the story is here in new hampshire on the eve of the first in the nation primary. my interviews state from the campaign trail with the final two, donald trump and nikki haley. that s coming up. we ll also hear from the people that make it happen, the voters. we ll speak with some of those crucial undecided one days left for them to make up their minds. we ll see what they re thinking from my stop at the bookery, which is a great place to talk to voters in new hampshire. so senator tim scott is also here today. we re going to ask him about his endorsement of president trump and is he on the short list for v.p. as well. also, he just got engaged. a lot to talk to senator scott about. first, let s bring in bret baier, the chief political anchor, anchor of special report. good to see you this afternoon. one day to go. you ve been out on the campaign trail a lot. what are you picking up out there? listen, new hampshire takes it seriously just like iowa, all of these folks di
morning. they are a christian band. they have been here before. we welcome them back. they sing holy water. many of you know what that is. if you are downloading some of their music, they sing a beautiful version i found it on youtube the bills of god, famous song a lot of nondenominational songs sing. their version of it is to beautiful. steve: we know a lot of people signed up for it. if you didn t get the v.i.p. tickets, you could still come down to 48th and sixth avenue. ainsley: we will be out there. we would love to see you. brian: scandalous at all. steve: bootleg tickets? ainsley: i haven t heard that it has been. we have very honest fans. brian: look. steve: a jeweler loop? ainsley: why would you go to the counter of making a counterfeit ticket sign up for v.i.p. ticket and it s free. steve: think ahead. in addition to the ticket to come and stand there on the astro turf to watch this group you get free this morning the mclemores from master built a
this kind of extreme measure. let s not forget our shared humanity and our share faiths. right. that s part of the american contract. it s great to get your perspective on this very difficult issue. s that the show for tonight. now we go to alex warren. we re going to be joined by a former clerk of samuel alito who says justice alito should recuse himself from the trump cases. that former clerk is going to join us to make his case. i am looking forward to hear that clerk s story on something i agree with. the breaking defendant trump news of the night is that donald trump has to give up his guns. donald trump who has had bodyguards for many many years before he had secret service protection, never had any rational reason to carry or even possess a firearm but like many people, who hope that a handgun might make them feel, i don t know, more like a man. donald trump owns three handguns. and he obtained a license to carry a concealed handgun. a license that the new york
So what happens i know the magistrate judge or the judge below here said that it was preposterous to think that this prisoner could hide anything in his half inch beard. Assuming that his half inch beard was not thickly grown, but some are, and some you cant see the skin. Should that half inch issue be applied to that prisoner . Wouldnt it be a different set of facts in that case to consider . Well, a state might be able to show thats a different set of facts. You know, but the question is not just is it conceivably imaginable that some prisoner somewhere could hide something in a half inch beard. But could he hide something there that he couldnt much more easily and more securely hide in the hair on top of his head, in his shoe, in the lining of his clothes . For all half inch beards, right . Yes. We have to assume all half inch beards are okay if god tells you to grow them, right . Well, you know, i think thats right, and again subject to somebody producing evidence that were wrong a
Armed forces has recently, in a line of cases and their progeny, cast doubt as to the constitutionality of this provision as applied in a criminal setting. The court of appeals has, in a rather expansive dicta, said that notwithstanding the plain text of the military rule of evidence, which requires the judge to do this balancing test, that the privacy interests of a victim, the danger of unfair prejudice to a victims privacy interests, will never trump the introduction of evidence that is material to the defense and favorable to the defense at trial. That is, the constitutional right to present a defense will always trump the victims privacy interests. This case, United States versus gaddis, found in volume 70 of the military justice reporter, beginning, i believe, at page 248, and the court, although divided in that opinion, is united in its skepticism toward the applicability of this provision and whether the victims privacy is ever relevant to the admissibility of evidence in a cou