>> ago had. >> yeah. we have assessed different countries with different national security system. and indeed the problem of the interplay between the objective of protecting nationals could under one hand and protecting privacy and data protection and personal data. we have also within the union and there are ways but there are ways to find equilibrium between these two objectives. what eu has done throughout this, the criteria that we've applied for the united states, also by the countries in which we have decisions like japan, korea, uk, israel and others. .. looking at the court

>> hello, welcome to washington post live. i'm leann anchor of washington post live and co-author of early 202 newsletter. thank you for joining with us today, we're speaking with the senator's number two democrat senator durbin of illinois. it been a big week for you, you just got back to the n.a.t.o. conference and we'll talk about that in a little bit. i want to talk about a timely hot topic, that's supreme court ethics. you have announced you'll take

up legislation next week as chair of the judiciary committee in your committee, that would require the supreme court to adopt an ethics plan. so, first of all, what sort of ethics do you think that the supreme court should adopt? >> well, the bottom line is this, they should have the same code of ethics as every other federal judge in america. those nine members of the supreme court are being treated differently. in fact, they're being exempt from requirements that face members of congress and other federal judges and the disclosures have come out recently, lavish gifts and circumstances that are hard to explain, involving these justices, really compel us to do something for the sake of the court. my initial reaction was to turn to the chief justice and say please move on this now, i approached him with the subject for the first time 11 years ago. he said i wasn't going to do anything. i felt with the latest

disclosures he might change his mind and i reached out to him in writing. would you appear before our committee or work for the goal of the standard and he basically refused and he said whatever the rules and the laws are now, that's all that we need. but i think most americans would disagree. >> and of course, this latest push comes after you mentioned the spate of new reports about trips, gifts from some of the justices, including samuel alito and clarence thomas, but republicans say that it is not congress' job to dictate how the supreme court operates. is this legislative overreach? >> no, it's not, and let me tell you, i think our role in the situation, congress' role in the situation is very clear. we are not trying to influence the decision making on any case, that's clearly the

responsibility and constitutional right of the supreme court under the constitution as written, but in terms of the administration of the supreme court, congress has responsibilities that include something as basic as choosing the number of justices. you have to go back to 1869 we decided there would be nine supreme court justices done by statute. that number has held for so many years, but it was a congressional decision. when it comes to funding the supreme court or the basic rules of conduct and we have that role in history and we still do and showed last year we had a bipartisan bill by senators cornyn and coons related to stock ownership and decisions by the federal courts involving defendants or plaintiffs who represented the stock ownership, judges were asked to recuse themselves from cases where there are conflicts

of interest. it was passed on a bipartisan basis in the congress, it was sent to the supreme court and all the other federal courts and they abided by it. they said we're going to live by that standard so it's not a radical idea that congress comes up with an ethical standard and the court follows it. >> why, you know, justin roberts has said that the court is adept at policing itself, that it doesn't need to adopt additional ethics rules. how does that differ, i guess? there's ethics rules like you said in the lower court, ethics rules for senators as well and for elected officials. how did it become that the supreme court has been able to get around any sort of concrete plan? >> well, that's a good question. no one has challenged them before and that's what we're could go next week in the senate judiciary committee. we're going to establish a code

of ethics and requirements for disclosure of gifts and the like, as well as a standard torre cuesal of-- a standard for recusal of cases and standards to follow, it hasn't been done before, and it needs to be done now. and it's hard for me to understand how chief justice roberts can rationalize before the public. when justice alito says i don't have to report a trip on a private jet to a fishing vacation because the seat on the plane that i was going to occupy would have been vacant if i didn't sit in. think about the logic, the first five seats anytime he wishes or to meals in restaurant if the food is not used. i mean, that's something that's not defensible and indicates the position many justices, at

least some justices have taken. >> and i've mentioned clarence thomas and justice alito who are two of the subjects of these, you know, these reports of accepting gifts and travel, but also, this week, the associated press reported that the supreme court justice sonia sotomayor made more than $3 million selling her book on there's pressures on universities and to purchase her book, would that be a violation? >> could be, not going in complete form, but i tell you the rules and proposals we're talking about rules and disclosure will apply to every supreme court justice whether appointed by a democratic president or a republican president, makes no difference when it comes to ethics.

