| |
Search videos for judiciary |
|
|
|
|
Jena Six Case House Judiciary Committee Hearing
U.S. Attorney Donald Washington & the Justice Department are on the hot seat. The U.S. Justice Department is questioned for its "inability" to bring hate charges against the students who hung nooses under a "white" tree on school campus in Jena, La. In this segment, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) is doing the questioning.
Length: 514
Rating: 4.50 (35 ratings)
Tags: jena six case u.s. attorney donald washington al sharpton justice department noose hanging judiciary committee hearing
|
Play |
|
|
James Comey testifies before Senate Judiciary
Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testifies that Alberto Gonzales, as White House counsel, tried to get AG John Ashcroft, critically ill on his hospital sickbed, to approve an NSA program the Justice Department had serious legal doubts about
Length: 494
Rating: 4.90 (73 ratings)
Tags: Comey Justice Bush Gonzales
|
Play |
|
|
David Drummond testifies before House Judiciary Committee
David Drummond, Google's Senior Vice President of Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, testifies before the House Judiciary Committee Antitrust Task Force at a July 15, 2008 hearing about competition and the Google-Yahoo! ad agreement. Topics of discussion include how the agreement benefits users, advertisers, and publishers, and the competitive nature of the online advertising business.
Length: 411
Rating: 4.60 (28 ratings)
Tags: google david drummond house judiciary yahoo
|
Play |
|
|
Senate Judiciary Committee w/Alberto Gonzales-7/24/07 Pt11
Part 11 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Jon Kyl questions Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!"
Transcript of this portion of the hearing:
KYL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, as I understand it -- and I'm going to ask you to correct me if I'm wrong, to your knowledge -- the administration position on Guantanamo Bay is that, while it would be nice if we didn't have the need for it and we'd like to be able to close it, we can't because the terrorists who represent a threat to the United States need to be held somewhere and there are no better alternatives.
KYL: Almost nobody wants them in the United States. You can't just let them go. Sending them to foreign countries is problematic, among other reasons for the reasons you discussed.
Is that your understanding? And, if not, what is your understanding?
GONZALES: Yes.
KYL: Do you have any different reasons for desiring to close Gitmo, for example, because to your knowledge or suspicion, is there anything going on down there that might be a violation of either U.S. law or applicable treaties or conventions?
GONZALES: Quite the contrary. I think if people who have gone down there in this body, from the House, other countries, have come away favorably impressed with what's going on down there.
KYL: I just want to associate myself with the remarks of Senator Hatch. It would be nice if we didn't have to have any prisons for that matter. And it would certainly be good if we didn't have to have a place for these threats to America. But they do have to be held somewhere, and I know of no better alternative than where they're being held right now.
Let me ask you this question about a matter that you know I'm very interested in -- and as a matter of fact in a related, potentially related, matter, there is a scandal now brewing with regard to the National Basketball Association.
Sports entities, in particularly the NFL, major league baseball, basketball, the NCAA -- amateur athletics, have for a long time been concerned about Internet betting, which is illegal under most state laws and we have our federal laws as well.
You have -- and you're aware that on October 13th the president signed into law the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to augment enforcement efforts by targeting offshore gambling operations that are not readily subject to U.S. prosecution.
KYL: There are additional, existing laws -- the Federal Wire Act and money laundering laws that can be and have been used to go after these Internet gambling operators.
I realize that you can't comment on any existing cases, but I'd like for you to just express to the committee generally what your views are with respect to the department's intentions with respect to going after these illegal Internet gambling operations.
GONZALES: Thank you, Senator. I appreciate your leadership on this issue.
We do believe it's a serious issue because, when you talk about Internet gambling, it's highly-addictive. Quite frankly, I think it affects our youth. I think it can be tied to money laundering and fraud, and we think it's tied to organized crime.
There are existing laws on the books, and we can and do enforce those laws. There are challenges because of the existing laws, challenges because, much of the time, the evidence is offshore. We may have difficulty in getting the evidence. Also, because it involves another country, there are sometimes serious issues of extradition.
So we appreciate the additional tools of this Unlawful Internet Gambling Act which bans certain financial payments to support Internet Gambling.
And, as you know, Treasury and the Federal Reserve have primary responsibility for the issuance of these regulations after consulting with the Department of Justice. We've provided input, and so my understanding is that those regs are moving forward.
