tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 22, 2016 4:59pm-5:57pm EDT
with unaccompanied children. we're talking about families. >> so, we are going to get them, but we don't have a problem, with unaccompanied children. as a matter of policy, i have criticized that very much. i find it per versus to be in a situation, where, children are forced out of their country because the conditions in which they live, in that country, are so bad, that their parents have the illusion, that they can, they should risk them in a process such as the one we see, and send them to another country
i find that to be unacceptable. and excuse my frankness. but i have to be candid about this. i find that to be extremely troubling. as a human community. but not because we're suffering of that problem. and the pacific alliance, we have been, i was in cheel lee, and and it is one of the most open countries for foreign at any rate. and, it is very, very important.
there. and those negative effects will happen anyway but they're very much resisting but what i said was, i am not conditioning but if we approve the fiscal plan it will be impossible for the country to use the benefits of the pacific alliance horror neutralize the negative effects. so i am certain we will have an economy that can handle the pressures of a globalized world but i will not get into it. i have been very frank of the pacific alliance and i address did last may i continue to be on the record on this issue and i will have a meeting with those
sectors that will be affected by this on thursday of this week, in three days. they are very aggressive and i want to win the agreement. and the condition for the rest of the national understanding of what we're talking about. the first thing i want to see is the discussions to be overlooked. i don't want breasts to understand those national divisions so we will put it all on the table. i don't want the government taking sides. until we have of this coal plant but in the meantime let's do it deeply and seriously.
>> do we have one last round of questions? >> than to have that overflow room as the overflow we cannot see people's hands. so one question has to do with the coaster recut new and expanding relationship with china what type of investments are given priority and to pick up on a point that you raised which is the expected impact of the colombian peace accord on columbia in terms of you
have alluded to of network trafficking. i will take one more. >> i am with reuters you mentioned about custer rica taking 200 refugees seekers starting in september and now from the u.s. side there were plans to have tens of thousands of migrants come into a similar program. with more refugees through their country and why only 200? and with the republic of china and to have
relations and at this time. and with the very strong relationship with the republic of china and but that remains with tie one. that we continue to see the trade relations grow benefiting china we have seen investments what we have been built over the next five years that is the road that connects san jose
and it is a very important month so we're in the process of new concessions with the chinese investment in infrastructure and transportation and energy sectors. >> on the impact of the colombian peace agreements i hope we are saying in terms of the increase of the activities of the organization's to the changing conditions in colombia. that it could be generating that fragmentation and the
enhanced activity so we are looking into a very carefully and we have the intelligence agency dealing with that is a fashion and we worked very closely with the colombian authorities we're grateful for their support because of a the specialty of the panamanian government and now we have the capacity to deal with that. we have new aircraft so we have seen a relationship there and that is how a qualified.
so that was part of the proposal so a very good number we can deal with 200 individuals is different with europe and other places and as they told me the way some of these issues are handled. to be handled in a secure manner i will not say 100 percent but a very good persian -- portion those that seek asylum are legitimate and with those
>> case 15 for 74. >> mr. chief justice of it may please the court the government argues said quid pro quo official actions anything within the range that to reach that conclusion in disregard then 90 decision of this court government is wrong. to engage in action the must make a decision or urge someone else to do so. but accessed as decision
makers on the one hand and to influence those on the other. >> yes i think what sun diamond confirms as it refers to an independent decision maker he has not crossed that line. >> i take it all parties concede the active university official would be an official action? >> yes. did the governor cross the line into influencing officials to undertake that action? >> what is the posture of the case under virginia law with the authority or lack of authority to tell the university fusil is engaged in this research? what do they agree on at this point?
