posner. i guess he is a friend of hers. us now from washington kirsten powers and here in new york city monica crowley. both are fox news analysts. all right. i had to run that because -- >> well, at least she is watching. >> that wasn't classified or anything. no big deal there. but did you see in what was released last night, anything that could further mrs. clinton's troubles? >> yes. in fact, the federalist did an analysis of the new emails today. >> what's the federalist? >> the federalist is a great organization and a great online magazine, conservative, yes, but they did do appear analysis which shows that mrs. clinton repeatedly originated and distributed highly classified national security information over that unsecured and unsanctioned server. >> were they specific in any email that they believed she violated the law? >> yes. absolutely. in fact, there is a whole range of emails that they point out. what they point out is that in many of these emails the only content that is redacted and then classified after the

quakes according to joseph ellis posner book, john jay was an ally of washington and hamilton and madison at the constitutional convention. i wonder about the ongoing relationship between washington and john jay. quakes they had been close back during the revolution when jay had been very supportive of the army. john jay himself was not at the constitutional convention, but even though his part was much smaller than that of hamilton and madison in the so-called federalist tapirs in trying to get new york to ratify. most people believe that if new virginia did not ratify the constitution it didn't matter how many other state ratified because those were key states, and because of his efforts with that and his efforts essentially is the precursor to secretary of state running foreign affairs for the confederation congress, washington had tremendous admiration for jay and very much wanted to keep him in the government. once he appointed him as chief, washington continued to consult him and that's one of the reasons he trusted him with the british mission and he was sent over that of course re

justice posner pointed out in his opinion that that requirement was not applied to procedures that pose greater risks than abortions. and the petitioners have pointed out in this case that there are grandfathering and waiver provisions available to other surgical centers if they can show the compliance with building requirements is not necessary to promote women's health. i don't think that's the end of the case for him but i do think it raises sufficient red flag for him to want to see exactly what evidence supports each of these restrictions. and so that part of it i don't think he would agree with the fifth circuit, but where that leaves us i'm not sure. i don't think you will agree that stake in offload its constitutional responsibility to some of the state. maybe that's a pejorative way of putting it. the way the fifth circuit would put it is i think ther there's o undue burden if i can go to a facility across state lines and get the abortion that they need. will so i'm not and have never been the best reader of justice kennedy, and maybe others on the panel -- maybe others on the

more insight now from noted historian and pulitzer finalist gerald posner. his latest book is called "god's bank ban bank." appreciate you being with us. let's talk about this pope, francis, and how you would characterize his views of capitalism, business, and the accumulation of wealth. >> he's cynical about capitalism but, tyler, the catholic church didn't embrace capitalism for a long time for a couple hundred years. they stayed away from it. they viewed it as the province of heretics and jews and only embraced it in the 20th century when they had no other option. they couldn't raise taxes and they needed the money. they created a vatican bank in the middle of world war ii. he's criticized savage capitalism but that bank has practiced that for decades often at great scandal. >> so what was the church's main beef with capitalism? that it took away from their spiritual power or their power period? >> one thing, no question they thought it took away from their power but it was also mixed with modernism, plurality, the idea that capitalism and the american id