weihl and arthur aidala. she is suing forback wages they claim with itman didn t claim. whitman didn t pay. does she have a case? she has a case. i think the bigger picture is about the political aspect of this and whether she is credible. megyn: do you have think there is a political edge here? is she credible? that many the whole nine yards. did her employer, who she lived with for nine years, in and out of her house take care of her children, did her employer know the paperwork did she know she was not legal in this country? it will be like any other case we worked none this show. who do you believe? he said, she said. in this case it s she said, she said. i don t think gloria allred is going to stake her reputation on
you. megyn: rejoining me, lis weihl and arthur aidala. it comes down to whether she got one of these letters from social security what it said. whether the nanny actually got the letter and whether whitman actually got the letter. social security is saying they will not confirm or deny any letter was sent out. they said they ended this program of sending out no-match letters in 2007. and the pre-2007 letters were confidential. that means maybe diaz got that letter and whitman did not as
abiding mention. so, how do we balance our privacy and our security? let s have our legal panel weigh in. joining us now, former federal prosecutor, lis weihl and paul cowan, professor of seat tan hall university and a fox news contributor. is there anything wrong with compiling a database of criminals and criminal activity and sharing it with law enforcement. exactly, within law enforcement. i ll bring you back to 9/11 or pre-9/11, remember the cia and the fbi were not communicating about what they knew, intelligence they knew? if they had known and had communicated, 9/11 may have been thwart thwarted. that is exhibit a, yes. between law enforcement agencies they have to communicate and they are not sending it to anyone private, keeping it within law enforcement. gregg: paul, if you commit a crime it s a matter of personal and public record and second of all, you lose some of your privacy rights when that happens, right? we re not talking about
means. megyn: well, now she high school hired a lawyer, she and her husband, but can they sue? let s ask our panel lis weihl and jonna spilbor. first all. maligning woodchucks? that s horrible. megyn: the pennsylvania scooper woodchuck. you park for a minute or you are a minute late coming back from doing our errands and the guy is ready to write you a ticket. these guys have a tiny bit of power they like to use too much. this poor woman just came to drop the car off for a minute. was going to put the money in. she can sue for intimidation. emotional distress, she can sue for t tortitous assault.
we can t even bring religion into it. gregg: we all agree that a military a military tribunal would not face these legal obstacles. yes. i do agree. isn t that really the reason why it is unwise to try these guys in federal court. i agree but we re here now and you cannot throw gregg: no, we aren t, holder has not made the decision on whether to try these guys. the obama administration started to back off, tremendously on it and this is a test case, and boy it is blowing up in their faces. and they may get lucky with the federal judge and by the way, the judge they made a speedy trial dismissal motion and he has been in custody five years and the judge said, five years doesn t violate speedy trial and every motion made the government has been winning but this is a big one now and i think it will show a colossal mistake. gregg: final question, lis weihl, and, you how did you find the case, you hacked into my computer. how could i? you turned your computer off!