tv The Kelly File FOX News March 1, 2016 1:00am-2:01am PST
up the wall? >> that wall is for me to stay out of mexico. >> tuesday special report is up now. welcome to washington, i'm bret baier, this is a fox news alert. we're coming to you tonight from the u.s. justice department where in just a moment i will talk exclusively with attorney general loretta lynch about a host of topics. but first the other stories making headlines today. >> at this hour, the state department is releasing the final batch of hillary clinton e-mails from her time as secretary of state during which she used a private unsecured server. we're also learning senior clinton aide cheryl mills has --
we're in the final hours before super tuesday as voters in more than a dozen states, help decide who will be on the november ticket. donald trump is ahead in several states for the gop. hillary clinton is expected to win big for the democrats. the secretaries general of nato and the united nations say the cease-fire in syria is shaky. but holding in its third day. nato's leader says the alliance remains concerned about a significant russian military buildup in sire ya. but he says there are no plans to put nato troops on the ground in that country. >> now, to the interview. thank you for the time today. >> thank you for having me. >> apple's ceo tim cook told shareholders and investors he is convinced that standing up to the fbi is the right thing to do for privacy and personal safety. why is he wrong? >> well, tim has very strongly held views and i respect them. the reality is, this case is
about the government's need to access evidence as we do in every single case that may be found on an electronic device. as we do in every case. we look at how to best obtain that evidence and determined that for us, the major problem would be if evidence were to be wiped or erased. we did as we do in all these cases and we reached out to the company and said, can you help us preserve this evidence so that we can try on our own to gain access to it. and in order to do that, what we did at first was go to court and get an order that said there's maybe evidence on this phone, you have the right to go into it, use all legal means. as we did -- we did in this case as we do in other cases. we went to the company and said, can you help us? when they said they weren't able to help us or they chose not to do so, we went back to court and said, the law says that third parties can be required to help us gain access to evidence. and the courts said yes. that's where we are now. this really is an issue about
how the government's going to go about obtaining evidence that may be on an electronic device. it's our hope, it's still our hope that they will see their way clear to complying with that order as thousands of other companies do every day. >> what the fbi wants does not currently exist. how can you really justify forcing apple against its will to work for you in essence by creating software it says would damage it's own product. >> well, apple is one of the most secure companies that we have, and they have done great work at protecting their own code and own intellectual property. that's a great thing for american industry. what we're asking them to do is to help us -- is to simply disable one feature, a feature that doesn't involve encryption at all. a feature that would erase that phone and prevent us from accessing the evidence on it that we have obtained the lawful right to gather. >> it's not just that case, it's
12 other federal cases involving 14 other phones, right? >> in every one of those cases, we have gone to court with a narrowly crafted request and said to the court, is this something that we can obtain under the law? and the courts have said, yes. and we've then gone to apple and said, we need your assistance here. and where they've chosen not to, we would then go back to court and say, could you please direct them as you do companies every single day, to work with us? we prefer to work with them directly. and we still would. >> there are some who say that forcing apple to do that work for you would constitute involuntary servitude prohibited under the 13th amendment. how do you responds to that? >> it's a very important part of the constitution, it's not implemented with a lawful court order and you simply say please comply with the law. that is not servitude of any kind. that is simply asking a company to live up to its civic
obligations and cooperate with law enforcement, as directed by a court. >> tomorrow at the rsa cyber security conference you will announce that the u.s. and u.k. have begun negotiations that would allow the british government to subpoena american companies for data relevant to investigations there. even if the individuals involved are not american or that the crime happened on u.s. soil. so how would the u.s. benefit from that? >> american companies do business all over the world as they should. they're in a situation where there are vulnerabilities there. we're talking to the u.k. and we are. this is a case where, this case would be a situation where the u.k. was investigating a crime in the u.k. involving its own citizens, but because electronic evidence is such a part of every case, whether it's here or overseas, the data if an american company was involved, would be stored here. what we're talking to the u.k.
