Create a free account to continue

The Federal Government versus Apple; Trump and Terror; Election 2016 Special: Protecting America - Part 1



Special: Protecting America - Part 1>

Michael Balboni, David Arkush; Scott Vernick, Philip Segal, Jeanne Zaino,

Kevin Paul Scott, Scottie Nell Hughes>

Affairs; Military; Politics; Government>

ERIC BOLLING, FOX NEWS HOST: Hi, I'm Eric Bolling in for Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching this special edition of THE FACTOR Election 2016: Protecting America.

Let's get right to our top story: the federal government versus Apple. A federal judge is now ordering Apple to help the FBI crack into the iPhone owned by Syed Farook, one of the two shooters in the December San Bernardino terrorist attack that killed 14 innocent people. But Apple is hitting back saying it will not comply with the court order. The FBI has laced into Apple in recent months for creating virtually unbreakable security features on its phones.


JAMES COMEY, FBI DIRECTOR: It is a big problem for law enforcement armed with a search warrant when you find a device that can't be opened even though the judge said there is probable cause to open it. As I said it affects our counter terrorism work.

You know, San Bernardino very important investigation to us. We still have one of those killers' phones that we have not been able to open. It's been over two months now we're still working on it.


BOLLING: But, despite that, Apple chief executive Tim Cook has fiercely defended the security protections on Apple's devices.


TIM COOK, APPLE CEO: On your smart phone today, your iPhone, there is likely health information. There is financial information. There are intimate conversations with your family or your co-workers. There's probably business secrets. And you should have the ability to protect it. And the only way we know how to do that is to encrypt it.

Why is that? It's because if there's a way to get in then somebody will find a way in. I don't believe that the tradeoff here is privacy versus national security. I think that's an overly simplistic view. We are America. We should have both.


BOLLING: And the brawl between the feds and Apple is entering the 2016 presidential campaign. Donald Trump weighed in on the controversy today.


DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I agree 100 percent with the courts. We should -- in that case we should open it up. These are two people radicalized who were given a wedding party by the people that they killed. There is something going on. We have to be very careful. We have to be very vigilant.

But to think that Apple won't allow us to get into her cell phone, who do they think they are?


BOLLING: Joining us now to analyze privacy and security attorney Scott Vernick along with Philip Segal an investigative attorney. Now, I have one pro-Apple and one pro-FBI.

Let me start with you Scott. You are on the Tim Cook side that says Apple should keep this back door, this encrypting back door closed -- right?

SCOTT VERNICK, PRIVACY AND SECURITY ATTORNEY: Absolutely. I mean let's be real here. What is the court saying? The court is saying that it's ordering Apple to create a software that it doesn't yet have to break into this phone. This is a binary proposition. Either you are going to have encryption and it's going to protect us against everybody or we're going to put in a back door, create a weakness which isn't only going to be available to the good guys but also to the bad guys as well. That's a radical step here.

BOLLING: Phil, everyone wants security. Everyone is concerned about terrorism. But a lot of people say that once you give that back door, once you provide the software for a back door, the bad guys could get the key to that back door, too.

PHILIP SEGAL, INVESTIGATIVE ATTORNEY: That's right. They do say that but up until Apple only had this encryption for the last year. In 2012, 2013, 2014 -- the bad guys there were breaches but you are talking about having to have a balance. And to go back to one point --

BOLLING: Wait -- hold on, is there a balance? It's either there is the software or there isn't. In other words, I don't see where there is a balance.

SEGAL: The government has the right to go into your ISP and get your e- mail. The government has the right to go to the hospital and get your medical records. The government already has these rights and these rights are limited by the courts. And no one is saying that the government will have the right to look at everybody's iPhone to go into your house, grab your iPhone and use this back door.

BOLLING: Not yet. What about it, Scott? I already heard the New York chief of police already saying, hey, we may want to use some of this back door window to look into some other types of crimes -- murder, rape, et cetera.

VERNICK: You see, therein lies the rub -- right.

It's a slippery slope. Once you create this software that will enable law enforcement or homeland security to get past the passwords and look at the encrypted data, then everybody is going to want a piece at it. That's why this doesn't work.

I say -- and here's the thing. Here is the other sort of total misnomer here, all right. If you do this, it's not as if the bad guys, whoever they are, the terrorists, state actors aren't going to find some other kind of encrypted technology. They certainly will. That's why we ought not to create this weakness. You just can't create it for one set of people who we like and not have it for another set of people.

