rotections in law are still there. and by the way, restrictions on bortion will not be done away with. and your life matters. so if you want a picture of picture jordan. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. yields.leman the gentleman from new york is recognized. r. nadler: madam speaker, once again, congress can enact a limit.ion putting a time it can enact a resolution to remove a time limit. when the senate passes it, the will be part of the constitution. i now yield the balance of our time to the distinguished from michigan, representative tlaib. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. ms. tlaib: thank you so much. i rise very proudly, the first ever elected in congress, in support of house 79.t resolution i swear what's even more interesting is what i've been obsession ut is this to control and oppress women in the united states of america. 2020, t believe it's we're still debating the merits of equal rights amendment. time.eyond i want you all t

, law of debtors and creditors, bankruptcy law, law in economics -- if it was about money, count me in. but there was one central question that i always worked on, always -- and that is what is happening to working families in america? why is america's middle class being hollowed out? why is it that people who work every bit as hard as my mother and father worked two generations ago, today find the path so much rockier and so much steeper? and for people of color, even rockier and even steeper. and the answer has to do with our government in washington. it has to do with whose side the y are on. think of it this way. we have a government that works great. it works fabulously for giant drug companies. just not for people trying to get a prescription filled. it works great for people who want to make a little money investing in private detention centers down at the border or private prisons. just not for the human beings whose lives are torn apart by those places. it works great for giant oil companies that want to drill everywhere, just not for the rest of us who see climate change bear

congress is not above the law. nobody is above the law. in the case of impeachment, though, it is not something that the courts would get involved with other than to evaluate the merits of subpoenas, let's say, but with respect to what's an impeachable offense, that's not who checks the house. the institution that checks the house is the senate. that's where you get review. it's a senate review instead of judicial review of what has happened in the house meets the standard of due process, and that is exactly what i think persuaded a majority of the senators to vote the way they did, regardless of whether or not the president had misbehaved. clearly the house had misbehaved, and to create an incentive or a future precedent in which the house, no matter which party controls it, can continue to act politically and abuse their impeachment power is something the senate was charged with stopping, and i think that's what they did. >> if they had a case with the president misbehaving, didn't act like it was a terribly strong case, for the reasons

the law was attacked as obsolete. the argument was that some states that might have discriminated in 1965 are no longer denying african americans the right to vote. there was a built in check in the statute to take care of that kind of situation. it was a bear out provision. it said that if you had a clean record for x number of years you can apply to be released from preclearance. but the majority of mines thought the formula was obsolete, it needed to be done over. one of the points that i made in my dissent was, what member of our congress is going to stand up and say my state or my city or my county is still keeping african americans from voting so please keep us out of the preclearance system. that was not going to happen. if you think about, who knows a little more about the political world, the congress or the court, the congress said we want the voting rights act, it is working well, and the court said, you cannot have it. if you talk about judicial activism, here is a law that congress overwhelmingly passed a

ryan in law school was to the right of attila the han. i say that in just, brian is actually more libertarian but very sterling,'s credentials, works for judge scanlon, or justice scalia, worked for editor john cornyn of texas and is a stalwart of the federalist society so this is a long way of asking him how does a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy write about insupport of class action ? >> thank you for that kind introduction. the reason that i think conservatives should support class action is because we have to ask ourselves what the alternative is. and the alternative was told to us in an amicus brief filed by the united states chamber of commerce in 2010, this amicus brief is what inspired me to write the book that you have in front of you today area in the case before the supreme court is called at&t versus conceptionon, many of you know about this case . the question was our class action waivers embedded in arbitration agreements enforceable ? and the us supreme court said yes. my old boss justice scalia of the opinion and

this is an abuse of power that the president is again trying to manipulate federal law enforcement to serve his political interests. in the united states majority leader nancy pelosi she has once again accused the president drunk of you heard abuse of power now that is an impeachable offense and it raises once again the possibility of impeachment this comes after comments on his former advisor roger stone trump criticized u.s. prosecutors who recommended a prison sentence of up to 9 years for stone stone was convicted for a lying to congress just hours later the department of justice changed its recommendation to a much more lenient term for u.s. prosecutors working on the stone case resigned in protest calling the president's intervention a 5 alarm fire for us democracy nancy pelosi agree to give us american people must have confidence in their nation system of impartial justice. and with a job on the floor of career prosecutors the case but in action on their part it must be commended that the actions of the justice department justice department has this should had this are at somet

