breaking tonight hillary clinton speaks and the fact checkers respond. but what does it mean for her political future? good evening, and welcome to "the kelly file," everyone, i'm megyn kelly. "the new york times" broke news on how hillary clinton used a private e-mail account, and only a private e-mail account, to conduct all of her business at secretary of state. for seven days we have heard tough questions whether she violated state department rules broke federal law, exposed american secrets or was intentionally trying to hide things from the public. today she faced the media for the first time, in a tightly controlled event at the united nations, at which the press was considerably limited. 11 reporters were called on.

she spoke for 15 minutes. and then left. quick live. ly. hee are some of the key moments. >> looking back, it would have been better for me to use two separate phones, and two e-mail accounts. i thought using one device would be simpler and obviously it hasn't worked out that way. now i'm happy to take a few questions. >> can you explain how you decided which of the personal e-mails to get rid of, how you got rid of them, and when? and how you'll respond to questions about you being the arbiter of what you believe? >> i am very confident of the process that we conducted, and the e-mails that were produced. >> did you or any of your aides delete any government related e-mails from your personal account? and what lengths are you willing to go to to prove that you didn't -- some people, including

supporters of yours, suggested having an independent arbiter look at your server, for instance? >> we did not. the server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and i believe i have met all of my responsibilities. and the server will remain private. >> this was a server that you owned. is that appropriate? was there any precedent for it? did you clear it with any state department security official, and do they have -- did they have full access to it when you were secretary? >> the system we used was set up for president clinton's office. and it had numerous safeguards. >> how could the public be assured that when you deleted e-mails that were personal in nature that you didn't also delete e-mails that were professional, but possibly unflattering? and what do you think about this republican idea of having an independent third party come in

and examine your e-mail? >> first of all you have to ask that question to every single federal employee. >> madam secretary -- madam secretary -- excuse me. madam secretary, state department rules at the time you were secretary were perfectly clear that if a state department employee was going to be using private e-mail that employee needed to turn those e-mails over to the state department to be preserved on government computers. why did you not do that? why did you not go along with state department rules until nearly two years after you left office?>> first the laws and regulations in effect when i was secretary of state allowed me to use my e-mail for work. that is undisputed. >> why did you wait two months? when the rules say you have to turn them over.

>> i'd be happy if somebody talked to you about the rules. i fully complied with every rule that i was governed by. >> were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of yoursing your own e-mail server and your personal e-mail address with the president? >> i did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. there is no classified material. so i'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements, and did not send classified material. >> [ inaudible ]? >> because they were personal and private about matters that i believed were within the scope of my personal privacy. and that particularly of other people. they have nothing to do with work.

but i didn't see any reason to keep them. that's the end of the process. >> someone was forced to resign because of his personal e-mails -- >> david i think you should go online and read the entire ig report. that is not an accurate representation of what happened. thank you. thank you. thank you all. >> it is a big story. we have got a big lineup tonight with janet napolitano, brit hume, and rand paul. we start with ed henry at the white house. ed? >> good to see you. the key moment came when you heard the secretary there say, the server will remain private. so if any e-mails were deleted we simply will not know if anything significant

disappeared because as she suggested, she is the arbiter. that's significant, because you heard trey gowdy charge on your program last night that in his benghazi probe, there are gaps of months and months of no e-mails from the secretary. she suggested the only e-mail she's deleted or kept private is about personal matters. she said yoga for example or her daughter's wedding planning. she claims she will not share the server with a third party because there's a lot of private communications with her and her husband, the former president, even though bill clinton's office said today that he did not use e-mail at all. another potential kron tra diction. she said she used one e-mail account, because she wanted one device, even as you know, you can have one device with multiple e-mail accounts. a few weeks ago, she suggested after leaving the state department she has more than one device. listen. >> i want to ask the big question. >> okay. >> iphone or android? >> iphone.

