tv Cavuto Coast to Coast FOX Business February 24, 2016 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
night donald trump would run away with the entire nevada caucus, 46% of the vote, nearly half of all the votes cast. extraordinary. that is what you have been hearing for three hours but my time is up. neil: it is amazing and there are growing indications that with that run up last night donald trump could get all 30 delegates from the state of nevada. too early to tell, closing in on 100 delegates. before you step up and say what all keep in mind 1200 to become the republican nominee so we are a long way from there. candidates are campaigning bitter beer around at country. the difficulty is selecting where to campaign ahead of supertuesday where you have a dozen states in play, 600 delegates, hard to pick and choose. blake berman on the quest for delegate gold. >> donald trump--up second place
and third-place because it is proportional how they hand out the delegates, received double the delegates of ted cruz and marco rubio, 14 more on the night for donald trump. let me show you the scoreboard, 81 total delegates in the process, next closest at 17, carson way back there, 6-4. that is a small slice, a very small slice of what is at stake over the next six days. supertuesday 12 states, roughly 600 delegates in play, 25% of the total amount given out in just one day. look at the map, you see the geographical how hard it is for them to move over the country and campaign. with in that subset is the sec primary, states in the south about five of them or so.
ted cruz, marco rubio and carson campaigning in texas. ted cruz this sitting senator, texas has the largest haul of delegates, 155. donald trump is in virginia at regent university getting interviewed by pat robertson, john kasich in mississippi, there is no more coffee shop campaigning bumping into each other on the road. when i was in new hampshire you would speak to these people and they would say this candidate was yesterday, this one a few weeks ago, this one coming tomorrow. from a loan is in seven states over the next five days. neil: 529 delegates at stake in one day, largely proportionally voting states. and a couple weeks later on march 14th we have the winner-take-all states, texas will be very crucial, ted cruz hanging on to this latest of
leads, can you imagine if he loses that one to donald trump many are saying is all but over for him. amazing house with levy's things develop. a read on all of this, in the examiner, judy, begin with you. normally at least on the republicans side you win the initial contests or in his case three of the first four you are well on your way to the nomination. on the democratic side, we had bill clinton losing the first four can tests, losing ten of the first 11 contests before going on to win the nomination, through the earnings that come back kid. not so in the republican party. >> definitely an uphill climb. marco rubio and ted cruz are in this demolition derby with each other while donald trump is flying high in his gold plated jetblue edge they need to
develop a game plan to take on donald trump. neil: what do you make of what is at stake? never say never when the numbers are so low in the scheme of things. 5% of the votes are in, 5% of delegates apportioned, re not ae the delegate mathematics so now. we are still looking at momentum. who has momentum going into these days where a bunch of states vote at the same time. what you see is marco rubio and donald trump started teaming up to take on ted cruz, they both call him a liar. she is taking that attack from both sides and that is a smart move for donald trump using marco rubio to take out ted cruz who is his biggest threat but as long as marco rubio and ted cruz are turning fire on each other and not donald trump, donald trump will stay ahead in supertuesday contests and in states where we have winner-take-all, delegate maps will matter and he will have a
lead no one can be. neil: if you look at they are not winner-take-all states, the way it is structured if you have a set percentage you are donald trump and you get that in all the key districts and texas comes to mind he could very well take the majority if not all of the delegates at stake in some of those states, texas is an uphill battle, what do you make of that kind to the mat is starting to favor donald trump. >> what we are witnessing, unlike any campaign attended a, what trump is becoming is the political movement. us versus them. in the year that is based on feelings. our heart is driving the mind. on those counts he is scoring big getting three times as much coverage as anybody else out there, has a message that is resonating and there's a sense of inevitability kicking in believe the establishment tries to kick back, all this talk that they are going to gang up and
get behind marco rubio or someone else and stop donald trump that plays into the trump and narrative. the trump narrative in the us versus them world is the politicians want to circle the wagons and stop this from happening i am here to make things happen for the american people. that is a very compelling message at this time. neil: think of yourself in the mind of the donor thinking of getting through to ted cruz or marco rubio, do you feel if a keep hearing donald trump's race to lose. i don't want to waste my money. >> i don't know if that is the case. with marco rubio he hasn't engage with donald trump yet. second place finishes, he needs a w on the board so as a former football player marco rubio needs to gear up, get his, and figure out a way to fight.
neil: if you are, i am just thinking, in nevada you held off giving money, certainly not to the degree you gave last go around, you might see no compelling reason. with donald trump yesterday, another casino mogul. >> exactly. the point throwing money in the race might have come and gone by now because donald trump is building this momentum, a movement that money might not be able to stop and you saw that with jeb bush, all the money in the world didn't make a difference. he kept his candidacy alive along your that it should have but it didn't make a difference and it feeds trump's narrative that the republican establishment is out to get him and neither marco rubio nor ted cruz look like a safe bet so where do you put your money. neil: i want to thank you very much, we are down 100 points. we had been losing 250, oil inching up little bit, i don't want to stress any significance
on the downside or upside, we are well off of lows for the day the four hours of trading to go so i am done with it. also on apple, no one is and with that and a legal battle back and forth. did apples and nuts bypass courts and settle this in congress? ted olson, arguably one of the most successful attorneys in the country, fighting the good fight for tim clark and company after this.
