the o'reilly factor is on tonight. >> let me explain instead of talking over me. >> days after launching his campaign senator rand paul facing accusations that he is mean to women. is that true? dana perino weighs in. is a police officer ever justified in shooting a fleeing suspect? we'll break down the rules of engagement. >> say to you in terms of the push back against you and your efforts for this bill? >> well, they don't like the bill. >> it's high noon for president obama's iran nuke deal but will his own party join the republicans to sink it? we'll have a report. caution, you are updated to the no spin zone, the factor begins right now.

>> hi, i'm eric bolling in for bill o'reilly. thanks for watching us tonight. let's get right to our top story. accusations that rand paul is mean to women. the republican senator has been doing a bunch of interviews since announcing his presidential campaign this week. yesterday things got testy during an interview with nbc savanna guthrie. >> you have had views in the past on foreign policy that are somewhat unorthodox but you seemed to have changed over the years. you once said iran was not a threat. now you say it is. you once proposed ending foreign aid to israel. you now support it at least for the time being and you once offered to drastically cut. >> wait, wait, before we go -- before we go through a lit ninchts increase it 16%. i just wonder if have you mellowed out. >> a whole litany. why don't you let me explain instead of talking over me, okay? >> sure. >> before we go through a litany of things you say i

have changed on. why don't you ask me a question. have i changed my opinion on. >> you have changed your opinion. >> better way to approach it. >> is iran still not a threat. >> no, no no, no. listen. you've editorialized. let me answer a question. >> and earlier this year there was this exchange on cnbc. >> senator, i'm sure you know that most the research on this indicates that these actually cost more money over the long-term than they save. >> that's incorrect. >> indifferent? >> let's go back again. your premise and your question is mistaken okay? the whole purpose of doing this is to bring money home. there is -- let me finish -- hey, kelly, shhh. >> i'm sorry, go ahead. >> calm down a bit here, kelly. >> so, is rand paul mean to women reporters or is this just a controversy cooked up by his detractors? joining me now my co-host on the 5 dana perino who is a former press secretary to george dana bush. a couple of examples.

rand paul mean or firm. >> i don't think he is mean specifically to women. i do think he is self-described as a person with a short temper. and it comes across especially in interviews and when you see interviews like the two that we highlighted tonight with savanna and kelly, yes you could say that he looks like he is bhking very impatient with them. that comes across. whether he thinks he is being rude to them or not, which i don't think that he does think that it comes across that way y so he has a perception problem. the thing with kelly evans that happened a couple months ago. that was a really big deal. you would think that he and his staff would realize that's something we have to work against. savanna's questions were not out of bounds. they were absolutely the ones that any communications director would have told the candidate you can bet the first question is going to be about how you have changed positions on iran. how are you going to answer that? that would be a much better way to spend his time than arguing with the media that works with some people but not a broad swath of people.

>> so and i watched that interview and i was watching savanna guthrie ask him a series like a list of questions. the senator was trying to get in as an interviewer you let the guest speak. >> really? that doesn't always happen. here's the other thing he says that he is not good at these remote interviews. he admits this on air last night and says i don't like it when i'm in a room by myself i can't see you. i think what he could have done i will tell you what savanna. i'm going to come to new york i would love to sit down with you and have in-depth conversation. right now what i would love to talk about, it's not a rocket science, it's a pivot to talk about what he wants to talk about. it's not the media that created the headlines that he is facing today. he created those headlines. >> i would feel the same way if jeb bush couldn't answer a very obvious question how are you different from your brother? if he can't answer that and gets defensive at this point, he has a bigger problem. >> if the viewer was asking about common core and asking

about immigration and asking about if the interview didn't allow jeb bush. >> this is not about the intriewr interviewer. this is about the candidate. he wants to be candidate of the united states of america. >> i'm just pointing out you are doing what rand paul said last night. >> you know what? i got my message across. >> you did. last night i watched rand paul being interviewed by megyn kelly who asked very tough questions. inin fact she asked the same questions. he didn't get annoyed. >> i was there. >> maybe he doesn't have a problem with women interviewers, he just has a problem with the way he is being asked the question. >> it's possible. i was on megyn kelly's show last night and watched it. she defended him for the most part and she was trying to give him a chance. she is also pointing out to him that you have a vulnerability. she is trying actually to help. and at this point, if you are going to announce for president, you shouldn't need that kind of help. if i were the candidate, i would say i have