BOLLING: What about that? There is so much information. Honestly we keep everything on our smart phones -- our medical records -- our financial records.

SEGAL: The government already has those --

BOLLING: Can I throw you one more? Allegedly with this back door encryption being able to break into the encryption, there may be an opportunity for people, good or bad, to get into your camera, and your microphone on your phone.

SEGAL: You cannot say to me, first of all that Apple doesn't know how to crack these phones. I just don't believe it number one.

Number two, up until last year, we are talking about the capacity to erase all the data on your phone, if you enter ten erroneous passwords. Up to last year the iPhone didn't have that feature. No one was talking about bad guys stealing everybody's information.

BOLLING: Not stealing it. They're not getting their hands on it under that. Whatever the numbers, 10 or 20 attempts, it wipes out the information. They are not getting and that kind of is the point, right?

SEGAL: That's the point if you oppose any kind of government forcing Apple to hand over this information. I think what Apple could do is get this iPhone, crack it, hand over the information of this one iPhone and that's the end of it. But, the idea that either everyone's information is going to be for a free for all government to grab --

BOLLING: This is not a bad idea though. Let's say they do crack the encryption or whatever they have on the iPhone and get this information for the feds. They can develop a different type of encryption that wouldn't be able to be broken, right?

VERNICK: Listen, I don't know that they can do that. Apple deliberately created a system of encryption where they didn't hold the key themselves. And the fundamental question here is this. How much government intrusion are you prepared to ask for and how much government intrusion are you prepared to tolerate?

It might make sense with respect to food safety or medical devices or pharmaceuticals or with respect to utilities. But here we are talking about your phone. As you point out people have a tremendous amount of personal stuff on that phone -- health data, financial information, who they are dating, who they're seeing.

SEGAL: The government already has access to all your tax records.

VERNICK: That makes my point.

SEGAL: If you're on single payer healthcare the government is going to have all your medical records anyway.

VERNICK: Phil makes my point. The fact of the matter is that without this, the government already has access to so much data. The question is do they really need access to more?

BOLLING: Everyone wants this crime solved. Everyone wants the trail that these two murderers in San Bernardino took and see if we can open some --

VERNICK: It's not about solving the crime.

BOLLING: I know that.

VERNICK: This one is -- this issue is about getting Farook cell phone so we can find out if he has any trail to other terrorists.

SEGAL: That's right.

BOLLING: I get that. Aren't we -- so you solve a crime or you thwart one terror attack, do you really want to open literally the rest of the population up to possible terror -- ISIS getting hold of all of our information?

SEGAL: It already is a possibility that ISIS can get that because unless you're only using a phone there are lots of other ways that ISIS can find information. There are lots of -- if you are using a computer in an Internet cafe. It's not as if everyone in the world who is a bad actor is only using an iPhone.

BOLLING: Scott, I want to ask you this. Do you really want, if that information is sitting right there for the feds to have in that device, do you really want it unaccessible to the feds to solve a terror attack?

VERNICK: I say yes. The reason why I say yes is because I think that you can work around -- that the government, homeland security, FBI, whoever it is can work around that encryption issue. They can look at metadata. They can look at other sources of information they have.

To me, standing firm and not allowing government intrusion into personal data is a thing that we ought to be very careful.

BOLLING: Big, big topic you guys and I guess it's not going away any time soon. Scott and Philip -- thank you very much.

Next on the rundown -- Apple backlash, should Americans walk away from the computer giant unless it helps the feds? That debate upcoming.


BOLLING: e impact segment tonight, should Americans turn their backs on Apple if it continues to defy the court order and the feds and not help them hack into the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino terrorists?

With me now in New York Monica Crowley, Fox News contributor and Jeanne Zaino, a political science professor at Iona College.

Now I started with the Apple guy in the A block. Let me start with the anti -- am I right, anti-Apple people should walk away from Apple if they don't hack into their on iPhone -- Jeanne?

JEANNE ZAINO, IONA COLLEGE: You know, I do think that Apple is making a big mistake and it's bordering on unAmerican at this point and unpatriotic. Look, if I had information that was detrimental to the security of the United States, potentially I would be forced under a judge's order to go and reveal that information.

And a corporation like Apple, that is an American corporation, there is no difference. And I appreciate their interest in privacy, although I think there is a profit motive there. But I am a huge proponent of privacy. But you have to balance that --

BOLLING: And not profit?