when you're on hold, your business is on hold. that's why comcast business doesn't leave you there. when you call, a small business expert will answer you in about 30 seconds. no annoying hold music. just a real person, real fast. whenever you need them. so your business can get back to business. sounds like my ride's ready. don't get stuck on hold. reach an expert fast. comcast business. built for business. neil: very little middle ground, those who say apples should lead authorities opened up and given access to everything that was on the san bernardino attacker's mind and anything else he was communicating that april day
last year. the other issue that comes that is pricing, freedom of speech, ability to not have the government in true on you. congress should deal with this encryption battle, so says apple and its attorney now recruiting, one of the most forceful and influential attorneys joins us now. good to have you. >> we appreciate the opportunity. neil: i talked to a number of people on both sides of this issue but what i hear from particularly those who are concerned about more such attacks is apple should be ashamed of itself if something were to happen again. what do you say to that? >> we have a constitution in this country and civil rights bills into the constitution. the framers of the constitution quite seriously wanted the
american people liberty, privacy protected by the constitution. it is awful when someone will say someone should be ashamed for standing up for the rights that are embedded in the constitution the terrorists want us to lose those rights, wants us to change our system and have it be a different system where we are not protected in that way. when apple stands up for the constitutional rights of its self and people who have trusted it by buying iphones with encryption systems embedded in them, apple is doing something that may be courageous. we have to bear in mind that the system that america has given to us is so valuable we must protect it. neil: i talked to steven larsen who represents the san bernardine of victims and the doesn't see it that way. i want you to listen to this. >> nobody wants to this get in bad guys's can then there are things apple could do to make sure that does not happen. there is a lot of exaggeration
and a lot of hyperbole going on. this is what law-enforcement does. they work with financial institutions, telecommunications firms, under a court order, under court supervision, and affect their law enforcement interests. neil: john miller, new york police department, he argued the case, your case is overstated, it is a giant parade of terribles that apple is overstating this, it is one guy's phone, it is won and done. you say what? >> the first place is not one phone, not one situation. we have received indications in courts, in various different parts of the united states from the federal government that they want to use the same technique and the same legal authority although we think their legal authority is quite weak in other cases, not just terrorism cases the criminal cases, drug cases, other cases like that. furthermore the district
attorney in new york has stated repeatedly that he has 175 cellphones he wants to do the same thing in other cases to achieve access. what the government is doing, there is not hyperbole on our side. this is a statement of fact. is, if it happens today it can happen in other cases on equally finish going. the government hasn't shown that there is anything they expect to obtain here. they would just like to look. they are asking apple to design a new system to cripple the product that so carefully created in response to the demands of the public all over the world for a product that secures their information and make some safe. this is something very significant. there is no way the government can justify by saying this is just one case or just one circumstances or to limited to terrorism and is plainly not true and they know it.
neil: i don't mean to be disrespectful sophie think i'm being crass it is not my intention but your former wife died on the hijacked american airlines flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon, she called you a couple times from the plane before it did. if you knew or could have had access to the perpetrators behind that and their phones to reveal with whom they were communicating and what they were plotting, wouldn't you want to get your hands on that? >> i am sure any person who could foresee terrorist act affecting a member of their family or themselves would do anything and probably be willing to violate the law and throw away the constitution but as you know i served in the justice department in that time. i was there when 9/11 happened. i worked with the fbi and other members of the justice department to devise legal tools
that we could present to congress, get congressional support for that would help us seek out and prevent terrorism, but also at the same time protect the civil liberties. let me just finish. we realize that it was very very important to deal with terrorism but also to preserve the fundamental liberties that are protected by the constitution. there is a balance, we worked hard to sustain that balance and we went to congress for the authority. this is something this administration has not done with respect to the same subject we are talking about here. they hadn't proposed legislation that would have dealt with this issue, they withdrew that legislation and did not submit it to congress. neil: we know after the fact it is one thing you knew before the fact the perpetrators behind the 9/11 attacked what they were up to that is one thing.
here we have the actual phone of the actual perpetrator in the attack killed a dozen. is there anything to debate here? >> there is something to debate. the government with very bill showing, without congressional authority go to you and ask you to violate your rights or the rights of the people you work with suppose that they want sources, confidential sources that will work with you, you have to defend the constitutional rights that protect us all including people that are all over this country. we are also talking about tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of people that if apple is forced to create system to disable the security in its phones will represent serious threats all over the world. neil: they say that is not a case. it is one phone, the phone of the perpetrator behind this terrorist attack. you open that phone and you don't have to make a constitutional argument out of
it. >> you are not listening to me. they are requiring a change in the system that we have already got legal proceedings pending and various other courts throughout the united states that would address the same subject and go forward with respect to penetrating other cellphones once it is done, pandora's box is opened, for the government that keeps saying -- neil: how do you know that? it is just this phone. open this phone. just this phone. >> they are already saying they have to use the same authority in baton rouge, louisiana in the northern district of chicago or illinois. we have pending proceedings throughout the country where the government is asking the same thing. as i said the district attorney of new york has said i have 175 cellphones here. as soon as the government get what it want in san bernardino i
intend absolutely, he said, absolutely to use the same authority with respect to the other 175 phones and district attorneys or law enforcement authorities all over the country want the same authority. they want apple to design a system to change its iphone, disabled its encryption systems so that law-enforcement authorities can get it whenever they put it together. neil: i know you -- here is the key point -- if they could just see that this was a terror attack in this country, we know the guy who did it, we don't know what is happening in a 20 minute time frame. it might be on that phone. this is the only means by which to get it. get into the phone or leading the fed with any knowledge or secret access to that phone, you have opened it up, technician has opened data, won and done, that perpetrator done. >> there is no way to stop it
when the genie is out of the bottle. we are not just talking about the federal government. we are talking state and local governments with law-enforcement desires to get into cellphones whenever they think there's crime or evidence of a crime. it is not won and done. neil: there is evidence. this is the phone of the guy behind the attack. >> these were terrible people, no question about that but if you throw up the constitution here, when congress has indeed enacted why not put this to debate where our elected representatives, the government has a bill but they decided not to submit to congress. why not have a debate about the balance between security and the cellphones? neil: what would congress do? when and how you access a phone? >> congress has already done that. community assistance for law-enforcement, that law already exists.
it does not cover this situation. we are saying there should be a debate whether or not and under what circumstances the government can achieve this kind of information. it shouldn't just be the executive branch. we have elected representatives to consider a balance. fbi director james comey who i respect enormously specifically said this is a cbs issue. it should be debated by the people. their balances on either side. what in the world is wrong with having the elected branch, the legislative branch, one third of our government way in? that is the place where these should be debated and resolved. neil: any fear that in the time we are waiting to settle this, a bigger constitutional issue that the very people with whom this terrorist was associating might be out there plotting something else and we could have stopped it if we simply have access to that phone? >> you can say that every single time, if we could only break the
law, we could break the back of this individual, if we could break into the people's homes, we could do all these things we might prevent something awful from happening but the reason we have a constitution is we do not permit lawless activity even when people say we need to break the laws in order to prevent a greater harm. neil: those victims' families you them legally argue the point forcefully but they want answers and right now we are stuck in this circle of arguing constitutional privacy rights. on that phone might beat the very identities of those who might be plotting something. >> you're talking a parade of horribless before anybody can say that, there will be terrible things happening. neil: we already had the horribles on this phone with this guy. >> i am just saying we have to have principles, we have to have balance.
