It and ask you if this is a direct quote. It is not enough to simply have a catchy ad and then do it every monday. We need to do this every monday of the week and really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way. Is that it . That is taken of context. I was talking about black men, and at the time, washington, d. C. , was the murder capital. The glorified the use of the guns, and what i was saying is we need to counter those images, and i used the term brainwash to get them to think differently about the use of guns. Do you think the aggressive prosecution of gun crimes as part of the answer as well is part of the answer as well . Serves as a deterrence to using firearms and committing other crimes . Absolutely. I also think preventing people from acquiring guns and using them in inappropriate ways i as a superior court judge, i saw an ocean of young black men who should have been a feature of this community go to this jail because they have guns, used them inappropriately, killed people. I thought in that speech what i tried to do with to come up was to come up with ways to talk to these young guys and convince them that acquiring guns and using them to sell drugs, robbed people was wrong. Inappropriate. A prevention thing. I think you are right. In addition to strongly prosecuting them, when i was a judge, i send people away for possession and use of guns for extended periods of time. I did not hesitate to do that as a judge. In conclusion, the fbi figures revealed from 2010 that more than 76,000 people attempting to buy guns built background checks. We do not know how many of these people have committed crimes the bureau of atf have committed crimes. Out of 76,000 failed background checks, your department pursued a guilty verdict in just 13 cases. How is that consistent with making violation of crime in a prosecution is so slight . The primary purpose of the background check is to make sure people who should not have guns denied get them. Do not get them. Since 1998, 1. 5 Million People have been turned away. Of all the federal gun prosecutions bring, one seventh of them are gun prosecutions. All of those cases for people are denied the opportunity to get a gun are reviewed for prosecution and purposes and determinations are made as to whether they, in fact, should be prosecuted. One of the things i want to look at is whether or not we need to bring more of those cases. I will be talking to u. S. Attorneys about that. If we are going to be cracking down on gun crime, there are reasonable explanations as to why we have those numbers but i want to make certain we are prosecuting all the people we should who had been denied a gun, failing one of the background check systems. A crime not prosecuted is not a deterrent is. Would you agree with that . We have limited we have limited resources and we have to try to figure out where we want to use those. One has to look at why the gun was denied and determination on whether or not we should use those sources to bring prosecution against that person. A crime not prosecuted does not produce the kind of deterrence we would want to prevent other people from committing similar crimes. Do you agree with that . You are several minutes over. Three minutes, 30 seconds. You have been very indulgent but i would like a simple answer to the question. Deterrence comes in a number of forms. Some are deterred by the prospect of jail, others by the prospect of having filled out a form and then having been turned down. It depends on the individual. Those are the kinds of factors be taken to account when making determinations as to whether a prosecution should be appropriately brought. Thank you very much. Senator. I want to say welcome attorney general holder and thank you for your service. I think it is apparent you have a very hard job in a hard time. I want to Say Something to you on the office of Legal Counsel opinions. Our job is vigorous oversight of the intelligence community. We cannot do this unless we see the legal underpinnings for certain kinds of activities, particularly clandestine activities. I believe the committee is fully united on that point. Both sides. So i believe the administration will have to come to terms with this. I would like to ask you to spend time and take a good look at it. I have been sitting here reading the white paper you sent to this committee on the subject of lawfulness of the illegal operation directed against a u. S. Citizen, a senior operational leader of al qaeda. Or an associated force. This is Committee Confidential but it is not classified. The fact of the matter is it is a 16 page, very hostile and very thoughtful and very impressive opinion, and yet, it cannot go into the public domain. I cannot ask you about some of the factors of this opinion even here and i think thats a mistake. I think the world we are now living in is so different and precise that the legal underpinnings for action really are important. Secondly, it is one thing for a president to ask for a legal opinion prior to something that is ongoing. Maybe even on going. It seems to me that after words, after words, afterwards, we should have the opportunity to assess the legality of that and if necessary, be able to clarify law, change a law, do whatever a constitutional legislative body does. I would just ask you to take a look at this. We have now i just got a note. It has been release now because it was leaked first. So [chuckles] that is one way of getting it out. I think that gives you an idea of the situation we are in from an intelligence point of view, it is vital. Committees. Lets say that predator is taken out of the jurisdiction of intelligence and put in the military. That transfers the jurisdiction to armed forces. Lets say it is used in some way that brings the jurisdiction to this committee. I think we now have to look at that arena and make some decisions as to the administration being more forthcoming with the legal advice that underpins lawmaking. Yes. Please dont. Would you agree. Agree . The president has heard you and others who are raised this concern on both sides of the aisle. I think what you will hear from the president in a short period of time we have talked about a need for Greater