, law of debtors and creditors, bankruptcy law, law in economics -- if it was about money, count me in. but my work was always around one central question, what is happening to working families in america? why is america's middle class being hollowed out? why is it that people who work every bit as hard as my mother and daddy worked two generations ago, today find the path so much rockier and steeper? and for people of color, even rockier and even steeper. and the reason has to do with our government in washington. it has to do with whose side the government is on. think of it this way. we have a government that works great for giant drug companies. just not for people trying to get a prescription filled. works great for folks who want to make a little money investing in private detention centers down at the border or private prisons. just not for the human beings whose lives are torn apart by those places. works great for giant oil companies who want to drill everywhere, just not for the rest of us who see climate change bearing down upon us. and when you see a government that works g

laws. jillian: they enacted this entry greenlight law allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. tom homan says dhs has no choice, thanks for being here. a lot of people are upset about this. this is something a lot of people paid money for. they spent time to interview for this and all of a sudden because of this new law they can't utilize this anymore. was this the right move? was it necessary? >> absolutely the right move and i salute the acting secretary for doing this. i watched a clip, governor cuomo said this is a political move. this governor has lost his mind. if anyone is making a political statement it is him. he created a lot to give illegal aliens drivers licenses. he needs to understand the drivers license doesn't give someone permission to drive. it is identification used to open big account, cash checks and joined the traveler protection program. he should have checked with dhs before he made this change in law on the effects of it. todd: we are going to play i

there are some exceptions to the law that allow for law enforcement to ensure folks are delivered the justice they deserve. >> reporter: joe vazquez, kpix 5s. >> the department of justice is also suing new jersey and a county in washington state over sanctuary policies that allegedly disregard federal immigration law. >>> well, to campaign 2020 now. and tonight voting already underway in the new hampshire primary. >> veronica de la cruz joins us now with the early numbers and how the candidates are approaching the crucial contest. >> yes, the democratic presidential hopefuls are all hoping for a stro showing in new hampshire to separate themselves from the pack of contenders. voters in 3 small towns were the first to cast their ballots. in dixville notch michael bloomberg was the surprise winner. overall amy klobuchar won 8 of the 25 votes cast after midnight. the candidates spread out over new hampshire today in a fury of last minute campaigning. bernie sanders and pete buttigieg drew the biggest crowds, and now the 2 have each other in the cross hairs. >> joe biden and pete buttigie

this is terror that the president is again trying to manipulate federal law enforcement to serve his political interests. in the united states majority leader nancy pelosi she has once again accused the president drunk of you heard abuse of power now that is an impeachable offense and it raises once again the possibility of impeachment this comes after trump's comments on his former advisor roger stone criticized u.s. prosecutors who recommended a prison sentence of up to 9 years for stone stone was convicted for a lying to congress just hours later the department of justice changed its recommendation to a much more lenient term for u.s. prosecutors working on the stone case resigned in protest calling the president's intervention a 5 alarm fire for u.s. democracy nancy pelosi agree take a listen merican people must have confidence in their ancient system of impartial justice and with the job of the floor of career prosecutors the case but an action on their part in my speech can end it at the actions of the justice department justice department has. should had this are at something

federal law. there is a policy component to what i do which is to help form policies working with the congress and our inter-agency to advance rule of law issues around the world. peter: is your position political or career? >> i serve in a political office but my role is as a career employee. a little bit of both. i am a career person. servers in a political office. >> how long have you been at the doj? >> 12 years. about three years ago, i moved to main justice. encryption andd that has been in the news recently with the saudi terrorist in florida and the san bernardino shooting several years ago. what is the current thinking when it comes to encryption and the doj? >> i appreciate the question. i should emphasize that at the department of justice we believe in strong encryption. we believe in making sure that data is secure. a major part of our mission is to prosecute cyber criminals that steel data and violate u.s. law so we believe in encryption. we are worried about wa rrant proof encryption

the law. given that and the fact that society faces what i think of as an existential risk from malicious cyber actors, meaning we are so independent -- so dependent on these systems that are vulnerable, we are so dependent on them for so many things in society, we all know how integrated digital technology is in our lives, that a catastrophic failure could represent an existential threat to the adequate functioning of society to protect the health, safety and welfare of all americans and citizens in the countries of our allies around the world. i am quite worried about that. one of the ways to protect ourselves is encryption. it helps protect us against malicious cyber actors, including nationstates. my view is law enforcement needs to rethink its approach to encryption in light of the fact that congress will not act and in light of the fact there are significant cyber threats and embrace encryption set of trying to find ways so called it. thus not really what law enforcement is trying to do,

