i also want to say that it is wonderful to be here with you all. i have already looked out into

the audience and i have seen some former senate judiciary colleagues and friends, and i am just delighted that we have this opportunity to engage with these two incredible men to talk about an issue that is so very important to us. i have been getting to know judge ludick who is also distinguished practitioner fill out our institute at uva, and secretary johnson as we overlapped the obama administration. i have had the opportunity to get to know them better in recent months. to say that i am a fan is an understatement. these are two people who are extremely busy and at the same time, are, of public severance whether they are in or out of government at a time when it is so desperately needed. so i want to say publicly, thank you for the work you all are doing and for your leadership on this task force. [applause] mary gave us some of those

sobering statistics, and i am going to date myself by saying that hopefully some of you can remember this with me --remember when johnny carson -- i am old enough to remember johnny carson dash for jay leno needs to do that met on the street interviews and they would talk to people and i wouldn't know how many senators they had, who their elected representatives were, and you would think, oh, ok. and we just kind of let it go. but now we understand what happens when citizens don't understand fully their government or their democracy, and how those things interact with their lives. and we understand what that leads to when we don't have well-informed citizenry that is not only committed to a robust democratic institutions and practices, but also the democratic culture, the health of the body politic that supports those institutions and those practices.

that is the focus of the work that we're doing at the institute, the work we are doing -- the work this task force is working on and that is what we want to talk about today. we want to highlight the importance of the work that lawyers can and must do is, in fact, we are to live up to the fact that democracy is not inevitable. it's not like the air we breathe. it isn't just there, we have to work for it, create it and sustain it. with that, i went to turn to judge luttig and secretary johnson for conversation. but to remind you that we are saving time at the end so you will have an opportunity to ask your questions at the end so that those questions ready. i want to start with a question to the first view, judge luttig. if you all are both really, really busy and you have both spent time in government serving in different ways. there are a lot of people that would have walked into the

sunset and said i am going to focus on my family, on my practice, focus on my boards and i will vote and call it a day. and that is the exact opposite of what you all have done. i am curious, what it is about the state of american democracy today that led you to answer mary's call and to say, yes, i want to chair this task force? what is happening in your estimation that makes the work of the task force so judge luttig: important? thank you, melody. thank you for creating the task force on american democracy. the secretary may be busier than all of you, but i am not. [laughter] or at least i didn't think i was. [laughter] but for me,, it was this. i guess it has been almost two

years ago that i had the honor of testifying before the january 6 committee on the attack on the united states capitol. and the first line of my testimony was to this effect -- a stake was driven through the heart of america's democracy on january 6 2021. and today, our democracy teeters on a nice edge -- knife's edge. two years thence to today, if anything, america's democracy and the rule of law are in graver peril than they were on january 2021.

the statistics that mary read you tell the story. and it is a frightening story. millions and millions of americans today, for the first time in american history, the first time in almost 250 years since the founding of our nation, no longer believed in our elections. they no longer trust in our elections. they no longer believed in our democracy. and increasingly, they no longer believe in the rule of law. i recently said that american democracy and the rule of law are the heart and soul of our nation. and that we are fast becoming

unsold -- unsouled, in america. so, dramatically, it has been the effect on our nation of the events of the past three-plus years. democracy is, as melody said, it's not just like the air that we breathe. for our discussion purposes today. it is just the opposite. we, the people, we have to continually breathe life into american democracy and the rule of law. and if we stop for one minute, then just like the human body, our democracy and our rule of law will die. now, for all of us, it never

occurred to us in our lifetime that we would ever, ever be called upon to support, defend, and preserve our democracy, our constitution and the rule of law. think about that especially for lawyers, because lawyers are uniquely positioned, qualified, but also obligated, obligated by oath to support and defend our democracy, our constitution, and our rule of law. we take an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states. but all of us americans have an obligation, whether we take an oath to do so or not, to support

our democracy and our rule of law. but we never have ever thought that we would need to. well, that day has arrived. and you not only need to stand up and affirm what we believe and what we do not believe about america, our democracy, our constitution, and our rule of law, if we don't do that today, then tomorrow we'll wake up and find we no longer have a democracy or a rule of law. and we truly will have witnessed -- borne witness to and hopefully not sat on the sidelines for what might be

the unsouling of america. melody: secretary johnson, judge luttig has talked about the unsouling of america and raised this issue to a level of crisis. i think there are a number of people who shrug their shoulders, who may not see it that way, who may see this as a partisan issue. but you also answered this call. why? secretary johnson: so -- good morning everybody. i took the oath of office to support and defend the constitution four times in my career, six if you include the ceremonial ones. and interestingly, the first time i took deal with them to support and defend the constitution from was january 3, 1989, administered by the u.s.