considerable strengths. i would tell my team i could have done better. let's week let's go to new york and i would like to do some interviews one on one. >> is there any i was tough, i didn't like the way i was asked the questions. i think they were unfair and i pushed back and guess what i will push back if and when -- or the president? >> i think that he can do that but he has got to figure out a way to pivot and make some news. this week was his week, right? this was his week to announce. next week is rubio's week and within the next week or so we expect hillary clinton to announce. he needed to strike while the iron is hot. he has some work to do. >> when hillary uses. let's fast forward a couple months from now. rand paul vs. hillary clinton for president. will hillary use this? she has been out there with this republican war on women already. can i imagine every campaign ad is going to be hey kelly, shhh. >> if she doesn't directly then certainly her people will. you know what i think rand paul needs is something that i have. when you are uncomfortable with something that someone you are sitting next to is

saying like on the five, the best thing to do is just look in the camera and go, hmmm, you have got to have a look. >> you have done that? >> i have done that. it's a signature thing. that signals to the viewer that you are unof thible with the question but you will let the person finish because you are a polite person and people like presidents who are polite. >> a lot of times you will ask a politician something ask a very specific question like where are you on this foreign policy issue. and you get a completely different answer. would he be better off doing that? >> i think that he has to figure out a way to say i hear what you're saying here is what my position is instead of argue ing with the reporter about what the question is, he needs to it be able to tell us what his position is. he is vulnerable on having changed positions. you can change a position. can you evolve look at president obama. he has done it a lot. you just have to be able to explain it. >> he evolves so much he is revolving. >> see you tomorrow night on the five. >> yes please. >> next on the rundown claims that shootings of black men are systemic

problem in america. is that true? we'll bring you facts and no spin zone analysis coming up'.

[ male announcer ] meet jill. she thought she'd feel better after seeing her doctor. and she might have if not for kari, the identity thief who stole jill's social security number to open credit cards ruining jill's credit and her dream of retirement. every year, millions of people just like you experience how a little personal information in the wrong hands could wr this is identity theft and once every 2 seconds someone becomes a victim. lifelock offers comprehensive identity theft protection. the patented lifelock identity alert system lets you know about threats to your identity by text, phone, or e-mail. and lifelock even offers bank account takeover alerts and alerts for your investment and retirement accounts. lifelock's comprehensive identity theft protection helps guard your social security

number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. and lifelock's certified resolution agents are there to help restore your identity if you become a victim of identity fraud. they know what to do. and that's not all. lifelock stands behind their protection with the power of their $1 million service guarantee. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and try 60 days of identity theft protection risk free. 60 days risk free. use promo code onguard. order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands. a $29 value free. ♪ or go to lifelock.com/onguard to try 60 days of lifelock identity theft protection risk free. and get a document shredder free. ♪

and help protect your identity your money, and your credit. ♪ in the personal story segment tonight, the far left using the shooting death of evidence police killings of black men are a systemic problem in america. there was this on today on msnbc. >> it clearly shows how comfortable cops feel doing this. because they know they can get away with it. sense of knowledge that it will be assumed that somehow something went wrong and there will be an acquittal. >> you say cops really really bad cops. a small number of cops. >> black suspects. >> as the factor has reported, police killings of african-americans are down 70% over the last 50 years, so why perpetrate these claims? joining me now fox news

analyst alan colmes and who are his cooper, co-chairman of project 21 a black conservative group. alan, start with you. if black shootings are down 70%. why claim this is about race? different data. should she do her homework in real life? >> she did. by the way, it's not just the far left this show always says the far left as opposed to just the left. >> i would call it it the far left. >> i'm sure you would. see, you are talking about statistics over the past 50 years pro-public can a last four or five years where this has become systemic problems. blacks are 25 times more likely to be shot than whites are. >> pro-publica the very far left think tank. >> you want to denounce something? >> it's not the far left. >> the source of the information is fbi statis it particulars. is that it the far left, eric?