KYL: The regs -- the proposed regs have been made public. My question really was a broader one. You have engaged in prosecutions under other laws as well, and I was simply giving you an opportunity to express your intentions to continue to enforce all of these laws to the extent that they need to be enforced.
GONZALES: We certainly intend to do that, and you have my commitment, Senator.
KYL: Incidentally, I may have not been clear in my reference to the NBA. I'm not suggesting that there's evidence of illegal Internet gambling with respect to that, but simply wanted to point out that these sports depend on the public's view that they are unadulterated, that they're clean, that they are not being affected by illegal forces.
And that's why they're so supportive of this legislation, to make sure that illegal Internet gambling does not, in any way, intrude into those sports. And I think Americans have a right to have that assurance.
Mr. Attorney General, the FBI is facing a mounting caseload of applications from foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States or to adjust status. The FBI, of course, does background checks, but there is a huge backlog, as you know.
What technologies or resources can Congress secure for the FBI to ensure that's it's able to timely process applications without compromising the safety and security of the American people?
GONZALES: This is a problem that I have discussed with the director. You're talking about background checks, individuals from other countries. It does take us a long time in some cases, because of the fact it requires us to get information and records from other countries.
I know that the director is focused on trying to get additional resources, additional individuals, maybe contract work out to helping in this endeavor. And so he's also looking at new computer system technology, taking advantage of technology...
KYL: Let me just interrupt because of the time.
There's a huge backlog. It shouldn't exist. Do we need to provide additional resources, Congress?
GONZALES: I don't know whether or not additional resources are required from the Congress. I do know that additional resources within the bureau have to be focused on this issue. And it may be -- the director may come to me and say, "Well, if we do that, we're not going to be able to protect America from terrorism the way we ought to be in other areas."
And so I don't know the answer to that. But certainly more resources are necessary. We may already have the resources within the bureau. I suspect the director will say no.
KYL: We need to know if there's something else we can do, because you cannot compromise security and we cannot tolerate the long backlogs that currently exist. So something needs to give here. And if it is that we need more resources, Congress needs to be advised.
Let me quickly, while I have just a second, ask one final question. A U.S. Customs and Border Protection -- DHS reports that 16 percent of foreign nationals apprehended illegally crossing the southern border have criminal histories. That's about 140,000 individuals in the year 2005.
And if that's not alarming enough, DOJ and the GAO indicate that criminal aliens in the U.S. are re-arrested on an average of six to eight times per offender, which puts a huge strain on both federal, state and local law enforcement officers, prosecutors, courts and our jails.
Is the Department of Justice undertaking any initiatives with DHS to proactively identify and prosecute and remove criminal aliens? And, here again, is there any authority or resource that Congress needs to provide to DOJ to assist in the prosecution of these criminal aliens?
GONZALES: I think that, quite candidly, Senator, if you were to talk to my board of U.S. attorneys, they would say we need more resources. And so, we're always looking at ways to try to find those resources within the existing budget.
Obviously the president has to consider a number of priorities with respect to the budget that he submits to the Congress. And the Congress, of course, ultimately makes the decision as to where those priorities should come out.
But we're having to be smart. We're trying to have -- to be more efficient. But it does present or has presented some challenges for us.
KYL: In effect -- Mr. Chairman, could I just do one follow-up question?
In effect, are you saying...
LEAHY: Go ahead.
KYL: ... you understand the president's budget priorities and needs all across the government but, if more resources could be made available to you, you could certainly take advantage of them, could certainly use them?
GONZALES: We certainly would put them to good use.
LEAHY: Of course, you're also aware that the president said if we put any money in there beyond what he's asked for, he'll veto the bill?
Length: 528
Rating: 3.40 (11 ratings)
Tags: senate judiciary committee transcript cspan jon kyl part 11 alberto gonzales 7/24/07 cssjcagpt1172407
|
Play |
|
|
Judiciary Hearing on Post-9/11 Air Quality: Nadler Questions
The Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties is currently holding a hearing, "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Response to Air Quality Issues Arising from the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001: Were There Substantive Due Process Violations?" Former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman will testify, amongst others. Subcommittee Chairman Jerrold Nadler questions Whitman.