attorney in the southern district of new york, at rudy giuliani. so the price of getting me to speak here is i have to tell at least one more story. [laughter] and i am in the room full of litigators. how many of you have been federal prosecutors in your career? raise your hand. not many, but a couple of you. i was in the u.s. attorney's office for about three weeks, and judge luttig will not appreciate this because he is an appellate judge. [laughter] melody: all fancy. [laughter] secretary johnson: what happened below. [laughter] i was assigned my first trial. i had been out of law school for seven years. i was very anxious to try a case. this was my opportunity. it was a two-date drug by and

-- buy and bust case involving a postal inspector and someone undercover who had sold him two bags of pcp in manhattan. but to me, it was the crime of the century. [laughter] so i wrote my opening statement and practice my opening statement and then i had to practice my opening statement in front of my supervisors. and the night before the trial, they said, no, rip that up. this is how you deliver an opening statement in the u.s. attorney's office of the southern district of new york. if you walk to the you go over to the defense table and you point at the defendant and say that men sold drugs on the corner of 28th and 9th, and i will show you how. you go back to the lectern and deliver your opening statement and every sentence must begin with the words "the evidence will show." at the end of your opening

statement, you must say the same thing, whether it is a two-day bust or one month-long corruption trial. listen to the evidence, listen to the law as judge luttig will instruct you, and use your common sense. if you do those three things, i am confident you will find the defendant guilty as charged. three years later, i'm now a defense attorney. southern district of new york. my first trial is a defense attorney, i got to finally deliver that opening statement that i wanted to deliver for so long. [laughter] i told my client, it was a small drug case and i was doing this pro bono, i said the prosecutor will walk over, he will point you -- [laughter] i was thinking about what will happen to me. it is a very emotional thing. if you feel tears welling up, let it out.

i'm delivering my opening statement. i did something you should never do as a trial attorney. i departed for my script and i was just connecting with the jury. eye contact. i can tell i was getting through. then, i forgot my flight plan. i forgot how i was going to end my opening statement, my fantastic opening statement. so, i reverted to form. in conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, i want you to do three things. i want you to listen to the evidence. i want you to listen to the law as the judge will instruct you. i want you to use your common sense. if you do all three of those things, i am confident you will find the defendant guilty. [laughter] i sat down. it was my drop mic moment. i sat down, and i could hear the court reporter sitting about as far away as the judge is.

"you meant not guilty, not guilty." sure enough, the next day's transcript read "not guilty."> [laughter] [laughter] anyway, why are we here? we are here because -- i am proud to say that melody is part of our task force as well. we are here because we took our oath seriously and we believe it is a lifetime oath. we as lawyers have similar obligations, whether in government or private life, to support and defend the constitution. we are very different people. one of us is tall, one of us is a little shorter. one of us has a head of boyish hair. one of us is a democrat, one of us is a republican. one of us is from texas, one of us is from new york. but we all believe in the same constitution and we took an o

ath. we both believe the democracy is under threat. we would like to say we live in the most enduring democracy in the world. we always have orderly and peaceful transitions of presidential power. that is no longer true. and you heard mary read the poll numbers about americans' attitude towards democracy. in my judgment, democracy is like water. you don't think about its importance until somebody tries to take it away from you. democracy is like oxygen. you don't wake up every morning thanking god for the air you breathe unless someone tries to take it away from you. in my post government life, i recognize that this is the most important way in which i could contribute to the public good. by joining up with judge luttig,

who is one of my heroes, in this cause. i have been gratified by the level of interest we have seen on the listening tour we have been on around the country. one challenge that i see every time we do one of these events is i would like to see younger people take interest in this issue. people in their 20's, even college age, but i see this as the most important way that i as a private citizen can contribute to the public good. when i was asked by mary smith to do this with judge luttig, i did not hesitate, i said yes. melody: before i go on, gentlemen at this table asked the question we all want to know, who won the case? [laughter] sec. johnson: well, i got my first trial, i got a conviction.

the second one where i defended the client, he's probably still in jail. [laughter] judge luttig: no, we reversed it on appeal. [laughter] ineffective assistance. [laughter] melody: secretary johnson, one of us is a republican and the other is a democrat, one is from texas, the other is from new york. the things you don't have in common. i point that out because at a point when the nation is so fractured. we often are talking about polarization, the ways that we differ ourselves, other people that are not like us or we don't know. and in the midst of all of that, and maybe not surprisingly,

we are having these challenges to democracy and the conversation about democracy has itself become polarized. something that i find stunning, that when we use democracy -- we were at dinner last night and someone who was working on this set of issues said what kind of democracy do you mean? i set that up to ask the question, this is a bipartisan effort that you all are working on. this is not partisan in the least. how are you engaging people and informing people, educating people to that fact, and getting them to trust the process that the task force has underway when there is so much polarization? where there is so much fracturing right now? sec. johnson: a lot of people, i

