you had bruno mars in the past, beyonce, janet jackson, of course, we all remember that one. bill: they're all coming back to watch. martha: so we'll see. bill: i've been pushing for ac/dc -- martha: he thinks they've been robbed. bill: the nfl and ac/dc go together so well. martha: they absolutely do. bill: it's been a long week. our best to you at home. ♪ ♪ jon: as we given this friday, authorities now may be closer to confirming the california massacre happened at the hands of terrorists. good morning to you, i'm jon scott. jenna: hi, everybody, i'm jenna lee. according to reports, the couple may have met with suspected al-qaeda terrorists either together or separately during their time overseas. investigators saying the cache of weapons found in the couple's home points to the possibility of another attack. trace gallagher is live in san bernardino with the latest. trace?

>> reporter: and, jenna, we -- excuse me, we really are seeing this pattern emerging, this disturbing pattern that really shows that this is connected to terrorism in some capacity. we know that the killers watched isis propaganda videos online. we also know that they had contact with people who inside the united states and outside were being investigated by the fbi for terrorism. and now not only is the wife thought to have been the trainer for the husband, but she may have had the bomb-making knowledge. remember all those pipe bombs that were made. and now there is this report by the associated press that the wife, tashfeen malik, pledged her allegiance to isis on facebook using an alias and then tried to delete that post. there are also reports that the couple tried to cover their tracks by smashing cell phones and trying to rid hard drives, burn the hard drives and using burner phones that are much harder to track. we do know the fbi has

apparently gotten enough electronic devices and data to send it all in to be analyzed. we are also learning that in the past year syed farook was getting much more devout, if you will, attending mosque twice a day, memorizing the quran. he got into a heated argument with a coworker a couple weeks ago according to this coworker's wife over whether islam is a peaceful religion. that coworker was among those who was killed in the attack. police are also focusing more now on the weapons used during the attack. remember, there were two handguns and two rifles used. the two handguns and rifles were purchased legally a couple years ago, but syed farook, he's the one who bought the handguns, the rifles purchased by another man. police want to know why the man bought the guns and, two, why he turned them over to the couple. we've talked often about this immense amount of firepower found inside the house, thousands of rounds of

ammunition. dozens of pipe bombs as well as hundreds of tools to make even more pipe bombs. police now believe it's one of two things, either the christmas party was not the intended target and the killers somehow got off track, there was a second target they were planning or that they were actually planning a much bigger target to begin with, and we should end by saying that police are also looking at the money trail here because, keep in mind be, all of these weapons, all of this gear they had amounts to well over $30,000. syed farook made some $50,000 a year, the wife did not work. investigators would like to know where all that money came from. jenna? jenna: sounds like a good next question. we'll look for answers, trace. thank you. jon: of course, the san bernardino shootings and all of the concerns it's raised plus fears of other possible incidents like it are bound to influence the race for 2016 as a new poll shows us where the gop contenders stand.

donald trump still atop the field with 36 of registered republican voters backing him. his closest competition, senator ted cruz, is a full 20 points behind. let's join -- joining us now to talk about the politics of all of the, nina easton, senior editor and columnist for fortune magazine, christopher bedford is editor-in-chief of the daily caller news foundation. welcome to both of you. who is the political, who is best positioned, i guess, politically, nina, to respond to these terror attacks? >> well, this is clearly benefiting donald trump. now, that poll was taken even before san bernardino, and i think what you're seeing is that people are responding to this anxiety and fear and a sense that president obama is just not at all responding with strength and with determination and with any sense that he's about to

defeat the terrorists. i mean, this is a poll that came after obama said isis had been contained and then, of course, we saw the paris attacks. i suspect donald trump's numbers will go up after san bernardino. jon: but why trump? i mean, all of the republican challengers have talked tough about terrorism. >> because he, i think he resonates this kind of bravado and strength and not always in a good way, by the way. i think yesterday when he suggested that there was a nefarious motive in how obama reacts which kind of recalls his links to the birther movement and conspiracy theorists who think that obama is a muslim-born african, you know? trump didn't say that, but he left that seed in the brains of people who do think that. so i think he appeals to those folks. and then he appeals to his bravado and sense of, you know, kind of cutting through any kind of policy talk lets him stand

