martha: rain any start to the weekend. looks like it will clear up. bill: got my boots. martha:, i hope the same is true wherever you are. have a sunny weekend. thanks for being with us. bill: gray skies. see you monday. jon: fox news alert. we are awaiting remarks from president obama. mr. obama is expected to speak this hour in california about the new health care law. the white house says he will encourage uninsured americans to enroll in a plan. is that all he will discuss? he is requiring to focus on health care as we're learning about new troubles for the white house. chief white house correspondent ed henry is live in san jose. they have more explaining to do, ed. >> reporter: they certainly do, jon. it is interesting because the president wants to talk about health care reformulater this hour in san jose. i will be in the room for the statement. we expect to talk about early signs here in california, which obviously is the biggest health insurance market in the entire country, the administration sees early signs people are signing up

and competition among the various insurance companies is starting to drive down premiums. that is at least the case the president will make. they believe this could be the incubator for the rest of the country. that is the point he wants to make. that will be hard to stay on message. there is increasing pressure. controversies back in washington. still the irs issue. justice department media leak investigations. now in terms of this the surveillance programs of both internet and phone records. that is putting pressure on the administration. i just spoke to one of the president's top aides, likely the president will add something to the healthcare statement and talk about the nsa situation or take a question or two from the reporters in the room. so, that is not definite. we're hearing the president is contemplating that. he realizes he has to get ahead of this. he already has fallen behind, on defense because of pressure from the hill, pressure from the public. all these media stories about the nsa story. final point i will make the whole reason in california the after the health care statement he is going to

palm springs where we cover where he do a little mini-summit with the chinese 39 topic there would be the chinese cyber attacks. the's hand pushing china on that may be hampered a bit because there is so much focus on the u.s. ace own surveillance programs. jon: a lot of balls to keep in the air. he had henry traveling with the president in california. thwart. >> reporter: good to see you. jon: first, brand new stories breaking news. >> new information on the government spying on millions of americans. the nsa collecting not only phone records but tracking your moves on the internet. and it is been going on for years a car ends up in the bottom of the pool. what happened to the driver. this is all "happening now."

arthel: and thanks for joining us on this friday. hello, jenna is off. i'm arthel neville. jon: welcome to the program today. good to have you back, arthel. i'm jon scott. growing outrage over yet another government spying program. we're learning that the national security agency is not only collecting and analyzing the phone records of millions of americans but is also tracking every move you make online. it is all in the name of national security. listen. >> i read intelligence carefully and i know that people are trying to get to us. this is the reason why we keep tsa doing what it is doing. this is the reason why the fbi now has 10,000 people doing intelligence on counterterrorism. this is the reason for the national counterterrorism center that has been set up and in the time we've been active.

it is to ferret this out before it happens. it is called protecting america. >> it calls for a full and open congressional hearing. what are you doing? why are you doing it? how much has been done? so that we can have a full and complete accounting. now someone over in one of the intelligence agency is thinking, well, mccain is giving away all our secrets. shouldn't americans know if the government is carrying out a practice that could be an invasion of privacy? arthel: so this story is unfolding very quickly. here's what's developed in just the past 36 hours. late wednesday we learned that the u.s. government has been collecting the phone records of millions of verizon customers in the u.s. then hours later it was revealed that for the past six years the fbi and the nsa have tapped directly into the central servers of nine leading internet companies including google and face book to search for e-mails, videos, photographs

and audio files. it turns out that some lawmakers in congress knew about the programs the entire time. bringing in doug mckelway live in washington. doug, what is the latest on this from the white house? >> reporter: as you heard from ed, we may expect the president to say something about this in revised remarks when he speaks an hour from now. we'll see what he has to say. last we heard came from a gaggle aboard air force one yesterday, when deputy secretary josh ernest spoke about it. he defended the program saying entirely within the skrop of the law. he said, excuse me with the knowledge and oversight of congress and their intelligence community in both houses of congress. there is extensive oversight by the executive branch including the department of justice and relative agencies and inspectors general and annual and semiannual reports in congress required by law. many members of the intelligence community are also defending the program. here's mike rogers, the chairman of the house intelligence committee. >> within the last few years, this program, was used to

stop a program, excuse me, stop a terrorist attack in the united states. we know that. >> but we know that the author of the patriot act, james sensenbrenner of wisconsin, said that, the limitations he put into this law are in fact being abused. here is sensenbrenner. >> i offered the patriot act to try to get at the bad guys and getting at the bad guys without getting the good people, having their privacy jeopardized. i fought with the bush administration and the obama administration and i thought i was able to be able to do something that was narrowly drafted, but any law can be, any law can be abused and this one has been. >> he believes that congress needs to revisit the patriot act. i'm sure they will in the weeks and months to come. arthel, back to you. arthel: doug, i'm sure they will talk about cybersecurity.

do you think there is any chance this controversy will come up in president obama's discussion with chinese president xi? >> this is a good question. this was largely a get to know the president of china meeting. one of the major concerns of the obama administration vis-a-vis china is china's cyber espionage. ed alluded to this a little bit. china's cyber espionage from other countries but mostly china, costs the united states $300 billion a year. equivalent to what we export to asia each and every year. if president obama raises the issue with president xi, president xi has the perfect foil. he can say i suggest you get your own house in order with espionage of american citizens before you ask us to do the same. arthel, back to you. arthel: if we could only be a fly on that wall. doug mckelway, thanks very much for that report. jon: our next guest even if americans agreed with surveillance programs meant to protect them they can no

longer trust that the government will target terrorists. scandals like benghazi and the irs have eroded the public's faith in the administration. jamie weinstein, from "the daily caller". we wake up and find the government is essentially spying on us in ways way beyond what we knew until now. this is the same government doing some monkey business at the irs. >> right. exactly, jon. you know, putting aside the freedom and security debate you were just discussing and arthel was just discussing this is problematic for president obama because of previous scandals uncovering especially irs scandals and mistruths with benghazi and targeting fox news reporter, a fox news reporter, but also because what he said both on the campaign trail when he as was campaigning for president and recently. jon: sure. >> remember when he was campaigning for president, president bush's programs,

that was a false choice. we didn't need to compromise our freedom for security. recently he has said, you know, al qaeda has been decimated. the tide of war is reseeding. if you're going to justify this, the only way you could possibly justify it is a threat of terrorism, the war on terror. but he has told us that is the ending and the threat receded. al qaeda has been decimated. how do you justify these extraordinary measures now that you have articulated that the threat has reduced dramatically. jon: when the president gets indignant he often uses the phrase, let's have that debate. this is a program that americans didn't even know existed and the white house apparently has been complicit in letting the nsa and the fbi examine all this stuff. >> right. and unlike the other problems that he has with the irs and benghazi, there is no way he can claim that he didn't know what was going on here. this is something that he had to be aware of. it was in many of the

reports. one in seven nsa reports included information from this program. so he can't, you know, back away, say this is something he learned by reading the newspaper like he said with the other scandals. so he will have to address this and explain, if the tide of war is receding, if al qaeda is decimated why exactly are the measures required now? so this is something that he will have to explain and the american people i think, are going to question, even if they agreed with the program or would give up this freedom, to, get security, can they trust the government with what they know especially about the irs scandal targeting individual groups like they are supposed to. jon: he consistently slammed what he said are the excesses of the bush administration this things like the patriot act, guantanamo bay, and even throw in the recession if you want. that is constantly being blamed on the bush administration. as you point out this program has expanded under

