Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Just -- -- how much hot water is the attorney general himself in India do you believe in terms of the Associated Press story.
And the seizing all of those phone -- -- Well look let's remember -- has been reported the attorney general it is for cues from the investigation.
So he had no part in the decision that was made.
Two the confiscate the that they oh record in fact -- being reduced if the attorney just got to be commenting at all McKay -- course.
He's he can be can be asked about the guidelines the guidance that exists that the Department of Justice with respect investigation that involved the press.
But it did in fact he is accused of he's as good as he just started he shouldn't be talking at all about this case.
So judge if he says very little up on the hill today regarding this case in particular -- -- what you're saying is -- he's exactly right to do that he'll get a lot of Republican criticism for that.
But you're saying that that legally speaking is the correct thing to do.
And I get personal.
Yet -- you're limited that was what you can say about an ongoing criminal investigation in the first place.
-- PL top of that the fact that -- would she used than that but I'm afraid of them a lot of frustrated members of congress.
After -- here with respect to what happen.
Involving a few records.
Not judging you are obviously a -- there was some controversy when you were in office regarding.
I've set -- -- that the there is a big question he.
And -- the attorney general said it yesterday that this was a matter of national security.
There's a big question here of the line between live -- -- And national security how difficult a line is that to tread as an attorney general.
They're very extremely difficult decision that's going to be made the department justice because.
You have to -- -- -- competing interest he's got the interest of the of the press.
To maximize the -- information to the American public about a very important that security operations.
But he also have a criminal justice centrists and bringing adept at -- committed a very serious crime.
And when those interest collide -- we have -- we have in this case apparently.
You know you gotta come you've got to balance competing interest and in this particular case the the administration the Department of Justice.
Has hasn't decided that -- that the the balance should.
Should side -- -- the criminal justice prosecution movement forward.
Attorney general holder that this is -- most seriously if you ever seen.
Now we don't know that remain the same when I think when you see -- what additional tax may tell us but again in this particular case you've got to competing interest.
And other part of -- -- it would.
Would try to find out the source of this very damaging -- and that's -- of our country.
Yeah I just want to play the the sound of that the attorney general -- talking about that yesterday and just has serious this walls and all come back to you judge here's the attorney general.
I've -- a prosecutor since 1976.
And I have to say that this is among if not -- most serious it is moving in the top two or three.
Most seriously that and haven't seen.
Now when an attorney general of the United States says something like that judge do you take him at his -- I -- at the end that for many reasons first of all you know -- is talking the American people is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.
This is information that of course is going to be provide to the congress.
If it's classify -- and the false sense of law enforcement information.
At some point it's gonna become public as -- the attorney general by making that statement.
I have to take it at his word that he would not have made that statement.
If he did not honestly believe that now having said that.
I think it's about people rightly concerned about the breath the sweep.
The information that was collected -- connection with the investigation.
They they got into the department -- it is very clear that any investigation involving the press have to -- -- as narrowly as possible.
It could there actually compelling government interest its stake.
It's got to be a decision had to move forward may at the highest levels.
Other department and it must be no other alternative means -- source of -- to get that information.
These conditions were satisfied in this case but again.
We need to look at the facts play out before we could -- final judgment on whether or not what happened here.
Was in fact consistent with department policy.
And it presumably they're judge there is a very big difference here in this is that this is one of the issues here.
When when we stopped sort of looking at the phone -- -- or even enough tapping into the phones of people we believe -- A national security risk.
That is very different to what critics are calling here was a fishing expedition.
Targeting journalists who have protected under the First Amendment.
Well I agree that the scope the and the length of time in which these collection activities.
I would carried out raises some serious -- very legitimate questions about the commitment.
Of the Department of Justice to -- the -- statement that you know I believe that free and robust press but again.
Given what -- attorney -- -- shed about this particular case I think we need to wait await the facts before -- rush to judgment here.
Filter by section