now. breaking tonight, his for all the wrong reasons. the presumptive democratic nominee for president grilled by the fbi. hello and welcome toous it is. i'm judge jeanine pirro. thanks for being with us tonight. now for my opening statement. for the first time in the history of this great nation, the person about to become the democratic nominee for president of the united states was interrogated by the fbi today as part of an ongoing year-long federal criminal investigation.

this within days of the target's husband, bill clinton, meeting privately onboard a parked private jet with the attorney general of the united states who has his wife's future in her hands deciding whether that wife should be indicted for engaging in criminal activity, that loretta lynch, the chief law enforcement officer of this country, the head of the united states department of justice, that citadel of integrity and impartality would violate her own justice department rules on ethical conduct, specifically rule 14, would not only talk for 30 minutes in a private unmemorialized meeting but for a local reporter and then not recuse herself from the criminal investigation brings shame on all the great united states

attorneys who work tirelessly, ethically doing their jobs without fear or favor. you know, every small town prosecutor in this country would not only refuse to speak with this spouse of a target, but would refuse to even be in their company to avoid the appearance of impropriety. and then loretta lynch tries to sell us a bill of goods and then tries to back out of her unethical conduct by saying this. >> the recommendations will be reviewed by career supervisors in the department of justice and in the fbi and by the fbi director. and then as is the common process, they present it to me, and i fully expect to sep their recommendations. >> did you notice she says she expects to accept? does accepting their recommendations mean she doesn't have the right to overrule it?

no. she didn't say i will recuse myself. she didn't say i'll stay out of it. she didn't say i'll ask for a special prosecutor, aisle ask for an independent counsel. this is all smoke and meld mirr folks. what's going on in this country? you have a president lying about everything in benghazi to you can keep your health care and doctor. and the despicable video causing the deaths of an ambassador and three americans to having her own server for convenience. folks, these are people for whom there are no consequences, and yet they keep going higher and higher in our government. these are people openly flaunting the system while we ordinary americans are held to a completely different standard.

now, i've spent over three decades in the criminal justice system as a prosecutor, an elected judge, and an elected district attorney. i've investigated, arrested, indicted, prosecuted criminals for murders, rapes, and violent felonies, and every one of them is entitled to the presumption of innocence, but is everyone entitled to the presumption of truthfulness? are these people entitled to a presumption of truthfulness? the answer is absolutely not! there is no way bill clinton is entitled to a presumption of truthfulness. his talking to the attorney general when he himself might be a target or at least a witness in a worldwide money laundering operation called the clinton foundation parading as a

not-for-profit charity would be bad enough if we had reason to believe they were saying the truth, but would bi-- with bill clinton there can be no presumption of innocence. there is evidence to the contrary. bill clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. he escaped indictments by accepting a penalty short of criminal conviction including an unequivocal admission of lying under oath by surrendering his law license. as a result, he was disbarred. hillary clinton has been investigated for everything from the rose law firm to whitewater to cattle futures, to missing files, travelgate, et cetera. so what should americans reasonably believe? nothing that they say. the clintons repeatedly violate our standard of truthfulness and

honesty. so should these people be trusted to run our country? should hillary clinton be trusted to run for president of the united states? should the clintons be trusted to go back into the white house? the answer is positively absolutely undeniably unquestionably no! than's my open. tell me what you think on my facebook page or twitter. #judgejeanine. joining me now to talk about today's developments in washington, the president of judicial watch, tom finton. tom, thanks for being with me tonight. >> you're welcome. >> what's your take on what happened today? >> well, it's an extraordinary development. the fbi doesn't call you in for three and a half hours to dot the is and cross the ts,

especially someone like police: clinton who's such a public figure. i think they're bringing the target of the investigation in and skl her essentially to tell them why she 140u8dn't be indicted. a 3 1/2-hour meeting is a lengthy meeting. i've sat in lengthy depositions where three-plus hours is more than enough time to get the information out and it can provide an skpausive vehicle for getting at what is supposed to be the truth. and i tell you, the fbi with the questioning and answers session that took place today makes that meeting that bill and miss lynch had worse. had that meeting been scheduled prior to today? did they know about the meeting when they met on monday of last week? had it been scheduled already? and if it had been scheduled already, it would be worse. >> tom, i agree with you. you heard my open. you know how i think. >> yeah. >> here's the thing. if she's the last person to be

interviewed and they know this is going to be wrapped up before the convention one way or the other, then there's no question that they knew that she's the last witness as in all criminal investigations the last person the fbi speaks to is a person who is the center of the investigation or the target. so i mean bill clinton is -- the man is a perjer er. he perjers under oath. he is impeached for perjury. it's not just for one thing. it's repeatedly in grand juries. this is someone who's not honest, someone who as an attorney general knew it was unethical, and shame on loretta lynch for not throwing him off that plane. it just tells me the whole lot of them are just a bunch of sleazy slimy politicians.