about, is trying to find a way to come up with a solution to help u.s. companies comply with the british order, right now, american law says they cannot send that data overseas. because they operate in the u.k., they're subject to u.k. process and law there. they're in a bind. we work with industry and we're talking to the u.k., we're looking to come up with a model that would let the u.k. give an american company an order for data on nonamerican citizens. it would not cover american citizens or actions here. >> back to apple, one of the things in the apple case is that apple's compliance with the court order they say could open them up do other foreign governments. and legal actions similar to what you're talking about. how do you think this is going to go over with the tech community that it's already concerned about privacy? >> this is something that the tech community has been supportive of. it helps them with the vulnerability that they currently have. they do business all over the
world. and they are subject to laws in the u.k. if there's an examination or investigation into a case occurring in great britain. this would allow them to comply without being out of compliance with u.s. law. security and privacy are tremendously important to the u.s. government. it's one of our highest priorities. every day in every single case involving criminal activity, we go to courts and say, here's a reason why we need to obtain something that is otherwise private. >> are you confidence that this apple issue can be resolved? or do you think it's going to make its way to the u.s. supreme court? >> i can't predict which way the case will go. i certainly feel that we put forth strong arguments and this is a matter of following this investigation where it leads. we have an obligation as law enforcement officers to follow every fact and every piece of evidence in an investigation like this one. and frankly in all of our cases. that's what we're trying to do here. >> speaking of the supreme court. there are a growing number of democrats who are calling on
president obama to nominate you to fill the vacancy left open by justice scalia's death. have you been told you're under consideration? >> haven't had those conversations, i'm extremely happy with my job as attorney general. >> haven't been vetted? >> i haven't had those conversations. >> the seat would shift dramatically the court. does the administration truly believe republicans will allow a vote on something this dramatic of the u.s. supreme court in the u.s. senate? >> i can't speak for the senate in this. i know the administration has stated its intent to name a nominee. i assume they'll have discussions about whether or not that nomination will proceed. certainly as someone who went through the nomination process quite recently. i think all vacancies should be filled as soon as possible. >> and if i ask it again, it will be the same answer? >> yes. >> i have seen your testimony on capitol hill about the clinton investigation. the e-mail investigation. has a grand jury been convened
regarding hillary clinton's handling of e-mail. >> we don't comment on specifics, what i will say, is that this is a matter that's being handled like any other review we do, into how any agency has handled classified information. it's being handled by the career independent lawyers here at the department. they will review the facts and evidence and make a determination into course. >> i know you can't tell us what happens in a grand jury. there's no law preventing you from telling a grand jury has been convened. has one been convened? >> we don't comment on specifics of any of our investigations. i'd be giving you the same answer again. we're looking at whether or not classified information was handled in a particular way, in an appropriate way. it's the type of case we look at all the time. >> has it been concluded? >> i don't have any news for you on that front either. >> you stated a fewdies ago, that it's being handled by career independent law
enforcement agents, fbi agents as well as career attorneys in the doj. which section is working on the case? >> we don't go into that either. the matter is being reviewed like any other like it, when we look at how classified information has been handled. they look at all the facts and information, and will come to a decision in due time. >> national security? public integrity? >> we don't comment. >> does it concern you that there's a perception that your justice department may in the end cut secretary clinton a break or do her a favor, because of her last name or because the democrats want her on top of the ticket in the fall? is that something you're concerned about? >> i think with every case, we handle it in the same way, that's what i like to convey to the american people, is that whether someone has an interest in a case because it's interesting in the headlines or because they're personally involved in it, if they're the victim of a crime, we take it seriously and handle it independently, thoroughly,
fairly and efficiently. we have to handle every case in that way. we owe it to everyone. we owe it to the citizens and everybody who may be involved in a matter. >> why hasn't secretary clinton been interviewed yet? >> we don't comment on the particulars of anything. >> josh ernest recently said this about hillary clinton's investigation from the white house briefing room. >> i know that some officials have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. >> so are officials briefing josh ernest? >> i can tell you unequivocally, that no one outside of doj has been briefed on this or any other case. it's not our policy, and it hasn't happened in this matter. >> where do you think he got that information? >> i can't speak for josh, i can't tell you. >> anyone in the white house being briefed? >> no one in the white house or the department would be briefed on this case or any other case. >> critics of the administration's handling this say david petraeus was indicted for behavior that amounted to a tiny fraction of what we know happened with secretary clinton.
