thanks for being with us. one nation prevailed in asserting its interest in the summit in northern ireland and it was not the united states. two days of talks at the g 8 in befast and a one hour discussion between presidents obama and putin on syria turned out to be an 'em brarsment for the president. the call was for assad to step down and a condemn nation of assad after putin incestsisted e

is no chemical regime ashe obama white house claims. president obama's forei policy looks increasingly muddled and confused particularly and most urgely on the ise of syria. on theve of that suit the obama id it woulbe sending small arms to the rebels some of whom have danrous ties to al qaeda but in an interview which was taped last sunday president obama denied his policy on syria had changed all. with a penchant for the inconsistent, he warned about a deeper involvement in the syrian civil war. >> it is very easy to slip slide your wayinto deeper and ddeper commitment because if it's not working immediately, then what ends up happening is six months from now people say, well, you gave the heavy ar tilry and now

what we need is x and now what we nned is y. because until assad is defeated in this view, it's never going to be enough, all right? >> so for now the president seems content to offer aid and that aid by the way is beginning to add up. president obama pledging another $300 millionin hunitarian assistance, half of which will be sent to sia and half will be divided between refugees and native country. which means e total to more than $800 million, most of the money committed over the past two months and any resolution in syria will have to wait until peace talks which have bee heduled for next mth in geneva are to be held before august. the president still hasn't given a clear defense of the nsa and

surveillce programs and for that matter neither has congress. my first guest, general alexander said -- andrew mccarthy is the authorof the best sellers, jihad and the and fever. nice to have youith us. general alexander w forth right it seemed. he made a compelling case and even since in that committee with the aring room the coittee was growing up a little. i didn't hear what congressman ship started giving th general valuable advice i'm sure but it seemed more mature than i's been. >> you have a real adult who was in complete command of the facts and ihink made the most compplling defense of this program. now, i don't think it will be enough because there's nothing

like the bully pulpit and effective as general alexander is, he's not the president. these programs really need the defense of the oval office and specifically preside obama. >> the president's defense of his admininistration, this agen, rose to this level. he thought it was pretty transparent, the prism program. what does he need to be effective in the defense of nsa and s own administration? > anything but transparent b i think after five years with the oh, passty of this administration transparent is the butt of a joke that will be efctive in thediscourse. he needs to explain much like general alexander did why we need these programs and what the structural civil liberties protections are in them because the run away freight train here is that people who are opposed to the program and saw the issue

as a way to relitigate everything they lost when the patriot act was authorized, have stolen the narrative here and basically have people thinking that the intelligence community is actively spying on americans. >> i think today -- if i'm correct in sensing some higher level of maturity on the part of the committee. perhaps it's about to ebb. they of course always have the reinforcing value of the national media given the politics of the matter. but hopefully we'll see more attention paid to the chinese cyberttacks in this country than on trying to take up the time of those who are leading the effort to prott the country and its infrastructure. let me turn to the g 8 summit in bellfast. e president talked away basically slapped around by putin. it was an abysmal performance

for the united states. >> how couldt be anything but though. you have ideological progress sifs who think that the way to conduct the foreign policy is not to be guided by the compass of our own vital interests but to be part of a community in which we recruit countries that are hostile to the united states, vermuch iluded russia a give us a veto and that is largely because we're living in barack obama's world and which is the result of it. >> and we will be doing so for some time and in the matteof days we'll be taking up direct talks, the united stes will, with the taliban, on a resoluon in afghanistan. i mean, this turns our history, our foreign policy for decades

on its head and leads wher >> it leads to where common sense takes you which is that a war has a winner and a loser and if you don't stay in it to win , you lose. a lot of what has gone from the esident's speech about how he's's basically declaring tt the war is over without having to do the hard work to end it in aositiv way, they're trying to dress this up into something other than a humiliang defeat for the united states. >> andrew mccarthy, good to have you with us. >> thank you. >> what should edward snowden with treated with? r analyst judge andrew

alec, for this mission i upgraded your smart phone. ♪ right. but the most important feature of all is... the capil one purchase eraser. i can redeem the double miles i earned with my venture card to erase recent travel purchases. d with a few clicks, this mission never happened. uh, what's this button do? [ electricity zaps ] ♪ you requested backup? yes. yes i did. what's in your wallet? otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use ss fuel, snd less time on the ound and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪

then you'll know how uncomfortable it can be. [ crickets chirng ] but did you know that the lack of saliva can also lead to toothecay and bad breat [ exhales deeply ] [ male announcer ] well there is biotene. specially formulated with moisturizers and lubricants, biotene can provide soothing relief and helps keep your mouth healthy, too. [ applause ] biotene -- for people who suffer from dry mouth.