okay, in full disclosure, and a blackberry. >> the good news for the secretary, she has a lot of democrats on capitol hill tonight rallying behind her saying she's already turned over 55000 pages of e-mails, and they insist there's nothing there. >> ed henry, thank you. you heard hillary clinton say she fully complied with every rule. i spoke with judge andrew napolitano. >> she took unprecedented steps all right. she is the first secretary of state in history to use exclusively her own personal e-mail at least in conjunction with the report, and now she says, judge she followed every rule. that is not true. >> that is absolutely not true. and she was unable to answer the question just put to her by the reporter, which was did the state department have access to your e-mails while you were secretary of state. the answer to that is a big flat no they did not have it. she makes a sort of slap-dash

circular argument. it's this. okay i used my husband's server. and okay, the state department didn't have it. but every e-mail i got, i answered. and if i answered to a government person they had the copy of my e-mail. that does not cut it under the statute. under the statute which regulates high-ranking and low-level government people using government documents and records, the government must have possession of those records at all times. >> but she doesn't get to keep them. >> correct. what she is talking about she is intentionally conflating what is purely personal with what is obviously governmental. and she has decided what's personal and what's governmental. the statute says the government decides what's personal and what's governmental. >> she points out in her talking points that she submitted in addition to her press conference that the law expects that the federal employee will be the one who culls through the document and makes the determination what

is a federal record and will need to be produced and maintained as a record. >> a federal employee is using a governmental website, not using her husband's private secure secret website which con seals the documents from the document. the statute prohibits concealing. she concealed documents by her own number. 55,000 to 60000 of them. >> we wouldn't have them today if the state department hadn't just gone back to her and said by the way, do you have any documents? to this day we wouldn't have any of the documents. she was asked in the talking points that she produced today the question, were there any work items deleted? this is how the clinton team phrased the question to themselves, okay? were any work items deleted in the course of producing the printed copies? answer, no. >> well, how do we know she didn't delete documents before

she was in the course of producing the printed copies? >> that's right. that's the question. >> why did she only produce printed copies? because the digital copies are the government's records. she has a legal obligation to keep those records in the possession of the government. so that the government can use all the things that we do on e-mail today to find certain key words and phrases. that she has now disabled. >> if you're on your work computer and you delete e-mails, your employer can still search for those. nothing's really deleted. if a litigation comes up and so on certain searches can be done. in june of 2011 she said she complied with all the rules. in june of 2011, she sent out a reminder to all of her department personnel with her electronic signature that said, avoid conducting official department business from your personal e-mail accounts. she made clear personal accounts should never be used for government business. now she has the nerve to say what she said today. >> this is another example of a standard of behavior that

applies to anyone with the last name of clinton and doesn't apply to anybody else. she can give any directions to whoever she wants in the state department but she's governed by the same federal laws as everybody else is. and the essence of that law is all the records you deal with as secretary of state are government records, and if you conceal them from the government, no matter -- from the government no matter what reason you give, or justification you have you have violated that law. her calendar of what she's doing and who she's meeting with is a classified document. does she want us to tell her calendar was not on that? >> they're saying they have a private system within the state that they exchange classified documents. >> her calendar is classified, the president's calendar is classified. discussions about classified events like hey hillary, we're going to take down osama bin laden on sunday night, you better be in the situation room, that is classified. does she want us to believe none of that was on her e-mails. >> what can be done about it?

we need a quick answer. >> it would take a prosecutor. >> very little right? >> to pursue this. perhaps one under a republican president in 2017. >> and until then it remains more political issue than a legal one. >> yes. unless trey gowdy can get his hands on her server. >> and she says you're not getting it. good to see you, judge. >> likewise. >> hillary's office put out talking points on this controversy. we have posted those plus the full news conference, a transcript of it at facebook.com/the kelly file. during this summers break, go there, in particular look at those talking points. brit hume will weigh in on the damage control today. this republican senator was attacked today as a traitor. who is siding with iran? senator tom cotton joins us live on the democrats' attempt to make him the most hated man in america. >> if tom cotton wasn't a veteran of the armed forces, i

why are all these people so asleep yet i'm so awake? did you know your brain has two systems? one helps keep you awake- the other helps you sleep. science suggests when you have insomnia, the wake system in your brain may be too strong and your neurotransmitters remain too active as you try to sleep, which could be leading to your insomnia. ohh...maybe that's what's preventing me from getting the sleep i need! talk to your doctor about ways to manage your insomnia.