constitutional law. right? there is inherently a balance between privacy which is very important and public safety and the warrant requirement is what brought that line with what a federal magistrate judge ways pros and cons and decides to award a warrant he or she has checked all the boxes the constitution requires between balancing privacy and public safety and draws the interest in the favor of public safety. that is why i think there is really no privacy issue here. when you seek a warrant you set aside the privacy interest. by the way, when it comes to a dead terrorist there are no privacy issues and that is established under our legal system. the person who is dead has no fourth amendment rights but nonetheless the end fbi because it's a rule of law agency, nonetheless went to a judge and saw that order. i don't think it's about privacy versus security because once we got the court order we satisfied the very significant privacy sake. >> host: is there a comparison to us mail or e-mail? to this case when

can really sanction a priest a bishop so it is now now it is possible since 1st of june with a new law that has been established that the local metropolitan the archbishop can and needs to oversee what the bishops in his district do or don't and he has to report if there is a failure negligence or cover up ok well let's talk about accountability in more detail below to but in january this year the pope criticized bishops in the u.s. for covering up sexual abuse and indulging in gossip and slander to avoid responsibility it was painful he said to watch in a piss kaputt lacking in nudity and concentrate more on pointing fingers than on seeking part of reconciliation if it was so painful to him why not use the remedy that was staring him in the face and remains in his hands today so the bishops sack as many as you have to in order to restore some public trust in the church. but i doubt if he doesn't do that you say yes but he doesn't do that he did it yesterday one yeah and over the last year he did a couple of more and and. a number of them i know a lot more how many bishops have you got

government has been consulting since last summer on how to introduce a new online homes law to put the responsibility on social media companies to remove harmful content child protection charities certainly support that. ultimately regulation is required that's what we would argue the big tech giants need to be held to account the regulator needs teeth so they not only need to monitor what's going on and talk about it publicly but also hold to account these multi-billion pound platforms one of the social media giants were available for interview prefer him to issue written statements the boss of you tube u.k. said to help keep our community safe we haven't waited for regulation we've created new technology hired experts reviewers worked with external specialists and reviewed our policies to ensure they're fit for the evolving challenges we face online facebook's head of public policy said we have clear rules about what is and isn't allowed on our platforms and on investing billions in safety we look forward to carrying on the discussion with the government parliament and the rest of in

laws or these. instructions put by the separatists is targeted same as who are against the last goodbye by the state so people here are caught in between the separatists why it is and also the media jihad and the economy here east on its knees businesses have shut down security cannot be guaranteed people can no longer leads very difficult for people who are living here lots of villages like i mentioned before have been burned down so lots of people have left the village areas and are come to d.c. so there are cities like a very congested and there's just lots of money for people to leave but will the results of these elections change anything. for many and reforms this would not change anything but for the govan don't tell you that in december the passed a law permitting the funds to have a special one to call a specialist to choose me and i don't want to be able to decide some of the laws and to. i mean bizarrely how an assembly where they can discuss the issues but the problem these issues can be

ciara torres-spelliscy, professor of law at stimson called a lovely, teaches election law, corporate government, business and prior to joining factious counsel in the tamoxifen program of the brennan center for justice at nyu school of law where she provided guidance on the issue of money in politics. she was a staffer for richard durbin up on the hill. she received her j. d. from columbia university and her a.b. from harvard. professor, you are recognized for five and a. >> thank you. good morning. my name is ciara torres-spelliscy. i live in a swing district in the swing state of florida. my law students are republicans, democrats and independents and i need to tell you that american voters are worried about the state of our elections after the attacks on our democracy in 2016. what american voters see from congress and from the federal election commission is not reassuring. looks like they cannot get out of their own way to protect the integrity of american elections. this was true before 2016, but after 2016 it's nothing short of excruciating to watch congress and the fcc not act

can really sanction a priest a bishop so it is now now it is possible since 1st of june with a new law that has been established that the local metropolitan the archbishop can and needs to oversee what the bishops in his district do or don't and he has to report if there is a failure negligence or cover up ok well let's talk about accountability in more detail below to but in january this year the pope criticized bishops in the u.s. for covering up sexual abuse and indulging in gossip and slander to avoid responsibility it was painful he said to watch in the pits kaputt lacking in unity and concentrate more on pointing fingers than on seeking parts of reconciliation if it was so painful to him why not use the remedy that was staring him in the face and remains in his hands to set the bishops sack as many as you have to in order to restore some public trust in the church. but if he doesn't do that you say yes but he doesn't do that he did yesterday one yeah and over the last year he did a couple of more and and. a number of them i know a couple of more how many bishops of you've got in

