until they get further guidance from the courts. that happens all the time. that happened after the heller case in 2008 when the supreme court said there is a right to keep arms. and we had to figure out what that meant. we ended up back in court on the bruin case 14 years later, in which we get a little more definition on keep and bear. but now we are seeking guidance on sensitive areas. this is a sort of cycle we kind ourselves in when the supreme court rules on one thing, and then opens up several other issues for a debate. let me bring in the former director of counterintelligence at the fbi. frank, i m guessing among law enforcement this has been the subject of a lot of conversation. they, as well as everyone else who follows the supreme court, knew this was coming. what does it mean for the job of law enforcement in this country? yeah. as someone who has carried a badge and gun for 25 years, i get very concerned about anything that may result in more
acquitted of lying to the fbi in a case brought for trump era special counsel john doe, as we see with team trump, there wasn t a there they re the jury of four woman told it was a waste of time and resources, the legal ethics quote, it s hard to understand why it was brought other than to support trump s allegation that the quinton campaign falsely alleged a trump russia connection. bingo! let s be clear here, the intent of this trial was not to get a conviction. it was to push and attack against hillary clinton. as former trump attorney general bill barr said in his own words, and making clear just this week. he did not succeed in getting a conviction from the d.c. jury. he accomplished something far more important. he crystallized essential role played by the hillary campaign
conservative media reaction to this verdict and that same book that we played there phil bar. i mean, did they get what they wanted which is, they got the acquittal, but they didn t necessarily want the acquittal, but if it is, bill barr s out there saying that they put this narrative, injected this narrative into our body politic? i suppose conservative republicans got with a wanted, if their plan for 22 and 24 is to re-litigate the 2016 election and hillary clinton and the russia investigation. what is notable and you cover it perfectly, ayman, is that this case was not actually about whether or not the tech was credible enough to be invested. it was whether or not sussman was able to before that tape as, assess someone who should have acknowledged his affiliation with the clinton campaign. which is why i think most legal analysts have suggested that it never should have been brought. but, it was only brought because he was brought into place to essentially carry donald trump s
and republicans was bush 41 leading the camera because the nra began this position of absolution. that is fundamental right as an absolute right. so, today we have republican leaders who do not believe that guns are the problem. they don t. they absolutely do not believe that guns are the problem, so they will do nothing to address the guns. what we are gonna see come out of blue states ultimately will be the pipeline that creates the cases for federal courts and ultimately the supreme court to make decisions on whether or not someone in a blue state regulations can pass. d. c. heller was a local devastation case in a way, the supreme court has the bruin case out of new york right now regarding the constitutional right to carry. just as we see blue states move towards regulation we are seeing red states more towards relaxing red restrictions on creating this premise of constitutional carry. republicans do not believe that we have a gun problem in the united states, it s why that if tha
guns are the problem. they don t. they absolutely do not believe that guns are the problem, so they will do nothing to address the guns. what we are gonna see come out of blue states ultimately will be the pipeline that creates the cases for federal courts and ultimately the supreme court to make decisions on whether or not someone in a blue state regulations can pass. d.c. heller was a local devastation case in a way, the supreme court has the bruin case out of new york right now regarding the constitutional right to carry. just as we see blue states move towards regulation we are seeing red states more towards relaxing red restrictions on creating this premise of constitutional carry. republicans do not believe that we have a gun problem in the united states, it s why that if that s what informs your politics, you really only have one party to vote for in november. yeah, it s the party of guns that also wants to overthrow our elections, i don t know that will very bode well very we