he signs the First Executive order, he reads the title. He looks up at the camera and says we all know what that means. And there were a whole bunch of other things that the president has done while president to reenforce the idea that this is truly a muslim ban. So what the Supreme Court yesterday said, thats absolutely fine, the challenge, were going to let it stand for people who have some connection to the United States, so a refugee who was sponsored by a church group who has made contact, or a university of hawaii student whos coming, or we also represent the imam in the largest mosque in honolulu, its everyone who is going to come in the 120day period. The president declared victory. Its a victory compared to his losses up until now. But if those are the kind of victories the president has, i hope he has more of them because at the end of the day its a 63 decision yesterday from the United States Supreme Court saying the vast, vast bulk of the muslim ban, the travel ban cannot go into effect until they hear argument in october. And i am not affair of anotheriness nance the United States history in which a president in his first 150 days has been told by the courts, you cant do something that you claim you need only National Security grounds. I mean, that is an astounding day to happen in the first 150 days. It underscores why this panel is so important because were seeing a threat to the rule of law by this president. I dont think its a republican issue or a democrat issue. This is a pure constitutional civics issue. At central part of the issue here is the role of religion in a nonconstitutional manner in the formulation of the ban. What does the court distinguish between the two parts of the ban . Either of you. So, i dont know if the courts distinguish between the refugee and travel provisions with respect its effect on the den gration of muslims. I think the court so far has treated them the same and indeed, even the Supreme Court treated them the say. This is all motivated by antimuslim sentiment. The vast, vast majorities of refugees coming in are muslim refugees. That hasnt always been true but it is true now. I think what the courts have been concerned about is the executives should have no establishment of religion. The founders were worried about using immigration to try to create a religious state. Virginia had done precisely that by barring catholics from coming in through the immigration laws in 1785 is in part about this. It is our american tradition. We dont care who you pray to. And were going to treat you fairly. And this president has done something very different by saying, well, everyone else can come but not if youre from one of these muslim countries which 90 to 99 muslim that is a very scary thing for the rule of law. So three justices took a different view. Who were they and what were they thinking . So Justice Thomas wrote a separate opinion that said that he thought that the entire ban should go into effect. That there wasnt a likelihood of success on the merits. And i dont know if thats what President Trump was referring to when he declared a unanimous victory but that, of course, three justices, justices, thomas, alito and core such. Justice kennedy did not join that opinion. But certainly i think its fair to say that at least those three justices have signaled that they think the administration is on a stronger legal footing than certainly the lower courts have. So take a more general view of this. Sally, what threat doss you see today to the rule of law in our nation . Sally neal alluded to some of President Trumps comments about judges. Its not just that the president is making comments undermining the legitimacy of judges who issue opinions that he doesnt like, its what kind of impact can that have beyond just his own espousing his own personal opinion and undermining confidence in the system more broadly . Weve got a delicate balance there between the three branches of government. And you know, that balance has served us pretty darn well for many, many years now. And the idea that that balance is being thrown out of kilter by not just disagreing with what a court might do but attempting to delegitimize it. That seems very different to me than the kind of not just rhetoric but but feelings that that seems to evoke in some in the public. It concerns me that that can be really destructive and further divisive. Seems that we cant get much more divided in some ways. Thats obviously not in the longterm interest of our country either. If you think about it, the judiciaries are our crown jewel. I remember when i won that first gitmo case and i went out on the courthouse steps. You know, there are 500 cameras an theyre asking what does the decision mean . What does it say . Nobody had read it yet because it was so long. Heres what it means. It means in america, you can have this guy, the wost guy ever and he sues not just anyone but the nations most powerful man, the president of the United States and he brings this case in the highest court of the land the Supreme Court of the United States and he wins. Thats something remarkable about our system. Our founders new that our government was going to make mistakes, president s were going to make mistakes as madison said, men arent angels, thats why government is necessary. And it placed that into the system. And now you have a president who said, no, no, no, i get to make the rules. He wants to kick these travel ban cases out of the court all together. He thinks that actual di low pressure he filed a brief. Ive never seen this before in my lifetime. A brief in the court of appeals, the mere