think, would believe this is somehow an anti-trump effort, that it's not. -- and it's not. it's a pro-democracy effort matter who wins in november through the democratic process. i've supported presidential candidates in the past. i have been disappointed by election results in the past. i have been greatly disappointed by election results in the past but i have always accepted and respected the results, as have our leaders up until recently. everyone remembers al gore's concession speech in 2000. the supreme court shut down the voting in florida and the vice president recognized for the sake of our democracy, he's got to concede. richard nixon did the same thing in 1960. he believed illinois was stolen

by the kennedy family, but knew he had to concede for the sake of our democracy and the credibility and legitimacy of the presidency. one of the revelations that i have come to is our democracy is frail in that there's a lot of gray in the constitution, in our constitutional norms. there's a lot of gray and some ambiguity. therefore, our democracy depends upon public servants of goodwill who respect constitutional norms. our democracy depends upon us electing and appointing mature actors who respect the constitution, respect the rule of law, respect constitutional

norms and do not exploit the ambiguity and the vagueness that exists in our constitution. if someone tries to push the envelope, it may break. and i'm pleased that congress, for example, cleaned up the electoral count act. the ambiguity there in how we count electors. a small group, the congress recommended changes to the insurrection act. the insurrection act is antiquated, it is ambiguous. it has triggers in it for enabling the commander-in-chief calling out the national guard for his or her in patrol, or the active-duty armed forces in domestic situations. that needs to be revised to take away some of the gray.

we've never had to have these conversations before now because you can always depend upon the people we elect. whether they are barack obama, ronald reagan, or a lot of people in between who respected our constitutional norms up until now. and to me, that is not a partisan effort. that is very much a bipartisan patriotic effort. melody: judge? judge luttig: the secretary is exactly right on that last point in particular, fundamental point in particular, which is no organization, certainly no government or form of government can completely protect itself at all.

every organization, every nation requires the goodwill of its representatives. especially its president, and in this case, the president of the united states of america. for 250 years, it has never even been question until today. but, the task force in particular understands that the concerted effort to politicize not just the rule of law, not just the rule of law, the concerted effort to politicize the rule of law in america, but

also america's democracy. that is an obstacle that is almost insurmountable to those of us who are trying to support and defend our democracy today because of the polarization, political polarization in america today. but, what we have to do, and the only thing we can do is stand on the truth. recognizing that today, there is no truth that we agree upon. there are not even facts that we agree upon, but nonetheless, there is a truth in america about democracy and the rule of law. if you transcend all politics,

melody, it is not simply bipartisan, it is nonpartisan. it is apolitical. it is literally the foundation of this country. for almost 250 years, america has been the beacon of freedom to the entire world because of its democracy and its rule of law. i've said recently that unfortunately in my view, america will never again be seen in the same way that it has for 250 years as a beacon of freedom to the world, as a consequence of the past three plus years. perhaps with time, not five or 10, 15 or 20 years, but more,

perhaps america will once again be seen as that beacon of freedom in the world, if we rise to the call of our country today. if we don't, then we will never again be the beacon to the world. melody: judge, you were a minute ago talking about challenges. we cannot agree on a common set of facts. there is seemingly no common set of truths. and doing the kind of work you all are doing in that environment is really challenging. one of the goals of the task force or one of the tools of the task force is using is you all are going into communities around the country to engage, to inform, to educate around the work of elections. the challenges facing election workers. that kind of issues. can you talk a little bit more

about that work? why going into communities, anything you are starting to see as you have those community-based conversations. judge luttig: just like any other toppling organization like the task force in this instance, we are all powerless, right? just like, you think about it, the president of the united states is all but powerless unless he can lead the people and leverage the people in the pursuit of his vision of america, and in this case for the task force, the pursuit of the vision of the task force and the american bar association, right? so, it was essential that we

not sit on high in the proverbial ivory tower and just think, even speaking the truth would be useless especially in this day and time. the first thing we decided to do was that we had to go out into the community, out into the states, and for our purposes today, we had to leverage the organized bar in the united states of america which is 2 million strong. which is to say without all of you in this room and all of your colleagues across the country in all 50 states, we could do nothing at all. we depend on you. we need you and we need in turn

we, the people of the united states of america. so, it is a herculean task trying to reach 300 million people or as many as that 300 million as possible. we are not alone in this effort. this is a massive, national effort, and it is as righteous as an effort as this nation could ever know. we are trying to preserve our democracy and the rule of law. there is no higher calling for any american than that. the difficulty is just convincing millions and millions of americans who do not believe yet that is literally what is at stake.

