. >> hillary clinton is having trouble grabbing the millennial vote but donald trump can't seem to sway a lot of female voters. who's going to prevail in the panel is here. plus should felons in jail be allowed to vote? one governor, you can guess who, gave the green light to ballots behind bars. we'll explain why. was it a good idea to let 9/11 victims' families sue the saudi arabian government? we have both sides of the debate. i'm judge andrew napolitano in for kennedy tonight. i have characterized former secretary of state hillary clinton as a
crook, and as the queen of deception, argued enough credible evidence in the public domain to indict, prosecute and convict her of espionage, perjury, misleading congress, public corruption, providing material assistance to terrorist organizations and obstruction of justice. i can point to five times when she lied under oath. i know fbi agents who believe their hands were tied by the obama administration and the criminal investigation of her, and i know of american intelligence agents who firmly believe that americans died because clinton failed to keep state secrets secure. she refused to use government secured e-mail devices because she wanted to keep her behavior hidden from the public and the president. refused to see foreign dignitaries until they gave money to her family foundation. by american and foreign arms dealers, she permitted the sale of arms to groups in libya that were masquerading as anti-gadhafi militias but
according to the cia were terrorist organizations. yet none of the above was articulated by donald trump in his debate with mrs. clinton earlier this week. trump utterly failed to capitalize on her greatest vulnerabilities, the widespread belief she is untrustworthy and her well-documented record as a failure as secretary of state. look, presidential debates are not one on points and counterpoints, won on general impressions, the general impression here for monday's debate is that clinton brilliantly controlled the ball and trump came utterly unprepared. she succeeded in arresting her fall in the polls and in reassuring her democratic base. he failed to give independents and wavering republicans a good reason to back him. she clobbered him. but, both candidates' performance deeply disappointed me. did you hear the word freedom or any of its variants or the constitution mentioned by either debater? i didn't.
neither talked about natural rights, personal liberties coming from our humanity and untouchable by the government. trump argued for letting police stop you on a whim, and clinton argued for massive increases in wealth transfers. neither understands the economy, both want the government force employers to have higher wages and increase our $19.5 trillion government national debt. neither mentioned the primacy of the individual over the state and neither spoke about the guarantees of liberty in the bill of rights. regulate any behavior and tax any event. who really wants to make a choice between two proponents of monster government bigger than it is now? whatever became of that government which is best which governs least? answers ahead tonight on "kennedy." who will protect us from a government that takes more than it gives? or am i wrong about this? to our panel, julie roginsky
and my fellow new jerseyian dave smith, comedian and host of part of the problem, and brian morganstern, manhattan party, really from new jersey, manhattan republican party vice president. dave, to you first. am i wrong or did you see the debate, the two candidates as i did? >> judge, you are spot-on as always, i recommend everyone read your piece today where you make the argument in more detail. yeah, this was a competition against two authoritarians to see who could outauthoritarian the other one. there was no talk of individual liberty which is the state, no honest conversation about the tremendous massive growth in the size of government over 15 years and what we've got to show for it. >> ryan, why did donald trump look like a high school jock giving a book report on a book he never read. [laughter] >> if i could explain why donald trump behaves the way donald trump behaves, i think i
would be a billionaire. you are right he missed main points in terms of discrediting hillary. that is supposed to constrain our government, nor did hillary. in fact, she argued we didn't tax enough, and that's what caused the financial crisis. which is the most nonsensical point of the night that the commentators missed. the point is this. i don't think he felt he needed to prepare and read up and be book smart. he thought i'm trump, i'm going to win on personality as he always thinks he can. >> julie, i think she succeeded to stop the drop in the polls and reassure the base and rattle the daylights out of him? >> here's the difference, i know the woman that prepared her for this debate. she prepared like a monster. the way you all prepare those of you who are lawyers for the bar exam, and probably harder. he thought he could win this because he winged it so many
times before. you cannot wing a debate prep. i'm talking about the fact you have to enumerate attacks against you, figure out the proper response, body language, none of the things were things he did, and what concerns me is that he doesn't prepare for a debate in the large scheme of things is important to his campaign but not important to world peace or security. what else is he not going to prepare for he's president. >> dave, are you and i out in the cold, should we expect one of them should throw a bone to the small government crowd? >> we could have been optimistic. trump had thrown a few bones to libertarians, talking about getting out of nato, it seems like in this debate he moved away from the policies and tried to be more authoritarian. >> is he preparing better this time. do you know from your own sources and republican party in new york? >> i know that there is frustration inside the team and that a number of his coaches
and advisers are speaking to him privately to the extent that they can and to the extent that publicly to the extent he won't listen so he gets the message. >> we're going to move on, donald trump and hillary clinton have major problems with certain voter blocs. polls show hillary clinton can't lure in millennials from third-party candidates and trump's recent comments about the weight of a former miss universe winner from venezuela exposing a major hurtle winning female voters. who has a bigger hill to climb? >> numerically he does because he needs women more than minls, millennials are not coming to her in the way they should. >> what can she do to get millennials? >> send out bernie sanders, which she's been doing, sending out obama which is effective for them. what he needs to -- >> that show is too old for dave.