Length: 602
Rating: 5.00 (11 ratings)
Tags: Democrats Congress Oversight 9/11 Air Quality Nadler Christine Todd Whitman
|
Play |
|
|
David Drummond testifies before Senate Judiciary Committee
David Drummond, Google's Senior Vice President of Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights at a September 27, 2007 hearing about online advertising and Google's acquisition of DoubleClick. Topics of discussion include how Google's advertising network benefits consumers, the competitive nature of the online advertising business, and the high importance Google places on protecting users' privacy.
Length: 469
Rating: 4.60 (20 ratings)
Tags: Google DoubleClick
|
Play |
|
|
Senate Judiciary Committee w/Alberto Gonzales-7/24/07 Pt10
Part 10 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Senator Dianne Feinstein questions Gonzales. 7/24/07
KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!"
Transcript of this portion of the hearing:
FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, I've sat here and listened particularly to the opening comment of the chairman and the ranking member, and in my time in the Senate, I have never heard comments quite like that coming from both sides of the aisle. And then I listened to your response, which was nonresponsive which went into something about FISA, unrelated to anything that had been said.
I don't think you understand what's happening in the Department of Justice, the diminution of credibility, integrity. It's almost as if the walls were actually crumbling on this huge department.
FEINSTEIN: And I listen to you. And nothing gets answered directly. Everything is obfuscated.
You can't tell me that you went up to see Mr. Comey for any other reason other than to reverse his decision about the terrorist surveillance program. That's clearly the only reason you would go to see the attorney general in intensive care.
GONZALES: May I respond to that?
FEINSTEIN: Yes, you may.
GONZALES: OK. You're right. This is an extraordinary event. But we were confronting extraordinary circumstances where we had been advised that something that the department had authorized for two years, they would no longer continue to approve.
We'd just been advised by the congressional leadership: Go forward anyway. And we felt it important that the attorney general, General Ashcroft, was aware of those facts.
Clearly, if we had been confident and understood the facts and was inclined to do so, yes, we would have asked him to reverse the DAG's position. But...
FEINSTEIN: Well, then, why would he have said Mr. Comey is in charge, if you hadn't asked him?
GONZALES: I don't understand the question.
FEINSTEIN: Well, clearly you asked him the question, because James Comey testified to us that...
GONZALES: My recollection, Senator, is -- and, of course, this happened some time ago and people's recollections are going to differ. My recollection is that Mr. Ashcroft did most of the talking. At the end, my recollection is, he said, "I've been told it would be improvident for me to sign. But that doesn't matter, because I'm no longer the attorney general."
FEINSTEIN: OK. All right.
GONZALES: And once he said that, Secretary Card and I didn't press him. We said thank you, and we left.
FEINSTEIN: OK.
GONZALES: But, again, we went there because we thought it important for him to know where the congressional leadership was on this. We didn't know whether or not he knew of Mr. Comey's position and, if he did know, whether or not he agreed with it.
FEINSTEIN: All right. I think we've taken care of this.
What I'd like to establish, once and for all, is who put the names on the list to fire what are now nine U.S. attorneys.
Since you were here last, we've had a number of your top staff appear before us. Kyle Sampson, your former chief of staff, said, "I was the aggregator of input that came in from different sources."
Paul McNulty said it was presented to me as here is the idea and here are the names of individuals that are being identified.
Jim Comey said, "I was not aware there was any kind of process going on."
FEINSTEIN: Bill Mercer said, "I didn't understand there was a list. I didn't keep a list."
Mike Battle: "A decision was made to compile a list. It was made by someone. I had no input. Nobody asked for my input."
Will Moschella: "Since I was not part of that process, I don't have firsthand knowledge."
Mike Ellston: "Kyle asked me to give him my thoughts, give him a draft list. I said, sure. I didn't actually do it. I was very busy."
Who approved those names?
GONZALES: I ultimately approved the list of recommendations that were submitted to me. I accept responsibility.
FEINSTEIN: And how many names did you approve for firing?
GONZALES: I think, on the list that was presented...
FEINSTEIN: Oh, no -- total. How many names have you approved for firing?
GONZALES: You mean total, for cause, not for cause?
I'd have to get back to you on that.
FEINSTEIN: There were seven on December 7.
GONZALES: Seven on December 7.
FEINSTEIN: We're now up to nine that we know about. How many -- this is important -- how many U.S. attorneys did you approve to be summarily fired?