the structure of the law is the same. host: why did you select this particular area as part of your research at princeton? guest: my research began by looking at the history of the hiv-aids epidemic. that's a relatively recent history, and it is still current problem. but a lot of the scholarship focuses on the social, activist history or the interpersonal bias between americans. and i was kind of understanding that history but also a little unsatisfied as to how it explained the sort of structural resources at hand to handle the epidemic. i really wanted to reach back in time, back to medicaid and medicare which was just 15 years , before the epidemic to think about how this first national really truly nationwide program changed the health care structure in ways that deemphasize inpatient care and palliative care and increased the burdens of health care on persons who received outpatient care and returned to their homes to recover or who relied on meager subsidies for pharmaceuticals. i found the reason why the health ca

currently professor at nyu law. thank you very much for being here. >> i hope you're not going to ask me any of those questions. >> i've laid this out in stark terms. do you think i'm being unreasonable? >> i don't. the one point i would make is this is not a democratic/republican issue in terms of where we are today. i have served under democratic administrations and republican administrations in the department of justice. i worked on the enron case, which was highly, highly political in the sense that there was enormous interest in the press about whether ken lay, the then chairman of the firm, was connected to the vice president. >> the brand new bush/cheney administration? >> exactly. and there was not any political pressure put on us at all. it was -- it was classic department of justice, which, as you follow the facts, the law. if it's a warranted investigation, it will be brought and that full investigation was led by republican whose had integrity. so, this really isn't -- what we're living through now, i do

can really sanction a priest and bishop so it is now now it is possible since 1st of june with a new law that has been established that the local metropolitan the archbishop can and needs to oversee what the bishops in his district do or don't and he has to report if there is a failure negligence or cover up ok well let's talk about accountability in more detail below to but in january this year the pope criticized bishops in the u.s. for covering up sexual abuse and indulging in gossip and slander to avoid responsibility it was painful he said to watch in a piss kaputt lacking in unity and concentrate more on pointing fingers than on seeking part of reconciliation if it was so painful to him why not use the remedy that was staring him in the face and remains in his hands to set the bishops sack as many as you have to in order to restore some public trust in the church. but if he doesn't do that you say yes but he doesn't do that he did it yesterday one yeah and over the last year he did a couple of more and and. a number of them i know a lot more how many bishops if you've got in this c

so when we know there are gaps in the laws or holes or places where we are unable to enforce the law because the dots don't connect, those are the kinds of things that a policy analyst helps us understand and helps make recommendations on how to close those gaps and how to strengthen the laws so they are sensible, workable, and enforceable. this position is also one that would -- does provide advice on the most complex of issues that come before us and so not having that position filled with all of the work that it would do in terms of analyzing policy, helping to for the implementation of policy by contributing subject matter expertise to the work that we all do, to get programs up and running once they've been passed into law, that is an area that would essentially compromise the commission's ability to do its job as a policy-making body with independent voice effectively and we're concerned about that. we would have to relook at what of those priorities have continue to be pursued that would result in having to take new projects on to our existing 18-23, senior policy council's pl

constitution of the united states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. donald j trump has abused the powers of the presidency in that using the powers of his high office, president trump solicited the interference of a foreign government. ukraine, in the 20/20 united states presidential election. he did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the government of the ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection. armed the election prospects of a political opponent and influence the 2020 united states presidential election to his advantage. president trump also sought to pressure the government of the ukraine to take the steps by conditioning official united states government acts of value to ukraine on its public announcement of the investigation. president trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. in doing so president trump use the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromise national security of

and eric holder the attorney general says that there's a separate rule of law for bankers ok doesn't that kind of the law stick in the craw of your throw it out of american don't have a basic decency to understand why that's not a good thing they do and in fact people do understand that and one of the things in my movement within labor years ago i was told by some guys that were on affiliates and independents that should be pro democrat and generally are they said the problem they have with democrats is when the bullets fly they duck so what they're saying is that when we're in a fight they're not willing to stand up and push back and when we were in a fight against big finance we didn't stand up and push back what we did is we we cut back room deals and we didn't prosecute people everyone i was a mere a small town you go in and you rob a store and commit a crime you're probably going to get arrested and serve time everyone understands that what they can't understand is why people don't serve time for white collar crime this is what front running is about it's more than just the indi