>> dave is over the hill for that. he needs to stop calling women pigs and comparing rosie o'donnell to a pig. stop defending miss americas. >> can he rid himself of this image as a person unfriendly to women who are not as beautiful as he would like them to appear. fair question? >> fair, and the efforts that he's making, i don't think i'm prepared to make a judgment on whether it will work or not. but the efforts that he makes are he puts his daughter ivanka out there, he hires a lot of women and promotes them to executive position. >> he talked about former miss venezuela for three days after the debate. does the public care why he insulted her 20 years ago? >> it's a sideshow which is the reason he's been successful in the campaign, because he drowns out everything that is a real media issue and gets attention. >> are you surprised, dave, that the millennials seem to be
going to gary johnson from mrs. clinton and not from donald trump? >> yeah, it's shocking that young people would not be drawn to corporatist war hawk like hillary clinton who doesn't come off like a human being but a pant suit creature of some type. >> only understanding of comedians. >> she's the most unappealing person. hillary clinton was the hillary clinton at her most appealing and still unappealing. she's not going to do well with millennials. it's an issue numerically with trump. >> gary johnson picked up another major newspaper endorsement. he had another what is aleppo moment? i'll get reaction from the victims' family member later in the show.
. judge napolitano: libertarian presidential nominee former new mexico governor gary johnson scoring another major endorsement from the conservative leaning detroit news which chose to snub donald trump, but it comes amid another campaign trail flub for johnson. >> who's your favorite foreign leader? >> who's my favorite? >> just name any one of the continents any, country. one foreign leader you respect, look up to. anybody. >> shimon peres.
>> i'm talking about living. go ahead. [laughter] >> you got to do this, anywhere, any continent, canada, mexico, europe, asia, south america, a foreign leader you respect. >> i guess i'm having an aleppo moment in the former president of mexico. >> i know, i know. judge napolitano: you recall gary johnson couldn't name aleppo as the epicenter of the syrian civil war. what does this mean for the johnson campaign. the panel is back, julie roginsky, dave smith, brian morganstern. you are most likely to vote for gary johnson, does this shake your faith in him? >> i didn't have a lot of faith in him. let me try to defend gary johnson. asking a libertarian to name the leader of a government they like is a difficult question. if you asked me to name a leader of a foreign government i don't like, i could rattle off 50 right now.