fact that the court is even hearing the challenge undermines our National Security. Mean, this is a ludicrous proposition. Bush and chaney at their darkest day never said anything like that. And then to undermine it, be authority for them to even call themselves socalled judges and things like that. I cant imagine something more corrosive to our american democracy and our system of checks and balances than a president who takes these kinds of view. You think of brown versus board of education, all sorts of things the court has done in oderating, you know, the worst exodus of democracy. But to have a president who says he knows better. I dont think weve had a president who knows better than the system. Weve got to move to questions from the audience. So you have to be thinking of questions you might ask. What does this tell us about justice core such . Gorsuch . Well, i would imagine that President Trump is pretty pleased with his nominee at this point. I dont think we should be terribly surprised by it. I mean, i think this is consistent with with where he was. Look, this is a couple of opinions. Weve got to give the guy a chance here. So i think that we should sit back and see sort of how it all plays out. And this is just at the injunction stage. Everyone should have expected that Justice Gorsuch was going to be a conservative judge. I dont think this comes as a surprise. Justice gorsuch has been on the court for a whopping two months. Its important to let the process even in this case which is set for argument in the fall. I did take a position in his confirmation hearings and did support him on the grounds that i was very upset when democrats voted republicans voted against our democratic nominee kagan and sotomayor and who i thought would be great. I felt like the same yardstick should be applied to the other side. Were only a couple of monltses in. I supported the chief justice confirmation. Attacked thatting he never voted on party line and so on. But i think weve seen the chief justice really move into a very different position on the court, casting the deciding vote to save obamacare and things like that. So i think, lets wait and see. Weve got a lot of time with Justice Gorsuch on the court. Think we w, but i just have to wait. A primary concern many people is how he got there. Is what the republicans did to judge merritt garland, his nomination because salley mentioned rule of law doesnt just mean laws but norms and conventions. Is the refusal of the Senate Republicans to consider or indeed to confirm merritt garland consistent to the rule of law . Well, i think you wrote a column or two on this . Yes, i did. You want to answer your own question . [laughter] no, im the moderator. Im supposed to be moderating. [laughter] you know, consistent with the rule of law. I mean, its certainly not consistent with how weve operated as a country or how we ought to operate. It was troubling to me that president obama being given an opportunity to even get a hearing for his nominee much less to be able to make the appointment. Its not like your last year in office is forfeited. So that you know, whether that is a violation of the concept of the rule of law or not, i dont know. But its not how we ought to be operating. Merritt garland was the most qualified nominee not just in our lifetime perhaps in the history of the u. S. Supreme court. The chief judge of the d. C. Circuit for 20 years. Never once been overruled in his 20 years of the Supreme Court. I mean, he was extraordinary. It was unforgivable. And a really sad thing for our system. What so do you think has brought us to this point . Is it the election of donald trump or other things going on that combine with that to create a real danger to the rule of law . Well, do i think that there is a kind of up for grabs nature about truth and law right now. That maybe its been jerneded by social media gendered by social media, something that you mentioned jeff. But there is no law anymore. Theres just politics. At least our oldfashioned people, it was a more conservative idea when i was in law school. Theres a law out there and theres a text and there are intentions and those things mean something and it contains judicial decisions. Its broken down far more on the conservative side. You have the Supreme Court time and again striking down things that president obama did on grounds that are, you know, as far as i can tell just made up because its raw politics and power that theyve been able to engage in at times. And so you know, its certainly something the left had played in the warren court as well. I dont mean to say that one side is innocent of that. But the result is really we dont have a stable consensus on law today in the way that we did in earlier points in our history. What about the issue of Political Polarization . You know to what extent has that contributed to the challenge to the rule of law . The notion that theres an increasing division in the society where people are less trusting of one another and of government as a as a sort of tendity that will look out entity that will look out for the wellbeing of society. Is that contributing . It seems were in the midst of a toxic swirl of sorts when neal mentioned, you nokes the facts. The truth and seeing that facts will be thrown out there, theyre demons trably untrue. Its established and we move on to the next day to the next story. And there are no consequences for that. We just seem to move on. And its almost as if we have to keep kicking the rhetoric up to be able we as a country have to keep kicking the rhetoric up to get peoples attention. Its about the lids