>> she blew up the investigation. this was her most important decision she had to make. frankly bill clinton and maybe others and now she's admitted. the whole thing has had a shadow cast over it. i don't know how she fixes it. i don't know how it's fixed. a special councsel may be too late. miss lynch has a lot to answer for. that's the what we've asked. >> who is she going to answer to? who is she going to answer to? this woman should not only recuse herself. she should resign because what she has done to the american public's face in the criminal justice system, she's totally destroyed it. >> well, you know, if republicans in congress feel that way, they can make that happen. and there's not a member of the administration who serves in office without the sufferance of republicans in office.

if they didn't want that person in the cabinet, they would make it clear until they resign. if they feel strongly about it, they should take action. >> what about the idea she's still going to be there short term and she controls whether or not that case goes to the grand jury? >> well, it's a terrible situation as we've said before, and i think she needs to make it clear that the decision is going to be made by nonpolitical prosecutors because we've heard that line before out of this justice department. either that or recuse herself and just say, look -- >> she's not going to do it. tom, she's not going to do it. she was in the hot seat yesterday and she nam by pam bied through the whole thing and said i ee going to leave it up to career prosecutors, the fbi, if head of the fbi, and then she said i'm going to fully accept it.

that doesn't mean she's going to. she can block the grand jury access. >> and to be clear, i would use the phrase careerist prosecutors in the justice department because in d.c. especially you have a lot of bureaucrats who are as political as the political appointees they report to, so we really have to put pressure on the system, the president, congress, and the justice department indirectly to do the right thing here and put the rule of law before politics. >> you know the president's not going to do it. he said she's the one who never put the security of the country in jeopardy, but, tom, we always love having you on the show. tom fitton. with me now chief counsel jay sec lowe. what do you make of this lastest 3 1/2-hour voluntary interview with the fbi? >> voluntary because if she didn't vowel tear, they were

going to subpoena herr. >> look. i've about been involved in prosecutions. you have too. the target. that's the situation here. she's the target. she's the last one interviewed, but the outrage of this to the american people should be the rule of law has beenompletely sabotaged here, and what about those fbi agents who have been working on this case for a year who find out days before, days before the target of the investigation is interviewed by the fbi, the department of justice, her husband gets on the airplane owned by the united states department of justice and has a private conversation with the chief law enforcement officer of the united states of america, the attorney general. i'm with you. we're past recusal. she needs to resign. she needs to go. >> let me ask you this. the fbi interviews her. she's got five lawyers and what happens? do they -- they ask her questions. she said it was civil.

i mean, really? what did she think? she was going to be waterboarded? come on. >> right. >> and then the other thing is do they then present evidence she may may not know they had? what do you think happened in there? >> well, look. i think one of the things you've got to be crystal clear about, they gave immunity of the i.t. person who put this together. that person got immunity. you don't get immunity unless you get a proffer. it was so much so they say we will not prosecute you for a crime so long as what you're saying is going to be the following and so they give that proper of testimony. you present that before a target and ask for an expla nation. the entire process is now completely 100% tanltsed irrecoverable. can't recover. she doubled down on this, judge.

