Latest Breaking News On - Mike daugherty - Page 1 : vimarsana.com
the hands of the national government. and it needed to be exclusively in the hands of the national government in order to ensure that the united states could be a full sovereign on the world stage. now, it is true that the subject matter of treaties is different now than it was at the time of the founding, but the framers understood that. they were careful not to impose subject matter limitations on the treaty power because they were wise enough to know they could not foresee what might be important for the united states to be able to negotiate about on a world stage in order to participate fully as a sovereign. and the chemical weapons convention is a deeply apt illustration of exactly why the framers were wise in ensuring that there were not subject matter limitations on the exercise of the treaty power. the chemical weapons convention -- the united states' leadership in the chemical weapons convention has made a big difference in ensuring that this norm, which is in our national interests, our foreign relations interests, and our national security interest, is a norm that the nations of the world have agreed to and that we are then in a position to have leverage to insist that the nations of the world abide by it. it is leverage we are trying to exercise right now. it is critically important, and i respectfully submit that the line that the petitioner is asking this court to draw is not consistent with the intent of the framers, with this court's precedent or with the national interests that i have described. thank you. >> thank you, general. mr. clement, you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. just a few points in rebuttal. first of all, the senate's role in the ratification of treaties cannot be a sufficient political check, and one reason is that sometimes the precise role they play as a check is to make a treaty non-self-executing. and so, to take justice scalia's hypothetical example of an international treaty that purported to regulate marriage rights, one thing that the senate very well might do in that case is to say, well, we will ratify it, but we're going to make sure it's non-self-executing and maybe we will use our spending power or something to get the states on board, but we are not just going to impose a national solution. so it doesn't make any sense to say that a non-self-executing treaty necessarily, even if it's valid, guarantees the validity of the enacting legislation, because some of the reason that you make a treaty non-self-executing is to preserve federalism. a second point is to respond to the argument, which i think i've already explained why it's not correct, but it is the suggestion that there is no daylight between the convention and the statute. there is huge daylight, and the daylight is precisely whether it affects individual conduct and how it affects individual conduct. with all respect, everything on justice breyer's list a is not stuff that i think implicates the convention at all. but yet under the government's unwavering theory that you can't make any limitations on the statute, that's all covered by the statute. there's your daylight. now, i would respectfully suggest that our statutory construction argument is one way out of this. i think that you have to understand the way that "peaceful" is used in the statute is essentially a term of art. i would analogize it to a situation where two scientists in antarctica get in a fistfight. ok, that's not conduct we condone, but i don't think we've violated our pledge to reserve antarctica for only peaceful purposes. and that's the same way we would like you to interpret this statute. now, the government says you can't do that because that's going to mess up what's going on in syria. with all due respect, i assume that the issue in syria is whether or not the nation state of syria is doing something that would violate the convention if, contrary to fact, they were signatory to this convention. so if you want to make clear that you're only talking about individual conduct, i think you can solve that whole problem right there. but if i'm wrong and the only way, as the government assures you that you can make this legislation work is to have it be in exercise the police power, well, then the answer is that the legislation is simply unconstitutional. >> can i just ask you, mr. clement, and it's a variant of the hypothetical i gave you before, but it focuses more on your statutory point, the peaceful purposes. suppose that ms. bond used sarin gas and sent it through the ducts of haynes' house, would you say that that's a peaceful purpose -- >> i would say it's not, but i think it has to do more with the particular qualities of sarin gas, the fact that it's on schedule a, the fact that nobody can possess that for any lawful use. and what makes something like vinegar or even potassium dichromate different is what puts it over the ledge from being an ordinary chemical to a chemical weapon is precisely its use and its use alone. now, justice kagan, you asked a great question -- what was congress thinking when they did this? i think, with respect, the congress wasn't focused on this issue at all. if you look at the legislation they passed to implement this, the chemical industry and others put in front of them the possibility that there was a fourth amendment problem with the inspections of chemical production facilities that were they passed to implement this, authorized under the convention. when congress had the constitutional problem in front of it, they had all sorts of provisions to deal with that constitutional concern. now, the future ms. bonds of the world didn't have quite the same lobbying resources as the chemical industry, so they didn't avert to this problem. and that's precisely why some kind of clear statement rule or the like would make perfect sense in this to make sure congress doesn't exercise the police power when all it thinks it's doing is implementing a treaty. when congress had the the last thing is just to say about the state department legal advisor's >> a clear statement about the treaty -- i'm sorry. >> thank you, counsel. general. the case is submitted. >> earlier today, the epa administrator announced the cling power plant proposal which cut carbon emissions from existing our plans. she discussed the impact of climate change on public health. here is more now. rise, so doas insurance premiums, property taxes, and food prices. oure do nothing in grandkids lifetimes, temperatures will rise 10 degrees and seas could rise by four feet. the s&p recently said climate change will continue to affect credit risk worldwide. this is not just about disappearing polar bears and melting ice caps, although i like polar bears and i know nothing about melting ice caps. this is about protecting our health and it is about rejecting our homes. this is about protecting local economies and it's about protecting jobs. -- protecting our homes. the time to act as now. that's why president obama laid out of climate action plan to that carbon pollution, to build a more resilient nation, and to lead the world in the global fight against climate. portions of remarks given earlier today by the epa administrator you mccarthy on climate change. you can see her entire comments later today starting at 7:30 eastern of remarks given earlier today by the epa administrator you mccarthy on climate change. you can see her entire comments later today starting at 7:30 or at anyre on c-span .ime online several lawmakers are weighing in after the clean power plan was unveiled. house speaker john boehner said the president's plan would indeed cause a surge in electricity bills. it would also shut down plants and potentially put an average of 224 thousand more people out >> the way this should work is, congress should appoint an agency that has the authority to manage the special resources of the country and look at the highest and best uses of those sources so we can continue to serve all the important functions, national security functions, but also driving the spectrum of the needs of the industry for at www.c-span.org d innovation and investment are >> issues facing the telecommunications industry with greg stillman, tonight at 8:00 eastern on the commands -- on the communicators. journal,ng washington er and paul bailey will discuss the climate change and its goal to from powerissions plants by 30% by the year 2030. then new jersey congressman chris smith remembers the anniversary of the pro-democracy protest in beijing's tiananmen square. washington journal, live tuesday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. special operations commissioner william craven you stories of -- from his navy seal training for this year's commencement address at the university of texas and austin. he described long swims through shark infested waters. he addressed the graduates for about 20 minutes. >> thank you very much. thank you president powers, members of the faculty, family and friends, and most importantly a class of 2014. [applause] it is indeed an honor for me to be here tonight. it has been almost 37 years to the day that i graduated from technology and that fact, if i can't make the speech memorable, i will try to make it short. [laughter] the university slogan is, what starts here changes the world. i kind of like it. what starts here changes the world. there are almost 8000 students here tonight. that's great paragon of analytical rigor, ask.com, says the average american will need 10,000 people in their lifetime. that is a lot of folks. if everyone of you change the lives of just 10 