>> no. i think your numbers are wrong. let's talk about this for a second. blacks are incarcerated at a rate of 6 to 7 times of that of whites in america. blacks are being killed, unarmed blacks are being killed about the same rate as whites in america. that would lend the idea or if alan wants to use some math. >> i actually did use. >> incident rate than blacks. >> i agree, eric. this is a problem. in the black community, we need to have a conversation that is unencumbered by the radical left and progressive agenda that tries to use government coercion to address problems. here is the reality, black americans like myself. we have an elevated risk of death that will come not from law enforcement but that will come from other black americans. i want to make this one quick point. if you look at the mortality rate in america between white men and black men,

according to the cdc, the second most likely contributor to that disparity is homicide. there is no other ethnic group that homicide ranks as high and statistics actually show it's black people killing other black people you are talking about homicide blacks versus blacks and you are correct. law enforcement officials and african-americans which is a different set of stats than black-on-black crime in general. >> give me one second. alan, if blacks and whites are being killed, unarmed blacks and whites being killed at about the same rate; is that right? >> about 40%. about 40 to 45%. >> not when you take in account when the fbi says go. population disparity. >> that's what i'm trying to get to. i get that 13% black population in america and substantially high multiples of white population correct? >> correct.

>> blacks are being incarcerated at much higher rate. >> incarcerate that's absolutely correct. >> black incarceration, wouldn't that lend itself to more opportunity for a black to be shot by a cop? >> you are conflating too very different situations. >> you are correct. >> you are conflating that's basic math which is a separate problem. not treated well in the justice system. >> am i just talking numbers. by the way i do this for a living. >> that's basic math. here's the real problem. the reason why i mention this homicide rate among blacks. homicide is a crime. if no other ethnic group faces this risk, it is a sign that there is a desperate amount of criminality happening in this one group. >> we're talking about two different things here. talking about whites andations. if there will is a higher level of criminality. there will be higher level of encounter with law enforcement. the truth is that eric has been explaining the truth is

eric has been explaining if you consider the elevated number of times that black americans encounter law enforcement versus the actual number of deaths. it turns out that black people are not actually at risk. they are actually in a favored category. >> >> it's absurd. >> it's not a leap. that's the doj. >> hold on. >> you are making an assumption based on stats that don't match up. you are talking about two different sets of information. what happened with how much cops kill black men versus how many commit crime in general. >> there is assumption. >> crime more chance. >> -- before we run out of time in this segment, alan, what makes you think anything that happened with

walter scott had to do with race. >> i don't know whether that inteskly did or did not. what we are talking about is stem mick issue. >> how can it be systemic. >> it's weather it's happened in cleveland in wal-mart or ferguson. a number of times probably not even reported. plus we know that the cop we see on the video he planted something by his body. how often does that happen? >> did the cop plant something by his body? because is he black? >> i just answered you when i said there are a number of. >> go ahead, more rest, final thought. >> this is the progressive impulse. every single police killing is documented. we understand all of the details of every police killing. but what we don't need is to have the argument made that there is a systemic problem when the evidence shows there are other problems that progressives don't care about. when they say black lives matter, but when. >> we need to go. >> in chicago there are more black deaths that happened in 2014 than in the last 10

years of all police white on black shootings. >> that's a separate issue. >> you know what? >> they don't care. >> it's a heated topic and we have a lot more of that coming up after the break. say thank you to alan and who are tell you what the law says next.