by the way, the accord specifically said our briefing schedule, we are filing a briefs, the government and apple filing briefss, there will be a hearing in a couple breathe, let the magistrate judge decide that. if we are successful as i believe we are the government can appeal and that but let the legal process take its place. neil: do you think we have that kind of time? >> what you are saying is we throw the legal process out, we forget about congressional authority, forget the balance of power in this country, forget the bill of rights because we want to do something right now. neil: attacks might be and on that phone. >> i am surprised he would take that position. there's no principled basis to stop people in whatever law enforcement area and we could have it all over the country, threats of terrorism and various different faces. we have lost, restrain the ability of law enforcement people to eat or the laws.
i am surprised you don't accept that proposition. neil: i am surprised you don't accept the immediacy of what was is at stake. the phone that belong to the perpetrator of behind an attack his whereabouts and contract we don't know might be on the phone and we are looking at legal language to excuse the actions a you might be perfectly right in your constitutional argument, i have no doubt you are but i am saying in the meantime that phone sits there unacceptable and we have no idea what might be playing next. >> you just decided any is sufficient, to throw out congress. neil: the need is sufficient, the need is real. over a dozen people is real. that is your indeed, that is your air agency, that is sufficient. >> the hell with the constitution, that is your position. neil: no.
the hell with more people dying as a result of legal morass. >> i understand your position. you have a program you can articulate that position any day you want. it doesn't matter what the rule of law is or what the constitution is, you think something should be done right now and forget the judiciary and the constitution. keep making that point all you want but you asked me to come on this program to explain the other side of this and at least you could listen. neil: i just did and i'm just saying on that issue and the urgency of that issue especially given the trauma you yourself goes through, wouldn't you want to make sure something like that never happens again? >> if you can make sure nothing like that happens again by throwing the constitution in a dustbin, in the first place that probably wouldn't succeed because there are some of many ways we could potentially be friend but the one thing we ought to stand for is a way of
life the terrorists which to take down. they want us to overreact. they want us to disobey the law, they want us to throw away our constitution, they want us to throw away our civil liberties because they don't like what this country stands for. i say it is important for all of us to stand for those principles at the same time we try to root out and prevent terrorism. there is a balance there and we should invoke the judiciary and invoke congress to do it the right way. neil: do you ever think with the best of intentions, that you are fueling and beating the terrorist dapsone gold? they know -- >> i must admit that is an underhanded argument to say anybody that stands up for the principles that this country was founded on, that have kept us save for 230 years is favoring
terrorism or supporting terrorism. that is an underhanded argument and i am ashamed of you for doing it. neil: i am just saying they are well aware of our process and how long it will take to access the phone of a terrorist that might identify other terrorists. they know of our arguments trying to settle a course where you wish in congress and they are working that and playing as like a fiddle. >> that is your point of view. as far as you are concerned, i don't know how you can limit this to san bernardino because something could be happening somewhere else, new york, san francisco, everywhere. you may decide my argument every time and you want to throw the constitution out because if someone says there is a threat there, we are not even sure that it exists but if we went into that phone, this phone, your phone, just to make sure you would throw that out. neil: this is the actual phone
and the actual terrorist. >> you can say that again and again with respect to whether acts of terrorism or i would think you even make a stronger argument when it was a threat of terrorism when the terrorism hasn't already occurred the perpetrators are dead, but you would surely make the same argument if it was an impending threat of terrorism. neil: we now know, people are dead, terrorists acted, he is dead. >> opposition is pretty clear in your forcefully stating it. dealing with the threat or the after the fact events of terrorism is sufficient for you to throw out the constitution. that is where you stand. i disagree and i respectfully disagree and we are going to resolve this in court and encourage congress to weigh in toso iwon'be jt yo itill juds anthe apllat sysm anthe nstition at ithe yt shod be do.
il: ank u ve muc wilhaveore ght ter is. what if one piece of kale could protect you from diabetes? what if one sit-up could prevent heart disease? one. wishful thinking, right? but there is one step you can take to help prevent another serious disease. pneumococcal pneumonia. if you are 50 or older, one dose of the prevnar 13® vaccine can help protect you from pneumococcal pneumonia, an illness that can cause coughing, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and may even put you in the hospital. even if you have already been vaccinated with another pneumonia vaccine, prevnar 13® may help provide additional protection. prevnar 13® is used pneumococcal pneumonia. to helrain you should not receive prevnar 13® if you have had a severe allergic reaction to the vaccine or its ingredients.
if you have a weakened immune system, you may have a lower response to the vaccine. common side effects were pain, redness or swelling at the injection site, limited arm movement, fatigue, headache, muscle or joint pain, less appetite, chills, or rash. get this one done. ask your doctor or pharmacist about prevnar 13® today.
doing other bad stuff, it is just me, my point of view but i know litigator and no lawyer and certainly not internal synapse leak so i meant no offense to him but i feel strongly about this. representative mark meadows of north carolina "cavuto coast to coast" to direct you into this but this issue was fairly black-and-white in my simple minds. we have the phone of a terrorist, we know there was a 25 minute period, we didn't know his whereabouts or with whom he was talking. open the phone. >> obviously the argument you and ted had has broader ramifications. ted is talking about the slippery slope that may happen. neil: i understand and appreciate that. >> we can appreciate that but to put it in practical terms if you have a search warrant to come in and looking to the house of a noncriminal you get a locksmith. that is what we are looking at.
we have a search warrant, we have got to get into and find the data on this. we are doing all kinds of other things i would argue probably violates our constitutional right to privacy in other areas of surveillance. this one where we have a known perpetrator the american people deserve answers. they don't want it to happen again and if we can save lives we can do it in a balanced constitutional way that respects the fourth amendment but also allows us to get the data to your point you were making. neil: the only difference i see going on in here is we have been known perpetrator, it is not a what if event, it is a known event and there is the vehicle we find who else might have been behind that event, more detail at catch to that event that might avoid future events. we think this is a threat, this is something that happened, we already know something that did happen and we want to flesh it
out with the information on that phone that proved to wells was behind making that happen. >> your point is right on. what you are saying is we are well beyond the probable cause. that is what some people are concerned about, you have some law enforcement agency here or there going in and doing a dragnet illegally, you are right, we have gone beyond that. we know the perpetrators, we know they are guilty, the american people don't understand, fundamentally it points up in other areas, if the fbi is relying on private companies to be able to really hack encryption, we have to up the ante on our side to look at that. the american people are with you and certainly want to do that. i don't see it violating the constitution much more in terms of interpretation of how the
fourth amendment may reply in this particular case. neil: could this be settled in congress, update the standard for means, companies either comply or do not comply with the united states government and keep it out of the courts. >> part of this has been debated and i can tell you the year urgency of time is the one factor you are talking about. some of these same arguments on appropriations season, whether you offer backdoor or not. having it's all there, the timeliness of this, nothing happens in washington d.c. either slow or never and we have to look at this in a different law-enforcement mentality. >> to colleagues get a sense it did be resolved in congress?