ZAINO: Well, I like profit too, Eric.

BOLLING: I don't know because this is an issue -- this is an issue. One of the biggest selling points of an iPhone is their encryption firewall that you can't break through. The Feds are basically asking Apple to take that out of their product.

MONICA CROWLEY, FOX NEWS ANALYST: Look, I think every consumer should make their own determination and judgment based on this case whether or not they still want to buy Apple products or not. It's a free market. Buy if you want. Don't buy if you don't.

But to your point about the encryption for Apple this is part of the reason why Apple is becoming the company of choice for terrorists, sex traffickers, child pornographers because the encryption is so tight. Look, the FBI's position --

BOLLING: But is that making your case for Apple or against it? I mean you are almost making the case that maybe it's too good the encryption.

CROWLEY: Well, you know what, this case is the perfect collision of national security with privacy -- right, which is something that we have been arguing since 9/11. The FBI's position is look you have a dead terrorist here, we need to get into the phone to see if they've had other contracts -- totally legitimate argument. I'm totally prepared to give the FBI every tool that they need to track especially terrorists but to do whatever they need to do to keep us safe.

On the other hand Apple's position is look you are not -- what the FBI is asking for here is not the specifics on these two terrorists' phones. What the FBI is asking for is an overly broad demand, an overly broad way to break encryption into any iPhone anywhere. And that's why Apple is saying --

BOLLING: Well, once the software to do it you can theoretically use it on any phone.

CROWLEY: It's a skeleton key into any iPhone.

BOLLING: Yes. It's a master key.

Jeanne, let me flip this discussion on its side a little bit here. You know, a lot of people who are concerned about terror, about waterboarding, for example, we have got a lot of information from waterboarding. That helped thwart future terrorist attack. It actually led to the capture -- kill of Osama bin Laden.

Now, would you say the same thing here by any means necessary? Is that what you are saying that Apple should turn it over? Because as much information as we can get no matter what -- who -- I don't know personal liberties are violated.

ZAINO: No, I'm not saying by any means necessary. I mean let's put this in perspective. This was not his phone. This was a county phone. The owner of this phone is fine with the judge's order. And the judge's order is not overbroad. It's narrow. It does require them to build the software that could get into the encryption but it is for this specific phone.

And it's the same thing.

BOLLING: But once it's out there Jeanne -- once it's out there -- as Monica points out it's the master key.

ZAINO: But that that slippery slope doesn't work. Look, if there is a judge's order or a warrant to break into your car because you have potentially information there on how to build a bomb, you can bet you are going to -- the government is going to do that. And they have a right to do that. They need to keep us secure.

And Apple is in no position to resist that call from the government. You know, that is where Apple's problem is. They are not protecting our privacy. They are protecting their profit motive because this is a big selling point for them.

BOLLING: Final thought -- Monica. Last thought?

CROWLEY: Yes. No, look I think -- look, consumers, I think, when they choose a phone. This is why I carry a Blackberry, right? You want as much privacy as you can. This is why the President carries a Blackberry and the Kardashians, same thing.

But we're dealing in a very murky area. And again it's an area that we have been struggling with since 9/11. The FBI has since today come back and said no this is not -- to your point Jeanne -- this is not an overly broad request.

BOLLING: Let me just point this out. Camera one.

CROWLEY: One of each.

BOLLING: One of each. Got them all the bases covered. Jeanne and Monica -- thank you very much.

CROWLEY: You bet.

BOLLING: Up next on this O'REILLY FACTOR SPECIAL Donald Trump bashes President Obama and his terror fighting record but what about Trump's own plan to keep America safe? We will get into that in a minute.


BOLLING: In the "Election 2016 Segment" tonight, Donald Trump and the security threat against America.

Trump's tough talk is helping push his support to new highs with Republican voters. The latest national Quinnipiac poll shows Trump with a 2 to 1 lead over his rivals coming in at 39 percent; Marco Rubio is in second place at 19 percent; followed by Ted Cruz at 19 percent; John Kasich is at 6 percent; followed by Jeb Bush and Dr. Ben Carson, each have 4 percent.

Meanwhile, President Obama threw a big piece of red meat to Trump yesterday stating Trump will never be president. Trump, of course, wasting no time to give a response.


TRUMP: He has done such a lousy job as president. You look at our budgets, you look at our spending. We can't beat ISIS.

Obamacare is terrible. We're going to terminate it. We're going to absolutely terminate and replace it. I mean you look at everything. Our borders are like Swiss cheese. This man has done such a bad job. He has set us back so far.


