want you to miss a minute of the show. but for tonight, that's it. this is mike huckabee from new york. good night and god bless. and stay tuned for justice with judge janine.t for you. good evening and welcome to a "the kelly file" special hour on a new crisis of confidence in our government. i'm megyn kelly. over the last few weeks we have watched two stories develop that illustrate the growing divide between the american people, our elected officials and an administration that increasingly acts as though all that matters is its own desires. one story deals with immigration and an executive action the president for years said he did not have the authority to take. the other deals with obamacare which was forced on the american people by an extremely controversial rule change in the u.s. senate and which now we

know was sold with a lie. let's start with a man named jonathan gruber. an m.i.t. economist who played a pivotal role in shaping the obamacare legislation and recently became best known for confirming the worst fears of obamacare's biggest critics. here's how top democrats describe jonathan gruber back in the day. >> see those experts aren't the first to recognize these benefits. massachusetts institute of technologies jonathan gruber is one of the most respected economists in the world. >> i don't know if you have seen jonathan gruber's m.i.t.'s analysis of the -- what the comparison is to the status quo versus our bill. >> the congressional budget office and professor gruber are both credible and unbiased sources were not bought and sold by the insurance industry. you've already drawn some of the brightest minds from academia in policy circles.

many of i've stolen ideas from liberally peter ranging from robert gordon, austin goolsbee. >> video of gruber talking to academic peers in 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and probably beyond bragging that the health care overhaul was knowingly passed by using deceit and by counting on "stupid american voters". >> basically call it the stupidity of the american voter or whatever, but really that was critical to get this thing to pass. very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the american voter. i don't think it's that the voters in florida don't care about the -- i think they're misinformed. i think the short attention span of the american public works to

his advantage here. i think a year from now when it's working it will be long forgotten. >> now, the very same democrats who attended meetings with this guy and publicly praised him by name admitting in the president's case that they stole ideas from him have developed a dramatic case of amnesia. >> i don't know who he is. he didn't help write our bill. so, with all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn't writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill -- >> it wasn't his responsibility to figure out how to get this bill through. we have people who are responsible for making those kinds of legislative decisions at the white house. >> i just heard about this. the fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that i completely disagree with in terms of the voters is no reflection on the actual process that was run. >> is washington aware that we

have video? do they watch television? now we have a more dramatic re-writing of history. this time on immigration. and this one happened just this week. here is just a sample of the more than two dozen times mr. obama claimed he did not have the power to ignore our immigration laws. >> the notion that i can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. we're also a nation of laws. that's part of our tradition. and so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like i can do something by violating our laws. i know some here wish that i could just bypass congress, change the law myself.

but that's not how democracy works. sometimes when i talk to immigration advocates, you know, they wish i could just bypass congress and change the law myself. but that's not how democracy works. the problem is is that, you know, i'm the president of the united states. i'm not the emperor of the united states. my job is to execute laws that are passed. >> it was as if none of that had ever happened this week. after the midterms when the president decided to do this thing alone, despite polls showing a majority of americans did not want him to take that approach. now he has signed the most sweeping executive action in american history without so much as a reference to all those times he said on camera to you. he said it directly to the american people that he didn't have the authority. and the man who often reminds us how he was a professor of constitutional law offered this if you want to call it an

explanation. >> now, i continue to believe that the best way to solve this problem is by working together to pass that kind of common sense law, but until that happens there are actions i have the legal authority to take as president, the same kinds of actions taken by democratic and republican presidents before me, that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just. >> that was all we got. in moments we'll be joined by one of the most powerful republicans in the senate, senator jeff sessions is here. he says congress has an historic duty to stop the president from exceeding his authority. what i see here that you and i discussed that time and this with obamacare and now is an executive who misled or at a minimum grossly misstated things and refuses to be held to