♪ joining us now fox news senior judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano. judge, edward snowden has brought the world down arnold his head by stepping out on this. some people describe him as a hero, others as a traitor. where are you? >> i have described him as an american hero when i first learned of this and i continue to stand by that position. ife did what he said he did, if he is the person who revealed l the government's unconstitttional behavior, he's confronted with the following an oath to keep secret the information he was given, on oath to uphold e constitution and a clash between the two. so what do you do? which is higher? his th to keep secret or his

oath to follow the constitution. the constitution is the supreme law the land. he has a moral and constitutional obligation to reveal it. >> you used the hypothetical, if. there are a lot of hypotheticals in this. right now i don't know specifically what he's charged. i haven't heard it from him. >> i don't think any -- what he's charged or be charged with? >> what he is chargin represents a violation of the constitution or law. it's unclear. as you step forward and others have to call him a hero, does it give you some trepidationhe timingecause we are in a speculative era, the t timing o his revelations which wiped away a two day summit between the president of the united states and theresident of china. his presence in hong kong and his charges thathe united statesas hacking chinese locations and facilities, does

that all give you any di quiet? >>t doesn't trouble me aall. the ming othe revelation was set by the reporters to whom he spoke. he's been speing to them for a long time. secondly, i reject the idea that we suldwell on him, his background or his motivation. we should dwelon what the government has done to us in our name. you used an interesting phrase, whether this is legal or constitutional. they're different. >> i used both of them. >> youdid. i'd like to dwel on that for a moment. the congrs thinks it can write any law and regule any behavior and tax any event. in congress's mind whatever it says is legal is legal. but because the constitution restraints them, prohibits a search warrant fo 113 million american when they are looking for two or three, it's unconstitutional. when the governnt has done is legal because the patriot act authorizes it but unconstitutional because the

coress has attempted to disregard the constitution. >> it will be interestg to see where you me down whenll the facts are known. >> we learn more facts every day. >> we do and i can't imagine why one wouldn'te dis quieted bu you're a man of courage and intellt. >> you mean it takes courage to hit here? >> not at all >> i'd like to comeack when we learn morr about it. >> you've got a deal and we will ke it frequeuently. the white hoe overloaded with scandals. we'll ow you why the

>> there's a while during the president's first term it seemed he could do no wrong in the eyes of his supporters, at least the national media as well. now the obama white house scandals are coming at such a furious nearly everyone seems to have a problem with at least one of those controversies and scandals. take a look at just some of these. one, the internal revenue service, if you pay taxes you miiht be a little upset with them whether it's because they

targeted conservative groups or spend millions of dollars on conferences. the liberal national media is over this scandal by the way. the big three networks have gone fromaving 96 stories about e irs in the fst two wes when thscdal brok to one story this week. hava little problem with the way they approach things as you might guess. if you happen to believe congress has the right indeed the obllgation tonow wh our government is doing at home and abro abroadyou may be offended by the administration's mine month stone wall on benghazi and roger ails put it ell when said, quote, i've come to the conclusion that i don't even ca wt the president of the united states was doing th night but i would like to know what the commander in chief was doing that night. if you believe in the first amendment, the freedom of the

press, the white house's sweeping record seizure of documents, should cause your bld to boil over along with the associated press intrusion. fourth, if you are on of those crazy constitutionalists and actually believen the second amendment and your rights, you might be upset to learn viceresident biden is rebooting his push for gun control next week so you can look forward to that. if you believe in the national interest and plain spokenness from the president's administration, you may be rious as to why this whe house won'tharacterize snowden as an outright traitor. perhaps at the hang on to e idea that it's just a coincidence that nsa leaks came at the same time the president was holding summit with the chinese counter part on chinese cyber attacking. you haven't seen atory about it at all in the wake ofhese

