Podcasts about graham so

https://youtu.be/JpDzbMd5In0 Something in the world of floating have you stumped? * First Last Email Address* What's your question?*CAPTCHAPhoneThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. jQuery(document).bind('gform_post_render', function(event, formId, currentPage){if(formId == 12) {if(typeof Placeholders != 'undefined'){ Placeholders.enable(); }} } );jQuery(document).bind('gform_post_conditional_logic', function(event, formId, fields, isInit){} ); jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery(document).trigger('gform_post_render', [12, 1]) } ); Show Highlights Well, it's been over a year since the COVID-19 pandemic and we know what you've been thinking: What have those Float On boys been up to? Well worry not! Graham and Ashkahn share all the big changes happening with restrictions lifting and life returning to a semblance of normalcy. If you've been following our shop operations at all, some of these changes might surprise you. Listen to Just the Audio Transcription of this episode... (in case you prefer reading) ​Graham: Okay. Back again. Ashkahn: Back at it. Back with it, back on track. Graham: And back for you, back for you. Ashkahn: Let's put on some Burt Bacharach. Graham: All right. We have some stuff to talk about. Turns out who knew there was a global pandemic going on. A bunch of us just had to change every single way about how we operated our entire business. And in some areas, things are lightening it up, back at it getting back more towards normal-ish operations. Ashkahn: Yeah. We just had here in Oregon, June 30th was the no more stuff date. Official no more stuff day. Graham: So that's it. Now there's no cases of COVID anymore here and we're all good to go. Yeah, everything's perfect. Ashkahn: I've just been licking almost any surface I can come. Graham: Yeah. As a result though of all of this, we're now rolling back a lot of those changes that we made, right? We're not making people sit in their car anymore before they actually come into the shop. We are not actually taking people's temperature when they walk in. We're not making them answer a quick survey of all of the questions that we were asking everyone. Ashkahn: Perhaps many of you have not been doing this for awhile, but that's the Oregon rules going until very recently. Graham: We had to do it and it's nice. Part of the cool thing is having gone through this now, it actually feels like just running a regular float center, which we've always over the years drilled in, is not the easiest thing in the world, now actually feels a little easier. A little less stressful, which is cool. Also a plus, is that some of the things that we did adopt as a result of the global pandemic we're actually keeping on and we've decided are either better for our operations or even actually just improve life for staff, or make it easier to run Float On.

Something in the world of floating have you stumped? * First Last Email Address* What's your question?*CAPTCHANameThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. jQuery(document).bind('gform_post_render', function(event, formId, currentPage){if(formId == 12) {if(typeof Placeholders != 'undefined'){ Placeholders.enable(); }} } );jQuery(document).bind('gform_post_conditional_logic', function(event, formId, fields, isInit){} ); jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery(document).trigger('gform_post_render', [12, 1]) } ); Show Highlights Grashkahmn are back to talk about the latest product they've been putting together during quarantine: The Buoy Project, a social media toolkit designed specifically for float centers. Beyond just a shameless plug, the boys use the episode to explain the nature of the project and what they hope it can turn into in the future with the help of the industry. Show Resources The Buoy Project Listen to Just the Audio Transcription of this episode... (in case you prefer reading) Graham: Okay. Ashkahn: Yeah. Hey everybody. Graham: Hey, welcome to another episode of Occasional Solutions Podcast. Ashkahn: Yep, this is a podcast where we occasionally have solutions. It's the premise. Graham: So, If that's what you're into, then you really came to the right place. Yeah, we're about to take this puppy into overdrive. Ashkahn: This is Ashkahn over here. Graham: And I am Graham. Ashkahn: It's been a while. Graham: It has. Hi, everybody. Yeah. Welcome back. It's been a little bit. Ashkahn: Yeah. Graham: It's been a little bit. Also, since we've been running a float center in the normal way that we do. Ashkahn: Yeah. I've just been napping for three months. I'm not even sure what's happening out there. Graham: Yeah, it's been a crazy time. I know a lot of you are already reopened and some of you have been for weeks even. We just reopened. Ashkahn: A few days ago. Graham: Yeah. Ashkahn: We're still in our baby steps stage. Members are coming in and we haven't really told normal humans that we're open. We're easing into it, dipping our toes. Graham: Yeah, but it's exciting. It's really nice, actually, looking at the schedule and seeing people getting back in the tanks again. It's important to feed the tanks. They get hungry.  Ashkahn: It's intense. Every person who floats, there's a lot of cleaning. It's really serious. Graham: If you're one of our members out there, it's not because you're messy. That's not what we're talking about. We're just talking about the insane extra procedures that you have to do before actually cleaning down the inside walls of the tank between every person. We're not even letting people sit in our lobby, but there's still just so much to wipe down. Obviously, they think this is just what everyone's been talking about on the Float Collective...

It's done. Brett Kavanaugh is a Supreme Court Justice. Most of the media coverage of his confirmation centered on the sexual assault allegations made by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford but that's only one part of the story. In this episode, learn about the procedural tricks employed by Senate Republicans and the George W. Bush administration to place Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and hear highlights from over 40 hours of Brett Kavanaugh's policy-oriented confirmation hearings that most of the country didn't see. Please Support Congressional Dish - Quick Links Click here to contribute a lump sum or set up a monthly contribution via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North Number 4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD117: Authorization for Limitless War Additional Reading Blog: Why the ACLU opposes Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the supreme court by Susan N. Herman, ACLU, October 3, 2018. Article: California professor, writer of confidential Brett Kavanaugh letter, speaks out about her allegation of sexual assault by Emma Brown, The Washington Post, September 16, 2018. Records: Records, papers, decisions: Kavanaugh records and the Presidential Records Act, related author Meghan M. Stuessy, FAS.org, August 27, 2018. Report: ACLU report on Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, ACLU, August 15, 2018. Article: Brett Kavanaugh ruled Consumer Financial Protection Bureau structurally unconstitutional by Manuela Tobias, Politifact, July 25, 2018. Article: There's no conspiracy between Trump and Kennedy. There's just the swamp by David Litt, The Washington Post, July 3, 2018. Article: Donald Trump made Justice Kennedy an offer he couldn't refuse by Abigail Tracy, Vanity Fair, June 29, 2018. Article: Inside the White House's quiet campaign to create a Supreme Court opening by Adam Liptak and Maggie Haberman, The New York Times, June 28, 2018. Article: Here's what is known about the surprising choice to lead the CFPB by Francine McKenna, Market Watch, June 18, 2018. Article: The clock is running out on Mick Mulvaney by Renae Merle, The Washington Post, June 12, 2018. Article: Official cause of death for Antonin Scalia released by David Warren, Dallas News, February 2016. Article: George W. Bush's bizarre bathroom self-portraits laid bare by audacious hack by Sam Byford, The Verge, February 8, 2013. Resources Case Information: Carpenter v. United States Executive Order: Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act Sound Clip Sources Hearing: 2004 Kavanaugh Judicial Nomination Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, April 27, 2004. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 1:14:14 Senator Jeff Sessions (AL): Judges, if you’re confirmed, are not accountable to the public. You never stand for election again. You hold your office for life. Many of your decisions are unreviewable ultimately, and it leaves the American people subject to decisions in an anti-democratic forum unless that judge restrains him or herself and enforces the law as written or the Constitution as declared by the people of the United States. 1:24:15 Senator Patrick Leahy (VT): The question is secrecy in government, and this administration has shown more secrecy than any administration I’ve served with, from the Ford administration forward. You were the author, one of the first indicators of this increase in secrecy, Executive Order 13233, that drastically changed the Presidential Records Act. It gave former presidents, their representatives, and even the incumbent president, virtual veto power over what records of theirs would be released, posed a higher burden on researchers petitioning for access to what had been releasable papers in the past. After the order was issued, a number of historians, public interest organizations, opposed the change. The Republican-led House Committee on Government Reform approved a bill to reverse this. A lawsuit to overturn it was filed by Public Citizen, American Historical Association, Organization of American Historians, and a number of others. Why did you favor an increase in the secrecy of presidential records? Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, with respect to President Bush's Executive Order, I think I want to clarify how you described it. It was an order that merely set forth the procedures for assertion of privilege by a former president, and let me explain what that means. The Supreme Court of the United States in Nixon v. GSA in 1977, opinion by Justice Brennan, had concluded that a former president still maintains a privilege over his records, even after he leaves office. This was somewhat unusual because there was an argument in the case that those are government records. But the Court concluded that both the current president and the former president have the right to assert privilege to prevent the release of presidential records. That’s obviously a complicated situation. The issue was coming to a head for the first time because there’s a 12-year period of repose, so 12 years after President Reagan left office was when this President Bush came into office, and there was a need to establish procedures. How’s this going to work, two different presidents asserting privilege or having the right to review? No one really had a good idea how this was going to work. The goal of the Order was merely to set forth procedures. It specifically says in Section 9 of the Order that it’s not designed in any way to suggest whether a former president or a current president should or should not assert privilege over his records. You’re quite right, Senator Leahy, that there was initial concern by historians about the Order. I think it was—I like to think it was based on a misunderstanding, and Judge Gonzales and I undertook to meet every 6 months or so with a large group of historians, first to discuss the Order and explain it, and then after that, to discuss any problems they were having with the Order, and to help improve it, if they suggested ways for improvement. I think those meetings, I think the historians who’ve come to see us, have found them useful, and I think we helped to explain what we had in mind and what the president's Order meant in terms of the procedure. So, that’s my explanation of that Order. Hearing: 2006 Kavanaugh Judicial Nomination Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, May 9, 2006. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 58:44 Senator Orrin Hatch (UT): I also want to acknowledge the presence of Mr. Kavanaugh’s parents. I’ve known them for a long time. Ed Kavanaugh, for many years, he headed up the major trade association, the Cosmetic, Toiletries, and Fragrance Association, and he is deservedly admired by many in this town. And his mother served with distinction as a state court judge in Maryland for many, many years. 1:47:15 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Of course, as you know, I met you a number of years ago when I was Attorney General of Texas and had the honor to represent my state in an argument before the United States Supreme Court, and that was Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, which involved a question of whether school children could voluntarily offer a prayer or an inspirational saying before school football games in Texas. And as you know, the Court ultimately ruled against that voluntary student prayer in the case. And Chief Justice Rehnquist, in dissent, said that the Court's ruling exhibited hostility to all things religious in public life. And I’m very concerned about that because I do believe that the founders thought that the posture of the government with regard to religious expression should be one of neutrality, not hostility. I realize as a lower court judge you’re going to be bound by the Supreme Court's precedents, but I wonder if you would address the issue of religious liberty and religious speech insofar as how you believe in your position as a circuit court judge, how you would approach those issues. Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, if I were confirmed to be a D.C. Circuit judge, I would of course follow the precedent of the Santa Fe case. That case addressed a question that had been left open in the Lee v. Weisman case in 1992. In that case, there was a school-sponsored prayer at a graduation ceremony where the government was actually involved, and one of the questions that was left open was, what happens if a student or a private speaker participates in a school event as a private speaker? And in the Santa Fe case, I think the Court concluded, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, that it could be attributed to the school and so was a violation of the Establishment Clause. I think the overall area represents a tension the Supreme Court has attempted to resolve throughout the years in terms of facilitating the free exercise of religion without crossing the Establishment Clause lines that the Court has set out for many years now. I know that the Court in recent years has made clear in a number of cases that private religious speech, religious people, religious organizations cannot be, or should not be, discriminated against and that treating religious speech, religious people, religious organizations equally—in other words, on a level playing field with nonreligious organizations—is not a violation of the Establishment Clause. In past years there had been some suggestion that treating religious organizations the same way in the public square as nonreligious organizations could sometimes be a violation of the Establishment Clause. I think the Court's really gone to a principle of equality of treatment does not ordinarily violate the Establishment Clause—again, equality of treatment of religious speech, religious people, religious organizations; equality in the public square. That's been something we've seen over the last, I'd say, decade or a little more. 2:04:00 Former Senator Sam Brownback (KS): But just give me your view of the Constitution as a document itself. Is this a—can you put yourself in a category? Do you have a view that it’s established as a living document, as a strict constructionist of the Constitution itself? Brett Kavanaugh: Senator, I believe very much in interpreting text as it’s written and not seeking to impose one's own personal policy preferences into the text of the document. I believe very much in judicial restraint, recognizing the primary policymaking role of the legislative branch in our constitutional democracy. I believe very much, as a prospective inferior court judge, were I to be confirmed, in following the Supreme Court precedent strictly and absolutely. Once as a lower court judge, I think that’s very important for the stability of our three-level system for lower courts to faithfully follow Supreme Court precedent, and so that’s something that I think’s very important. In terms of the independence of the judiciary, I think that’s something that’s the hallmark of our judiciary, the hallmark of our system, that judges are independent from the legislative branch and independent from the executive branch. I think that’s central to my understanding of the proper judicial role. Hearing: 2018 Day 1 Part 1 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 4, 2018. 12:55 Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): Good morning. I welcome everyone to this confirmation hearing on the nomination of— Senator Kamala Harris (CA): Mr. Chairman? Sen. Grassley: —Brett Kavanaugh— Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman? Sen. Grassley: —to serve as Associate Justice— Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized for a question before we proceed? Unknown Speaker: Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Sen. Grassley: —of the Supreme Court of the United States. Sen. Harris: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to be recognized to ask a question before we proceed. The committee received just last night, less than 15 hours ago— Unknown Speaker: Mr. Chairman, regular order. Sen. Harris: —42,000 pages of documents that we have not had an opportunity to review or read or analyze. Sen. Grassley: You’re out of order. I’ll proceed. Sen. Harris: We cannot possibly move forward, Mr. Chairman, of this hearing. Sen. Grassley: I extend a very warm welcome to Judge Kavanaugh— Sen. Harris: We have not been given an opportunity to have a— Sen. Grassley: —to his wife, Ashley— Sen. Harris: —meaningful hearing on the nominee. Sen. Grassley: —his two daughters, their extended family and friends— Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague, Senator Harris. Mr. Chairman— Sen. Grassley: —Judge Kavanaugh’s many law clerks— Sen. Hirono: —we received 42,000 documents that we haven’t been able— Sen. Grassley: —and everyone else joining us today. Sen. Hirono: —to review last night, and we believe this hearing should be postponed. Sen. Grassley: I know this is an exciting day for all of you here, and you’re rightly proud of the judge. Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT): Mr. Chairman, if we cannot be recognized, I move to adjourn. Sen. Grassley: The American people— Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Sen. Grassley: —get to hear directly from Judge Kavanaugh later this afternoon. Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I move to adjourn. Mr. Chairman, we have been denied—we have been denied real access to the documents we need to advise— Unknown Speaker: Mr. Chairman, regular order is called for. Sen. Blumenthal: —which turns this hearing into a charade and a mockery of our norms. Sen. Grassley: Well— Sen. Blumenthal: And Mr. Chairman, I, therefore, move to adjourn this hearing. Sen. Grassley: Okay. Protester: This is a mockery and a travesty of justice. This is a travesty of justice, and we’ll not go back. Cancel Brett Kavanaugh. Adjourn the hearing. Leave me alone. Leave me alone. Unknown Speaker: _______(02:07—What do we have to do? Trump? We may have to work with Trump. In a demonstrative adjourn, we have to have—) Unknown Speaker: We’re not in an executive session. Sen. Blumenthal: Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll-call vote on my motion to adjourn. 18:40 Senator Mazie Hirono (HI): Mr. Chairman, it is also— Senator Chuck Grassley (IA): I think that I— Sen. Hirono: Mr. Chairman, it is also not regular order for the majority— Sen. Grassley: Senator Hirono— Sen. Hirono: —to require the minority to pre-clear our questions, our documents and the videos we would like to use at this hearing. That is unprecedented. That is not regular order. Since when do we have to submit the questions and the process that we wish to follow to question this nominee? Sen. Grassley: Senator— Sen. Hirono: I’d like your clarification. Sen. Grassley: Senator Hirono— Sen. Hirono: I’d like your response on why you are requesting— Sen. Grassley: —I would ask that you— Sen. Hirono: — ____(00:30) order to submit our questions, too. Sen. Grassley: —I ask that you stop so we can conduct this hearing the way we have planned it. Maybe it isn’t going exactly the way that the minority would like to have it go— Protester: [unclear] Sen. Grassley: —but we have said for a long period of time that we were going to proceed on this very day, and I think we ought to give the American people the opportunity to hear whether Judge Kavanaugh should be on the Supreme Court or not. And you have heard my side of the aisle call for a regular order, and I think we ought to proceed in regular order. There will be plenty of opportunities to respond to the questions that the minority is— Protester 2: We didn’t vote for Judge Kavanaugh. [unclear] Sen. Grassley: —legitimately raising. Unknown Speaker: Get her thrown out of here, my god. Protester 3: [unclear] Sen. Grassley: And we will proceed accordingly. Unknown Speaker: What did she say? Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (RI): Mr. Chairman, under regular order, may I ask a point of order, which is that we are now presented with a situation in which somebody has decided that there are 100,000 documents protected by executive privilege, yet there has not been an assertion of executive privilege before the committee. How are we to determine whether executive privilege has been properly asserted— Protester 4: [unclear] Sen. Whitehouse: —if this hearing goes by without the committee ever considering that question? Why is it not in regular order for us to determine before the hearing at which the documents would be necessary whether or not the assertion of privilege that prevents us from getting those documents is legitimate or indeed is even an actual assertion of executive privilege? I do not understand why that is not a legitimate point of order at this point, because at the end of this hearing, it is too late to consider it. Senator Patrick Leahy (VT): Mr. Chairman, if I might add to this, on the integrity of the documents we’ve received, there really is no integrity. They have alterations, they have oddities, attachments are missing, emails are cut off halfway through a chain, recipient’s names are missing—many are of interest to this committee, but it’s cut off. The National Archives hasn’t had a chance to get us all that we want, even though you said on your website the National Archives would act as a check against any political interference. But— Protester 5: [unclear] Sen. Leahy: —I’d check after the hearing is over, there’s no check, I think we ought to at least have the National Archives finish it, and to have for the first time, certainly in my 44 years here, to have somebody say there’s a claim of executive privilege when the president hasn’t made such a claim, just puts everything under doubt. What are we trying to hide? Why are we rushing? Hearing: 2018 Day 1 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 4, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 1 Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 53:00 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): What would you say your position today is on a woman’s right to choose? Brett Kavanaugh: Well, as a judge— Sen. Feinstein: As a judge. Kavanaugh: As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court—by “it,” I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey—and reaffirm many times Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember, and I understand the significance of the issue, the jurisprudential issue, and I understand the significance, as best I can, I always try and I do hear, of the real-world effects of that decision, as I try to do of all the decisions of my court and of the Supreme Court. 1:02:35* Brett Kavanaugh: I can tell you about the U.S. v. Nixon precedent, and I did about Chief Justice Burger’s role in forging a unanimous opinion—and, really, all the justices worked together on that—but Chief Justice Burger, who had been appointed by President Nixon—appointed by President Nixon—writes the opinion in U.S. v. Nixon, 8-0—Rehnquist was recused—8-0, ordering President Nixon to disclose the tapes in response to a criminal trial subpoena. A moment-of-crisis argument, I think July 8, 1974. They decided two weeks later a really important opinion, a moment of judicial independence, important precedent of the Supreme Court. 1:09:49 Senator Orrin Hatch (UT): I’d like to turn now to your work in the Bush administration. As you know, my Democratic colleagues are demanding to see every, every piece of paper or every single scrap of paper you ever touched during your six years in the Bush administration, in part because they want to know what role, if any, you played in developing the Bush administration’s interrogation policies. Well, six years ago, Ranking Member Feinstein, who was then the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and a good one at that, issued a lengthy report on the CIA’s detention and interrogation program under President Bush. The report detailed the origins, development, and implementation of the program. In 2014 a declassified version of that report was released to the public. The declassified version, or report, runs well over 500 pages, and your name appears nowhere in it. Now, I, myself, spent over 20 years on the Intelligence Committee. I know the quality of its staff and the work that they do, and I know the ranking member and how diligent she is. If you had played a role in the Bush administration’s interrogation policies, I think the ranking member would have discovered it. Numerous administration lawyers appear in the report, but not you. And that should tell us something. With that said, Judge Kavanaugh, I want to ask you for the record: what role, if any, did you play in developing or implementing the Bush administration’s detention and interrogation policies? Brett Kavanaugh: Well, the policies that are reflected and described in Senator Feinstein’s extensive, thorough report were very controversial, as you know, Senator—the enhanced interrogation techniques— Sen. Hatch: Right, right. Kavanaugh: —and the legal memos that were involved in justifying some of those techniques also were very controversial when they were disclosed in 2004. And I was not involved. I was not read into that program, not involved in crafting that program nor crafting the legal justifications for that program. In addition to Senator Feinstein’s report, the Justice Department did a lengthy Office of Professional Responsibility report about the legal memos that had been involved to justify some of those programs. My name’s not in that report, Senator, because I was not read into that program and not involved. There were a number of lawyers—and this came up at my last hearing—a number of lawyers who were involved, including a couple who were then judicial nominees. At my last hearing, I recall Senator Durbin asking about whether I also was likewise involved as these other judicial nominees had been, and the answer was no, and that answer was accurate, and that answer’s been shown to be accurate by the Office of Professional Responsibility report, by Senator Feinstein’s thorough report. 2:37:49 Senator Lindsey Graham (SC): So when somebody says post-9/11, that we’ve been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept? Brett Kavanaugh: I do, Senator, because Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which is still in effect. And that was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later. Sen. Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict? Kavanaugh: There is such a body, Senator. Sen. Graham: Is there a body of law that’s called the basic criminal law? Kavanaugh: Yes, Senator. Sen. Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law? Kavanaugh: Yes, Senator. Sen. Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government? Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes. Sen. Graham: Okay. So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government? Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government. Sen. Graham: Is there a longstanding— Kavanaugh: That’s long-settled law. Sen. Graham: Isn’t there also a long-settled law that—it goes back to Eisentrager case—I can’t remember the name of it— Kavanaugh: Yeah, Johnson v. Eisentrager. Sen. Graham: Right. —that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy have considered enemy combatants? Kavanaugh: They can be. Sen. Graham: Can be. Kavanaugh: They can be. They’re often—they’re sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military sense. Sen. Graham: Well, let’s talk about “can be.” I think the— Kavanaugh: Under Supreme Court precedent— Sen. Graham: Right. Kavanaugh: —just want to make….yeah. Sen. Graham: There’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military. Is that correct? Kavanaugh: That is correct. Sen. Graham: I think a couple of them were executed. Kavanaugh: Yeah. Sen. Graham: So if anybody doubts, there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government, collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you could hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan? Are you familiar with that case? Kavanaugh: Yeah. Hamdi. Sen. Graham: Okay. So the bottom line is I want every American citizen to know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There's a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those differences? Kavanaugh: I do understand that there’re different bodies of law, of course, Senator. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 3 Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 25:10 Brett Kavanaugh: My case, I upheld, importantly I upheld limits on contributions in the RNC case and in the Bluman case, and the Supreme Court has upheld contribution limits generally but struck them down when they’re too low in cases like Randall v. Sorrell, and McCutcheon. 54:45 Brett Kavanaugh: The religious tradition reflected in the First Amendment is a foundational part of American liberty, and it’s important for us as judges to recognize that and not—and recognize too that, as with speech, unpopular religions are protected. Our job—we can, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, question their sincerity of a religious belief, meaning, is someone lying or not about it? But we can’t question the reasonableness of it, and so the Supreme Court has cases with all sorts of religious beliefs protected—Justice Brennan really the architect of that. So religious liberty is critical to the First Amendment and the American Constitution. 1:50:00 Brett Kavanaugh: All the significant wars in U.S. history have been congressionally authorized, with one major exception—the Korean War. And the Korean War is an anomaly in many respects, and I think some of—the fact that it was undeclared and unauthorized really did lead to the Youngstown decision. But, you know, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War, the AUMF against al Qaeda, the 2003 Iraq War, and then going back, World War II, World War I, the War of 1812—they’re all congressionally authorized. You can go back throughout, and I specify that. And so the war power, the power to take the nation into war, at least a significant one—and there’s some questions about short-term air strikes and things like that—but a significant war, that’s the biggest of all, and that’s something that Hamilton talked about in ’69 and that our historical practice, I think, is actually lived up to. I don’t mean to footnote Korea—that’s an enormous exception—but since then, they’ve all been congressionally authorized. 1:56:30 Senator Ben Sasse (NE): And one of the reasons that the executive branch seems so powerful right now is, again, because of how weak the legislature is. I mean, it’s a fundamental part of why we have the term “president.” In the 1780s, this wasn’t a very common term in the English language. “President” was just a nounified form of the name “presiding officer,” and we made it up, our founders made it up so that we wouldn’t have a term that sounded a lot like a king. And so we wanted to be sure that the term “presiding officer” sounded pretty boring and administrative, because the legislative, the policymaking powers were supposed to sit in this body, and the Article Two branch is supposed to preside over and execute the laws that have been passed. It’s not supposed to be the locus of all policymaking in America, but one of the reasons we have some of these problems with so many of these executive agencies is because Congress regularly doesn’t finish its work, punch those powers to Article Two, and then it’s not clear who exactly can execute all those authorities. And so we end up with this debate about the unitary executive, and you had a different term for it, but unpack for us a little bit why you have a different view about both the prudence and the constitutionality of one-person-headed independent executive agencies or pseudo-independent agencies versus commission-structure-headed independent agencies. Brett Kavanaugh: The traditional independent agencies that were upheld by the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor in 1935 are multi-member independent agencies. And so usually sometimes three, five, occasionally more, but they’re multi-member independent agencies, and that’s been all the way through. And then the—for the significant independent agencies—the CFPB—and I had no—it’s not my role to question the policy or to question the creation of the new agency. In fact, I think it was designed for efficiency and centralization of certain overlapping authorities. It’s not my role to question that policy. Someone challenged the fact that it was headed, for the first time on something like this, by a single person. And a couple things, then, I wrote about in my dissent in that case—I’ll just repeat what I wrote in the dissent—I said, “First of all, that’s a departure from historical practice of independent agencies, and that matters according to the Supreme Court.” They had a previous case involving the PCAOB, where they had different innovation there that the Supreme Court had struck down in part because of the novelty of it. So departure from historical practice matters because precedent always matters, including executive precedent. Then, diminution of presidential authority beyond the traditional independent agencies in this sense. With traditional independent agencies, when a new president comes in office, almost immediately the president has been given the authority to designate a new chair of the independent agencies, so when a new—when President Obama came in, was able to designate new chairs of the various independent agencies, and the chairs, of course, set the policy direction and control the agenda. That’s historically been the way. That does not happen with the CFPB. And finally, having a single person—just going back to liberty—who’s in charge, who’s not removable at will by anyone, not accountable to Congress, in charge of a huge agency is something that’s different and has an effect on individual liberty. So a single person can make these enormous decisions—rule makings, adjudications, and enforcement decisions, all of them—and from my perspective—I am just repeating what I wrote here. I’m not intending to go beyond what I wrote in that opinion that was an issue of concern. And I did put in a hypothetical because it seems abstract that—I think we’ll realize this issue with that agency or any other—when a president comes in to office and has to live for three, four years with a CFPB director appointed by the prior president. And then I think everyone’s going to realize—of a different party— Sen. Sasse: Right. Kavanaugh: — in particular—and then I think everyone’s going to realize, wow, that’s an odd structure. Now, maybe not, but that’s what I wrote in my opinion that that will seem very weird because that’s not what happens with all the traditional independent agencies. And so whenever any president leaves and has appointed in the last two years a CFPB director, the new president might campaign on consumer protection. Let’s imagine, okay, presidential campaigns on consumer protection and consumer issues and then comes into office and can’t actually appoint a new CFPB director for the whole term of his or her office, that’s going to seem, I think, quite odd structurally. At least, that’s what I said in my opinion. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 4 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Witness: Brett Kavanaugh Sound Clips: 4:45 Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT): I want to talk about Jane Doe in Garza v. Hagen. As you know, she was a 17-year-old unaccompanied minor who came across this border, having escaped serious, threatening, horrific physical violence in her family, in her homeland. She braved horrific threats of rape and sexual exploitation as she crossed the border. She was eight weeks pregnant. Under Texas law, she received an order that entitled her to an abortion, and she also went through mandatory counseling, as required by Texas law. She was eligible for an abortion under that law. The Trump administration blocked her. The Office of Refugee Resettlement forced her to go to a crisis pregnancy center, where she was subjected to medically unnecessary procedures. She was punished by her continued requests to terminate her pregnancy by being isolated from the rest of the residents. She was also forced to notify her parents, which Texas law did not require. And the pregnancy, which was eight weeks, was four weeks further when you participated on a panel that upheld the Trump administration in blocking her efforts to terminate her pregnancy. The decision of that panel was overruled by a full court of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. It reversed that panel, and the decision and opinion in that case commented “the flat barrier that the government has interposed to her knowing and informed decision to end the pregnancy defies controlling Supreme Court precedent.” And it said further, “The government’s insistence that it must not even stand back and permit abortion to go forward for someone in some form of custody is freakishly erratic.” In addition to being erratic, it also threatened her health because she was unable to terminate her pregnancy for weeks that further increased the risk of the procedure—one study said 38 percent every week her health was threatened. She was going through emotional turmoil. And yet, in your dissent, you would have further blocked and delayed that termination of pregnancy. All of what I said is correct, hence to the facts here, correct? Brett Kavanaugh: No, Senator. I respectfully disagree in various parts. My ruling, my position in the case would not have blocked— Sen. Blumenthal: It would have delayed it. And it would have set imperiously close to the 20-week limit under Texas law, correct? Kavanaugh: No. We were still several weeks away. I said several things that are important, I think. First— Sen. Blumenthal: Well, I want to go on because I can read your dissent, but I want to go to— Kavanaugh: Well, but you read several things, respectfully—first of all, I think the opinion was by one judge that you’re reading from that was not the opinion for the majority. Secondly, I was trying to follow precedent of the Supreme Court on parental consent, which allows some delays in the abortion procedure so as to fulfill the parental-consent requirements. I was reasoning by analogy from those. People can disagree, I understand, on whether we were following precedent, how to read that precedent, but I was trying to do so as faithfully as I could and explained that. I also did not join the separate opinion, the separate dissent, that said she had no right to attain an abortion. ____(04:29) I did not say that. And I also made clear that the government could not use this immigration-sponsor provision as a ruse to try to delay her abortion past, to your point, the time when it was safe. 21:15 Brett Kavanaugh: And I said, thirdly, that if the nine days or seven days expired, that the minor at that point—unless the government had some argument that had not unfolded yet that was persuasive, and since they hadn’t unfolded it yet, I’m not sure what that would have been—that the minor would have to be allowed to obtain the abortion at that time. Hearing: 2018 Day 2 Part 5 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 5, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 1 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 30:35 Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA): It’s my understanding that by agreement with private lawyer Bill Burke, the chairman has designated 190,000 pages of Kavanaugh’s records “committee confidential,” and by doing this, Republicans argue members can’t use these documents at the hearing or release them to the public. Unlike the Intelligence Committee—and I’ve been a member for about two decades—the judiciary committee doesn’t have any standing rules on how and when documents are designated “committee confidential.” Previously, the judiciary committee has made material confidential only through bipartisan agreement. That has not been done in this case. So this is without precedent. Republicans claim that Chairman Leahy accepted documents on a committee-confidential basis during the Kagan administration. It’s my understanding that those documents were processed through the National Archives, not private partisan lawyers, and Republicans agreed. Ninety-nine percent of Elena Kagan’s White House records were publicly available and could be used freely by any member. By contrast, the committee has only seven percent of Brett Kavanaugh’s White House records and only four percent of those are available to the public. No Senate or committee rule grants the chairman unilateral authority to designate documents “committee confidential.” So I have no idea how that stamp “committee confidential” got on these documents. 39:10 Senator John Cornyn (TX): Mr. Chairman, I’m looking at a Wall Street Journal article, back during the Elena Kagan nomination. It says, document production from Elena Kagan’s years in the Clinton White House counsel’s office was supervised by Bruce Lindsey, whose White House tenure overlapped with Ms. Kagan. Bill Clinton designated Mr. Lindsey to supervise records from his presidency in cooperation with the National Archives and Records Administration under the Presidential Records Act. So President Bush, by choosing Mr. Burke, is doing exactly what President Clinton did in choosing Bruce Lindsey for that same purpose. 1:51:22 Brett Kavanaugh: My religious beliefs have no relevance to my judging. I judge based on the Constitution and laws of the United States. I take an oath to do that, and for 12 years I’ve lived up to that oath. At the same time, of course, as you point out, I am religious, and I am a Catholic, and I grew up attending Catholic schools. And the Constitution of the United States foresaw that religious people or people who are not religious are all equally American. As I’ve said in one of my opinions, the Newdow opinion, no matter what religion you are or no religion at all, we’re all equally American, and the Constitution of the United States also says in Article Six, no religious tests shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. That was an important provision to have in the founding Constitution to ensure that there was not discrimination against people who had a religion or people who didn’t have a religion. It’s a foundation of our country. We’re all equally American. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 2 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 22:30 Senator Mike Lee (UT): What you were asked about was whether or not you were involved in crafting the policies that would govern detention of enemy combatants. Is that right? Brett Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And that was a classified program, classified at a very high level, presumably compartmentalized such that you would have had to have been read into that program in order to participate in that process. Is that right? Kavanaugh: I believe that’s correct. Read in. I wasn’t necessarily using the formal sense of that, but what I meant is I was not a part of that program. Sen. Lee: Okay. But that is a binary issue. You were either involved in the development of that policy or you were not. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And you were not. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And Tim Flanigan, who was, I believe, at the time the White House counsel. Kavanaugh: He was the deputy counsel. Sen. Lee: The deputy counsel. Has confirmed that you were not involved in that. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: We have your word and the word of the then-deputy White House counsel. Then, there is a separate issue. Well, I guess one could argue a related issue, but a separate— Protesters: [unclear] Unknown Speaker: ____(01:17—I don’t know if it’s worth it, but he said something that got read into it. I don’t know whether people understand what it means.) Sen. Lee: I assume that won’t be counted against me, there. Unknown Speaker: It will be counted against you. Sen. Lee: Oh, okay. All right, well, I’ll have to speak more quickly then. When we talk about being read into, that is a colloquial term that we sometimes refer to. It’s government speak that talks about being cleared to discuss certain classified matters. In any event, you were not brought into the development of this policy. Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: Secondly, there was a separate, arguable related, but a distinct issue involving a meeting where you were asked for your opinion about how Justice Kennedy might react to certain legal arguments that people in the administration were pushing. Is that right? Kavanaugh: That’s correct. Sen. Lee: And you answered that question. Kavanaugh: I said that indefinite detention of an American citizen without access to a lawyer, which at the time was what was happening in that particular case, would never fly with Justice Kennedy. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 3 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 4 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. 18:25 Senator Jeff Flake (AZ): Specifically, what impact does technology have on the Fourth and the First Amendments? Brett Kavanaugh: So I think the Carpenter case explains that once upon a time if a piece of information of yours ended up in the hands of a third party, and the government got a third party, that really wasn’t of any effect on your privacy. But now when all of our data is in the hands of a business, a third party, and the government obtains all your data, all your emails, all your tax, all your information, your financial transactions, your whole life is in the hands of a data company, and the government gets that, your privacy is very well affected. And that’s the importance, I think, of the Carpenter decision is that it recognizes that change in understanding of our understandings of privacy, and I think going forward, that’s going to be a critical issue. 1:27:10 Brett Kavanaugh: One of the things that we have to do as judges, as I’ve emphasized many times in this hearing, is maintain the independence of the federal judiciary, independence from politics, independence from political influence or public pressure or public influence. And part of that, part of the canons for federal judges, federal judiciary, is that we don’t attend political rallies, we’re not allowed to donate to political campaigns, support political candidates, put bumper stickers on our cars, signs in our yards. And one of the things I decided—we are allowed, technically, to vote, but one of the things I decided after I voted in the first election, and I read something about how the second Justice Harlan decided not to vote in elections because he thought that reinforced the independence that he felt as a judge. And I thought about that, and I decided to follow that lead. I’m not saying my approach is right, and other judges take a different approach on that, and I fully respect that. But for me it just felt more consistent for me, with the independence of the judiciary, not to vote, because I’ve always considered voting a sacred responsibility and one in which I think very deeply about the policies I’m supporting and the people I’m supporting, and that seemed almost as if I were taking policy views, at least to myself, into the voting booth, and I didn’t want to do that as a judge. So I decided to follow the lead of the second Justice Harlan. I’ll be the first to say I’m not the second Justice Harlan. He was a great justice on the Supreme Court and someone, of course, who I would be—if I were to be confirmed—honored to be on that Court and follow in his lead. Senator John Kennedy (LA): So you don’t vote in political elections. Kavanaugh: I do not vote in political elections. Sen. Kennedy: Interesting. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 5 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 6 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: 2018 Day 3 Part 7 Kavanaugh Judicial Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 6, 2018. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Professor Blasey Ford Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 3:37 Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: When I got to the small gathering, people were drinking beer in a small living room/family room-type area on the first floor of the house. I drank one beer. Brett and Mark were visibly drunk. Early in the evening, I went up a very narrow set of stairs, leading from the living room to a second floor to use the restroom. When I got to the top of the stairs, I was pushed from behind, into a bedroom across from the bathroom. I couldn’t see who pushed me. Brett and Mark came into the bedroom and locked the door behind them. There was music playing in the bedroom. It was turned up louder by either Brett or Mark once we were in the room. I was pushed onto the bed, and Brett got on top of me. He began running his hands over my body and grinding into me. I yelled, hoping that someone downstairs might hear me. And I tried to get away from him, but his weight was heavy. Brett groped me and tried to take off my clothes. He had a hard time because he was very inebriated and because I was wearing a one-piece bathing suit underneath my clothing. I believed he was going to rape me. I tried to yell for help. When I did, Brett put his hand over my mouth to stop me from yelling. This is what terrified me the most and has had the most lasting impact on my life. It was hard for me to breathe, and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me. Both Brett and Mark were drunkenly laughing during the attack. They seemed to be having a very good time. Mark seemed ambivalent at times, urging Brett on, and at times telling him to stop. A couple of times I made eye contact with Mark and thought he might try to help me, but he did not. During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over, and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room. Directly across from the bedroom was a small bathroom. I ran inside the bathroom and locked the door. I waited until I heard Brett and Mark leave the bedroom, laughing, and loudly walked down the narrow stairway, pinballing off the walls on the way down. I waited, and when I did not hear them come back up the stairs, I left the bathroom, went down the same stairwell, through the living room, and left the house. I remember being on the street and feeling this enormous sense of relief that I escaped that house and that Brett and Mark were not coming outside after me. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Professor Blasey Ford Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 1:22:10 Senator Dick Durbin (IL): Dr. Ford, with what degree of certainty do you believe Brett Kavanaugh assaulted you? Dr. Christine Blasey Ford: 100 percent. Hearing: Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Sexual Assault Hearing, Judge Kavanaugh Testimony, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 27, 2018. 10:04 Brett Kavanaugh: This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. 18:04 Brett Kavanaugh: From 2001 to 2006 I worked for President George W. Bush in the White House. As staff secretary, I was by President Bush’s side for three years and was entrusted with the nation’s most sensitive secrets. I travelled on Air Force One all over the country and the world with President Bush. I went everywhere with him, from Texas to Pakistan, from Alaska to Australia, from Buckingham Palace to the Vatican. Three years in the West Wing, five and a half years in the White House. 2:57:20 Senator John Kennedy (LA): None of these allegations are true. Brett Kavanaugh: Correct. Sen. Kennedy: No doubt in your mind. Kavanaugh: Zero. I’m 100 percent certain. Sen. Kennedy: Not even a scintilla. Kavanaugh: Not a scintilla. One hundred percent certain, Senator. Sen. Kennedy: Do you swear to God? Kavanaugh: I swear to God. Meeting: Meeting on Brett Kavanaugh Nomination, Senate Judiciary Committee, September 28, 2018. 4:12:55 Senator Jeff Flake (AZ): I have been speaking with a number of people on the other side. We’ve had conversations ongoing for a while with regard to making sure that we do due diligence here. And I think it would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to, but not more than, one week in order to let the FBI continue—to do an investigation, limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there, and a limit in time to no more than one week. And I will vote to advance the bill to the floor, with that understanding.   Community Suggestions See Community Suggestions HERE. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)  

Congress is back from vacation and instead of focusing their investigative power on Syria in the wake of President Trump’s first bombing of the Syrian government, Congress focused on North Korea. In this episode, get the background information you will need to understand the daily developments related to North Korea and hear highlights from two Senate Armed Services Committee hearings and a U.N. Security Council meeting during which our plans for North Korea were laid on the table. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD136: Building WWIII Additional Reading Article: Here's what's driving North Korea's nuclear program - and it might be more than self-defense by Jonathan Kaiman, The Los Angeles Times, May 1, 2017. Article: As Economy Grows, North Korea's Grip on Society Is Tested by Choe Sang-Hun, The New York Times, April 30, 2017. Article: McCain plans gains momentum amid North Korea threats by Rebecca Kheel, The Hill, April 30, 2017. Article: N. Korean missile test fails hours after UN meeting on nukes by Foster Klug and Kim Tong-Hyung, San Francisco Chronicle, April 28, 2017. Article: China Calls for Restraint on North Korea as USS Carl Vinson Arrives by Petra Cahill, NBC News, April 24, 2017. Article: Lawmakers' Letters Endorse McCain Plan To Reinforce Pacific, Assist Asian Allies by Sydney J. Freedberg Jr, Breaking Defense, March 2, 2017. Report: U.S.-South Korea Relations by Congressional Research Service, October 20, 2016. Article: Rare earth mineral reserves were discovered in North Korea - and it could be a game-changer by Sam Doo, Business Insider, April 20, 2015. Article: Understanding Kim John Un, The World's Most Enigmatic and Unpredictable Dictator by Mark Bowden, Vanity Fair, March 2015. Article: All the Previous Declarations of War by Garance Franke-Ruta, The Atlantic, August 31, 2013. Article: The Case for Countering China's Rise by Martin Jacques, The New York Times, September 23, 2011. Videos YouTube: Why Korea Split Into North and South Korea Vice: Inside North Korea Part 1 Vice: Inside North Korea Part 2 Vice: Inside North Korea Part 3 YouTube:VICE on HBO Season One: The Hermit Kingdom YouTube: Channel West Coast - I Love Money YouTube: Donald Trump Says "China" Remix Song YouTube: Donald Trump Says China Remix References Document: Security Council Resolution 83 GovTrack: H.R. 1644: Korean Interdiction and Modernization of Sanctions Act Lockheed Martin: Terminal High Altitude Area Defense Missile Defense Agency: THAAD Fact Sheet OpenSecrets: Lockheed Martin Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: 2015 Contributors and Funders Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Policy and Strategy in the Asia-Pacific, United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, April 25, 2017. Watch on CSPAN Witnesses Dr. Victor D. Cha: Senior Advisor and Korea Chair, Center For Strategic and International Studies CSIS Bio Georgetown University Profile White House Website Bio Dr. Aaron L. Friedberg: Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University Princeton University Profile Princeton News - Deputy National Security Advisor to VP Dick Cheney Ms. Kelly E. Magsamen: Former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, Office of the Secretary of Defense LinkedIn Profile Twitter Account Dr. Ashley J. Tellis: Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Profile Timestamps & Transcripts 18:52 Senator John McCain: America’s interests in the Asia-Pacific region are deep and enduring. That’s why, for the past 70 years, we’ve worked with our allies and partners to uphold a rules-based order based on principles of free peoples and free markets, open seas, and open skies, the rule of law, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. These ideas have produced unprecedented peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific. But now challenges to this rules-based order are mounting as a threat, not just the nations of the Asia-Pacific region but the United States as well. The most immediate challenge is the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Kim Jong-un’s regime has thrown its full weight behind its quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and, unfortunately, the regime is making real progress. A North Korean missile with a nuclear payload capable of striking an American city is no longer a distant hypothetical but an imminent danger, one that poses a real and rising risk of conflict. 