BOLLING: Joining us now with reaction: from Nashville the Tea Party News Network's Scottie Nell Hughes and from Atlanta Republican strategist Kevin Paul Scott.

Kevin, we will start with you. You don't think Donald Trump's foreign policy either platform is working for him. But look at the numbers, sir. They look like they are doing pretty darn good.

KEVIN PAUL SCOTT, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It is definitely resonating with voters. But foreign policy in particular and leadership in general are about two things, clarity and consistency. Clarity is, are you clear about it and consistency is do you keep saying the same thing. Is what you say what do you?

You have got to understand this. Obama's foreign policy is reckless, not as much because he is weak but because he wavers whether it's the red line in Syria or the Ukraine and Russia.

Here is my issue with Trump. It's not his clarity. He is very clear on what he is going to do. But his policy changes over the years makes me worried and I think it's going to make our allies and enemies worried when he is very clear is that same clarity going to hold true six months month from now, a year from now, and it's important that our allies can trust us and our enemies respect us. That's not clear with Donald Trump.

BOLLING: Well said. Scottie Nell, what are the foreign policy changes that Kevin mentions?

SCOTTIE NELL HUGHES, TEA PARTY NEWS NETWORK: Well, that's kind of what I was wondering because I mean Mr. Trump has admitted on social issues he has evolved just like Ronald Reagan did, but on these foreign policy issues, I actually think he has been pretty consistent.

He is saying is he not going to sit there and declare a war on these temperamental leaders that are in China and Russia. Rather he is he going to earn their respect. You know, I like that idea of earning respect and being the biggest power house in the world and not necessarily because we have to use it but because people fear us. It's kind of like insurance.

I think Mr. Trump has been that same way. He is also not going to be some sort of neo-con that is just going to go in and start bombing people without knowing what actually the end result and what it is for America.

BOLLING: So Scottie let me bring it back to Kevin. Which wavering are you talking about? You point out that President Obama, his foreign policy was weak because he has changed his stance but then you say Donald Trump is also -- which policies? I'm trying to figure it out. Go.

SCOTT: Donald Trump, who is going heavily after Hillary Clinton is the same guy that said she was a great secretary of state a few years ago. Don't get me wrong, Donald Trump is a great deal maker. I actually think that would be hugely --

BOLLING: No, no but stay on that.

HUGHES: What is that -- that's not foreign policy. That's a compliment.

BOLLING: Stay on the foreign policy. You levied it you said that Donald Trump has wavered on his foreign policy stance. I'm trying to hear what it is that you suggest he is wavering on.

SCOTT: Because Donald as a citizen says that Hillary Clinton is a great secretary of state.

BOLLING: That is not foreign policy though. That's an opinion of a former secretary of state.

SCOTT: Well it is because --

BOLLING: Not a foreign policy. I mean has he said he agrees with everything she did.

SCOTT: -- basically that's an endorsement of her positions -- it's an endorsement of her positions as secretary of state.

HUGHES: No it's not.

SCOTT: If he's going to endorse that --

HUGHES: If you consider that to be endorsement, that's just a kindness right there. You have to remember he was a private citizen.

SCOTT: I think it's a lapse in judgment.

HUGHES: No, it's not -- you can still say nice things about people and not necessarily endorse them.

Let me tell you this. As a wife of a former captain of the United States army, as a mother of a son who might one day enlist himself -- I will tell you I want a commander in chief that is going to be willing to invest in places when we need to. Not necessarily because we are supposed to because that's what other people expect us to do.

You cannot say this commander in chief who has sat here and he's gone through the failure of procurement. He has done the shortfalls, he's reduced our military, reduced our technology, hasn't in any way made us stronger today than we were eight years ago.

We need a commander-in-chief who's going to go in there from day one and show strength and put the military back at the top.

BOLLING: And Kevin, do you remember when President Obama drew the red line on Syria and then backed off his red line in Syria? I get that. People -- whether you agree with the read line or not whatever you want commander in chief to do what he say he is going to do and he didn't.

Are you suggesting that there is -- if Donald Trump were president, he would be the same type that would draw a red line and change his mind down the road?

SCOTT: You know, if somehow we are able to say it's ok that he's changed his mind on domestic policy issues. And we are saying he would never do that on foreign policy issues. I think is he a great dealmaker, but deciding whether or not to put our men and women into harm's way is different than negotiating a casino deal abroad.

I like Donald Trump's clarity. I worry about his consistency and I think ultimately our allies and our enemies abroad would worry about the exact same thing.

HUGHES: He is not going to put himself in a deal that's not a smart deal. He says that time and time again like McArthur and Patton. He will go in when he needs to and get out when he doesn't need to be there.

SCOTT: It's not about making a deal. It's about doing what is right.

BOLLING: Miss Hughes, Mr. Scott --

HUGHES: It is called making a deal with our soldiers. Yes, it is, with their lives.

BOLLING: We have to go. We're going to say thank you to both of you. Great debate -- guys.

All right. When we come right back: new polling showing big problems for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Is her background as secretary of state becoming more of a liability than an asset with voters? That's up ahead.


BOLLING: In the "Personal Story Segment" tonight, is Hillary Clinton's experience as secretary of state helping or hurting her in the campaign. A new CNN poll of likely Democratic caucus goers in Nevada shows Mrs. Clinton in a virtual tie with Bernie Sanders. That vote is just three days away.

That same poll also finds voters trust her far more than Sanders on foreign policy matters. A new national poll by Quinnipiac also finds that 93 percent of Democrats think she has the right kind of experience to be president compared to 74 percent for Sanders.

Maybe that's why Hillary is making statements like this.


HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When people go to vote in primaries or caucuses they are voting not only for the president, they're voting for the commander in chief. And it's important that people really look hard at what the threats and dangers we face are and who is best prepared for dealing with them as we all remember.

Senator Obama when he ran against me was against the war in Iraq. And yet when he won, he turned to me, trusting my judgment my experience to become secretary of state.


BOLLING: But none of that is stopping voters from flocking to Bernie Sanders.

Joining us with reaction from Washington, Richard Goodstein who advised Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign along with Rebeccah Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute. Richard, you worked with Hillary Clinton. But she is crushing it in that same Quinnipiac poll in Nevada. Hillary Clinton people trust her 68 percent versus 28 percent when it comes to foreign policy.

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, you know, you don't even have to ask the voters, Eric, you just have to turn on one of these democratic debates. When Hillary Clinton is talking about foreign affairs and if she wants to talk about her record, she can talk about bringing the Russians and the Chinese to the table so that Iran doesn't have a bomb about reducing nuclear weapons with the Russians. Asked Henry Kissinger who said that she ran the State Department more effectively than anybody you'd ever seen.

But just compare how she talks about foreign policy, to how Bernie Sanders talks about foreign policy. And honestly, it's as clear as day that the voters of course are going to be attracted to her around this. And when you talk about flocking to Bernie Sanders, it's true this Nevada thing has tightened. But every other state after that that's been polled, Hillary is leading by 20 or 30 points or more.

BOLLING: She was. She was leading in Nevada by 20 points. In Nevada by 20. She was leading in South Carolina by 30 or 40 points. I mean, she has -- all her leads have shrunk.

Rebecca, let's go to you. Hillary Clinton's experience as Secretary of State, helping or hurting her? I mean, you know, if you go back and you think about some of the things that she was involved, with the Iran deal and whatnot, it may help her in a primary vote. Will it help her in a general?

REBECCAH HEINRICHS, FELLOW AT HUDSON INSTITUTE: Yes, you can take a look at that poll and put it in context. These poor Democrats, they've got Hillary to choose from or Bernie Sanders. Pick your poison. So, she might be doing better in that regard. But because they know her perhaps a little bit better. But, you know, let's take -- Richard mentioned Russia and nuclear weapons. Hillary Clinton is responsible for Russia reset and part of what Russia reset entailed was the New START Treaty. That was the arms controlled treat, to reduce nuclear arms between the United States and Russia.

The missiles -- the missiles that the Russians would not allow to be included in the deal are the very same ones that they are now threatening NATO allies with. And the Obama administration conceded on that point. Short range tactical nuclear weapons, it was a failure. You start with a failure. Russia reset was a failure. You see the Russians are more emboldened now. Look at what they are doing in the Middle East. Look at what they are doing in Syria. So, she owns Russia reset and it was a disaster. She owns --

BOLLING: And Richard -- Richard, she does, she also owns the Iran deal that ends up being looking really, really bad for America. Just yesterday, we heard that the Iranians are now dealing with the Russians as Rebecca points to buy not only tanks but also fighter jets. Both violations of the Iran deal. We have heard DNA on that deal.