sec. johnson: if i could, i have been really impressed by the fact that once we got started, i found a whole lot of other organizations devoted to the same mission. thinking about the same missions, working in the same direction, and one of our biggest challenges is to try to harness all of that energy and interest into one place in a coordinated fashion. it has been heartening to see it. my style of leadership has been to look people in the eye and connect directly. my last year as secretary of homeland security, i was determined to raise morale in

the department of homeland security. no easy task. the agency of 250,000 people. i literally would play undercover boss. i went out to bwi and i put on a tsa uniform. i began working the line, the inspection point. no one recognized me. i finally was with this elderly couple on their way to north carolina for a wedding. the wife was in a wheelchair. i finally broke down and said, ma'am, do you see this patch on my shoulder? i'm the head of this whole organization. she looked at me and said congratulations on your promotion, young man. [laughter] my style, and i know judge luttig believes this, is you have to connect directly with

people. to get us all inspired in this effort. so, we have been together, we were in philadelphia two days ago. we have done georgia, we are going to do wisconsin, arizona. we have done michigan. we are going to a bunch of places. all of these places happen to be swing states, where it matters, the way our presidential elections work. it will be between five to seven states that decide the selection. all the rest of us, places like new york and new jersey where i live will cast our votes, but this election comes down to crucial battleground states. so, we want to reach people, leaders, community leaders and those particular states. melody: secretary johnson, as we are talking about communities, i would be remiss if i didn't ask

you about a community in which you have a particular attachment as trustee, and that is columbia university. in particular, in the context we are discussing this morning, democracy. and as the university is grappling with rule of law issues, including first amendment right to protest, right to assembly, and maintenance of other elements of the rule of law, and trying to make decisions for its community and also sitting inside new york city. and, working with young people, and i want to talk a little bit more about this in a minute, but young people that some feel a close attachment to democracy. others care deeply about issues, don't see them connected to democracy.

others think democracy is not for them. i'm just wondering if you could share with us to the extent you are able how the university, how or how you are thinking about these issues at this moment that is so tense. sec. johnson: so, columbia university, i am a graduate of the law school. my father went to columbia. two of my uncles went to columbia. my grandfather has an honorary degree from columbia. and the decisions that president shivek faced about what to do with the encampment, the protesters is the most difficult set of decisions i've ever seen in government or out of government. dealing in an academic environment. but, there are two overriding

principles that i think those of us in higher education, those of us who are trustees have to bring to this situation. one is, judge luttig knows this more than me, no constitutional right is unqualified. at a university in a city on government grounds, people have the right to exercise the first amendment, engaged in free speech, but always subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, always. the other overriding principle is for a university president, for a university, for a school, the safety and welfare of all of

the students and the university itself is paramount. and i fully support the columbia president's decisions that she had to make. we were hoping for a constructive negotiated resolution to the -- with the students who were in the encampments. but once people began occupying hamilton hall, we have no choice but to call in the nypd. the situation was spiraling out of control. and my hats off to the new york city police department. they did a remarkably professional job in addressing the situation. but, we go on.

there will continue to be challenges. i hope that the day after will be the first day that we begin the healing process. and that -- for those who are in encampments, who are demonstrating or protesting, i think should not lose sight of -- i worry that what's happening on colleges and university campuses right now is becoming a domestic political issue. at the expense of highlighting the plight of palestinian people in gaza. i think we are at risk of losing sight of what started all of this. it's been a very difficult set of challenges unlike any we have faced since probably 1968.

melody: you spoke about the healing process and for you, and for you as well, judge luttig. i want to talk and a second about how we engage law schools and law students, but staying on this for a moment, as we think about young people in particular who in many instances don't feel connected to democracy or believe that the values that we often articulate for democracy are values they are living or witnessing. i'm curious what you believe would be early steps in the healing process. the process of engagement and using this moment or hoping that this moment would help us to move forward to something that allows us to be stronger. any thoughts about that given

what you are experiencing and witnessing? judge luttig: i conceptualize the problem this way. i think it is a great tragedy of our times, that the younger generations have known nothing but these times. these tumultous times, our democracy and rule of law. in a word, our younger generation in particular, they now believe that this is what politics in america is. another way as i have spoken

around the country is that all of the "politics" of the past four, five, six years has now become normalized into america and normalized into america's political culture and its culture otherwise. you think about that and then think about how we get out of that position and begin to answer your question, melody, of the path forward. well, i don't have a clue. all i could do is, in theory, i know what has to happen first and that is that we have to stop

what's been going on. and then, turn the corner. how do we start? we all know how to begin the healing, and that's the way we begin the healing of the fractures in every relationship from husband and wife to family to friends, neighbors, to community, to national fractures in relationships like we have now. and that is to start talking

again. at our national level, that is what i said literally. we just need to start talking. for years, we have not spoken to each other because we've been told so much to the point that we not believe it that we are literally enemies of each other. mortal enemies of each other. i ascribe that to our so-called leaders in this country. it's in the political interest and the self-interest of our politicians and political leaders that we be polarized. even that we be enemies of each other. and we've been told that for years.