about to blow off. There are no limits anymore in terms of what you can say or claim. And that just starts throwing all of those norms out the window that have really governed not just how we litigated but how we operated as a society as well. And i dont know if that is contributing to the polarization or if the polarization is contributing to that phenomena or maybe theyre sort of feeding on each other, im not sure. One of the things that neal said is that the famers were concerned about trust. Separation of powers and having traditional review were designed to deal with the risks of bad behavior within government. And one of the questions now is to the point where the protections against that bad behavior is breaking down. To the extent thats true thats a real threat to democracy and to the future. Lets invite some questions if for audience. There are two people with microphones. How about over here first . You can get that over there. S it possible . So my question is for both of you. Ms. For mr. Katzal and yates. Y name phillip deseimone it is an honor of having you both here. Ms. Yates is what made me spit my cup that day, if you will. Wow. And his fight against the travel ban really helped cement my faith in the Justice System of the United States in the face of this dilemma. And as a result i think i and i think many of us here view both of you among the great leaders of this era. [applause] so my question is fairly simple, straightforward. In regard to the i word which is impeachment. There have been calls since day one of this administration for impeachment. I dont think they had very much legitimacy at first. However, i think thats changed from trumps firing of ms. Yates to his firing mr. Comey to his potential firing of Robert Mueller, there is a case to be made for the obstruction of justice and one can imagine that for instance if president obama had done this same thing people like mcconnell and ryan would have already constructed a began impeachment proceedings. I think many of us think that President Trump has already well crossed the threshold of constitutionality but, you know, the majority of the house and senate clearly do not agree. So my question is, is there a Tipping Point similar to say a modern day saturday night massacre at which point the house and Senate Republicans will jump ship and join the call for impeachment, and if so, what is this Tipping Point . [laughter] have fun. [laughter] salley as a country, yes. I would assume that there is a Tipping Point. I wouldnt presume what that might be. One of the things that have concerned me as folks have talked about the special Council Investigation that bob muller is doing. I know bob muller. And folks ought to have tremendous confidence in him. I mean, he is the consummate professional. Hes going to call it like he sees it. Hes going to do in the right way. But bob muller is going to be deciding whether or not crimes were committed that could be used for prosecution or for impeachment. Surely thats not our bar. Thats not the standard of conduct that were looking for from a president or our administration. It shouldnt just be whether you committed a felony or not. It should also be whether or not youre observing the kind of norms that weve been talking about here today that are so essential to really the fabric of the rule of law. While i have total confidence in Robert Mueller and his ability to conduct this investigation, i dont think that we should just be putting all of our hopes in that will tell us whether anything bad happened here because theres potential and i dont know what the facts are. So im not drawing conclusions about what about what he may ultimately determine. But you know, there are facts here that should be alarming to us as a country that fall short of that would establish a basis for impeachment or for prosecution. Neal i cant improve on that. I would say by the way that the republicans will come to that view in and when it is determined that its in their political selfinterest to do so and not otherwise. Es, over here. Hi, two questions. One a lot of what you said has to do with the integrity of the department of justice. If over the next four years people like you dont want to work the department of justice, what does it look like in four years . Sally, you wrow a fantastic piece about criminal justice reform. I would love to hear you expand your comments on that. Sally with respect to the department of justice. Look, i was there for 27 years. I have total confidence in the career men and women who are at the department of justice. You all should feel really good about the folks who have committed their professional lives to doing the work of d. O. J. Now, granted applause plause absolutely. Nd [applause] absolutely. I became a political appointment they set the direction of the department. But you have got thousands and thousands of career d. O. J. People that are there that care deeply about the mission and the integrity of the department of justice. And i put my confidence in them. And theyre also good trump appointees that are at the department of justice now as well. So i dont think all is lost for d. O. J. Its going to with stand in anything like that. With respect to the second question on the oped, you know, i would take all of your time here. Sort of in a nutshell, the gist of this attorney general sessions had written an opinion piece jus fying going back to the mandatory minimum of the 1980s and 1990s that holder smart on crime policy where we took a more measured use of mandatory minimums that that was responseable for the increase in Violent Crimes some cities