Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
It is now with more on all this Fox News senior judicial analyst at Denton a -- had I mean basically saying -- -- a lot.
Well if he believes in doing him wrong and indeed in in the blogs and in large portions of American society and and I am in this group.
The most extraordinary violations.
Of the Fourth Amendment in the history of the country that the government think thinks it could somehow justify.
Looking at the phone calls and emails over -- -- over over a hundred million Americans.
It's mind boggling.
That Fourth Amendment directly prohibits it.
On the other hand the government has enacted laws the Patriot Act which permitted to go before judges in secret -- -- is no records kept of what these judges do that are available.
To the public and using a standard lower than what the Fourth Amendment requires.
Fourth member requires evidence of crime in order to get a search warrant this Patriot Act standard requires.
We're looking for terrorists that's no standard at all using that standard.
It authorizes the judges to authorize the federal government.
To snoop on Americans but but the level of the -- is extraordinary if he's telling the truth and the government hasn't denied anything.
He could have captured the key strokes of the -- in the United States and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Admirals and generals and police chiefs and librarians and homemakers and anybody will.
But judge I I understand the concern that the government has gone too far in its collection of data but this man went to Hong Kong essentially China.
And if he stays there potentially.
Whether economically -- one -- militarily now has access to an individual who had access to all of this information about how we gather intelligence that puts us.
Added detriment doesn't it I mean he chose to Odierno -- Fired up when I went to China Adam because the United States has an extradition treaty.
With China it's a bilateral extradition treaty and it's been used both ways we send people there and -- simply we're here for ordinary criminal prosecution.
Obviously our criminal prosecution is different than -- I think he knows that he ought to know that the government is serious about wind a prosecutor might already be treason as the charge and -- -- espionage just charged but I certainly see.
A violation of of -- secrecy laws as -- try to interpret and oath.
To -- to himself.
What he learned any violated that -- he believes he did it for.
Higher good a lot of people will agree because of a democratic country has a Communist country to uphold democratic principles I mean that's -- -- he chose the Communist country because he wanted to escaped the federal government but is he said in his interview.
The CIA he knows -- -- It's right -- the block for war I am now I think there where I am I know where they -- they wanted it helps.
-- and doing all this candlelight things pillows at the door could gun when he puts in passwords what what could essentially happens.
Scott well I think the government will probably charge him with espionage.
Which is basically giving secrets to the enemy and that in a manner to harm us now the -- has to prove that was his intent it doesn't appear that that was is was his intent the government have to prove that will be over charging him.
But the government usually -- even street crime over charges that -- charges for more than what they think the evidence will there.
Because the end result is usually a plea agreement or jury verdict somewhere less than what they've charged but in the in the area where they want.
So -- charge him with violating the secrecy laws.
And they'll charge him with with espionage I don't think they'll charge him with trees and his defense is going to be.
I did the right thing I was a whistleblower the American public it was and tell you know this -- -- judge lets him make that defense if a judge lets him make that defense and if a jury.
I -- he'll walk free if the judge doesn't let him make that defense does not much of it and what happens if if it.
I'm now but it sounds like he very well could walk -- imagine.
If a judge permits that to the defense the fact that you -- and he would have to get himself characterized as a whistle whistle -- not a view that's.
You have to satisfy judge that there's at least an argument.
That the government violated the constitution if -- for some kind of amnesty to the Chinese.
Do we have some kind of international in -- that would not be a country and which in which you could get a because of that treaty would have to go to a country where we don't have a treaty like Iceland.
And desperate there my act -- judge back as he will be found a story I know jet engine -- and I think -- welcome.
Filter by section