with terrorist sympathies that maybe in those particular countries we have better information and can apply better screening centers moving forward. our job was to take the current assessment, start, there and then create a 90-day window to put new assessment in place. ainsley: if you are an american have you rights under the constitution. these folks coming here who are refugee he is do not have rights under the constitution because they are not citizens of this country. elizabeth warren feels differently and keeps screaming out this is illegal under the constitution. listen to. this it is illegal. it is illegal. it is unconstitutional. it is unconstitutional. and it will be overturned. ainsley: so what s your reaction? well, senator warren is entitled to her opinion but not her own constitution. the reality is the constitution of the united states very clearly gives the executive control over immigration authority and gifsz the government control over who can and cannot
heard that link these acts to terrorism prematurely. i don t think we re here to criticize. we re here to protect the clients. and they happen to be muslim. and the muslim community. and also to stand up for the victims and grieve the victims and to say we re remorseful for what took place. and the muslim community doesn t support or condone what took place. no muslim does nationwide. every single muslim leader has come out and said this is not a muslim act. when someone goes crazy and commits an act that could totally be work related, it doesn t make a statement on behalf of an entire religion. we re trying to protect people. and at the same time we re still in mourning for both the family and the victims. and it was tragic. it s horrible. and we re trying to heal the nation, i think, as a whole. if the family didn t see any evidence of terrorist sympathies, did they see any evidence of disgruntlement in the workplace, of unhappiness in
this means is that when donald trump is speaking, before an audience, his crowd believes what that guy was asking him about, and so those who said why didn t he repudiate that man, he would have to repudiate two-thirds of his own constituency, and that s not likely to happen. this is a creature created by the republican party and donald trump is riding this wave and that s the tragic thing that s going on right here. this isn t just a political debate about where people position themselves with regard to national figures, because as we ve seen, it trickles down to a school level. yes. in irving, texas, where there s an assumption that someone who is muslim may have some terrorist sympathies or intent. sure. when it really comes down to a science experiment or an invention that a school boy wants to bring in to show his teachers. george w. bush, for all of his flaws and there were many, pursued a policy that said to
can be something that folds you into focusing on an individual. but there s too much of that and too many people who will commit terrorism in the absence of travel. it s not a real sorting mechanism. would you sort through like, the chatter phone calls the texting back and forth what would you focus on? el, i think one thing we could do is the so-called met a data which would involve late see you have reason the government has reason to suspect that wasey has terrorist sympathies. they could back in the early part of the century keep track of letters i would write or i would get the outside of the letter, the address and so forth, but know open the letter and look on the inside. and the nsa was doing essentially that, with e-mails and the like, when they gotland down here about a month ago and they can t even do that anymore. has to be done, if at all by phone companies. so people who say they really
still with me. former counterterrorism analyst for the cia and now a political commentator here wir us as cnn. we are were talking about the social media threads, i mean elton simpson was tweeting back and forth, what? classify him as an isis fighter? fancied himself that way. seemed to want to chase that life but the truth of the matter is he was already known as somebody with terrorist sympathies long before this and had actually been arrested and prosecuted for lying to fbi agents about his desire to join al shabaab in somalia. they got him on lying, but not necessarily on the proving joining a terrorist group. all he got was three years probation. people look at it soofi and simpson, how could these two individuals? specifically one already on the radar for terrorism. that s what i m saying. how did they not at some point they have could divert surveillance after that three-year period of probation