Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

WH leak investigation 'an inherent conflict of interest'?

Details

  • Description

    Sen. Jon Kyl sounds off

  • Duration 6:02
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

Question consuming Washington right now who leaked sensitive national security secrets.

Attorney general Eric Holder is assigned to US attorney to investigate but some in congress including senator Jon Kyl.

Are questioning whether they can conduct a truly independent investigation senator Kyl joins us live thank you for coming thank you can.

What is your take two US attorneys well respected across the board you think it's enough.

Here's the problem they are both answerable to Eric Holder the attorney general who is a political figure in this administration.

And the question is whether or not he can -- politics aside whether there's a conflict of interest serious enough.

That he should actually have somebody else handle the prosecution here's exactly how it could come down.

He could find out where the leaks came from by talking to the reporters.

But unless spirit -- himself.

Personally authorizes.

A subpoena of any of the news new sources those prosecutors cannot subpoena documents were testimony.

From the news people.

So it all bulls -- down to whether or not Eric Holder.

Should really step aside put the country first and advise the president look for your sake of the country's sake we really ought to have an independent look at this not something that comes back to me.

Do you think even for appearances -- this administration would be willing to do that or it would feel like it was caving to public calls from GOP senators like senators McCain and Graham.

Who publicly said they want to see this time.

I don't think -- -- it is the right way to put it.

There's senator Barack Obama called for.

A special prosecutor in situations far less serious movies were very serious national intelligence leaks.

And eight we need to get to the bottom of -- and -- I think we need to avoid any appearance of politics the best way for the president to do that.

This -- -- make sure that there's a special prosecutor that has nothing to do with the Department of Justice.

And Eric Holder.

Do you have ain't feeling a belief -- you're educated guess of what you know about where you think these leaks may have come from -- the reporters have basically told us.

Top administration aides having to do with national security.

And people who were part of the conversation.

In the situation room.

That boils down to a very few people.

When the FBI director said well we've already talked to 200 people we have another 200 to go how about starting.

With the people who were in the room at least according to the new stories.

And if you can't get the information any other way you need to talk to the reporters will Eric -- give the permission.

Of his prosecutors to do that.

Let's -- -- penalty once we get some answers we do about where this came from it depends on which statute -- would be prosecuted under if they're prosecuted.

Part of our problem here is that just the -- under which a prosecution is possible.

Are pretty -- and they require very high standard if you -- something has to be an intent to do harm to the national security and so on.

And they might be -- so why I never intended that harm by just one of the information to get out so that's the second problem first of all let's find out where they came for.

Ask is well that immigration.

You heavy sleeper for saying Arizona and by some estimates 360000.

Illegal immigrants live there in your -- make up more than 7% of the workforce there.

Are you concerned at all about the president's announcement this week that.

There will be prosecutorial discretion it's not an executive order but a cabinet level directive.

Of which gives a border agents and others in enforcement the right to make decisions about who will and won't be deported.

The problem is it's a -- basis for doing essentially the right thing.

But doing at the wrong way so three things first of all in terms of the policy itself it has a basis -- The way that we should probably try to deal with people who came here under the circumstances that those are young people dead.

But you have to follow the law and the president himself said on September 20 of last year.

The notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.

I think that there's been great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed.

By perpetrating the notion that by myself I can go and do these things and by himself it would also include his Department of Homeland Security undersecretary -- -- -- He is supposed to uphold the laws the laws say that -- supposed to deport people who are here illegally they decided unilaterally not to enforce that law.

There's a better way.

Pass -- bill that senator Hutchison and senator rubio and I have drafted which provides essentially.

What the president does but with one additional very important protection.

Instead of just -- deportation.

We would actually give these people illegal status not citizenship not a path to citizenship.

But the ability to know that they are here legally and nobody can deport them in the future.

But congress needs to make those laws we have a system here where by the representatives of the people represent the will of the people and and the president signs the bill we send to him.

He and his secretary cannot simply say well we tried that it was hard to do so we're just gonna do it by executive Fiat.

How do you answer critics who say legislation like this and what you're proposing essentially in their estimation boils -- -- amnesty.

Well.

If you have the DREAM Act -- Dallas but that's one reason the DREAM Act has never gone anywhere.

What senator Hutchison and rubio and -- are proposing is that there be no change with respect to citizenship in fact we would bar an application for citizenship.

For a period of ten years which is essentially what the current law provides.

So you would have a legal status in the country you couldn't be sent anywhere else you could be a productive member of our society.

And after ten years depending upon your circumstances if the law then a -- -- it.

You could seek citizenship but if you're not in one of the categories where the law would allow it you can't so I think that's a better way to deal with us down.

Just saying well we're just not gonna prosecute an entire group of people the law really does not allow that immigration reform.

A is a tough thing to tackle on the hell we -- there been many efforts and it will see where you're legislation -- senator -- happy Father's Day and thanks for joint declaration of.

Load More