tv Labor Secretary Acosta News Conference CSPAN July 11, 2019 1:00am-1:59am EDT
about his book. >> i was young. i grew up on welfare. i was in a family of six. my father left when i was in the third grade. in my book, i have a picture of me in the fifth grade. feetitting, holding my because i had holes in the bottom of my shoes. i had a rough upbringing. i got involved with some friends. they were selling drugs. it was the thing to do. >> sunday night eddie to class eastern -- 8:00 eastern. >> neighbor secretary alexander acosta held a news conference wednesday to explain his prior role as u.s. attorney for the southern district of florida in 2008. that led to a nonprosecution agreement for financier jeffrey epstein who is accused of sexual abuse and facing a new set of
in 2008, a major newspaper described the epstein prosecution like this. , a grand grand jury jury convened by the district attorney of palm beach county, had charged epstein with a lesser offense. at that time, the epstein legal team was elated. he would've avoided prison altogether. then the united states attorney's office in miami became involved. epstein got an ultimatum. plead guilty to a charge that would require jail time and registration or face federal charges. that was the week, more than 10 years ago, that epstein went to jail. times have changed and coverage of this case has shortly changed since that article. facts are important and facts are being overlooked.
a stateter started as matter. he was prosecuted initially by the state of florida and not by the u.s. attorney's office. in 2006, a grand jury convened by the state attorney of palm beach county reviewed the evidence and recommended a single charge. that charge would have resulted in no jail time at all. no registration as a sexual offender. no restitution for the victim. further, the state attorney's office allowed epstein to self surrender and arraigned him the following morning. the palm beach state attorney's office was ready to let epstein walk free, no jail time, nothing. officetors in my former found this to be completely unacceptable and they became involved.
our office became involved. -- prosecutors at this presented the ultimatum, plead guilty to more serious charges, charges that require jail time, registration, and restitution, or we roll the dice and bring a federal indictment. without the work of our prosecutors, epstein would've gotten away with just that state charge. many today question the terms of that ultimatum. what's called the nonprosecution agreement. good prosecutors will tell you that these cases are complex. especially when they involve children. even more so in 2006. i've shared with those in this room today and i will make it available publicly, an affidavit in a civil matter related to the epstein case. she talks about the challenges faced.
she talks about the victims being scared and traumatized. refusing to testify. and how some victims actually exonerated epstein. most had significant concerns about their identities being revealed. faced were they had horrible and they didn't want people to know about them. write, after the fact, people allege that epstein would've been evilly convicted. as a prosecutor who handled the investigation, she says in this affidavit, these contentions overlook the facts that existed at the time. her description of these facts are corroborated by the fbi case agent whose affidavit i've also shared today.
thousands of prosecutors around the nation this week are weighing guilty pleas versus trials. these cases are hard. ask require prosecutors to whether a plea that guarantees still time and guarantees registration, to ask whether trial,ea versus going to how do you weigh those two? the goal here was straightforward. put epstein behind bars, ensure he registers as a sexual offender, provide victims with the means to seek restitution, and protect the public by putting them on notice that a sexual predator was in their midst. said, was people have unusual. and it was. it was complicated by the fact that this matter started as a
state investigation. a state grand jury brought that single, completely unacceptable charge. a state official allowed epstein to self surrender. and so it is unusual. it's unusual for a federal prosecutor to intervene in a state matter such as this. we've seen cases recently, different set of facts, i don't want anyone to say on comparing these cases. gote prosecutors let folks with no sentence and people shake their heads. in this case, the federal office intervened for the plea was taken and said, stop. if that plea is taken at the state level, you are going to face serious federal issues. today we know a lot more about how victims trauma impacts their
testimony. this too is important. our juries are more accepting of controversial -- contrasting statements. judges do not allow victim shaming by defense attorneys. viewed the victim interviews. they are hard to watch. know that my former colleagues , the men and women of my office, wanted to help them. i wanted to help them. that is why we intervened. prosecutors of my office did. they insist that he go to jail. they put the world on notice that he was and is a sexual editor. -- predator. his actions absolutely deserve a stiffer sentence.