loretta lynch said she ultimately -- the department of justice issued a corrective, pretty much a corrective, saying, to be clear, the attorney general is the ultimate person who's going to make the decision here. she's not going to remove herself or recuse herself. she said i will rely on the criminal prosecutors. there's no question about it when they're interviewing the secretary of state. i do ask this question though. you and i have both done these kinds of cases. 3 1/2 hours for the target. sounds like a long time, but for a year-long investigation, not that long. >> you know, jay, i agree. some people are saying it was a long time. it was not a long time. >> right. it's not. >> first of all, did they confront her with the 50 -- or 30,000 e-mails that she erased, that she destroyed? did they get them back? did they forensically get them back and confront her with them saying this has nothing to do with yoga, this has nothing do

with your wedding dress. this has do with the clinton foundation. >> all of that is possible in that the fbi was able to obtain information, they did a their row investigation. i don't doubt that james comey's agents are doing a full investigation. let's go back to the 3 1/2 hours. that's not a very long time. >> i agree. >> let's be honest, judge. if they knew exactly what they wanted to hear, maybe they got it. i still say at the end of the day because the e-mails went from hillary clinton on the private e-mail server to the president of the united states, an indictment not likely, but this investigation with the attorney general casts such a shadow on it that if the fbi makes a recommendation to the department of justice and they don't prosecute, i can't imagine what the fallout is going to be. >> you know what? within three weeks of the democratic convention, you know, this is nail-biting time. you know how she is. nothing moves her. she goes out there and, you

know, waves and we'll see what happens. jay sekelow. thanks so much for being with us this evening. >> thanks, judge. i appreciate it. >> all right. my political panel is standing by with a very interesting take on today's news and hillary's future. plus -- >> it's a crazy world we live. >> okay. so get a gun. >> i donhave a hammer. i don't need a gun. >> i look back on some of my favorite moments on "the street

it was a short chance meeting that occurred, and they did not discuss the department of justice's review, and i know that some nonetheless have viewed the meeting in a different light, and both the attorney general and my husband said they would not do it again, and the bottom line for me is i respect the professionalism and integrity of the officials at the department of justice handling this process. i was pleased to have a chance to sit down and answer their questions today to try to help

bring this review to a conclusion. >> hillary clinton talking on msnbc today. more now on tonight's breaking news, clinton expected soon to be the official nominee of the democratic party grilled today in a criminal investigation by the fbi, and what a panel we have tonight. in washington, republican strategist and fox news contributor brad blakeman as well as former adviser to hillary clinton's 2008 campaign and with me, independent radio talk show host fox news contributor tami bruce. all right. i'm going to start with the democrat. richard, are you ready? she said it was a chance meeting, and i hosted a show last night, and the local reporter said that she, as a matter of fact, has land on time, that he and his entourage

waited 30 minutes before they actually were able to get onto her plane. so it sounds like it wasn't a chance meeting, richard. how do you explain that? >> judge, you'll pardon me if i'm humored by the coverage i'm hearing on this show of this matter and here's why. if it was my candidate who was being accused by party leaders of mine of being a racist and bigot and zone oh phone and con man, i'd want to change it too. >> cut, cut, cut, richard. there has never in the history of this country been a personen to be nominated, a presidential candidate usual under a year-long federal fbi investigation. it's not funny. go ahead, richard. you gave up your time. go ahead, brad.

>> look. this was not a chance meeting. president clinton took the initiative by going onto her plane when he knew. he was a lawyer, a disbarred lawyer, but he knew better. despite knowing better, he went on her plane, had a 30-minute conversation. judge, this remind mess of the scene in "godfather 2." when he's about to expose the entire corleone family and he looks in the gallery and sees his brother. all he has to do is see his brother and he recants his testimony. that's all he had to do here is show up and the message was made. he was wrong. >> he muddied the whole thing up. tammy produce, what's your take? >> there's a reason. nothing is by chance. this is a team. he doesn't do anything without letting her know. this is about the presidential race. i think they feel this is really the last chance they had. it tells me and i believe you'll disagree with me, but i believe

they'll be indicted. this was an effort. no matter what happens, this conversation is being had and the messaging is whether she's indict order not, that everyone has a question about whether or not it's a legitimate dynamic or whether it's been done politically. that may have been the reason for his visit. maybe they didn't talk about anything at all. but i'm also curious about the woman not being discussed in general, about the impact on loretta lynch. she may have been ambushed to some degree. he appointed her to her original federal judgeship. she may not have known how to stop him. >> are you kidding me? she's a tough woman like you and me. i would say get off my plane. >> for bill clinton, he had to know what this would do to her career, her reputation, and the attorney general's office in general. that's how desperate i think they are. for hillary clinton, look. they've gotten away with a lot