and sure enough, we are starting to act that way when in fact we've ever been enemies of each other. that is a foreign concept in america, right? we are the polar opposite of that. we're friends. we're colleagues, we're neighbors. we're family and we all have to share the same hopes and dreams and ambitions for america, the greatest nation ever in civilization. a democracy, no differently than a marriage or family. it cannot exist unless you are talking to each other. and, of course, it can't exist if you are enemies of each other.

i said the concept is easy. that is how you start. i said the problem, the hardest question is who starts? who has the courage, the will, and the desire and interest to start talking? look, i said all it will even take at this point, this point where we are at the brink, it would take a small group of our political leaders from both sides of the aisle to sit down and agree first among themselves that america is in peril.

and that they would agree then to stand together and say to america, this country is in peril, we need to come together. and we believe that not single one of our public leaders -- much less has decided to act that way. it is clear now that they won't. melody: i think the issues that you are both talking about go to the issue of the health of the body politic. there is reason why we use that language about the body politic. it is an organism that is living and grieving. and the lack of good health

contributes to the challenges that we are seeing. some of the are contemporary challenges. many of them are also age-old challenges. i was recently having the opportunity to engage with david brooks at uva two weekends ago. and his recent book, "how to know a person: the art of seeing deeply and deeply being seen." and the importance of proximity and engaging, the importance of seeing people both as individuals and as a part of cultural groups, and holding those two things simultaneously of understanding a history, but also understanding the unique functions and roles that we all play and contributing to the culture of a nation, and to our own destiny mixed with systemic issues. i think all of that is wrapped together in what you are talking about. i'm curious, in a room full of

lawyers and as a lawyer, but never felt safer in my life. [laughter] that we -- the importance of training young lawyers and working with law schools as we work on these issues and as we think about and talk about democracy, and how you all are approaching that. what response you are getting from law schools, what might be the way forward because i certainly remember that has been a while since i have been in law school, but i remember, i took classes that we all took that were required. and then those that we had the opportunity to take. and then there were the required professional responsibility classes before you graduated. but, there was no class about or opportunity -- maybe there was

an opportunity to talk about and think about democracy and think about our role as lawyers in perpetuating, living by, acting on being responsible toward and for the rule of law. i'm curious how you are seeing that. sec. johnson: for my years in washington, people often say to me, gee, you got along so well with republicans. how did you do that? my answer is pretty simple. when i walk into a room full of people and i meet somebody who i've never met before, just a name tag, that is all i know about the person, i look for -- before i snuff out party affiliation, ideology, i want to establish common ground. i will ask where are you from,

where did you go to school? you walk into a room, by always assume what i meet another person, i start off with the presumption this is a person of goodwill. a decent person who is here in this room with me for the same overriding purpose. i look for common ground. i'm from cincinnati. oh, the conversation i was having a minute ago, i have it an aunt and uncle who live in dayton. i will explore other areas of potential common ground. then, we get into what might divide us. but by that point, we have already made a basic human connection that takes the venom out of the inevitable disagreement we will probably have about something. and contrary to that, imagine

walking into a room, whether it's the floor of the house of representatives or a law school class, where when you walk in, your political party is on one half of the room and the other political party is on the other half. you immediately enter a situation of division. and that is kind of hard to establish common ground with the other half of the room if that is how you start off. young people, law students, students do tend to see things in black-and-white when the reality is the world is full of almost all gray, different shades of gray. my view is that the sooner we can educate young people,

students, young lawyers that the world is full of gray and to achieve something, you need to be able to establish agreement with someone where you're effectively compromising, the better off we will be. judge luttig: i don't even have a problem that the secretary does. i don't like republicans or democrats. [laughter] and i never have. if i go into a political room, i just assumed that i don't like any of them and i will do my best to have a good time. [laughter] the last thing i will do is ask them about politics because i don't care about theirs and don't respect them for holding their politics. that is only half. no, i'm not a political person.

never have been. i'm unapologetic. i have never respected politics or politicians. the proof is in the pudding, right? i go into every room, everywhere just happily believing that everyone i meet is just a human being. period, full stop. i don't really care where they come from politically in the slightest. to your question, melody, the task force and the effort. we lawyers, you probably don't know this, melody, the one thing we do is talk about the issues together.

the task force has had some initial resistance to the idea of supporting and defending both democracy and the rule of law from some borders. and we know exactly why now. it's because, as melody alluded to earlier, the idea of democracy has been politicized. and so, it is to no surprise, i suppose, as we've gone into the legal community, into the law schools and said this is a nonpartisan issue. this is american democracy and the rule of law. we've had the suggestion

that this is nonpolitical. this is political. and that is the public at large within the organized bar communities. within the law schools, we have met some initial resistance to the idea, for instance, that law schools should in some way incorporate into the curriculum the teaching of american democracy and the rule of law. resistance to that idea in america's law schools. now, i personally ascribe that

resistance to the faculties. faculties are famous for the fact they don't want anyone to tell them what to teach. not even the rule of law. i'm not going to speak for the task force on this either. my view has been if america's law schools are unwilling to teach the rule of law, they should not be certified as american law schools, ok? [applause] what else are law schools doing? for god's sakes, that's what they are teaching, what they are supposed to be teaching.