that's like asking the average american person to name a mob boss you don't like. judge napolitano: chris matthews set him up. >> is that a setup? the real answer is -- come on, mr. trudeau of canada because he's dreamy. why are we pretending it's anybody else. it's canada. judge napolitano: to your expertise as a political consultant does, that help him with the millennials and libertarians? because they feel as dave said or hurt him because he couldn't come up with a name? >> are people voting for gary johnson expecting him to be president or casting a protest vote or in fact a vote to make a statement? and to the extent they think he's going to be leader of the free world it hurts. i don't think that's what they're expecting, they're expecting to send a message to the other two about how awful the other two are. judge napolitano: can trump do anything to bring libertarians in? probably the most libertarian thing i've heard him do if you believe what he says is to keep
the right to defend and bear arms. from bernie sanders to gary johnson and would go to ron paul or would go to rand paul, might go to ted cruz but are not going to donald trump? >> i wish it would. the other libertarian-y thing i've heard him say passing ridiculous laws, is that trump was honest, i don't care where people go to the bathroom, just do what you want, and that was a trigger to think, all right, maybe there is nonauthoritarian common sense there. judge napolitano: the property rights, we started the segment about the detroit news, it's 2016, do newspaper endorsements mean what they used to? >> no, ask the people in new hampshire who endorsed chris christie for president, right? he came in dead last -- not dead last but third or fourth or fifth. i don't think they do, i don't know anybody who looks at "new
york times," and l.a. times or the "washington post" and says now i know which way to vote for president. we all have our minds made up. what is striking is places like the arizona republic that never endorse a democrat in their lives endorse hillary clinton than donald trump. that says more to me about the fact this is breaking with history than anything else and how people feel about that. whether an endorsement matters? not really. judge napolitano: is that a bellwether? something for trump to worry about that republican newspapers are endorsing gary johnson or hillary clinton? >> if you are not putting together the coalition that already existed and building on it, that's a problem. to the extent that's an actual signal of it, that is an issue he needs to consolidate republican support, however, newspapers are going out of print. judge napolitano: the panel returns later to discuss a bill in california allowing felons to vote from jail. should incarcerated criminals be able to vote.
the cia director grilled on capitol hill, darrell issa will join me next. guess what guys, i switched to sprint. sprint? i'm hearing good things about the network. all the networks are great now. we're talking within a 1% difference in reliability of each other. and, sprint saves you 50% on most current national carrier rates. save money on your phone bill, invest it in your small business. wouldn't you love more customers? i would definitely love some new customers. sprint will help you add customers and cut your costs. switch your business to sprint and save 50% on most current verizon, at&t and t-mobile rates.
. judge napolitano: don't call us weasels, that from fbi director james comey in the face of serious accusations he caved into pressure to let hillary clinton off the hook in the e-mail scandal. the director yesterday faced a barrage of criticism from lawmakers who also questioned comey on why the bureau gave a form of immunity for a number of clinton's underlings, among them california republican congressman darrell issa, he joins us now. congressman issa, what did you witness yesterday? >> well, obviously the director
wanted it to be personalized that somehow people were disparaging the fbi, and nothing could be further from the truth. what we were doing is questioning what seems to be a botched investigation at all levels, whether it was trey gowdy or jason chaffetz or chairman goode lat or myself, in the course of an ordinary prosecution and questioned the director, and he had no good answers for most of them. judge napolitano: some of the things that don't happen is no grand jury was impanelled, no subpoena was issued, no search warrants were served. effectively no supervision from the department of justice. they gave her lawyer a form of immunity when there was nothing to testify about and willy-nilly gave a form of immunity to the others. why give immunity? what justification does he have for that when they weren't going to give you anything substantial in return against
the target, mrs. clinton? >> i think, judge, what we can do is assume two things. ineptness or in fact what they were doing is immunizing people who otherwise could have been squeezed. there's no question, if you look at somebody and say you've committed crimes, we can prove it. the removal of any government document which cheryl mills clearly had done and they gave her immunity for, that alone would have given ability to convict her of a felony. she would lose her bar license and instead what she got for turning in a laptop voluntarily, she got complete immunity from obstruction and destruction of not things on the laptop but things, period. judge napolitano: do you think that director comey or someone in management at the fbi received instruction, exonerate her, because we know the fbi,
and i went through the litany, failed to use ordinary, reasonable, appropriate law enforcement tools that are always available to it. they used none of it in this case? >> i think the appropriate way to look at this is it's not for us to question their motives but it is for us to say there but for these mistakes, these clear differences from other investigations including, as you said, no grand jury, no experience, to be candid, no seizing of things can you seize and certainly giving immunity far beyond the scope that would be reasonable for what was being delivered, there but for that we would have had a different outcome, a few individuals held accountable for their crimes and very possibly some of those people would have said hey, i did this at behest of cheryl mills, or at the behest of secretary clinton, that would have changed the basic outcome of the case from we can't
prosecute to yes, we have a witness and we will prosecute. judge na surprised at the james comey press conference the day after the 4th of july when he said we're not going to prosecute and proceeded to characterize the mountain of evidence of her guilt? >> you know, when we saw that, and quite frankly, there's a resolution in congress that simply takes those things and has a finding that she failed to meet the minimum requirements for safeguarding classified materials. he obviously found her guilty of the kinds of things that get you fired at the fbi or any other federal agency, and i think your viewers know getting fired from the federal government is not easy. she did things that would get you fired and keep you from working for the federal government, but he reached this odd conclusion, not a normal law enforcement conclusion but this conclusion he could never prosecute and he's standing by it. judge napolitano: does the committee have t impression they were not hearing everything they wanted to hear?
