woman committing a serious assault, a rapist, and a killer. they're about to hit the street. a court ruling in a 6-3 vote that pardons may not be set aside by the judicial branch and the final decision rested entirely with the governor, but it's entirely the governor's judgment that the victim victim families are questioning. b b barbou rr wouldn't come on the show. >> governor, ed lavendera with cnn, can we talk to you real quick? >> let me get my instructions. >> can you talk to us in a second? >> he couldn't give us a second and walked right inside the building, but not before showing us what he thought of the questions. >> can you talk to us about the char charges? we'll wait for you out here, then. told me to stay where i'm cold. >> can we get a few minutes to talk about the pardon? >> when the supreme court rules it will be time to talk. i'm not so presumptuous as to predict what the supreme court is going do. >> the supreme court ruled so we contacted mr. barbour's office to see if he would make good on his promise to talk, and his press officer said no, he's traveling, busy. we asked for a phone interview. she said no. they issued a statement. he thanked the court, acknowledged the criticism and restated, quote, these are rescissions based on a repentance, rehabilitation, and redismtion leading to the forgiveness and right defined and given by the state constitution to the governor to offer such a people a second chance. he offered this as a justification for freeing the inmates sieving in his mansion. >> they were served by inmates. almost all murders because the experts say people who committed one crime of passion in their lives after they have served 20 years and these have served on average 20 years, are the least likely to ever commit another crime. >> he said that over and over. the experts who have come on our program say people who kill on impulse, crimes of passion in the heat of the moment, are no less likely to kill again than anyone else. in any case, you would be hard pressed to describe what some of the killers did as crimes of passion at all. joseph osment stuck up a convenience clerk, shot the clerk three times and twice more after fleeing the scene. after arguing with his wife, anthony mccray got a gun, returned, and shot her in the back. not exactly heat of the moment, either. neither is this, david gatlin stalked his estranged wife for weeks. he shot and killed her while she held her baby in her arms and badly wounded her friend, randy walker. now he fears he may try to finish the job. her mom and sister are too shaken by the court ruling to talk about it. i spoke to them when this story first gained national attention. >> he got life plus 30 years. you know, i mean, and he served 18 of them. you know, my sister lived 20 years. it's ridiculous. you know, it almost makes you -- hal haley barbour didn't open the case to look at the detective work and the things that were said. i mean, he actually told smbld before he came to do this that he was coming to kill her. you know? >> why do you think the governor did this? >> my real gut feeling is that it was a power thing with him. he did it because he could do it. and he wanted to. >> he didn't think about your daughter? >> no, he didn't think about my daughter, and none of us will be able to see her or hear her or talk to her ever again. he didn't think of any of that. you would have thought that being a father, that might have crossed his mind. >> again, we welcome the governor to come on the program anytime, as you heard, he would talk about it once the supreme court rendered its decision. jeffrey toobin, you weren't surprised by the decision, why? >> astonished. the mississippi constitution has the unusual provision that says no pardon is valid unless the person applying for the pardon published a notice in a local newspaper 30 days before the pardon goes into -- is acted upon. it's clear as the court acknowledges that notice provision was violated. >> and that was supposed to give notice to any potential former victims or victims' families. >> who could go to ingovernor and say don't do this. >> that wasn't done? >> it was not done. some people did it late, some didn't do it at all. it was clear it was not done in accord with the law. the six justices in the majority said it didn't matter. we as an equal branch of government don't have the right to overrule the form of a pardon signed by the governor in the executive branch of government. the three descending justices who i thought were right said, wait a second, this is what courts do. we analyze the law and decide whether the other branches of government have followed the law. >> essentially, the six ones who ruled in favor of it said that only the governor can decide whether the governor's actions are constitutional? >> essentially, those actions when it comes to exercising the pardon power, are unreviewable by a court, including us. >> how could that be? there's no oversight of this governor at all. >> i don't get it, when it comes to pardons. one of the most famous decisions that the justices discusses is a united states supreme court decision, mar berry versus madison, it's the job of courts to say what the law is. it's not the job of the president or the governor or the congress. it's the job of the courts. this is what they were trying to do in this case. because the law, it's so clear here. >> so can this go higher? to another court, or is this done? >> that's what is amazing. no, this is done, this is over. this was a mississippi court interpreting the mississippi constitution. the united states supreme court doesn't do that. they don't tell the mississippi supreme court that they're violating the mississippi law. this case is over. these pardons are final. i think the legal process -- >> these killers have had their records basically wiped clean. a pardon wipes it clean. >> which is significant. it's not like they got out of prison. they're not convicting felons tomorrow. they can tomorrow go buy a gun, go get a hunting license. they can go vote. it's as if these people were never convicted in the first place. it is a total clean slate for them. >> amazing. appreciate it. as you heard a moment ago, ranldy walker was shot and nearly killed by one of the men now free and clear. the record of his deadly crime wiped clean. randy walker joins us now at the end of what has no doubt been a difficult day. what was your reaction when you heard the ruling, randy? >> i couldn't believe it. i couldn't believe these six justices as educated as they have to be, could interpret the law any other way than the way the