in the past. they're consummate politicians. we have to decide if we deserve bedder. richard, i'm going back to you now. >> thank you. >> the fact sh she spent 3 1/2 hours with the fbi discussing the server. she has come out and gave a very interesting statement basically u, you know, there wasn't all that, you know, everything's great, there's zero chance i'll be indicted, you know, everything is good. it was like, and i'm not going to say anything else. sounds like she's a little more concerned. did you -- how did you take her statement today? >> i think it would have been altogether un-wise and frankly you would have been down her throat if she had said anything. you would have said she was trying to play the referee a little bit. look. as a matter of fact, the statutes arguably don't even come close. classified information? this is way after the fact. she is smart but she's not

clairvoya clairvoyant. >> all right. she's not clairvoyant, but, richard, answer this question. the woman is the head of the state department. what the hell is she doing for four years if she doesn't have any classified or top secret information on her e-mails? was she playing dominos with her friends? >> so as you know colin powell had it -- >> no, he did not -- don't muddy the waters. he did not have a server. he had a private e-mail. >> judge, there's a separate system for classified, and just like -- you know, she had a private server, colin powell too. it was called aol. it wasn't in his basement. he had a private server. he had a private e-mail. brad, you take it. he did not -- he used the government system. she stole our -- you know what? i'm staying out of it. brad, you go. >> look. i was in the white house. we were given explicit instructions if we used even

incidentally our i'm of personal account for official business, they would expose all our e-mails and we would be fired. secretary clinton made the conscious decision to exclusively will use private e-mail for all of her official business. it doesn't matter what document is stamped. what matters the content. she knew what the content was or should have known, and that's the subject here. >> i want to add a little something here beyond hillary about bill clinton himself. it's not just about her. he also is a target and a witness because this investigation also encompasses the clinton foundation, the money that -- her influence, but money that was taken in that affected him as well. so she not only met with a spouse of someone who is target but a man himself who would be and a man would be a witness in both instances. that's what's so shocking about the process and why i think you will see an indictment and i think this is the one way they

can say, look, everything that's happening to us is political and hopes and moves that it passes through the election itself. >> that's very interesting. that's not all. more with the panel is straight ahead, study with us. nobody move. you're in agreement that they should hand over these dangerous criminals to the feds. >> that's a toughy. >> no, it isn't. >> tonight we're going to look back at some of my favorite moments from "street justice." stay with us. .

i'm jackie ibanez. log on to foxnews.com for awe the news you need. welcome back to "justice." there are a whole host of charges hillary clinton may face if she were to be indicted, and you can see them there along the screen. i want to go to richard

goodstein again now and, richard, i'm going to ask you this. you know, everyone says that she didn't do this intentionally. is that the end of the story? >> well, there's a gross negligence in one of the standards arguably that applies. here's where it was used. where an air force sergeant threw documents in a dudumpster marine took the documents out and hid it in a gym bag in his garage. that's gross negligence. the fact of the matter is, again, classified is really at the core here, and you can say everything you want. again, there was a separate classified system, and in this case, everything -- >> okay. let me ask you this. let me ask you this. actually i'm not going to ask you. i'm going to go to brad. >> okay. >> her intent was clear as far as i'm concerned based on one e-mail where she directs her

staffer jake sullivan. i think we may have a screen on this. if they can't turn it -- if they can't send it, turn it into nonpaper with no identifiable heading and send nonsecure. what does that tell you, brad, about her intent, vis-a-vis, classified information? >> that tells me she's telling a staff person to subvert the rules and laws of the united states with regard to the custodianship and custody and control of classified material and send it to her as a nonclassified document. that's clear to me as lawyer that that shows her intent, and it also shows to me the control she had over her staff. the staff, i'm sure, is also very culpable in the crimes the fbi is looking at. that's why you saw bryan pagliano. >> tammy, go ahead. >> the statute when it came to the espionage, you don't need to

intend to. that's the key. yet you've already shown there is intent. that particular die nam egg, gross negligence, doesn't even require intent. that had to have been uncomfortable today for the former secretary of state. but i think that's why in any other regular circumstance, this person would be indicted. and now if she is, the courtesy could be in not suggesting felonies but misdemeanors. >> you know what's interesting? richard,'ll go back you do. you can reference someone throwing away classified documents as gross negligence. that's intentional. we know bill clinton got a plea garn instead of being indicted. tammy's right. it's gross negligence. she did intend to remove these items. now, let's talk about the fact, richard, that she called it a security inquiry and on june