that there's some missing piece to the puzzle. somebody big footed something and jim comey couldn't turn the person in? >> what we feel is justice was not done here, no one was held accountable for the egregious errors and they continue. one of the things i was able to expose along with others is one of the individuals who got immunity was, in fact taking evidence off-line at reddit in the last week. you know, the director didn't seem surprised and wouldn't seem to commit whether or not that was a crime to remove things that the public now no longer can see, and these are the reddit posts that ask about how do you scrub, and expressions like they asked me to do that, without him ever able to answer, excuse me, directly, who's they? he answered that, he thought it was cheryl mills, if it was
mills that, in fact, she is a conspirator in the attempt to destroy evidence, and she got a complete pass. she now has immunity and will never be prosecuted. judge napolitano: do the committee investigations ever work? i mean one of your colleagues was wearing a hillary clinton for president button. or congressman sheila jackson lee, or are they serious efforts to get to the truth? >> well, i can't speak for my colleague from houston, texas, so we'll leave her performance out. what happened yesterday is the public further got educated if they watched or listened or read fair reporting, they got educated into the wrongdoing that's happened under this administration, and that helps voters decide. is that as good as sending to a grand jury and getting people prosecuted properly for their misconduct? no, but you know in a democracy we have two tools. one obviously is law enforcement and justice, we don't think that played out the way it should have.
the other is the ballot box, our voters are informed. they have a very low opinion of hillary clinton as to honesty and see she's surrounded herself with, you know, a lot of people who are even less honest, and the public knows that. they'll make the decisions in november. judge napolitano: congressman darrell issa, thank you for joining us. >> thanks, judge. judge napolitano: coming up, president obama says congress set a dangerous precedent by vote toefrg ride his veto of the 9/11 bill which allows victims' families to take legal action against saudi arabia. i'll ask former u.n. ambassador john bolton if the president is correct? ♪ there's a lot of places you never want to see "$7.95." [ beep ] but you'll be glad to see it here. fidelity -- where smarter investors will always be. if only the signs were as obvious when you trade.
claims it could set a, quote, dangerous precedent for national security. tell that to those who are personally affected by the attack who argue the saudis should pay for their involvement. joe conner lost his cousin in the september 11th attacks, he joins me now. you and i have met before, my condolences to the family still. >> thank you. the families are entitled to justice. we can't have people in saudi arabia be immune for what they were part of for political reason. and that's -- we need to get to the bottom of it, what happened and why. judge napolitano: are there lawyers out there ready to go to begin the process of discovery where by they gather information which would enable them to point fingers at specific human beings in the saudi government as having organized, orchestrated or financed the attacks? >> i think there probably are. i'm not associated with any of them myself but i think they probably are. judge napolitano: what do you
say to the argument this will expose american personnel, civilian and military, and american assets in foreign countries to the same type of litigation there which would never be fair by their standards to americans? >> i think it's garbage. we can't fight -- judge napolitano: i agree with you, i want to hear why. >> we can't fight our war on tariffs being afraid what people might do to us. people said well, they're on the terrorism list and saudi's not. let me tell you saudi either ought to be on the list, but the list is a political joke. they removed cuba from the list and sponsor terrorists, including the terrorist that killed my father. judge napolitano: why do you think there is this mystery in the administration of president george w. bush, eight years, president barack obama now nearly eight years, of our true relationship to saudi arabia.
we sold them over $100 billion worth of military equipment last year, and yet they export some of the most dangerous, radical islamic ideas through violence of any other country. >> the mojave movement. we are in bed with them in a very odd way. i think that this litigation or allowing the litigation will get to the bottom of what is going on here and what have we been doing? the royal family is big, may be people more on our side and others who aren't but they need to be exposed. judge napolitano: do any of the families disagree with and you agree with president obama? >> i think there are any, i think there are many families who disagree, but i think the majority are looking for justice. they want to know what happened. i was at guantanamo bay and say khalid sheikh mohammed and other terrorists.