in the impact segment tonight, by now we've all seen the disturbing video of 50-year-old walter scott being shot in the back by officer michael slager. mr. scott had been pulled over for a traffic violation. the working theory is that he probably ran away from the officer out of fear he would be arrested for outstanding child support payments. the situation is tragic and raises the question: is it ever okay for a cop, a

police officer, to shoot a fleeing suspect? here now to explain the rules of engagement jonathan guilliams who is a cop and fbi agent. so the question is, the use of deadly force. explain the rules. >> so the rule basically, and i will try to explain this outside of lawyer terms because when law enforcement officers are out there and engaged in these situations daily, there is a fine line a lot of the times. but this is basically what it comes down to from the tennessee garner case in 1985, a fleeing suspect from a burglary got shot in the back as he climbed a fence. tennessee supreme court and it later went to the appellate court said there has to be basically a smell test a necessity that says that there has to be probable cause, that's the big thing and it's based on the fourth amendment. probable cause of death or serious bodily injury and that you don't have any other means to subdue the person that are nonlethal. >> probable cause of death or bodily injury to the

officer and/or people in the community right? >> i'm glad that you brought that up. because that is the thing that most people forget is that it's not just for the officer but if somebody is fleeing with with a weapon or if they have just killed somebody and they are going crazy they pose a threat to the general public as well. >> so what's the trick here? it would strike me that training is extremely important. >> sure. >> for all law enforcement. so they knowed when use of deadly force is available to them. and i think it's important to take race and politics and anything else that somebody has out of this and just look at training. training tells us that if you're in a struggle with somebody and in this case if they had been struggling and he had went for his weapon and he got shot at that time, that would have been a good shoot. but as soon as soon as the person departs you and they have no weapon, they have no -- you have no probable cause to show that he is out to kill anyone you cannot shoot him. i mean, it's just that plain and simple. >> jonathan can't we solve

a lot of this with police body cams? i for one believe that police body cams will help police officers. >> i think it's hot topic and i personally believe that body cams are okay in the military. we have gotten used to having predator drones over us and having helmet drones on. the libertarians are saying it's something you have to start looking at what's going on and the political atmosphere. people need to see what's going on. but, body cams will not solve one thing. people want -- will see what they want to see. and that's still going to be a problem with people who have an issue with with the number of black arrests or the number of black shootings. the commonality in all of, this whether you have a body camera on or not is the fact that if you don't resist arrest, you're probably not going to get shot. >> there seems to be the common theme whether it's ferguson missouri, staten island, new york. the person who end up hurt or dead has always resisted

arrest. >> good shoot, bad shoot, it doesn't matter. if you are under arrest and the police officer says that he is now taking charge of you or seizing you then you have to comply. if you do not then bad things happen. it's that simple. >> therein lies the beauty of the body cam the moment that the officer places a suspect under arrest that will be caught on tape and everything that happens post arrest can be at least clarified a lot easier with the camera. >> that's why i think the people who are protesting and have these problems should realize this is going to exonerate people and also going to catch people who are doing things wrong. you know, law enforcement needs to start training people on a daily basis and the bureau, we don't go out and patrol every day. cops do. >> let me give you one more thing why a body cam would have been important. the incident in south carolina, that cop was not justified shooting that man in the back; is that right? >> that's correct. >> that would have been picked up on a body cam. it didn't need to be a

bystander. >> had that bystander not been there it, probably would have been considered a good shoot. >> especially because the police report post shoot was different from what the video showed. >> that's correct. and that's a shame. police officers need to be trained more in critical thinking and threat mitigation before they go out every single day they should be going over the use of force and deadly force rules every day before they go out. >> we are going to leave it right there. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> plenty more as the factor moves along this evening. new polls out of key swing states pressure on hillary clinton. why some democrats are saying maybe she isn't the future of the party. we hope you stick around for

in the unresolved problem segment tonight hillary clinton is expected to officially announce her white house bid in the coming days, but some democrats don't seem all that excited. >> do you think she is the future of the democratic party? >> well, i think we have to see, first of all, if she declares, and what she says she wants to run on. i think that's really the interesting question. >> you know her. i mean, you know her and you know her positions on most issues. does she represent the democratic party that you believe the democratic party audited to be. >> i don't think the democratic party is a static thing the democratic party grows. full of energy right now. growing contrast frankly with the republican party. >> well, according to new