>> i have great friends who were strong libertarians, and conservatives that argued the other side. and congress, almost a court decision in the short run. stuart: thank you very much. obviously the freedom of speech issue, privacy issue, everything now hit the fan here. apple wants to take this to congress and avoid bickering between judges and tv anchors. the fallout from that after this.
neil: in that issue indeed urgency of that issue and especially even the trauma you yourself have gone through wouldn't you want to make sure something like that never happens again? >> if you can make sure nothing like that happens again by throwing the constitution in the dustbin, in the first place that probably wouldn't succeed because there are so many ways in which we could potentially be threatened, but the one thing we ought to stand for is the way of life that terrorists wish to take down. they want us to overreact, they want us to disobey the law, they want us to throw away the constitution, they want us to throw away our civil liberties
because they don't like what the country stands for. neil: ted olson and i having a disagreement on what to do about this terrorist thrown -- phone that is in question, the government can't force apple to open that phone and my own point of view with this particular phone open up, find out what happened. don't make a constitutional crisis out of it, one of the most heralded lawyers in american history, standing on the political fallout from all this. donald trump was saying we could boycott apple products as a result. do you think this becomes a political issue as a result of this legal back and forth. >> terrorism and national security among the top four issues on the polls thinking about, a sub issue under the category and what we have seen in san bernardino and the
fallout of the refugee crisis. end we need to be tough on national security, a 50% of americans in recent poll agree with you that apple should comply, and 30% apple should not be forced to comply. neil: young people, apple enthusiasts, not so much, that is a select group, justifiably see their angst about this, will you be doing this all the time? will the government the issuing orders left and right on anything any time any device with anyone and i see that fear. the only difference is we have the phone of the perpetrator behind the attack, killed a dozen people, it is on that phone. more information is on that phone. is no longer up for debate. we know that. >> circumstances matter in public opinion. imagine if we were talking about a cellphone that belonged to one of the terrorists on 9/11 and today is september 12th how what
americans feel about unlocking that phone or asking apple to provide a back door to unlock that particular phone the circumstances matter but you are right, younger americans value their privacy very much and value having technological companies the stable value their privacy. that is one reason apple is trying to use this issue to very vantage almost granting themselves as an anti-establishment for anti-government company because companies today are all about associating themselves with virtue inert branding but in the election i don't think it is the biggest issue. falls under the question of how do we feel about privacy versus security and this year we see a lot of americans opting for security. neil: thank you very much. is no accident that apple probably shows ted olson, former solicitor general to handle this case. in no small part because zeno's first hand, it was his wife barbara olsen who died on that
flight 77 that crashed into the pentagon. she called her husband from that flight twice to detail him on what was unfolding. the issue i raised than with mr. olsen now, would he have wanted access to that information on the perpetrators of that attack? after this. hey dad. hey sweetie, how was your first week? long. it'll get better. i'm at the edward jones office, like sue suggested. thanks for doing this, dad. so i thought it might be time to talk about a financial strategy. (laughing) you mean pay him back? knowing your future is about more than just you. so let's start talking about your long-term goals... multiplied by 13,000 financial advisors. it's a big deal. and it's how edward jones makes sense of investing. then your eyes may see it, differently.ave allergies. only flonase is approved to relieve both your itchy, watery eyes and congestion. no other nasal allergy spray can say that.
complete allergy relief or incomplete. let your eyes decide. flonase changes everything. whei just put in the namey, of my parents and my grandparents. and as soon as i did that, literally it was like you're getting 7, 9, 10, 15 leaves that are just popping up all over the place. yeah, it was amazing. just with a little bit of information, you can take leaps and bounds. it's an awesome experience. in a pick and choose world. choose, choose, choose. but at bedtime... ...why settle for this? enter sleep number and the ultimate sleep number event going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments youanake. you like the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store, all beds on sale. right now find our c2 queen mattress starting at only $599.99. know better sleep with sleep number.
perfect driving record. >>perfect. no tickets. no accidents... >>that is until one of you clips a food truck, ruining your perfect record. >>yup... now, you would think your insurance company would cut you some slack, right? >>no. your insurance rates go through the roof. your perfect record doesn't get you anything. >>anything. perfect! for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claim centers are available to assist you 24/7. for a free quote, call liberty mutual at switch to liberty mutual and you could save up to $509 call today at see car insurance in a whole new light.
to get it. getting into the phone or leaving love fed with any knowledge or secret access to that phone, a technician has open data, won and done, that perpetrator done. >> there is no way to stop it when the genie is out of the bottle. we are not just talking of the federal government but state and local governments, and when there is evidence of a crime, it is not began done. neil: on the block of e-mails back and forth, some agreements, there's not a bottom line, is it a privacy issue or simply to open the phone up right now issue, congressman, where do you stand on this? mr. olson keen on selling this with new encryption laws or clarify what we have? >> mr roles and make the grade point.