three did. i was absolutely blown away. these six guys took the political way out rather than doing what was right. >> do you feel this ruling today has put your life in danger? the fact that the man who shot you is now out and can buy a gun? >> yeah, i mean, part of the justice system here or in the united states as a whole is that there are two parts to the justice system. one, if you're convicted, you do your time. if it's five years or 50 years, you do your time. after that, if you have committed a felony, you give up your rights. you give up certain rights. these guys, to abolish -- gatlin served 17 years 6 months and 3 days for a life plus 30 sentence. he should have never gotten out of jail. you know, for them to be completely pardoned is though your legal analyst said, it never happened. it happened for me. i'm still living it every day. i can't be pardoned from the scars i have. i can't be pardoned from the nightmares. i can't be pardoned from looking over my shoulder wondering where this guy is. none of that. there's no magic pill for me to take, no magic pardon for me. >> when you hear the governor say this was a crime of passion and therefore he's not likely to do it again, according to our experts, he's never said who the experts are because we can't find any who said that? >> i don't know, he's -- i don't know. he's just talking where i don't think he understands wheat he's saying. his lips are just moving. i don't understand his definition of crime of passion and mine aren't in the same world. a crime of passion for me is if you come home early from a business trip or for lunch unpexicted and you find your spouse doing something, and your snap them with a lamp on the bed table. you don't drive nine hours to georgia, stalk them all night long, follow me back to my house, get up and sleep on it all night long, get up and hunt us down the next morning and then do it. there's plenty of time to stop what you have done here. and that's one of the questions, if governor barbour would ever get -- man up enough to talk to me, that a question i would ask him, how is this a crime of passion? show me how this is a crime of passion. >> it doesn't surprise me that the governor hasn't talked to meor a lot of other reporters. but it surprises me he hasn't been willing to talk to you about this. >> i mean, he's just totally -- i don't want to slap him or cause him any bodily harm. i feel like i'm owed an explanation. i mean, for him to say that, you know, it's in his christian faith to let this guy go, what about the separation of church and state? the governor -- i don't see how he can make a decision, you know, that's a state issue based on a church issue. i don't understand. i mean, there's so many things here. there's stuff that nobody knows about that i would love to talk to you off camera, some other stories here, but you wouldn't believe the cover up and letters and documentation where some people are saying one thing in an office and somebody else is saying something totally different in another office. they're scared to death that i'm going to bring a huge lawsuit so they're changing wordings. i have gotten letters from lawyers who work for barbour and represented the justice department or not the justice department, the department of corrections that they don't -- they think we're too stupid to keep what we write. i have letters from years ago where they say that david is a trustee at the governor's mansion and all of this other stuff and i get a letter recently that said, we want to recorrection that. he wasn't a trustee. he was in a work program. because the department of correction corrections, not something i made up, but the department of corrections of mississippi said any person found guilty of murder serving a life sentence can not be a trustee, period, not in the governor's mention, not in a farm. they can't be a trustee. that's in the department of corrections handbook. >> if you see this man who shot you, are -- are you legitimately afraid for your life? >> i have been told not to say certain things, but i will say this, anderson, if david gatlin shows himself to me, i'm going to take it as a threat against my life or the life of my family and handle it accordingly. >> randy walker, i'm sorry you're going through this and i appreciate you talking to us about it. >> it's been han honor to be on your show. out of all of the people i have been on the air with, you share my outrage and the sentimentses of my family. we really appreciate that. >> that means a lot to me. we'll continue to keep in touch with you and see if the law can get changed. although it's not going to change the case of this pardon. wish you strength in the days ahead. thank you. >> thank you, anderson. >> let us know what you think about it. on facebook, google plus, at twitter, you can also follow me on twitter. up next, president obama said washington lobbyists wouldn't be running his white house, so hue does he sdriebl his new hire, a man who ran a lobbying firm? >> and later, an overlooked chapter in american history coming to light. california once led the nation in forced sterilization, and why even now the victims of some of the forced sterilizations are fighting for some kind of justice. anderson, new attacks on civilians in syria, and while a new and influential voice is now arguing against outside military intervention to stop it. that and much more when 360 continues. >> announcer: this is the day. the day that we say to the world of identity thieves "enough." we're lifelock, and we believe you have the right to live free from the fear of identity theft. our pledge to you? as long as there are identity thieves, we'll be there. we're lifelock. and we offer the most comprehensive identity theft protection ever created. lifelock: relentlessly protecting your identity. call 1-800-lifelock or go to lifelock.com today. well, online dating services can get kind of expensive. so to save money, i've found a new way to get my profile out there. check me out. everybody says i've got a friendly disposition and they love my spinach dip. five foot ten... still doing a little exploring. but... my sign is sagittarius, i'm into spanish cheese, my hairline is receding but i'm getting a weave. getting a weave. there's an easier way to save. who wants some ronald tonight!? who wants some ronald tonight!? geico. fifteen minutes could save you 15% or more. keeping them honest now, on a very specific campaign promise that then-candidate obama made back in 2008. that when he was elected he would run the white house, not washington lobbyists. the question tonight