are they wrong? >> i think every case is different. we look at the facts in evidence based on the information available in every matter. >> it's important for people to know what's right. what violates the law. is it legal or illegal for federal employees, especially cabinet members to set up a private server to handle all government e-mail correspondents. >> i'm not going to give you a legal opinion on that. since it is a matter that may be under review. certainly the state department inspector general is looking at procedures and practices and policies of that department. i'm not going to comment on that, except to say that our investigation is going to continue as any other case. >> will it be wrapped up soon? >> we don't give you timing estimates either 37 again, we don't -- >> i guess there is a timetable that is hanging over this, you know. shouldn't american voters know hillary clinton's legal status as they get prepared to head to the polls? >> what they should know and i hope they do know, is that any
case the department of justice looks at is going to be handled efficiently, fairly, thoroughly without any kind of artificial deadline on it, what's most important is to follow the facts, follow the law and come to an independent conclusion as to what may or may not have happened. >> would you ever have a private server? >> with regard to? >> e-mails. >> we use our doj servers here for e-mails. >> you wouldn't have a private server at home? >> i don't comment on that. >> you wouldn't. you use doj servers? >> i use the department of justice e-mail system. >> we're getting word that secretary clinton's former chief of staff cheryl mills has maintained her top secret security clearance despite sending information that's no deemed classified to the clinton foundation, and this unsecured server. isn't it standard practice to suspend the clearance pending the outcome of an investigation? >> i'm not going to comment on any of the individuals who may or may not be involved in this.
because it would depend very much on the facts of those particular circumstances. >> is there any double standard here? >> there's no double standard in this or any other matter being handled by the department of justice. >> last thing on the clinton e-mail. you understand why people are concerned that even democrats who say is there this shoe that's going to drop by the time you get a nominee, isn't it fair to know a status at some point in this election cycle if that is the person who looks like it's going to be the nominee of the democratic party? >> well, this matter is going to be handled like any other. and it will be resolved in due time. who's the ultimate decider at the doj. >> it depends how the matter comes together, you know, essentially, it's going to be reviewed by those career independent agents and lawyers i mentioned, and they'll make a recommendation as to what they discovered and what they recommend. >> the up or down, yes or no, we're going-forward or not, is that you? >> it's going to depend on what
they find. >> have you ever not prosecuted when the fbi has said we recommend charges? you. >> know, in my early days as a lawyer, one of my best jobs was doing intake for the u.s. attorney's office, i sat and worked with the fbi a lot on matters and cases. we would sit together and talk about the best ways to craft search warrants or draft complaints. or the best types of charges to bring in credit card cases or in bank robbery cases. i always thought that's -- it's one of my best jobs. and one of the best things we do is work together with our law enforcement partners in reviewing evidence and coming to a conclusion as to what's there and what's not there. >> i listened to your answer before, and on capitol hill. if you are the ultimate decider, you obviously are a political appointee. so that's where the question comes, i guess. you said the independent
investigators and agents willci. the decider of whether to go forward is you, right? >> we'll see what evidence develops and what facts develop, and we'll follow those to their natural conclusion. >> have you ever told the president no on anything? >> you know, i don't go into specifics with my conversations with him. i can't think of an occasion where we've had contentious discussions about things. >> you know, like no mr. president, you can't do that. >> i've made recommendations to him, he has accepted them and taken them. i've given him my advice. i have certainly provided information and thought to him. >> your predecessor, attorney general eric holder signed off on a search warrant for our colleague for doing his job.
t attorney general holder later said his own handling of the affair was his biggest regret. at that time, the designation of a reporter as a criminal co-conspirator by the doj, carried pretty significant precedent for all u.s. attorneys. what view of the matter did you take at the time. >> i didn't have a view of the matter at the time. because i wasn't involved in the matter. i didn't know about the facts or the irish yous to come to a conclusion. i did agree with the review that was set up within the department and the new policies have been promulgated. as attorney general now, i've had the good fortune to sit down with the working group that looks at those issues which is composed not just of doj officials, but also people in the media who consult with us. and who share their views with us, and who were helpful in setting up the policies and procedures. a number of safeguards were put in place that i do think were appropriate. and i think very effective, i think also have helped our
relationship with the press, i hope. i think the feedback and input we got from members of the press was helpful not just? drafting the new policies, but in making sure that we understood their needs and concerns. >> are we safer or more at risk than we were five years ago? >> i think it's hard to put an absolute on that. obviously the u.s. is always a target. one of our greatest concerns and one of my highest priorities is national security matters. as we've seen this threat morph and change over time, we've adapted as well. we have remained focused on thwarting that threat where we can. where u.s. interests are threatened here or overseas, we will and we do take action. >> what keeps you up at night? >> i think the greatest concerns that a number of us in law enforcement face these days really are cyber issues, cyber security is a huge concern of ours as well.