am any of this have any bearing on your decision about whether or not you run for president? >> well, we heard that question more than once in today's news conference conference.

she said no. let's ask fox news center political analyst brit hume. brit, what do you think it will do to her presidential ambitions? >> well, megyn, the reason why a politician would hold a news conference like this to endure the questions she endured and answer them as she did, is to try to put out the firestorm that caused the whole thing. she manifestly did not do that. the questions that are continuing to be asked about all this, the inconsistencies have been pointed out, you know, by a number of other people, for example she talked about how she only had to use one device. as anybody knows, you can have multiple e-mail accounts on one device, as ed henry pointed out earlier. those are one of many questions unanswered by this. this was obviously an attempt to get this over with to announce her candidacy which we expected would be soon. this might lead to a postponement. she's going to be living with

this for a while. >> what did you make of her demeanor, looking down a lot, the sort of awkward laughter. gus called her utterly charmless. >> well, this is the hillary clinton i knew when back then i was covering her husband's presidency. this is the way she is. she's very lawyerly. she's very cautious. she does not like journalists and is not comfortable with them, never has been. and this was a very carefully laid-out performance in which she had decided ahead of time exactly what she was going to say exactly how she was going to answer these questions. >> she has to do better than this. if she's going to run for president, she's going to have to sit in front of people like me and john carl who was there, and so on, she's going to have to do better than this, is she not? >> yeah. but i mean you can protect yourself to a great extent. you know campaigning these days doesn't involve a lot of news

conferences. candidates go weeks and months without holding them. she's got -- sooner or later you're going to have to deal with these questions. i don't think that this is going to disappear anytime soon because it's just too much still there to be asked about. the committee's going to be on it. sooner or later she's going to have to deal with these things better than she did today. she may be able to stone wall her way through the democratic primary, possibly. but my sense about that is that might even become difficult if a serious challenger arrives. >> how big a factor is it that many of the pundits reinforce beliefs about the clintons and their apparent beliefs that they don't have to follow the same rules that everybody else does? >> well i think it awakens a lot of unpleasant memories about the clintons. the evasiveness of it the carefully lawyered answers, the technicalities she seemed to be relying on to say she was innocent of everything. you know, it's not going to stand, megyn. and i think you know, people --

this reminds people of a lot of what they didn't like about the clintons. think about the answer how she followed the rules and regulations. does anybody seriously think that the state department rules which said you have to turn over any private e-mails relating to the government could be two years after you left office? of course not. >> right. >> but this is the kind of thing the clintons do. it flies in the face of what any sensible person would think and they expect to get away with it. i don't think it works. >> the thing i can't get past as a lawyer is the state department's maintenance that they are not going to go back and search the documents for re responsive documents for litigation demands they received over the last six years. i have news for the state department, yes, you are. because there are going to be some angry lawyers and judges in the wake of this. brit, final word. >> i think that's right. i think that's right, megyn. i don't think the state department's going to be able to get away with that either. >> nice pastels, brit. see you next tuesday. a former presidential campaign manager and fox news

contributor, joe do you think it's over? she wanted to put an end to it? >> there's no way. i agree with brit, there's no way it's over. there's no -- i don't think there's any number of questions she could have taken today. look what she did is i think this right now is not a legal football. it may become one. but it's a political one. and her supporters i don't think saw anything that would make them, you know, walk away from her, or did not answer questions. on the other side, if you didn't like hillary clinton, you don't like her any more after this press conference. >> doesn't it stink to high heaven that she conducted her state department business on a private e-mails, had the e-mails, never disclosed the existence of the e-mails and only when asked by the state department years after the fact -- >> i think people who support her will give her the benefit of the doubt. people who don't, don't like her, do not want to see her as

president, aren't going to give her an inch of a doubt. i think the people in the middle, the undecideds are going to look at, what are the 55,000 e-mails, when they get published, what do they say? >> you don't think a fair-minded person in the middle would say this stimpgs? why didn't she stay on state.gov? >> she explained that. i mean, look -- >> but she claimed she was too old to understand how all the devices work. really? >> that might be true. look, i was -- you know, i was in a campaign where the candidate for president really didn't know how to do e-mail that much. >> there are young people who understand it who can help. >> one thing i do want to correct you're not allowed if you use a government device, you cannot put or google or some other account on there. you can only use that device. if you have a personal account, you have to do a personal thing.