polls, clinton now trails two key states iowa and colorado. rubio in colorado. rubio is expected to declare his run on monday. so, is hillary still the inevitable democratic nominee? joining me now democratic-- strike that gist jessica and washington, d.c. lisa booth, a republican strategist. jessica did you hear elizabeth warren hedge her bet all over the place on those two sounds bites? >> i did actually. what she is doing does make sense. primaries are supposed to be be competitive and pushing hillary clinton to define herself. going to be better for the country. >> if she wants to really push her why doesn't she jump in the race? >> she doesn't want to do it it's not her time. she just got to the senate. she has a lot of work there. key committees pushing for big bank regulation and things like that. i don't think it's her time. >> lisa, elizabeth warren said the democratic party a static thing. what does that mean?

>> right. well, look, i think what we are seeing here. >> isn't the static thing i'm sorry. >> well, eric i think what we are seeing here is this coronation that hillary clinton feels like she is entitled to may not happen. and look, it's not just elizabeth warren that are reluctant to embrace hillary clinton. someone like david axelrod has also said that hillary clinton is going to have a hard time convincing investigators that she represents the future with her past. and, look democrats' problems are bigger than that not only is hillary clinton a polarizing figure. she is also entrenched in scandal right now. her lies are starting to catch up to her. as you noted with those polls, she is losing ground in key states and voters don't trust her. >> jessica glen thrush from politico. clinton campaign his words completely collapsing and she shouldn't even bother interesting the race. >> i disagree with that to say she is losing ground still in the margin of error with all a of those polls that came out today about

this. rand paul should get a boost this week. he just announced. see if we get a hillary bump. she is still 40 plus points ahead in all of the democratic nomination polling and no one would thought the general would be be close. it shouldn't be. look what happened in the mid terms. it's not going to be signed sealed and delivered and i don't think so hillary thinks it will be. >> lisa points out hillary may get a bounce when she announces allegedly maybe by the end of next week. her poll numbers have slid dramatically nonetheless. >> it's not just the poll numbers that she should be concerned with it's the fact that voters don't trust her in those critical key states. trust is paramount in elections. the problem is hillary clinton has repeatedly lied when it comes to her emails when it comes out to donations from the clinton foundation donations and that's a huge problem for her. and look these lies are catching up to her and it's showing in the polls. what it shows is this notion of entitlement from hillary clinton, this motion that she is, you know out of touch. and that's also solidified

by previous comments she has made regardless being a millionaire upon leaving the white house. she said she and bill clinton were dead broke. they are not like the welly well off. she is entitled. voters are not going to think that she understands them that she understands the issues that they are facing. >> staffers are reportedly moving into her brooklyn office ready to go. >> convenient for me living downtown. yeah they are ready to go. >> does that mean you are going to be part of that campaign. >> it does not mean that i'm excited to see what she puts out there. >> don't you want to see more from your candidate than what hillary has put out there so far? >> absolutely. we will wait to next week. >> why what do you like about hillary clinton? >> she seems tough and resolute. she does have a problem with these. >> nice to see something besides lies. >> please. there is a lot more to hillary clinton than lies and you are going to hear about it.

>> no, there is not. her record is one of failed policies, it's one of lies it's one of entitled. tell me how think should be the democratic nominee. >> i know republicans are going to win because the country is desperate for leadership right now. not only on the world stage but domestically as well. and, look, democrats want to keep pointing to the middle class, the middle class family is suffering under president obama. and republicans have an opportunity to paint a better future for the country and to talk about economic freedom and to talk about bringing some strength to the world stage. absolutely they will. >> really? when is it going to happen? when are they going to stop saying it's absolutely going to happen. >> obamacare is not helping families. healthcare premiums are. >> here is what -- i don't want to get on obamacare. i want to stay on hillary clinton for a minute. what has she accomplished that she deserves to be the un -- the main democratic

candidate? >> she doesn't deserve that. she should you have the v. a tough primary fight. >> what has she done? what are her successes. >> her time as secretary of state is. >> i'm waiting to hear what she has done. during her time as secretary of state. >> she was successful in the senate as well. i mean,. >> what did she do in the senate? >> here's the problem. everyone says it's got to be hillary clinton because she was secretary of state because she was senator, and no one can list the things that she has done that makes sense. that would make her a good president. i'm still waiting for that well we would have to hear what her agenda is going to be. maybe she will have a plan that will change her minds. in other words jessica and lisa, in other words she has got the money. no one wants to fight the big money. jessica lisa say thank you. coming up outrage in california after a judge slashes the sentence of a child molester who assaulted a 3-year-old girl. now the prosecutor reacts. he is right here moments away.