31:20 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: The goal of Beijing’s strategy has become increasingly clear in the last few years is to create a regional Eurasian order that’s very different from the one we’d been trying to build since the end of the Cold War. 32:03 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: When the Cold War ended, the United States set out to expand the geographic scope of the Western liberal economic and institutional order by integrating the pieces of the former Soviet Union and the former Soviet empire and by accelerating the integration of China—the process that had begun a few years before. As regards China, the United States pursued a two-prong strategy: on one hand, seeking to engage China across all domains, economic in particular but diplomatic in others; and at the same time, working with our allies and partners and maintaining our own forces in the region to preserve a balance of power that was favorable to our interests and the security of our allies. And the goals of that policy were to preserve stability, to deter the possibility of aggression, while waiting for engagement to work its magic. The U.S. hoped, in effect, to tame and ultimately to transform China, to encourage its leaders to see their interests as lying in preservation of that order, and to set in motion processes that would lead, eventually, to the economic and political liberalization of that country. 37:53 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: Economically, they’ve been using the growing gravitational pull of their economy to draw others towards them and also to become increasingly open in using economic threats and punishments to try to shape the behavior of others in the region, including U.S. allies; as Dr. Cha mentioned, Korea; and also the Philippines. 42:27 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: And while there’s obviously a limit to what we can and should say in public, we are at a point, I think, where we need to be able to explain to our allies, our possible adversaries, and ourselves how we would fight and win a war in Asia, should that ever become necessary. 45:50 Kelly Magsamen: First, we need to increase the pressure on North Korea as a necessary predicate to any other option. China is central to that, but we can’t rely only on Chinese pressure. We also need to be realistic. Kim Jong-un is not going to unilaterally disarm because of international pressure. Pressure alone is not going to solve the problem. Second, military options should remain on the table, but they are extremely high risk and should be a last resort. We should not kid ourselves here: a conflict on the peninsula would be unlike anything we have seen in decades. North Korea is not a Syria, it’s not an Iraq; the consequences could be extremely high. 55:51 Dr. Ashley J. Tellis: I think it would be very helpful for the administration to support your initiative, Senator McCain, with respect to the Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative. In fact, urgent funding at levels that approximate those are for the European Reassurance Initiative. 56:32 Dr. Ashley J. Tellis: In the near term, this will require shifting additional combat power to the theater, remedying shortfalls in critical munitions, expanding logistics’ capabilities, increasing joint exercises and training, and improving force resiliency by enabling a more dispersed deployment posture. But the longer term is just as crucial, and the demands of the longer term cannot be avoided indefinitely. Here, I believe, bipartisan support will be necessary for developing and rapidly integrating various revolutionary technologies into the joint force—technologies that will emphasize stealth, long-range, and unmanned capabilities as well as doubling down on our advantages in undersea warfare. 1:05:47 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: China’s been playing a game with us, for at least 15 years, on this issue. When we get especially concerned about what the North Koreans are doing, and we go to the Chinese and ask them for their help, what they’ve done in the past is to apply limited increments of pressure—they did it in 2003 to get the North Koreans to agree to sit down, what became six-party talks—but at the same time, almost simultaneously, as Victor suggests, they’re enabling the North Korean regime to continue by allowing continued economic exchange across their border. The Chinese have also allowed, or the Chinese authorities have at least looked aside as Chinese-based companies have exported to North Korea components that were essential to the development of their ballistic missiles, and probably other parts of their special-weapons programs. I’m not at all optimistic that the Chinese are going to play a different game with us now than they did in the past. One thing I would add, though: aside from military pressure, which for reasons that you suggest, Senator McCain, is I think of questionable plausibility, there are ways in which we could increase economic pressure on the North Korean regime, particularly by imposing further economic sanctions and especially financial sanctions. We did that in the Bush administration. I think it was actually something that caused a good deal of pain. We backed away from it for various reasons. I think it was a mistake to have done that. One of the reasons, my understanding, that we haven’t been willing to push on this harder is that it probably would involve sanctioning entities that are based in China, and I think we’ve been reluctant to do that because of our concerns about upsetting the relationship with China. I think if we’re going to be serious about this, we probably are going to have to go down that road. 1:08:37 Kelly Magsamen: Now is the time to try to make China understand that the status quo is worse for them than all other scenarios, and to do that, I think we need to hold their interests at risk, and what I mean by that is somewhat of what Dr. Friedberg said, which is we need to really think hard about secondary sanctions on Chinese banks. I actually think we should go out and do it now. I don’t think we should actually wait. I don’t think that holding it in advance is actually going to induce Chinese cooperation. So now is the time to demonstrate to China that we’re serious in that regard. 1:15:45 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: There is in the long run—I hesitate to use this term because it’s fallen into disfavor for good and bad reasons—but the ultimate solution to this problem is regime change unless and until there’s a change in the character of the North Korean regime and certainly the identity of the current leadership. There’s absolutely no prospect that I can see that this problem will get better. 1:26:05 Dr. Ashley J. Tellis: We cannot do anything else without exhausting the alternatives offered by diplomacy because dealing with North Korea, at the end of the day, will require a coalition effort, and we have to satisfy the expectations of our coalition partners that we’ve made every effort in the interim to deal with the challenge. And so we have to think of it in terms of a multi-step game. As Dr. Cha highlighted, the immediate objective should be to get the North Korean regime back to the negotiating table. The ultimate objective must be to hope that there will be evolutionary change in the regime. 2:07:45 Dr. Aaron Friedberg: If you ask what would be the sort of outer limit of what China could do— Unknown Speaker: Mm-hmm. Friedberg: —assuming that it was willing to do almost anything, it could bring North Korean economy to its knees, which it’s pretty close to that already; it could cut off the flows of funds that go across the border into North Korea, partly from the so-called illicit activities that the North Koreans engage in; it could interdict components that flow into North Korea through China that support the special-weapons programs; it could do a lot. Hearing: United States Pacific Command and United States Forces Korea, United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, April 27, 2017. Witness Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr., USN: Commander, United States Pacific Command Timestamps & Transcripts 16:44 John McCain: America’s interests in the Asia-Pacific region are deep and enduring. That’s why, for the past 70 years, we’ve worked with our allies and partners to uphold a rules-based order based on the principles of free peoples and free markets, open seas, and open skies, and the rule of law, and the peaceful resolution of disputes. These ideas have produced unprecedented peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific. But now challenges to this rules-based order are mounting, and they threaten not just the nations of the Asia-Pacific region but the United States as well. The most immediate threat is the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Kim Jong-un’s regime has thrown its full weight behind its quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and, unfortunately, the regime is making real progress. A North Korean missile with a nuclear payload capable of striking an American city is no longer a distant hypothetical but an imminent danger, one that poses a real and rising risk of conflict. 19:47 John McCain: As its behavior toward South Korea indicates over the last several years, China has acted less and less like a responsible stakeholder of the rules-based order in the region and more like a bully. It has economically coerced its neighbors, increased its provocations in the East China Sea, and militarized the South China Sea. Meanwhile, with a rebalance policy too heavy on rhetoric and too light on action, years of senseless defense cuts and now the disastrous decision to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, U.S. policy has failed to adapt to the scale and velocity of China’s challenge to the rules-based order. 21:44 John McCain: At our hearing earlier this week, our panel of expert witnesses agreed there was a strong merit for an “Asia-Pacific Stability Initiative.” This Initiative could enhance U.S. military power through targeted funding to realign our force posture in a region, improve operationally relevant infrastructure, fund additional exercises, pre-position equipment, and build capacity with our allies and partners. Admiral Harris, I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this kind of an initiative. 24:26 Senator Jack Reed: While North Korea poses an immediate national security threat, we must not lose sight of the potential long-term threat that China poses to the rules-based order in the Asia-Pacific region. Whether it be economic coercion of its small and more vulnerable neighbors or undermining the freedom of navigation that we all depend upon, China has not demonstrated a willingness to rise as a responsible global leader. Therefore, I believe it is critical that we empower and engage countries in Southeast Asia and South Asia to protect their own waterways and provide them with economical alternatives to maintain regional stability, preserve U.S. standing in Asia, and allow the economic growth and stability that has characterized the region for the last 50 years to continue. 35:41 John McCain: What does THAAD do for us? Admiral Harris: THAAD enables us and our South Korean allies to defend South Korea, or a big portion of South Korea, against the threat from North Korea. It is aimed at North Korea, the systems, and it poses no threat to China. McCain: But isn’t it incredibly difficult to counter the 4,000 artillery pieces that the North Koreans have on the DMZ, which could attack a city of 26 million people? Harris: It is, sir, and THAAD is not designed to counter those kinds of basic weapons. McCain: And what is designed to do that? Anything? Harris: We do not have those kinds of weapons that can counter those rockets once they’re launched. McCain: And they can launch—they have the capability of a launch of those rockets. Harris: At this very moment, they have that capability, Senator. 1:02:00 Senator Roger Wicker: There are these 4,000 short-range missiles, and your testimony is that there is essentially no defense from the south for those— Admiral Harris: Right. Wicker: —short-range missiles. Is that correct? Harris: And those aren’t missiles. Those are mostly artillery. Wicker: Artillery. Okay. Artillery. Harris: And so— Wicker: And there's no defense? Harris: Right. I mean, you’re trying to shoot down an artillery round, right. Wicker: Okay. And then, the chairman asked you, and I don’t think I understood the answer, what does THAAD get us? Harris: THAAD allows us an intercept capability to shoot down, at the high-altitude level, ballistic missiles that go from North Korea to South Korea. 