not just in terms of the individual attacks, people who have had their identities stolen, those are devastating and i think the average american can relate to that, in a very, very real way. possible threats to our corporate i.t., to our corporate intellectual property p.m. the goodwill and brain trust so to speak. those challenges are big and growing. >> just last week, the director of national intelligence expressed skepticism over the september cyber agreement between president obama and the chinese president. he said this. >> cyber espionage against the united states, and whether their commitment of last september remains to be seen. >> you back in december, along with homeland security secretary johnson. sat across the table from your chinese counter parts and discussed this very issue. do you agree and share the
assessment? >> it was an agreement they would not engage in economic espionage. we will be constantly looking at and monitoring u.s. companies to alert them if we see any problems. whether it's from china or any other state actor. something we do by working with industry very well. >> how can the government stop it, though. 2014, your predecessor charged five chinese military officers with federal crimes alleged to their hacking. and it just continued. what do you tell people in america that says, you tried. and it's not really happening. >> it's reilly a multifaceted effort. first increasing our own resources so we can detect intrusions from wherever they come into american industry. the fbi is working very hard at that, along with our fellow agencies in this. also investigating and prosecuting those that we do find responsible for breaches and hacks. >> attorney general, thank you for the time. we really appreciate it. when we come back,
ki-moon tonight. there are reports of sporadic fighting. the russian brokered truce went into effect friday. it does not include isis or al qaeda forces. an isis suicide bombing north of baghdad has killed at least 38 people and wounded dozens of others. this comes a day after a bombing at a baghdad market left 73 people dead. a u.s. navy seal who helped rescue an american seville yang in afghanistan is tonight the latest recipient of the military's highest honor. kevin cork has the story from the white house. >> even if he had never performed the actions for which he's being recognized today. the buyers would be long remembered for his compassion, sacrifice and endurance. >> edward buyers the medal of honor today, president obama gave the nation's highest military citation to a man whose commitment to service knows no
bounds. >> 11 overseas deployments, nine combat tours, recipient of the purple heart twice. bronze star with valor five times. >> reporter: it was a daring rescue back in 2012, that brought a man used to working in the shadows into the spotlight. >> jumped off, the guy was on and on to the doctor. the reason i did that, i'm wearing body armor, i want to protect him from any other potential threats in the room. >> his quick action saved the doctor. buyers and his team are examples of courage, bravery and heroism. byers is the sixth navy s.e.a.l. to receive the honor, he credited nicholas check with the mission's success, he was the first into that firefight and died that evening with valor and
distinction. >> he will forever be remembered in the pages of history for the sacrifices he made. >> a solid reminder of the price of freedom. and a moment of thanks on a grateful nation. >> reporter: byers says he'd like to go back to what he's always done in the service. he remains one of 78 medal of honor awardees who remain. >> great story. keven cork, live on the north lawn. thank you. stocks were down today, the dow lost 123 the s&p 500 was down 16. the nasdaq fell 33. we are just hours away from super tuesday, we'll look at the furi
the monday night before super tuesday features rallies for ben carson in alabama, donald trump in georgia, marco rubio in oklahoma and ted cruz in texas. carl cameron is in san antonio tonight with a look at the huge stakes in tomorrow's voting. >> on the eve of super tuesday, the insults are flying and polls show donald trump sitting pretty. >> vote tomorrow, we're going to win tremendously. >> the latest polls show trump leading in georgia, tennessee, virginia, massachusetts, oklahoma and alabama. trump's fending off attacks from ted cruz and marco rubio for failing to disavow david duke. trump's rally was interrupted by black lives matter demonstrators. >> all lives matter. >> sunday trump refused to disavow the former head of the kkk. >> i don't know anything about david duke or anything you're talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. >> two days earlier he disavowed
the white supremacist. >> i'm sitting in a house in florida with a very bad ear piece that they gave me, you could hardly hear what he's saying. >> he's unelectable now. he refused to criticize the kkk. i don't care how bad the ear piece is. >> reporter: today he slammed trump as a fraud on illegal immigration. >> donald trump had a $1 million court judgment entered against him for hiring illegal aliens to build trump tower. >> reporter: according to cruz, a meeting with the new york times, trump does not believe his own immigration positions and is only offering them as a bargaining position for future negotiations. >> that tape can clear it up, and the voters deserve to know if he says something when he's talking to the new york times or
