in a more machiavelli and fashion they also attacked -- one of the president who was rumored to be gay. andrew jackson called him and nancy. william henry clay would lift when he spoke to him on the senate floor, james buchanan, very difficult to be a bachelor and run for president because either you are gay like rabbi stevenson except that he wasn't, you are promiscuous, or you have a sexually transmitted disease like samuel tilden did in 1876, none of it true but in the 19th century they had no holds barred for attacking people that way. interestingly enough, one of the points i want to make about dirty elections, the average voter, white males in the 19th century, 70%, everybody voted in the 19th century. there is a very interesting book that came out a couple weeks ago called the virgin vote. that is what it was called in the 19th century if you were about to vote for the first time, a young man about to vote for the first time it was taken very seriously. people would assure you to the polls and you would vote and do your civic duty but a lot of it was driven by passion and prejud

maybe machiavelli. there is a big body of learning out there and the framers were free educated characters. the book called the zeitgeist, probably not the best but everybody like it. and because i am a native cook county democrat, you would want to know about their political experience. these guys, they are not a bunch of theorists working in their closets. they have been political actors. obviously shaped by their key events that we call the american revolution. maybe i should go back and write some more about whatever but that is the kind of -- the kind of -- the microscope that lies down is the basic scope of stuff of my approach to being an historical originalist but it does not tell you much about what it does so let me go through it point by point. first and, you know, generally important, historical originalism is not a theory of constitutional interpretation as we usually use that term. it makes no normal suggestion as to how the constitution must or should be interpretive. for the lawyers are

actor michael kelly plays a ruthlessly efficient actor whose machiavelli machiavellian tactics usually the other side of the law. you have to explain to people that you're not that guy. you're not doug stamper when you walk down the street. are they scared of you? >> certainly in d.c., no, it's pretty crazy. never -- i don't think i've ever taken more selfies than here in d.c. >> when you read a script, before an episode, ever think, how bad am i going to get? you're killing people one after another. and it's always done with great deliberation. there's nothing impulsive about it. you decide, this person must be eliminated. >> yeah, it's bad for the greater good. he's just god to do his job. >> have you figured out what -- because i've always liked loyalty in politics, to a point. and you carry it beyond that, of course. because i like the old idea that you serve the boss, get him elected, and unless he's doing something actually criminal, you cover for him. >> obviously, we take it to a criminal level on our show, but i love it too. and i actually understand my character. i understand

it was machiavelli and and at another point it was dumb.s wallace she was careless actually harms her, doesn't help her because carelessness is a species of negligence and espionage is the rare federal crime that can be proven by negligence. they don't have a proven test. admittedly it is gross negligence that can trigger espionage. what is the crime? the crime is the failure to safeguard national security secrets. what is the evidence? she paid a guy to diverged these emails from a government stream to her own, 60,000 emails she diverted. among them are 2200 which were confidential, secret or top-secret. some of them she sent to blumenthal, said blumenthal was hacked, fbi agents secured the collaboration of the hacker serving a prison term in romania for hacking, he is in alexandria, virginia being interviewed by the same fbi agents that are prosecuting her. how can she mark this and not take it seriously? charles: on the espionage side will someone intercept the emails and use them? judge napolitano: espionage is the removal of secrets. a