people, and each one of those people change the lives of another 10 people, and another 10, then five generations in hundred 25 years, the class of 2014 will have changed the lives of 800 million people. [applause] think about it. over twice the population of the united states. one more generation and you can change the entire population of the world. if you think it is hard to change the lives of 10 people, change their lives forever, you are wrong. technology and that fact, if i i saw it happen every day in iraq and afghanistan. i young army officer makes a decision to go left instead of right and this 10 soldiers with him are saved from an ambush. in afghanistan, an officer from the female engagements team senses that something is not right and to direct the platoon away from a 500 pound ied. , saving the lives of a dozen soldiers. not only were those soldiers saved by the decisions of one person, but their children were saved. and their children's children. generations were saved by one decision, one person. changing the world can happen anywhere and anyone can do it. what starts here can indeed change the world. the question is what will the world look like after you change it? i am confident that it will look much better. but if you will humor this old sailor for just a moment, i have a few suggestions that might help you. these lessons were learned during the time in the military, but i can assure you it matters not whether you serve today in uniform. it matters not your gender, your ethnic or religious background, your orientation, your social status. our struggles are similar and the lessons changing ourselves in changing the world around us will apply equally to all. i have been a navy seal for 36 years, but it all began when i left u.t. basic seal training is six months, a torturous run, midnight swims in cold water, obstacle courses, days without sleep, and always being cold, wet, and miserable. six months of being constantly harassed by professionally trained warriors who seek to find the weak of mind and body and eliminate them from ever becoming an navy seal. the training also seeks to find those that can lead in an environment of constant stress, chaos, failure, and hardship. to me, it is a lifetime of challenge crammed into six months. here are the lessons i learned that hopefully will be of value to you as you move forward. every morning, my instructors would show up in my barracks in the first thing they would do is inspect my dad. -- my bed. if you did it right, the corners would be square, the covers will be tight, but hello centered just under the headboard, and the extra blanket folded neatly. it was a simple task. monday night best. every morning we were required to make our beds to perfection. it seemed ridiculous at the time, in light of the factory were aspiring to be a real warriors. the wisdom of the simple act has the training also seeks to find been proven to me many times over. if you make your bed every morning, you will have accomplished the first task of the day. it'll give you a small sense of pride and it will encourage you to do another task, and another, and another. by the end of the day, that's one task and we did will have turned into many. making your bed will also reinforce the fact that the little things in life matter. if you can't do the little things right, you will never be able to do the big things. if by chance you have a miserable day, he will come home to a bed that is made. [laughter] that you made. it gives you encouragement that tomorrow will be better. if you want to change the world, start off by making your bed. [laughter] [applause] during seal training, the students are broken down into crews. each crew to seven students, three on each side of the small boat. every day your cruel forms up on the beach and is instructed to get through the surf zone. in the winter it can be eight to 10 feet high. that is exceedingly difficult to paddle through the plunging surf unless everyone helps. every paddle must be synchronized to the stroke count. everyone must exert equal effort or the boat will turn against the wave. for the boats to make it to its destination, everyone must paddle. you can't change the world alone. you will need some help. to truly get from your starting point to your destination takes friends, colleagues, the goodwill of strangers, it is strange -- strong man to guide you. find someone to help you paddle. over a few weeks of training, my class would start with 150 men and was down to 40. there were boat crews of seven men each. i was with the tall guys, but the best boat crew we had was made up of little guys, the munchkin crew. they had one american indian, one african, one polish-american, one italian-american, it's too tough kids from the midwest. they out paddle, how brand, and out slam all the others. they would always make good-natured fun of the tiny little flippers the munchkins put on their tiny little feet dryer to every swim. somehow these little guys from every corner of the nation and the world's had the last laugh. faster than everyone and reaching the shore long before the rest. it was a great equalizer. nothing mattered but your will to succeed. if you want to change the world, measure a person by the size of their heart, not by the size of their flippers. several times a week, the instructors would line up the class and do it uniform inspection. they had one american indian, it was exceptionally thorough. it had to be perfectly starched, pressed, belt buckles shiny, but it seen a matter how much effort you put into your hat or uniform it just wasn't good enough. the instructors would find something wrong. for uniform inspection, the student had to run, full lace loads into the surf zone, then, wet from head to toe, roll around on the beach until you are covered in sand. the effect was known as sugar cookie. you state in the uniform for the rest of the day, cold, wet, and sandy. there were many a student to couldn't accept the fact that all their efforts were in vain, and a matter how hard they tried to get it right, it went unappreciated. must students and make it their training. must students didn't understand the purpose of the drill. you are never going to succeed, you were never going to have a perfect uniform. sometimes, no matter how well you prepare, or how well you perform, you still end up as a sugar cookie. it is just the way life is. if you want to change the world, get over being a sugar cookie and keep moving forward. every day during training, you were challenged with multiple events, long runs, swims, obstacle courses, to test your mettle. if you fail to meet the standards or times, your name was posted on the list and at the end of the day goes on the list were invited to a circus. it was two hours of additional calisthenics designed to wear you down. no one wanted a circus. ed and for that day that you did not measure up. it's meant more fatigue and more fatigue meant the following day would be more difficult. at some time, everyone, everyone, may the circus list. an interesting thing happened. over time, those students who did two hours of extra calisthenics got stronger. the pain of the circuses build inner strength and physical resiliency. life is filled with circuses. you will fail. you will likely fail often, it will be painful, it will be discouraging, at times it will test you to your very core. but if you want to change the world, don't be afraid of the circuses. at least twice a week the trainees are required to run the obstacle course. the obstacle course contains 25 obstacles, including the wall, a cargo net, a barbed wire crawled -- but the most challenging was the slide for life. it had a three level, 30 foot tower at one end into one level timer at the other. in between was 200 foot long rope. you had to climb the three tiered tower and at the top, you grab the rope, slung undereneath, and pull yourself hand over hand until you got to the other end. the record had stood for years when my class began. it seemed unbeatable. until one day, students decided to go down the slide for life headfirst. instead of swinging his body underneath the rope, he bravely mounted the top of the rope and thrust himself forward. it was a dangerous move. seemingly foolish and fraught with risk. failure could mean injury. without hesitation, he slid down the rope perilously fast, it only took him half the time. by the end of the course, he had broken the record. if you want to change the world, sometimes you have to slide down the obstacles headfirst. during the warfare phase of training, students go to an island. the waters are a breeding ground for great white sharks. to pass training there along swims that must be completed, one is the night swim. the instructors jointly brief the students of all the species of sharks that inhabit the waters. i assure you, however, that's no student has ever been eaten by a shark. at least not that i can remember. but if a shark begins to circle your position, you were taught that you must stand your ground, do not stand away, do not be afraid will stop if the shark darts toward you, summon up all your strength and punch them in the snout. he will turn and swim away. there are a lot of sharks in the world. if you want to complete the swim, you will have to deal with them. if you want to change the world, don't back down from the sharks. one of our jobs is to conduct underwater attacks. we practice this technique extensively during training. it's where a pair of divers are dropped in any harbor and swim well over two miles underwater using nothing but a depth gauge and compass to get to the target. during the entire