account. if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. the only reason he came out and had to acknowledge that he misled on that is because he was caught dead to right. and even when he was caught dead to right he blew it off. and it finally got to the point where he came out and said what i said all along was you could keep your plan if it met certain minimum standards. and people were ready to let him get away with that. not us. we kept pressing. we said that's insane. that's not at all what he said. and ultimately he was forced once the mainstream media also jumped on it to admit the truth that he had said wrong things to be charitable. and the same thing is happening now. 25 times on camera saying i don't have the legal authority. he comes out last night and says i have the legal authority. no explanation other than some paper statement from some liberal law professors and we're supposed to just say, okay. >> well, the question is does he

even care what we or anybody else really says about that? because if we look at it through -- i love the construct you have there because essentially what you have in the 2012 election is a taking up by false pretenses. the president on the central issue of his first term misled and continued to knowingly mislead throughout the election, obtain a second term in office, gets in and says, psych, sorry. it really wasn't that way. you got me. then he said i cannot do what you want me to do. i cannot do what my supporters say i should do, which is to circumvent congress, ignore the constitutional role that's laid out for the chief executive and even described to them fairly eloquent terms. says i can't do that. then we get past another election and what does he do? he does exactly the thing he said he wouldn't do. that's two elections in a row. before the election we say one thing, after we say another thing. and in each time what he's saying is the thing i said

before not true. not germane anymore because i'm tired of waiting. here we go. >> how is anybody supposed to believe him? how are we supposed to believe anything he tells us from this point forward? >> well, maybe -- again, maybe it doesn't matter to him. sure, i listened to what he said last night. i've been through, i've read the president -- i've read the legal brief from the department of justice. i've looked for some rationale. but there's no rationale beyond this, which is if the congress doesn't act in a timeframe that the chief executive thinks is appropriate, and he gets impatient, he's allowed to legislate for them. that's new. and what i can gather out of all of this is that the president has decided that the last two years of his term are going to be a disaster. this hot mess of a closing -- >> but wait, before we get to that, doesn't character matter? doesn't integrity matter? honesty? i realize politicians have to spin -- you can't become president if you're not going to be a spinner. but this is a matter of

integrity. 25 times on camera. either the president was knowingly misstating things for political reasons, he knew he could do it but he wanted to stave off these folks pressuring him. so he just said he couldn't. or he's done a complete 180 on his actual belief and just refuses to acknowledge that to the american people. doesn't that matter? >> look, we've had a lot of people talking about -- republicans have been talking about president is king, the president thinks he's a monarch, the president thinks he's an emperor. if you look at the way our founders embedded the presidency into our civic culture, the president in many ways has more power than a monarch in a parliamentary society. our president has enormous authority. in the nuclear era the power to destroy the whole world. that is how much authority and how much power our president puts in the president. the check on the president is twofold, one, what can the congress do to him and, two, how is he bound to tradition and to

everything else? if he doesn't care about that second part, there's very little to constrain the man. >> that's right. that's right. i mean, your word has to be worth something. and when you go back on it, you have to offer an explanation. i think the american people will listen, but nothing's being said. and a paper statement from the d.o.j. and some left wing law professors isn't going to get it done. chris, good to see you. >> you bet. >> as we just mentioned the department of justice is helping the president defend his immigration order by releasing a letter of support for what it letter of support for what it

blah-becht-blah- blublublub-blah!!! geico®. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.

we're not giving up. we're going to keep on working with members of congress to make permanent a form of reality. but until that day comes there are actions that i have the legal authority to take that will help make our immigration

system more fair. >> okay. you can listen all day. he didn't go onto explain. that was president obama in las vegas justifying the executive orders that change u.s. immigration law. the next guest says the president is exceeding his authority. republican alabama senator jeff sessions is the ranking member of the senate budget committee. senator, good to see you tonight. what do you mean by that? >> well, this congress has certain powers. the congress makes laws that the president himself said, he executes laws. that's what the constitution is all about at its most fundamental level. congress pass laws, the president asked congress to change those laws, congress refused, so he ignores those laws. creates a system, megyn, that would give 5 million people unlawfully in america the right to stay here, take any job, a photo id, a social security number. and he'll pull down wages of