>> and you expanded your investigation yesterday, you and senator whitehouse, your democratic colleague, sent letters to leonard alito, paul singer and other billionaires about the trips with the justice alito before you had sent a letter to harlan crowe, a close friend of clarence thomas for sort of that relationship and the trips he has received. harlan crowe did not respond to you. what happens if leonard leo, if paul singer does not respond to you? >> well, in fairness harlan crowe, i don't know personally, his attorney got in touch with us and we're negotiating, and there was an effort made there in that situation. the other inquiries are relatively new and hopefully we receive responses from these very wealthy individuals as to

the questions that we've sent to them. but of course, there's, as i said, everything is on the table and there is an option if they fail to cooperate on a voluntary basis, the issue is a subpoena from the judiciary committee. >> and do you plan to send inquiries to the colleges or the institutions that sonia sotomayor's staff asked to purchase a large sum of her books during her press tours? >> leann, everything is on the table regardless of the justice involved in it. we want to treat them all fairly, give them an opportunity to explain the situation. some of them have already done it. justice alito preempted the disclosure of charges against him with his own personal column in i believe the wall street journal and some justices are stepping up and telling their side of the story. i wasn't particularly impressed with justice alito's side of

the story, but he can do that and each one of them can do that as well. we reserve the right to continue the investigation if more information is needed. >> i want to ask you about some news that my colleagues and i broke this morning in our newsletter the early 202 about today in the senate appropriations committee, senator chris van hollen your democratic colleague from maryland plans to bring up an amendment that would tie -- that would withhold some supreme court funding until chief justice john roberts submits an ethics plan. would you-- do you back -- you're on the committee, the appropriations committee, so will you support that effort today? >> i have seen disclosures this morning as well that chris van hollen says he's not going forward with that effort as long as the judiciary committee

is considering on the supreme court. and i was happy to see that and hope we can work with chris operate other matter in the future, but for now we have a plan and i hope it gives us a chance to execute. >> great. so senator van hollen is not going to be moving forward with that. is that going to be a discussion at the very least? >> i don't know the answer to that, i'm just really relaying to you what i read this morning, with his latest decision, i hope i haven't misstated it, but it was this morning. >> and i have a question from a viewer, vicky from massachusetts how likely that the supreme court will adopt ethics rules either through a statement or through your own? >> i'm hoping it would be done by the court for the sake of the court and chief justice

roberts, of course, it's his court, it will go down in history as roberts court and what we have now sadly is a report that the supreme court is at the lowest ebb in terms of public opinion, their honesty and integrity. listen the supreme court doesn't have an army of political communications and experts, it has its reputation and the reputation has to be preserved. i thought chief justice roberts would have responded by now, but i hope he does soon. he has the authority today, tomorrow, or any day he chooses to solve this problem, to establish a code of ethics that is responsible and reflects what other branches of government follow and to establish standards of disclosure, so that every single justice knows they'll have to answer for their conduct in public, all public officials and public servants who do their jobs in good faith do that already. >> senate minority leader mitch

mcconnell has been a big defender of the court, of course, he played a huge role in confirming three of the justices, conservative justices that are currently on the court. this week he also wrote an op-ed in "the washington post" for he defends the court again, but he also pushes back on what he says is a liberal push that there is a conservative super majority on the court and he instead says there's quote, politically unpredictable center. is he right? >> no, and i think the spate of decisions that we've seen recently and over the last year, starting with the dobbs decision and others, confirm our suspicions, and just look at the facts and i think mitch would have to acknowledge what i'm about to say is a fact. when donald trump puts together a list of potential supreme court appointments, having been cleared by leo and the

federalist society, it's pretty clear that this is a joint effort by very conservative groups, special interest, dark money groups, and the republican party as toward what will be the future of the court, at least what is likely to be the future of the court, to argue that this is an objective undertaking is to ignore the obvious. the federalist society was the secret handshake of every federal nominee that came to us during the trump administration. i asked that question over and over again and got preposterous answers. and asked the nominees why did you join the federalist society. was i a member? i used to go to lunch there, interesting to meet with lawyers and chat. was that it? yes, over and over again, coincidence, and it was clear from the start in judicial nominees in the hopes they would follow the conservative

line while on the court. the supreme court is not above that. >> conservatives have been mobilizing around the issue of the court for decades, essentially since roe v. wade was passed more than 50 years ago now, or decided i should say. has there been a shift? is there something more that democrats, that liberals need to do? does this need to become more of a voting issue for democrats? >> well, i'm afraid to say that what the republicans have done through the federalist society and leonard leo is to politicize this process to incredible point. i mean, when you look back in history and look at the votes that confirmed scalia or ruth bader ginsburg, you see real bipartisanship. that's start to go disappear when it comes to selections for nom fees for the courts. too often it's a partisan