the people who have the charities deserve to be tried and brought to justice. judge napolitano: my condolences to your family and thank you for joining us, what about those who claim congress went too far this time and putting our country at risk? here now former ambassador to the u.n. fox contributor and my good friend john bolton. mr. ambassador, you just heard a very compelling argument from a very sympathetic arguer who lost his cousin. what would you say to him if he could listen to you now? >> everybody feels sympathy for the families of the 9/11 terrorist attack. my father was a firefighter for the city of baltimore. if he had been alive and with fdny on september 11th, i have no doubt what he would have done and may have suffered the same fate. i'm not unsympathetic. however, this bill is a cruel hoax on the families. it will do nothing to uncover what, if anything, the saudi arabian government did. judge napolitano: now,
ambassador, you know because you're a lawyer as well as a diplomat how aggressive plaintiffs' lawyers can be, and you know the tools that are available to them. let me ask you this, are they going to get to first base figuring out who if anybody in the saudi government organized, financed or orchestrated the attacks. >> they are going to get nothing. the harm is the threat against the retaliation of the united states is garbage, that is badly wrong. let me come back to the litigation. this provides for civil lawsuits. you know what happens, the case is filed. plaintiffs's attorneys will seek the production of documents. they'll notice depositions, ask written introg tories and the saudis will say stick it in your ear! the court may impose sanctions, attach assets, the saudis are going to remove assets from the united states and two, attaching american assets in saudi arabia. let me make one more point
there. will never be a deposition of an official of the saudi arabian government. never. judge napolitano: let me ask you about the theory, going back to the first year of law school. benjamin cardoza, the most quotable judge in american history, where there's a wrong, there's a remedy. remedy is there for the families who suffered as they did. >> december 8th, 1941, and the families of the victims of pearl harbor say by god let's sue japan. judge napolitano: different world, different attitude, not nearly as litigious as we are today. >> if the fed believes the saudis were involved, they committed an act of war against the united states, and just as george w. bush responded to an act of war by overthrowing the taliban and al qaeda in afghanistan, that's the remedy for saudi arabia, not a lawsuit. to say it with a straight face, they have to believe the
victims' families, the george w. bush covered up for the saudis, i want one of them to stand up and say it. judge napolitano: briefly, john, you were in the george w. bush administration, you were one of his chief advisers and diplomats here in new york at the u.n. why the mystery in the relationship between saudi arabia and the united states which has now been going on for a couple of generations? >> well, i think the mystery frankly was a mistake on both sides. you know this stemmed from various documents that were deemed classified in a congressional report and the subsequent 9/11 report. that was a clear mistake. all of this information should have been made public, if it had been, i don't think we'd be here today. judge napolitano: half a minute, you got the last word. >> he means well, this is not personal. >> i don't think we can win the war on terrorists by litigation, and i certainly understand. that but we have a -- we want the truth, we want to get down to the basics here of what happened, and if our government
is not willing to call saudi on what they are, then the people have to take the only remedy they can have, and the only remedy left to we, the people, is through the lawsuit here. that's what we got left. judge napolitano: joe conner, former ambassador john bolton, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. judge napolitano: coming up, should voters be allowed to take selfies of themselves voting in the ballot box and
i don't want to live with the uncertainties of hep c. or wonder whether i should seek treatment. i am ready. because today there's harvoni. a revolutionary treatment for the most common type of chronic hepatitis c. harvoni is proven to cure up to 99% of patients... ...who've had no prior treatment. it transformed treatment as the first cure that's... ...one pill, once a day for 12 weeks. certain patients... ...can be cured with just 8 weeks of harvoni. harvoni is a simple treatment regimen that's been prescribed to more than a quarter of a million patients. tell your doctor if you've had a liver transplant,
other liver or kidney problems, hiv, or any other medical conditions, and about all the medicines you take including herbal supplements. taking amiodarone with harvoni may cause a serious slowing of your heart rate. common side effects of harvoni may include tiredness, headache and weakness. i am ready to put hep c behind me. i am ready to be cured. are you ready? ask your hep c specialist if harvoni is right for you.