americans, reduce the opportunity for work. and experts tell us it will create a tidal wave of increased illegal immigration in the future. >> now, i know that you want stopgap short funding measures to get the congress through to when the republicans take over the senate in january. what kind of response are you seeing so far? do you believe your initial suggestions have been well-received? >> i think our congress wants to be very careful. they want to handle this ;8.f;2dj&8vwweabw+eb7(h.,)+"é0t certainly not i. congress should fund the government of the united states, but congress has a duty not to fund programs that we believe are bad, unlawful or unworthy of financial support. and i think we will fund this government. i think we should not fund the proposal that the president wants to carry out. >> have you heard any reaction from republicans to that? are they on board with you? >> yes, a lot of people support

that. a lot of people are thinking it through. a lot of people have different ideas, frankly. i think that this congress should -- republicans should be able to unite. five democratic senators before the election voted for an amendment that i offered that would have blocked this matter. so it's not a purely partisan issue. >> here's my next question. i know you've been poring through what the president actually did. and you believe there's benefits he's extending in here for political operatives. how so? >> well, i'm not sure what you mean political operatives, but it provides benefits to increased immigration for businesses. it gives everyone here that he would approve the right to take jobs throughout the economy, whether it's a power company, truck drivers or the county commission or city hall. so it's a massive move to provide more job seekers for we don't have enough jobs in this

country. >> i know that "the wall street journal" says the changes fall well short of the legislative changes businesses wanted, which was more legal visas for high skill and had low skilled workers. they're saying he did not go as far as these companies wanted. >> well, companies don't get to set the immigration policy in america. they need to understand that. we have a shortage of jobs in america. wages are falling. they've been $2,300. median income since 2009 shs, $3,000 since 2007. wages are down. you don't have a decline in wages if you have a shortage of workers. so i don't think we have a shortage of labor in america. we need to get our people working, megyn. we've got people on welfare. we've got people unemployed. people whose wages are down. people working part time. people want to work full time. that's who's being forgotten in

this business. 20 times reporters said this summer business groups are in the white house negotiating this kind of a deal. and i think it's really awful. somebody needs to stand up for the american worker on the integrity of our legal system. >> i understand. >> constitutional order. >> senator jeff sessions, good to see you, sir. >> thank you. >> well, the president said his immigration order is legal. and the d.o.j. got nearly a dozen law professors to agree. up next, we'll tell you just who those experts are. >> what the president is suggesting is tearing at the very fabric of the constitution. you want i fix this mess? a mess? i don't think -- what's that? snapshot from progressive. plug it in, and you can save on car insurance based on your good driving. you sell to me? no, it's free. you want to try? i try this if you try... not this. okay. da!

which means it's time for the volkswagen sign-then-drive event. for practically just your signature, you could drive home for the holidays in a german-engineered volkswagen. like the sporty, advanced new jetta... and the 2015 motor trend car of the year all-new golf. if you're wishing for a new volkswagen this season... just about all you need is a finely tuned... pen. hurry in and get zero due at signing,

zero down, zero deposit, and zero first month's payment on select new volkswagen models.

as the president tries to defend his executive action on immigration as within his power,

the department of justice has released a let frer what it calls ten of the top legal scholars from colleges across the country. but when we dug deeper we found one big issue with the administration's panel of experts. trace gallagher has that part of our investigation from our west coast bureau. trace. >> megyn, in their one and a half page letter the first thing these ten law professors wanted to make clear is they don't always see eye-to-eye writing, quoting, while we differ among ourselves many issues related to presidential power and immigration policy, we are all of the view that these actions are lawful. we think it's important to know what they have in common. of the ten law professors wrote the letters, seven are registered democrats. two others live in states that don't release party affiliation. but both those professors donate money exclusively to the democratic candidate. and the lone republican on the list, professor eric posner is