it could be won and done that is one thing but my understanding is it can't work that way and people's privacy concerns are valid. i side with mr. rosen and babylon this would. your previous guest talked about circumstances surrounding it, circumstances and context are critically important. remember this is the same government that used the internal revenue service to target americans first amendment liberties, the same government where the justice department has a program called operation choke point, they tell banks in his reputation with to you to do business with his gun manufacturer or firearms distributor. this is the context we are in. is prudent and wise to air on the side of privacy when you think about what we have witnessed from this administration in the last few years. neil: regardless of the administration or looking at a bigger privacy issue, i respect you and mr. olson and his opinions on this matter, we have the phone the terrorists
involved in the attacks, all authority is one is to open up and find out who might have communicated with. are we then using as an excuse privacy and other things to justify not allowing that? when i think in this case congressman, time is wasting. >> if you could guarantee the won and then that there is no risk to all-american is in the government having access and getting access to your phone, if you could guarantee that, that is one thing because it is a probable cause or diane diss and that. this opens a potential flood gates, this back door technique for the government to have easy access to our privacy, phone records and that is where americans understand, we can't allow that to happen. neil: i understand that argument, here is what worries me. bad guys know you are going to take that point of view. bad guys know we are going to
work through a system and the procedure even in the face of information we know darn well is on a phone that the government cannot access because of all these rights and allowances you allude to. >> this government, what we have seen, that to me is the most important context. this government went after conservative americans exercising our most fundamental right, our right to speak in a political fashion and targeted them for doing that. is government with operation show point has gone after a legitimate differences, you can't do business with this gun manufacturer. we have to balance that as well and to me that is critically important. neil: we will see what happens. thank you for taking time, a few random points here. neil cavuto, i agree with mr. olson, you are an idiot and
should have just shut up. you said you are not a lawyer. i was shocked at your demeanor. i saw that coming of nowhere, you are not a lawyer. you are right on this one, you get to the basic point. this is about terror. just some of the e-mails we have received, quite a few, i don't have a breakdown but my point is this. i don't want to make a constitutional careful out of this even though that is how it has evolve. this is a phone of the terrorists, obviously communicating with others end obviously appeared in a -- we don't know the details of what else happened the day of those attacks so this doesn't become a pie in the sky argument about what could happen. this is about having the device that tells us what did. more after this.
decided by delegates. nowhere near it that number of people being able to win that. between now and the 15th. it is not based proportionately or how many delegates you picked up. >> a good point on the part of marco rubio. you can win a big state. this idea that you win delegates along the way, how long does that last? you cannot just be picking up delegates. picking up more delegates than you. >> that is right. there was a moment like this in history and 1824 when the establishment did not like who
the people were going to pick as president. going into the house of representatives. the corrupt bargain. rubio is correct. it is not the number of states you win, it is the number of delegates that you get. rubio could cobble together a delegates solution and win the nomination even though trump wins a bunch of states going into it. that nomination would not be worth having. the american people or the republicans would be very upset. neil: full-court press. stopping that nomination. the pressure is on these other candidates to start picking up some states, to your point. often times, picking up all the delegates in a given state did south carolina comes to time. because of the way those are, you win a congressional district
so, good proportional voting actually disproportionately help donald trump in those circumstances? >> you are absolutely right, neil. this was all designed ip establishment to help mitt romney get the nomination and not have some insurgency taken away. you have never had a moment quite like this. 1828hen e vors re up agait th estlishnt. weave d siresidents. two of them came from the same family. they all were of pisgah paly in. they all lived on the east coast. and outside air. billionaire by today's standards. the establishment said he will ruin the economy.
he uses bad language. you will ruin things. we need this new national bank. andrew jackson one. against the party by appointing a lot of his and his men to office instead of party regulators winning the popular vote. the things that was an electorate vote. i am wondering with donald trump, whether you think he could carry back beyond the nomination. it is against hillary clinton or bernie sanders. he could pick up big states. electorate votes. he is like a phenomenon, populist sort of, you know, what do you think? >> i am not so sure about that. i supported rand paul for president. he is beating hillary clinton.
first, you have to get the nomination. it is almost like an actor. he is good at comedies. he would make a poor villain did sometimes if they are good at what they do, they are good at the under part as well. he has been very good at keeping the focus on him and attacking his opponents, winning the nomination. who knows when he gets into a general election. we cannot say what will happen. there is one other factor. that was romney. a lot sat out in the general election against romney. we wonder if they welcome back for donald trump. it may be different than it played out four years ago. neil: coming out for romney in nevada. participating in that same boat. on behalf of marco rubio. a second place showing.
too early to tell. >> thank you very, very much. neil: all eyes are on texas. super tuesday. ted cruz has got to win that state. that is his home state. the last thing you want is donald trump to beat you there. hold off, trump. you may just to quit. what do you think about that? it is crucial. you do at least that. >> yes, it definitely is. a do or die moment for taxes right there. he is evangelical. i will go to this stronghold in south carolina and when. i do agree with you. it is that alamo, if you will. you probably may have to go home and start packing. >> no trouble raising money. i know some big backers are kind
of inching to marco rubio. the scheme of things, making much of a difference. where does the ads go edge go to either rubio or cruz in the states to come. >> cruz was really focusing on texas. that is the big enchilada. >> right. that is the big enchilada. the two candidates dropping out. that would really benefit rubio. calling for them to do just that. i personally think that donald trump would be a flawed candidate. comparing him versus hillary clinton. when you compare cruz versus clinton, rubio takes it by far. the strongest candidate to beat hillary clinton. >> not by much.
>> real clear politics today. >> showing a quinnipiac number. a moving target. certainly not the 30 or 40-point that it was a few months ago. >> right. thank you very, very much. backing marco rubio. obviously, a lot of others joining you. i guess they're calling it the last donald trump. why not ted cruz to do that? >> stopping donald trump. when this race started, there were 17 candidates. a variety of folks were supporting who they thought would be the best candidate to lead the party. i can say it is clear that senator rubio is the best person , not only in terms of
being a nominee who can beat hillary clinton and being in the white house, but someone who can attract young voters and other voters that have looked at the republican party in the past. less about stopping donald trump. the people that are moving towards senator rubio. they are invigorated in supporting his candidacy. >> a lot of passion there that does not go appreciated. let me ask you about whether it does not work and it is donald trump. proportionately, whatever you want to call it. a delegate lead. we get to cleveland. the delegates needed. would you, and could you, support donald trump in that nominee? >> i am a republican. i am likely to support that person. your previous guest made it an under looked point here about
the state of the race as we going to march 1. anyone who thought two weeks ago that senator cruz would be playing defense in the state of texas and would essentially when that state to stay in the race would not have believed that did they simply would not. it changes the landscape in terms of the opportunity for senator rubio. you merge as the alternative to donald trump, but as we hear those states which are the winners stayed all -- neil: does he have the same press into yours? >> i think that that is the expectation. >> senator rubio may have said yesterday that he will win florida. >> did you think that he was in trouble? >> i think that he would you more helpful. >> i would say this.