laws still exist. while vattenfall trial against germany is proceeding in washington the federal constitutional court in karlsruhe where the 1st complaint was launched give this judgement. the court declares that abandoning nuclear power conforms to the german constitution and that the companies affected will have to receive a financial compensation. about the farrakhan offer to come to yours or mission or are women too young. to survive on trade schools mr there's foreman a cure for one. and how to also. from here your. soon to be leashed industrial in the tradition for the new. beagle going to be. involved in guns i'm not. going to be reviewing he just wanders off and. between v's english and restart the. on the. giving the from. here didn't. just must confide to me just insurance he says they need this communion. so long it can also be humble to be in a key concern in london. and extend the sheets. to sharpness of sorts for the woman of. 40000000. interested in. a nice weeks in the. oil or. it is up

thinking of the brief in the rewriting, it's violation of law, use a violation of criminal law. all right you have to do that. you imply criminal law. in order to avoid the constitution. then you have the other restrictions such as mr. fagan gave and said the reason we rewrite it this way, because maybe the justice examples are right. i don't know all the possibilities there. but the reason we write this way, as we assume that what congress would have preferred to the unconstitutionality of the statute, is the common definition, the common definition and use of the word solicitation. in other words we take the heart of solicitation and read that into congress' mind and put in the word criminal. you probably have thought of this, and i am curious to know what your reaction to this is? >> my reaction, if your honor were to do that my client gets acquitted. >> as a matter of statutory interpretation i think that is the two far. it would be permissible if congress had written so listen but it didn't. it wrote in courage on congress knows a safe solicit what it wants to comment says

we had a law that was challenged on voter i.d. in 2012. it went through the courts and as recently as three weeks ago there has been a settlement reached between the lawyers representing the native american tribes and the state of north dakota. now irving don't pretend to know the particular and unique circumstances of every other district but i do know that if you would read the majority staff memo regarding north dakota which states north dakota passed a law that required identification with a current resident residential street address to vote, righter that excluded nate at the americans on reservations who do not have street addresses. the laugh affected opportunities of thousands of native americans in north dakota in an election area in which kevin crane won the race boat -- that statement is misleading at its most charitable interpretation. what it doesn't say in the prior senate race the democratic candidate won by less than 3,000 votes. it doesn't say that in the 2018 race, that the vote margin was just under 10% of the entire vot

i taught all courses, contract law, commercial law, finance, bankruptcy law, count me in. what is happening to working families in america. wise america's middle-class being hollowed out, why is it people who work every bit as hard as my parents worked two generations ago, find the path so much rockier and people of color and even steeper. the answer has to do with government in washington. it has to do with whose side our government is on. we have a government that works great, four giant drug companies. it works great. in private detention centers at the border or private prisons, just not for the human being whose lives are torn apart. it works great. oil companies that want to drill anywhere just not for the rest of us who see climate change bearing down upon us. if you see a government that works great for those with money and not working so great for everyone else, that is corruption and we need to call it out for what it is. [applause] >> it is the money that flows through washington, all the policies that get made. is about campaign contributions, lawyers, pr firms

someone who thinks he is above the law and rules don't apply to him. so they made sure our democracy have the tool of impeachment to stop that kind of abuse of power. the house managers have clearly laid out a compelling case as evidence of donald trump's mom - - trumps that the president and the united states of america withheld military aid for his political gain. he wanted a foreign country to announce, not actually conduc conduct, announcing an investigation into his political rivalal. then he refused to comply with congressional investigations into his misconduct. and but nonetheless i will refuse the senate trial of donald trump and get away with abusing the position of power for personal gain. abusing his position of power to stop congress from looking into his misconduct and then softly claiming he has been exonerated. he will escape accountability because we have decided to let him he voted repeatedly to vote but all the things written down mr. truth we are in once as with the powerful and another. >> so let's speak the truth about whether sys