have been there rumors of investigations in other jurisdictions. he should be prosecuted in any state in which he committed a crime. if there are other states in which he committed crimes, if there are other states i can bring state charges, they should consider those as well. welcome the new york prosecution. it is the absolutely right thing to do and i'm happy to take questions. >> how would you describe your relationship with the president? epstein isith changing that. >> my relationship with the president is outstanding. he has publicly made clear that i've got his support. he spoke yesterday in the oval office. we have spoken. articlesading about
about my relationship with mr. mulvaney. he called me this morning to say , if asked, that our relationship is excellent and that any articles to the contrary are in his words bs. so, i'm here. i'm defending this case. that's my job. a lot of people watching this news conference, including several young women who say they were teenagers when jeffrey epstein sexually assaulted them. they say they went to you looking for help and didn't hear back from you until it was too late. do you owe them an apology >> -- apology? >> you are raising the issue of victim notification. in the documents i have circulated, i've address that issue because well.
as well. the career prosecutor in this case had a difficult decision to make. she didn't make alone. she mated in consultation with the fbi. she mated in consultation with the office. the agreement that had been negotiated had an unusual provision. even though this was a state would have thems opportunity to receive restitution's. required to pay for them to hire a lawyer to , a casecase against him in which he would have to plead no contest and provide them with restitution. -- these are the words of the career prosecutor. she did not want to share with the victims that the office was attempting to secure for them the ability to obtain monetary compensation because she is
aware that if she disclosed that, and the negotiations fell through, epstein's counsel would use this to question the victim's credibility. her concerns were not hypothetical. one of epstein's attorneys had already asked one of the victims, now tell me about when the federal prosecutors told you about getting money. ,hen the agreement was signed epstein's counsel indicated that epstein may not comply with the agreement. the agreement was appealed at various levels in the justice department. affidavit, in this an affidavit that is corroborated by the fbi case he and theshe and office was concerned that epstein might not comply. and we would have to go to trial. we had to weigh the issue of how much to disclose against the
issue -- we have to go to trial. we want to win. we want to put epstein away. and talking about this would allow him to make the argument a trial -- at trial that their testimony was compromised. when she was finally, when it was finally clear that epstein would comply with the agreement, she talks about how she made efforts to notify the victims. how that was a friday afternoon at 4:15 and that she learned that the state has scheduled for 8:30 the following monday. she talks about how over the weekend, she made every effort to notify the victims at that time. >> [inaudible]
go to trial and sufficient evidence to be confident in the outcome of that trial. if i could, i will give you a follow-up in a minute. case -- i provided a letter that outlined some of the timeline of this. in july of 2007, the career staff from my office met and said, these are the four points that you will have to do in state court. if not, we will proceed federally. they were very serious that they would proceed federally. that does not mean that they were confident in the final outcome. it's one of the tough questions in these cases. what is the value of a secured guilty plea with registration versus rolling the dice? i know that in 2019, looking back on 2008, things may look
strongly and forcefully. standing here today, are you saying that you feel that you did everything you could, you got the best deal you could get, and you have no regrets? proceededeve that we appropriately. based on the evidence and not just my opinion, based on the evidence. there was value to getting a guilty clean and having him register. look, no regrets is a very hard question. at my confirmation hearing, i was asked a similar question. ,ne of the issues that i raised we expect a lot more transparency today. as you watch these victim interviews, it's very obvious that the victims feel that this was not a sufficient outcome.
