plenty more ahead as the factor moves along this evening. megyn kelly will weigh in on the snyder case. federal grand jury continuing to investigate john edwards in north carolina. then, culture warriors on a vote naked campaign. what s that all about? we hope you stay tuned to those reports. [ upbeat instrumental ] [ rattling ] [ gasps ] [ rattling ] [ laughing ] [ announcer ] close enough just isn t good enough. - if your car is in an accident, - [ laughing continu ] make sure it s repaired with the right replacement parts. take the scary out of life with travelers. call or click now for an agent or quote.
it s not frightened of the tea party. there are republican candidates out there saying some really shockingly disturbing things like, for example, if you are the victim of rape, you have to bear the child of the rapist who raped you. bill: but do you think. that s disturbing to most americans. bill: i think the perception in america is that the tea party is a positive force for change. i could be wrong i m just going by scientific data in here. i don t think the individual kook is swaying independent voter feeling. i don t see it? i think for a while that was the case. i agree with you the major thrust of the tea party is nothing that scares any voters and nothing that energized the democratic base because the tea party has been around for over a year now and they haven t energized the democratic base. but there are people out there who call themself tea party-ites and you know who they are. candidates running for office and saying things very, very disturbing. bill: you ca
child. bill: right. they are still investigating this after all this time. they had edwards testify. they had rielle hunter testify. they had andrew young testify. andrew yowrng, young who was edwards close aid he threw him under the bus. bill: he wrote a book about it. he told the grand jury yeah, it happened. i don t know what the other witnesses said. bill: it s still in play. yeah. bill: questioning more people. how strong is the case if it s taken this long. over a year. may of 2009 that his lawyer acknowledged that it was happening, the grand jury probe. bill: remember who is in charge of the justice department thank you very much. as predicted in the guantanamo bay civilian court routine, there is a terrorist on trial for the embassy bombings in africa. one of the main witnesses has been barred by the judge because of some cia intrusion, right? yes. the defendant is ahmed ghailani, he was allegedly osama bin laden s body guard at a point and guilty, they s
protesting at funerals or other people s private events. so i don t think that there is a huge concern that we re going to have people copycat this group sort of speak and go out and harass people at funerals. so, the slippery slope, at least as it pertains to funerals isn t really applicable in this case but the slippery slope does go both ways. if can you harass people at a funeral i suppose can you harass them at a wedding. you can harass them at their home, their school, their work place. bill: all right. now, mr. snyder, you have observed the opening arguments in the supreme court. what struck you as interesting? i think sean did a really good job. i think he touched on the major points, bill. i think that, you know, he laid out that this was harassment. and that s what it was. it was it was targeted. i think sean pointed that out right and like he said the slippery slope does have two sides. bill: now, do you understand
church, all right, was libel to this lady because the lady committed a sin in the church s eyes. she was living with a guy or something like that. the church, the pastor went on the pulpit, up to the pulpit and said she is a sinner and named her. marianne gun. the courts ruled that that preacher, because he targeted her intentionally inflicted emotional distress and that church lost. what court was it? bill: this is oklahoma. yeah. it s not the u.s. supreme court. bill: it s not a federal case. that s the problem. no. bill: it s the targeted nature of it? there is no case on point here. the question is it s not whether it s targeted. the question is whether you can have there is a tort called intentional infliction of emotional distress. the question is whether that can apply when you are talking about speech. that s essentially what they did. bill: that s what happened here. you know what will happen if the court says yes to that, with the supreme court. that s o