>> they agree that the governor had the of bully pulpit authority to direct any university researcher to do anything. that was the jury told that it and if he tried to do that then we would assert he clearly did not. >> would it have made the difference to the testing? >> , your honor if they agreed to the testing they don't think it would have made the the testing because it wouldn't have made a difference on the jury selection because they were not instructed that governor mcdonnell try to influence the decision of as so instructed. >> with a line that you are drawing to test that with
thought hypothetical suppose that somebody had a contractor to one or two or three firms that he was meeting with? and the company paid that they bribed an official to become one of the two were three firms that the billion dollar contract would be merged? is that sufficient? >> i think that would be because the only way you can get those divisions -- decisions in your favor is to get the decision but that is a denial of the decision. the jury was not instructed they did not try to find he had to influence anything
but would have been required to convict if he called up the staff member to say i don't trust him six or his product you large the experts so use your independent judgment. >> i will change that hypothetical little but suppose the governor will make this to help a or b. with members of the staff to talk about it in to sit in on the staff meeting? >> it really isn't just day payment i think that would
violate a law of other laws but anything you try to influence you across the line after all this was not comprehensive. they are added to target the misconduct of the official decision making. and that the party is allowed to speak. to show that this is more of an attempt to influence them the more likely war to get the beneficial task. >> what to leave you with the evidence is the case thank -- for those individuals who decide whether or not to do the studies themselves felt pressured with both
testimony and documents that the pros and cons was discussed and the governor really wants us to do this they are pressuring us to do this we just don't think it is a good idea but the point is, what do we do that he was trying to influence them >> legally you still need to instruct the jury did found that the governor tried to influence them in their decision. >> i thought the crime was taking money knowing it was being paid for the official
act. or all of these examples? so what was his intent the moment they took up many? and why couldn't the jury infer at that moment? >> even assuming to tell them what the official act is the attempt to influence a government decision. >> and these dietary supplements with the tobacco commission funded a study by you need to tell them what that is that is between the district court and court of appeals that the corrupt agreement is hinged upon
those acts in the absence of any direct evidence that they could in for one with a pattern and that makes them hard sell of the judge instructs the jury that official actions are set forth with the indictment that some of those are not official acts. >> certainly was prudent in this case likewise as they came into evidence that
those have crossed the line with any particular decision so the jury in this case justice sotomayor that the most the governor macdonell did was refer. >> this gets back to a the hypothetical. and how close the meeting came to be an official act. but i take it at some point that the official act must beat the exercise of governmental power and then try to influence to persuade the grant of clemency but if you set up a meeting to
appeal to the independent judgment of the decision maker so that simple referral so they avoid those of the time to avoid those official acts. to say we accept that argument but the jury could be asked with the medical faculties so that goes to the point you were making to be properly instructed that you don't see of that evidence in favor of the government even if they
completely agreed with them they still would be required to convict because it is referring somebody to a meeting because that constitutes governmental action. >> but not just us secretary but to manage the governor's schedule and that is your job. that is an official act. but in this case we don't have anything like that so bad deal budget brought here to persuade them to a his cautious. >> can i follow up? so that just suggests the there was a scheduler for a the
president you would think that is part of her job and defenders stood you correctly that falls within the statute. >> that is a very close case . at the end of the day if he were not making a governmental decision or influencing the outcome then you could be violating other laws including a separate provision that prohibits you from undertaking any act in exchange for money that prohibits from taking anything from anyone. but the line has to be that you are making a decision on behalf of the government or urging someone else. >> when you say urging, i
can go back to other commissions with the language of that statute is quite similar to the statute here the opinion of the recommendation for other contact involving an exercise of discretion so in this case is giving money to a group of people to conduct this study. the governor did not do that . but a person who tries to influence the official action and is also in the government's costs, but late though word influence is too broad because every day of the week politicians on
behalf of the government say please look at the case who was convicted last week. said you cannot pick that up. when you use the uh word urge that is not exactly legal with this set of words that we should write the words the criminal activity talking to zero or influencing those that does create the official act those are the words that i cannot find and i appreciate your opinion. and with the district
court's have an attempt to influence the is appropriate to the facts of the case. >> you want influence? my goodness blunders by the dozens go to the secretary of hhs. and they say my constituents as a matter before you over 18 months we would appreciate if you would review that and take action. then they say i did my best. and then he thinks he used his influence. is that a crime? >> absolutely not. >> but the words that you used was an attempt to influence. idled think that is the right word.