these victims were traumatized. we can't begin to understand what they went through. they look at this and they say, but why? you always look back and say, what if? time, can say is, at the i provided a timeline and information about the individuals involved, this was the view of the office. there is a value to a short -- sure deeply because -- guilty plea because letting him walk, because letting what the state attorney was willing to do go forward, would've been absolutely awful. in light of the attention this week on your handling of 2008, i wanted to ask about your
role today as the secretary of labor. you have oversight of certifying visas for victims of human trafficking including sex trafficking. last week, you issued a new policy that would essentially is being agency -- criticized by a lot of people for allowing the agency to from continuing to certify these recess by referring them to other agencies. what was the purpose of that? >> if you read the policy, that is not what it does. our administrator after she was confirmed review the policy. requirementlace a that a criminal prosecutor be consulted anytime one of these issues is brought to the division's attention. that seems very reasonable. the only want criminal prosecutors to be consulted whenever someone says they are a victim of trafficking?
that prosecutor will be consulted. even if that prosecutor says, this is not a case that we are going forward with, the division will still consider whether to issue that visa on the facts. that is a mix -- mischaracterization of her decision and policy. you go into more detail about where and how you exactly negotiated this deal? did you meet with epstein's attorneys alone in a marriott hotel? >> i've read this. one of the things i find interesting is how, how facts become facts because they are in the newspaper as opposed to the record. out the up, i found details of that meeting. abouttched my own head it. i provided you a timeline and a letter of the negotiation to make it very clear that this
negotiated -- was negotiated by career negotiators. the meeting that was alleged was a breakfast meeting that took place after the agreement was negotiated, not before. the agreement was signed in september. after the agreement was negotiated, one of epstein's attorneys asked for a meeting, hearing. i was giving a speech, i was staying at a hotel. i agreed to have a brief meeting at 7:00 rather than open the office. i spoke with that attorney. i referred that attorney to the career prosecutors, nothing changed in that agreement. they continued to litigate the matter and appeal the matter to washington. nothing changed with one exception. there was an addendum that made clear that epstein had to pay for any attorney that a victim -- that represented a victim in the cases against epstein.
yes, i met with opposing counsel. it was a breakfast meeting because i was staying at the hotel. the agreement had been negotiated. that can be confirmed simply by looking at the date of the agreement and the date on the meeting. >> [inaudible] >> number one, the agreement had already been locked in place. the agreement wasn't going to change. before that agreement, i was careful not to negotiate this. our career attorneys negotiated the agreement. we live in a city where people have breakfast meetings all the time. you don't open an office at 7:00 in the morning just to have a meeting. you have it over breakfast. >> is that standard for a non-prosecution agreement to include -- >> i'll come back to you. >> i want to -- >> i will come back to in a
minute. >> you mentioned several times that you and the prosecutors in your office weren't sure that you could secure a win. a isery purpose of the cvr to give the victims an opportunity to weigh in. a federal judge ruled that you broke federal law by not doing so. do you think you're thinking would've been different if you have followed the law and consulted the victims? out, we, let me point follow department policy. department policy at the time made very clear -- this is in a written statement that was subsequently issued by what is called the office of legal counsel which is the chief policymaking -- chief legal arm of the department of justice. that these situations with nonprosecution agreements are not covered by the cvra at the time. ra does not-- cv
attach until a cases actually brought. i understand that the judge had a different view. i understand that the judge's view was that the department policy did not comply with the law. that's the way our system works. our system works in that a judge can say what the department policy is is not consistent with the law. let me also point out, since cvra congress amended the and did so explicitly to say that nonprosecution agreements would be covered. that's a good thing. as i said it my confirmation hearing, we expect a lot more transparency. if we had more transparency, perhaps this case would've gone differently. i've laid out the reasons why there were concerns about providing all the details to the
pled.s before epstein the department of justice has been very clear throughout multiple presidential administrations, throughout multiple attorneys general. the department's position is that there was no violation of the law. name?r >> caitlin collins for cnn. would you make the same agreement today? >> these questions are always very difficult. have 12 years of knowledge and hindsight and we live in a very different world. victimsworld treats very differently. today's world does not allow some of the victim shaming that could've taken place at trial. understands that
when interviewing victims, that testimony can be sometimes contradictory. that memories are difficult. sayso, i don't think we can , take a case that is this old and fully know how it would play out today. >> the victims say you failed them. >> i understand what the victim say. i'm not here to try to say that i can stand in their shoes or that i can address their concerns. , we did what we did because we wanted to see epstein go to jail. he needed to go to jail. >> [inaudible] >> he needed to go to jail. that was, that was the focus.