this was a common law model. i think we are all familiar -- with that the original understanding was that even federal officers would be principally responsible for judges in state court. there was no general federal question statue. >> your reference to the government's position in bivens. that was almost 50 years ago. and the interim, there's been a fairly dramatic change and how we approach things, causes of action, under statutes. and under bivens. it's been 40 years since we last recognized a class action in bivens. we need to move up half a century. explain to us why we should take your approach today, regardless of the prevailing legal regime was in 71. >> i think the point. if i may offer two points a response. i say all this by putting bivens in contacts. bivens with a continuation of this tradition. the 1:00 forward is the task for the court today. i think it is worth stressing. of the nine cases, this court has decided since carlson, which a government point out in page 11. at this gorgeous had the opp

states and dc currently with red flag laws. >> yeah, they have been trying red flag laws, extreme risk protection orders for 20 years now and today more than 30 states have rejected them outright, our biggest issue is red flag is due process. their version of due process to get this passed for a petitioner to have the rights taken away is akin to same type of standard that you see in court. >> this was on saturday is when the rally took place, the very next day we had reports of officers being targeted, thankfully not killed here in new york city, what is your take when it comes to, you know, convicted felons using weapons. >> convicted felons can't use weapons, that's something that we are against, the red flag laws, what they are talking about are some of the solution that is we already have in existing laws, felons can't have firearms, and you can have them arrested, they are talk about people that haven't committed a crime and, you know, haven't threatened anyone that they can do that yet they are so apparently dangerous that they have to remove their rights to own a firearm withou

you couldn't pass the law unless you got it pre-cleared. the law was attacked as obsolete. the argument was that some states that might have discriminated in 1965 are no longer denying african americans the right to vote. there was a built in check in the statute to take care of that kind of situation. it was a bailout provision. it said that if you had a clean record for x number of years you can apply to be released from preclearance. but the majority of my court thought the formula was obsolete, it needed to be done over. one of the points that i made in my dissent was, what member of our congress is going to stand up and say my state or my city or my county is still keeping african americans from voting so please keep us under the gun of the preclearance system. that was not going to happen. if you think about, who knows a little more about the political world, the congress or the court, the congress said we want the voting rights act, it is working well, and the court said, you cannot have it. if you talk about judicial activism, here is a law that congress overwhelmin

law, legal u.s. immigrants can be deported if they commit a, quote, aggravated felony or a crime of moral turpitude. that is a vile depraved act like molesting children. under the new way forward act, crimes of moral turpitude are eliminated entirely as a justification for deportation. and the category of aggravated felony gets eliminated, too. what does that mean? consider this? under current law immigrants who commit serious crimes robbery to fraud to child sexual abuse must be deported regardless of the sentences they receive. other crimes, less severe ones like racketeering require deportation if the perpetrator receives at least a one-year sentence. unksd this bill there would no longer be any crime that automatically requires deportation. none. and one crime, falsifying a passport, would be made immune from deportation no matter what because apparently 9/11 never even happened and we no longer care about fake government documents. by the way, if you just renewed your driver's license to real i.

well the whole thing with the law all over the total. look in the law and we'll call it go look although you almost go below the level you know while full devil call to go along for a while loop just let alone a little of a sudden one of you. all of. the . i can't show you my face but i'm going to teach you must story in 9093 this man was sentenced to death they could charge kenny with capital murder even though he didn't have the gun didn't pull the trigger didn't intend to kill anybody imagine living in your bathroom for that week with his son of a 23. doubt that i deserved to be on it i'd be very. confined within 4 grey walls defun it's using. turn on to help him to leave this room. but whole existence to do something to. put themselves on the line to get accepted or rejected. so when you want to be depressed. or some want to. have to go right to the press this is what the before. 3 in the morning can't be good. i'm interested always in the walls of my house. there should be. this number you would know the moon but in your circles mod

>> i think we need stronger laws. there are some things that the ftc could do if they had a quorum but frankly i was trying to strengthen our rules on disclaimers of online advertising and i've been working on that for years and i was not getting operation from the other side so even something as small as that struggles to get past at the fec. we are, as i mentioned, we don't have sufficient new regulations right now so any action right now would have to come from congress and when the mission does get new commissioners i can only hope they will be people that are willing to work across the aisle try to address some of these strong and deep threats to our democracy. >> ellen is one of three commissioners who serves on the fcc. thank you for your time. just a reminder that this communicators program as well as all others are available as podcasts. >> c-span, your unfiltered view of government. crated by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. >> and now on c-span2's book tv more television f