those are small pockets. we are soon going to have a large effort by a sizable number of the law schools across the country who are going to put their full support behind american democracy and the rule of law. sec. johnson: you asked a moment ago what should law schools be doing along these lines? i won't be shy about this. i would suggest what they should be teaching. one of my most favorite things that i did when i was at dhs, but to administer the oath to o people who have become new citizens. naturalization ceremonies. you are talking about people who took years to get there. if i could mandate a curriculum, maybe even a first year

curriculum, it would be to help one person become a u.s. citizen. help them with their education. i have sat with people studying for the exam. how many representatives are there in the house of representatives? how many senators are there? how do they get elected? how many terms can a president serve? this is all stuff that many americans don't even know. and mandate that a law student has to help somebody, who their english is their second language, become a citizen. help teach them the basics of our democracy to get to the point where they take that oath. maybe that is already done in some law schools. judge luttig: i wanted to say something with this opportunity.

a civics understanding of democracy and the rule of law, and civil discourse about those fundamental features of america and american society are the bread-and-butter of the legal profession. for obvious reasons, the first part, but just as obvious with the second part, civil discourse. we are trained, trained in civil discourse. and then, once we are trained in it, it is required of us. it is required of every lawyer

in the united states of america that every single conversation they have in their professional capacity and then before the courts of the united states and the courts of the states that they civilly discuss the issues. there is no other body, let alone a profession in the united states of america that has that obligation, and therefore, that obligation that translates into an obligation now to teach america what's required for sustaining our democracy and the rule of law, which is the civil

discourse, civil discussion of the issues that are before us. and the civil discussion of how we continue this democracy if we do. melody: these are the competencies and capacities of democracy. as a friend often discusses, productive disagreement, because we are all not going to agree. democracy in our constructive government allows us to move forward and to engage productively when we don't and you find consensus and ways to move forward when we do. judge luttig: what rolls of the lips is usually constructive disagreement. that is the first time i have remembered hearing someone say it is not just constructive, it is productive disagreement. melody: i want to open the floor for questions and give you all

an opportunity to engage. there is a microphone back in the center there. and if you could just give us your name and let us know where you are from and pose your question, please. ok, as long as everyone can hear, that is great. wait, one second. sorry? great. >> good morning. my name is jeff from new jersey. first, i would like to thank you all for participating in this very important task. in my view, it is the most important issue facing this country today. you have in this room 300 to 600 people that may share my views, and if they do, what advice can you give us, give each of us, what is the most important thing each of us can now do to address

this problem and to reverse the statistics that mary talked about when we started this presentation? sec. johnson: if i could start, i would suggest that we each support the actual election process. support election workers. serve as -- one of the things we are working on, our rapid response teams, if there are challenges at the polling place somehow, just get involved as many nonlawyers do at polling places. answering questions, be available in case there is some sort of challenge or some sort of trouble at a polling place. and then, what michael was

talking about. basic, everyday, civil conversation about the decision we will have to make in november. start there. there is a lot of work that can be done around the actual election process itself. and judge luttig has said repeatedly, we as lawyers have a particular obligation in this regard. judge luttig: i would say take that microphone when you leave the room and somewhere in the next few weeks, trade it in for a megaphone and have it among all of you, the entire organized bar in america, and speak the truth and speak out. it is now or never. melody: thank you. >> good morning. i'm a united states district judge from dallas.

i am a proud uva graduate. what about the big problem which is the internet? it is like whack-a-mole. everyday, a horrible rumor about american democracy is just absorbed into the body politic and we cannot get rid of the damn thing. i wish i could find out where it was and i would organized 600 people with axes to chop it up. as long as we've got it, it has a giant megaphone. how do you respond to something that powerful that is full of, to say is incorrect information is understated. it is grotesquely wrong information every minute of every day. how do you deal with that? sec. johnson: the internet is in and of itself not

the problem. the problem as i see it is we each can now go to a particular source of information, whether it is the internet, whether it is cable news, whether it is even print that simply reaffirms our own biases, prejudices, our own inclinations without being challenged or learning something. the problem with the internet in particular is there are very few barriers to entry and very few standards for exit. anybody with a keyboard and go on the internet and purport to be news which is how you wind up with a certain large percentage of americans who believe that 9/11 didn't really happen or it was all a government hoax. years ago, i was sitting at the

breakfast table with my son and a friend of his. the kid just with a straight face said i don't believe 9/11 happened. i think it was all a government cover-up. my son said, well, you do recognize if that is true, my dad must be part of the cover-up? but, we are allowed to believe what we want to believe from various different news sources. and i believe that there are organizations, there are initiatives to put sort of good housekeeping seal of approval on various different internet platforms. caution, this one is not reliable or this one is. ultimately, i think this tracks back to the american people themselves. we need to take some responsibility for this and be more scrutinizing to some of the