>> peter alexander from nbc. dozens of girls were allegedly molested. why didn't you keep investigating him? , the victims of which we were aware were part of this. under the agreement, in the southern district of florida, the investigation seized. they had the opportunity to proceed. that does not mean that the investigation had ceased nationwide. as we see today, as we saw in new york, investigations could certainly and obviously have proceeded another district. >> how can you be trusted to enforce human trafficking laws as secretary of later -- labor given your history with this case? >> i started one of the first human trafficking tax forces at the department of justice.
i have been aggressive prosecuting human trafficking. we stood, we stepped in in this case. we stopped a bad state plate. .- plea i understand that people scratch their heads and say, why? here's the question to ask. how many other times have you seen a u.s. attorney's office intervene in a state matter and say, stop the state plate because it is insufficient. i want to ask you a question about the office of professional the possibility. it was disclosed that they are doing a review into how you and other prosecutors in your office handled this matter. what is the status of that? what exactly are they looking at? will you submit to an interview even though you are no longer with the justice department? if they find any misconduct, will you resign? >> i don't know what the status
of that is. i would refer that to the office of professional responsibility. i don't speak for them. i will clearly submit for an interview even though i don't have to. i think what they do is important. the office of professional responsibility will have access to the full record. they will have access to all the facts and the fbi reports. they can look at this matter in its totality. important thats they proceed. i will gladly be part of it. i think what they will find is that the office acted appropriately. >> as labor secretary, you tried repeatedly to cut a program that deals with human trafficking by up to 80%, going before congress in advocating for that. why should people trust you to focus on human trafficking if
you have done that? i would like a follow-up question. >> you are referring to grants that go to foreign countries for foreign country labor related work as part of the budget every year. those grants have been removed as have other grants for foreign countries. let me add, those grants are put] by congress. this is what happens in washington. i fully suspect that those grants will remain in this year. your follow-up? me that theave told president encouraged you to hold his press conference. can you speak about what the president told you ahead of the press conference and whether you are here to give up message for the president? what is the message to victims who say they don't trust you anymore? >> i'm not about to talk about conversations with the president. i'm not here to send any signal to the president. i think it's important, a lot of questions were raised.
this has reached the point that it's important to have a public hearing. it's important that these questions be asked and answered. victims,essage to the the message is, you need to come forward. i heard this morning that another victim came forward. she made horrendous, hernandez allegations. allegations that should never happen to any woman, much less a younger. forward, theses cases can be brought by the federal government, i state attorneys, they will be brought. we have seen in the last few years cases brought against individuals that got away with things for well over a decade. it's important to realize that people were getting away with these, people were not going to jail at all. we are aware of those high-profile cases. we've seen as victims come forward how the justice system deals with them.
the message to victims is, come forward. money take a few more. >> you said victims need to come forward. you still haven't offered an apology to them. why is that? >> so, the victims should come forward because the justice system needs to hear from them. and what the victims with through his horrific. continue to go through it. i've seen these videos. one seen the interviews television of these victims. hard., it's i also think it's important that we understand that the men and women of my office, going back to 2006 in 2007 and 2008, have spent their career prosecuting
these types of cases. heart, weeart, in our were trying to do the right thing for these victims. and so, this is horrific. this is awful. justone of these cases is devastating and saddening. i also think it's important to realize that the prosecutors were trying to do the right thing. sir? are you aware of the -- alleged obstruction of justice by mr. epstein? it seemed to be mentioned in a memo by u.s. prosecutors. did you take efforts to it -- did he take efforts to hamper -- temper with witnesses? >> i can't comment on the new york case. that would not be appropriate. >> i'm talking about important. -- florida. >> i cannot comment.
