anguish. but people aren t seeing anything that would have pushed him over the edge. generally in these mass shooter cases you see a triggering event. something that happens that causes a mental deterioration. so far we re not seeing any evidence of that. and i think you asked a really important question. why we are not hearing from authorities about his google searches, his e-mails. i don t know the answer to that. was he trying to disguise? yes, there s no social media trail but what about his private e-mail correspondence they must have access to. why aren t we hearing what s on that and does that tell us anything? i may watch too much homeland but why isn t he being considered a potential american terrorist suspect? ken? everything we re getting from our sources is there s nothing to suggest that. the philippines angle was interesting in the beginning. he wired that $100,000. but that turns out to be about his girlfriend and her family. there s just, in the absence of evidenc
oath of office, that is a vastly important transformation going from a private citizen to a public citizen and therefore, some of those comments do not have the same legal weight. how important is intent? mike: he s utilized that discretion and he is utilized it under the religiously neutral terms. that s why i maintained there is nothing unconstitutional about this. harris: why is this president not being given the same type of latitude to make a decision that so closely relates to our national security at those other presidents in the past? i understand the comments that were made before, but based on everything that we know that s going on in the world right now, those countries still being on a list of the former president capped, why isn t he being given the same latitude? mike: they don t like him.
and send it to the press. he s the major ben fish yare of the first amendment. he could be sued. the first amendment not only points out the pour against the rich and the powerful, it protects them like donald trump whereas in some countries in the world you may be able sootoo sue the president for what he said or insighting a crowd. and isn t he being sued for that right now? he is and i m on his side because i believe in the first amendment. he s made attacks on the media arecuring theme. he s talked about this before running for president. here s february 2016. i m going to open up our libel laws so when they write
you want defamatory about anything in the world as long as you put it in a legal briefing and send it to the press. now, that s protected. that s a loophole that should be clearly be changed. the reason i think president trump is wrong is he s the beneficiary of the first amendment. he could be sued. he could be sued for what he said during the campaign. the first amendment not only as he pointed out that it not only protects the rich and powerful, it protects them like donald trump where in some countries in the world you may be able to sue the president for what he said or inciting a crowd. and isn t he being sued for that right now? he is and i m on his side because i believe in the first
commands about specifically some options to bring him back. bill specifically, there were three major primary options to bring him back. one of the three i was playing a healthy support role. let s leave it at that. there were three. let me stop you, there were three trade scenarios, there were three things they could have done, right? and you were trying to work that out. not all of them involved tray. one of them involves my aspect which was not again a trade. something working the issue obviously the one the president went with was the a billion to cut qatar trading the taliban. the report of the did he did i setter is he a trader. did he collaborate? why isn t he being released? we are a free society. the pentagon is not supposed supposed to be political. why hasn t he been released? bill, i understand that general doll, the investigating officer did a corrected job there was a