>> she could have both an iphone and blackberry as she does today. it's hard to believe nobody explained that to her, joe. >> after she was gone, yeah. >> maybe no classified information. but what about the sensitive information that was clearly going to be in her e-mails and her potential compromise of it? >> we're going to see all those. that's what i'm saying, this isn't going to get decided today. we're going to -- the state department's going to read them. we know trey gowdy's going to get them. they're all going to be in the public domain. >> what about the ones she deleted? >> the personal things like chelsea's coming over for dinner tonight? >> we don't know if she deleted anything that was half personal half professional. what she said is we didn't delete anything when we were printing out those 55,000. >> the people who believe in her are going to give her the benefit of the doubt. >> if she hasn't written over it only deleted it the server

will tell the tale. do you think the clinton e-mail controversy will affect her for 2016? we'll update you on the response. janet? cough if you can hear me. don't even think about it. i took mucinex dm for my phlegmy cough. yeah...but what about mike? (cough!) it works on his cough too. mucinex dm relieves wet and dry coughs for 12 hours. let's end this.

tonight we've done some digging into the newest flash point over how police do their job. friday police in madison, wisconsin, say officer matthew kenny shot and killed 19-year-old tony robinson, an unarmed biracial teen after a 91 call and altercation. now the protests have begun. trace gallagher with "the kelly file" investigation. trace? >> reporter: megyn, the family of 19-year-old tony robinson has come out to support the madison police department, saying in the most cases police are heroic. they believe the shooting is unjustified. they're concerned about the systematic targeting of young black males and they want a

thorough investigation. >> we appreciate the police. and we understand the necessity for them. but once again, that does not excuse what happened. >> friday night police responded to reports of an assault and a man dodging traffic. officer matt kenny a 12-year veteran followed tony robinson into an apartment. he said robinson struck the officer in the head and in return the officer opened fire. last year tony robinson was convicted of armed robbery during a home invasion. but because he was only carrying a bb gun, he was sentenced to three years probation. court records show robinson suffered attention deficit disorder and tended to be an impulsive risk taker. officer kenny was involved in a fatal shooting in 2007 that was found to be justified. but in madison, it is now mandatory the shooting be independently investigated and while that investigation goes on, the police chief is working to bridge the divide. listen. >> i do have a problem on my

hands. and we are going to show this community, we're going to show the country of how the narrative does not have to become a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom and gloom. >> so far all of the madison protests have remained peaceful. >> trace thank you. things got so bad for senator tom cotton today that democrats started calling him tehran tom. at least one of them did. the "new york daily news" labeled him a traitor. really? he'll join us, next, to respond and tell us what he thinks is really going on here. don't miss this one.

breaking tonight, new fallout from the letter sent to iran. it was drafted by senator tom

cotton. it implies that any deal they forge with the obama administration will not last. the "new york daily news" today calling the senators traitors, and condemning their betrayal of the u.s. constitutional system. trace gallagher has the story. trace? >> megyn, this dispute is whether the president has the legal authority to strike a temporary deal with iran without senate approval. the letter serves to educate iranian leaders about the u.s. constitution, telling them that when it comes to a nuclear agreement, the president cannot go it alone, saying, quoting here, anything not approved by congress is a mere executive agreement between president obama and ayatollah khomeini. the letter is being roundly criticized by leading democrats. vice president biden calls it beneath the dignity of the senate. harry reid said it undermines the commander in chief and the day before she addressed her e-mail controversy, hillary clinton said this. listen. >> the recent letter from