also a exclusive democratic voter. president obama can literally "do whatever he wants." three of these law professors work at the university of chicago, that's of course where president obama taught constitutional law for 12 years. also on the list, professor lee bollinger, the president of columbia university where obama did his undergraduate work. directly involved in effort to make columbia the site of the presidential library. then there's duke university professor walter delleninger 3rd and is friends with supreme court justice elena kagan nominated by president obama. and then lawrence not only served as a mentor to barack obama at harvard law school but also called him "the best student i ever had and the most exciting research assistant." trooib isn't just a teacher, mentor and friend, he also campaigned for president obama. so while the white house touts

these legal scholars' prominence, it's their neutrality that comes into question. megyn. >> you think? that's genuinely amusing. trace, good to see you. well, there you have it. i mean, they have spoken. well; just days ago right here on "the kelly file" i sat down with yet another very well respected liberal legal scholar. george washington university law professor jonathan turley. he's a nationally recognized expert in constitutional law testifying in front of congress on several occasions and contributing to leading journals at cornell, duke, harvard, northwestern and the university of chicago among others. shockingly they did not call him. because he has a very different opinion on executive power and has been warning that america is reaching a tipping point. good to see you again, professor. so you have spoken out about this through president bush's years and now through president obama's years and talked about the rise of an uber presidency.

is the president in your view about to violate the separation of powers if he goes ahead and does this? >> well, megyn, we're waiting for the details. but what i'm hearing certainly causes great concern that he will again violate separation of powers. supreme court has already rule that had this president has violated the separation of powers. it just took another case a week ago in the aca obamacare area about whether he had another violation in that area. and this certainly raises the same profile. the president's expressing frustration that congress is not doing what he thinks congress has to do. but of course he's a different branch. and we have three branches in this system. and no president can take on the powers of all three branches and that's what he seems to báiecq1,

>> test >> test >> test >> test >> test >> ladies and gentlemen, stand by. this is a test. ladies and gentlemen, please stand by. this is a test. ladies and gentlemen, please stand by. this is a test.

live from america's news

headquarters i'm cell eye wright. cruise rescuing two women and a dog after a building collapsed in chicago. one of the women rushed to the hospital in critical condition officials saying the modern building in the washington park neighborhood toward the basement. authorities are making sure there is no problem in the gas line and are searching rubble for anyone else who may be trapped folks in buffalo, new york can't catch a break the mayor says the city is making progress clearing snow after seven feet fell but there is a flood warning as temperatures rise and snow melts officials are preparing evacuation plans and the red cross is setting up shelters. i'm kelly wright. now back to the "kelly file special". for all of your headlines log on to fox news.com.

from the world headquarters of fox news, it's "the kelly file" with megyn kelly. well, the president's executive action on immigration is not the first time the commander in chief has looked for a way around the people's representatives. and just as he ignored congress and according to him the law to unilaterally legalize 5 million immigrants, he also ignored the rules and the will of the people when the democrats rammed through obamacare. remember this? >> in the summer of 2009 the democratically controlled house and senate began to push their ideas of health reform. and the american people rose up. >> wait a minute. you want to leave? >> i got news for you. that you and your cronies in the government do this kind of stuff all the time. one day god's going to stand before you. and he's going to judge you. >> lawmakers returning home that august were confronted at fiery

town hall meetings. >> you have awakened a sleeping giant. we are tired of this. that's why everybody in this room is so ticked off. >> i can urge you with usurping authority not granted to you as a united states senator. >> kill the bill! >> we cannot afford this. period. leave the government out of it. we're doing just fine. >> the tea party founded on principles of limited government were gaining steam, united in opposition to obamacare. still, that december the senate voted to end debate on the bill. all democrats voted in favor, all republicans voted no. but the deal was not done. the senate still needed to vote on the bill itself. and then ted kennedy died. and scott brown, a republican, ran to fill his seat. his biggest campaign promise, he would break the democrat's filibuster proof majority and stop obamacare from becoming law. >> i'll be the 41st, but i'll be