you know, senator cruz is not in the position to be on the offense and a lot of the states march 1. he anticipated being on offense. trying to defend texas. that is a much different dynamic than i think a lot of folks had anticipated. it will provide senator rubio an opportunity to accrue delegates. a component of trying to get the nomination. putting himself in position to compete with what i believe will be quite successful on march 15. >> always good chatting with you. i appreciate it. i want to take a look at the dow right now. we are well off our lows. we have been down. 250 points. oil is the big reason for this. more after this. ♪ ♪
apple should unlock the iphone where only 38% say that they should not unlock the iphone. >> it depends on who you talk to. >> this is such an emotional issue. we can find a way out of it. michael hayden said it perfectly yesterday. both virtues. in the name of terrorism. having radioactive materials being stolen. stolen in iraq. you have them porting. what we're talking about here is apple is essentially saying the volume of court orders is getting to extract data from devices. makes it feel like a backdoor that the government wants. again, public private policy is a virtue. what we're we are talking about here is accessing phones for
public safety. software is developed by apple to let the fbi in. the question needs to be asked. apple would retain custody of the software. apple saying that it could get hacked. it is up them unlock that san bernardino terrorist iphone. by the way, the county owns the phone. >> i did not mean to be dismissive with a legal giant. are we overthinking it. are we being too smart for words here. downloaded on a drive. usb devices of some sort. give it to them. >> actually, the software key
which is not physical, has not actually been created. >> many people do not i that. that is really where the controversy was here lies. it will unlock a genie in a bottle. you look at what apple stands for for a business point of view, a lot of their products sales pitches about privacy. you were going to change our business model. they are the most valuable company in the world, that immediately goes down. >> the director saying all along, this is a business model issue. >> up through 24th team and dagen mcdowell has been pointing this out, that is the fact that teleconference and he is have had to make their devices. open to wiretapping.
we have been living with that kind of thing for decades. apple starts to encrypt. now, because of this case, all devices may be open to wiretapping. that is what congress could be considering now. into with this issue. so what apple is doing, according to the doj is see the frustration. very compliant with court orders. thirteen devices that the government has tried to access. >> god for bid and incident happens that we could have seen telegraphed on this phone. after the fact, i do not know how that would look. >> new york police commissioner william bratton, according to prisoners in new york city, they
are saying encrypted iphones. a really tough emotional battle. >> proving that you will win this emotional public vote. they have to prove that they are saving more lives. that has been an impossible thing to do in this case. it will be a very uphill battle for apple as this continues to evolve. everyone will watch this. how the different judges, it sounds like it is headed right there. >> trying to keep the personal emotions out of it. the fact that she was the victim of a terror attack. it crashed into the pentagon. the day before. the week before.
you would still have the same point of view. that is what you do. more after this. ♪ you do all this research on the perfect car. gas mileage, horse power, torque ratios... three spreadsheets later, you finally bring home the one... then smash it into a tree. your insurance company is all too happy to raise your rates... maybe you should've done a little more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. hundreds of crash simulations.
thousands of hours of painstaking craftsmanship. and an infinite reserve of patience... ...to create a vehicle that looks, drives and thinks like nothing else on the road. the all-new glc. the suv the world has been waiting for. starting at $38,950. [martha and mildred are good to. go. here's your invoice, ladies. a few stops later, and it looks like big ollie is on the mend. it might not seem that glamorous having an old pickup truck for an office... or filling your days looking down the south end of a heifer, but...i wouldn't have it any other way. look at that, i had my best month ever. and earned a shiny new office upgrade. i run on quickbooks. that's how i own it.
>> after being down quite a bit today. not necessarily being coordinated. double what we are looking at. a lot of the losses here. phil flynn over at the cme. it is amazing. >> well, i could not figure out why this thing jumps. the inventory report came out. the show went on the air at noon. what happened?
>> basically, crude oil imports. they fell by 35% in the last quarter. that is a sign that canadian production is tanking. >> that is where you see the job. we are now roughly even. gas prices. we had a big wrought in gasoline inventories today. it is well above what you'd normally expect that this time of year. the weather has been pretty warm. they are saying, hey, wait a second. >> gas prices at the pump going to go up. enough is going to be enough. >> i leave you one thing, neil. that is oil stocks. companies going out of business. we look at what they have done year to date.
looks pretty nasty. is that a time to get into that? >> if you cannot compete, get out of the business. they will do very well. >> phil flynn. i could take that. neil: a good record. thank you very much. saudi arabia does not want to cut production. should have stepped on the foot even as it is blaming everyone else. the endgame here and what it could mean. beginning when they were doing this. trying to choke off all their competitors. american drillers come to mind. other countries come to mind. iraq now back on. iran back on. it hurts them, to. >> it does. i think you are imagery. the united states in the heart.
that really is what i think it is. they realize how much the u.s. economy benefited. they see the damage that they can do with lower prices to our economy. neil: going with something that hurts them. longer than anyone else. even if they were hurting themselves in the meantime. >> another thing that is complicating this issue, making production cuts. they are feeling fat and sassy. a few production cuts.
to me, this is a big joke. neil: for stocks, what would that mean? no pun intended. they only pop up when it looks like they are not going lower. will that join with the hip reactions? >> unfortunately, yes. oil prices being low. a good thing for the economy. i think it is indicating some hidden things going on at the bank that has not come to light yet. i think it will continue to press stocks. >> thank you very much. the former attorney general now representing apple. i left it at this particular phone that is in question.
community assistance for law enforcement act. that law already exists. it does not cover this situation. we're saying there should be debate with respect whether or not and under what circumstances the government can achieve this kind of information. it shouldn't just be the executive branch. we have elected representatives to consider a balance. fbi director jim comey who who he i respect enormously has specifically said this is a serious issue. it should be debated by the people. there are balances on either side. what is wrong, with having the elected branch. 1/3 of our government weigh in? neil: just how far apple can go, i've gotten emails, many critof me, one i find interesting from bill. obviously clear to me you're shorting apple trying to tank the stock by humiliating or trying to humiliate a far smarter and more reasoned man. first of i have great respect
for mr. olson. i've been apple shareholder better part of 25 years. this has nothing to do with how much i love the company products, hello? i think there is obligation to get info out on this particular phone. i'm not trying to make a constitutional crisis that is the to the point. the point is how far this goes to settle the dispute. much of technology community including microsoft and bill gates kind of playing it both ways here, dividing how far the government can go when trying to get information from a technology company. charlie gasparino, in the middle of that and everything else. what do you think? >> it is kind of funny how conspiratorial people are these days. i mean to think that you're shorting stock because you're raising issue with apple's position on this thing is so absurd. listen, i get stuff from trump people, people think i hate donald trump. i want hillary clinton to win because i might write something bad about trim trim. neil: remember only what they want to remember. >> they don't remember anything else.