selection process and i see that every day in the committee. there are exceptions, i won't name names for fear of getting them in trouble with their own parties, but some on the other side have been bipartisan on the selection process, but by and large, it's a much more partisan process. >> and speaking of that, there is this longstanding senate tradition called blue slips explain it to the audience before i get to the question. and what blue slips are, it's a tradition where the senator from the state of the judicial nominee, they send in a blue slip essentially giving a nod of approval that this nominee can move forward that there are no major objections. senator durbin, you have received a lot of pressure from the left to get rid of this blue slip tradition especially as a lot of nominations are coming up and have come up in conservative--

from conservative red states and also, most recently you met with a congressional black caucus last week and they sent you a letter i believe this week asking you to get rid of blue slips, saying it's a vestige of the jim crow era and attempts to restrict black judges from being confirmed or nominated or getting a hearing. what is your stance on blue slips at this point? are you going to keep this tradition? >> i support the blue slip process, but i said to the republicans that unless they engage in this process in good faith, i'm not going to be held to that standard. what it boils down to, you're right, in history the blue slip process has been used for nefarious purposes for my point of view, for racial purposes for those who wanted to exclude certain democratic appointments in states, southern states usually, individuals who would be open to changes to race,

consideration, but they've been uses for the blue slips for totally different purposes, it really means an individual senator has the right to decide whether or not someone is going to get a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary in their state. i will tell you as an example, during the trump administration, what i did was to engage with the white house directly in agreeing to a bipartisan list of nominees would suggest to the judiciary committee so i turned in blue slips for trump nominees, in return, the trump white house put forward names of nominees that i suggested. so, it was kind of a give and take on a bipartisan basis and i think it worked fairly. during the trump years 121 blue slips were sent in by democratic senators by nominees that came before the judiciary committee so it was very bipartisan in that regard. however, during that time

period of time in the trump years some democratic senators used the blue slip to keep federal judicial slots vacant in the hopes there would be a democratic president, some of those have been filled now so i think it can be misused and i said i'll never stand by using a blue slip for purposes of discrimination based on race or gender or sexual orientation, but i support the blue slip as long as it's done on a bipartisan basis. >> now i'm going to switch to n.a.t.o. and foreign policy. you just returned from lithuania from the n.a.t.o. summit. what was-- just first very broadliment broadly? what did you learn there that you didn't know. >> there were jeanne shaheen, thom tillis led our bipartisan visit. it meant a lot to me personally.

my mother was born in lithuania, i saw lithuania during soviet times, a sad state of affairs and think now it was a gathering place for the freedom loving countries from the western world really was a tribute to how far that country, that little country has come because of their determination to be free. but what happened at that conference was significant. it was the worst week so far for vladimir putin because the alliance grew in strength and number and determination to defeat him in ukraine and secondly, we had other countries come from around the world, republic of south korea's president, as well as the prime minister of australia met as well so it was a gathering of freedom inspired leaders declaring to putin that this conduct in ukraine is unacceptable and i want to get -- he's been very shy and humble on this category and

that's joe biden. the fact of the matter is, n.a.t.o. alliance was on the rocks when he became president. the member nations really seriously asked him what is the future of n.a.t.o.? we've listened to donald trump and don't know that it has a future and this president said i'm going to make it stronger with ukraine and n.a.t.o. is stronger than it's ever been in history and thank goodness it is, averting disasters like ukraine and commitments to stand together for freedom. >> do you support the fact that ukraine should not become a member of n.a.t.o. until after the war is over? >> i think that that's fundamental. it's always been the case in the n.a.t.o. alliance for obvious reasons. article five, the n.a.t.o. agreement, basically says if you attack any country, n.a.t.o. alliance will respond. and that was only invoked after