leaks. six, if you get fired up over women's rights and abuse o power, thisdministration in general will bet you're revoeltd by accusation that the state department covered up accusations into sexualonsult and prostitution. 7, if you believe the obama's administration's claims that they would be the most transparent in history, it probab ticks you off that political appointees and head of agencies have been using secret e-mail accounts toonduct official government business. we'll find out more surely. so the president hs l these scandals going on and he doesn't even have a nickname like tricky dick nixon or slick willie clinton. this president does it seems need a nickname given allthis. we thought it would b interesting to invite you to share ideas as to what that

nickname would be. e-mail me at lou at loudobbsom. by the way, just toet you started, our executiv producer came up with the first idea, we've already discounted it. his offering was the bamboozler. pretty good, ght. let's hear your ideas. president obama and putin agreeing to disagree o syria. agreeing to disagree o syria. what's next for the co there is a pursuit we a share. a better life for your family, a better opportunity for your business, a better legacy to leave t world. we have always believed in this pursuit, striving to bring insight to every investmt, and integrity to every plan. we are morgan stanley. and we're ready to work for you.

at od, whatever business you'ren with premium service li one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises.

>> for more n on the different perspectives on syria from the president' putin and obama, we lce now fox news middle east dr. waleed and fox news military contributor. we thank you for being withus.

this meeting amounted to what as they declared they had different perspectes and basically agreed to disagree? >> well, that's what they've done in northern ireland. the reality on the ground i differenent. on the ground you hhve a very aggressive syrian regime as we heard in the introduction as the irans across syria. on the other hand an unstoppable al qaeda penetration of t opposition. so the only group with whom we can partner is now being weakened. that's the free syrian army and the secular people of the free syria army and we don'tave a syria plan. we have a syria ste aftertep but we don't have a comprehensive strategic pl so far. >>eneral, we're listening to senator main, senator graham and a handful of others but primarily from the republican party saying that we've got to get involved, there has to be a

no fly zone. we have to start armi these rebels. it is a peculiar thing in washingt that is erupting for support for another conflict in the ddle east. your thoughts? >> i don't think they know what they're talking about. they're talking about supporting general e dress and ease not the one that we just talked about. dr. paul, a former fox military analyst has met on two occasions and they are secular. they are the ones we need to help but we're talking about arming the wrong ople. as far as a no fly zone goes, lou, the oly no fly zones are in the united states over our air basis where we've grounded one third of our tactical air and now they want t crank it up. we aren't readiness-wise prepared to do this. could we do it, sure b it

would be a great cost to us. it's not going to hppen withth this administration because they do not have a serious srategy on what to do with syri and what our goals are. that's the ve worrisome thing. >> it's all aut unconceivable that the united states with the very same leadership that has led us to t result in iraq and afghanistan that the american people and even a would think of those strategies in command. >> we don't have a stomach for it, the public doesn't have a stomach for it. >> let me be clear. i wast talking about having the stomach for it but e good judgments and the intelligence, i'm referring to the american

people, to tell failed leaders don't both. >> you have a point. we are not yetalking to the right people. if we want to donything about it, the administration maximum goal at this point in time is to bring back some sort of balance of power between the opposition in general without defining what is the opposition and the assad regime in the hope to take everyby to geneva where the russns are waiting there not to help us and give us a veto. that road is not going to be a solution. the other critique coming from inside washington, from some meers of congress is that we're going to do an all outno fly zone over syria. the general was right when they id there are commanders of the fsa who are secular. they should be invited to

washington, not istanbul, but to congress and clarify what syria ww're going to see after assad if at all. >> talking with the chief of staff in the united states air force some years ago he pointed out to me that we have had our air power engaged, at that time it was some years ago, but now it's 22 years that we have had our air power engaged and no fly zones, in comb whether it's now in afghanistan. this has been an unprecedented persistent use of air power and an air force that has been taken to its limits. s it not? >> absotely. in those 22 years we've worn a lot of the equipment out. we have not modernized the f 22 whh would be absolutely required in syria ifhe russians put in the 300 service missile. you have to be steth if you are

doing to survivein that. soundamentally we have 100 f 22s that are capable of operating in this regime. over this time frame we've continued to draw down the number of uadron that we have. we've t them in the bone yard through sequestration and other budget cuts. lou, you are spot on. we have over the lt 22 years, we're not the same air force that we were 22 years ago. >> and we're deploying f16s to jordan. i'm not entirely sure what will be the result of that. we are looking at continued incremental steps toward ratcheting up at least th potential for conflict. what would be th outcome if we do engage in russia and are we prepared for such a conflict? is this commander in chief prepared for such a conflict?