neil: is this a big issue for apple or to its devotees, 51% of the american people take my position when it comes to apple, one survey. others 10% -- >> that is not quite. neil: they don't care, 40%. they say leave it alone. apple enthusiasts buy and large support tim cook's position, ted sole son's position. >> ted olson make as reasonable point. we live in society where government can intrude all the time and sometimes they should intrude when national security is at stake. nothing wrong with having high level debate from elected representatives so issues get hashed out. this country needs to protect itself during war. by the way, during wartime courts have ruled over the years congress and president can take extraordinary steps. i'm not saying i support this, but remember roosevelt with the support of the congress put
japanese in internment camps. neil: that is what apple is afraid. google, apple, whatever you call them, they're afraid taking apple's side, this could be used as excuse, our own judge napolitano -- >> for fourth encroachments on our civil liberties. that is the hypocrisy. they will never use that level of support on gun rights. every time attack on gun rights, they say no problem. right to bear arms. this arm, that arm. don't make argument encroaching on second amendment will lead to dissolution on second amendment. neil: very good point. >> i find it so hypocritical. but listen, i'm not going to be hypocritical, i will say this we need a national debate on these issues. edward snowden -- neil: my only point on this, this particular phone, this
particular device, time's a wasting. we can have the debate. that's my opinion. i want to talk about donald trump, you were mentioning after the nevada win, on this issue he said i think we should boycott apple products. does it elevate to that, people start to say this is thorny issue, god forbid we have another incident, that there is apple, they're not doing their best? >> there is public relations thing if there is another terrorist attack. people will not want to hear about sort of lofty debates about individual rights and privacy. nor should they but congress should really take this up. it is legitimate debate to have. first amendment and privacy and national security are some of the top things they should be arguing about. and you know,. i think it goes beyond donald seaying we should boycott the product. that is good sound bite. neil: marco rubio where do they go if they boycott the product?
you're an at&t small business expert? sure am. my staff could use your help staying in touch with customers. at&t can help you stay connected. am i seeing double? no ma'am. our at&t 'buy one get one free' makes it easier for your staff to send appointment reminders to your customers... ...and share promotions on social media? you know it! now i'm seeing dollar signs. you should probably get your eyes checked. good one babe. optometry humor. right now get up to $650 in credits to help you switch to at&t. reporter: i'm connell mcshane with your fox business brief and new home sales today fell much more than expected. so another example of an uneven housing market recovery with the 9.2% drop. we have quick housing market related stocks to look at. they are down, both lennar and
toll brothers are lower in today's trading but just about as much as market is. generally speaking the dow down 123 points. it has been interesting day. up and down, down 260 points earlier, came roaring back with the price of oil. down 100 points at one point but now 123. financial are weak most of the day. jpmorgan forecasting rough first quarter, down by 1.%. the energy sector -- 1.7%. gone from worst of the brunch in the s&p 500 along with telecom the best. telecom was down 4 plus percent, now up a quarter of 1%. that kind of a day. much more from neil in a moment.
we're the hottest young company around but if we want to keep the soda pop flowing we need fresh ideas! >>got it. we slow, we die. >>what about cashing out? no! i'm trying to build something here. >>how about using fedex ground for shipping? >>i don't need some kid telling me how to run a business! i've been doing this for 4 long months. >>fedex ground can help us save money and deliver fast to our customers.
not bad, kid. you remind me of a younger me. >>aiden! the dog is eating your retainer again. let's take a short 5-minute recess. fedex ground is faster to more locations than ups ground. neil: your former wife died, barbara olson, on a hijacked american airlines flight 77. that was one that crashed into the pentagon. called you couple times from the plane before it did. if you knew or could have access to perpetrators behind that attack and their phones, to reveal with whom they were communicating, and what they were plotting, wouldn't you want to get your hands on that? >> i'm sure that any person who could foresee a terrorist act affecting a member of their family would do anything. probably willing to violate the laws and would throw away the constitution, but as you know, i served in the justice department
in that time. i was there when 9/11 happened. neil: right. >> i helped work with the fbi and other members of the justice department to devise legal tools that we could present to congress, get congressional support for, that would help us seek out and prevent terrorism, but also, at the same time, protect the civil liberties of all of our citizens. neil: but if you knew that then -- >> neil, let me just finish. we realized that it was very, very important to deal with terrorism, but also to preserve the fundamental liberties that are protected by the constitution. neil: all right. ted olson who arguing for apple on resisting authorities attempt to demand that phone be opened up here or the slippery slope it could lead to other phones here. but is it that, director, that simple? i was arguing to mr. olson, some are agreeing two to one, judging
by my email, not very forcefully, it is just this phone. just trying to understand whether the perpetrators behind the san bernardino attacks had any help get that off of this particular device. the authorities who owned that phone have already said it is okay with them. so i don't see how this suddenly then becomes constitutional crisis. john hannah, former national security advisor, former vice president dick chaney ney. john, am i missing something here? not even close. i look at this very simply, this phone, get information on it fast? >> yeah, i don't disagree with you on this case, neil. i think that given what we've had happen here, we've gone through a court order, apple hassed had its day, the court said in this particular case we need that information, it is a matter of national security, they have weighed the pros and cons, that's where the balance lies, i would say that on the question of universal encryption and the dangers of particularly
foreign intelligence services being able to get into all of our phones, or being able to order apple in china, that we've got a list of five or six people here we're terribly concerned about, who are conducting activities against our government. we want you to open their phones. we've got a legal court order here in china to do that, that does raise concerns for me. i don't think this is necessarily black or whitish, but i say in this case, open the phone. neil: my only issue here, seems trying to justify this after the fact, and i'm very respectful of mr. olson and all he has been through and his incredible arguments before the supreme court many times, but in this one i don't see it necessarily becoming this constitutional argument here. we know it is not an ethereal type issue. we know it's a phone, that was involved by someone who was in a terrorist attack on u.s. soil, and that is why i argue one and done with this case. either i well understand the
fears, these things are never one and done, but in this case, is there a way you can, or good technician or someone with apple, download the information, put it on a zip drive, anything that can go to authorities to say, all right, here's all the information you need, have at it? >> yeah, i think apple ought to be able to do that. if they can't do it. if they think it is impossible and nest bly leads to a -- inevitably leads to slippery slope, the burden on them and their ingenius lawyers like ted olson to prove it yet in a court of law. i haven't seen it. maybe they can do it. i still worry about the precedent of a single case, a government being able to say we've gone to court and you need to order this specific phone. i do worry about the precedent that sets. not because i'm worried about our own agencies here in the united states but about what kinds of new powers this gives foreign government, particularly hostile foreign governments to
go after political dissidents and people they consider enemies. that would certainly violate our sense of due process here in the united states. neil: that's a very good point, john. i think you would have argued a lot better. john hannah, thank you very, very much. good seeing you. >> thanks, neil. neil: what does orrin hatch think of this, key member on judiciary committee? a lot to talk with him, not only this case but that committees decision not to take up any supreme court nomination for president barack obama until at least after the election? now every republican member of that committee went along with that. after this. you both have a
your perfect record doesn't get you anything. >>anything. perfect! for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claim centers are available to assist you 24/7. for a free quote, call liberty mutual at switch to liberty mutual and you could save up to $509 call today at see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance.