have experienced across the country. Even though some cities have experienced decreases. If we dont go back to locking drug dealers back up for as long as we can im obviously paraphrasing here, the country is going to be overtaken by violent crime. I just think that is a totally wrongheaded approach both from a fiscal standpoint and from a Public Safety standpoint that it is not the best use of our Public Safety dollars, that theres really absolutely zero evidence that keeping drug dealers, nonviolent lowlevel dealers in prison for longer is going to reduce violent crime. In fact, the data is just the opposite of that and that we need to be taking a more holistic approach of that. It was in the Washington Post this past weekend. If you havent read it, i strongly recommend it. Its terrific. Over here and then ill go here. Im emma green. Im an journalist for the atlantic magazine. Do you believe that max will be offered an immunity deal from Robert Mueller . And what factor should he weigh in in factoring such a deal. What would be illegal about collusion between the Trump Campaign administration in advance after following the election if such collusion did exist . Sally i dont think i should be telling bob muller how he should go about doing his investigation. So im going to defer on the whether mike lynch should be given immunity or not. [laughter] sorry. Im a physician from atlanta, georgia. I had to take the hip catic oath. What is the significant of our oath of office for our president and our Vice President . [laughter] [applause] well, it is actually, you know, in the constitution itself. I think put in there in order to reinforce the obligations the president has to take care of the office faithfully executed. I think folks need to worry about that right now. Theres no question. I did want to pick up on something salley said about the professionalism of the department and marry it with something that jeff said because it illustrated the traditions of government lawyering. So when i was running for solicitor general office, you have a little extra time. So i remembered in college i had read something about how the government might have lied to the Supreme Court in the japanese internalment cases i pulled off the breefs and everything and the correspondence. It was really remarkable. There were two career attorneys john burrelling and edward ennis defended the japanese internment. They realized the entire theory were just lies. There was a report by the office of Naval Intelligence saying this is all prejudicial not motivated by any Security Threat whatsoever. The army had justified it on well, the f. C. Basically japaneseamericans were going to the coastline and signaling to submarines offshore about our troop movements and the critical infrastructure. The f. C. C. Investigated that and found totally bunk. J. Edward hoover thought it wasnt justified. All of this was suppressed by the administration, by f. D. These two lawyers said were not going to sign this brief. Your suppressing evidence. The solicitor general overruled them and say im filing the brief. 15 pages of fact how japaneseamericans cant be trusted. It was a real dark day, i think. But i think that story illustrates one thing that you see time and again with the department which is the career folks standing up trying to do the right thing and its the political folks who come sometimes and say no, no, were not going to do the right thing. Sally, has ted cruz provided to provide you a reference . [laughter] no . [laughter] yeah. Im don browski. Im a practicing lawyer from houston. Could you all discuss the process for filling all the vacancies in u. S. Attorneys around the country and also whether the vetting process for federal judicial vacancies is likely to provide qualified candidates in the future . I know how the process worked in the obama administration. But i dont know how its working in the Trump Administration. So it doesnt seem to be working. [laughter] but i will si a little bit about the judge side. I actually have been quite impressed with trump nominees for the courts of appeals. They look, i mean, i suspected they would put judge judy up so im kind of happy. But actually some of the most qualified people in my generation certainly conservative but i think reasonable, smart, very accomplished individuals. So thats one, i think, bright spot that weve seen. And i dont know anything about the few u. S. Attorneys that theyve nominated. I can certainly tell you theyve gotten rid of some exr extraordinary some extraordinary ones. Back here. Ms. Yates its clear you have a lot of fans not just in the tint but across the country. I was wondering what your future holds and if elected office might be in the cards for you . I appreciate that. And people have been incredibly nice and generous. I dont really see running for office. Im not entirely sure what im going to do next. Im taking some time with my family now and starting to talk with some folks. I want to be able to find an avenue where i can continue to have an impact on issues that i care about. But running for office is nothing i could picture myself doing. If i could Say Something about being a Department Employee in two different administrations. I dont think a year ago if we saw salley that she would have been seen as a political hero that she is. I mean, she was known as the consummate Justice Department pro. No idea about politics or anything like that. Thats what she was known for. And it was the circumstances, these horrible circumstances shes put through from friday to monday which have all those, you know, weve lost a little sight f how