resolution to the united nations security council. we ll share that information with the incoming administration. some of it is sensitive. it s all true. you saw some of it in the protocol released in an egyptian paper. there s plenty more. it s the tip of the iceberg. that was just a short while ago. tensions now boiling over between the united states and israel as israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu claims his nation has more information that the u.s. was behind that u.n. resolution. let s bring in alex conant, former communications director for marco rubio, now a political consultant as firehouse strategies, and shaally marshal a fox news contributor. leslie, why wait until donald trump takes office, if they have this information? why not put it out now? you must be reading my mind, that s exactly what i was
thinking when the prime minister was talking. i don t think they have it, and if they had it, they would put it out now. president obama leaving with a president-elect coming in, threatening to undo everything that is part of the obama legacy would definitely not help him. there s just no reason to do this for the president, especially with donald trump coming in as president next year. secondly, i believe if you look at wikileaks or anybody else who has made threats, on tuesday we ll make this big announcement, we have evidence, it would have more weight if it was released now, so frankly i don t think they have it. alex, what do you think? it s a good question, time will tell. some of it has already been reported on, back channels between the obama administration and other foreign governments at the u.n. i think the more important thing is, how does this impact u.s./israeli relations moving forward? the u.s. has no better friend in
a second. jeff flock, thank you for explaining all of that for us. for more let s bring in a defense attorney and a former prosecutor. one of the things he just brought up was the issue of investigators who wanted the information off the iphone of the san bernardino terrorists who killed 14 people in that office building. apple refused to unlock the iphone. the feds had to go to an outside company to get them to open it. what happens in this case? so this case is a little bit different but it has a lot of similarities. there s so many moving parts to this, heather. what this is not, it s not a case where investigators want to pick up alexa, dissect it, and get what information they can off of it, that would be perfectly okay, we wouldn t be discussing it today. the question is how long does the long arm of the law reach, because investigators now want to go to a third party who had nothing to do with the crime and see if they can pull information from the third party. meaning echo,
okay. so why will amazon not turn it over? reporter: well, good question. they have put out a statement, no interviews yet, but they did put out a statement, i ll read a portion of it. it says amazon will not release customer information without a valid and legal binding demand properly served on us. they say the warrant they ve gotten is kind of overbroad and they re not just going to turn it over. alexa does listen to you. you had you have one in your house, it listens to you all the time, but it doesn t transmit that to the internet or to the cloud unless you say the word alexa. so it s not listening all the time. but if you search for something, like hey, alexa, how do i get blood out of my carpet, maybe prosecutors would want to know that. it s a little like the case of the san bernardino terrorists with the apple phone, they didn t agree to unlock that, and these guys are not agreeing either. we ll talk about that in just
asking apple to hand over information about a man responsible for killing people? in apple s case, they were asked to provide create a new code so somebody could get into the phone. that ended in a standoff. the interesting thing is, we don t have a court decision on this. apple said we re not going to do it, they ended up getting the information another way. we don t have a resolution there. in this case amazon is trying to protect its customers and shareholders by saying, look, we re not going to simply respond to your search warrant, we don t think it s good enough, we think it s overly broad. but if a judge comes in, which arkansas can force their hand, if a judge comes in and says we have to do it, then we will most likely do it, they re not there yet. and i am happy with amazon s decision to not turn this over. i wonder if this is a case where the technology is just so far ahead of the law and the law has a lot of catching up to do. it really does. but you have to remembe