who at main justice reviewed this case or your decision? did you have any interaction with robert mueller at the time? >> i shared a letter that i wrote to one of epstein's defense attorneys. i shared that letter because it shows much of the timeline. initially, the meetings that took place were first assistant, the criminal chief, the palm beach office chief, and the line attorney and two fbi agents to get you will notice that the initial meeting as outlined in this letter were all career attorneys. how they presented the terms, how epstein's attorneys were dissatisfied and asked for a meeting with me, how it will with their attorneys along with all of the career officials, how
we then invited the chief of the department of justice to travel down. one of the things we wanted to make sure of was that we had sufficient evidence to proceed ethically. howetails a little bit on epstein's counsel appealed the decisions to washington. i would refer you to the record. one of the disturbing things about this case is, there's a record here. the documents that i shared today, we've shared previously with media. yet i've seen no reference to any of these documents and the perspective of some of these prosecutors. , all theseecord documents are publicly available. they could've been pulled up by anyone in this room. so, there is a record that i
wasn't at main justice. i do not have a full list of the individuals that reviewed this matter. the individuals are referenced in this letter. i would refer you to the record. this was 12 years ago. i do not have a full list of individuals that reviewed this at main justice. individuals from main justice were involved fairly early on and were certainly aware of it. i think if you look at the record, it will become clear that our decisions were appealed again and again to main justice. the deal that you negotiated resulted in two things. one is that the case ended with mr. exton pleading to state prosecution charges. it immunized his co-conspirators. did you consider his victims in that case to be prostitutes? why did you immunize his co-conspirators? to, where the
victims prostitutes, no. victims were victims. and of story. they were victims. is, thend part of that purpose in this case was to bring epstein to jail. to put him behind bars. there were other individuals that may have been involved. in any type of conspiracy, there are individuals around someone. the focus is on the top layer. that's where our focus appropriately was. me also say something. a lot has been said about this. proceeded, the expectation was that it would be an 18 month sentence. the expectation was that it would be served in jail. completelyelease was asinine. i have been in record as far back as 2011 saying it was not
what was bargain for and it was not what we expected. this was a state court plea. because it was a state court plea, the terms of confinement were under the jurisdiction of the state of florida. so the outrage over that 13 getting to leave jail, is entirely appropriate. when we entered into this, i at least fully thought that he would be spending the time in jail. that's what we mean by somebody going to jail. >> [inaudible] >> if you ask me a question in spanish, i will answer in spanish. is that fair? >> i'm trying to get a brief statement. [speaking spanish]
>> you said earlier that the victims should come forward. what is the message to those who did come forward and feel let down by your? -- you? >> victims came forward. there were several victims. in one of the filings, the department of justice talked to several of the victims. some of the victims didn't want any public notoriety. other victims had provided interviews and said they felt let down. these are really hard cases. the prosecutors in my office and i were focused on putting him in
jail. i've provided the information from the career attorney as to why there were concerns. if we went to trial, and it became clear that they were going to receive money if he was convicted, how that would impeach their credibility. today, that would proceed very differently. victim shaming is just not accepted. the circumstances of trial and juries would consider 12 years ago was different. these were the judgments that were made. individuals that will look at these judgments and say, maybe a different judgment should of been made. you can always look at a play and say, should it have been the safe play or should you have gone for the big score? and asked, which is the right outcome? i provided these documents so that you could hear from the prosecutors themselves how these things were being laid. did the miami howard reach
out to you last november? why didn't you set the record straight on the breakfast meeting then? >> the media has reached out to me over the years. the department of justice is the entity that is litigating all of these matters. honestly, until recently, i have not commented on this since 2011 because i think it's important for the united states to litigate cases through the department of justice. u.s. attorneys responded to media inquiries about pending cases, this is a pending case, there was alive -- a live civil matter. u.s. attorneys respond to media inquiries all the time. we would have havoc in our justice system. you can have it as a -- cannot have it as a litigating agency with u.s. attorneys giving precedence. why am i talking today?