garbage we are asked to consume and accept. and question it. well, maybe this headline is not something i should just simply accept without question. maybe i should look a little further at some other news sources, see whether they are saying the same thing. part of this is our own civic responsibility to be well-informed and be well-educated. judge luttig: the way i think of it is this -- we have looked up recently and found that we're leaderless, and therefore, rudderless. if you think back over now the two many years i have been alive, we've -- at least, i have always thought there were

countless sources that i could look to for the truth. and certainly, the facts of the truth. today, there is no one. no one certainly does the american public at large trust to speak the truth and the facts. looking at you and me in the mi rror, there is no longer a walter cronkite. and more is there of president

kennedy or president reagan. nor is there any longer any of the number of great senators and congressmen who have served the people of america. and the consequence of that tragedy is weighing on the country today. i'm as positive as i can be about anything. until and unless we have leaders again, and leaders in the press and national media who are trusted and respected by the american people, then the nation is going to wallow around in the cesspool that is the internet. sec. johnson: part of the -- my

view is a big part of our problem is in any movement, backwards or forwards, you have at the core the protagonist or the antagonist. then, one circle out, you have a much larger population of enablers who enable, either through indifference or apathy, or passive endorsement. or because they are afraid to challenge something. i'm speaking specifically of members of congress. martin luther king used to say the greatest sin are nothing actions of the bad people, but the appalling silence and indifference of the good people in the face of a real challenge. i think that a solution to our problem is to re-incentivize

political behavior among members of congress, so that they are not afraid to challenge their political judge luttig: when melody and i and some friends were coming out of a restaurant warp walking down the stairs and i glanced on the wall of the first floor and i stopped. mid step. i took a picture of this picture with these words. if i remain silent, who will speak? that's what is at issue today in america. >> good morning. thank you for this morning's

panel. i'm shana seinfeld. i'm going to ask two questions. they are related to this we will whether you just said. my first question or comment that i want you to comment back on, i believe that all of this goes back to what we have done with education and i think education has really taken a political twist for the past ever suns my 30-year-olds were in elementary school and we politicized education unfusing it with a political bent that has taken away from core american valuesed a we've eliminated lessons in civics and core american history and world history. we are not teaching the holocaust, not teaching what happened to the ar mans -- ar machinians. we have not taught the problems

with authorize taureanism. that leads to the second question which is with we are seeing on campuses the past couple weeks has to do with people not understanding that history i'm frustrated as a member of one of those communities on the receiving end of these protests not exact because i'm not a student but as a minority group that the government is not looking into the funders of the protests. i believe their funders that puppet master the protest overall and those puppet masters are to me very dangerous and they are dangerous it america and they are dangerous to democracy. and i want personally, and i think that the panel and a.b.a. have the ability to do something that i cannot do as an individual, to encourage the

government to try to prosecute the been pet masters. i would like you to comment on that. sec. johnson: i think that the u.s. government needs to tread very lightly around investigations of first amendment activities. you always have to realize if you give one set of government leaders the authority to do certain things how might that same authority be abused and misused by some other set of government leaders. that is one thing. point two, the bells education i ever got in school was in my second year of property law class. it was the day after the 1980 election. ronald reagan will won in a landslide and my property

professor curtis burger, about of he started talking about the rule against perpetuity he looked in the face of all the students most at columbia law school were devastated like me, bass my president jimmy carter who i worked for as a volunteer had been wiped out in a landslide. and an actor who believed that pollution came from trees had been elected and was devastated. a lot of my classmates were devastated. curtis burger stopped and said i can see in your eyeser devastated. let me give you a lesson. 1952 his candidate for president adeleye steven son was wiped out by dwight eisenhower and he was devastated. but away went on and he went out

on a limb i realize now perhaps dwight eisenhower was the right president for that moment. this is 1980 and reagan went on to be president eight years and in the view of many he was a great president. and looking back on it i'm not sure that is wrong. i'm a recipient of the ronald reagan peace strengths award. i'm not trying to suggest the same for now, but that to me was a huge education. judge luttig: i will speak to the educational point if i pay. what i said over the past year or two is that we should have thought of this when we were not educating. and now we are paying the price for that failure in education that you were talking about.

and i guess as fate would have it, we are having to pay the price for that failure at the very moment in american history when we need that education. so that those of us who are in this room and or colleagues out across the country, aware now on the pointy end of the spear having to defend american democracy and law. and we are the generation that was educated, but the generations that are going to be needed in the future have not been educated, with us another way of saying for those that are going to have to defend our country in the next generation,

they are not educated sufficiently to do that and it is too late. >> i'm from san francisco. >> i want to check and i think there's one more question and then we will have to wrap up after that. we will take the last two questions. >> i'm loren keva. in 1964 president kennedy invited page law firms largely on east coast to the white house and found the lawyers committee for civil rights under law. it organized the bar in an amazing capacity. i'm on that board of that organization today. we have an looks protection program around the country. i have served as head of that in san francisco the last 20 years.