14th, i believe, jim comey, the head of the fbi said, security iniery? we don'tinquiries. the fbi does full investigations. do we have a screen on that? i guess not. what are you going to say, richard? >> you're going to tell your viewers that the document she handle thad way was not handled that way. say what you will about intent. there was no follow-through. >> no, it isn't. no, you're wrong. i'm a criminal law e. don't tell me because a person may not have done it that she didn't intend for them do it. the intent is formed simultaneous with the act of her directing them, but i want to go past that where the woman -- you know, they talk clintonspeak. she said, no, it's a security iniery and the fbi says it's an investigation. i want to go to brad, because, richard, you gave up your time. >> that's fine. >> it's the federal police.

it's criminal. anything else, it's not only being disingenuous, but she's lying about exactly the kind of information that the fbi is looking at her about and the office when she was secretary of state. and, judge, you know this better than anybody. it's been said that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. the fbi is feeding at the all-you-can-eat buffet. there's plenty there. >> tammy, i'll give you the last statement. >> it's either complete and total denial or a fantasyland like the corkscrew landing in de-kosovo. this is a woman who no matter what you think of the investigation, this a person who should be in the white house? and these are the kinds of questions the american voters should be asking themselves. her behavior in the office, perpetuation of the scandal and her reaction to the scandal.

>> thanks for being with us.

the benghazi report released the week has much of america talking about whether hillary clinton is fit to lead the u.s. military now, david hunt. you and i were on this thing i think since september 16th of 2012, within five days of the attack. you and i have to take most of the credit for that. we knew what it was from the get-go and no one was sent. i was looking back, and when

panetta says -- i don't know if we have the sound on this -- we couldn't have gotten there in time, why would he say that when we now find out that panetta before 7:30 had actually given the okay for forces to go in there? >> he didn't just give okay, he gave an order within the first hour of the attack. i think the reason -- i can't go inside panetta's head but the political reason why someone would say something that's not true is because it's going to come out later. that panetta gave an order, the president oh kakayed the order, no one from the department of defense took action. >> you've got to big dogs. the didn't of defense and the president of the united states. who has the gal to not implement the order?

>> that's the question gowdy couldn't answer. >> why couldn't he answer? >> he said he was stonewalled by the stand department and the department of defense. it is nullable. we know what's on duty. >> is it cartham? >> it would be part of it. it would start with the department of defense and the pentagon. they did not react. when the secretary of defense says, go, go get them, but if you remember, no one said, we slould saved stevens. they should have tried because it lasted so lochlkt it last 13d, 14 hours. >> you know what's -- >> nothing moved and gowdy with 800 pages could not get that answered and it's a shame because he wrote a good report. he just got these big questions that he could not answer. >> let me ask you this. you know, you and i -- or at least i remember that i was very critical of panetta when he said we couldn't get there in time.

whether it's 13 hours or eight hours or six hours, we should have tried. you know, panetta and -- you know, to his credit, he never said, i gave the order. >> true. >> he just -- like a fool saying we couldn't get there in time. we had all the other stuff going on. special ops in croatia and all this other stuff. i remember it all that true, true. >> he said, i never gave the order. >> to his credit, he did not say, well, i gave the order. the problem is -- which we all want to know, why wasn't the order obeyed? why wasn't it pushed? it's conceived after 13 years of war not being able do something and when the secretary of defense and secretary of state say do it, we didn't, there's a lot of questions. but the report that gowdy writes

is factual and time line. >> should that select committee have done the investigation? >> yeah. absolutely. it just -- they should never have been able to -- the department of defense, white house, and the state department should not have been able to. >> but they did. >> gowdy writes a report. instead they write a report and mention trump 12 times. >> 23. >> that's unfortunate. the other report is well done. >> wow. you know what? this pat smith, charles wood, dony of them have an answer? no. as to who lied, why they lied, why there was this, you know, perpetuation of a lie. >> we know it started at the white house. we know he did it for two weeks. but for you and i when we did that almost eight shows, we stayed to the facts of the rescue. the problem is six hours is no excuse why they didn't go.