. judge napolitano: so felons behind bars in county jails across california, will now be allowed to vote after the state's democratic governor jerry brown signed the bill into law despite widespread opposition from law enforcement. supporters say it will help convicts reassimilate into society after their release. opponents argue letting people in jail vote could undermine the integrity of elections. who's right? panel is back, julie, dave and brian.
julie, to you first, you can run for re-election from your jail cell, why can't you vote? >> no reason why you can't vote. the integrity of the election, what is more monitored than a jail cell? they have more cameras and ople do. they should be allowed to vote because they are american citizens. >> what does a mainstream republican from new jersey and new york city think about violent felons being allowed to vote in california? >> this is a play for votes. i look to the underlying motive of it as opposed to the whether someone's right should be restored at various points in time, why they have committed a crime to have them revoked, the real motivation for jerry brown is he thinks more felons are going to vote democrat than republican. that's the reason. judge napolitano: are there campaigns in prisons now? donald trump and hillary
clinton going to go to a federal jail in california to do that? >> johnny cash would win by a mile. >> if hillary clinton is going to go to federal jail, i have no idea what she's going to do to end up there. i agree it's suspicious when democrats are encouraging voting rights for blocs of people that are overwhelmingly democratic. if you care about natural rights stop locking up nonviolent people in this country. judge napolitano: all right, all right, probably playing to the choir on all of that. julie, i'm with you, they should have the right. taking selfies with election ballot is a-ok, the reason freedom of speech. is this a good thing? do you have a problem with somebody taking a selfie of themselves with the ballot in the voting booth? >> you know this, there are various kinds of speech more protected than others, core political speech being the coup de grace.
taking a picture of yourself voting may be the most free speechy thing anyone could ever do. >> so typical of big government. they don't want the world to see what your ballot looks like when you are willing to share it with them? >> it is stunning and shows what you government is all about. you're the expert on natural rights, i realized that i care much more about your right to take a picture about your voting ballot than i do about your right to vote. judge napolitano: right to vote is not a natural right. there are right to express yourself is a natural right that the government shouldn't interfere with at all. >> the reason they established the laws is to make sure party bosses weren't going to shake people down, having said all that, come on, we're way past the hall, let people have the freedom. judge napolitano: the government will take a picture how you vote and use it to shake you down?
>> not the government. we know in our lovely home state of new jersey, there are party bosses that control a chunk of votes and there's a concern people may say i want evidence that you voted for the candidate. judge napolitano: wait a minute, are there still party bosses in new jersey? on kidding. [ laughter ] >> "saturday night live" finally gets somebody to play donald trump this season. drumroll? none other than alec baldwin himself. he hosted 16 times. is he the right guy for the job? do we care? comedian dave? >> i don't know, the last time alec baldwin got a new job in tv, he got fired. let's see if he doesn't get in women's face and makes it to air. i think "saturday night live," they've had a big impact on elections with skits, it could be big. judge napolitano: didn't tina fey doing sarah palin have arguably demonstrable impact for votes mccain-palin.