this is clearly reaching the level where i thought it was important to have this kind of press conference, to take theseons, and to provide facts and perspectives. i understand that individuals may say this was not enough. viewed,the way it was not only by me, but by many back in 2000. -- 2008. you said that the victims were not prostitutes. jailedeement was, he was for prostitution charges. not for sex trafficking. can you explain what the distinction was? >> this was a state -- here's why this is hard. this was a state case. arraigned, a state grand jury returned a prostitution
charge against him, a solicitation charge. that was a state grand jury. he was allowed to sell surrender by the state attorney's office as a result of that single charge that would've resulted in no jail time. ultimately, what the agreement did was say, you have to go back and plead to a more serious state charge that require still time, that requires registration , and under this agreement you will have a mechanism for restitution. the agreement itself, ultimately, the state of florida in the state attorney's office in florida is a separate sovereign. the u.s. attorney does not determine how those offices run themselves or what charges they bring. i do not consider the victims prostitutes. i think that is insulting to them. these were victims. they were not just women victims. they were children victims. since mr. epstein left jail,
he's been a public figure. he's been a man about town. he hasn't seemed contrite about what he did. what have you thought when you've seen him? >> what i thought is, i keep reading newspaper articles about pending investigations here or there. search,ne does a google there were rumors of investigations going on for the last 10 years. new york finally stood up and took one of those investigations and brought charges. , i'mh it would of happened glad to see it's happening now. he's a bad man. he needs to be put away. you know, based on additional allegations that i saw this morning, there are multiple jurisdictions, whether federal or state, that he's going to have to answer to.
a few more questions. ask about the potential co-conspirators. were you confident at the time that any potential additional co-conspirators didn't commit sexual abuses against underage girls like epstein did? some of those victims have accused others of doing similar acts to them. so, let me see how i can address your question without running afoul of department of justice guidelines. if my office had been aware of individuals who committed acts such as sexual abuse, my office part of thate been kind of immunity. it should not have been part of that paragraph.
are a lot ofhere rumors about who those individuals may or may not be. i think those rumors are misconstruing the ask of the office with respect to that particular paragraph. one more question. aware atou ever made any point that you're handling -- that mr. epstein was an intelligence asset of some sort? >> so there has been reporting to that effect. reportingthere's been to a lot of affects in this case. not just now but over the years. hesitatewould, i would to take this reporting as fact. this was a case that was brought by her office. it was brought based on the facts. i look at that reporting, i can't address it directly because of our guidelines.
i can tell you that a lot of news reporting is just going down. a few more questions. have you asked a question yet? how about in front of you? i'm trying to do one question per person. >> can i go ahead? katie rogers with the new york times. what makes you so confident that the president will continue to have you serve? there are several advisers he stands up for initially. he has backed away before. what makes you so confident? >> i'm here to talk about this case. i'm doing my job. if the president decides that i'm not the best person to do this job, i respect that. that is his choice. i serve at the pleasure of the president. i thought yesterday he was kind. he showed great support. remember, we are here
because we are part of an administration that is creating jobs, that is creating growth, that is really transforming our economy and focusing it on the forgotten men and women. if he says, you are not the now, person for this right or you are standing in the way, i respect that. >> d you really have nothing else to say to these victims beyond, you should come forward? that places a lot of burden on children. what else you have to say? you've avoided addressing these people directly. why is that? >> to be clear, that is not all i said. i think, if i recall, i don't have a transcript, what i've said previously is, i have seen these interviews. generally can't begin to fathom what these victims have been through. i don't think that anyone who has not been in the situation
and begin to fathom. the closest i could come is to think, what would i feel like if one of my girls was going through this? i'm not sure i can feel the way i would feel on television. just nothing compared to what the victims went through. the point i'm trying to make is, everything that the victims have gone through in these cases is horrific. their response is entirely justified. at the same time, i think it's important to stand up for the prosecutors of my former office and make clear that what they were trying to do was help these victims. they should not be per trade as individuals that did not care. they have spent a lifetime of bringing cases like this, they are individuals who really, really do care.