the voters. we deserve to know before super tuesday. >> rubio was giving as good as he gets. >> he doesn't sweat because his pores are clogged from the spray tan he uses. donald is not going to make america great, he's going to make america orange. >> and cruz in the last week have attacked donald trump more than any time in his entire candidacy. and still if the polls are right, it looks like he's probably going to come out with the majority of the delegates tomorrow night. >> carl cameron, thank you. there is much less mystery on the democratic side of super tuesday. 865 delegates are on the table. hillary clinton is trying to gobble up most of them. fresh off her big win saturday in sk stk. ed henry sets the super tuesday stage. >> hillary clinton feels like she's finally in the driver's seat for the nomination. poised for big victories
tomorrow after cruising in south carolina. >> thank you so much south carolina. >> now she's looking past bernie sanders and trading her fire on donald trump. >> america never stopped being great. we have to make america hole. >> despite clinton's efforts to position herself as a uniter, a civil war broke out this weekend. tolsie gabbort resigned her chair. >> i cannot remain neutral any longer. the stakes are too high. >> the lawmaker clashed with wasserman-shultz about whether the dnc was coddling clinton with too few debates. and gabbord has used her background, was clinton too soft after a secretary of state. since democrats do not have
winner take all states, sanders walked away with 14 delegates from south carolina, despite being blown out by nearly 50 points. >> we got decimated. the only positive thing for us is that we won the 29 years and younger vote. >> in an interview with fox, jeff weaver claimed, south carolina was clinton's high water mark. and said their battle plan is to try to win tomorrow in super tuesday states like oklahoma and minnesota, where the senator has drawn huge crowds, then focus hard on blue collar white voters in the industrial midwest. >> i think senator sanders message about income inequality, really is going to resonate with people in the upper midwest. >> clinton trying to cut into sander's lead with college students, one of several super tuesday states where she's up big, brett? >> ed henry in virginia, thank you. the nation's top cop on apple, cyber security and the
interview today with attorney general loretta lynch at the justice department talking about e-mails, iphone and the fbi. the supreme court, a number of topics, in the meantime, on the apple case, a u.s. magistrate judge just tonight said the justice department cannot force apple to provide access to a locked iphone. this is not the case of the san bernardino terror attacks, this one involves what's described as a routine brooklyn drug case. one of the 12 cases i referenced in that interview. a spokesperson showing disapproval tonight. laura ingram and charles lane.
laura, thoughts on the interview? obviously trying to get some answers from the attorney general on the clinton e-mail issue is tough. but some illuminating things. >> i like how you pressed her on the private server issue. which really stood out in my mind. you asked her, reduced store e-mails, she kind of -- for e-mails, yes. i'm not going to talk about. you got her to say -- i store them on the justice department e-mail server which is the traditional way of doing it. i think it's going to be interesting when these final e-mails are released tonight. and i guess they're starting to come out as we speak. we'll learn more about the classified nature of them. who in the state department could have been aware of this, whether there are any foreign governments involved in these communications. i think after tonight we're going to know a lot more. she has four investigations underway. fbi, the inspector general and two congressional investigations. i have to say, just her demeanor and her approach, i thought she
was really smooth in her interview. she didn't get ruffled. eric holder could get prickly in these exchanges. she's pretty smooth. >> i think she presents very well. she didn't get rattled when you continue to ask her about, are you going to talk to me at all about the clinton case? she wouldn't talk about it, repeatedly denied any opportunity to chat about it, there was a glaring contradiction i thought, about what she said about the apple case and the details she went into with respect to that case. the evidence they had, the challenges they had getting information from apple and her flat refusal to discuss any part of the clinton case, includes even what part of the justice department is handling the case. >> what section? >> yeah. >> so on the one hand she will go deep into the evidence and talk about it in a public forum on national television with you. on the other, she won't answer a basic question about who's handling the case? >> it is law, that you can ask about a grand jury convening if