swim, even well below the surface, there is some light that comes through. it is comforting to know that there is open water above you. but as you approach the ship, which is tied to appear, the light begins to fade. the structure of the ship blocks the moonlight, blocks the surrounding streetlamps, locks all ambient light. to be successful, you have to swim under the ship and find the keyhole. this is your objective. but it is also the darkest part of the ship, where you cannot see your hand in front of your face, or the noise from the machinery is deafening. you can fail. every seal knows that under the keyhole, at that darkest moment the mission, it is a time when you need to be calm. when you must be calm. you must be composed. in all your tactical skills, your physical power, enter inner strength must be brought to bear. if you want to change the world, you must be your very best in the darkest moments. the ninth week of training is referred to as hell week. it is six weeks of no sleep, constant physical and mental harassment, and one special day at the mudflaps. it is an area between san diego and tijuana, where the water runs off and creates the tijuana sloughs. it is on wednesday of hell week that you paddle down to the mudflaps and spend the next 15 hours trying to survive this freezing cold, the howling wind, the incessant pressure to quit from the instructors. as the sun began to set on that wednesday evening, my training class was ordered into the mud. the mud consumed each man until there was nothing visible but our heads. the instructors told us we could leave the mud if only five men would quit. only five. we could get out of the cold. looking around the mud, it was apparent that some stews were about to give up. it was over eight hours until the sun came up. chattering teeth, shivering loans -- moans... it was hard to hear anything. then one voice began to echo through the night. one voice raised in song. the song was terribly out of tune. but it was sung with great enthusiasm. one voice became too, and two became three, and before long everyone was singing. the instructors threatened us with more time in the mud if we kept up the singing, but the singing persisted. and somehow the mud seemed a little warmer home and the window little tamer, and the don not so far away. if i have learned anything in my time traveling the world, it is the power of hope, the power of one person, a washington, a lincoln, a mandela, who can change the world by giving people hope. if you want to change the world, start singing when you are up to your neck in mud. finally, there was a bell. a brass bell that hangs in the center of the compound for all the students to see. all you have to do to quit his ring the bell. ring the bell and you no longer have to wake up at 5:00. you no longer have to be in the freezing cold swims. you no longer have to do the runs on the obstacle course. you no longer have to injure the hardships of training. all you have to do is ring the bell to get out. if you want to change the world, don't ever ring the bell. to the class of 2014, you are moments away from graduating. moment away from beginning your journey through life. the woods away from starting to change the world for the better. it will not be easy. but you are the class of 2014, the class that can affect the lives of 800 million years -- people. find someone to help you through life, respect everyone, know that life is not fair and you will fail often. but if you take risks, step up when times are tough, face down the bully, lift up the downtrodden, and never give up, if you do these things, the next generation and the generations that follow will live in a world far better than the one we have today. what started here will indeed have changed the world for the better. thank you very much. [laughter] [applause] click senate judiciary chair patrick leahy gave the commencement address to the 2014 green mountain college graduating class. he spoke for just over 10 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. one of my best friends, chuck ross, the secretary of agriculture. i want to thank the members of the board of trustees, the faculty, the parents, the family, the class of 2014. thank you for inviting me. this is extraordinary. as the singing went on, i said, i used to go to a lot of grateful dead concerts. [applause] i actually remember them. i look to my wife sitting over here, who knows i cannot carry a tune in a basket, if you do this, you might as well stay there because you not coming home tonight. [laughter] i decided not to. the president reminds us that he cares about the environment and he studies science. the rain would hold off. peter welch was asked, what does he think about serving in the house of representatives the way it has been lately, on questions of global warming. i serve with some of the finest minds of the 17th century. [laughter] the very name of this college evokes the beauty of our state. just two decades shy of 200 years old. the founding in 1834, the green mountain college in 1974, the year i was first elected to the united states senate. i pay tribute to the resilience of this institution and those people who made it what it is today. they continued on, through the depths of the civil war, when they thought vermont would disappear as a state because of the losses we had. the great depression, the first and second world wars, vietnam, the recent global economic recession into the present day. i mention this history because i hope to convey to those who graduate today, your parents know the sleepless nights of hard work to get you to this point. that is something to remember always. you were fortunate. you have acquired invaluable knowledge and skills. my family came to vermont in the 1800s. i became the first leahy to get a college degree. my sister the second one. i think of all of you here today. some of you may be the first and your family to get one. this is a very special moment. now the question is, what do you make of it? a college education is far beyond the reach of millions of people your age. maybe even billions worldwide. in fact, we have been reminded in some countries, girls and women have no access to any formal education at any age. talk about a violation of human rights. it may seem remarkable in the 21st century when you and i can use our smartphones to download information, girls in northern nigeria are kidnapped and may be sold as property because they dared to seek an education. in other words, a school that taught something different than the distorted version of an ancient religion. we know there are countries in south asia, schools have been burnt to the ground and girls and young women killed just for seeking an education. it seems impossible when you sit here today in vermont, this very special jewel of a state, and think about the education you have gotten. vietnam, you have one student here from vietnam. will he raise his hand, please? we visited the home of two aspiring students. they were struggling to read the most elementary text because they suffer from severe mental and physical disabilities, most likely resulting from their parents exposure to contaminated herbicides. can you imagine if this country, the schoolyards, the national parks were contaminated with millions of unexploded mines? we have visited all of these landmine areas. we have helped with the clearing up of them. our travels have taken us to countries where human trafficking and forced labor is common. one quarter to one half of them are children. we have seen photographs with child refugees and child soldiers and no scavenger and dump sites. you might ask why on a joyous day like this that i mention the history. it is today's inescapable reality. you, because of the fortunate position you are in, you are in a position to change that reality. i hope you will. you live in a time that is both unchanged, but drastically different from the world your parents inherited. millions of people are suffering from poverty and more, they are no longer invisible. that is why the president is sending u.s. military advisers and the fbi nigeria. the world was shocked into consciousness by millions of e-mails worldwide. something your parents and my parents would not have imagined. an example of something that might -- it can suddenly galvanize people from all over the world. it reminds me of the international campaign to ban landmines. they use social media worldwide to do this. i even helped write a batman comic book that was used to ban landmines. i wish i would've kept more of them, they are a valuable collector's item now. [laughter] we passed a law that said we would no longer export landmines. 