Who was convicted by your office in the late 1990s, his name was francois holloway, i believe i hope you remember him. There was a lot of press coverage on this case during your current tenure as u. S. Attorney. In 1995, mr. Holloway rejected a 10year plea and was convicted after a trial on three counts of armed carjacking and possessing a gun during a violent crime. Those subjected him to consecutive mandatory minimum sentences and he received a total ofic 57 years. Total of, i think, 57 years. In 2013, judge gleason, the district judge in brooklyn, who sentenced mr. Holloway, began a campaign on mr. Holloways behalf and sent you a request to vacate two orders of mr. Holloway no one argued holloway was innocent or wrongfully convicted or that his sentence was unlawful. No one claimed there was a problem with the trial. All mr. Holloways appeals were reject the case went to the Supreme Court which upheld the convictions. In fact, everyone agreed that the sentence he received was lawful under title 18 of the sentencing sentencing guidelines. Judge gleason didnt agree with the sentence the law required him to impose and was asking you to help him do it. In february 20 13, to your credit you refused to vacate the carjacking convictions. You suggested to judge gleason that mr. Holloway could contact the office of the pardon attorney and submit a petition for commutation of the sentence. I think that was the appropriate resons, i response, i congratulate you on that i think every prosecutor would have responded that way. In may of 2013, judge gleason again urged you to vacate two of mr. Holloways armed carjacking convictions. He said your suggestion that he seek clemency wasnt realistic because the fact that he committed crimes of violence would disqualify him. The judge was a passionate advocate for this defendant. This time, however you backed down and consented to the judges order to vacate the carjacking convictions. I want to note that he was a Violent Offender offender, who along with an accomplice stole three cars at gunpoint. As the top Law Enforcement officer, i have a couple of questions relative to that case and your perspective. My first question, what caused you to change your earlier position in that case . Senator, with respect to the holloway case, there was a matter that had been of long standing it was long standing case from the office. It did predate my tenure my second time but not first time as u. S. Attorney. It was a case in which it was the defendant who had made a motion to allow the judge to revisit his sentence. So there was in fact a judicial proceeding before the court at that time and think court wanted us to take a second look at it. We did consider it numerous times. Ultimately the matter was before the court and while the judge indicated he would like to have the opportunity to review that, our view was that we had to look at the case consistent with many of the initiatives that were being put in place now by the department of justice. Certainly with respect to clemency and with respect to how we look at offenders who have served a significant time and whether or not they would be eligible for that. Of note to me as i reviewed the matter was that mr. Holloway was the second person in that carjacking incident and was not the individual with the gun but was of course legally liable for that and while he received the sentence of 57 years, the main actor received a sentence shortly under two years. There was incredible disparity in the sentence there. The real issue for us, was there a legal proceeding in place, and there was, essentially, did we have the ability to let the judge review the sentence again by keeping it in the court system and we felt that we did. But before we did that, it was important to me to consult with every victim in that case. And certainly we found all of the victims but one, after extensive research, all the victims also felt that the jubbling should have the opportunity to reconsider mr. Holloways sentence without a guarantee of what that sentence would be. Based on that information, based upon mr. Holloways record in prison, based upon his role in the offense, we looked at how we would have handled the case under current times. Again, given that there was a court proceeding, we were able to go to court and tell the judge we would not stand in the way of him reviewing the sentence again, which judge gleason kid. Mr. Holloway was resentenced, he then went into state custody to finish a matter so i do not know his current status. But we did ecertain rblely allow the judge to take another look at that and through the judicial process the judge imposed a different sentence. That sentence was still significant and it was still, i would say, twice as long as what mr. Holloway would have gotten had he accepted a plea deal. Thank you. You know as the attorney general you have great discretion, just as you did as district attorney. The question i would have is illustrated by the case, i think, is where do you draw the line . How do you see the balance between the law and your personal position in a case . Your personal opinion in a case . Senator, i dont believe that my personal opinion is the governing factor in a case. Be it mr. Holloways case or any case in which i would review either as u. S. Attorney or should i be confirmed as attorney general. I will take a look at every case and i will commit to you that i will review every matter brought to me with a full and fair examination of the facts and application of the law but also with a view toward, in mr. Holloways case, whether or not theres a judicial proceeding there and the current status of that. But we will take every effort and i will make every effort should i be confirmed to always act consistent with the law. Thank you. Just one last question in this vein. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of Violent Offenders in our federal custody serving sentences based on consecutive mandatory minimums you spoke about, like those imposed on mr. Holloways case. If youre confirmed and during your tenure as attorney general it comes to your attention that there are cases like mr. Holloways would you consent to early release. It was not my it would not be my place to consent to early release, our posture was to consent to allow the judge to revisit the sentence and impose the sentence he felt appropriate. As u. S. Attorney i would not be making the decisions to whether someone should be released. Should i be confirmed as attorney general i would not be making those decisions either except as people go through the clemency process or Pardon Office and those matters come under review by the department of justice. We would then apply our best judgment to the situation but the ultimate decision on release would not be made, i believe by me. Since im the only one up here, i guess im the presiding officer and my time is almost up. I have one other question for you. Id like to move on to National Security if i might. Ill remind the chairman i didnt go over on my allotted time just in case. The d. O. J. Announced that two yemeni nationals charged with conspiring to murder american citizens abroad and providing Material Support to al qaeda will be prosecuted in your District Court in new york. Id like your thoughts on bringing terrorists onto u. S. Soil. Is there any rule for military tribunals or should civilian courts be used exclusively for these prosecutions . Thank you for that question. The case that you mentioned is being handled by my office and at the outset i would note that throughout the process of reviewing that case and deciding how to best prosecute it and where to appropriately venue it, we consulted extensively with the office of military exhibitions as we do with all the cases involving National Security defendants who may be brought to u. S. Shores and may be brought to the Eastern District of new york. Certainly i would say at the outset that my position is, if terrorists threaten americans here or abroad, they will face american justice. We have done that successfully in the Eastern District of new york and i look forward, should i be confirmed as attorney general, to continuing that strong practice, utilizing all the tools in our arsnell and that includes the military commission process. Essentially, senator, should i be con firled as attorney general, i look forward to working with the military and the other executive Branch Divisions in government to make the best determination about where each case should be brought. Should that determination be in article 3 court, i anticipate that the receiving u. S. Attorneys office would handle it with skill and dedication that my prosecutors do every day. Similarly should it be a military commission, they will also handle it with the skill and dedication that they have also shown. I have been honored to host general martens in my office and have a positive working relationship with him. Should i be confirmed as attorney general i look forward to continuing that relationship with him. And with all our partners in the war on terror. I would like to thank you for your patience, professionalism today. Youve run out of senators almost. In the absence of our chair, theres only one other senator available for questioning. I know theyre on the floor now voting. I would suggest we take a 10minute recess if youre amenable, and well find out from the chairman, if senator till liss, who is the last remaining person to ask questions and see where we go from there. Enge well stand in recess for 10 minutes and thank you again for your graciousness and perseverance today. Thank you, senator. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] on the next washington journal, we will look at president obamas attorney general nominee and that the latest on her Senate Confirmation hearings with charles grassley. Then a conversation on proposed changes to the criminal Justice System with mark mauer. Later, we will talk to politico reporter about Loretta Lynchs confirmation. We will take your phone calls, emails and tweets. Washington journal at 7 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Here are some of our featured programs for this weekend. On cspan 2 saturday night at 10 00, after words, White House Correspondent for urban radio april ryan on her more than 25 years in journalism and her coverage of three president ial campaigns. A threehour conversation with it whose biography includes ben franklin and outwards einstein. And on American History tv on cspan 3 saturday as his 00 p. M. On the civil war, Boston College history professor on how the cowboys during reconstruction became symbolic of a newly unified america. On sunday evening, we will tour the house that was the head orders of the American Red Cross to learn about the life of its founder, clara barton from find our complete schedule at www. Cspan. Org and let us know what you think. Call us at email a email us at the or send us a tweet at join the cspan conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. This sunday neuroscientist dr. Francis jensen on the recent discoveries about a teenage parade. They do not have the frontal lobes to reason, cause and effect consequences of actions are not very clear to them because the frontal lobe are not at the ready. They have frontal loads not just the connections cannot be made as quickly for splitsecond decisionmaking. Do not forget a lot about our malls are changing in the body of the young men and women. The brain has not seem these yet in life until you hit teenage years. The brain is trying to learn how to respond to these new hormones rolling around and locking onto receptors, different types. They are and his trial and error. This contributes to health every roller coaster experience and this contributes to this very roller coaster experience we witness as parents. More from attorney general nominee Loretta Lynchs confirmation hearing at the Senate Judiciary