many amazing, just nonpolitical salley yates did for the United States and for our country. [applause] so if the rule of law is under attack by the president and hised a minutes trakes, whats next . Is there a multiprong solution or other attempts on trying to right these wrongs . I think there are two important pieces to this. One is the defensive piece. You know, a litigation strategy thats designed to make sure that the worst exsuses of the president are reigned in. So the aclu is doing some of that. These other organization is doing it. The other thing we havent talked about it yet but is the press. I mean, do you think about all the Amazing Stories the press has done since november and i understand theres a lot of heartburn about the press before. But i think it really does underscore when our founders thought about checks and balances, they did think about power horizontally and power. They thought about the First Amendment this idea that the press was going to keep the congress on its toes. Its been breath taking what ive been seeing. I think supporting journalism is supporting the constitution of the United States. [applause] i want to say that one of the things thats impressed me enormously at this time is that traditionally very conservative journalists and commentators including george will and david brooks have been terrific at being willing to call this administration in a range of areas where i would not have personally expected that. They deserve a lot of credit for doing that. Ult matly, a lot will ultimately it will depend on the republicans. Will they step up and meet their Constitutional Responsibilities and obligations to look out for the best interest of our nation rath irthan operating a political operatives and think its that central to the success of a democracy. And at the moment were not seeing that. Es, over here. Yes, could you comment on the about bow litigation of cameras and stimmed yes in spicer press conferences . Save us from having to listen to it . I dont know. [laughter] [applause] so whats it going to do to saturday night live . Yes, over here. She got it. Yes, given what you just said about and we assume that everybody who is in washington is working for the best interest of the country . Do you think Mitch Mcconnell in the things that he is doing is working for the interest of the people . Ive been really disappointed. Our founders didnt anticipate Political Parties when they thought about checks and balances. You know, and so that has contributed, i think to a large number of the problems. The gentleman was saying in his question, i mean, if the democrats did even one one billionth of the israeli spies there would be impeachment proceedings within the millisecond. I think theres a real double standard going on here and it is a threat to our constitutional democracy. Theres no question about it. Over here . Hi, good morning. I teach at a school in san diego with a fairly sizable muslim population. And thank you for helping me understand the Supreme Courts decision yesterday. But im wond erring if theres anything wondering if theres anything else you might want me to share with my students to help them understand the Supreme Courts rep cent decision . I guess i would like you to share with them that hundreds of members of congress have said this isnt who we are. I guess id like you to share with them our 167th Biggest Technology companies who have said this isnt who we are. That dozens of our top National Security Administration Officials from both from both parties, penal like hayden and people like that have said this is not who we are. People like hayden and people like that have said that this is not who we are. That the president doesnt speak for what our Constitutional Values have been and what they will be. [applause] if proven of russian collusion, what happens in the rule of law . I mean, if trump gets impeached something related to that is one thing but isnt pence fruit of the poisoned tree . And what would happen . What happened to those laws that trump has signed and the Supreme Court and all that . We have like 15 seconds so [laughter] sorry. Only law professors could answer that question. So the laws are still going to be in effect even though eres a presumption of regularity should anything be shown. I mean, in terms of pence, you know, i suspect that theyve tried to wall him off. If youve seen house of cards you know how this plays out. But you know, i think hes presumably walled off from these other things just in case theres a problem. You know, neal and salley represent the best of our nation. [applause] to live up to the rule of law and to protect our constitution. Thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] in 1979 cspan was created by americas table television is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. Washington journal is next. Well talk your calls. South koreas president is washington this week. The president was selected in and will discuss the relationship between the u. S. And south korea live at 6 00 eastern here on cspan. Up next hour, well review the week on capital hill. In the latest, Senate Healthcare bill, roll call, and gabby host good morning, everybody, june 30. Turn off our show, please. The morning joe hosts respond this morning in a opinion piece to the president s tweets yesterday. And usa todays front page said the president s commentary turned stomaches in washington. With lawmakers, some of them saying it was beneath the office of the presidency. We turn to our viewers. What do you think . Are the president s tweets beneath the dignity of the office . Democrats