>> none at all. colonel david hunt, thanks for being with us. being with us. next, aisle look back on a

you won't see these folks at the post office. being with us. next, aisle look back on a they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

now it's war, they band i want them dead!lves. the fleas and ticks? their whole gang. we can do that. only bravecto kills fleas & ticks for up to 12 weeks with one tasty chew. starts killing fleas in two hours and kills nearly 100% in under twelve. and it's fda approved. bravecto is for dogs 6 months of age or older. don't worry, princess, we'll settle the score. tonight we ride, with bravecto!! ask your vet about 12-week protection with bravecto. we call it street justice. when i head outside to talk to americans about politics, i have had a lot of fun and learned a

lot. here tonight are some of my favorites. >> you don't know who that person is? >> who is it? >> hillary clinton. >> she's likeable. >> what has she done for you? >> nothing. >> you want her to be president? >> why not? sure. i'm not really a camera man. >> why, you got a warrant outstanding somewhere? >> i probably did arrest him. >> i like him, too. i just like him because he's kind of bossy and big. >> in your face. kind of like you. vote for her? >> no. >> did you know that? >> what about the fact the president is saying mentally ill people shouldn't get a gun? >> i 100% agree. this is a crazy world we live in. >> so get a gun. >> i got a hammer. i don't need a gun. >> do you know of any country that's been a socialist country? >> no. i wasn't great in history class.

>> well, it's happening now. have you ever heard a political and economic organization where the government pretty much owns all the methods of production, then redistributes the wealth? >> say that again? >> you have a very big truck. is america ready for a woman president? >> yes, we are. we are definitely ready. >> okay. who should that be? >> miss hillary clinton. >> don't take off until i get off this. how many wheels do you have on this truck? come on, teddy. teddy roosevelt. is america ready for a woman president? why isn't the white house ready for a woman? >> i guess because i'm a male chauvinist. >> there's a lot of tough women out there. >> sure are. you're one of them. >> she was staring at you. >> it's the judge. she's the best. >> do you know this is hillary clinton's headquarters? >> i have heard that. >> you scared when you come in?

>> yes, yes, i am. >> what are you scared of? >> they are just so confident. i'm scared she might win. >> the reason i'm here is because trump stands for what i came here for 35 years ago. i feel everything is going down the tubes. >> what do you think about the wall? >> well, i think i have a lock on my front door and i have a fence around my house. so i believe that yeah, having a wall for security's a good idea. >> he's concerned about the second amendment but he doesn't have a gun. >> we technically can't bring guns in here. >> i don't mean you have a gun here. but do you own a gun? >> absolutely. >> why does that not surprise me. why do you have a gun? >> because it's our right. and they're fun. >> what do you do? >> i'm a hairdresser. >> a sanctuary city is where the locals decide that illegal immigrants are not going to be turned over to the feds even if the feds say we want them. is that right or wrong? >> let me think about this for a couple seconds.

>> are you in agreement that they should hand over these dangerous criminals? to the feds? >> that's a toughie. >> no, it isn't. >> i feel i have to know more about this. >> what do you need to know? he wasn't illegal, shouldn't have been here and they protected him. >> it's awful that people die. >> do you have a weapon? >> i do not but i trained in martial arts for many years. >> you may have a black belt but the end of the day if he's got a gun, who wins? >> he wins. >> therein lies the rub. >> you know karate, i know crazy. >> you point at me when you said that? >> absolutely not. >> i love your speeches. >> my big mouth? >> of course. >> we'll be right back.

tonight we mourn the passing of nobel laur rate and holocaust survivor elie weisel. he was a great influence on my career as a prosecutor fighting to give voice to the victims of crime. i spent much of my career following his mantra, to do nothing helps the abuser, never the victim. silence encourages the tormenter, never the tormented. rest in peace. although your work is done here, your light continues to shine on us all. thank you.

thanks for joining us. good night. ♪ >> you know, you hear over the radio, "we're taking fire. we're under fire." >> we're under fire. >> and you hear the pleading in their voices... >> you can hear it. >> ...that they need help bad. >> i actually dropped to a knee. and then i got up, i'm like, "why the hell did i do that?" and that's when the rocket hit. >> rone had a machine gun. and he started laying down hate. [ gunshots, yelling ] >> i rolled him over. there was no response. i ripped off his body armor, took a pulse. couldn't feel nothing. >> when you realize they're dead, what do you do?