Transparency in what we share, what we talk about. Because i am confident that if the American People had access to for instance some of this stuff could not be shared but i understand that. At least the representatives of the American Community have a chance to see some of those olc opinions, there would be a greater degree of comfort and. This government does the things reluctantly but we do it in conformity with international law, domestic law and with our values. As an American People. And so, i think there is going to be a greater effort at transparency. And number of steps are going to be taken. I expect you will hear the president speaking about this. Right now we have someone exercising a hold on john brennan said what we are talking about is your eating dinner in your house or at a cafe and walking down the road in this country and can be targeted for elimination. I do not believe that is true. No. I do not believe it is correct. I think it really it is one thing after a major attack like 911 where we saw a great people take down a plane brave people take down a plane, because they heard his claims were being crossed into buildings and there was a likelihood this one was going to crash into the u. S. Capitol, so people on the plane took it down. Then there was discussion as to whether a president should order a plan taken down with american citizens if it was going to jeopardize a greater number of american citizens. I think this to some extent is something we have to grapple with in a legal way as well. Mmhmm. In reading the opinions i have just read, i believe they are very sound opinions. I have also read opinions from the bush administration, one of which was withdrawn from the by the bush administration, two of which were withdrawn from the obama administration. They are not, in my view, a good opinions. They were opinions designed to provide whatever the president or administration was asking for. I think this is where transparency is important. Years after, we have an opportunity to look and make judgments as to whether our democracy and our values are being operated by the executive in a proper manner. I think there is a greater need for transparency, a greater need for appropriately sharing information, and we are struggling with how to do that. It is something the president feels strongly about. And as i said, over the next few months, you will see an effort on the part of the administration to be more transparent. Thank you. The senator is next on my list, and then senator whitehouse. Thank you. Senator feinstein. General holder, thank you for being here thisi would like to address three areas and i would like to start at the topic you were discussing, the topic of drums. Drones. In your response yesterday, you suggested there may be circumstances in which is permissible to use drones to target a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil. You pointed to deed two, you pointed to two, pearl harbor and 911, both average both of which were extreme military attacks on the homeland. I want to ask a more specific question. Quietly at a cafe, in the United States, in your legal judgment, does the constitution allowed a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Store u. S. Oil to be killed by a on u. S. Soil to be killed by a drone . Sitting in a cafe having a cup of coffee . If that individual is not posing an immediate threat of death corporate bodily harm . I do not think you could arrests that person on that the person is suspected to be a terrorist. Have abundant evidence. He is involved in a terrorist spot. He is not planning a bazooka at pointing a bazooka and at the pentagon. The United States government uses drones to take out individuals when they are sitting at a cafe. A u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil is not posing an immediate threat to life or bodily harm, does the constitution allowing drawn to kill and citizen . I do not think that it be inappropriate use of any kind of legal force. We would typically deal with that situation. Appropriateness or discretion. It was a simple legal question. Does the constitution allowed a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil who does not pose an imminent threat to be killed by the u. S. Government . I do not believe that again, all of the facts. On the facts you have given me, this is a hypothetical, i do not think in that situation the use of john or legal force would be appropriate. Use of drones or legal force would be a corporate. In that, which was deliberately simple, you could not give the answer now. I think it is very simple. If that individual did not pose an individual threat, it would due process. I said the use of lethal force, drones, guns, or what ever else would not be appropriate that circumstance. You keep saying appropriate. My question is about whether it would be constitution or not. As attorney general, you are the chief legal officer of the United States. Do you have a legal judgment on whether it would be constitutional to kill a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil in those circumstances . A person that was not engaged. This is a hypothetical. This is the problem with hypotheticals. Person sitting at the cafe not doing anything imminently, the use of lethal force legal force would not be appropriate, would not be about would not be something i find it remarkable you will not i thought i was saying no. While, then, i am glad. After much gymnastics, i am glad to hear is the opinion of the department of justice that it would be unconstitutional to kill a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil threat. That statement has not been easily forthcoming. I wish you had given that statement in response to the letter asking you it. I will point out that i will be introducing legislation in the senate to make clear the u. S. Government cannot kill a u. S. Citizen on u. S. Soil absence of an imminent threat. Based on that representation, i hope the department will support that legislation. That is consistent with the letter i sent. To senator paul. I talked about 911 and pearl harbor. Those are the instances where i said it might possibly be considered. Other than that, we would use our