>> that's not an apology, right? nikki schwab from the new york post. how much of this was epstein getting special treatment because of his enormous wealth and political connections? >> i've heard a lot about that. if you go through the record, you will see that in july, he was presented with certain terms. i lay this out in a letter, an open letter that i wrote to address some of these questions in 2011. he was presented with terms. the office, throughout this entire negotiation, it took several months, from july to december. through these five months of jail,ations, you go to you register, and you provide restitution. the original term was two years. the office ultimately agreed to
18 months. rigid -- it had to be an offense. noticeld needed to be on that he was a sexual predator. situation where the victims could seek restitution. it wasn't just enough for him to go to jail. let me also say, restitution is also not enough. in the never put victims place they were before they were victimized. you cannot unwind history. restitution is important. thank you very much. did they put pressure on you? did someone at doj tell you or order you to try to do with jeffrey epstein? >> his attorneys certainly filed several appeals with main justice. i will again restate. when the career attorneys met with him, they presented certain
terms. the office stayed true to those terms throughout. those terms did not change, the agreement did not change. no level of appeal to main justice changed the terms of these initial points in those agreements. >> [inaudible] >> i just had a question for you. one of the requests is to continue to meet with you. i know you are not apologizing today but would you be willing to meet with them? >> that's a really good question. this is currently in litigation. i don't want to interfere with that litigation. i have monitored this litigation without -- i haven't monitored day-to-day. i have launched -- watched it. i have seen what these victims have gone through. whatever this litigation --
whenever this litigation is concluded, i have an open door policy. i always welcome the opportunity to sit down. it would be healthy for prosecutors to sometimes circle back and really hear about what happened. we all have to learn. one of the questions that came up at my confirmation hearing was, what would you do differently? i alluded to this. i said, the world is much more transparent. we expect a lot more from government. we are a less trusting society. we can wonder whether that's right a wrong. because our culture expects transparency. to sit down and hear from them,s how this impacted i think it would be healthy for .rosecutors generally
thank you very much. >> [inaudible] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] in 1979, a small network was unusual and rolled out a big idea. let viewers make up their own mind. c-span to open the doors to washington policymaking fraud to see. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. a lot has changed in 40 years but today that big idea is more relevant than other. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. so you can make up your own mind, brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> house majority leader steny hoyer announced this week that
the house plans to vote on reauthorization of the 9/11 victim compensation fund. it was created to provide financial support to people suffering from serious medical issues as a result of the 2001 terrorist attacks. if approved, the legislation would extend additional funding through 2090. you can follow the floor debate and final vote on the bill this friday, live on c-span. >> there has been discussion about an appearance before congress. any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. it contains our findings and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made. we chose those words carefully and the work speeds for itself. the report is my testimony. i would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before
congress. >> former special counsel robert mueller is a 12 year before two committees of congress on wednesday, july 17 at 9:00 eastern. he gives testimony to the house judiciary committee. later in the day, he will take questions from the house intelligence committee. our coverage of robert mueller's congressional testimony will be live on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or listen with the free c-span radio app. if you would like the year the complete reading of the mueller report, listen on the free c-span radio app. volume one airs on friday and saturday at 7:00 eastern. volume two airs monday and tuesday, also at 7:00 eastern. this week, a three-judge panel from the u.s. second circuit court of appeals in new york city unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that president trump blocking critics from his twitter account is unconstitutional.
judge barrington parker offered the opinion, saying that once the president has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with. this oral argument from march is 40 minutes. >> good morning. please be seated. argument.ar