[ male announcer ] meet jill. she thought she'd feel better after seeing her doctor.

and she might have if not for kari, the identity thief who stole jill's social security number to open credit cards ruining jill's credit and her dream of retirement. every year, millions of people just like you experience how a little personal information in the wrong hands could wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft and once every 2 seconds someone becomes a victim. lifelock offers comprehensive identity theft protection. the patented lifelock identity alert system lets you know about threats to your identity by text, phone, or e-mail. and lifelock even offers bank account takeover alerts and alerts for your investment and retirement accounts. lifelock's comprehensive identity theft protection helps guard your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. and lifelock's certified resolution agents are there to help restore your identity if you become a victim of identity fraud. they know what to do. and that's not all.

lifelock stands behind their protection with the power of their $1 million service guarantee. you have so much to protect and nothing to lose when you call lifelock right now and try 60 days of identity theft protection risk free. 60 days risk free. use promo code onguard. order now and get this document shredder to keep sensitive documents out of the wrong hands. a $29 value free. ♪ or go to lifelock.com/onguard to try 60 days of lifelock identity theft protection risk free. and get a document shredder free. ♪ and help protect your identity your money, and your credit. ♪

thanks for staying with us i'm eric bolling in for bill o'reilly. in the factor follow up segment an outrageous story out of orange county, california as reported last night in december. 21-year-old kevin was accused of sexually assaulting a 3-year-old girl. he faced a mandatory sentence of 25 years.

but the judge in the case mark kelly cut the sentence down to just 10 years. here is what bill had to say about the case last night. >> this guy deserves to go for 25, that's why you have jessica's law. that's why you have mandatories, and these judges have no right to do this it or the prosecutor i think we are going to have him on the factor tomorrow. >> true to our word district attorney tony joins us right now. for the people who didn't see it last night. there is a mandatory minimum of 25 years for the conviction of what this guy nieto was convicted of. this judge mark kelly dropped it to 10 years and even less, right? >> that's right. it's a mandatory minimum of 25 years to life under the jessica's law. and the judge decided that that would be too much sentencing, basically and reduced it to a sentence of 10 years. and when you say or less, well, actually, if you serve on a 10-year sentence you would actually do less than

10 years. >> yeah. somewhere around 8 8 and a half years is the way i understand it. >> that's right. >> so tell us about why the judge would have done that first of all, he broke the law, didn't he? >> well i believe. so and certainly think that it's an illegal sentence. that's why we are going to appeal it. what the judge did was make a determination in his statement to the effect that the sentence was disproportionate to the crime here. and that because of that, it violates the constitution in that it's cruel and unusual. and so he decided on constitutional grounds to reduce the penalty. although there is no discretion indicated in the statute and the law requires the minimum penalty of 25 years to life. so he made a judgment based on what he -- on his view of the constitution. and we disagree with that and think we have a very

good case on appeal. >> i went through the transcript our producers put together the transcript of the sentencing hearing and on page 10 of the transcript this line really jumped out at me. take a look at this. the judge actually said that he believed you have shown qualities as being intelligent -- an intelligent young man with a sincere heart. now, i'm looking at this from the outside. what is the family of the victim think when they see that? >> well,. >> i can't really speak for them too much except to say that they are just distraught about all of this attention that the case is getting. they are very, very upset and concerned about all of these things that are happening. as far as the facts of the case are concerned i mean this is a case of a grown man, i mean he was 19 years old but he was a grown man and a little 3-year-old toddler came in to the garage where he was.