is, is he breaking that promise and using a loophole as an escape hatch? here's the pledge candidate obama made during his primary campaign against hillary clinton. >> we will not take a dime from washington lobbyists or special interest pacs. we're going to change how washington works. they will not fund my party. they will not run our white house, and they will not drown out the voice of the american people when i'm president of the united states of america. >> we've got to change how business is done in washington. this is the major disagreement that i have with senator clinton. now, she's a smart and capable person, but she is of washington. and she believes that lobbyists aren't a problem. i think they are. i would not take money from federal lobbyists. they have not funded my campaign. they will not run our white house. and they will not drown out the voices of the american people when i'm president of the united states of america. >> but if you are ready for change, then we can go ahead and tell the lobbyists, their days of setting the agenda in washington are over. they have not funded my campaign, they will not run my white house, and they will not drown out the voices of the american people when i'm president of the united states of america. >> well, tell that to steve ricchetti, who is the new counsel to vice president biden. steve ricchetti's last job was running a lobbying firm. for years, he lobbied in washington for gm, eli lilly, the american banking association, and others seeking to influence government policy. so how, you might ask, did he end up with a senior job in the administration? well, it turns out in january of 2009, president obama started backing away from his pledge, saying, "when you were a lobbyist entering my administration, you won't be able to work on matters you lobbied on." but, keeping 'em honest, there's very little the white house is involved with that steve ricchetti or others in his line of work haven't lobbied on, such as banking, hospitals, and the auto industry. the white house, though, is offering another justification. you can decide if it's a fig leaf or not richetti de-registered as a lobbyist in 2008 even though he continued to run his lobbying firm. so, officially, he was not a lobbyist anymore. dana milbank's column in "the washington post" got this on the radar. i spoke with him and democratic strategist hilary rosen shortly before airtime. dana, it seems the white house can appoint this guy, ricchetti, because he de-registered as a lobbyist before president obama took office. but for all intents and purposes, he was still a lobbyist, right? >> right, anderson. and that's the problem with sort of the influence industry in this town. relatively few people who practice this business are actually, technically lobbyists. so we live in this absurd situation where the president can get around his own ban on hiring lobbyists by hiring the president of a lobbying firm. so somehow, that's better. it's just -- you know, it just sort of shows how deep this town is, into the influence business. >> hilary, i mean, isn't the president opening himself up to just a charge of hypocrisy on this? i mean, saying you're not going to hire a lobbyist, and then hiring a guy who's a lobbyist in everything but name only? >> first of all, he's not a lobbyist in everything but name only. he did not talk to members of congress about issues on behalf of clients, period. >> but he ran a lobbying firm. >> that's the definition of a lobbying firm. >> no, he had lobbyists in his firm, but he did not do that. so, here's the other thing, which is, this kind of stigma about lobbyists. first of all, i personally think this whole issue is kind of silly. because, guess what, you want to have people who know how to get stuff done. >> no, no, i'm not arguing that point. but this is a president who has specifically said, i'm not going to have lobbyists, so it's one thing -- you can now argue and say, well, it's silly to have said that -- >> and he hasn't. >> but he attacked hillary clinton -- >> i'm saying i think it's silly to say. >> right, but the obama campaign attacked hillary clinton in 2008 for taking money from him because he was a lobbyist then. >> well, he was a lobbyist then years prior to 2008. but since then, he has not lobbied. which is the rule. two years of no lobbying. so, that means that you get all of the benefit of the experience of a lobbyist, without the current corporate ties. and that's an important thing. steve ricchetti is a good guy. this is kind of a, you know, a crazy thing to be taking off after him for. >> dana, in your column, you wrote, "only in today's washington could a president circumvent his own ban on hiring lobbyists by hiring the head of a lobbying firm. his appointment shows just how flimsy obama's ethical reforms have been and how absurd the official standards are for who's a lobbyist in the influence industry." >> mm-hmm, yeah. i mean, look, hilary makes a fine point that maybe they should be hiring lobbyists, because they have experience. but then don't go and put in a policy in the first place that says you shouldn't be hiring lobbyists. now, he's the president of a lobbying firm. basically, his other partner is his brother. his brother goes to lobby for people and says, hey, you know, my brother, the president of this firm, he's that guy that raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for all you politicians. and i think any american looking at that would say, that stinks, and that's ridiculous whether you call him a lobbyist or you don't call him a lobbyist. it's not saying that steve ricchetti is a bad guy, from everything i understand, he's very competent and just the kind of guy you'd want in the white house, but it doesn't smell good. >> hilary, doesn't this come on the heels of the president basically reversing himself on super pacs as well? >> you know, it does come on the heels of super pacs, but this coming on the heels, let's go back to this, he has not gone back on his pledge not to hire lobbyists. steve ricchetti is not a lobbyist. when it comes to super pacs, you know, as soon as mitt romney says he's not going to take $1 billion from super pacs, my guess is barack obama would say so too. but there's no way he's going to unilaterally disarm when the republicans have, you know, empowered themselves with so much money. >> again, i'm not arguing whether it's a smart strategic move for the president to do, but it is the reverse of what he said he would do earlier. correct? >> what he said he would do in 2008, which was a different campaign finance system. now we're