the 60th vote. >> reporter: for the first time since 197 2 massachusetts voters elected a republican to the u.s. senate. but democrats were undeterred. in a stunning move senator majority leader harry reid used an arcane budgetary rule -- >> i hope we don't have to do this, but if we can't get the 60 votes we need, then we'll have an alternative. >> reporter: in march of 2010 the house passed the senate bill and the president signed it into law. >> as we have all said many times, with great pride and great humility that we undertook this great act of patriotism that occurred on the house floor tonight. >> can you say it was done openly? with transparency and accountability? without back room deals struck behind closed doors? hidden from the people?

hell no you can't! >> paying a heavy price for pushing but a bill that unlike other sbientitlements has zero bipartisan support and never had favorability to majority of americans, including to this day. co-host of fox & friends right here on fnc. so nanty pelosi had the nerve to get up in front of the american people and say they passed the bill with great humility when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. >> passed with great intensity and tenacity. democrats understand power in a way that most republicans don't. they understand the process actually doesn't matter. you and the senators in the room are the only people who remember that it passed on 61 rather than 60 votes. i thought it was significant. >> it was always suppose today go by 60 votes and then they changed the rules in a way they said they never would. >> but that's history. i was there and i didn't even remember that. >> but that's what left people with such a bad taste about the

law in their mouths. >> it's true. but the rest of us are thinking next week, next month, generationally. they understand their basic program is to take money, resources from the republican voters and move them to their voters. that's what obamacare does, that's what the immigration decision does. and over the long haul when you take something from one group and give it to the other, the former group gets smaller, the latter gets larger. >> but process does matter. >> it does matter. i agree. >> process is what stops tyranny. >> that's exactly right. >> but they have a far -- >> i don't understand how president obama can get away with this again. you know, basically stopping the will of the american people. it's not that the american people don't want immigration reform. they do. the polls are in favor of that. but completely against him doing it this way. so he does it anyway.

no one's rising up. people are saying, well, he did it. okay. and he's completely contradicted his 25 misrepresentations on camera. where's the accountability for that? >> there's none. but they're thinking in terms of generations. >> but what are the american people thinking about it? >> 20 years from now you will be living on barack obama boulevard. your grand kids will be -- that's the fact. he's an historic president. tough luck. >> all the executive orders he's taken on obamacare that have been so controversial, he's getting sued over those. there's a long list of executive action that this president's taken that many people have raised eyebrows at and yet he keeps going. where will it stop? >> i agree completely. well, presumably at the end of eight years. but i'm not arguing on behalf of any of this. i find it repugnant and i think it does damage to the system. the structure that separates us from other countries and makes us free. but they don't care. they really don't care. >> what about the folks we saw in those tea party events? >> they care.

they absolutely care. but they are, you know, it's a diffuse coalition. it's one president who's the most powerful man in the history of the world versus a lot of people who are basically add miezed. they're not coalescing behind one person. >> you know what else he has that i think has been very important? a compliant media. >> that's for sure. as we said a million times, i think it every single day when i read "new york times" in bed, this would not stand under a republican president. they wouldn't know what they would do. they would boycott tickets to the white house. >> it wasn't until the media jumped on board you like your plan, you can keep your plan, that he finally had to come out and make an explanation for that. and they're just not jumping on they're subsequent executive actions or -- >> the media are the one thing they're not supposed to be and that's power worshippers. the one thing journalists can never be is people who worship power who sniff the throne and yet they do. >> and we have set up our next segment perfectly. tucker, thanks. >> thanks, megyn.