161 nations have signed the treaty. you have learned a lot about the environment including implications. we cannot take for granted that the things that have undermined our democracy will stay that way without your involvement with the pressures of the coming shortages arrived. each of you will become teachers, scientists, farmers. some of you may run for political office. some of you may venture into outer space. whatever you do, take a stake in these larger challenges because they involve you and they involve the generation that will follow you. you need to resist the tendency so often amplified in the media and politics to define us by our differences. muslim versus christian, north versus south, rich against poor, white against black, or us against them. do not let that ever be part of your life. do not ever fall in that trap. [applause] what we have learned in the landmine campaign in the text messaging to bring back our girls, it is the antithesis of our differences. every person wants and deserves an education. they want and deserve a safe environment. they want and deserve the right to speak freely. they want and deserve the right to choose their government, their religion, or their way of life. these are common aspirations. these are more powerful than those things that divide us. you have the knowledge, the tools, thanks to those who have supported this college, those who worked in the past, and your own hardware, and you live in a country that prides itself in the right of free expression and peaceful protest. much of the world looks to us for a moral example. let us set that example. connect with your peers around the world. think of your voice and add it to others. you can do that because you have the tools, you have the ability, and i believe he will do it. now is your chance. begin putting what you learned to greater use for yourselves and those you love, for your country, for your future, for all of our futures. godspeed. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> republican senator susan collins addressed about 400 graduates in augusta, maine. the senator talked about her -- this is just under 15 minutes. >> thank you. thank you very much, president, for that gracious introduction. trustees, faculty, administrators, staff, parents, family, friends, and most of all, graduates, it is a great pleasure to join you on this day of celebration. in addition to this being graduation day, today is armed forces day. let me begin by asking all of those who have worn the uniform of our great country at any stage in your life to stand so that we can recognize you with a round of applause. [applause] members of the class of 2014, i am obviously not the first to say it to you today, since i have the microphone, perhaps i can say at the loudest. congratulations. [applause] you did it. i am mindful of the fact that when i was at my college graduation, all i could think of was will the speaker ever finish speaking? i will confess that i do not remember a single thing that the commencement speaker said at my own graduation. in fact, i don't remember his name. i approach the great honor of addressing you today with a great deal of humility. since its first commencement 44 years ago, this college has opened the doors of opportunity for thousands of students. some of you came here directly from high school. others from the workforce. i met some today who came through the trade adjustment program after losing jobs and have now retrained for it exciting new career. some of you are going directly into the workforce, others are going even further. whatever category you are in, you are here today because each of you has demonstrated a determination to secure a bright future. it has been said that the only place where success comes before work is in the dictionary. the diplomacy received today are proof of your ability to work hard, to set clear goals, and to reach this major milestone in your life. the path to success is never straight and smooth. we heard that today. there will be obstacles along your journey, but you have already demonstrated the determination, the resilience, and the skill to succeed in whatever comes your way. i know from first-hand experience that you don't always the ones among you who will be really happy are those who have sought and found how to serve. whether it is serving in the volunteer fire department or helping out at your local school or hospital, serving on your town council, or participating in a service club or food bank, your community needs you to volunteer, to get involved, and simply to care. because our people work together to strengthen our communities. please be part of that effort. maine people work hard and they stay on the job until the job is done. the values of our great state, community, determination, hard work and respect are the values of kennebec valley community college. they are also the values of the class of 2014, values that will inspire you to meet the challenges that lie ahead and to create new opportunities, not only for yourselves but also for others. so again, graduates, congratulations, celebrate this day wisely, of course, and good luck to all of you. thank you so much. [applause] >> tonight, supreme court justice samuel alito is joined by authors, columnist, and a baseball analyst to talk about the sports enduring place in american culture. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern, here on c-span. the center for strategic and international studies met earlier today about the treasury department's role in national security. jane harman, director and president of the wilson center, discussed edward snowden and cyber legislation. here is more. >>. with edward snowden. i thought his interview the other night was extremely revealing. his incredible, personal arrogance and misguided approach to all this, there is no real evidence. it would have been nice if the nsa had been able to put out this e-mail chain, this pathetic little e-mail chain earlier, but at any rate, it is out. his actions moving first to china and in russia, whatever they may turn out to be, claiming that none of his material was exploited passes the laugh test. i keep cringing every time somebody talks about the balance between security and liberty. i think we either protect civil liberty and security at the same time are we have neither of those things. as we think forward to what we should do in this country and how we should collaborate with others, we need to keep that in mind.3 the cyber legislation that congress is not passing has to include a requirement for the private sector to share and then indemnification to the private sector if they share information. 85% of the cyber capacity in this country, the last time i looked, is in private hands, including a lot of the grids that are essential to keep all of us safe from cyber attacks. so there better be some collaboration. they have to share, and congress has not made this possible. there is an executive order which is not adequate. it is such a dumb idea, it is just staggeringly dumb. in technological terms, i don't think it could work. but this notion even that u.s. providers have set up different protections for europeans and so on and different places, i view as really pretty city. in the -- pretty silly. consumers may purchase it but then they will figure out there are firewalls blocking them from getting things they really want that are not in their particular service providers range of actions. . . on thursday president obama heads to paris before finishing a trip on friday. friday is the 70th anniversary --d-day-day in her d invasion. earlier today the heritage foundation held a program on the benghazi attack investigation. this is an hour 10 minutes. >> welcome. to online viewers as well to our viewers on c-span. today we are here to discuss a topic that is as unsettling as it is important. ever since the attack on the in benghazi left for americans dead, including the u.s. ambassador chris stephens, the american people have been trying to get to the bottom of what happened that night. how and why were certain decisions made? why were u.s. military assets not employed in a more timely manner? how did the administration come up with a false narrative of a youtube video to explain the terrorist attack? stickd they continue to to that narrative in the days and weeks following the attack? as to how the select midi investigation, and the administration's response, many questions remain unanswered. opened a finds has been so far the hallmark of the obama administration's response. the committee hopefully will be able to find out answers to those questions and bring closure to the families of the victims, as well as hold officials accountable for any failures. help us identify the questions, the select committee should be pursuing, as well as the raw specs for success with their investigation, today we have a distinguished panel. who is theer brooks senior fellow in national security affairs at heritage. he served in the bush administration as deputy assistant secretary of defense in the office of donald rumsfeld. prior to that he worked as a professional staff member on the house international relations committee. peter has served as an intelligence officer with the cia's directorate of operations. veteran, peter served on active duty in latin america and then middle east. he is currently receiving his doctorate at georgetown. he is a contributor for fox news. hans -- a senior federal with them meese heritageter at the foundation. his work at heritage includes analysis of such issues as civil rights and civil justice, the rule of law, and government reform. as -- andd two years prior to that as counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the department of justice. he is a graduate of m.i.t.. he writes for the wall street journal and politico. the seniort least, fellow for public diplomacy at the heritage foundation. hella previously served as an editor for the washington times where she oversaw the paper policy on local politics. heritage in 2002 as deputy director of the davis astitute, eventually becoming director for the center for foreign policy centers. she is a graduate of the university of copenhagen and is fellow. she has written numerous articles on the benghazi issue and will continue doing so for the new heritage blog. i look forward to hella's remarks. i will hand it over to peter. morning, everybody. i will not talk for long, which it a relief to many of you in the audience. i am going to add a little bit to the list of questions that was mentioned in the