republican senators was out of step with the best traditions of american leadership. >> except similar complaints were voiced by republicans in 2007, when nancy pelosi against the wishes of the bush administration met with syrian president bashar al assad. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell said president obama wants congress to stay out of this process because the president knows what a bad deal this is. but senator bob corker is concerned the letter might galvanize democrats, and hurt his chances of gathering enough democratic votes to override a presidential veto. here's the senator. >> my vote as chairman of the committee is to get an outcome here where congress plays its rightful role in one of the biggest geopolitical issues that our nation is going to face. >> and the "wall street journal" editorial page agrees the president gives away to charge that the republicans are playing politics.

me gin? >> trace, thanks. the man who drafted signed and sent that letter along with 46 other republican senators, to the leaders of iran. republican senator tom cotton who served in the armed services committee and is himself a veteran. good to see you tonight. let's start with the last bit, it's not just howard dean, not just vice president biden, the "wall street journal" calling you out saying this is not helpful. and it sets the republicans up to take a hit as being political beings on something that is important here namely what happens with this deal with iran. >> well, on the contrary, megyn i think this debate we're having is incredibly important, and helpful to raising just what a bad deal president obama is about to make with iran. the last two days we've focused on the terms of the deal, which is one, president obama will accept a ten-year sunset clause and two, he's conceded a vast uranium enrichment capability to iran. that paves the way for iran to

get the bomb as prime minister netanyahu last week. >> what are you going to do? they dismissed it and you've offended the obama administration and you may have offended some of the democrats who may have come over with the republicans depending on what happens with this deal, to have a stronger say in the senate. >> megyn, if you talk to most iranians iranians, they'll say their leaders don't understand our constitutional system. they said the congress should not weigh in on this deal right now, even with future conditional sanctions in part because it would confuse iran's leadership. we need to be crystal clear with the leaders of iran. any deal that's not approved by congress, won't be accepted by congress. not now, and certainly not in the future. because congress is focused on stopping iran from getting a nuclear weapon. today, tomorrow, and ten years from now. >> what do you say to those who say at a min yum, you've now alienated the democrats that

the republicans may need if you want to push through a sanctions package later on? >> megyn, this is not about partisan politics, this is about stopping iran from getting a bomb. >> right. but don't you need the democrats if you want to do something contrary to what president obama wants? >> i, too, want to see the bipartisan legislation pass that we've worked on in my committee, and that senator corker is working on in his committee. the president is the one who's weighing in the separation of powers, not a partisan matter, but a constitutional issue, putting so much pressure on democrats who share our viewpoint, regardless whether they signed a letter or sponsored legislation, the president doesn't want them to speak out and share their views that iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. >> you can make the case that president obama has exceeded his executive authority right? many republicans are making that case on many issues from immigration to obamacare right now. but discouraging the democrats in the senate from saying bad things about his deal isn't exactly an interference of separation of powers. >> we're encouraging the

democrats to join us, to protect congress' constitutional responsibilities. the founding fathers insisted that congress have the power to ensure that no president, whoever he or she may be can make a binding international agreement especially one about nuclear weapons, the worst state sponsor of terrorism. >> what do you make of the fact that joe biden came out saying it is beneath the dignity of an institution he revered. he said it's designed to undercut a sitting president in the midst of sensitive international goshss and he went on to say he cannot recall another instance in which senators have done this. >> 36 years joe biden was a senator. he often weighed in, very eloquently, in defense of the senate's prerogatives in protecting the united states from a bad deal. now, i'm disappointed that senator -- or that vice president biden has changed this tune now that he's vice president. but his focus on the process shows he knows he cannot defend the deal.

i would be happy to debate vice president biden one on one maybe right here on your show, megyn. >> you're more than welcome to do that. i hope he takes the invitation the vice president. let me talk about representative polis of colorado. he sent out a tweet calling you a man who served the country in uniform tehran tom. tehran tom. >> megyn, a few rhetorical bullets in a political debate tonight worry me too much. i just want to stop iran from get a nuclear weapon. that's what the congress is trying to stop the president from doing negotiating a bad deal that would let iran get the nuclear bomb. >> you think they're going to write you back? >> well, the foreign minister of iran responded, and in his response, his ignorance of the american constitution demonstrated the need for the letter to begin with. >> did it start like, dear tom, hi! thanks for your letter.