GONZALES: Senator, there may have been others. I would be happy to get back to you with that kind of information about who has left. But I don't know the answer to your question. But I can certainly find out.
FEINSTEIN: You don't know, after all we've been through, the hearing after hearing after hearing?
GONZALES: Well, in connection with this review process that Mr. Sampson was coordinating, what was presented to me was a list of seven individuals, on December 7. And so those are the seven that I accepted the recommendation to ask for resignation.
FEINSTEIN: That's right. But those were the ones that were called on December 7 and told to leave by January 15.
GONZALES: Yes.
FEINSTEIN: There were others also asked to resign.
GONZALES: Yes.
FEINSTEIN: And I'm asking what the total number were.
GONZALES: Well, certainly, Mr. Cummins was asked to leave. Mr. Graves was asked to leave. I'm not aware, sitting here today, of any other U.S. attorney who was asked to leave, except there were some instances where people were asked to leave, quite frankly, because there was legitimate cause.
FEINSTEIN: So you're saying these were asked to leave because the cause was not legitimate?
GONZALES: I'm not saying -- no, what I'm saying is wrongdoing, misconduct. There may been some -- in fact, I'm sure there were others...
FEINSTEIN: What kind of misconduct?
GONZALES: Well, for -- and I'm not suggesting any of this conduct happened, but, for example, an inappropriate relationship, taking action where you have a direct conflict of interest, to help out a buddy, making a -- you know, those kinds of -- something like that, I would say, would constitute misconduct. And there...
FEINSTEIN: Were those specific things involved in any U.S. attorney that was terminated?
LEAHY: Good question.
GONZALES: No. With respect to the seven and with respect to Mr. Cummins and with respect to Mr. Graves, I am not aware that -- certainly, it wasn't, in my mind, a problem or basis to accept the recommendation that they be asked to leave.
FEINSTEIN: All right. Let me go to something else. You, of course, recognize these books, "The Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses." In prior hearings, we had the 1995 edition.
FEINSTEIN: Since May of this year, there is now a new edition. I'd like to read to you what has been dropped from the earlier edition.
The first thing that's been removed is this: "The Justice Department generally does not favor prosecution of isolated fraudulent voting transactions. This is based in part on constitutional issues that arise when federal jurisdiction is asserted in matters having only a minimal impact on the integrity of the voting process." This was removed in this new edition.
The second thing: "The Justice Department must refrain from any conduct which has the possibility of affecting the election itself." This is weakened on page 92. This language is removed. "Federal prosecutors and investigators should be extremely careful to not conduct overt investigations during the pre-election period of while the election is under way." Removed.
Then a sentence that's underlined in the '95 edition, which states thus: "Most, if not all, investigations of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates." It was removed in this new edition.
Weakened was this language: "It should also be kept in mind that any investigation undertaken during the final stages of a political contest may cause the investigation itself to become a campaign issue."
Why was it necessary to remove this language in this new edition in the Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses rules?
GONZALES: Senator, I don't -- sitting here today, I don't know the answer to that question. I would like to find out, because I am certainly committed to ensuring that we're smart in the way that we do investigations and prosecutions and we do in a way that doesn't intimidate voters, that doesn't chill potential voters from coming out and voting on Election Day.
So I would like the opportunity to look into this and respond back to you.
FEINSTEIN: Appreciate it. It becomes more relevant because two and possibly three of the fired U.S. attorneys were fired because they didn't bring those small cases that might affect an election.
And therefore, when one looks at this book now, sees a new book coming out in May '07 that deletes the very things that these U.S. attorneys were told to follow, something's rotten in Denmark.
GONZALES: Thank you for the opportunity for me to look into that.
FEINSTEIN: I appreciate that.
Thank you very much. My time is up.
Length: 570
Rating: 5.00 (9 ratings)
Tags: senate judiciary committee transcript cspan dianne Feinstein leahy part 10 alberto gonzales 7/24/07 cssjcagpt1072407
|
Play |
|
|
Wexler Questions McClellan in House Judiciary Committee
Wexler Questions former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan in House Judiciary Committee on June 20, 2008.
Length: 300
Rating: 5.00 (39 ratings)
Tags: wexler impeachment mcclellan cheney libby
|
Play |
|
|