>> i don't have an answer to that. what i can say is there is no strategic plan. there are three conditions for our success in syria. number one to partn with the right people. we want to see them in washington. number two, we need to tell quarter and the other arab stops op fundingnd three, we need to be prepared for confrontation with he's bull la and iran. >> general, you get the last wordas we watch presidents putin and obama come to no conclusion in their meeting. >> presint putin wants to humiliate president obama and if president obama doesn't understand that he's going to be humiliate humiliated. radical are being unded in this particular venture so the modetes are not getting the

funding they need. we'v exposesed ourselves to a combination of challenges that if we do somethinge have to go in big timend the american people have not been explained about why we should go do this and we do not have a stragy that would support that structure to go in and try to resolve thproblem. it is not a very good decision that we've left the american people. perhaps the israelis are going to have to pull it out themselves. >> gentlemen, thank you very much. the irs scandal targeting conservave groups, delaying applications, playing politics and maybe, maybe committing felonies. jay plant.

>> my next guest is representing 25 conservave organizations

that are suing the irs claiming their constitutional rights were violated. joining usows jay sekulow, chief counsel for the american cent for law and justice. good to have you here. >> thanks r having me. >> this is a monument if i may say, monumental legal action to go after the internal revenu service. you're going to have jacob lou, steven miller, holly paas and other unknown irs ficial how did you determine them? >> the reason we listed those individuals, we based on the information that we had during the process of examination hen ese groups re trying to get tax exempt we knew who we were dealing with. steve miller said he had no idea, he couldn't remember anybody's names. i had the agent' names, the

letters om lois lerner. we named the complaint. those w had knowledge of or actualgageme in the unlawful acts of the irs. we he listed ten or more unknns. until we do the discovery we're not going to know how deep or high up it went. we're going to be amending that complaint in e next week or ten days, adding another 25 organizations and additional counts ithe complaints, some areas that we have's since learned that we're concerned about. it is a monumental undertaking. we filed a complaint that says you unlawfully targeted. normally they would say denied. how are we going to deny it because we attach the statements where we admitted it.

>> the response from lois lerner in particular, not only an acknowledgment and admission of guilt but then an apology which compounds i would think the evidence on your behalf. >> it does. i mean, the fact that she made the admiion and we got t inspector general's report where they acknowledge and uncover the targeting. they keep calling it targeting but targeting is a violati of the constitution. you cannot target someone based on their viewpoint. i have doneemultiple cases on that. i said thi the other day on your broadcast. i think the irs is institutionally incapable of self-correcting. this afternoon the irs placed on administrative leave two more officis, one in charge of the ama care, affordable care act enforcement. the agency in complete melt down in my view.

what needs to happen, i think they should scrap the ole internal revenue cord b short of that we need justice for our clients that these unconstitutional acts stop. >> you lked about changes, dages to claims that have to be satisfied here by an agency of the federal government th under our constitution is supposed to be serving the american people, not targeting them. it clear that theyere doing precisely that throughheir own admission. what damas will you likely succeed or do you want to succeed in recovering from the until revenue service for your clients. >> they need their exemptions. a number ofhese groups before we got involvedincurred substantial legal fees trying to comply with these questionir that were coming from the irs. they need rimbursement and we

have clients that have lost we talked abouttthis before, this particular group that was picked up in this dragnet of the irs. they weren't a tea party group but a conservative organization and they were pick up in this dragnet and ended up losi a grant of $30,000. that there's rea damages here and then of course there's the getting the governme to stop because despite protests to the contrary, jay carney's statementso thecontra, the reality on may 26 of 2013 we received another letter fr one of our clients with ridiculous questions. the process has not stopped and we need get the government to correct itself and without a court order they're not capable of doing. >> jay, thanks for joining us. the ranks need to follow the right organization toward some satisfaction or justice against the irs and the federal

government. >> google facebook, do they with the spark cash card from capital one... boris earns unlimited rewards for his small business. can i get the smith contract, ease? thank you. that's three new paper shredders. [ boriri] put 'em on my sparcard. [ garth ] boris' small business earns 2% cash back on every pchase every day. great businesses deserve unlimited rewards. read back the chicken's testimony, please. "buk, buk, bukka!" [ male announcer ] get the spark business card from capital one and earn unlimited rewards. choose 2% cash back or double miles on every purase every day. toldou i'd get half. what's in your walle for their family. that why i created the honest company. i was just a concerned mom, with a crazy dream. a wish that there was a company that i could rely on, that did all of the hard work for me. i'm jessica alba, and the honest company was my dream. [ male announcer ] legalzoom has helped a million businesses successfully get started, incling jessica's.

launch your dream at legalzoom today. call us. we're here to help.

>> apple, yao! googl and microsoft all now claim that they kw nothing about the so called prism surveillance program, but our next guest says we've already given up control of data and platforms to the very companies under discussion. joining us to discuss whether or not we have any control at all over our privacy and security o the web, bruce mier. he's a security expert and author of liars and outliars.

bruce, it's great to have you with us. i think that as a security expert you probably have the best opportunity to explain to us why anyone shouldot start laughing outloud when google and apple and facebook start talking about ey deserve mre respect from us because they have just a few thousand request is from nsa and other agencies when they are the ones taking our personal and private information and dis sem nating it across the web, aren't they? >> we are aegiving it to them. it's not that they're tang it. the nsa has to do with them taking it. we're giving it to these companie in some ways that's the way the web works. they need us to trust them with our daa, our friends, our photos, but their real business is betraying that trust to

advertisers. that's their business model. they try to hide it somewhat. they're transparent somewhat but they rely relyn us not noticing. the fact that they had a sideline betraying us the government as well is just one more thing. >> i'm curious about this because -- byhe way, i didn't say that the companies took the information. i said they dis sem nated it various ways across the web. that is the business model. facebook in particular doesn't care what your privacy preferences are. they're going to do wt they will. i find that utterly maddening that people are buying that posture almost unquestioned. >> there's conflict of interest here. these are the very same types of correlations that yoee in prism that facebook and google and others do to better serve

you ads. the diffence is going to be the false posisitives. if google makes a miake, th

i think it's going to be for a while. that is the way the worl works. if you pick a company at random data is in the icloud you're trusting them. you're giving them all your data. there's a reason you do it but you hope that there are interests align with yours. in a lot of these cases, facebook is an example, google, you're not their custer. you're their product they sell to their customers. so the normal customer vender relationship doesn't apply in the same way. it's the facthat we are creasingly the product, that our data is the product makes us really into search for these companies producing data that they use to sell to advertisers and to t government. >> i think you make as i said a fascinating point. but i think we have to persist

in that point and extend it out as far as we can. you talk aboute make this tradeoff about our privacy, for convenience of t alignment of interest. what cod be a greater alignment of interest than the nsa and a governmenthat is acting in our interest to protect us from terrorist, or a greater convenience than to still be alive at the end of a day thanks to this broad surveillance program. there's a certain political, if you will, groupin this country identifiable, easily identified that really hates the nsa doing precisely what google and facebook are doing. but in each instance their as are almost analogous in both the alignment asou say of interest and the convenience, t treoff that is not always conscious, not always understood

by consvatives. >> right. this is what we need to understand. the question is what's being done and howffective is it? we are the taxpayers. we are the ones who pay for this, who make that tradeoff. so we need to be told how effective these prrams are. there's been a lot of wheezeling. they might have been effected in some this. amples given have turned out to be false. we don't know whether these programs do any good. we don't know how much they cost, is this a good use of our money? they're very unlikely to be effective. this is why secrecy is bad. we need to know what the government is doing, understand what they're doing. if they're doing a good job, great. ifhey're doing a lousy job we need to fix it. this is what snowden did that was so good. gave us information about

what the government is doing in our name with our money. let's find t if it's effective. we have never seen a case that's effective or cost effective. >> why aren't people challenging the busine models in the aggregate a highly concentrated and powerful group of companies that could as easy be called like facook, microsof and -- did i mention facebook? let me do it again. these are disturbing inconsistencies and contradictions when we start to look at those. we start to lay bare something else everybody suld be aware of and that is the politics of those who are most exercised about, say, the nsa and those beginning to get pret exercised about corporates who are ally driving the virtual world in which we findreat experience and alue.