this president's watch. >> this is why it is so politically damaging to president obama. tears down that whole edifice that he created he is this hope and change transparency president. most transparent administration in history. we're not going to violate your civil liberties. and now we know that he is expanded the program beyond what we knew that the president bush had done and that has led, you know, even his allies, like the "huffington post", call him george w. obama. and "the new york times" saying that he has lost credibility now. this is torn down the edifice that he created and even his left-wing allies believed that he was trying to implement a transparent administration and would not violate civil liberties the way they thought president bush did. now that's gone. jon: i don't think when americans voted for transparency, include the government looking into their lives to this extent. jamie wine sty, thank you very much, from "the daily caller". we're getting word the

president will address some of these issues when he makes those remarks in california. supposed to be originally planned to be remarks about health care but he will address this controversy again at the bottom of the hour. we'll have that for you obviously live here on fox. arthel: fox news weather alert. severe weather warnings stretching from florida to maine as tropical storm andrea makes its way up the east coast. heavy rains posing the biggest threat right now with major flooding in areas reported in several areas. let's go live to chief meteorologist rick reichmuth. so, rick, it is rainy here in new york city. trying to bring sunshine with the yellow dress but didn't really help much. >> we appreciate that. it certainly helps our spirits at least a little bit. very heavy rain and all throughout today and into tonight and from the mid-atlantic into the northeast. this is where the rain has fallen already. much of the southeast and especially florida over the last 48 hours. they have seen a lot of flooding there. the storm is moving to the northeast. we have a tornado watch much

eastern area of north carolina, outer banks and southeastern virginia as well. mostly this is a very heavy rain event. no tornado warnings in effect at this point. that's good news. we could see one of those pop up real quickly. folks need to be watching. windwise it has been very strong to the east of the storm and along the coast. so a little bit of beach erosion, definitely, horrible day across beaches. you want to stay out of the water. but the storm moving very quickly now 28 miles-an-hour off the northeast. it is losing its tropical characteristic. it is becoming a big rainstorm. wind around 40 miles an hour at times. this is what the radar looks like. we'll see the rain tomorrow afternoon and into mid-morning. this is new england. 8:00 a.m. saturday morning we'll see clearing from upstate new york, all the way down toward mid-atlantic really not that bad. this is much of a storm for today. very heavy rainfall everywhere you see the red,

talking about rainfall totals likely three to five inches. that we'll see flooding across the area. likely will happen again. a good day to stay out of the water on those beaches. arthel? arthel: hopefully not too much flooding. nothing damaging to people's homes. can't take anymore. rick, thanks. >> you bet. jon: take you to southern california where there's tragic scene. the ntsb now investigating after a helicopter crashes with four people on board. brand new details just breaking about the irs targeting scandal. when washington first learned conservative groups were facing extra scrutiny. plus new jobs numbers released this morning. we will talk with economist ben stein. harris faulkner is here with how you can submit your questions. harris? >> i love this part of the show because it is interactive. we get our viewers to do work with us. foxnews.com/happeningnow is our homepage. look for the picture of the right-hand side of rick and myself. just to the left, america is

asking. we're asking you america. we want to know what you're asking ben stein,@arthel neville on twitter and@harris faulkner on twitter. stay close. [ male announcer ] eligible for medicare?

that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement plans, they help save you up to thousands in out-of-pocket costs. call today to request a free decision guide. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and you'll never need a referral to see a specialist. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it.

with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide. jon: just in. we're learning brand new information about the irs scandal and when officials in washington first learned about the targeting of conservative political groups. fox news confirmed that a misfired e-mail from an irs employee in cincinnati, first alerted top officials in washington in july of 2010. that is a full year earlier than the agency had previously admitted. chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel live on capitol hill. it feels like bits and pieces are trickling out on this irs investigation that give us a fuller picture and maybe a more damaging one to the irs, huh, mike? >> reporter: jon, you're right. congressman trey gowdy, a former federal prosecutor tells me the hearings are important to keep the public

informed but a lot of the meat and potatoes of the investigation is done behind closed doors under oath which is where the information you mentioned came from. gowdy said the fact that nobody at the irs stepped up to stop bad behavior there is disturbing. >> i say it is systemic. it is cultural. it is a character issue. it can not be fixed with a recommend tigs from the inspector general or more training. you can't, if you don't know that this is wrong, while you're doing it, while you're approving it, while you're flying to anaheim, if you do not know that this is wrong then you don't need to work for the people. >> reporter: gowdy says there should be plenty more hearings but plenty more private interviews off-camara where they may get to the meat of the matter. jon. jon: any indication anybody from the irs will get fired for all this, targeting conservative groups or all the crazy spending? >> reporter: that's an interesting point and something the top democrat on the house oversight committee brought up at the

end of a very long hearing yesterday with the new acting irs commissioner. >> what does it take to actually get fired at one of these organizations? i mean you've got people who, you say accountable, accountable, accountable. the speaker wants to know when somebody is going to jail. >> important question. and i think this committee is asking for a recommendations on how we can improve the irs. part of that improvement is how do we improve timeliness of accountability. this is one of the questions that we can surface in terms of looking personal -- personnel rules and determining are they sufficient to meet the country's needs in terms of when something goes wrong, who is held accountable. i am certainly open to discussing that with committee and others. >> reporter: i stand corrected. that was not elijah cummings obviously. that was jason chaffetz from utah, what does it take for somebody to actually get fired, jon. jon: mike emanuel in washington. mike, thank you. >> reporter: sure. arthel: come take a look at this. this is something you don't see every day. an suv in your swimming

pool. we'll tell you how this one got in the that pool, that car. the latest government spying controversy throwing president obama's civil liberty abouts record into question. so what information should the government have access to? our legal panel weighs in after the break. ♪ roundup ♪ now roundup has a new sharp-shootin' wand ♪ ♪ just point and shoot, and weeds are gone ♪ ♪ 'round fences, trees, even mulched beds ♪ ♪ 'cause the only good weed is a weed that's dead ♪ ♪ roundup [ male announcer ] with a new one-touch wand. yeha! [ whip cracks ]

jon: new video. a dramatic crash in southern california. the driver lucky to be alive after crashing her car through two fences and winding up in a neighbor's pool. harris faulkner, live from our new york newsroom. harris? >> reporter: it sound like something we could laugh about but for a few minutes it got really scary. a woman behind the wheel of her subaru, drove out of the garage the hard way. she somehow nowed through the back wall and crashed

through two fences and landed in her neighbor's backyard pool. here's the neighbor. >> we all ran over there. the neighbor next door and got into the backyard behind, and, i kept yelling for her. >> reporter: no one knew if she was unconscious or was hurt. they didn't see her at all. she somehow managed to get out of the vehicle but then, getting the vehicle out of the pool was difficult. it took a towing company two hours. they said they had to jerry-rig their cables to get the thing up. the car is totaled you but, the woman, 67-year-old driver, that neighbor will be okay, we're told. wow, jon. jon: makes a mess of the pool too. >> reporter: no doubt. jon: harris, thank you. arthel: we want to get you back to one of our top stories. shocking new details of yet another government spying program. the national security agency not only collecting and analyzing the phone records of millions of americans, but it is also tracking