great catching up. by the way, forget everything i said, i'm talking to president obama. thanks for being here tonight. >> thanks, megyn. >> like a little emoticon at the end. bad to laugh at your own jokes. but i do. we're getting a clear response on our poll asking you whether the clinton e-mail controversy will affect her in 2016, in her presidential chances. you can weigh in now by going to facebook.com the kelly files. up next senator rand paul on why he thinks secretary clinton faces new questions of trust. plus breaking news in the ugly display of racism at a popular southern university. we have a report from oklahoma coming up.

it's time to drop your pants for underwareness, a cause to support the over 65 million people who may need the trusted protection of depend underwear. show them they're not alone and show off a pair of depend. get a free sample at underwareness.com. how could the public be assured that when you deleted e-mails that were personal in nature that you didn't also delete e-mails that were professional, but possibly unflattering? and what do you think about this republican idea of having an independent third party come in and examine your e-mail? >> that was former secretary of state hillary clinton getting hammered by reporters today over her exclusive use of a perm e-mail account during her time as secretary of state. we also heard similar questions from some of the 2016 republican hopefuls, including kentucky senator rand paul, who joined me earlier tonight. senator, good to see you

tonight. so hillary clinton said she complied with every rule she complied with every law, and we're not getting any more documents, nor are we getting a look at her personal server. your thoughts on that? >> well, you know i don't think the clintons should be above the law. she said part of the reason why she didn't obey the law was convenience. but i don't think convenience should trump national security. i agree with judge napolitano, when he says that even her kmpgss about things could be classified. she wants us to believe, well i didn't transmit classified documents but i guarantee you that if you ask a freedom of information act, and you want to know about hillary clinton's or the secretary of state's conversations with the president, my guess is, you'll get back a notice saying that it's classified. as i would imagine a lot of their conversations were classified. but i don't see how she can do this e-mail back and forth with the president. how can she e-mail from libya, about worldwide events and expect that those conversations

none of them were classified. i think we have to have an independent investigation. >> how can that be compelled? already the state department said with respect to the requests that have come in all these years, while she was secretary, up to right now, the freedom of information act request, litigation requests, subpoenas, they're not going to go back and look for responsive documents, they will only produce stuff on a go-forward basis? >> here's the problem. she now admitted she didn't go by the state department rules or the executive branch rules. we also have trey gowdy's commission saying that during a period of time, they're interested, her trips to libya she's on her phone, appearing to either text or e-mail and there are no e-mails in that period of time. can we trust hillary clinton to produce all of her e-mail when we couldn't trust her to obey the law that she had to use a state department e-mail. the only way we get to the truth is by an independent investigation. and i do believe that public opinion can provoke that. i'm not giving up on this. the president would have to

appoint an investigator. or would have to come from trey gowdy's commission. but they're stonewalling us time after time. they would do anything to not review these e-mails. she was doing it in a secret fashion to keep them secret from the american public. i don't think the american public should tolerate it. >> do you believe that she thinks, or thought at the time, she was above the law? that the rules did not apply to her? the very rules she was handing down to her own state department employees. >> yes. i mean, look at this. this is a couple that has been raising money from foreign countries that have despicable human rights women rights records, and they're somehow to be trusted that, oh we're taking $20 million from saudi arabia, but it didn't affect any of our policy. it's unseemly. i think the american people will be kind of sick bd to see this level of, i don't know, to me, it seems to be deception. >> when you watched her today, did you think she was ready for