1:57:37 Admiral Harris: What we said was, the Carl Vinson was leaving Singpore, truncating its exercise, cancelling is port visit, and heading to Northeast Asia. Unknown Speaker: But— Harris: And that’s where it is today. It’s within striking power, striking range of North Korea if the president were to call on it. 2:16:17 Senator Lindsay Graham: It should be the policy of the United States to never allow North Korea to develop an ICBM with a warhead that could hit America. Admiral Harris: I believe that’s correct. Graham: Okay. Do you believe that the only way they’ll change that policy, their desire, is if they believe that the regime could be taken down by us if they continue to develop an ICBM? Without credible military threat in the mind of the North Koreans they’re going to plow ahead? Harris: I believe that generally, but I believe that China might be able to exert its influence. Graham: Do you believe China could change North Korea’s behavior, absent a belief by North Korea, that we would use military force to stop their ICBM program? Harris: I do not. Graham: Okay. Do you believe that China would act stronger and more bold if they believe credible military force was on the table to stop North Korea? Harris: I do. Graham: So, it seems to me that the policy of the United States, given the admiral’s advice and you are really good at what you do, that we should all agree that it’s not good for America for North Korea to have an ICBM with a warhead attached, and it’s really not good for China, is it? Harris: I believe it is not good for China. Graham: Well, why don’t they believe that? Harris: Because they have their own calculus, their own decision process. Graham: Do you think they’re beginning to reshape their calculus in light of our reaction to North Korea? Harris: I hope so, but it’s early days. Graham: Okay. In terms of China’s leverage on North Korea, you said it was substantial. Harris: Their leverage is potentially substantial. Graham: Substantial. The best way to avoid a military conflict with North Korea over their missile program is for China to wake up North Korea to the reality of what threat that presents to North Korea and China. Is that fair to say? Harris: That is fair to say. Graham: Is it also fair to say that we do not have any intentions of invading North Korea at all? I mean, that’s not on our—nobody’s told you, “Get ready to invade North Korea.” Harris: That is not fair to say, sir. I believe the president has said that all options are on the table. Graham: Yeah, but, I mean, we’re not going to just go in and take North Korea down for the heck of it. Harris: Sir, I don’t want to get into what we could or could not do. Graham: Okay. Well, North Korea thinks we’re going to invade in any moment. Do you think that’s part of our national security strategy is, without provocation to attack North Korea? Harris: I think North Korea has provided provocation already in terms of— Graham: But without provocation, it’s not our policy to attack North Korea. Harris: They have provoked us already, sir. Graham: Yeah, I said but if they stopped it, they don’t have anything to worry about. Harris: Then we will have to look at it. You know, that’s a decision— Graham: That's all I'm saying. Harris: That’s a decision that the president would make. UN Security Council Meeting: Secretary Tillerson Chairs UN Security Council Meeting on Denuclearization of North Korea, April 28, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 2:00 Antonio Guterres (UN Secretary General): The Security Council first adopted the resolution on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK, nuclear issue in 1993 when it urged the DPRK not to withdraw from the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Twenty-four years later and despite extensive efforts, the challenge has defied resolution. In response to the DPRK’s accelerated nuclear and ballistic missile activities, the Security Council has adopted two sanctions resolutions and met 11 times in emergency consultations since January 2016. During this period, the DPRK conducted two nuclear tests, more than 30 launches using ballistic missile technology, and various other activities relating to the nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Its launches using ballistic-missile technology, have included tests of short, medium, intermediate range and submarine-launched ballistic missiles as well as the placement of a satellite in orbit. These tests and launches are clear violations of Security Council resolutions, and the absence of coordination and notifications in advance of these launches, other than the space launch of 7 February 2016, are also contrary to internationally accepted regulations and standards adopted by the International Maritime Organization and International Civil Aviation Organization. 11:30 Secretary Rex Tillerson: We have said this before, and it bears repeating: the policy of strategic patience is over. Additional patience will only mean acceptance of a nuclear North Korea. The more we bide our time, the sooner we will run out of it. 12:27 Secretary Rex Tillerson: Our goal is not regime change nor do we desire to threaten the North Korean people or destabilize the Asia-Pacific region. Over the years we have withdrawn our own nuclear weapons from South Korea and offered aid to North Korea as proof of our intent to de-escalate the situation and normalize relations. Since 1995 the United States has provided over $1.3 billion in aid to North Korea, and we look forward to resuming our contributions once the DPRK begins to dismantle its nuclear weapons and missile technology programs. 13:35 Secretary Rex Tillerson: I propose all nations take these three actions, beginning today: first, we call on UN member states to fully implement the commitments they have made regarding North Korea. This includes all measures required in resolutions 2321 and 2270. Those nations which have not fully enforced these resolutions fully discredit this body. Second, we call on countries to suspend or downgrade diplomatic relations with North Korea. North Korea exploits its diplomatic privileges to fund its illicit nuclear and missile technology programs, and constraining its diplomatic activity will cut off a flow of needed resources. In light of North Korea’s recent actions, normal relations with the DPRK are simply not acceptable. Third, we must increase North Korea’s financial isolation. We must levy new sanctions on DPRK entities and individuals supporting its weapons and missile programs, and tighten those that are already in place. The United States, also, would much prefer countries and people in question to own up to their lapses and correct their behavior themselves, but we will not hesitate to sanction third-country entities and individuals supporting the DPRK’s illegal activities. We must bring maximum economic pressure by severing trade relationships that directly fund the DPRK’s nuclear missile program. I call on the international community to suspend the flow of North Korean guest workers and to impose bans on North Korean imports, especially coal. We must all do our share, but China, accounting for 90 percent of North Korean trade, China alone has economic leverage over Pyongyang that is unique, and its role is, therefore, particularly important. The U.S. and China have held very productive exchanges on this issue, and we look forward to further actions that build on what China has already done. Lastly, as we have said before, all options for responding to future provocation must remain on the table. Diplomatic and financial levers of power will be backed up by a willingness to counteract North Korean aggression, with military action if necessary. 36:02 Wang Yi (China's Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr. President, China is not the focal point of the problem on the peninsula. I think the key to solving the nuclear issue on the peninsula does not lie in the hands of the Chinese. 37:05 Wang Yi: The dual-track approach aims to promote parallel progress in the denuclearization of the peninsula and the establishment of a peace mechanism on the peninsula in a synchronized and reciprocal manner, ultimately achieving both goals together. The suspension-for-suspension proposal, which calls for the suspension of nuclear and missile activities by the DPRK and the suspension of large-scale military exercises by the U.S. and the ROK, seeks to bring the two sides back to the negotiating table, thus initiating the first step of the dual-track approach. 40:25 Wang Yi: Given the grave situation on the peninsula, China strongly urges all parties to remain calm and exercise restraint and avoid provocative rhetoric or actions that will lead to miscalculation. What I want to stress is that there is and should be no double standard on this issue. While we demand the DPRK to observe the Council’s resolutions and stop advancing its nuclear and missile development, we also demand the U.S., the ROK, and other parties to refrain from conducting or even expanding military exercises and deployment against the DPRK. 41:06 Wang Yi: All parties should comprehensively appreciate and fully implement DPRK related Security Council’s resolutions, in addition to introducing sanctions on the DPRK, the resolutions adopted do date also ask for resumption of the six-party talks, avoidance of acceleration of tensions, not to mention [unclear], in other words, imposing sanctions [unclear] talks about the [unclear] Council resolutions. We may not choose one over the other. We’ll only implement what we see fit. 42:30 Wang Yi: Before I conclude, I want to reiterate China’s firm opposition against a U.S. deployment of THAAD anti-missile system in the ROK. It’s a move that seriously undermines the strategic security of China and other countries in the region and damages the trust and the cooperation amongst the parties on the peninsula issue. It is detrimental to achieving denuclearization and maintaining long-term stability on the peninsula. China was again urges [unclear] parties to immediately stop the deployment process. 2:03:05 Secretary Rex Tillerson: We will not negotiate our way back to the negotiating table with North Korea. We will not reward their violations of past resolutions. We will not reward their bad behavior with talks. We will only engage in talks with North Korea when they exhibit a good-faith commitment to abiding by the Security Council resolutions and their past promises to end their nuclear programs. Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security are the most powerful domestic law enforcement officers in the United States government. In this episode, hear critical highlights from the confirmation hearings of President Trump's nominees for those jobs: Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General and General John Kelly for Secretary of DHS. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD098: USA Freedom Act: Privatization of the Patriot Act Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Attorney General Nomination, Senate Committee on the Judicary, January 10, 2017 Watch on C-SPAN Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Timestamps & Transcripts Part 1 1:12:10 Senator Chuck Grassley: During the course of the presidential campaign, you made a number of statements about the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, relating to her handling of sensitive emails and regarding certain actions of the Clinton Foundation. You weren’t alone in that criticism—I was certainly critical in the same way, as were millions of Americans, on those matters—but now you’ve been nominated to serve as Attorney General. In light of those comments that you made, some have expressed concern about whether you can approach the Clinton matter impartially in both fact and appearance. How do you plan to address those concerns? Jeff Sessions Mr. Chairman, it was a highly contentious campaign. I, like a lot of people, made comments about the issues in that campaign with regard to Secretary Clinton, and some of the comments I made, I do believe that that could place my objectivity in question. I’ve given that thought. I believe the proper thing for me to do would be to recuse myself from any questions involving those kind of investigations that involve Secretary Clinton that were raised during the campaign or could be otherwise connected to it. Sen. Grassley: Okay. I think it’s—let me emphasize, then, with a followup question. To be very clear, you intend to recuse yourself from both the Clinton email investigation, any matters involving the Clinton Foundation, if there are any. Sessions: Yes 1:22:55 Senator Diane Feinstein: Appearing on the TV show 60 Minutes, the president-elect said that the issue of same-sex marriage was “already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. It’s done, and I’m fine with that.” Do you agree that the issue of same-sex marriage is settled law? Jeff Sessions: Supreme Court has ruled on that. The dissents dissented vigorously, but it was five to four, and five justices on the Supreme Court—a majority of the court—have established the definition of marriage for the entire United States of America, and I will follow that decision. 1:30:05 Senator Orrin Hatch: In the 108th Congress, you introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 77, expressing the sense of the Congress that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced throughout the United States. It passed the Senate unanimously—it pleased it, too. In fact, it is the only resolution on this subject ever passed by either the Senate or the House. Now, Senator Sessions, with your permission I want to share with you that resolution adopted last year by the Utah legislature outlining why pornography should be viewed as a public health problem, as well as some of the latest research into the harms of obscenity. Is it still your view that federal laws prohibiting adult obscenity should be vigorously enhanced? Jeff Sessions: Mr. Chairman, those laws are clear, and they are being prosecuted today and should be—continue to be effectively and vigorously prosecuted in the cases that are appropriate. Sen. Hatch: In making this a priority for the Justice Department, would you consider reestablishing a specific unit dedicated to prosecuting this category of crime? Sessions: So, that unit has been disbanded—I’m not sure I knew that, but it was a part of the Department of Justice for a long time, and I would consider that. 1:49:40 Senator Patrick Leahy: Do you agree with the president-elect, the United States can or should deny entry to all members of a particular religion? Jeff Sessions: Senator Leahy, I believe the president-elect has, subsequent to that statement, made clear that he believes the focus should be on individuals coming from countries that have history of terrorism, and he’s also indicated that his policy, and what he suggests, is strong vetting of people from those countries before they’re admitted to the United States. 1:55:35 Senator Lindsey Graham: What’s your view of Obama’s administration’s interpretation of the Wire Act law to allow online video poker, or poker gambling? Jeff Sessions: Senator Graham, I was shocked at the memorandum, I guess the enforcement memorandum, that the Department of Justice issued with regard to the Wire Act and criticized it. Apparently, there is some justification or argument that can be made to support the Department of Justice’s position, but I did oppose it when it happened, and it seemed to me to be an unusual— Graham: Would you revisit it? Sessions: I would revisit it, and I would make a decision about it based on careful study. 2:12:55 Senator Dick Durbin: Senator Graham asked this question, and I listened to your answer when he asked you what would happen to those 800,000 currently protected by President Obama’s executive order, known as DACA, who cannot be deported for two years—it’s renewable—and can work for two years, and you said, let Congress pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill. You opposed the only bipartisan effort that we’ve had on the Senate floor in modern memory. And what’s going to happen to those 800,000, if you revoke that order and they are subject to deportation tomorrow, what is going to happen to them? What is the humane, legal answer to that? Jeff Sessions: Well, the first thing I would say is that my response to Senator Graham dealt with whose responsibility this is. I had a responsibility as a member of this body to express my view and vote as I believed was correct on dealing with issues of immigration. That’s not the attorney general’s role; the attorney general’s role is to enforce the law. And as you know, Senator Durbin, we’re not able financially or any other way to seek out and remove everybody that’s in the country illegally. President Trump has indicated that criminal aliens, like President Obama indicated, certainly are the top group of people, and so I would think that the best thing for us to do—and I would urge colleagues that we understand this—let’s fix this system. And then we can work together, after this lawlessness has been ended, and then we can ask the American people and enter into a dialogue about how to compassionately treat people who’ve been here a long time. Durbin: That does not answer the question about 800,000 who would be left in the lurch, whose lives would be ruined while you’re waiting on Congress for a bill that you opposed. Sessions: Well, I thought it did answer it pretty closely about what you asked, and I understand your concerns. 