everything you do on the web. so what information should the government have access to? will there be any legal fallout? joe debendito and dan shore, a former prosecutor. good to see both of you. dan, you are okay with this overall, but there needs to be some balance. >> i'm not okay with it but there needs to be balance. you have to balance the national security terrorism threat over privacy of individuals. we need limitations what private information can be provided to the government. if the public doesn't know what information the government is gathering you can't have the debate. we need to know the extent of government information about us and we're only starting to learn how far the invasion has gone. we need to learn more information to have a real debate. arthel: joe, if the government is doing this under the guise of national security how much should be disclosed? >> clear too much is being

disclosed, as is we're not targeting simply terrorists, we're targeting everybody. it is a slippery slope. it is clear here, not only are we being targeted but possibly our children as well. people should feel just a tiny bit uncomfortable about that. arthel: are they really, targeting you and me and who i'm talking to or you guys talking to or e-mailing or listening for key phrases that sort, ping the system if you will? not everything you or i are doing they're targeting. >> they're targeting foreigners here and overseas that want to do us now. we know much more information than we thought is being fathered. what is done with the information we don't really know. arthel: that's what i was -- go ahead. >> if we are limiting the scope to people overseas or suspected terrorists that's fine. who is to say that this information will not be used for other purposes. that is the problem. arthel: that, sr. which want to get to this and joe is a

criminal defense attorney. as a prosecutor is there any possibility somehow down the line this collection of data could somehow affect your line of work? >> without a doubt. you know, i wouldn't be surprised if this information pops up on a criminal case where, even though it's supposed to be used for suspected terrorists somebody who could be involved in some sort of criminal conduct, all of sudden is now being targeted and, does not, fall under the guise of a suspected terrorist and now is playing a major part in a criminal case. >> even if the intent is good to gather information to protect us we don't know what individual people in the government will do with the information. if we don't know the extent of the information being gathered we can't really watch out for intrusions and violations of our privacy. arthel: this conversation is certainly just beginning. so much dialogue to continue. we want to continue on another case. stick around more me, right? we'll talk with joe and dan about a shocking verdict out of texas where a jury just

acquitted a man accused of, with murder charges. he admitted shooting an escort who would not have sex with him after he paid her $150. that lady died later. the jury finding he was justified, and these guys are going to weigh in on that at the bottom of the hour. stick around for that one. jon: that is an unbelievable case. also this. a helicopter crashes into a los angeles park. four people are on board. now the ntsb is investigating what happened. plus there has been a lot of talk about the growing threat of a cyberattack on the united states. how does the pentagon define an act of war in cyberspace? a look at that next.

jon: just in. the ntsb investigating a chopper crash in a los angeles park. harris faulkner live at breaking news desk. harris. >> there are late-breaking developments as they try to figure out what happened there. this helicopter is privately owned. we can tell you that. that went down in griff first park. that is an area with thick woods and a golf course. the pilot set down very close to some hiking trails. he tried to land it on the skids. those are the feet, the flat base board that the chopper tries -- you can see those made it but look at the rest of the helicopter. this is roto craft 4-40. it tipped over on its side and began to leak fuel.

first-responders are there in the video. a pilot and three passengers are on board. they're okay. just minor injuries. they took couple ofunx 6hcj% to the hospital. nobody needed to staovernight. this is the latest "the los angeles times" is reporting. we'll do our own reporting to shore this up. this is according to them, it looks like the craft may have had some sort of mechanical difficulty or mechanical flaw or problem before it hit the ground. griffith park, an area where 2:17 p.m. in the afternoon there would have been some people. this could have been worse. fortunate for the four on board, nobody on the ground. that everyone is okay. back to you. jon: that is an amazing sit down. harris faulkner, thank you. >> reporter: sure. arthel: we're learning new information about our nation's security in cyberspace and when we would declare a sigher about war. top military officials con firms that the u.s. has a so-called red line when it comes to determining whether a cyberattack is considered an act of war. however many questions remain including what

exactly that red line is. national security correspondent jennifer griffin live at pentagon. jennifer, good to see you first of all. what would constitute an act of war in cyberspace according to the pentagon? >> reporter: that is interesting, arthel. our sources here at the pentagon that the u.s. military has clear red lines in the cyber domain when it comes to determining what constitutes an act of war. the problem those red lines are classified of the as one senior defense official put it to us, we don't want our adversaries to know what the red line is because we don't want them walking up to it and turning back. >> the united states has expressed our concern about the growing threat of cyber intrusion, some of which appear to be tied to the chinese government and military. >> the sheer volume of intellectual value -- property, blueprints of american innovation and ingenuity have been stolen, repurposed and competing artificially against u.s. companies is staggering. >> reporter: especially for

u.s. defense contractors who make some of the country's most sophisticated weapons. an estimated $300 billion a year is lost to this chinese cyber spying but even that has not prompted a war. arthel. arthel: so how would this work, jennifer? what are the rules of engagement for the pentagon if the president, president obama, orders a cyberattack in defense of the nation? >> reporter: well all of the defense department's rules of engagement were revised in 2005, including the exact rules of engagement for cyber warfare. here is the pentagon's exact response to our inquiry, quote, u.s. military standard rules of engagement currently under revision do not allow commanders to direct cyber counter attacks. that means the decision still rests with the commander-in-chief. the commander-in-chief, the president, will meet with the president of china today in california. you can expect this issue of cyber attacks and cyber hacking to come up during

that meeting. arthel: absolutely. i'm just wondering how honest that conversation will actually be. we'll talk about that a little later in the show. right now, jennifer, thank you very much for that report. >> reporter: thank you. jon: a texas jury aquits a man of murder after he shot and killed a craig's list he is court who refused to have sex with him saying the shooting was justified. the legal panel looks at this case and the law that lid to his release. a breakthrough weight-loss drug will soon be available in the united states. what it could mean for so many people battling obesity. fox news medical a-teamer dr. samadi joins us next. we got adt because i walked in on a burglary once.

the physical damage was pretty bad. the emotional toll was even worse. our daughter had nightmares. what that robber really took from us was our peace of mind. with adt, we got it back. [ male announcer ] every 14.6 seconds, a burglary takes place in the united states. so rely on the fast alarm response of adt. a single adt system can help protect you from burglary, fire, and high levels of carbon monoxide. when an alarm is received, adt calls the local authorities for help. and you can get this monitored protection, plus great local service, starting at just over $1 a day.

and only adt offers a theft protection guarantee. take it from me. the time to think about a security system isn't after something bad happens -- it's before. [ male announcer ] call now and get one of our best values -- adt's quick connect plus system installed for $99. hurry, and take advantage of these savings. adt. always there.

arthel: the doctor is in for sure. a new weapon in the battle against weight loss about to hit the market next week. the fda approving the drug, belvic. the first long term weight-loss drug in more than a decade. it will be available to americans who suffer from at least one medical complication. dr. david samadi, chief of robotics at mt. sinai school of medicine and fox medical a-teamer.

good to see you. bell vick, do you go to the store to get it? >> prescribed by doctors. this is good news last decade you mentioned we haven't had a lot of drugs come in. the fda reject them because they can be abusive and people are affected by side-effects. they decided it is fairly safe. given by prescriptions and it's definitely given the kind of obese tifr we have in this country this would be a drug. the one that is parallel is a similar mechanism that has been available for a year or so but they work well. a message to a lot of people that listen, if you want to get rid of obesity this should be the final resort, not first option. you need diet control, portion control and exercise. this is one of the treatment before you go to one of the surgeries. arthel: first of all you say it took so long because they didn't want to abuse it or patients to abuse it but

that risk is still out there. a lot of people will abuse it. before you answer that, also include in the answer for me who is obese? what is considered obese? >> that is very good question. first one, basically they decided, fda by voting this would be a class 4 medicationing meaning that it is safe. the danger of abusing it is minimum. that is why it got out with the news. the definition of obesity what would call the physician, body mass index. they look at height and weight and give you a number. if you're over 30, moderate obese. numbers as it goes to 35 and 40. arthel: that confuses me, i'm sorry, doc. because i never get that. you did a good job explaining it. i just don't get it. really you get the whole bmi thing. move on? >> you want me to post it on facebook? i will post it on facebook. no problem. i will put the formula. arthel: a vand did he yaw, -- avandia, this was for type-2

diabetes. first it wasn't good. take it off the market. maker of avandia 3 million, paid in health care fraud case. now the fda is says it is okay to use avandia. >> by the end of the segment you will be a farm civil or doctor. all the drugs are really important. diabetes huge problem. this medication came in. there were side-effect of cardiac issues. right there they decided to pull off. that is exactly right. the debate was is this safe medication? the research could have been fraud. fda again went back for the last year and looked at this. now they're saying if we call it the same way, class 4 medication that is not going to have a lot of side-effects or risk people can use it. part of it is because we're desperate. here is diabetes on the growth and we're not producing anything to fight it back. diabetes is costing over $230 billion in this country of health issues and et cetera. so this is a desperate medication that fda had to kind of vote it in.

there are always side-effects to all medications. you know it and i know it. just like you remember years ago viagra fairly safe and millions of medications are written about this, a bunch of patients had irish shoes. that is a medication that is fairly similar to that i'm sure it will come out on the market and hopefully will help. arthel: why do they do that? one minute, take this drug and next minute, don't take this drug it will kill you. why do they do that? >> fda leadership before beginning let medications come onto the market and pull them back. once you have a bunch of side-effects because they go through clinical trials. sometimes when you see people use it in mass volume you see side-effects. that's what they have to stop them. >> clinic is a sample, if you will. side-effects after ash affect other people. that is individual thing. i'm looking forward to this topic. multiple sclerosis drug they

developed. and when will patients get help from it? >> your own immune system will fight nerves or things that cover the nerves f i decide to walk, i have to think about it. my brain has to tell my arms and legs to start moving. if the formation is not going to get transferred that is multiple sclerosis. they walk funny. information doesn't get there, paralysis, et cetera. how about if you control your immune system from attacking or throw some sort of a cell in there that your body will think that my leg is here, not there, instead of attacking you will attack the other anti-defense -- anti-against. we're getting smarter than the immune system. they're going after your own cell antigens, therefore they will not attack you. in the clinical trial, 75%, this is big, 75% of the mice and the clinical trial had

less symptoms. huge progress. arthel: that's great. >> usually, that's right. the question how do we go from the mice to some of these clinical -- sometimes may take three to five years and a lot of investment and who knows along the path what kind of surprised that we're going to have, but overall i think this is a huge, this medical engineering by the way will come into a lot of different fields. very exciting. arthel: i hope they get to it really quickly. >> absolutely. arthel: good news. dr. david samadi, thank you very much. please don't be mad at me about the bmi thing. >> you're great. arthel: give me a number. that's all i need. >> i will post the information. no problem. always good to see you. >> jon? jon: a woman who advertised her services as an escort on craig's list winds up dead, shot and killed after she took money from a man and then would not have sex with him. he admitted shooting her saying he wanted his money back. guess what, the jury acquitted him of murder charges. our legal panel weighs in on this case next. we are also awaiting president obama.

he is expected to speak any minute now in california. we're told he will address some of these concerns about the nsa spying on ordinary americans. that's coming up.

arthel: listen to this. we have new information on the acquittal of a texas man who shot an escort after she would not have sex with him. ezekiel gill gert was acquitted of murder charges. a jury finding he was justified in the shooting after 23-year-old craig's list escort who took $150 from him and tried to leave his place without having sex with him. the woman was paralyzed with the gunshot wound and she died several months later.

joe dibenedetto is a criminal defense attorney. dan schorr is a criminal prosecutor. first of all i will start with you, on this one, joe. this law in texas is a crazy law. it is disturbing. break down the law for me. you can kill someone or shoot someone if? >> you're allowed to use deadly physical force if there is a robbery at night. tly what happened here. i hate to say it, please don't hate me for saying it but the jury got this correct. if you are, a juror following the letter of the law, she stole $150 from this defendant. it doesn't matter whether she use ad gun or her high heels. she stole $150 and he was justified using deadly physical force. arthel: this is disturbing. do you know of any states that have such a law like this? >> i certainly never have seen it applied like this. this is extremely disturbing. this is not a theft. she contacted -- he

contact contacted her through the craig's list law. he is trying to coerce into performing illegal act prostitution, that is someone different from someone taking money and stealing at nighttime. >> no different than calling up local pizzeria and places order for pie of pizza, deliveryman comes accepts money for pizza but doesn't deliver the pie. >> do i get to shoot him? >> no doesn't. >> i order a pepperoni and cheese pizza. comes by and takes money and runs without the pizza left behind and shoot him. >> if we're following law, in texas you're allowed to use deadly force. >> i disagree with that. for two reasons. prostitution is illegal. he is trying to get her to commit an illegal act not just deliver pizza. this is for theft, even if you remove sex and prostitution from it, this is argument over $150 what he is entitled for money other case, pizzas. you deal with those in other ways to shooting people. >> to all due respect to dan, the argument sounds great

but the statute doesn't make the distinction. it is not not there plain and simple, straightforward. you are allowed to use deadly physical force under these circumstances. arthel: here's the thing, gilbert, the guy, the john, his defend attorney argued this was, this one was, this is the first time this woman pulled something like this. it was not the first time she pulled something like this. that was his argument. take a listen and we'll talk about it after the bite. go ahead. >> she was followed many times by angry patrons wanting their money back and, this manager, was 6'4", 260 pound. and his response was, if you want your money back you need to come get it from me. arthel: so, what do you say to that? >> no different than a purse snatcher. it is unfortunate somebody died but it is the same exact analysis. she stole $150. that is, there is no dispute as to that. >> it's very different because he is trying to get her to perform an illegal act, prostitution. that is different than

someone coming and robbing you. i have seen in cases it is difficult to get convictions with when the victim is not very popular, or friendly to the jury in their eyes. here a prostitute or someone putting a craig's list ad up about prostitution may not have been sympathetic in their eyes. that might have been in play here. arthel: you're saying that perhaps there is something to it, that because this woman was selling her goods for sale -- >> when prostitutes and put up craig's list out there. when prostitutes are victi victimmedized by sexual assaults or homicide, hard to get convictions because juries are not sympathetic. it is important they still be protected. >> 10 seconds. wrap it up. >> the law in texas. it is what it is. very straightforward application and the jury got it correct. arthel: too bad that anyone died. say that. doesn't matter what the person does for a living. joe dibenedetto and dan schorr, thanks very much for both of you being here. jon? jon: growing controversy,

arthel, over the government spying on americans. the national security agency it turns out has been gathering phone and internet at that from millions and mills of us. we'll break down what it means and talk about privacy concerns dom coming up. a live look at san jose, california. we're waiting for president obama to deliver remarks on the new health care law. we're told in one form or another he will address this nsa spying scandal. love, warmth. here, try this. mm, ok! ching! i like the fact that there's lots of different tastes going on. mmmm! breakfast i'm very impressed. this is a great cereal! honey bunches of oats. i hear you crunching.

jon: a fox news alert, the president has gone to california, originally it was planned to be an address about the new health care law highlighting the progress in california setting up the new state insurance marketplace. now, his remarks are set to get under way shortly. the president, we understand, in addition to health care is going to be speaking about the secret mass surveillance program that's been conducted for years, apparently, by the national security agency. doug mckelway live at the white house with more. >> reporter: and we'll cut away to president when and if he makes those comments, there's a little bit of a question whether, in in fact, he will address this scandal. we've heard he may pose questions to reporters to allow that issue to come up. but depending on the reporter, we don't to -- we may not hear about it.

but we do expect the president to address it. that's the betting, anyway. the only thing we have heard from the white house barring what the president may say about it came yesterday a gaggle on air force one yesterday when he said the scope of this surveillance program was entirely within the law. we also heard from a statement from the director of national intelligence, james clapper, who basically reiterated the same thing, that this was targeted to not americans living abroad. we've heard support from it as well from the chairman of the intelligence committees on the hill, senator dianne feinstein says -- jon: let me interrupt you, the president has arrived and is taking to the podium there. let's listen in. >> are not sitting here. [laughter] you know, things -- on friday afternoon, things get a little, a little challenged. i'm going to have a, i'm going answer a question at the end of the remarks, but i want to make

sure that we get the remarks out. people, oh, goodness. oh -- [laughter] folks are sweating back there right now. [laughter] good morning, everybody. this afternoon i'm going to be in southern california to meet with the president of china, but before i leave northern california, i wanted to take a minute to address something that's happening with the affordable care act in this state. and i wanted to meet with a group of people who are doing some very important work on behalf of california's middle class families. these leaders from california's government, the california endowment and major spanish-language media outlets have joined together to help implement the affordable care act here in california and to educate folks about how to sign up and shop for affordable

plans. and there efforts have already shown some excellent results in the biggest insurance market industry. there are two main things that americans need to know when it comes to the affordable care act and what it means for you. first of all, if you're one of the nearly 85% of americans who already have insurance either through medicare or medicaid or your employer, you don't have to do a thing. you've just got a wide array of new benefits, better protections and stronger cost controls that you didn't have before and that will, over time, improve the quality of the insurance you've got. benefits like free preventive care, check-ups, flu preventive shots, mammograms and contraception. you are now going to be able to get those things through your insurance where they previously were not, didn't have to be provided. protections like allowing people up to the age of 26 to stay on their parents' health care plans

which has already helped six million americans including six million young latino-americans. quality controls like requiring insurance companies to spend at least 80% of the money that you pay in premiums in your actual health care costs as opposed to administrative costs or ceo pay. not overhead, but that money has to be spent on you. and if they don't meet that target, they actually have to reimburse you. so in california we're already getting reported that insurers are giving rebates to consumers and small business owners to the tune of $45 million this year. so already we're seeing millions of dollars of rebates sent back to consumers by insurance companies as a consequence of this law. all of that is happening because of the affordable care act. all of this is in place right now, already, for 85% of

americans who have health insurance. by the way, all of this is what the republican party has now voted 37 times to repeal at least in the house of representatives. and my suggestion to them has been let's stop refighting the old battles and start working with people like these who are on stage here today to make this law work the way it's supposed to. we're focused on moving forward and making sure that this law works for middle class families. and that brings me to the second thing that people need to know about the affordable care act. if you're one of nearly six million californians or ten million -- tens of millions of americans who don't currently have health insurance, you'll soon be able to buy quality, affordable care just like everybody else. and here's how. states like california are setting up new online marketplaces where beginning on october 1st of this year you can

comparison shop an array of private health insurance plans side by side just like you were going online to compare cars or airline tickets. and that means insurance companies will actually have to compete with each other for your business. and that means new choices. right now most states don't have a lot of competition, and nearly every state more than half of all consumers are covered by only two insurers. so there's no incentive to provide you a lot of choices or to keep costs down. the affordable care act changes that. beginning next year once these marketplaces are open, most states will offer new private insurance choices that don't exist today. and based on early reports, about nine in ten americans expected to enroll in these marketplaces live in states where they'll be able to choose between five or more different insurers. so, for example, here in california 33 insurers applied

to join the marketplace, covered california then selected 13 be based on access, quality and affordability, four of which are brand new to your individual market. so what's happening is through the affordable care act we're creating these marketplaces with more competition, more choice. so the question is, what happens to the cost? now, a lot of of opponents of the affordable care act said, you know, they had all kind of sky is falling, doom and gloom predictions that not only would the law fail, but we'd also see costs skyrocket for everybody. well, it turns out we're actually seeing that in the states that have committed themselves to implementing this law correctly, we're seeing some good news. competition and choice are pushing down costs in the individual market just like the law was designed to do. the 13 insurance companies that

were chosen by covered california have unveiled premiums lower than anybody expected. and those who can't afford to buy private insurance will get help even further with the largest health care tax cut for working families and small businesses in our history. so about 2.6 californians will qualify for tax credits that will, in some cases, lower their premiums a significant amount. now, none of this is a surprise. this was the way the law was designed to work. but since everybody's been saying how that's not going to happen, i think it's important for us to recognize and acknowledge it's working the way it's supposed to. we've seen similar good news, by the way, not just here in california, but in oregon and washington. in states that are working hard to implement this law properly. we're seeing it work for people. for middle class families, for

consumers. i'm not saying that everything's going to go perfectly right away. we're implementing a program this large, there will be some glitches, there are going to be some hiccups. but no matter what, every single consumer will be covered by the new benefits and protections under this law permanently. so the bottom line is, you know, you can listen to a bunch of political talk out there, negative ads and fear mongering geared towards the next election, or alternatively, you can look at what's happening in states like california right now. and the fact of the matter is through these exchanges not only are the 85% of people who already have insurance getting better protects and receiving rebates and being able to keep their kids on their insurance until they're 26 and getting free preventative care, but if you don't have insurance, and you're trying to get it through the market and it's too restrictive, we now have these

marketplaces where they're going to offer you a better deal because of choice and competition. and if you get those lower rates and better insurance that you're getting through these marketplaces you still can't afford it, you're going to be getting tax cuts and tax credits through the affordable care act that will help you afford it. and that's how we're going to make sure that millions of people who don't currently have health insurance or are getting a really bad deal on their health insurance are finally going to get it. but, and here's my final point, to take advantage of news marketplaces folks -- of these to sign up., folks are going to so you can find out how to sign up at healthcare.gov or here in california you can sign up at coveredca.com. coveredca.com. because quality care is not something that should be a privilege, it should be a right in the greatest country on

earth. we've got to make sure that every single person that needs health care can get it, and we've got to make sure that we do it in the most efficient way possible. one last point i'm going to make on this, because there are a lot of people who currently get health insurance through their employers, the 85% who are already out there, and they may be saying, well, if this law's so great, why is it that my premiums still went up? well, part of what's happening across the country is in some cases, for example, employers may be shifting more costs through higher premiums or higher deductibles or higher co-pays, and so there may still be folks who are out there feeling increased costs not because of the affordable care act, but because those costs are being passed on to workers or insurance companies in some cases even with these laws in place are still jacking up prices unnecessarily.

so this doesn't solve the whole problem, but it moves us in the right direction. it's also the reason why we have to keep on implementing changes in how our health care system works to continually drive better efficiency, higher quality, lower costs. we're starting to see that. health care cost inflation has gone up at the lowest rate over the last three years that we've seen in many, many years. so we're making progress in actually reducing overall health care costs while improving quality, but we're going to have to continue to push on that front as well. that's also part of what we're doing in the affordable care act, all right? but the main message i want for californians and people all across the country, starting on october 1st if you're in the individual market, you can get a better deal. if you're a small business that's providing health insurance to your employees, you can get a better deal through these exchanges. you've got to sign up, healthcare dove or in california, coveredca.com --

healthcare.gov. all right? thank you very much. i'm going to take one question and then, remember, people are going to have an opportunity -- i'll answer questions when i'm with the chinese president today, so i don't want the whole day to just be a bleeding press conference, but i'm going to take jackie. >> mr. president, could you, please, react to the reports of secret government surveillance of phones? you've also assured americans that the government, your government, doesn't have some massive secret day -- database with all their online activities? >> yeah. you know, when i came into this office, i made two commitments that are more important than any commitment i make. number one, keep the american people safe. and, number two, to uphold the constitution. and that includes what i consider to be a constitutional right to privacy. and ab serve advance of -- an

observance of civil liberties. now, the programs that have been discussed over the last couple days in the press are secret in the sense that they're classified, but they're not secret in the sense that when it comes to telephone calls, every member of congress has been briefed on this program. with respect to all of these programs, the relevant intelligence committees are fully briefed on these programs. these are programs that have been authorized by broad bipartisan majorities repeatedly since 2006. and so i think at the outset it's important to understand that your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we're doing. now, let me take the two issues separately.

when it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. that's not what this program's about. as was indicated, what the intelligence community is doing is looking at phone numbers and durations of calls. they are not looking at people's names, and they're not looking at content. but by sifting through this so-called metadata, they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. if these folks, if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they've got to go back to a federal judge just like they would for a criminal

investigation. so i want to be very clear. some of the hype that we've been hearing over the last day or so. nobody's listening to the content of people's phone calls. the program, by the way, is fully overseen not just by congress, but by the fisa court, a court specially put together to evaluate classified programs to make sure that the executive branch or government generally is not abusing them, and it's being carried out consistent with the constitution. and rule of law. and so not only does that court authorize the initial gathering of data, but i want to repeat if anybody in government wanted to go further than just that top-line data and wanted to, for example, listen to jackie's phone call, they'd have to go

back to a federal judge and indicate why, in fact, they were doing further, further probing. now, with respect to the internet and e-mails, in this does not apply to u.s. citizens, and it does not apply to people living in the united states. and again, in this instance not only is congress fully apprised of it, but what is also true is that the fisa court has to authorize it. so in summary, what you've got is two programs that were originally authorized by congress, had been repeatedly authorized by congress, bipartisan majorities have approved on them, congress is continually briefed on how these are conducted.

there are a whole range of safeguards involved, and federal judges are overseeing the entire program throughout. we're also setting up -- we've also set up an audit process when i came into office to make sure that we're after the fact making absolutely certain that all the safeguards are being properly observed. now, having said all that, you'll remember when i made that speech a couple of weeks ago about the need for us to shift out of a perpetual war mindset. i specifically said that one of the things that we're going to have to discuss and debate is how are we striking this balance between the need to keep the american people safe and our concerns about privacy? because there are some trade-offs involved.

i welcome this debate, and i think it's healthy for our democracy. i think it's a sign of maturity. because probably five years ago, six years ago we might not have been having this debate. and i think it's interesting that there are some folks on the left but also some folks on the right who are now worried about it who weren't very worried about it when it was a republican president. i think that's good. that we're having this discussion. but i think it's important for everybody to understand, and i think the american people understand, that there are some trade-offs involved. you know? i came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs. my team evaluated them. we scrubbed them thoroughly. we actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of the safeguards. but my assessment and my team's

assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks. and the modest encroachments on privacy that are involved in getting phone numbers or duration without a name attached and not looking at content that on, you know, meant it was worth us doing. some other folks may have a different assessment of that. but i think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero

inconvenience. you know, we're going to have to make some choices as a society. and all i can say is that in evaluating these programs, they make a difference in our ability to anticipate and prevent possible terrorist activity. and the fact that they're under very strict supervision by all three branches of government and that they do not involve listening to people's phone calls, do not involve reading the e-mails of u.s. citizens or u.s. residents absent further action by a federal court that is entirely consistent with what we would do, for example, in a criminal investigation, i think on balance we've, you know, we have established a process and a

procedure that the american people should feel comfortable about. but again, this, these programs are subject to congressional oversight and congressional reauthorization and congressional debate. and if there are members of congress who feel differently, then they should speak up, and we're happy to have that debate. okay? all right. and we'll have, we'll have a chance to talk further during the course of the next couple days. thank you, guys. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >> [inaudible] >> i don't welcome leaks because a reason why these programs are classified. you know, i think that there is a suggestion that somehow any classified program is a, quote-unquote, secret program

which means it's somehow suspicious. but the fact of the matter is in our modern history, there are a whole range of programs that have been classified because when it comes to, for example, fighting terror, our goal is to stop folks from doing us harm. and if every step that we're taking to try to prevent a terrorist act is on the front page of the newspapers or on television, then presumably the people who are trying to do us harm are going to be able to get around our preventive measures. that's why these things are classified. but that's also why we set up congressional oversight. these are the folks you all vote for as your representatives in congress, and they're being fully briefed on these programs. and if, in fact, there were

abuses taking place, presumably those members of congress could raise those issues very aggressively. they're empowered to do so. we also have federal judges that we put in place who are not subject to political pressure. they've got lifetime tenure as federal judges, and they're empowered to look over our shoulder at the executive branch to make sure that these programs aren't being abused. so, so we have a system in which some information is classifyied, and we have a system of checks and be balances to make sure that it's not -- checks and balances to make sure it's not puced. and if -- abused. and if, in fact, this information ends up just being dumped out willy-nilly without

regard to risks to the program, risks to the people involved, in some cases on other leaks risks to personnel in very dangerous situations, then it's very hard for us to be as effective in, if protecting the american people. that's not to suggest that, you know, you just say trust me, we're doing the right thing, we know who the bad guys are. and the reason that's not how it works is because we've got congressional oversight and judicial oversight. and if people can't trust not only the executive branch, but also don't trust congress and don't trust federal judges to make sure that we're abiding by the constitution, due process and rule of law, then we're going to have some problems here. but my observation is that the people who are involved in

america's national security, they take this work very seriously. they cherish our constitution. the last thing they'd be doing is taking programs like this to listen to somebody's phone calls. and by the way, with respect to my concerns about privacy issues, i will leave this office at some point, sometime in the next three and a half years. and after that i will be a private citizen. and i suspect that on a list of people who might be targeted, you know, so that somebody could read their e-mails or listen to their phone calls, i'd probably be pretty high on that list. so it's not as if i don't have a personal interest in making sure my privacy is protected.

but i know that the people who are involved in these programs, they operate like professionals. and these things are narrowly circumscribed. they're very focused, and in the ab sphract, you can complain about big brother and how this is a potential program run amok. but when you actually look at the details, then i think we've struck the right balance, all right? thank you very much, guys. that's it. [inaudible conversations] jon: president obama went out to san jose, california, to pitch his health care law, successes that he sees are coming to it or says are coming to it. than he otherwise would have to that address because he agreed that he would make a statement or answer a question about these new revelation that is the national security agency and the fbi have been keeping track of the online work

really, the online typing, et cetera, of americans and that they have the ability to check in on phone calls and so forth. anyway, monica crowley is a fox news contributor, the author of, "what the bleep just happened, a happy warriors guide to the great american come back". did the president reassure you there, monica? >> hi, jon. he certainly went to great lengths to make the case this is not in fact a new program and there is in place, very intense congressional and judicial oversight but it still remains unclear. because some people are arguing that this is in fact, every three months a routine renewal of these programs under the patriot act but there are others are saying not so fast. that this is a m expansion what was originally in place of the patriot act which was a very targeted program meant to just sort of watch terrorists and suspected terrorists. what we see now, is a

massive dragnet, at it is very intrusive and expanded to pretty much every american citizen. i think he needs it make that clear what is really going on here. jon: the president managed to get in as he often does, when he said the bush administration, five or six years nobody would have had these complaints, something to that effect. >> you know he has a couple of problems here, jon. first is the hypocrisy when you alluded to. when he was u.s. senator and even before he became a u.s. senator, when he was a state senator in illinois, barack obama pounded president bush and his administration relentlessly over a whole range of counterterrorism policies including warrantless wiretaps, including this kind of data mining. and he made no allowances what every so for what he talked about today which is that tricky balance, between privacy, and security. and we all know once you become president you realize that the choices are much more complex and intricate.

but he never gave bush the benefit of the doubt when bush was president. the other problem he has, john, is that, this is a president who all through last year, when he was campaigning for reelection, essentially the war on terror was coming to a close or at least may be in its final stages. al qaeda was on the run. it was being decimated through drone strikes and other things. we got a couple things from a major speech at the national defense university where he said essentially the same thing, this war is a close. the question rises why do you need an expansive and intrusive surveillance if that is the case. jon: if the goings on at the irs is any indication of our government's ability to police itself, a well a whole lot of questions to be answered about this. monica crowley, thank you. >> thank you, jon. arthel: another issue facing the white house, attorney general eric holder in hot water for spying on the news

media. what mr. holder is saying now and will it be enough to satisfy the critics? humans. even when we cross our "ts" and dot our "i's", we still run into problems. that's why liberty mutual insurance offers accident forgiveness with our auto policies. if you qualify, your rates won't go up due to your first accident. because making mistakes is only human,

and so are we. we also offer new car replacement, so if you total your new car, we'll give you the money for a new one. call liberty mutual insurance at... and ask us all about our auto features, like guaranteed repairs, where if you get into an accident and use one of our certified repair shops, the repairs are guaranteed for life. so call... to talk with an insurance expert about everything that comes standard with our base auto policy. and if you switch, you could save up to $423. liberty mutual insurance -- responsibility. what's your policy?

jon: obama administration's widespread snooping activities in several arenas are, critics are paying special attention to the administration snooping on reporters. the justice department secretly collecting e-mail

and phone records of our colleague james rosen investigating a news leak, telling a judge, james might be a criminally liable coconspirator. attorney general eric holder telling congress that he wants a better balance between national security and freedom of the press. listen. >> last week i convened a first in series of meetings with relationships from news organizations government agencies and other groups in order to strike the need to strike an important balance to insure robust first amendment protections and foster a constructive dialogue. i appreciate opportunities to engage members of the media and national security professionals to improve the effort on our guidelines and processes and to renew the important conversation is really as old as the republic itself about how to balance our security with our dearest civil liberties. jon: let's bring in today's "news watch" panel. judith did miller, pull letser price winning author and kirsten powers,

columnist with "the daily beast". both are fox news contributors . what do you think about the attorney general's remarks? >> i don't think they go far enough. they certainly don't answer the question why he signed a warrant requesting james rosen he is information when i already had a lot of information he needed to identify a leaker and why that is not tantamount to criminalizing the newsgathering process. he personally signed the warrant and then he told the congress that he would never think, think, of actually prosecuting a reporter for violations of the espionage act. now, either he has lied or he lied to the judge requesting the information suggesting that that's just what he was going to do. jon: it seems, kirsten to be that black and white. either he lied to congress or lied to the judge, didn't he? >> i guess maybe eric holder would say he was thinking, i don't know if i'm going to prosecute him or not. i'm going to, we're trying to get the information to decide whether or not we're going to prosecute him but

doesn't change the fact that, what he did was fundamentally wrong and also when you listen to him talking about the fact that, we need to revamp our guidelines are fine. he needs to follow the guidelines. informing, for example, the news organizations ahead of time, which they keep insisting that they did but they didn't. and, so i think, and, the most troubling thing to me is the fact that, holder had no remorse about this until he was caught. and you know, people who only have remorse are caught are people you have to be suspicious of. jon: you get to a revelation of this whole nsa thing. it is, you know the fact that they have been collecting all this data for years, chris stirewalt in his online column today, said something like, the government's defense is, oh, don't worry about it. it's cool, we've been doing it forever!. >> i think we have a draw to distinction here. i do not know enough about the kind of information that

has been collected and what is collected and what is being done with it, to have a conclusion at the moment. here we get into the trust us syndrome. i'm glad to see the vice is a court is actually approving these programs and is overseeing them. all i can tell you, jon, there will be a one heck of a leak investigation into who gave the document describing the prism program, which is the internet gathering monitoring program, to glen walled at "the washington post." that was a very serious national security leak. now that it has occurred i think we need to know more about those programs. because the congressman who oversee them are divided whether they're legal and appropriate. jon: congressman james sensenbrenner was on this morning on fox. look, i wrote the patriot act law, but in his view they're abusing the patriot act to make all this happen. >> i really don't see that. he is going to the fisa court. i find -- bush was doing it without the fisa court. obama is doing it with the

fisa court. now republicans are having a problem with what obama is doing. i don't quite follow that. i do think we do need more details. i didn't like him saying basically us, it is no big deal. we need to know you take seriously the possibility this could be abused. jon: again i come back to the point. this is the irs, for instance, going to be enforcing obamacare, when all of the, you know, when all of the points are finally up and running. this is the irs that is spending $50 million on conferences and hiring, you know, art. >> stick to the point about investigating the leak, the problem is, that we, the only way we learn anything about this administration is through leaks. you know, they should not prosecute this leak in my opinion because this is information they should have given us in the first place. if they do, it is outrage just every time we learn about everything important this government is doing somebody leaked it and they will prosecute them. jon: judy shakes her head. if you want to hear what she

thinks catch more of the panel on "news watch" this weekend. hold onto the thoughts, judy. we'll could have ever the week's top stories saturday, 2:00 p.m. eastern on fox news channel. arthel: i do want to hear more. we're keeping a close eye on tropical storm andrea, as it heads-up the east coast after leaving serious damage in its wake, high winds, dangerous flooding, where this is storm is heading next. [ ice freezing ] [ wind howling ] [ engine revving ] ♪ [ electricity crackling ] [ engine revving ] ... [ electricity crackling ] ... vo: traveling you definitely end up meeting a lot more people but

a friend under water is something completely different. i met a turtle friend today so, you don't get that very often. it seemed like it was more than happy to have us in his home. so beautiful. avo: more travel. more options. more personal. whatever you're looking for expedia has more ways to help you find yours.

arthel: welcome back. we're just hours away from a high-stakes summit meeting between president obama and chinese president. a sit-down, u.s. officials hope will build new ties between the two nations. so what can we expect to happen? gordon chang is here. analyst on china and north korea and author of multiple books on the far east including the coming collapse of china. gordon, always good to see you. i want to start with news that our national security correspondent jennifer griffin reported on earlier in the show. top military officials confirmed that the u.s. has a so-called red line when it comes to determining whether a cyberattack is considered an act of war. what's the likelihood of something like that being, coming up in this conversation? >> close to 100% because cyber attacks --. arthel: i know cyber attacks and cyberthreats that will definitely come up but this new information, is that going to be given it the chinese president xi and will he address this

specifically with president obama? >> we won't tell him what those guidelines are, what the red lines are, for reasons we don't want them walking up to that red line. clearly they will talk about this. xi jinping will mention it. this will be the number one topic of conversation today and tomorrow. arthel: how honest can these conversations be? of course, the u.s. is always concerned about china's expanding cybersecurity breeches, if you will and they are always spying on what we're doing here in the u.s. of course you know, that china has internal problems. so really, how honest can these conversations be? >> well they're not going to be honest conversations of the part of the problem the united states has not been willing to be candid and frank with china just as china has not been willing to be candid and frank with us. the problem, china is doing

pretty belligerent activity. trying to close off the south china seas which is international waters. we don't discuss those things and the chinese say, if you're not willing to really have candid conversations with with us how can we believe anything you say? to a certain extent they have got a point. arthel: let's go to north korea. china as you know has been reluctant, hesitant to, put the clamps down on north korea and in north korea's attempts to get nukes and all the antics we've seen unfold over the recent months. so again, what is it that president obama can say to president xi regarding that? why don't you get on board and get kim jong-un in check basically? >> north korea is perhaps the only area where we will have a good conversation with china because beijing's leaders are really becoming very worried what kim jong-un the new ruler is doing. china is seeing it is in their interest finally to do something. clearly president obama

needs to talk to china about its supply of military ind north koreans because this directly threatens us. we haven't been willing to do that. arthel: gordon, we had the press conference with president obama, of course we had to shorten this. i love talking to you. so knowledgeable on this topic but i do have to cut it short today. but, thank you very much. i'm sure i will see you again. >> thank you. arthel: gordon chang. thank you. jon? jon: well-known economist ben stein joins us with his thoughts. he will be answer your questions coming up. plus, is the federal government spying on americans? minutes ago president obama said nobody is listening in on your telephone calls. we're digging deeper into the nsa scandal. that's next. look what mommy is having. mommy's having a french fry.

yes she is, yes she is. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. 100% vegetable juice, with three of your daily vegetable servings in every little bottle.

arthel: we are taking a closer look at today's new job numbers and what they really mean for you and our economy. the labor department reporting that the unemployment rate ticked up to 7.6% in may. mostly because more people started looking for work again. joining us now is reknown economist ben stein. author of, "how to really ruin your financial life and portfolio". ben, good to see you. >> get yourself hooked up. i love it. i you have so much to say. >> we're down to either. we don't stand on ceremony. >> can you hear me? i know they're setting up your audio. can you hear me at this point, ben? just want to remind everybody, we're getting your tweets. we asked you to tweet your questions to @athappeningnow and to me @ arthelneville. we have good yes, sir that will come in for him. regarding the fed pumps more

money in. we'll bring ben back into the conversation. >> my mic is working now. arthel: i love that your mic is on the yellow tie matching my yellow dress. it is a good day, ben stein. >> you are a very, very kind, fashion cuttant, thank you. arthel: you heard, we've got the unemployment rate is at 7.6%. before we get into your viewer questions why don't you tell me your overall assessment of the economy as a whole this juncture. >> i think economy is recovering. the pace of the economy has slowed a tiny bit. the real scary number is not the employment number which is not bad at all, showing more people joining labor force and sign of optimism among the working force in this country. there was a bad number last week having to do with manufacturing. that was a bit worrisome. but that number jumps around a lot, and sometimes not always subject to revision. we have a recovery that is going on. the real question is, how

much pumping up by the federal reserve do we need? will we need continuous around the clock or recorded history pumping up or will we eventually get to a point where the recovery is self-sustaining. i think it will be self-sustaining fairly soon. arthel: okay. that brings me to a good point that is something i will get to you, address with you moment men -- momentarily littlely. we ask people to jump in with questions. harris faulker is monitoring the tweets @athappeningnow. you have a question to viewers. >> our live chat is on fire. foxnews.com/happeningnow. go to america's asking. one american particular is asking, dad tag, wants to know, isn't president obama recommending additional limits on our 401(k) contributions because people have quote, unquote, enough? >> no. that is widely misunderstood. there is some talk about there being some limits at he have, very high-end and

limits on ira's at the very, very high-end. nobody seriously thinks the average american has enough saved for retirement. there is no serious thought that the ordinary american or upper middle class or even lower upper class american will have limits put on his or her retirement savings. we all know we will have a retirement crisis for the baby boomers. nobody is trying to make that, that threat go away or pretend that that threat doesn't exist. that is the real threat. a very, real, very serious threat for the individual family. arthel: hmmm. ben, we had some other questions from yet another american, asking this, this is at mandy. you mentioned it earlier touched on it about the fed pumping money. she says, will it cause inflation and should we increase the top tax rate? regarding, raising fed rates, to keep inflation in check? or she also adds should we go to a 20% flat tax? a lot in there.

i'm sure you can address it all? >> a 20% flat tax would be highly regressive, a much higher tax on low income people than they currently pay. so i don't think that is good idea. i think there should be progressive tax where high income people may more tax rather than less tax. will we have an outburst of inflation? this is the great mystery. this is confounding economists an confounding statisticians the world over. why are we not having more inflation already? the answer seems to be that there is so much discouragement and so much pessimism out there the in labor market and pricing sector, that people can not raise prices. to me, who does the grocery shopping in my family. seems like we already have a lot of inflation. but the data says different. the data says we do not have a lot of inflation. why we don't is somewhat of a mystery. i would say if we can get out of this incredible pumping up situation and also, out of this recovery, without a burst of inflation, it will be historically

unprecedented. if i were betting my money, i would bet on outburst of inflation and for the ordinary citizen, that would mean hedging his or her bets with real estate. real estate is generally the best way to outwit inflation. arthel: i hear real estate is the best way to go. ben stein does his own grocery shopping. thank you very much for your time. >> i'm honored to be here your beautiful yellow shirt or dress. >> he will would be right back. to support strong bones. and the brand most recommended by... my doctor. my gynecologist. my pharmacist. citracal. citracal. [ female announcer ] you trust your doctor. doctors trust citracal. [ female announcer ] you trust your doctor.

spokesman i have to look my so bbest on camera.sing whether i'm telling people about how they could save money on car insurance with geico... yeah, a little bit more of the lime green love yeah... or letting them know they can reach geico 24/7 using the latest technology. go on, slather it all over. don't hold back, go on... it's these high-definition televisions, i'll tell ya, they show every wrinkle. geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

>>. >> arthel: thanks for letting me hang out. >> jon: it's great to have you here. thank you for joining us. >> arthel: happening now, with megyn kelly. hi,! >> megyn: new revelations about the federal government's spying on our phone linings and even online activity. president himself weighing in on those matters. welcome to america live. i'm megyn kelly. in the past 24 hours the data monitoring goes much further than previously reported and it's been going on for years. nsa vast data gathering operation includes verizon customers that was revealed but sprint, nextel and at&t and others. we understand the nsa is also gaining access to purchase credit card companies, although reports