introduction, something new, something that i have been concerned about. my concern is that we have not justicenybody to for benghazi. -- there not then know have been no apprehensions or arrests. there have been no military raids, no drone strikes, nothing as far as i can see more aware of. i checked the news and have been following this issue and i have not seen anything. it is troubling to me, because we are moving on 20 more or so months since the attacks on our diplomatic facility there in benghazi. it will be two years in september. i hope the special committee will spend some of its time on this, in addition to the questions that hans and hella will talk about. thatbothered by the fact no one has been held to account for this for a couple reasons. justice needs to be served for the acts against u.s. diplomats, citizens, and diplomats' facilities. the other thing i am worried about is what sort of signal u.s.this appearance of activity, whether actual or perceived, send to others who would do us harm. i understand investigations can take time. there have been some indictments late down. i am not a lawyer, so i will leave that up to the legal people. the state department in january identified a person as responsible for the attacks for t in benghazi. maybe we do not have the intelligence to get the right people. has put some pictures up on its website, has not said these individuals are responsible in its careful wording, but it is these people are of interest and the at the i would like to speak to them. that website has been up and is still active and shows nine or 12 photos of individuals who of i then pictures surveillance -- by the surveillance compound. i am not sure why it has taken so long. they've yet is a tough place right now. -- especiallythat benghazi. we did undertake a rate recently against one of the terrorists responsible for the african bombings. it took place in tripoli. there've been a special forces raid on a tanker off the coast of libya. i am a little confused as to why we have not seen anybody brought to justice in any fashion. i'm troubled by what i perceive as a lack of response. little is being said about this publicly. maybe i understand why that could be. and from outward up parents, we are outside the government, do not have access to classified information, that little is being done. g, but ibe wron hope this is something thie the special midi will look into. maybe the special committee can leaders seem why to be hiding in plain sight. weekend there is the news report about how an individual was shaking his finger at the united states and threatening us once again if we were to become involved again. i wonder if they are telling terrorists in libya -- and there are a lot of them, militia groups who do not like the united states and elsewhere -- that they can strike u.s. interests with impunity. yearsk us as much as 10 to bring osama bin laden to justice. but it did not take us that long to start rounding up his cohorts, his 9/11 associates. that's hardened immediately. indeed, according to reports, some of these individuals who may have been responsible for the attacks in benghazi almost two years ago are continuing to threaten us. is ihe bigger picture think we are struggling a bit with the war on terror. the state department will tell you terror attacks were up 43% last year. syria, according to the director of national intelligence, has attracted 7000 foreign fighters from over 50 countries. some of them have expressed a desire to attack the united states. there has also been testimony saying there are training camps in syria that are set up with the purpose of training terrorists to go back to their native lands and conduct terrorist attacks. there may be americans among lenders there've been press reports of numbers as high as 70 americans are participating in the fighting. al qaeda and other islamist groups are proliferating. this is another concern, and this is the signal we may be sending to those who would do us harm. fromis in turmoil, both its own internal problems and also from what is happening next door in zero. the boko haram made headlines recently with the kidnapping of 300 girls. awash with libya is islamist groups, and maybe on the verge of civil war between themselves and other forces. --have also bob in somalia al-shabaab in somalia responsible for an attack that killed almost 60 people in nairobi. they operate throughout north africa. the sinai is a hotbed for terrorists. their questions about what happens in pakistan after u.s. drone strikes in what happens in afghanistan after u.s. forces withdraw. some are worried about the old al qaeda, al qaeda's core places like afghanistan, the afghanistan -- pakistan border. point i am making is terrorists persist. thehould not only be in business of ringing terrorists to justice, but also in the business of deterring and denying them the opportunity to threaten u.s. interests us. i hope the white house includes that notion in their new strategy which the president alluded to do his speech in west point. it will be a goods start in tonging the terrorists account. i hope the special committee will look into this matter and provide us with some answers regarding this in a fashion that does not undermine our national security. so thank you very much. >> thank you, very much. >> i'm sure you are wondering what is a lawyer doing here on this panel. my task is to explain about select committees and how they operate. if you look at rule 10 of the 48 pages of the roles of the house of representatives, that sets up the permit of committees that -- up that permanent committees of the house. a special task to massage is the investigation of a particular issue, its powers, it's duties, number of its members art defined by the resolution that establishes its existence. the speaker of the houses given the power to appoint such committees under clause 11 of rule one of the same house rules. in this case, house resolution 567 was passed on may 8 and it set up the select committee to investigate the events surrounding the 2012 terrorist attack in benghazi. --s is a copy of the release resolution. it defines all the powers and duties. usually select committees end when they have completed their assigned task, but there are several select committees that are permanent. one example is the house they have a select committee on intelligence, which is a permanent committee. the senate has the same type of committee. this select committee according to its own resolution will cease to exist 30 days after filing the final report. most well-known select committees probably in the last 50 years was one with a very innocuous title called the select committee on presidential campaign activities, which was thatommittee investigated nixon after watergate. another more infamous select committee was that church ready, which was set up in the early 1970's in which many people blame for a mass -- four emasculate in our counterintelligence capabilities nothe extent we have fully recovered, and are some that lame those changes that led directly to 9/11. the advantage of a select committee over one of the other permanent committees, and has all of you, there been several committees that have been trying to investigate benghazi terrorist attacks, is that with a select committee the staff that you put in place to vote 100% of its time to that issue. that is not the case with the other committees of congress, which have many other responsibilities, both in the oversight area and with for guard to formulating and reviewing legislation. ais resolution set up committee of 12 members, of whom five are from the minardi in the house. it set up on two pages nine isferent tasks that it supposed to perform. i will not read all of those. you can look at them yourself. i would note three of the nine. one of them is that they are supposed to investigate all policies, decisions, and activities to respond to and repel such attacks including efforts to rescue u.s. personnel, and the is supposed to look at accountability for policy decisions related to the security of facilities in benghazi, lip yet, and the response to the tact, including individuals and entities responsible responsible for those policies and those decisions, which gets to the peter was talking what, which is finding out were the security issues that existed, what was the response of the government and the state department, and who was responsible for making those decisions, something that we do not know today. the third and last purpose i would note for you is any other relevant issues relating to such attacks, the responses to them, . that basically is what lawyers will tell you the catchall phrase that let us committee -- that lets this committee look at anything that relates to benghazi attacks. it has a very broad mandate. now, due to its constitutional oversight function, congress is the publicinstances is not entitled to. there are exceptions in the freedom of information act that do not apply to congress. one thing we know from recent documents that were obtained by judicial watch in a lawsuit they filed is that they obtained through court order documents related to benghazi that had not been turned over to congress. it is pretty clear that this committee has a lot ahead of it. the chair of this committee is a former assistant united states attorney. that is very important because it means he is a former prosecutor and he has developed in many prior in mrs. cases through invest -- -- prior instances cases to investigation. that is very important in telling you whether this committee is going cap the ability to conduct its investigation effectively. heording to the resolution, can issue subpoenas, order depositions under oath, and he can allow members of the committee to question witnesses for more than five minutes. anyone who is familiar with how congress works, i have testified before congress and asked that members of this committee, and i see some pdb in the audience i recognized it also testified, know that normally never sent congress only have five minutes to question you. i can tell you it is pretty difficult for a member of congress to get real answers from a reluctant witness with only five minutes. the other thing that is important is the resolution says that chair can allow staff to question witnesses. is key to cross-examine witnesses effectively, especially if they get good staff members with prior prosecutorial experience. i will say frankly and this is that anyone directly in progress, but many members do not know how to question witnesses. they think cross-examination consists of asking questions i raise lior crosley, -- irately or crossly. s laying the groundwork, picking up on what the witnesses say, and following up on conflicts and insisting they answer the question. you cannot do that in five minutes and you cannot do that without great preparation and prior skill and experience. this committees will be able to subpoena witnesses, and if they refuse to answer or refuse to appear, there are two federal statutes that apply to this, and i will end with this. one says that any member who refuses to answer any question pertinent to the aunt beer under inquiry can jailed up to a year. the minimum is a one month in jail. statute that follows closely after this, if a witness refuses to answer questions or to appear as a witness, such as lerner, the house for the senate certify through the relevant united states attorney that a witness has refused to answer or appear before a committee. of congress and the house, the attorney is that relevant u.s. attorney for the district oof columbia. under the statute, his duty shall he to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action. note that that statute does not say the u.s. attorney may or may not bring that matter before a federal grand jury. it says that he shall. in other words, he has to do it. unfortunately, the united states attorney for the district of columbia has refused to follow the statute. when the attorney general eric holder was held in contempt of court, under the statute he had a legal obligation to bring that contempt citation before a federal grand jury. he refused to do that. we do not know yet whether he is going to once again refused to follow the law with regard to the lerner contempt citation, refused to do so, it will not be a good sign for this committee, because if there are any witnesses that refused to answer questions or appear before it and they refer this matter to the u.s. attorney, it will be up to him to enforce it before a grand jury. unfortunately, the lawlessness that has become prevalent in this department of justice, shown by the refusal of the u.s. attorney to comply with the federal statute, is a very serious concern and one that frankly no matter what side of the political aisle you are on you should be worried about. to conclude, i will just say that a select committee was long overdue with this. it has the power, the resources, and the staff that is needed to try to investigate this and get to the bottom of the key questions that need to be answered. thanks. >> thank you very much, hans. some fascinating points. >> thank you. me to write about benghazi when it happened. ambassador kristie vince was in benghazi to establish -- ambassador chris stevens was in benghazi to establish a consulate, and as part of the public diplomacy activity, which you do not normally think as public diplomacy, but part of foreign policy as landing in this kind of terrible trouble. was the case in benghazi. started writing about it and have been following the issue ever since for the heritage blog and other publications. i was tremendously heartened when we did get the announcement of the house select committee, because watching committee hearing at fter committee hearing, television, ask a follow-up question, it became very tiresome. the obama administration side, we hear there are no more questions to be answered. we have answered every question we have been asked. all the information is out. we have put it all out. we have handed over thousands and thousands of documents. yes, they have. it is like looking for needles in a haystack. sideimes from the other you hear that no questions have been answered. that is not true. the committee has answered quite a few questions. you need to follow up. neither person who can then ask, ok, secretary panetta, you went to the president and told him we were under attack. what did you recommend we would do? nobody asked him that? did you not come in with three recommendations? who would go to the u.s. and this is what we would do, because this is the resources and this is what we should do. he was sitting there and nobody thought to pose that. very encouraged, and i think at least we can get a fair distance of the way in, getting a picture of what happened in benghazi. trey gowdy is a great choice, and committee has announced its first order of business would be established timeline and there timelinesually be two and they would have to merge at some level, the timeline of what exactly happened in benghazi, and the timeline of what exactly happened in washington. bothhen try to fit them together. the third thing they need to do is not start at the top, where they are likely to get people refusing cepeda news -- refusing subpeonas, but people at the bottom, what they saw happened, who was there, what was the personal experience, and what the obama administration tell you once you came home about sharing those experiences with the congressional committee, because they have some words never questioned, some were very much discouraged from coming forward, i would be some of the security staff, and others who have come forward have been sidelined, denied promotions, denied basically professional activity after that. and then what the committee in an act ofmaybe mental exercise, try to disregard what has been written -- thet and what has narrative that was created in washington afterwards, the narrative that was created by the obama administration, try to disregard that and focus on what the people who were there and who knew, because what they were telling was the truth. amazed we, i was did not get any of that after the attack took place. there was no new paper introduced, no interviews, no anyone whofor was there. it was like they had dropped off the face of the earth. hopefully they will get a chance to tell their stories, maybe behind close doors. sets ofo focus on four issues that i think we need -- the committee needs to talk about, needs to dig into. in was chris stevens benghazi in mid-september of 2012? he was there to open a hermetic facility. why did we need a diplomatic facility there? withs an area rife terrorist activity. peter mentioned where several the reduntries had -- cross was under attack. flag of al qaeda was flying over government buildings. this was a dangerous area. thes stevens, when he took ambassadorship in 2012, was taskedinmate 2012, -- he opened a facility in benghazi. that was one of the top priorities. she wanted us to be out there. was much more of a libyan culture or of -- center of culture and politics than aaa. .- tripoli and he was asked to do a report on an gauzy security -- benghazi security. he did not choose well when he chose the weekend of september 11 to go there. but he did. he went with two security people, because the security staff had been cut by the state department and defense department from 30 to nine, and two was all they could afford for his personal rejection, and 72 are the u.s. embassy in t ripoli. think about that. inlary clinton wants us benghazi. it does not compute. stevens was against this, and as we all know from his cables, occasionally he was against this, but he had been over rolled. so, it was -- so was the previous capacitor. and the military detail was bensferred from security to training of libyan forces. they were not available anymore. in any event, he went. , thes the best connected best expert they had. chris stevens really was the man of the moment in libya. he knew the country so well and have the connections to go talk to them about how bad the situation really was. , there was a connection between the state department and weeksbassy at tripoli for before this trip, talking about what he was going to do. and yet, for some reason when we got to the accountability review board, they stated in it writing that he -- in that he went to take a look on his own. this in spite of the fact that he was given the information. so, there is a whole area there, every clinton's plans, her intentions. as a matter of fact, a book there was at out -- trip, she was planning a trip to tripoli herself that fall. which should make this all a high priority for the ambassador, and it was. he was acting on her behalf. i'm sorry to say that she certainly was not acting on his behalf when the attack came down. she was informed of the attack happening.tes of it she was informed in person over the phone this was happening. was underonsulate attack. she was not informed there was a demonstration by the media going on. at the same time though, if you go back and look at her press release, which came out that , she stated that there was heinous video out there and people were upset mightit and some of that have fed into this demonstration that was going on. well, no, there was no demonstration and everybody who was there knew it. in hillary clinton's role mission istevens' one that we need to hear much more about. the reason to downgrade the diplomatic forces there, the security forces absolutely needs to be dug into. and again, if you look at the she turned down twice the offer from the defense extend theto security forces. actually because they had already shifted them from his control over to a training mission. and for diplomatic reasons, this was creating a problem. but there was no effort made to accommodate his concerns. and onelly troubles me, of the things that troubles me about the accountability review board's report, which is referred to all the time by the administration, is that -- i blameit subtly lays the on the victim. ambassador stephens went through on his own. he did not want more security. he was in control. he was not actually in control. he was trying to do the best he could to do his job, but under very difficult circumstances. the fact that senator clinton and undersecretary patrick kennedy, who was the man who ultimately turned out the security request, or never interviewed. review board,lity ambassador pickering and vice admiral mullen, they heard all of this. i'm sure they are well connected to hillary clinton. they are not necessarily people who would want to hang her out to dry. that report, as insufficient as it was, will be taken to pieces. now let's see. was there evidence that there was an attack on the embassy? other evidence the select committee will be looking at. how did this video of the demonstration turning into an attack emerge? the administration, susan rice, when she went on the sunday talk shows categorically stated this was a demonstration or a video that turned into an attack. she said that five times. the talking point she was given, which we know were created as a cia,boration between the the state department, and the white house, never mention a demonstration. demonstration, but not a video. the first one to mention that was hillary clinton herself. the idea that this came from the who in hearings, from what we know, have various accounts, some account said there were demonstrations. some said there was an attack. and the acting director at the time that that there was a demonstration. would like toe point the other way, and the white house said they wanted to point the way away from the policy failure and to the demonstration going arrive. into this bigoons wasative of -- which perpetuated by president obama and secretary clinton even to the point of obama going to the united nations talking about how how thosed anti-muslim videos, we do not approve of those at all. they were crafting a narrative, clearly with a view to exert damage control before a presidential election. wanted to dig into how these talking points were has one that is a result of the judicial branch, the national security advisor, the deputy national security advisor benurity rhodes, and he would like to show that there was an uproar about this video created in america. so, it was really for the people back here. was one of the reasons that john boehner having ay decided on select committee, because a show the administration did not turn over documents when they were requested, and this document has been requested before by congress and not handed over until a legal action excavated. and finally, i think, the committee had to be very sensitive to the subtle and not-so-subtle threats that were made against people who wanted to come forward with the testimony. the real personal attacks and character excess nation -- assassination and personal consequence. why in theo tell us, state department and the cia, they were severely discouraged from bringing their testimony forward? this is a terrible miscarriage of justice. insult to injury. and it certainly deserves some restitution for what happened to them. but they made the assurance that they can speak freely, but then of course there is the retaliation that freedom mentioned. response of the time. be armed services committee and has not quite gotten to there is no such response. there were people questioning whether we could have made a effort. general mullen gave very emotional testimony, stated that we should have made an attempt. he was the intelligence officer africom that was watching the aerial drone that we sent. the only drum that we sent, which was flying over libya anyway, directed so we can have real-time video of what was happening on the ground. no other force from outside managed to get there in time whatsoever. just think how different things could have been if somebody had been able to arrive at the cia , which was attacked in the morning, when the diplomatic facility was attacked in the evening. they could have gotten there, spare two american lives and chased off the people attacking them. they be captured some of them. who knows? it could have been a very different scenario. we need to hear more about that, too. i could go on and on and on. i have so many questions. and people will tell you, they are just not telling the truth. i'm going to stop now so you will get to ask some of your questions. much.nk you very a lot of terrific unanswered questions you have outlined their with regard to what is a very vague scan -- a very big scandal, frankly one that is just growing bigger. i would like to invite questions from the audience for our panel. please identify yourselves with the affiliation you might have. i would like to kick off with the questions -- this gentleman here? with a, i am joe kaufman congressman's office in the house. this question -- if u.s.ourse exists to bringrefuses uncooperative witnesses before a grand jury? >> what should happen is what happened with the attorney general. u.s. attorneythe general in contempt. the house representative hired its own lawyers, and they are in court right now trying to get a federal judge to enforce that contempt citation. there has been a long fight going on, because after the contempt citation, as you all lovably recall, the resident asserted executive privilege -- you all probably recall, the president asserted executive privilege with regard to be documents. they could do this again in this situation. but i would say the house should go-ahead and appropriate the money needed to wire private counsel to enforce any contempt citations against any witnesses who refuse to answer questions. unless the administration wants to claim executive privilege with regard to any and all of thosewitnesses, enforcements should move much faster. enforcements, if the administration is coming in and saying, well, there is a noton why this witness is testifying or answering questions, then they should be able to get pretty quick resolution from a federal judge. what happens there is, a federal judge can order the person put in jail until they answer the questions. affectdoes that documents in terms of executive privilege? you talk about individuals answering questions, but what powers does the special committee have in terms of documentation? they have the same power congress has to get a hold of frankly any documents -- the only kind of documents the legislative branch has the ability to withhold from congress are things covered by executive privilege. as you all know, a great example examplexpert -- a great is the area where used to work, and that is classified materials. if you are an member of the public, you cannot get classified materials through a freedom of information act request. congress has the ability to get those kinds of documents. they have committees set up. they have special rooms where they can look at classified documents. that is a good example where congress has the constitutional authority to yet documents the public does not -- to get documents the public does not. unless the president asserted executive privilege to cover any documents this committee wants case, thethe benghazi administration has an obligation to turn it over. >> that is a possibility. >> it is a possibility. we know that they put in a very broad executive privilege with regard to the documents for fast and periods. >> [indiscernible] >> yeah, well, very well. he could. it is much easier for the president to assert executive privilege with regard to documents at the white house, exchanges with close aides. it gets a little more brittle privilegeexecutive claims starts going down into the executive branches. the further you get from me president, -- from the president, the tougher it is to make that executive privilege claim stick. what is going on in court right now, a federal judge is looking at whether the executive privilege claim made by the president with regard to operation fast and furious, whether it is legitimate. the justice department filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit saying this is a political question and the courts had no business determining the legitimacy of the president's executive privilege claim. the judge threw out that motion rt order in which he said, i'm sorry, this issue was decided 30 years ago when richard nixon tried to make a claim. the courts decided, no, they have the right to make a decision on executive privilege claims. >> next question. daugherty frome atlanta. on the media circus and the american public will attention on this -- we finally have a media bias against covering benghazi. of ails down to a bit fiasco. that to me they'd send to the administration's agenda, circling and confusing, and draining people's attention dry and it falls by the wayside. how are we going