>> there are two reasons. one i mentioned is ttat the harmsres great. being shown a wrong ad because you're misclassified is different an being investigated because you're misclassified. >> whoa, wait a minute. it's almostbiquitous privacy is being invaded by the corporates. there is a ver narrow, small number who are being investigated by the government. they are not analogous on either si, scale or incidt, but we're going to have to pick this up because, bruce, as you said, we could talk for -- come on back and let's continue the conversaon. i think it's a fascinating perspective you bring to it and we appreciate you sharing your insight. come on back. >> thank you. >> bruce nyer. upext we're gog to be talking about the brand new book, the founding

consertives, troubles at the creation and how our founding fathers dealt with them and the we went out and asked people a simple question: how old is the oldest person you've known? we gave people a sticker and had them show us. we learned a lot of us have knownomeone who's lived well in their 90s. and that's areat thing. but even though we're living longer, one thing that hasn't changed much is theffial retirement age. ♪ the question is how do you make sure you have the money you need to enjoy all of these years. ♪ summer event is here. now get the unmistakable thrill and the incredible rush of the mercedes-benz you've always wanted. ♪ [ tires screech ] but you better get herfa. [ girl ] hey, daddy's here. here you go, honey. thank you. [ male announcer because a thing like this won't last forever. mmm. [ male announcer ] see your authized dealefor an

incredible offeon the exhilarating c250 sport sedan. but hurry. offers e soo

♪ lou: a new >> a new book sheds lit on some lesser known conservatives who helped secure freedom during the revolutionary war. joining me n is david lefer, professor at nyu ae polytechnic institute. author of this book the fouing conservatives, now a group of unsung heros saved the american revolution. congratulations on the book. >> thank you. it's an honor to be here. >> we wish you the ery best of this book, be a massive success. i love the subject and your thinking on it. let's start with you int out the three main arguments. i'd like to go through them qukly.

the founding conservatives saved the american revolution just as important as you said, bt wh were these conservatives first and why hasn'tmuch until now been made of the >> it's the remarkable story and the history of the american revolution is itself a fascinating subject that we go on and on abou they saved the american revolution in multiple ways. robert morris single handedly financed the army. without him the army wod have grounded to a halt. you have james wilson and governor morris who wrote large parts ofhe united ates constitution. ese foundi fathersre well known to historians but they have pretty much been totally left out of popular histories. >> i find fascinating you say we shouldn't be oking too much to briton, the united kingdom as the foundation for cservative thought and philosophy but

rather, you say that the first modern conservative was british statesman edmond burke. >> most hiies trace the conservativism back to burke. i discovered that everything burke std for and said was said a decade and a half earlier by the american founding 3 c1 conservatives. it struck me as strange and fascinating that conservative similar that is all about h heritage esn't know its ownn har tank. >> the thinkers, the intellectuals, thomas jefferson, a conservative? >> he was far more radical. one ofhe most surprising things i discovered in the book is john adams was quite radical throhout the revolution. he changes his thinking toward the end of it. >> conservativism itself, give

us your view day of what statement its in. i have to tel you, i can't always recognize a conservative. >> i think these conservatives i write about offeo lessons. the first is that they compmise, they fought tooth and nail for this country, let me emphasize that. theyought tooth and nail for this country. they compromised for the good of the nation they put patriotism before politics. they were facing a world of changing definite graphics. they we losing voters as free men from the lower classes and the middle classes, the right to vote. these conservatives started losing their vote. they had to offer one thing to get their vote. that was prosperity. they saide will bring free market capitalism to america. it will make the people strong and rich. >> these modern conservatives as we look around us, prosper us, brillit, engaged?

>> conservativesace a similar tension today, how do you deal with the complaining lector at and stay relevant. >> we're going to see that answered. neil: well, who sayshe white house doesn't talk about stuff that's illegal. that's not so. the president's been talking 5 lot about illegal immigrants ad finally making them legal and russia holding edward snoden stilsaying, well, that's illegal, but when it cooes to a certain irs scandal or justice department scandal or a pattern of health care dpartment related scandals, not only does the word "illegal" come up, not a one scandal comes up, not ever. be careful about a president who picks and chooses what he finds illegal. history suggests the real events ultimately determines what is. welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto, and as we end this wek, this just seems weak, pi