2:31:10 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: As a question of law, does waterboarding constitute torture? Jeff Sessions: Well, there was a dispute about that when we had the torture definition in our law. The Department of Justice memorandum concluded that it did not necessarily prohibit that, but Congress has taken an action now that makes is absolutely improper and illegal to use waterboarding or any other form of torture in the United States by our military and by all our other departments and agencies. 2:54:50 Senator Amy Klobuchar: If you could just explain your views of the Voting Rights Act moving forward and what would happen in terms of enforcement if you were attorney general. Jeff Sessions: The Voting Rights Act that passed in 1965 was one of the most important acts to deal with racial difficulties that we face, and it changed the whole course of history, particularly in the South. There was a clear finding that there were discriminatory activities in the South that a number of states were systematically denying individuals the right to vote. And you go back into the history, you can see it plainly: actions and rules and procedures were adopted in a number of states, with the specific purpose of blocking African Americans from voting, and it was just wrong, and the Voting Rights Act confronted that. And it, in effect, targeted certain states and required any, even the most minor, changes in voting procedure, like moving a precinct across— Klobuchar: So, how would you approach this going forward? For instance, the Fifth Circuit’s decision that the Texas voter ID law discriminates against minority voters, that was written by a Bush appointee, do you agree with that decision? How would you handle this moving forward? Sessions: Well, I have not studied that. There’s going to be a debate about it, courts are ruling on it now, and that is a voter ID and whether or not that is an improper restriction on voting that adversely impacts disproportionately minority citizens. So that’s a matter that’s got to be decided. On the surface of it, it doesn’t appear to me to be that. I have publicly said I think voter ID laws properly drafted are okay, but as attorney general it’ll be my duty to study the facts in more depth to analyze the law, but fundamentally, that can be decided by Congress and the courts. 3:10:33 Senator Ben Sasse: This administration has made the case regularly that they need to exercise prosecutorial discretion because of limited resources—and, obviously, there aren’t infinite resources in the world—so what are some proper instances, in your view, when an administration might not enforce a law? Jeff Sessions:Well, critics of the immigration enforcement, the DAPA and the DACA laws, said that the prosecutorial-discretion argument went too far. It basically just eliminated the laws from the books. Secondly, with regard to that, the president’s executive—well, the order came from homeland security, not from the Department of Justice, but homeland security’s order not only said we’re not going to force the law, with regard to certain large classifications of people, but those people who’d not been given legal status under the laws of the United States were given photo IDs, work authorization, and social security numbers, and the right to participate in these government programs that would appear to be contrary to existing law. So that would, to me, suggest an overreach. Part 2 1:19:12 Senator Patrick Leahy: Would you use our federal resources to investigate and prosecute sick people who are using marijuana in accordance with their state laws even though it might violate federal law? Jeff Sessions: Well, I won’t commit to never enforcing federal law, Senator Leahy, but absolutely it’s a problem of resources for the federal government. The Department of Justice under Lynch and Holder set forth some policies that they thought were appropriate to define what cases should be prosecuted in states that have legalized, at least in some fashion, some parts of marijuana. Leahy: Do you agree with those guidelines? Sessions: I think some of them are truly valuable in evaluating cases, but fundamentally, the criticism I think that was legitimate is that they may not have been followed. Using good judgment about how to handle these cases will be a responsibility of mine. I know it won’t be an easy decision, but I will try to do my duty in a fair and just way. 1:25:13 Senator Mike Lee: Are there separation-of-powers concerns arising out of the Department of Justice’s current approach to state marijuana laws? Jeff Sessions: Well, I think one obvious concern is that the United States Congress has made the possession of marijuana, in every state, and distribution of it an illegal act. If that’s something is not desired any longer, Congress should pass a law to change the rule. It’s not so much the attorney general’s job to decide what laws to enforce; we should do our job and enforce laws effectively as we’re able. 1:48:18 Senator Dianne Feinstein: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Just to begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that all statements and written testimony sent to the committee concerning Senator Sessions be made part of the record, and I have some testimonies and letters. Chairman: Without objection, so ordered. Feinstein: Thank you very much. Senator Sessions, when I was a small child, it was during World War II, and my father took me to a racetrack south of San Francisco called Tanforan, and it had become a detention camp for Japanese American citizens, and during the length of World War II, well, thousands of families were held in this compound. And we checked with CRS that says no Japanese American was ever convicted of any sabotage against the United States during that period of time. Senator Lee, Senator Cruz, and I have tried together to enact a bill to assure that no American citizen or lawful permanent resident detained in the United States can be held indefinitely without charge or trial, pursuant to authorization of military force. So, here’s the question: do you believe that the government can, pursuant to a general authorization to use military force, indefinitely detain Americans in the United States without charge or trial? Jeff Sessions: Senator Feinstein, that’s an important question. Classically, the answer is yes. Classically, if you captured a German soldier, they could be held until the war ended. That was done, I’m sure, at the Civil War and most wars since. Feinstein: I’m talking about Americans. Sessions: I hear you. So, then, the question is, we’re in a war like we have now that’s gone on multiple years, and I would think the principal of law certainly would appear to be valid, but as reality dawns on us and wars might be even longer, it’s on us to discuss those issues. So I respect your willingness to think about that and what we should do, but in general I do believe, as Senator Graham has argued forcefully for many years, that we are in a war, and when members who—unlike the Japanese who were never proven to be associated with a military regime like the Japanese government, these individuals would have to be proven to be connected to a designated enemy of the United States. So I’ve probably explained more than I should, but that’s basically the arguments and the issues we’re facing. I respect your concerns, and I’m sure they will continue to be debated in the future. Feinstein: Well, let me just say a few things about that. I’ve served on the intelligence committee for fifteen years. I read all of it. I think I know as much as anybody about what’s happening in the United States, and this is not—these are Americans that we’re talking about. They can be picked up and detained and held without charge— Sessions: You’re talking about Americans. Feinstein: —of trial indefinitely. And that should not be the case. Sessions: Well, I understand your point, and a citizen of the United States has certain important rights. They cannot be abrogated. It is absolutely so. They cannot be detained without undergoing a habeas review, and the government surely has to prove that they are indeed connected sufficiently with an enemy action against the United States, so they couldn’t be detained. Feinstein: Well, I appreciate that. 1:52:32 Senator Dianne Feinstein: You were one of nine senators to vote against the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. It prohibited the imposition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment of any person in the custody or control of U.S. personnel. You also voted against an amendment sponsored by Senator McCain in the 2016 Defense Authorization bill to limit interrogations to the techniques provided by the army field manual, which does not include waterboarding. Do you agree that the CIA’s former enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, are prohibited by this provision of law as now codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000dd? Jeff Sessions: It does appear to be clear that on the last act and McCain amendment would prohibit waterboarding. Feinstein:And you would enforce that. Sessions: I would enforce the law, yes. Feinstein: Thank you very much. 1:56:50 Senator John Kennedy: My name is John Kennedy. That’s really my name. 2:01:33 Senator John Kennedy: When a radical Islamic terrorist drives a truck into a group of people and kills them, we’re told that we should not judge all Muslims by the act of a few. And I agree with that. Don’t you think the same rule ought to apply when one or two law enforcement officers make a mistake? Don’t you think that same rule ought to apply to all the other 99.9 percent law enforcement officials out there who just get up every day and go to work and try to protect us? Jeff Sessions: Well, I really do. And I think those of us in high public office do need to be cautious about demeaning whole departments and whole groups of people, because within those, most any department you can find in America, surely most of the people are just wonderful public servants trying to do the right thing. So when we say these things, we can increase risk for them, we can make it harder for them to have relationships with the constituents where they’re serving, and actually result in an increase in crime and ineffectiveness in law enforcement. So, boy, these issues are—we can’t miss these issues. Kennedy: No. Part 3 3:20 Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: Does a secular attorney have anything to fear from an Attorney General Sessions in the Department of Justice? Jeff Sessions: Well, no, and I used that word in the ninety-thousand-foot level of a little concern I have that we as a nation, I believe, are reaching a level in which truth is not sufficiently respected, that the very ideal, the idea, of truth is not believed to be real, and that all of life is just a matter of your perspective and my perspective, which I think is contrary to the American heritage. So that’s just a kind of a criticism of mine, but we are not a theocracy, nobody should be required to believe anything. I share Thomas Jefferson’s words on the Memorial over here—I swear eternal hostility over any domination of the mind of man—and I think we should respect people’s views and not demand any kind of religious test for holding office. Whitehouse: And a secular person has just as good a claim to understanding the truth as a person who is religious, correct? Sessions: Well, I’m not sure. In what method? Is it less objectively committed to— Whitehouse: In the methods that an attorney would bring to bear a case. Sessions: Well, let me just say we’re going to treat anybody with different views fairly and objectively. 59:04 Senator Chris Coons: We worked together to restore funding to the federal public defender service when it was cut by sequestration, and I think that’s because we both agreed that outcomes are more fair when there’s effective representation on both sides. One of the amendments I offered to that immigration bill would have provided counsel to children who were applying for refugee status because they were fleeing violence in their home countries, in U.S. immigration proceedings. Is that something you would support? Jeff Sessions: Senator Coons, as I understand it, that is the law, that you cannot provide lawyers to illegal entrants into the country, and I don’t believe it makes a distinguished—it distinguishes between minors and adults, but I may be wrong about that. I presume that’s why you’ve offered legislation to that effect to change established law, but in general I do not believe we can afford nor should we undertake to provide free lawyers for everybody that enters the country unlawfully. I think that would be a massive undertaking. So you’re talking about children specifically, I understand that. Coons: Specifically doesn’t matter... Sessions: And I think that’s a matter that Congress would need to decide what to do about. 1:02:25 Jeff Sessions: I would not favor a registry of Muslims in the United States—no, I would not—and I think we should avoid surveillance of religious institutions unless there’s a basis to believe that a dangerous or threatening illegal activity could be carried on there. 1:28:03 Senator Lindsey Graham: Let’s talk about the law of war. I think you were asked by Senator Feinstein about the indefinite detention. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld—this is Sandra Day O’Connor’s quote: There is no bar to this nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant—that case involved a U.S. citizen that was captured in Afghanistan and was held as an enemy combatant. Are you familiar with that case? Jeff Sessions: Generally, yes. Not as familiar as you, but I know you’ve studied at great depth. Graham: Well, this has been a military law. This is sort of part of what I did. Do your constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen stop at the nation’s shores, or do they follow you wherever you go? Sessions: Well, you have certain rights wherever you go. Graham: So if you go to Paris, you don’t give up your Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. Could the FBI break into your hotel room in Paris and, basically, search your room without a warrant? Sessions:I don’t believe— Graham :No, they can’t. Your constitutional rights attach to you. So, to the people who say, well, he was in Afghanistan—that doesn’t matter. What the court is telling us, no American citizen has a constitutional right to join the enemy at a time of war. In Ray Quirin—that case involved German saboteurs who landed in Long Island. Are you familiar with this? Sessions: I’m very familiar with that case. I have read it. Graham: They were German saboteurs and had American-citizen contacts in the United States. They were all seized by the FBI and tried by the military. So, what I would tell Senator Feinstein and my other colleagues—the law is well settled here, that a United States citizen in other wars have been held as enemy combatants when the evidence suggests they collaborated with the enemy. Under the current law, if you’re suspected of being an enemy combatant, within a certain period of time—sixty days, I think—the government has to present you to a federal judge and prove by preponderance of the evidence that you’re a member of the organization they claim you to be a member of. Are you familiar with that—your habeas rights? Sessions: Correct, yes. Graham: So, as to how long an enemy combatant can be held, traditionally under the law of war, people are taken off the battlefield until the war is over or they’re no longer a danger. Does that make sense to you? Sessions: It does make sense, and that is my understanding of the traditional law of war. Graham: And the law of war is designed to, like, win the war. The laws around the law of war are designed to deal with conflicts and to take people off the battlefield—you can kill or capture them—and there’s no requirement like domestic criminal law, at a certain point in time they have to be presented for trial, because the goal of the law of war is to protect the nation and make sure you win the war. So when you capture somebody who’s been adjudicated a member of the enemy force, there is no concept in military law or the law of war that you have to release them in an arbitrary date because that would make no sense. So, all I’m saying is that I think you’re on solid ground and this idea of an American citizen being an enemy combatant is part of the history of the law of war, and I am very willing to work with my colleagues and make sure that indefinite detention is reasonably applied and that we can find due process rights that don’t exist in traditional law of war because this is a war without end. When do you think this war will be over? Do you think we’ll know when it’s over? Sessions: I’ve asked a number of witnesses in armed services about that, and it’s pretty clear we’re talking about decades before we have a complete alteration of this spasm in the Middle East that just seems to have legs and will continue for some time. That’s most likely what would happen. Graham: You’re about to embark on a very important job at an important time, and here’s what my suggestion would be: that we work with the Congress to come up with a legal regime that recognizes that gathering intelligence is the most important activity against radical Islam. The goal is to find out what they know. Do you agree with that? Sessions: That is a critical goal. Graham:And I have found that under military law and military intelligence gathering, no manual I’ve ever read suggested that reading Miranda rights is the best way to gather information. As a matter of fact, I’ve been involved in this business for 33 years, and if a commander came to me as a J.A.G. and said, we just captured somebody on the battlefield—you name the battlefield—they want their rights read to them, I would tell them they’re not entitled to Miranda rights. They’re entitled to Geneva Convention treatment, they’re entitled to humane treatment, they’re entitled to all the things that go with the Geneva Convention because the court has ruled that enemy combatants are subject to Geneva Convention protections. So, I just want to let you know, from my point of view, that we’re at war; I’m encouraged to hear that the new attorney general recognizes the difference between fighting a crime and fighting a war and that the next time we capture bin Laden’s son-in-law—if he’s got any more—I hope we don’t read him his Miranda rights in two weeks. I hope we keep him, humanely, as long as necessary to interrogate him to find out what the enemy may be up to. Does that make sense to you? Sessions:Well, it does. We didn’t give Miranda warnings to German and Japanese prisoners we captured, and it’s never been part of the—so they’re being detained and they’re subject to being interrogated properly and lawfully any time, any day, and they’re not entitled to a lawyer, and so forth. Graham: Right. And Miranda didn’t exist back in World War II, but it does now, but the law of the Hamdi case says this is very important, that you do not have to read an enemy combatant the Miranda rights. They do have a right to counsel in a habeas pursuit— Sessions: In a habeas corpus, you’re correct. Graham: —to see if the government got it right; you can hold them as long as it’s necessary for intelligence gathering; and you can try them in Article III course, you can try them in military commissions. As attorney general of the United States, would you accept that military commissions could be the proper venue under certain circumstances for terrorists? Sessions: Yes. Graham: Thank you. Hearing: Nomination of General John F. Kelly, USMC (Ret.) to be Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Government Affairs, January 10, 2017. Watch on C-SPAN Timestamps & Transcripts 1:37:18 Senator Kamala Harris: I’d like to ask you a few questions, starting with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, also known as DACA. Hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients around the country are afraid right now for what this incoming administration might do to them and also what it might do to their unauthorized family members. In order to receive DACA, these young people submitted extensive paperwork to the federal government, including detailed information regarding themselves and their loved ones. They also had to qualify, as you know, for the program; and in qualifying, each person’s case was reviewed and determined on a case-by-case basis: the young person must have not been convicted of a felony or a significant misdemeanor or three or more misdemeanors; the young person must also not be deemed to pose a threat to national security or public safety; the young person must currently be in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general-education development certificate, also known as GED, and/or have been honorably discharged as a veteran of the Coast Guard or armed forces of the United States. Among other things, DACA applicants must submit proof of identity, proof of time and admission in the United States, proof of relevant student school completion or military status, and biometric information. As part of the DACA application process, we conduct biometric and biographic background checks against a variety of databases maintained by DHS and other federal agencies. If a DACA applicant knowingly makes a misrepresentation or fails to disclose facts in an effort to obtain DACA, it is a felony, and the applicant will be treated as an immigration-enforcement priority to the fullest extent permitted by law and be subject to criminal prosecution and/or removal from the United States. This means, obviously, that applicants to DACA know that if they’re not giving us the whole truth about their story, they’re putting a target on their own backs. At the time, the Department of Homeland Security assure them that it would follow its long-standing practice of not using such information for law-enforcement purposes except in very limited circumstances. These young people are now worried that the information that they provided in good faith to our government may now be used to track them down and lead to their removal. So my question is, do you agree that under DACA, and those young people have relied—by hundreds of thousands of them have relied—on our representations, do you agree with that, that we would not use this information against them? General John Kelly: The entire development of immigration policy is ongoing right now in terms of the upcoming administration. I have not been involved in those discussions. If confirmed, I know I will be involved in those discussions. I think there’s a big spectrum of people who need to be dealt with in terms of deportation— Harris: I’m speaking specifically about DACA.General Kelly: —and those categories would be prioritized. I would guess—I’m not part of the process right now—I would guess that this category might not be the highest priority for removal. I promise you, Senator, that I will be involved in the discussion. 1:45:00 Senator Rand Paul: We have on the books, and we passed about five years ago, a law that says that an American citizen can be indefinitely detained—not an American citizen overseas, not someone captured in Syria on a battlefield. Someone captured in the United States and accused of terrorism—accused of terrorism—can be kept indefinitely. They could be sent to Guantanamo Bay, but they could be sent to a variety of places. It’s never been used—and this president has said he wouldn’t use it, but he signed it anyway, much to the chagrin of some of us—but it is on the books. And I guess my question to you would be, do you think we can adequately arrest people in our country who are somehow a threat to our homeland security? Do you think the Constitution could be good enough, that due process in our courts of law in our country would work? Or would you think there’re going to have to be times when we’re just going to have to detain people without trial? General John Kelly: I’m pretty committed to the Constitution. I was not aware of the law—it surprises me—but I think we have enough laws to help us out in that regard. Paul: A couple of years ago they decided they’d use license plate screeners, and, apparently, they’re very rapid and they can collect hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of license plates an hour. But they decided they would go to a gun show, and why this particularly concerns me is you could also conceive the people at a gun show as exercising some sort of freedom of speech or some sort of ideological belief by being at a gun show, not just wanting to buy a gun, but actually defending their Second Amendment right to buy a gun. What alarms me is that if we’re going to scan license plates at a gun show, that we might go to a pro-life rally or a pro-abortion rally, depending on who’s in charge. I don’t want the government scanning people’s license plates. I don’t want them covering and getting all of our data just so we can possibly be safe some day from something. I want the individual to be protected, but I’m not against Homeland Security going after individuals and digging as deep as you want with the proper process. So what I would ask you is your opinion on how do we defend the country? Can we do it with the traditions of looking at individuals for whom we have suspicion, or are we going to have to collect all of this data and give up our privacy in the process? General Kelly: Senator, I would go with the traditional route. The scanning of the license plates, I mean, may be a reason—I can’t think of one right now. I’m not for the mass collection of data on people. I’d go the other way. Paul: And this is an amazing amount of information we can look at. If you had all the information of everyone’s Visa purchases in the country, there’s no end. But realize that this is a big part of what your job is, is people are going to be coming to you saying, protect us; we want to be safe, but at the same time, what are we willing to give up? Can we keep what we actually believe and what we are as a people, the freedom that you are committed to as a soldier? And I hope you’ll keep that in mind. General Kelly: Sir. Paul: Thank you. 2:15:08 General John Kelly: My law-enforcement friends tell me that in the case of drugs that come in—frankly, I’m not arguing for legalization for marijuana here; I’m just saying that the only drugs I’ve really ever concerned myself with at SouthCom were the three hard drugs. All the marijuana flow that we saw was coming from some of the Caribbean islands, south. So I’d just focus on the hard drugs. Hearing: Is the Department of Justice Adequately Protecting the Public from the Impact of State Recreational Marijuana Legalization?, Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, April 05, 2016. Watch on YouTube Senate Session: Republican Senators on Surveillance Bill Reauthorization, May 15, 2015. Jeff Sessions speaks at 28:18 Senate Session: Jeff Sessions Mocks Karl Rove, June 21, 2013. Additional Reading Article: 10 Things You Didn't Know about Gen. John Kelly by Sara Clarke, US News, January 17, 2017. Article: 10 things to know about Sen. Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump's pick for Attorney General by Amber Phillips, The Washington Post, January 10, 2017. Article: Sessions failed to disclose oil interests as required, ethics experts say by Tom Hamburger, The Washington Post, January 9, 2017. Article: Trump picks retired General John Kelly to lead Homeland Security, report says by Ben Jacobs and Spencer Ackerman, The Guardian, December 7, 2016. Article: Bowe Bergdahl, Facing Desertion Trial, Asks Obama for Pardon by Charlie Savage, New York Times, December 2, 2016. Webpage: State Marijuana Laws in 2016 Map, Governing the States and Localities, November 11, 2016. Article: Gutting Habeas Corpus by Liliana Segura, The Intercept, May 4, 2016. Press Release: Senators Introduce Restoration of America's Wire Act, Senator Dianne Feinstein, June 24, 2015. Article: The Destruction of Defendant's Rights by Lincoln Caplan, The New Yorker, June 21, 2015. Commentary: The Wire Act Ñ Don't Fix What Isn't Broken by John Pappas, Roll Call, March 18, 2015. Article: Department Of Justice Flip-Flops On Internet Gambling by Nathan Vardi, Forbes, December 23, 2011. Article: Holder accused of neglecting porn by Josh Gerstein, Politico, April 16, 2011. Article: American Lawbreaking by Tim Wu, Slate, October 15, 2007. Justice Dept. Memo May 5, 2005. Supreme Court Opinion: Hamdi vs Rumsfeld by Justice O'Connor, Supreme Court, June 28, 2004. References Legal Dictionary at Cornell University: Habeas Corpus U.S. Code: Production and transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations