tv Road to the White House CSPAN March 24, 2014 1:00am-1:14am EDT
any more success than these groups? >> it is an exclusive that mine is the best, but it is slightly different. the aclu lawsuit was ruled against. the judge either threw it out or said it was constitutional. the other lawsuit is in the same court that mine will go to, and the judge has previously ruled it unconstitutional but stayed the ruling, and it is still active. ours is going to the same court and has a similar subject. the claimant suit is in the same court in mine that will go to the judges previously ruled unconstitutional, stayed the ruling and will be upheld. for legal reasons, it might have a chance of going to the supreme court. not so much that my case has to go, because many people do not think it applies at all. you do not own those are records. i think they are jointly held. the rights agreed not to tell your neighbor who you are calling so the acknowledged
that. it is acknowledging that you have an interest in those records. the most important is and at least three or four supreme court justices that have indicated in this digital age, think about it. it is differ from 1975 when the last case was held on record. it is also different, it was about one suspect's phone tap and we are now to about 300 million americans. it is different. i am hoping will get all the way to the supreme court. but earlier, you condemned director of nsa for allegedly lying in front of congress and you said he is very explicitly have broken the law. does that mean you think he should be sent to prison? >> you do not get sent to prison until you are proven guilty. he deserves a trial.
the interesting thing is i am not an outlier on this in the sense that seven members of the intelligence committee or judiciary committee have signed a letter saying the same thing. i think it hurts us because we do have to rely on something's being a secret. the power to capture people and incarcerate and even a power to kill people. that power needs to be overseen and they have to be honest with us. if the people in charge are not honest to congress and they are spying on congress, i have grave doubts about everything they are telling me. i think it is important. one of the reasons i bring it up is, they want to throw the book at a snowden and i have mixed feelings. you cannot reveal six all the time because it would lead to chaos but he wanted to reveal something he thought was unconstitutional. for all the people who want to
throw the book at snowden, i like to contract. not a people out of them for clapper. you want to throw the book at snowden but not clapper. they both broke the law technically you want to decide what justice is. clapper should be tried for perjury. [applause] >> you say this all the time but how would you classify edward snowden, on the one hand, a hero or traitor? if there was another edward snowden out there, would you encourage them to speak up? >> i think the ultimate decision of hero or villain, history will sort it out. i think his intentions were
good. here is the problem. we have 400 or 500 people here and we are talking to new recruits from the cia, should i tell all of them or decide when it is unconstitutional and reveal secrets any time? it could lead to chaos. at the same time, i am upset about what our intelligence community is doing. we may not have known if snowden did not reveal it. on the one hand, you have chaos. bradley manning, he was 20 million pages. there's a chance intelligence could endanger our agents. i am not against spying. we have people gathering intelligence around the world and i think -- and i do not think we can allow willy-nilly release of documents. i think it's a real problem. i have mixed feelings. >> so, you post a very interesting question during your address.
you asked about potential cia spying on senate computers. to quote you, "if the cia is spying on congress, who can or will stop them?" what would be your answer? >> the interesting thing is, this is what senator feinstein said in her speech, they came across something. they were given access by the cia. the search engine was created by the cia. they say and i am going for what they are telling me, they said they found a report called the panetta review which looked into
previous activist of the cia, interrogation and detention and they guided the search engine. if that is true, the cia may have said, oops, we do not want you to read that. if it was a mistake, you can say that, but why should the cia be able to withhold an internal review from the people overseeing the cia? that is the arrogance they think they are in charge and it is too important to let members of congress know about. if members do not know, the people you have interaction with, who is in charge? you cannot have people not elected in charge of your government. that's a very definition of tyranny. it is very important thing and also want to make the point that i am not saying any of these people are equal or they have bad motives. a lot of them have good intentions and maybe they are not abusing their power at all. the danger is allowing that much power to go unchecked and not be reviewed by congress. >> we obviously do not have all of the information about the
recent scandal, but cia hacking into senate computers it do prove to be true, then who do you think should be held responsible? the cia director or an official higher up? >> a good question. i am not sure if i know the answer. brennan was affirmed a couple of years ago. i did the filibuster. he said it did not happen. ask brennan what about the panetta review? why can't congress read it? if i am not allowed to look at it as something we have to realize, much of what goes on in the intelligence community, i am not allowed to read. ok? intelligence is allowed to read things i cannot. and he had of intelligence is allowed to read things that others cannot. some other prohibitions have come forward because the cia call up senator feinstein and says, we have been collecting e-mails for the past 10 years and they will be revealed tomorrow. we are not in the loop on this stuff and we are not overseeing
it. they are doing what they want. when they get caught, they say it is not oversight. it is incredibly important not just because of abuse that may be occurring but abuse that could happen if somebody took the reins of power and really wanted to use it for malevolent purposes. >> we have time for one more question for this interview. this is on a different topic. there's been pretty extensive media coverage of your recent visit to places that do not usually vote republican like students at howard university and berkeley. [laughter] uc berkeley.
[applause] there has been quite a lot of speculation that these efforts constitute an attempt on your part to broaden your personal appeal in anticipation of a 2016 presidential run. how do you respond to these claims? [applause] >> maybe. part of it might be that the republican party must evolve or adapt or die. i was telling somebody, remember domino's admitted they had bad crust? [laughter] i think the republican party admitted it, a bad crust. we need a different kind of party. [applause]
one of the things that really upset me was we passed legislation really done by republicans and democrats that allowed an american citizen to be indefinitely detained without a trial and i had a conversation with another senator and i said, does it mean a citizen can be sent to guantánamo bay with no trial? he said, yes, they are dangerous. it begs the question, who gets to decide if you are dangerous or not? the reason why it is important, people believe in individual rights, this really bothers us. it is a bigger audience than that. think about it. if you are african american, japanese american, jewish american, hispanic, have there been times when the government did not treat you fairly?
have there been times when you said the war on drugs has had a racial outcome? the law should not have a racial outcome. maybe then people will say i always hated those republicans, our crust sucks. maybe there are new republicans. maybe a new gop. we will see. thank you. [applause] >> we have questions from the audience. we pass on note cards. i will read some of them. do you think the issue of privacy could bridge the
partisan divide in congress? >> yes, there is a right/left nexus on this. one of the persons i work most closely with on nsa, spying abuse is a ron wyden. we do not agree on economic liberty issues. he is not so much for low taxes. but on this, we're almost at 100% agreement on intelligence issues. a way you can get things done that compromises as splitting the difference but compromise means your party label is not as important as the issue is. i honestly would tell you if it was a republic or a democratic president, i would give the same speech. i think a ron wyden would, too. i read some in the others, what happened to the good liberals
around here? you can, i think, even somebody was not progressive, they are honestly good or good on civil liberties. the president was when he was in senate. he was much better on civil liberties than he is now. >> next question from the audience. [laughter] if elected president, how would you respond to the recent increase of executive power? >> one of the biggest problems in the last 100 years, not for public or democrat, has been increase in power of the executive. we have thousands of orders written by the executive. montesquieu wrote and was big on the separation of power and checks and balances as said when the executives begin to legislate, that it becomes a part of tyranny. the president not allowed to legislate him on a legislature -- legislate, only a legislature can. it's a messy process. everybody has to come to grips and it is not easy.