he closed the doors and took her pants down and sodomized her. this is a horrible crime. and that is the reason why the legislature created this law to have this -- to have mandatory sentencing when little children like this are abused in such a horrendous way. >> and take the discretion out of auto a judge like mark kelly's hands to reduce the sentence. >> how you can rectify this? >> well, with the appeal, we expect to get that decision reversed and then the judge would be required to give the mandatory minimum sentence at that point. >> okay. but, what do you want to see happen to the judge? i mean i understand there could be impeachment or a call -- a recall vote or even the judge removed from the bench. >> well, he is an elected official. he is subject to it all of those things, but our view

here in the da's office and we work within the framework of the courts so our remedy is the appeal. that's the remedy we are looking for because it would put back the sentence as it should be if the sentence were to stand wouldn't that do the same thing for other judge such as. this i think that's true. that's a concern as well. another reason why we need to apeel and get this straightened out. yes, sir, thank you for your time. >> my pleasure, thank you. >> and a quick reminder, you don't not want to miss this deal if you become a bill o'reilly.com premium member, you get a daily podcast where you can listen to the factor any time you want. check that out. it's brand new and available only to bill o'reilly.com premium members. next on the rundown more evidence that the iran nuke agreement is unraveling but will it be democrats who ultimately deal? that report coming up.

in the back of the book segment tonight, more trouble for the obama administration's iran nuke deal. no deal unless sanctions are lifted immediately on the very deal day the deal goes into effect. several prominent democrats are bill congressional approval before the president could make a deal. the white house not so happy. >> what does the white house say to you in terms of the push back against you and your efforts for this bill? well, they don't like the bill and they don't like me being on the bill and they have made that very plain. >> is it possible the president's deal will be destroyed by his own party? joining us now from washington d.c. is david tofuri a former obama

campaign advisor and matt slat. former political director for president george w. bush. mr. dufruri let me start with you. senator schumer has signed on the corker billleader signed on the corker bill saying wait a minute, we want a say. you say that's not the right way the deal should go down. >> well, i think there are a lot of democrats who believe congress should have a role in approving of this agreement, and in this case, nearly all the republicans in the senate agree with senator corker who pushed the bill forward to make sure the senate has a role. i believe the republicans will get enough democrats to make it veto proof, 13 democrats have to join the 54 senators. but then the question is if a final agreement is reached on june 30th will congress approve that agreement? i think that's closer. i think ultimately president obama will get the agreement

passed. >> before i go to matt, david, you think if the 13 or 14 democrats join with the republicans and have a veto you think the president should veto a bill put on his desk that says give congress a shot at looking at this? >> well, i think that's up to the president. if the president wants to make this deal happen, part of putting the pressure on congress would be to try to veto any bill that gives them a role, gives them ability to stop the deal, but congress should have a role in the deal. we need to make sure we have a very strong agreement with iran. it is right to have a nuclear agreement but it has to be strong and congress should be putting pressure on the president and on iran to make sure that deal is strong. >> matt, what about when the supreme leader of iran says the deal the americans were presenting the day after negotiations finished, he said that was not the real deal. they had a completely different idea of the deal. should we not give congress at least a 60 day which is what they're looking for, a 60 day

window to look at what's really the deal before they sign off on it? >> come on we are not buying a house or car, this is a very complicated deal. we are all talking about a deal is that doesn't exist. we of course should be able to see the fine print. and of course they're saying the sanctions have to be lifted, there's $120 billion in frozen assets they want to get their hands on. you know what they're going to do with that money? rebuild their economy and continue to fund terrorism across the region and across the globe. this is incredibly serious. for the president to try to once again go it alone, without working with congress is a huge mistake, and in this instance thank god there are nine democrats, charles schumer is joining them, and others, saying enough is enough. israel is our best ally, probably on the globe, certainly in the region. >> schumer blumenthal, a