>> in the instruction that the judge would give. not in your case but in general. >> can i give you an example from another case? >> to have that standard that would distinguish if they do it criminally or not. >> into have some very useful instructions with page 1083 therefore the official action includes the exercise of the official influence such as the legislature's vote in the informal official influence such as behind-the-scenes of other public officials with the executive branch. >> darr we have that all the letters to say the eviction
notice and by the way she took me to lunch last week. >> i completely agree. >> but that won't do it. >> why in our proposed instructions and needs to be tailored to further selling our case we went on to say merely arranging a meeting or making a spate to this speech alone is not an official act but the key is merely. >> yes, your honor. >> somebody may have the embarrassing question merely when it can or can't. >>, your honor i think the answer is if if the evidence shows and i hate to go back if but if the evidence shows there really was not an attempt of that decision maker one way or another you
send them over for a meeting then you have not crossed the line. >> so the word he is concerned about is the intent to influence. as we can hardly fault the district judge. >> i agree about that was a very good attempt to define because she went even further if she continues along the lines that we put in our instructions favoritism as it influenced to take a telephone call which means it is not an official act so the idea is that i and the stand the influence itself does not solve the problem but the district court judges explain to the jury what they mean.
>> that is not the best definition. >> i think the best definition of the official act is essentially what i tried to articulate at the onset reader need to make the decision or tried in some way to use your influence to pressure or urge or persuade somebody else the government told power. >> i agree with justice breyer and elsie the principle of the second part >> in some cases it might be difficult it is a precise because here the jury was not given any instruction and how all. that is the official act and with that theory of the solicitor general.
>> not sure that it is right that exercise of governmental power to require citizens to do are not to do that governs their conduct. but the janitor who cleans of classroom first then what is the difference? >> so the janitor if he uses government money to buy a janitorial supply that is a governmental contract that is power but if you are cleaning out a class riddled think you are exercising government power so of the independent decision don't try to put your thumb on the scale you have not crossed the line.
because if you really do think making a referral is the official action then it you do have some serious concerns. >> it depends on who is making the call. to say could you look into this matter? if it is the president who calls the get this matter for the constituent that could exercise incredibly the influence. >> still need to tell the jury and here they were never told any way of the attempt to influence. and under these instructions any action within the range of official duty constitutes
action so that letter sent within the range of official duties counts under the of formulation after all is a practice to send those types of letters it is incumbent upon the district court and hear the jury could have agreed even though he was the governor of the state he did not try to influence the actual decision that makes the same type of referrals day in and day out to send the constituent to the appropriate official to have the appropriate judgment. >> do you think the five last official acts, ideas think none of them meet the standards? >> to lancers we don't think any of them meet the standards the jury could
have agreed in there for the erroneous instruction was critical to this case even if they agreed with us. and could have concluded it was an official act and agreed with evidence. >> that might to be right of the winning argument but if we could just focus on them. >> page 60. and to encourage the university and that is falling within your own definition. >> can improve with the indictment on the case and
then to show that your argument is efficiency rather this is not an official act. in the argument is all the view of the facts they still would have been required because you could not have concluded just to be clear. >> but then third contacting officials in this state research. >> is that in an official act? >> i would encourage them yes if they had proof that
would have been an official act but first the jury was not properly instructed and second he didn't urge those university researchers for the remainder of my time to come direct contact with a luncheon held at the mansion and then to testify for the two things and that those that try to push those researchers decisions and then the one time he asks for something and gave johnnie williams a polite note. >> they eggs mr. chief justice to please the court the car bouts from the concept of an official act
with meetings and phone calls that if he did not further toward aliens or attempt to influence with access to the government. >> there is an extraordinary document by the council of president obama of george bush and former white house counsel to clinton and george h. w. bush and president reagan in they say is that held to cripple the ability to fulfill their role in the representative democracy. they agreed on anything. [laughter] but something as sensitive on this to put their names on it says cannot be the contact.
