answer his question about whether or not the president could have ordered the death of an american citizen on american soil using a drone without due process. attorney general eric holder finally answered no. here is some media reaction. the administration has responded with a letter, as i understand from attorney holder, it s come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question he, does the president have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an american, not engaged in combat on american soil? the answer to that question is no. senator rand paul released a statement saying, he is satisfied and will end his opposition to brennan. the vote as you know has gone through so i guess that s the end of that. that was one of the shortest letters i ve ever seen from an attorney general, a vi silent f-you in it somewhere. jon: and yet, when asked earlier to answer that question, the administration never came up with that two letter answer no.
fox news alert on new fallout after kentucky senator rand paul mounts a dramatic nearly 13-hour filibuster in what is called a unique moment in political history. that is now winning praise from both sides of the aisle. that s where we begin this brand new hour of america live. i m megyn kelly. rand paul speaking for hours and hours during an old-fashioned filibuster, blocking the confirmation of john brennan in an effort to obama administration s refusal to rule out a drone strike on an american citizen on american soil. senator paul held the floor for most of the day at times talking more than three hours nonstop. he had help from fellow
rules for droning. who can be droned, when and where. now this memo indicating that there is some belief somehow some way that the government can decide if it s okay to drone an american citizen, to shoot an american citizen on american soil. as other worldly as it might sound that s what they are saying. person speaking now not rand paul but paul widen, interestingly a democrat in the state of oregon joining from the filibuster. none to happy himself about this droning memo. why are they doing it this way? why not do the auto filibuster as they have been doing for years? why stand up there and talk and talk? they want to draw attention to this. clearly it s working and another big story we are following coming from wall street this afternoon. look at the dow. it s up again. and the bells should ring right now. we re in a whole new record territory. good day to look at your 401(k).
position on how unmanned drones could be used to target americans. well, today he finally got his response in a letter sent by u.s. attorney general eric holder, who s america s top cop. he explains, quote, it is possible, i suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the constitution and applicable laws of the united states for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the united states. in other words, yes. president barack obama has the ability to order the assassination of an american citizen on american soil? pretty incredible. joining me now with reaction is none other than kentucky senator rand paul. so, the president has the power to authorize lethal force, a drone strike against the u.s. citizen on u.s. soil without a trial? this is the same people that want today give miranda rights to enemy combatants and constitutional rights to enemy combatants?
would happen because it s easier to capture people here. here we are with an old fashion style filibuster from rand paul. historically senators have been able to exert their influence. rand paul is doing that now. they brought action to a assault over an issue that needs more scrutiny. can the government use drones to kill potentially an american citizen on american soil. something that as you point out is hypothetical and what disturbed rand paul and others is that the attorney general sort of left wiggle room. not absolutely ruleing it out and sort of setting up a scenario where there might be in fact a battlefield on american soil. that s something that rand paul said is not a part of what the constitution provides. not part of what the oath of the president or the attorney general provides. he wants to shine a light on that. he said he expect that is the president will speak to this more for the american public and