to reinvigorate and broaden the attention to this? >> good question. is a really good question. fox news has been on this case from the beginning and done a terrific job. as you mentioned, 60 minutes did a good report, but for laura logan was eviscerated as a consequence. i think i would encourage the acquire sometee to really expert communications staff. that -- they will need to be able to work with reporters from the main media to reach out to them, in a fairly sophisticated way, to make sure the right bits of the story get out of the right time to the right people. we will be banging the drum here inthe heritage foundation our daily signal blog, and publications, and programs like this. whene are very grateful people cover those and they get seen around the country. even with very substantive coverage, and sometimes with the very biased coverage we have seen of benghazi by the mainstream media, there is and the american people a great distrust of the story that has been titled -- peddled by the obama administration. people are inflamed about it. this is a broad spectrum of people, not just republicans. huge scandal., polls also suggesting this. that reachingng out and persuading some of the reporters from the big newspapers, even if you work for the mainstream media, if you are a good reporter, or if someone waves a good story in front of your nose, it is hard to resist it. i hope we can get the word out. >> most of these deliberations will not be public, right? >> this will be done in private. this is where it differs from a committee hearing. i imagine they will have a press secretary. it is possible the chairman could hold off on saying anything until everything is done and the report is issued. i'm not sure -- is there anything in the legislation that talks about that? my understanding is this will be different from a committee hearing in that the deliberations will be done in private. >> that is my understanding, too. -- >> that is my understanding, too well there will also be public hearings. >> the one thing people should understand -- they should not expect there will be any kind of public hearings anytime soon. that is not the most effective way for this committee to do its job. the most effective way for the midi to do its job is to hire a staff of good -- for the committee to do his job is to hire a staff of good lawyers with prosecutorial experience. and having closed-door depositions of those witnesses, thense depositions where witnesses can be cross examined as much as possible. if you start with people on the ground in libya and then you -- i do notere up want to compare this to a mob operation or a drug cartel, but look, when the justice department goes after and investigates those kinds of organizations, you start with witnesses at the bottom and you work your way up. as you get information and documentation from these witnesses, you can use that to then confronts the people above them and the people above them to find contradictory statements, to find conflicts, to find things that frankly are not true. doing this behind closed doors is the way to do this. that includes, by the way, any witness who says, well, i work in the state department, but i was told if i talk to you, there are going to be severe consequences. the very next person subpoenaed should be the individual who was that person's supervisor who told them that there were going to be severe consequences for talking to the committee. next personvery subpoenaed. that is the way you do an effective investigation. at the end, yeah, you should have a book earrings to present what you have found, maybe too happy asked witnesses -- you should have public hearings to present what you have found, maybe to have witnesses. but you will not be hearing much in the press if they do it that way. >> with regard to the media coverage of this, and bearing in mind your own experience in europe and the u.k. as well, is there a big difference with the way the press will be covering europe and the united states? is there more a culture of deference here in america tour the white house, toward politicians? to imagine in you london, a foreign secretary will over a scandal like this. we have not seen a single state department official so far held to account. the lower-level state were put onfficials administrative leave or something like that. but nothing further has been done than that. i think you're right. fleet street has a famous addition for digging its teeth into the british government and keeping at it. i would certainly think that if this was a british scandal, we would see it treated differently. i really think so. i think back to the iraq war, and there were scandals there in they blew wide open. it is true. it has been quite deferential and unfortunately so. >> didn't secretary kerry immediately restore those four individuals? >> [laughter] yes, you're right. >> i have a question for hans. i want to go back to this executive village thing. if congress subpoenas documents from the president, generally of thee, because confidentiality between president and staff, they do not require congressional nomination or consent to be in those positions -- because having worked on the hill and having seen these committees in the past, not having served on them myself, but being around them, there will be a tension between allowing these people to come and testify before congress, before this committee, and exerting executive privilege. can you talk a little bit about that? i think that's going to be a critical issue. i do not know if there is a precedent. i imagine -- and i do not know if the committee has to have agreement on both sides of the aisle as for who they subpoena. so, what happens then, if they do go and ask for individuals, let's say, in the press office? and they want them to come and testify about the narrative that was presented to the american people by susan rice? how do you see that sort of thing play out? president asserts or invoke executive privilege? he sends -- again going back to operation fast and furious -- houston's a letter to congress, saying i claim executive privilege with regard to, and then describes what that is. i will tell you my experience with the justice department, where i worked for four years. the justice department has always taken the position, it is middle management people and up can appear before senate and house committees. they have always taken the position we are not going to allow line attorneys to appear, because that will interfere with what they do. but there have been instances in the past where congress has insisted on getting testimony from particular individuals, and they have agreed to do that. i said, has a, as very broad mandate. they have nine different things they're supposed to look at and the last one is basically a catchall that basically lets them look at almost anything connected with this, including -- and this is important -- they have been able to make any legislative recommendations they believe are necessary to ensure this kind of thing does not happen again. very broad spectrum of what they can look at. if the administration wants to prevent specific testimony by specific individuals, they are going to have to do that. need tothe media will immediately publicize that, the administration will need to take this possibility for what it is doing. they will have to exercise telltive privilege and congress specifically which documents it does not intend to turnover and wide. and by the way, if they end up in a lawsuit with that, one of the things the house will be able to do is ask for what is a privilege log. when one side says the documents do not have to be turned over, one thing the courts require is a privilege log. that is a list of the documents by name, the people involved, and usually a one line description of what is in it. so the judge can make a decision as to whether or not it really is a privilege document and the forr side knows what to ask even if they are not getting the substantive issue of the document. privilege logs can often give as pretty interesting clues to what it is the other side does not want you to see. >> what sort of information would be in a privilege log?
VietnamRepublic-ofVermontUnited-statesAntarcticaChinaBeijingNairobiNairobi-areaKenyaSan-diegoCaliforniaClarence Leroy (Roy) Wilson, 97, of Ponca City, Oklahoma passed away on Tuesday morning, February 6, 2024. A Celebration of Life will be held at 10:00am Saturday, February 17th, 2024, at Trout Funeral Home Chapel, Ponca City, OK. Following the ceremony, Roy will be laid to rest at Resthaven Memorial Park Cemetery, 1901 E. Hubbard Rd, Ponca City. A Visitation for family and friends will be held Friday, Feb.16 from 6pm to 8pm at Trout Funeral Home, 505 W. Grand Avenue, Ponca City.
Ponca-cityOklahomaUnited-statesResthaven-memorial-park-cemeteryFirst-baptist-churchVerna-marie-wulfBill-wilsonJoe-mckennyStori-coxAmanda-wilsonMike-daughertyDustin-coxClarence Leroy (Roy) Wilson, 97, of Ponca City, Oklahoma passed away on Tuesday morning, February 6, 2024. A Celebration of Life will be held at 10:00am Saturday, February 17th, 2024, at Trout Funeral Home Chapel, Ponca City, OK. Following the ceremony, Roy will be laid to rest at Resthaven Memorial Park Cemetery, 1901 E. Hubbard Rd, Ponca City. A Visitation for family and friends will be held Friday, Feb.16 from 6pm to 8pm at Trout Funeral Home, 505 W. Grand Avenue, Ponca City.
Ponca-cityOklahomaUnited-statesFirst-baptist-churchResthaven-memorial-park-cemeteryClarence-leroy-wilsonClarence-leroy-roy-wilsonDennis-doris-wilsonRuby-wilson-doughertyEstle-earl-wilsonAmanda-wilsonVerna-marie-wulf