i think the time is now for you and your organization, your committee, to call upon the lives in this country to do exactly the same thing for the rule of law, rule of democracy. paul weiss is i think the most preeminent law firm advancing the good of perfect for pro bono, stances they have taken and i would urge you to call opinion the page law firms appear marine law firms to do what you are asking them to do. i would like to thank you for that and thank mary for what she is doing. judge luttig: we are doing exactly that. >> these are the last two questions. >> i'm a lawyer in new york. i think at that time panelist addressed pretty much all of the morning the question of what is

wrong with our body admit makes tell willing to abandon democracy. if we were talking about 10% or something in that range, it probably -- i probably would not be asking that question because you would see that as a fringe group. but i think that the polls appear statistics that were cite the earlier suggest to us it is not a fringe group that is in varying agrees prepared to seek something that is an alternative to our democracy and some people are fundamentally opposed to it but some are a little bit on the fence. so i think there's a corollary question at play here, which needs to be addressed, maybe not by this task force but in the

larger picture. and that is, what is it that is wrong with our democracy now and way it functions which has caused it shift in the body politic, which we now need to address and i'm in full agreement away need it address it, don't mistake but i think there's a corollary question of why, why are we in this situation, and is there something about our democracy that also needs to be addressed and is part of the process? judge luttig: i will take a first stab at that. the dark underbelly of the opposing effort and actually the intellectual underbelly of the opposing effort, is un apologetic in their claim that democracy is not the right form

of government for the united states of america. when i refer to the intellectual underpinnings, these are some of the most brilliant thinkers at least, proupbltd -- profound thinkers and as was telling melody the other night, they are writing articles that are literally calling for a revolution against america, against the united states government, because at the believe that the government hats -- has failed the people, that our democracy has failed the people. i'm not making this up.

i have read these articles. there are many of them and people shake their heads, you have read them too, right? nodding. that is what has been goes terroring -- festering ben northeast the surface. what i say when i address that issue in public is this, that of course one of the most righteous revolutions in all of the history was this country's revolution. but once we had that revolution and we broke and created our own nation, governed by a constitution, revolution is not an option.

revolution today is treason. but there's a lot of undergirding this effort and driving this effort in opposition literally to democracy and the rule of law. sec. johnson: i think you are right. not enough has been done to examine the underlying public opinion that gets us to where we are today. how many of you lawyers in this room would hire as an associate or law clerk somebody who tells you in the job interview i'm indicted in four different jurisdictions. but half the country will vote for that in november. how did we get there? that is unthinkable. curtis burger in property would

have thought that unthinkable and so do i. we have to examine how did we get to the point american voters are so fed up that half of them are going to drive off this cliff. judge luttig: and it is not democracy itself. if anything at all, it is the functioning of that democracy and the operationalization of that democracy by our leaders and representatives. >> that is the substance of work we are working on and i don't pretend we are alone. we are in partnership with a number of others at other colleges and universities and organizations that are looking at these kinds of challenges to laws, institutions, culture and social and economic conditions that pack democracy possible.

so there's a body of work under way there. i believe the last question. >> as part and parcel of the way we started going into this discussion, there seems to be to me as i look back a fundamental attack on with respect values generally and democracy is just part of it. it seems to have taken over education as somebody else asked. how does one see something like into coming and how does one head it off? because it is not just an attack on democracy and feeling among some people justifiably or not that our democracy has failed them. it is also a situation where somebody electric chump for instance is being villainized because of some position he may have taken on something else and it is a conscious attempt, i think, to destroy the heroes of

western civilization and to replace western civilization generally with something else. i wonder any of you have thought about that or seen elements in the kinds of attacks we are seeing. sec. johnson: all i can say is i agree. >> the judge asked me to repeat the question is, in some ways what were the precursors, the signs or what have been the signs that lead two where we are now and in your view an attack on western civilization and with the objective of relaying -- replacing it with something else. there is such an underlaying ideology of the oppressor and oppressed. to some extent that is true in history but to some extent it

has gone to a fundamentalal undermining of our society and its fundamental values in every way. i think it is a conundrum because some things need change and tweaking. it is just when you become a leveler on those fundamental values entirely and can no longer i suppose function even as a lawyer and see the gray it is quite astonishing where we get. judge luttig: thank you for the question. i wish that i could have heard every word. now that i understand the gist of it, this has been long in coming. but there's no question in my mind that the catalyst for what we have today began in the presidential election in 2016.

>> we are done with that. i know we are overtime so i'm going to close it out by asking you all to thank secretary johnson and judge luttig.