not the least of which this supreme court pick dust-up. i would be remiss, senator, didn't get something ted olson mentioned that defending apple he seems to think of he overreach that could lead to slippery slope that could lead to san bernardino terrorist phone. the government will have access to all sorts of devices anytime it pretty much wants. that gist of his argument? what do you make of that? >> civil liberties argument, a pretty good one in some ways. as i understand it, i may be wrong, i'm led to believe the phone wasn't even the terrorist's, was his employer. neil: that's right. >> if it is employer's phone that create as whole new set of problems. i think ted olson is, i think very appropriately raising these issues and raising them in a careful, deliberative way. you know all of us would like to be able to knock out an encryption of terrorists but keep in mind, i think what
apple's is worried about there will be some day that this would lead to a backdoor opening where they really can't protect their phones and they can't protect the privacy that the phones actually allegedly have. so it's a much more significant problem than just let's, let's get the encryption broken on this one particular phone because of terrorism. so it is not as simple issue as -- neil: you're write right about that, senator. my only point with mr. olson was, what if it was a one and done deal? in other words you got information off of this phone that provided information that the feds wanted but feds have no idea how you did it, you didn't reveal this backdoor way that you did it, they just have the information. they don't know how apple did it, that is kind of the clumsy point i was trying to make here. his point much more eruditely,
said be careful about that the government is much more smarter than. it would be a phone and expected. the phone is immediately a piece evidence in a recent terror attack in the united states, we need to get to it fast. >> well, this is interesting question because i can see why people who own the phone would not want it, the encryption broken. i can see why -- neil: but people who own the phone, by the way, the town that owns the phone -- >> they don't care. neil: they don't care. they're okay with this. but go ahead i'm sorry. >> that is my understanding they don't care but still can see why apple is concerned because you never know what's on that dog gone phone. they don't want the backdoor open and some slick way of getting into every, for law enforcement to get into encryptions throughout the apple system. that is a real concern, it's a legitimate concern. neil: obviously what they're trying to find a middle ground, having congress settle the issue, rather than back and forth, senator, with various
judges in courts on encryption, what have you. what do you think of that? >> well, i haven't found congress to be that good at resolving some of these issues. you have all kinds of different viewpoints here in congress, some of which are outrageous and some of which are too low of an effort by congress. so most people in congress i think are serious about these issues. i think it's a pretty tough issue for congress to solve, i will put it that way. neil: while i still have you, obviously every republican member of the judiciary committee, i assume yourself included, senator, opting not to hold hearings on any potential nominee for the supreme court. president obama might put forward post the death of justice scalia. others have raised serious issues about that, that the president still has 11 months to go, if you find it so egregious who he might potentially pick, you can reject it in
confirmation hearingsing but be careful what you wish for because a republican president will be dealing with this as well. what do you think? >> there never has been in at least the last 90 years a situation where both, where a person both nominated and confirmed in an election year. so this is a very serious problem and, frankly i think the republicans are right, they're very concerned about. neil: you're right, not named senator, same year, but in ronald reagan's case, you did have a candidate who was named and not approved until the last year -- >> but the nomination occurred a year-and-a-half before. there is a real difference there. of course look, we're in the middle of one of the most awful presidential campaigns i've ever seen in my life. it is a mess and get this involved in that mess while everybody is fighting each other and kicking each other in the tooth, i don't think it is right atmosphere to bring this up. i don't think a president should
be nominating people to the supreme court, a lame duck president. that simple. neil: president said apparently with josh ernest few minutes ago, no supreme court nominees interviews are conducted yet. what do you do in that case, senator, if the president goes ahead, interviews some candidates and submits a name to the senate that, candidate, he or she will just have to sit this one out until after the election, if then or new president entirely, new congress, what? >> well, remember this president can nominate whoever he wants to. he has absolute right to do that on other hand the senate has absolute right to not take it up if it is appropriate thing to do. they have the right to handle it anyway they want to because we have the opportunity to confirm or not confirm, to bring up or not bring up. frankly i think the vast people in the senate on the republican side think bringing it up in this meddling political year is
not the right thing to do and this president should understand that. neil: any of the more vulnerable members who are up for re-election themselves, your republican friends, are they worried that you might have made their re-election fight for difficult? >> i don't think so. i think most people understand that this is the a serious issue that ought to be resolved within certain norms. neil: senator orrin hatch, thank you fornash taking the time. always a pleasure. >> nice to be with you. neil: down 106 points right now. we're bouncing in and out of that 100 point decline. better than it was earlier. more after this. pet moments are beautiful, unless you have allergies.
neil: a quick peek at the dow. oil is off of its lows. moving to the upside on the same date that we heard saudi arabia. cutting production here. saudi arabia. apparently, the thinking seems to be that it can outlast any of its rivals. drillers in the u.s. we shall see. we shall see about that ted olson interview. trying to elude it. the other argument. what we are dealing with now time is a waste.
accomplishing it to the san bernardino killers. this much is not. it in sue's. thank you. look at what we've got. >> take you, neil. it is great to be here. >> thank you, neil. donald trump with a big victory in nevada. a lot of momentum. it will be the biggest prize so far in the election season. the nearly 600 delegates at stake. welcome, everyone to the intelligence report. marco rubio and ted cruz placing a distant second and third to donald trump. plus, senators vowing to block any nominee. they will not even meet with any possible nominee is it a winning for