>> alan combs on why the president's actions were lawful and necessary. plus, president obama said he didn't have this legal authority. before he said he did. so how are the media covering that complete 180? that's next. ♪ music ...the getaway vehicle! for all the confidence you need. td ameritrade. you got this.

. . go, go, go, go, go! doesn't take a holiday. but add brand new belongings from nationwide and we'll replace stolen or destroyed items with brand-new versions. making sure every season is the season of giving. just another way we put members first. join the nation ♪ nationwide is on your side sonchts how has the media factored into this crisis of confidence we're discussing tonight? host of media buzz which airs on

sunday mornings, howie, how is it? >> a few pieces saying president obama blatantly contradicted what he said in the past, that he's not an emperor, boom, boom, boom, let's go to videotape, but then the white house spin machine kicked into action and by friday morning in the "new york times" said obama's has precedent but may also set one, meaning that the president's pushback had resulted into making the story a he said/she said making it okay for the white house. >> am i right it doesn't become a real political issue until you have all the media doing their job? the president didn't come out and admit if you didn't like your plan you can keep your plan until a national firestorm erupted. >> i think that's absolutely true. if you're a republican and those voices are being heard, i've seen a lot of ted cruz and john boehner on tv. but a lot has to do with the tone and the framing of stories. most journalists actually think immigration reform is a pretty

good idea, in fact overdue. the outrage you would have if say george w. bush unilaterally imposing -- you have stories saying republicans say it's outrageous. that's a very important tonal difference. >> but that's not their job. i don't think -- it is not opinion. and i felt this way when we had if you like the plan you can keep your plan, we were one of the first to come out and say that's not true. what he said was not true. he said period. if you like your plan, you can keep your plan, period. well, that's not true. that's not opinion, that's fact. and more media -- that's not taking a position. that's just telling the audience the facts, which is the same thing now with the 25 times over the past six years, and that's just what we have on camera, he has said x. and now he comes out last night and said not x, not x. why aren't people jumping around

about this and the other news organizations calling him out on the lack of integrity or at least the lack of explanation? >> that is what is missing what i call the media drum beat when the press is ticked off about something and typically we hate flip-flops and hate when politicians seem to do something very different from what they say they were going to do. then there's a story that drives. now it's become a complicated process story. we need to be fair to all sides, but you're right. the drum beat you might have seen in other circumstances is absent. >> and it's just -- because they like what he's doing. they like the end result of what's going to happen to these immigrants. >> i don't think a lot of journalists like the process or the fact the president is acting unilaterally. they would prefer to see the senate compromise get passed by the house and all that. but i think they like the end result. >> do they know what's going to happen when a republican goes into the oval office and tries to do this stuff? aren't they waiving their right to criticize him or her for similar behavior? >> being in the media means you

never have to say you're sorry. no, they'll jump up and down then. of course it sets a precedent for future presidenciepresidenc. we saw the exact same pattern with those jonathan gruber videos with obamacare it was a big story, and crickets on broadcast networks, but then, three, four, five, six days later, cbs, "the washington post" -- >> only because it kept coming out. it got to the point where he was unignorable. i've grown to like him because i've seen so much of him. he's given me a lot of fodder for the show. >> it's a story. nbc and abc didn't do it until this week. and newly surfaced videos -- not newly surfaced. they came out eight days ago. >> and day by day and drip by drip. howie, great to see you. see you sunday. up next, the president's it's not my fault defense.

ever since we launched snapshot, my life has been positively cray-cray. what's snapshot, you ask? only a revolutionary tool that can save you big-time. just plug it in, and the better you drive, the more cash you'll stash. switching to progressive can already save ye $500. snapshot could save ye even more. meat maiden! bringeth to me thine spiciest wings of buffalo.

we're for an opens you internet for all.sing. we're for creating more innovation and competition. we're for net neutrality protection. now, here's some news you may find even more surprising. we're comcast. the only isp legally bound by full net neutrality rules.

