This transcript is automatically generated
Outrage outrage in many Americans but others say it is the leak that does the real damage former US attorney general Michael Mukasey -- Those leaks are empowering the terrorists he joins us nice to see you sir good to -- with -- -- -- aren't terrorists what do you mean by that that the leaks are doing that.
Well every time we have one of these lakes and tells them how it is that we Trace where they are who they're talking to and what they're doing.
That enables them to evade.
The the mechanisms that have been put in place and to adopt them alternatives.
The one example is that is the the disclosure that we were tracing financial transactions.
Through the swift system in 2006.
Needless to say they immediately shut it all down and relied increasingly on hand to hand transfers of cash that's just one example.
Is actually -- -- if you look at -- a good thing even if everybody knew about this including the terrorists it's almost like putting -- under their tires are gonna stop doing in the fast the way the Internet other -- -- gonna go back to smoke signals and pony express is gonna slow them down tremendously not really and I really grown up.
They have access to 21 century techniques.
-- -- first century techniques can avoid other 21 century techniques.
They don't have to go back to the pony express they can simply have the jet plane fly different route.
Let me guess -- he wrote an op Ed piece they -- talked about the Obama administration I think the term used as promiscuous treatment of national secrets.
Why -- critical about administration that way.
What they've done is to leak sensitive information when it was politically advantageous to the president and I think that they then becoming a very poor position.
The start complaining about leaks in prosecuting links.
The president of the time that bin Laden was was killed which was a wonderful triumph of American intelligence then went out and said that.
He -- -- we had uncovered a trove of intelligence and hit at his hideout and of course everybody was in touch with bin Laden everybody knew what and who -- Everybody who knew what his plans were immediately change plans and went to ground.
A lot of that information became useless as a result of the president wanted to get up and boast in front of the cameras.
Just the same way we had a discussion of the United States being involved in implanting the stocks had virus in the Iranian nuclear program.
That is something that should never been disclosed and yet we saw reports on conversations.
In the situation room itself in the White House.
Coming out the only way that could have come out -- through the White House.
I -- just about the size of court I'm I'm critical look bicycle or but -- looked at some of these numbers.
In and -- -- twentieth thirteen according to a 2012 quite a letter sent to cemetery Larry leader Harry Reid.
Applications for authority to conduct electronic surveillance state they withdrew one.
And -- 1780.
Were granted that means every single one McGovern asked for was granted it looks like a rubber stamp to me.
It's not what that means that means two things number one the national security division.
Always has been was when I was there and I'm sure still is.
Very very cautious about what they apply for because the one thing they've got going for them as their credibility.
Secondly those statistics don't tell you what changes were made in those applications before they were granted.
Whether the court push back as it sometimes does and ask for changes in the application.
That often happens.
-- -- -- his Christian just in terms of -- cautious nature we know we see the very is closing the best of the best seeking the -- -- that grabbed but James Rosen asks them information and that was anything but cautious that's not it was reckless now that but that's at best the best it's a tough -- That was not the national security division that was the US attorney's office in -- -- of Columbia that.
Submitted an affidavit that would have been bounced by anybody with a law degree and should've been.
And it was not and that's that's the thing that scares me because the one thing about the fights a court is there's no challenge to the government every single time the national security goes in and submits those warrants in front of the judge that they don't like them like you say they get sent back they get sent back -- -- to -- the judge there's no -- checks and balance why not have sort of an ombudsman in -- at least to speak for the people to say.
Maybe there should be some pull back on this on the application.
Greta the that you're you're mixing up two things the rose an affidavit was not submitted to the -- as a court it was to -- the to a -- That in -- that Columbia.
But what about this pleasant domestic and what federal court judge Royce -- I understand that's there but these are these are experienced members of the best do this or not didn't do but that -- a new magistrate or new federal.
Judge Royce Lamberth didn't sign off on that affidavit I know Royce Lamberth had never would've signed off on an even if -- been woken up in the middle of the night that was signed off on by a magistrate judge.
Who as you know is an appointed official not confirmed and senate.
Can't and what was actually respect.
He may -- respect he may have been respected before this but if you read that affidavit there's no way that that warrant should have been granted.
But see that's my point is that there's no -- -- -- to -- -- fight to court and the judges who sit on the spice to court.
Actually come off the district court this is serve this is next assignment that they have their appointed by the Supreme Court justice from the district court and we have no way to know what they're doing.
Of course we have no way to know what they're doing -- -- it's it's it they're very involved and intelligence gathering which is which is a sensitive process.
What -- saying is there's no room for secrecy in the government.
We didn't have any checks and balances at the time of the Manhattan Project either we didn't put actually vote.
I wouldn't icing was and to say we ought to have some represented maybe you know -- the spice of course never an ombudsman and we don't even have to know -- at least someone who is just not saying yes there yesterday everything the government does you don't know that that's what what they're doing and you don't know what government is asking.
When they get a 100% other applications -- that emphasis.
-- You may be suspicious but they may in fact be doing less then they should be doing by going in only on the safe cases.
I got into a dispute with Ray Kelly over precisely that.
He said the percentage was too high because they weren't going far enough.
Judge guys nice to see as Thunder -- Good to be with you.