we know publicly that somebody or some subject is a target potentially. but she didn't want to answer that either. >> our own newspaper reported that a lawyer called david scott -- i'm sorry, richard scott is the guy handling it, at least there's that out there on the public record. i was struck by your questions and her answers on the issue of what we owe the voters or what doj owes the voters in a situation like this, this comes up quite often when mayors are under an fbi investigation. members of congress, and so forth. people are going to face the voters soon, we have a problem where it's only fair to hillary, and it's only fair to the voters that we get some finality on this at some point. i was a little concerned that she -- as you -- that she seemed to regard this as kind of open ended just like in any other case. in light of the fact that comey said six weeks ago we'll wrap it up by now, i thought that might
have been not her strongest point. >> when you pressed on the issue of who else had been briefed, which is such a great question, when you asked about the white house, and you referenced josh ernest, earlier referenced it. i can't speech for josh, but then she said, i haven't -- it's to my knowledge -- no one in the white house or anyone outside the department would be briefed on this. so why does he seem to have information on this? >> inquiring minds want to know. there are more questions raised by this interview, even though her presentation is very smooth and nonconfrontational. she didn't get defensive or back up on her heals like some other members of the administration had done. that stuck out in my mind. >> she also said independent prosecutors and law enforcement agents are working this case. but then pressed about who makes the final decision whether to prosecute or not. she wouldn't say i'm that person. she is a political appointee. >> she wouldn't say that at all. that was an obvious dodge i
sthout. >> why not set up an independent council in this case. a question i should have asked, but i left without asking. >> you asked for every conceivable question about this, i think. and she repeatedly denied any answers. i think that's a question better directed at josh ernest. >> on the iphone and apple thing. they make a detailed case, but they have problems. this magistrate is just on one of these cases, apple is holding the line. >> she was insisting with you, this is just like any other case. as we would in any case. that isn't -- you know, that isn't really what's going on here, this is a very special case. i think this is headed to the supreme court, probably. >> you agree? >> i'm of two minds. especially with this government forcing companies to take actions that violate their internal. i can argue both sides on this
case. >> by the way, there was another element of news that people didn't pick up. the fact that they're talking to the u.k. about subpoena to american companies on investigations, that is a big deal. >> it's entirely possible to watch this interview and start sympathetic to the administration on apple and finish this. having many more questions. it's not just this one specific san bernardino case. it's many cases as you said, a routine drug case. talking about information sharing, compelling companies to share information overseas. a lot of questions. >> it's always going to be another thing. it's about this thing, i don't think it's just about this thing, i think there are other things the government will want from these companies. just a
else. >> g.o.p. finger pointing over failure of chosen candidates. recriminations have begun. donor class to the candidates themselves. you saw it with jeb's meltdown. if rubio doesn't have a good night, they are out of cards. >> chuck? >>/clinton sweep move closer to november showdown. >> such a newspaper guy. very headline oriented. is there thanks for inviting us into your home tonight. that is it for this "special report," fair, balanced and unafraid. we have complete super tuesday coverage tomorrow night. america's election headquarters up in new york. and a, by the way, we have a debated thursday in detroit. greta goes "on the record" right ed>> it is tuesday march 1st. the all important super tuesday. with a fiery fight to the finish. >> five republican candidates on
the ballot today and nearly a dozen states. 595 delegates are at stake. >> democrats 865 delegates up for grabs. the candidates realizing it is time to sink or swim. >> socialist like bernie sanders. >> don't vote for a con artist either. >> we cannot have joke artists running our country. >> our campaign is the only campaign that has beaten and that can beat donald trump. >> it matters what you say when you run for president and it really matters if you are president. >> we are going to win in massachusetts and massachusetts will help lead this country into the political revolution. >> we have fox news team coverage for you this morning. from texas to virginia and georgia. >> we begin with jonathan seurry with the fight for the republicans. >> good morning heather and
abby. this precinct doesn't open for another two hours but the latest polls are showing donald trump with a considerable lead in georgia. take a look at the video from last night. last night at a rally in georgia trump received the endorsement of ceo brian france and several retired nascar drivers. trump reached out to evangelical voters. >> christianity peace by pea pi piece by piece is being destroyed. we are going to get it back. just remember what i said. >> the latest georgia pole sponsored by a local station fox five atlanta shows trump dropping a few points since last week but the change is well within the statistical margin of error so don't read too much into that. he leads comfortably at 31 percent. marco rubio and ted