committee. She is question of why North Carolina senator thom tillis. Questioned by North Carolina senator thom tillis. Just as soon as the room quiets, im going to recognize the senator. I think its quite enough. Would you proceed . Thank you, mr. Chair. And ms. Lynch congratulations. Its quite an honor to be in the place that you are today. I want to compliment you on your distinguished career and ive also noted over the course of your testimony just how much pride is in the eyes of your friends and supporters here. Congratulations. I had a question for you and it stems from oh i also want to thank you for dealing with last week when we had to move the venue and the time around for the meeting. I appreciate your graciousness and spending some time with me last week. I really want to maybe start where we left off, with some of the discussions. And i think that senator flake and senator lee and senator schumer have also echoed the concerns about the limited resources and how you would prioritize things within the within your future perspective new responsibilities. Prospective new responsibilities. I guess something that strikes home for me has to do with certain elections laws. And in North Carolina, im not familiar with how much you know about the elections. The law was more or less the foundation of that law, with the indiana law which was upheld by the Supreme Court 63, but given the limited resources within the a. G. s office and the department of justice, what are your thoughts on pursuing laws that are likely end to up in the same state, particularly laws like North Carolina that went much further than the law that was upheld . Certainly, sir. I believe that the right to vote obviously is the corner stone of our democracy. As do i. Certainly i think that states obviously have an interest in protecting that right to vote also, as well as regulating it and making it safe and free and open for everyone. And i believe in many states theyre acting with exactly that view in mind. Certainly with respect to the North Carolina statute and case, i know its under litigation now. I believe there will be a trial at some point in time. Im not familiar with the status of the case now. So i cant comment on that specific case. Or that specific statute. But what i can say is that with respect to how the department will look at Voting Rights issues it will on the view toward protectinging the right to vote and hopefully working with the states to ensure that all the interests are met. Certainly all voter i. D. Laws are not problematic. As you noted, the court has outlined situations in which they are useful and serve a fundamentaly important purpose. And the department has, under the previously utilized doctrine about free clearance, actually approved voter i. D. Laws. So i dont think that we can at this point without knowing how a case will be presented, say which way the department will go in viewing it. But given the fundamental importance of the right to vote should an issue be raised it is something that the department of justice has an obligation to review and consider whether or not it should get involved. In the example of the law that was passed by North Carolina and the case that was brought against North Carolina. In fact i was named in the case because at time i was speaker of the house. Im just curious how, as you go forward and youre dealing with the challenges in this office, as i believe senator schumer said, trying to focus your resources on the bad actors, the hardened criminals, the difficult challenges that the department faces, and a case that has 10 attorneys on it, focused on no less than 10, i believe, focused on that, i would hope that there would be some focus on is that the best and highest use . If given the merits of the case and other laws that have gone to the Supreme Court, that its likely to end in a situation where its going to rule in favor of the state and at the expense of those resources could be used for other purposes. I mean, what is your thought on going into this role and taking a look at cases like that and maybe determining priorities based on the likely outcome . Have you given any thought to that . Certainly as we review a case, both throughout my career as a prosecutor and as u. S. Attorney, we always look to the possibility of how a court will view a particular matter. But first and foremost, whether the case involves voting or any other important right, is the issue of what is the evidence thats presented and what is the relevant law, what is the interest being protected. And if it relates to a core function of the department of justice, such as protecting the right to citizens, keeping our citizens safe, or protecting the right to vote, it is a matter that we would be obligated to look into. Whether or not a matter would result in litigation would of course depend upon a variety of factors which are not in front of me today. About the nature of the law and how it was written and essentially whether it comported with those laws that were previously approved both by the department and by courts. Certainly with respect to the North Carolina case, i believe the matter is in litigation. Its not something that im intimately familiar with. I have not been involved in the management of that case to date. I look forward to learning more about it should i be confirmed and i believe the matter will proceed to court and we will await the results there. Ms. Lynch, i do have a question just based on the final comment that you made there. With respect to the case. Because it gives me some sense of whether or not we can look at this objectively and make sure that were using the resources of d. O. G. D. O. J. In the most effective way. I think in january of 2014 you said that people try and take over the state house and reverse the goals that have been made and voting in this country. I presume since i was the person who took over the state house i would be included by reference. And you g