9/11, the n.a.t.o. alliance says it's an attack on the united states, and great britain and other n.a.t.o. members for the alliance. i would say i'm to mr. zelenskyy, i'm on your side, the caucus in the senate, dedicated for victory for all and the notion that we would bring into the alliance an n.a.t.o. during war, the president has never asked for that and mr. zelenskyy never asked for that, but it's an issue unresolved and shouldn't be tested by zelenskyy. let's beat putin fair and square and evict him from your country and then of course, i totally support ukraine's membership in n.a.t.o. >> do you support president biden's decision to send cluster to ukraine? >> and i struggle with that,

historically had questions about it, but ukraine asked for this ammunition because they're running out of artillery shells. the russians obviously have much greater resources, larger population and throwing the kitchen sink at the poor people of ukraine for months and months and as the ukrainian army is reaching a shortage in those munitions, they asked for this cluster munition up to 80 bomblets inside each charge, can be the first, particularly in the trenches where these russian troops are hiding. they asked for it, the president after consideration said i'm going to give it to them. 10,000 of those munitions were released to the ukrainians, at least that number so far. i think it's a practical reality that the ukrainians falling short of ammunition need help. >> senator in your discussions in lithuania at the n.a.t.o. conference, was there anything

that ukraine asked for that they had not asked for before? is there something new that they need? and also, did you get a better sense of when more defense funding for ukraine will be requested? >> on both counts, i would say that there's no specifics that we were given or discussed. there was no new level of the munitions or equipment or ammunition beyond the cluster munitions that was even mentioned and secondly, the decision is to supplemental request in the united states did not come up, but the request made of freedom loving members around the world and the n.a.t.o. alliance are going to stand by ukraine until the moment of victory, that victory will be defined by the ukrainian people and i think we're moving toward it now. >> senator, we're completely out of time. i appreciate you spending 25 minutes with us this morning, i know you're extremely busy.

thank you very much. >> thanks. >> and thank you for watching this program and other programs. please visit washington post.com live. until next time. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more, including wow. >> the world has changed today the first reliable internet connection is something no one can live without. wow is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value and choice and now more than ever, it all starts with great internet. >> wow. >> wow supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. # c-span is the place is turn for the national governor's meeting starts liver from atlanta city today beginning at

10 a.m. eastern c-span 3, governors will address issues youth mental health, infant health, disaster response and first lady jill biden wil also speak. and then washington journal on friday, outgoing nga chair phil murphy and incoming nga chair cox make an appearance. and coverage continues on 10 a.m. on c-span2 on public and civil discourse. watch comprehensive coverage of the national governor's association summer meeting live on c-span 3 and friday on washington journal and c-span2, our mobile video app or c-span.org. >> american history tv saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story.

at 7 p.m. eastern, a conversation about the declaration of independence with martin decaro, most of the washington times history as it happens podcast and denver brunsman and 9:40 p.m. on the presidency and how it worked, hoover versus roosevelt, the political differences between herbert hoover and franklin r roosevelt, watch american history tv saturday on c-span2 and find a full program guide or watch anytime at c-span.org/history. ♪♪ >> nonfiction book lovers, c-span has a number of podcasts for you, listening to nonfiction authors and influencers and on q & a, wide ranging conversations with nonfiction authors and others

who are making things happen. book note plus episodes are hour long conversation that is regularly feature fascinating authors of nonfiction books on a wide variety of topics and about books of the nonfiction book publishing industry. industry updates and best sellers list. find all of our podcasts by downloading the podcast or our website, c-span.org/podcast. and now, more from "the washington post." this conversation with john sullivan, a former u.s. ambassador to russia. he talks about ukraine and the political future of russian president vladimir putin following the wagner group rebellion. >> hello and welcome to washington post live. i'm joined by john sullivan.

mr. ambassador, welcome to washington post live. >> hey, misty, great to be with you. >> thank you, mr. ambassador. let's dive in i'm hoping you can share your expertise on vladimir putin with our audience and the extraordinary events of recent weeks and the rebellion by the russian wagner group led by evgeni prigozhin. how do you see this on president putin's grip on power and do you think that putin is more or less dangerous after this incident? >> well, it certainly affects his grip on power in several ways. first, it affects his standing in russia, in his own country with the military, with the security services, with the elite around him and the perception of his own people. second, it affects the most

important thing he has going on, which is the war in ukraine and the special military operation and whether he'll be able to continue to pursue that special military operation without what was the most successful element of the russian forces there, which was wagner. without wagner, whether russia will be able to continue to resist the ukrainian counter offensive and then finally, he's used wagner around the world, particularly in africa. libya, mali, central african republic, sudan. what does it do to his influence and russia's influence in other countries and all called into question boo this extraordinary mutiny over 36 hours in ukraine and russia. >> we saw some reports today that prigozhin is actually still in russia, it's difficult to know what to trust when we're getting reports out of the president of