handful of others, mr. tafuri. same fairly influential democrats. why would the president decide to go against that group? >> again, because he really wants this deal passed at all cost and doesn't want the congressional obstacle. another thing that will matter is public opinion. it is very interesting. in general the public supports a deal with iran -- >> do you realize what you said. i asked you why he would do that, you said because he really wants it. matt the president may want it but what do the american people want? isn't that what this is about? >> i have five girls, a lot of times they want things, too, and i tell them know. the american people want a deal with iran in the sense they don't want iran to have a nuclear weapon. what they don't understand is what obama is doing is lifting sanctions like he did with cuba in a unilateral fashion because this is what his foreign policy is. i am going to make friends with everyone around the globe. the problem is with iran, they

will get all of these assets and will have the money to put their nuclear weapons program and terrorism funding on high speed. and that's incredibly dangerous we might never get back what we will lose if he is able to push forward on this. >> david, during negotiation the supreme leader of iran called for death to america. we still walked away said we have a deal. and within days, the same supreme leader says the deal the americans think they got, that's not the deal we know. why would we even bother negotiating with these people? >> you talk about congress can block this deal, the supreme leader could block this deal and he very well may. >> come on. >> ultimately he won't. >> this is the reception the iranian foreign minister got when he went to tehran he was a rock star in tehran. >> ultimately, the supreme leader they're not going to block this. this is rhetoric by them.

>> who has the better deal. look it -- >> they got the better deal. >> we had iran in the corner their economy on its heels, begging to be let out. we let them out first, decide to negotiate later. >> that's right. and there's a bipartisan consensus on major foreign policy questions since world war ii. you know, all the major foreign policy questions, sure there are disagreements. big questions of our security, we work together both parties. the president has done something unique here. he has every republican in congress against him on this deal and has growing list of democrats against him on the deal. he has a bipartisan consensus against his type of foreign policy of what he is doing in iran and other places. i am not for him politically, but he is our president. on these types of national security questions, we want him to stand up and do america proud. what he is doing in iran is a disgrace. >> david, what he has to do to make this deal he has to by pass a deal congress put

together themselves and break that. i am not sure he can do that. >> or he has to get congress to approve the deal, if congress passes a law that allows them to approve or not approve the deal. there's a couple more steps here. the president is working to get democrats on board with opposing corker's legislation or ultimately approving this agreement. >> going the opposite direction, david. have to leave it there. david and matt, thank you very much. up next, a sneak peek at a brand new program on fox news. if you like american history want to know the real truth, you don't want to miss this.

. . test. . test. . ant to remind you to watch the debut of a new+a series, "legends and lies." about historical figures and what they were like. one on jesse james, the otherth on doc holiday. here is a sneak preview. >> all right. let's get to it boys. >> virgil had other deputies. he doesn't take those deputies, he takes his brothers.

wyatt and morgan. then he drags along doc holiday. this is like bringing a match to a party full of gas cans.pñj >> throw up your hands so we can disarm you. throw up your hands. >> once again watch "legends and lies" sunday at 8:00 p.m. i am?hh

by now you have seen the shooting, but you have not seen what happened in thepá moments before that south carolina officer shot and killed an unarmed man. brand new details for you this morning. and a bombshell from country superstar taylor swift. what she is just revealing about her mother's health and her message for you this morning. ""fox & friends" first starts right now. and good morning to you. you are watching "fox & friends" first on this friday morning. i'm heather chilleders. >> thank you so much for waking up this early with us on this friday. let's get right to the top stories today. devastation in the midwest. tornados slamming iowa, illinois and ohio, killing one person.

>> dozens of homesá and buildings just destroyed. one of the hardest-hit areas is fairdale, illinois. >> that's where maria joins us live with a look at all the destruction there. maria. >> good morning. good to hear your voices here on this friday morning. i'm in fairdale, illinois where a massive terrifying twister hit yesterday afternoon. this continued to move through parts of iowa and through illinois. here in fairdale, one person has been confirmed dead and at least seven others have been injured. due to the severity of the damage here in fairdale, the rock ford illinois, fire department is helping to respond to the damage. just to give you a sense of how bad the damage is here in fairdale, every single home has either sustained damage or has and you can see behind me a structure just completely unrecognizable and that's pretty much the scene here