>> this does not make it correct that the fundamental misconception of what government actually does in to look at the implications and that people can pay for access and be charged to have a direction made to another governmental official and if somebody said they are having college tuition issues whether to appeal the case to take the beating. >> that we really like the solicitor general and then they call you up he just wants to sit down him persuade to support his case
>> one of the absolutely critical but if somebody pays me but talk about the quid pro quo. >> taking a meeting that the president give special access to the high dollar donors to of meetings with government officials. >> certainly not justice kennedy because the critical issue of the government can improve the quid pro quo in now with contras -- campaign contributions. >> it is a day campaign contribution is an expensive lunch at that. >> because the quid side is not limited the government
has offered continuously so we don't have the limitation on the free side but possibly a with the frame of mind. but i would remove any limitation why is that a problem? to very fundamental reasons. it is not because i a.m. in favor of dishonest behavior. i begins at the that is dishonest. but from criminal law as the weapon of choice and of criminal law goes as far issue one there to serious problems political figures will not know what they're supposed to do where not supposed to do. and second i called the separation of powers problem. the department of justice
with the executive branch is the ultimate arbiter of how their behavior and in the united states state local national. for better or worse behavior that is common especially with lunch or a baseball ticket now suddenly to have that type of power toward criminal prosecutor who is virtually uncontrolled girl -- uncontrollable is dangerous with a sense. and nothing to do with this petitioner as fundamental of the separation of powers problem and i am not quite certain they will put
politicians at risk this is a very basic separation of powers problem. in judo what the right words are i will tell you right now with a person has lunch and then goes over the antitrust division to say meet with my constituents to criminalize that behavior someone some words that will help that is difficult and basic problem as i can think of. >> i came here to argue that the official action is not limited by an arbitrary
witness by the petitioner of what is called accessible think that is the way to look at it but to recognize it has multiple elements with the bribery offense. and then to engage in the official act. >> but you're missing the part of the quid pro quo that is $1,000 or $500. bid is the other side of the equation. >> it would be helpful with the court better at issue because that does not have to do all the work state to have somebody engaged in the official capacity which
going to lunch it will not be in the deaths occurred'' pro to show that the person who allows themselves to be in contact to make a referral to another agency only if you buy me lunch. and there are many regulations that carved out the situation that they think is important protection. >> the uk and implied of a contract overtime and there is no preconditions but after the lunch in the contact takes place it is a
conspiracy there. >> i do agree justice kennedy that with the separate concurrence with the quid pro quo requirement in this case but there is a critical protection and a requirement to showing something beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury if you have or jerry conduct that does strictly limit when people can refuse. >> you say there are certain safe harbors by federal regulations? what about federal employees or officers? what do they have to do with the governor or the state employee? >> they don't this case has been litigated on the submission of 201 of meeting of official actions with the armed services statue and as
a result they have engaged very heavily of the effects of official think the question from justice breyer was directed at them there are different issues with respect to state officials but the mens rea requirement i'm talking about is applicable. >> but this doesn't answer the question of justice breyer, if you tell the senator don't worry the jury has to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt that is tough. [laughter] that was your answer. >> justice kennedy, of the requirement for criminal law approving something beyond a reasonable doubt is substantial. >> what are they trying to prove? of course this is a state case not federal is that the state officials but a federal law, i don't know i will leave briefly
involved in political campaigns but it seems that a candidate will go out with hundreds of people. hundreds. everybody will give him lunch and he wants to meet as many people as possible he may receive a raincoat or all kinds of things and disappointed does become very dishonest but that is a matter for campaign law. those involved in the justice department we have received many letters of the antitrust division had he looked into such and such? i know perfectly well the senator was to go back to the constituency i did my best that is all. now you say to the jury the fact that i just gave you you look into this state of mind of which the amount given is someone indicative of the nature of the letter
is someone indicative if he writes a personal writing at the bottom is somewhere indicative and we will let you 12 people work out what was really in the senator's mind then that is a recipe for the department of justice and up prosecutors. in the elected officials who are not necessarily be heating honestly. , looking for the fall line that will control the shift of power that i fear without allowing too much honesty on the other side. >> that is what i want your views. >> i will push back because the line that the petitioner has urged a is for corruption not for drawing a safe harbor for public officials. basically he has urged the court to hold back pay for access if somebody does not
put a fumble on the scale to tell the criminal division take the meeting make a recommendation in your best judgment just take the meeting i can take money for that and the message that would be sent on the scheme of government which public officials for not committing bribery when all they did was arranged meetings with other governmental officials without putting a thumb on the scale of the decision sends a terrible message to citizens. >> we're looking for limiting principle he started to say something about campaign contributions i know that does not involve that it truly a campaign contribution can be the up quid? >> absolutely. >> with that every day occurrence but it is very widespread.
>> teeeight -- justice alito the gratitude of campaign contributions is not a crime as quid pro quo it is. >> that is why one under review. >> if i could just follow up , if a senator rights to a federal agency and says this union or this company is critical to the company of my state and by the way does not say this but the biggest contributors to his campaign what would not make that a crime? not beyond a reasonable doubt? the reason why he was urging this meeting was because the entity happen to be a of a big supporter? separating lawful from unlawful conduct ? >> this court has addressed that very issue in the