despite the fact president obama had a democratically controlled congress and did nothing on immigration reform, he's justifying his action by blaming republicans. >> i showed extraordinary patience with congress in trying to work a bipartisan deal. had the house allowed that kind of bill a simple yes or no vote it simply would have passed by both parties and today it would be the law. a year and a half in which the only thing standing in the way of that bipartisan bill and my desk is i can sign that bill the only thing standing in the way is a simple yes or no vote in

the house of representatives. >> alan, he could have had it in year one of his presidency, but he did not prioritize it. >> he prioritized -- he was ready for congress to do something. congress could have done something -- >> his party controlled congress at the time, for two years. >> look, i'm not defending the democrats in congress. i think democrats as a party has not always done the right thing either. he waited and waited for congress to do something. they never did. >> he controlled congress for two years and did nothing. >> neither did the republicans in congress. you can't just put it on him. >> i'm not putting it on anybody. i'm responding to his accusation it's all republican. >> this is not even a permanent amnesty like ronald reagan. >> i agree. but he had the support of congress for his action. >> no, he didn't. this came after the 1986 congress immigration bill -- >> no, but that's different. >> went beyond that. >> i agree he went beyond to what they agreed to in the law but that was to implement portions of the law -- >> no, it's beyond the law. >> but it was to implement

portions of the law. no, that's the truth. and then congress passed a bill saying no more of that, president. >> megyn, said if you left the country and came back illegally, we're going to give you amnesty. >> that was to implement a law. >> that was not -- >> yes, it was. it was to implement. stop arguing with me over the language. and it affected far fewer -- >> it doesn't matter. >> it so matters. >> it changes principle. >> you know better than turley. scope matters he could waive in the entire 11 million -- no, take your hypothetical through. let's take your hypothetical through to the end. if he could do whatever he wants could he take all 11 million through? >> no, because he's not doing it permanently. he's simply saying -- >> he couldn't do it because at some point the scope does matter, doesn't it, alan? >> he could say temporarily until congress does something -- >> no, he could not, my friend.

you know why? because scope does matter. >> prosecutorial discretion. >> then why say he didn't for six years? >> because he was waiting for congress to act. >> no, no, no, no. that's not true. that's not true. that's not true. he was asked repeatedly including long after congress had "failed to act." why don't you forget congress, they stink, you do it by executive action. and finally did. no. you can't do that. that's an unfair and dishonest intellectual argument. because he at that moment said i don't have the authority. >> no, he didn't say he had the authority to do it permanently. what he's doing is a temporary reprieve for only three years. >> yes, you are, alan. i have it on tape. i don't have time to show it, but i -- you're dodging. >> i'm not dodging. >> you're dodging about what the president said. >> you don't like my answer. i'm telling you exactly -- >> because i don't like my

audience misled. this is misleading. that's not true. he was specifically asked, congress won't do anything, expand your earlier executive action. you've got the power. and under those circumstances long after congress had failed to act he said i don't have the authority. that's the truth. i got to go. good to see you. good to see you. esurwhich means fewer costs, which saves money. their customer experience is virtually paperless, which saves paper, which saves money. they have smart online tools, so you only pay

for what's right for you, which saves money. they settle claims quickly, which saves time, which saves money. they drive an all-hybrid claims fleet, which saves gas, which saves money. they were born online, and built to save money, which means when they save, you save. because that's how it should work in the modern world. esurance. backed by allstate. click or call.

the president says his actions are lawful and the d.o.j. got ten law professors to agree. we dug deeper into who those

experts are and twitter and facebook are going nuts in response to our report. we have posted it. check it out. let us know what you think. share your thoughts on one town wants helmets on the soccer field. >> i'm calling it a spiritual awakening. >> is it a spiritual awakening to sell boys vacuum cleaners. >> if that's what speaks to them. >> how strict should you be? >> your daughters were not allowed to have a sleepover, be in a school play, complain about not being in the play. >> hold yourself to a higher standard. >> how do we teach