normal Law Enforcement authorities in order to resolve situations along those lines and do. I like to move on. What has been considered the politicized enforcement of law. In 2010, congress and heard evidence and the department of justice declined to enforce voting Discrimination Laws against members of the black panther party. In 2011, the department of justice released a statement saying that the department would no longer defend the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act, which passed with overwhelming both houses of congress and signed into law. Last year in 2012, the department of Homeland Security announced that it would no longer enforce our nations immigration laws against individuals designated by the president. My question to you is, are there any other laws passed by this congress that the department of justice does not intend to enforce . It is the tradition of the department to always enforce laws where there is a reasonable basis to argue for the enforcement of those laws. I have sent memos or letters to the speaker of the house where we have declined to support laws and enforce laws that congress has passed for a variety ofwith regard to doma where we declined to defend that statute that courts subsequently have agreed with us applying that standard of heightened security that in fact, doma was unconstitutional. There was a bit of a slight of hand. You said courts goode on the merits of the issue, that is different from saying there is no reasonable basis to defend the statute. Surely its not the departments position every case that the department loses a case i will will not defend the statute. What process does the department engage in to determine which federal laws it will follow and which it will not . There is a presumption that we will apply and support any law that congress passes. It is the rare instance that we will not. Doma was one of those and there wasnt a reasonable basis to defend the statute applying the heightened scrutiny statute. Let me very briefly address one other area. Many attention has focused on the fast and Furious Program and the tragic consequences of that. Was the white house involved in any way whatsoever indecision making concerning fast and furious . No. Understanding is you asserted executive privilege against handing over documentsexecutive privilege protects as the Supreme Court has made clear, communications and advice with the president. If the white house was not involved executive privilege does not apply to those documents. If executive privilege does apply to those documents, it necessarily implies that the white house and the president personally was involved. Which of the two is it . Line. The president , the white house is not involved in the operational component of fast and furious. There were conversations between the Justice Department and the white house about the operation after all of the operative facts had occurred, after all of the cover controversial actions were taken and got into the situation where we were talking about the congressional investigation of fast and communications between the white house and Justice Department. But nothing did i understand you correctly my time has expired. Is it your position that executive privilege only applies after the details of fast and furious became public and subsequent communications but no executive privilege that is applicable before it becoming public because as you said, the white house was not involved in any way, shape or form . The executive privilege protects the white house and executive Branch Agency and to communications that deal with fast and furious between the white house and Justice Department. So the executive privilege does not apply . There is nothing there for executive privilege to apply to. As best as i know. Thank you, general. Thank you, chairman. Welcome, general holder. First off, thinking for the initial statement that the administration has made about putting the Drone Program under a more regular ongoing separation of powers framework. There is a lot of work ahead of us to work out the details but its an important for the administration. And thank you for your executive order which was a vital step and remain disappointed that we didnt pass legislation to address this pressing issue. Senator graham and i are continuing to work on supplementing the executive order with Bipartisan Legislation that i think is vital for our country. Let me chime in on the question of getting the response to the request for the record that was made last june when you were last here and which we still have no response to. I understand that its tied to o. M. B. But presumably they could put it into the calculation of when letters are prepared for you. Not only o. M. B. Just to be fair. There is something within the department where we need to be more responsive. But executive branch agencies, equity in these responses. Its not strictly o. M. B. Pretty long run for getting an answer. I agree with that. We are looking forward to having a hearing on the resources of the department and the strategy of the department on cyber prosecutions and on the actions against the case was good and i understand there have been awards given to the you for. But i would have it would have been a model for a great number of other type of legal efforts to clean them out of the web and hasnt been pursued as a model or strategy. And to my knowledge, there hasnt been a single cyber prosecution brought against a hacker like we know china is doing that comes in purely through the web, raids an American Company for its intellectual property, takes the property out and uses it as industrial espionage. I know there have been cases made for espionage and sometimes involve cyber, but there has been a tangible link of some kind, somebody with the cd in their pocket leaving the factory. So i think anybody who has been in the trenches understands how immensely complicated and resourceintensive these cases budgets its time to focus the real light to focus on how important these cases are and would you be willing to work with us and send appropriate d. O. J. Officials to a hearing. That could be particularly useful as we try to explain the issues that we conf