and eric holder the attorney general says that there's a separate rule of law for bankers ok doesn't that kind of the law stick in the craw of your throat of american don't have a basic decency to understand why that's not a good thing they do and in fact people do understand that and one of the things in my movement within labor years ago i was told by some guys that were on affiliates and independents that should be pro democrat and generally are they said the problem they have with democrats is when the bullets fly they duck so what they're saying is that when we're in a fight they're not willing to stand up and push back and when we were in a fight against big finance we didn't stand up and push back what we did is we we cut back room deals and we didn't prosecute people everyone i was a mere a small town you go in and you rob a store and commit a crime you're probably going to get arrested and serve time everyone understands that what they can't understand is why people don't serve time for white collar crime this is what front running is about it's more than just the individual

detainer which was ignored by local law enforcement. this is one of many stories and i want to start with rich because you and i were speaking backstage about this very subject. if you could just elaborate. >> thank you it's so great to be here. in the best country that god has ever created, the united states. what janine was talking about something that hit really close to home and we were talking and i was telling her i got a text from my brother about that story from fox news and i told him i'd already seen the story because i read it in the new york post. he said you are missing the point. what's the point? he says, that is daria's grandmother and i said oh wow, daria is his sister-in-law cousins grandmother. so two degrees of separation between his family and my family i said oh my gosh. that's when it became incredibly real this wasn't just a sweet innocent old woman that was strangled, raped, and murdered in queens this was actually something we knew and that pulls at the heartstrings and gives you plausible who cares about your

all we are there for, law enforcement officers, border or municipal law enforcement enforce the laws passed by whatever authority passes those laws. host: how frustrating is it to see congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform over the course of now two decades? guest: it's extremely frustrating. i go back to the immigration reform and control act of 1986. the problem was there was a legalization piece and enforcement piece. they gave a legalization piece but did not follow through on the enforcement piece. because i did not follow through, it gave rise to the illegal immigration we saw. because of that we've had to double the border patrol on three separate occasions because of the number of people that were crossing our borders illegally. anytime you intensify -- i will go back to that. if you intensify crime, it is going to take place. we have laws in this country to protect the american public. thatly, it is the laws made this country the greatest nation on earth. if we ignore those laws, we come like any other country. --t: border have pretensions apprehensions dro

toppled in the 2011 revolution has died aged 91 when you dangar over india's controversial citizenship laws 13 people are killed in protests in the capital during the u.s. president on tribes of physics and the 19 people are killed as government here strikes reportedly targets schools in northwest syria a group says civilians must be given safe passage. welcome to the program the world health organization has warned of the coronavirus epidemic is escalating rapidly and action must be taken quickly to prevent it from becoming a pandemic this as the global reach of the virus continues to expand emergency talks have been held the in italy where the virus has now spread south from its epicenter including don't you to tuscany and even sicily there are also confirmed cases across the border in croatia austria switzerland and germany the number of cases continues to rise in iran as there's concern over the government's handling of the outbreak after the country's deputy health minister the man leading the fight against the illness confirmed that he himself has been diagnosed with the virus the us

we are a nation of laws. on one hand, the inclination is to enforce our laws, on the other hand the humanitarian perspective cannot be ignored. how should we treat this? we continue to debate it. we desperately need a solution. one of the things i do in washington besides teach at american university is, i am a nonresident fellow at a migration policy institute, and one of the things we do is debate what a good immigration policy would be. what would that look like? one possibility is it would involve advanced planning. what are the country's economic needs going forward? would we create a five-year plan, 10-year plan for who we invite into our country? what kind of skills they would have, and how would our concerns about the skills of incoming immigrants mesh with our desire to be humanitarian and accept the relatives of those already here, the family reunification element of previous legislation. a tremendous number of very hard questions for our country to answer. clearly we are enmeshed in a ferocious deb

and she's not a law. abiding citizen of a bad guy in 30 minutes on d.w.i. . the firestorms long shot down. 75 years ago dresden historical center was decimated in a single night by the allied forces 3 months before the end of world war 2. historians are still debating how the baroque city came to be bombed to. analyzing the past the dresden legend. 75 minutes on w. closely . carefully i don't know. to be a good. discover . the i. subscribe to. documentary. the power of sorts. where i come from i never saw the sun where lifting. heavy going up in brazil the sun was always a man since the point of his words 1st son is masculine when i moved to germany as a 10 year old i wanted to talk to him on t.v. that would change how i see the world because into a monkey the son is family and. the same now but the side of a good listener siren upon the tape instead of a deep voice exterminate the guy seemed absolutely incredible. i realized how language shapes the thinking how definitions are not only a mental image just put our whole perception of the role. inside save my