>> she was demonstrable. people confused the two. say what you think about alec baldwin, he is somebody who is hilarious and great comedic timing, i don't know what that is, that looks like donald trump in a lot of pain. [laughter] >> i think alec baldwin is great. judge napolitano: you know this one-liner, every knock's a boost. does it help trump? make him more appealing to the largely millennial audience? >> well, it's going to reach a new audience for sure. i like the fact that julie put stable in quotes. [laughter] >> it's not helped to the extent that alec baldwin is a great actor and will truly personify trump and alec baldwin, i think, hates trump. maybe not such a great thing if he wants to keep the gig. judge napolitano: coming up, can the election itself be hacked? who better to ask than a former
. judge napolitano: if you think the november election is safe from hackers, think again. hackers could try to influence the outcome of the election itself, and perhaps more dangerously so doubt the legit massey of our democracy. greg evans is a cybersecurity expert and self-acknowledged former hacker. he's also the founder of high-tech crimes and solutions. greg, how vulnerable is the american electoral system which is basically 51 different
systems the 50 states and the district of columbia to an assault by hackers? >> we're not as vulnerable as everyone wants to make it seem. you just said it, there's 51 different systems. each one of these systems may run on the internet and communicate with other systems and some of them do not. so what a hacker would have to do is have 51 different hax. in order to hack into the systems, they have to be online. in order for the hackers to do this, these systems shouldn't be online until it's time for elections to come around. judge napolitano: what would a hacker do? artificially change the outcome of a vote to make it look like hillary clinton lost or donald trump won in a given precinct? >> well, see, here's the thing, yes, in hollywood and in the perfect world, yes, they could do that. in theory, yes, they can do that. but here's the thing, you have
to have access to each precinct. each one of their networks and each precinct may not be on the internet. but let's say in hollywood, everyone was on the network, then a hacker could go in there, you vote for trump, and then hillary would get that vote. now is this happening? no. has it happened? no. and why are we talking about this now? this has been going on. if you just google -- judge napolitano: we own the have about 15 seconds left. we're talking about it now because of the hacks we've been watching. in 15 seconds, who do you think hacked into the democratic national committee right before their convention? >> who i know didn't do it was the russians, and i know this for a fact because everything that was reported about it, including by hillary clinton's chair person who claimed it was russian's e-mail hitter, they found the ip address, that's all false. they didn't find it. judge napolitano: good luck in
. judge napolitano: more bad news for nsa document leaker edward snowden. norway denied his request to travel there, meaning he is running out of options for the future. stay in russia, return to the u.s. and face the music or pray from a pardon for a man who had m indicted. president obama. with me fox news contributor keith hegseth, author of the book, in the arena. we discussed many things, i don't know if we discussed this. you work for the government as edward snowden has, you take two oaths, one is to take secrets, the other is to preserve, defend and protect the constitution of the united states.
what do you do when the two oaths clash? when it's impossible to comply with both? snowden opted to comply with the higher oath to protect the constitution rather than the secrecy to violate it. >>? you blow the whistle through the official channels and as best you can within the contours what you have seen violated, my problem is snowden is he didn't just take information about vast government spying and metadata, he took a lot of defense secrets well beyondsa the house report exposed, well beyond domestic surveillance and fled to enemy countries, first attempted to make it to china and now russia. we don't know where the information is, what's being done with it. he didn't stay narrowly focused on that piece he thought was extra constitutional and decided to steal defense secrets and leave. a whistle-blower he could have been but for those of us who
believe you oath to protect classified information, sources and methods people on the ground who do work for us in difficult, dangerous places, he violated that. judge napolitano: a couple of things, pete. no proper names, no places, he really bent over backwards so that individuals might be harmed and you and i know folks in the intelligence community are not happy their methods were revealed. but how do you feel about the person most responsible for getting him indicted for espionage, former attorney general eric holder saying i think he did the right thing? >> well, he's bending to the political winds or the political perception. you have a movie out from hollywood that portrays him as a hero. personally, i think he's a traitor. i think he is someone who decided to leave with defense secrets that put relationships with other countries and other things at serious risk even if he does believe he did it to expose an extra constitutional
program. eric holder, there are a lot of people in the administration, it's been what's best for barack obama. judge napolitano: understood, understood. one last question, i want to prevail on your experience representing veterans which you've done marvelously since you left the military. u.s. government doesn't always treat whistle-blowers properly. it sometimes tries to destroy them, if they reveal a secret the government doesn't want reveed. aren't snowden's fears realistic? >> fair point. it's not clear, aircraft the information whatever come out and b he would be traded fairly. you've got to protect the whistle-blowers so they can expose things, his option was not the right one another. judge napolitano: one word from you, russia? jail? pardon? prediction? >> probably russia, otherwise it's jail. judge napolitano: thank you for joining us. >> love you, too, judge, thank you. judge napolitano: thanks for watching the show tonight, i'm
judge andrew napolitano in for kennedy. you can follow the great kennedy at -- kennedy at -- is a paid advertisement kennedy at -- from star vista entertainment and time life. >> ♪ you're the meaning in my life ♪ ♪ you're the inspiration >> ♪ that's how much i feel >> ♪ feel for you, baby >> ♪ how much i feel >> ♪ well, i need your touch >> intimate moments, cherished memories, unforgettable romances, the language of love can be spoken in many ways. and nothing ignites your emotions like the power of love. >> ♪ i'll always love you ♪ for the rest of my days >> ♪ a one in a million