federal prosecutor lis weihl and professor of media law, paul cowan, good to see you both. if you find out about a witness through illegal means you cannot call this witness exclusionary rule. and, you are right, unless that witness is so attenuated from that tree so far the apple has fallen so far they would have been able, the government, actually would have been able to find the witness, and then you can use the witness. or, if the witness says it is supreme court analysis, if the witness says look, i ll be there voluntarily and i don t care you say i want to there be gregg: irrelevant. the supreme court case if you convince a guy to show up though you found out about him through illegal means you think that is okay. as long as he testifies and says, i ll be here no matter what gregg: paul. the whole case, an amazing blunder by the obama administration, i mean, here they take the terror alleged terrorist, who, by the way consented to be tried by a military
don t have the advantage of even having the opportunity to hack your computer. i had to i had to do this on my own. gregg: i didn t give it to you, either, fair and balanced. paul and lis weihl. julie. jamie: lis wins. thank you, julie. julie: you guys are both losers! in many ways! julie: back to school season coincides with headaches and migraine season for many children and, what parents need to look out for and best ways to treat a severe headache for your trial and cowboys and cowgirls, in mexico, the world record they snagged in the process, straight ahead. [ male announcer ] the financial headlines
purse. but the cocaine she says wasn t hers. a plastic bindle of a substance believed to be cocaine fell from her purse in the plain view of the lieutenant. this substance tested positive as cocaine. megyn: lis weihl and mark eiglarsh. i want a chairchg venue. i don t know if this judge is fair. megyn: i have never seen that purse i was carrying all night with my lipgloss tonight before in my life. what zillion air do you know that walks around with a purse she keeps her lip balm in. some phantom friend must have
foreseeable kids drink it, because you have to reduce it further. it is down almost to tepid warmth, the hot chocolate is not even hot and don t you think, again, the sequence of events, the mother would have figured out, it might be too hot and this lid might be we may have to change it and she may have been partly to blame. gregg: mcdonald s would be better if they sent cold beer. cold beer! gregg: can t go wrong with that. give to it your kids! lis weihl, fred, good to see you both. just kidding about the kids. joke! no beer! julie: we all do this, we say to ourselves, it s the holidays and we re on vacation, it is okay to indulge, and extra calories and fatty foods but could the extra pounds gained from the short-term indulgences actually take years to burn off? we have got the surprising new study and, what you can do to fight back, next. i m chef michael,
gregg: an illinois woman is suing mcdonald s claiming her daughter was seriously burned when she spilled a cup of hot chocolate and the lawsuit claims they should have known the beverage was too hot to drink. does it sound familiar? goes back 16 years when a woman successfully sued mickey ds and spilled hot coffee on herself. i think the judgment back then was $2 million. though it was later dropped. down a bit. is this 1994 all over again? let s put the question to our legal panel, lis weihl, fox news legalab ablnalyst, former feder prosecutor, fresh from vacation, and, you are skeptical, lis, why. as a mom, i m thinking, look, the girl is a passenger and the mom hands her the cocoa, hot chocolate and then supposedly the whole thing spills, scalding her, scarring her horribly, and, she waits a year-and-a-half to file a lawsuit?