all we are there for, law enforcement officers, border or municipal law enforcement enforce the laws passed by whatever authority passes those laws. host: how frustrating is it to see congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform over the course of now two decades? guest: it's extremely frustrating. i go back to the immigration reform and control act of 1986. the problem was there was a legalization piece and enforcement piece. they gave a legalization piece but did not follow through on the enforcement piece. because i did not follow through, it gave rise to the illegal immigration we saw. because of that we've had to double the border patrol on three separate occasions because of the number of people that were crossing our borders illegally. anytime you intensify -- i will go back to that. if you intensify crime, it is going to take place. we have laws in this country to protect the american public. thatly, it is the laws >> at the time i said you do not run for second place. said, the second half of my conversation is that i would be honored to stand in service of the n

the law was attacked as obsolete. the argument was that some states that might have discriminated in 1965 are no longer denying african americans the right to vote. there was a built in check in the statute to take care of that kind of situation. it was a bear out provision. it said that if you had a clean record for x number of years you can apply to be released from preclearance. but the majority of minds thought the formula was obsolete, it needed to be done over. one of the points that i made in my dissent was, what member of our congress is going to stand up and say my state or my city or my county is still keeping african americans from voting so please keep us out of the preclearance system. that was not going to happen. if you think about, who knows a little more about the political world, the congress or the court, the congress said we want the voting rights act, it is working well, and the court said, you cannot have it. if you talk about judicial activism, here is a law that congress overwhelmingly passed a

and if he tries and thinks that he is above the law and with that i will yield back the floor >> from the first words of the constitution that is on every american's shoulders has been clear. we the people are the ones that dreamedreamed of this experimene call america and we the people are the ones charged with ensuring its survival. the push and pull behind our democracy because there is no greater privilege than whose constitution guarantees the right and no greater burden than knowing our actions in that constitution of its power but our inaction allowing it to weather like any other from the bygone era. for the e past few weeks it's bn my duty as a united states senator to sit as an impartial juror in the impeachment trial of donald trump and while i wish the president hasn't put our nation in this n position after listening closely with an open mind to both sides it is now my duty to vote on whether to remove him from office. other than w sending the troops into harms way, i cannot think of a more serious road to take in this chamber but as sobering as it is the right path forwa

general, do you think it would be helpful if we had a domestic terror law? i have a piece of legislation that i'm working on that i had introduced in a bipartisan way last congress which freezes the assets of domestic terrorists called a fast track, do you think that would be helpful in our fight against isis-inspired homegrown terrorists and other homegrown terrorists in the united states? >> yes. i don't think there's any question. the -- that's my opinion. it was not an opinion we expressed in the report. in the report, we made the point that this is an issue that needs to be thoroughly debated. on one side it gives us the tools that you've discussed, congressman, on the other side there are concerns about civil rights and that conversation needs to be had because it's not settled. i happen to believe we should be -- we should have a domestic terror law and we should have the capacity to do designations of domestic terrorists as well. >> thank you. what cases do you think it would be best utilized? obviously in your important work that you're doing right

the constitution of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional duties, take care the law is faithfully executed, donald j trump has abuse the powers of the presidency in that using the powers of his office donald trump solicited interference of a foreign government, ukraine, in the presidential election. he did so through a scheme or course of conduct soliciting the government of ukraine to public and ounce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospect of a political opponent and influence the 2020 united states presidential election to his advantage. donald trump also sought to pressure the government of ukraine to take the steps by conditioning official united states government acts of significant value to ukraine on public announcement of the investigation. donald trump engaged in this scheme for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. in doing so donald trump used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the united states and undermine the integrity of the united states democra

the laws passed by whatever authority passes those laws. host: how frustrating is it to see congress fail to pass comprehensive immigration reform over the course of now two decades? guest: it's extremely frustrating. i go back to the immigration reform and control act of 1986. the problem was there was a legalization piece and enforcement piece. they gave a legalization piece but did not follow through on the enforcement piece. because they did not follow through, it gave rise to the illegal immigration we saw. because of that, we've had to double the border patrol on three separate occasions because of the number of people that were crossing our borders illegally. anytime you incentivize crime, it is going to take place. we have laws in this country to protect the american public. frankly, it is the laws that made this country the greatest nation on earth. if we ignore those laws, we become like any other country. host: border have apprehensions drop. the number has dropped for the eighth straight month following crackdowns by the trump a