primetime? a lot of folks thought she was a little off, that she seemed a little dismissive, maybe not on top of her game. what were your thoughts? >> i think there's a little bit of arrogance that some of these laws apply to some lower people but not to me, i'm hillary clinton. and i think the law -- nobody should be above the law in our land. and it doesn't look right that the clintons were taking money from foreign governments. it doesn't look right that she has her e-mail on a server that is against the law, not a government server. and there is a question, can we now trust her, as she has shown maybe she's not to be trusted, that she's going to let us know if she talked about anything that was classified. i think there's a whole host of possible conversations from talking about her schedule, to talking about any kind of worldwide event that i guarantee that the american public if we try to get that information we'd be told is classified. >> that's an interesting point. although she maintains there wasn't one single classified information on there not one. and that the server was never

compromised compromised. she also had harsh words for republicans today before she got to her own controversy. suggesting that the 47 republicans, including yourself, that wrote to the ayatollah of iran about their nuclear program were subverting president obama, subverting u.s. foreign policy and have crossed a new line one that typically affords deference to the president on foreign policy, even though we may have a robust internal debate in this country. what's your thought on that? >> i've been an advocate of the division of powers and checks and balances. one of the checks we have of the president and foreign policy as we declare war but we also approve treaties. we created most of the sanctions through legislation. i don't even think it requires new legislation. but the letter was simply a statement, and i will support new legislation saying we have to be the ones who repeal those actions. we're restating the law, the constitution says that we legislate. so it gets back to the whole

fight we're having with the administration does the president get to execute and legislate. i think it's very clear, and the message was an important one to send, and actually i wanted to help negotiations. i want negotiations to continue. i want negotiations to be successful. but i want the deal to be a good deal. so i was trying to give the president strength, knowing that he can't have any old deal, he's got to get a deal that gets past a republican congress. >> not sure it was taken in the spirit that you say it was offered. but it's been an interesting political dust-up. senator rand paul, great to see you tonight. >> thanks, megyn. critics have been up in arms over what they call the administration's attempt at quote, gun control by executive order. and tonight the feds respond. and there is breaking news right now out of oklahoma. in the wake of that racist chapter caught on tape, by a fraternity on a bus. one of the students in the video is now speaking out. next.

this is kevin returning to his childhood home. this is the smell of baked pears, making him feel warm. then pie crust as he wonders if it's too soon to ask what's for dessert. now vanilla, reminding him of pep talks with mom test nce that acts like real life and says 'welcome home, kev-y bear.' this is him, secretly loving the name kev-y bear. air wick home is in the air.

breaking tonight after receiving more than 80000 comments and a letter signed by congressmen the atf will not go forward with a rule for rifles like the ar-15. critics pointed out that the proposed ammo ban came after the administration earlier tried to ban this rifle and failed. the new proposal was attacked as gun control by executive order. for now, it's all on hold. also breaking tonight, one oklahoma university student and the parents of another have just issued public apologies after a video surfaced showing a very ugly sing-along during a fraternity trip.

earlier today, oklahoma university expelled levi pettitte and parker rice both from dallas for playing an yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy 7--------0 55555555 54 dfreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>> it is wednesday march 11th a fox news alert. what we have learned about the chilling new isis video. >> for convenience to use my personal e-mail account.

>> hillary clinton's explanation. but republicans are not buying it. >> i don't think convenience should work. >> were the songs stolen from this one. >> "fox & friends first" starts right now. >> good morning. you are watching "fox & friends first". it is wednesday morning. i am ainsley earhardt. >> i am heather childers. thank you for starting your day with us. we have a fox news alert for you right now. a desperate search is going on for search marine seven marines and four soldiers in the florida panhandle. >> military officials are saying an army helicopter carrying

those troops went down overnight during a routine training mission. ool p oo search crews found the debris from that crash on a remote stretch of beach owned by the military. we will keep you updated as the story develops. >> now to another fox news alert, isis releasing a brand new disturbing video showing what appears to be a young child executing an alleged israeli spy. >> the 13 minute clip shows the 19-year-old victim mohammed saeed ishmael uselum issuing a spy agency. then the child shoots him in the head at point blank range. he fires two more shots into the victim's lifeless body before shouting allah akbar which means god is great. we will have more on this disturbing new video coming up in a live report at