head and shoulders above everybody else. jon: christopher, do you glee? does donald trump, does the apprehension of these terror attacks, is donald trump best positioned to harness that and turn it into voting support? >> yeah, i think he is. he's a tough-talking tv star, and for the last 70 years of american history, we've loved that whether it was john wayne to donald trump. he's someone that americans are familiar with, and he's someone that's saying a lot of the things americans kind of hear around their kitchen table. but so is marco rubio, so is chris christie. chris christie, the governor of new jersey, right after -- not too long after 9/11 he was attorney general for new jersey be before that. he's got a lot of experience tackling terrorism. marco rubio's got a ton of experience in the senate at least working on this stuff. but i think americans who are reacting at least initially with kind of fear and what the heck is going on, it took us days to figure out what was going on with this shooting, they're

going to look towards someone more familiar, and donald trump is completely positioned to harness that. jon: christopher, republicans have essentially accused the president of trying to deflect attention from the fact that this appears to be an incidence of domestic israelic terrorism, and that is islamic terrorism on american soil, and turning it into an issue about gun control. >> well, i think that's fairly predictable. the president's got a gun control agenda. but he also, i think, has kind of resigned himself to not getting that across the united states. this is one of the few incidents i've seen of these kind of attacks where they say, well, we don't really know what happened, what the motivation is until a few days later. it doesn't seem like a normal terrorist attack. there's no obvious death wish, there's no black flag waving, no very public space like, for example, the boston bombings. they waited until the television cameras came on, then set off another bomb. this didn't really seem to fit with that narrative.

but it's starting to look like really, obviously, that it was a terrorist attack, and the president's going to have to admit that. jon: nina, what about the battle between ted cruz and marco rubio over government surveillance? it would seem like after this event americans are going to want their government to dig more into the electronic communications of people who would pull out ak-47s at an office holiday party. >> that's right. i mean, this whole ramping up of this, both the war on terror and terrorists coming home to us is, it's exposing an interesting split in the republican party where you have ted cruz who voted against the nsa metadata collection which a lot of us think is very helpful in fighting terrorism, and so rubio's really been highlighting that. now, then cruz attacks rubio, and he says that, you know, because rubio wants to get involved in, basically, an intractable war in syria, that if assad falls in syria, we're just going to have a syria that is controlled by terrorists.

so we've got that whereas rubio counters that if you leave assad in power, that's dangerous. so it is an interesting philosophical divide that's to coming out between these two competitors who are really going after each other at this point. jon: christopher, is there a reluctance on the part of the administration to call this terrorism? i mean, it seems on its face to be a case of that, but the administration has been reluctant to call it that just as they were after fort hood. what's the reason for that? >> just after fort hood and just after the marine recruitment station shooting where the fbi still says we don't have a motive. they're never going to figure it out. yeah, i think there's a reluctance by the administration to call a lot of things what they are because they don't fit into the narrative. i think the administration, especially in this second term, progressive administration, has decided what they think the world is doing, which rebels are moderate, which refugees are good, which shootings are workplace violence, and they seem like they're going to stick to that no matter what, no

matter what the facts are. jon: if there is an isis connection here, isis is not exactly contained. christopher bedford, nina easton, thank you both. jenna: in the meantime, the senate passing a bill to repeal key portions of obamacare and defund planned parenthood, the first time legislation aimed at dismantling the health care law could actually make it to his desk. our chief congressional correspondent, mike emanuel, is reporting live from d.c. mike? >> reporter: well, jenna, there's no doubt president obama will veto it, but this does provide a blueprint for how congress could potentially unravel obamacare if there's a republican president in 2017. this legislation would repeal the medical device and cadillac taxes, stop medicaid expansion and subsidies to buy insurance, scrap individual and employer mandate fines and defund planned parenthood for one year. the house has voted more than 50 times to repeal obamacare, but they've always been blocked in the senate due to the 60-vote requirement. this time a procedure -- with a

procedural called budget reconciliation, they needed just 51 votes. republicans say passing the bill is keeping a campaign promise to their constituents. >> it will be a victory for the middle class families who have endured this law's pain far too long. on their medical choices, on the affordability of their care, on the availability of their doctors and hospitals, on the insurance they liked and wanted to keep. >> reporter: democrats hope to block it to keep it from getting to the president, and republican moderates mark kirk of illinois and susan collins of maine were opposed because of the language defunding planned parenthood. a leading senate democrat tried to strip that out of the bill but was unsuccessful. >> unfortunately, with this latest tired political effort to dismantle critical health care reform, my republican colleagues are once again making clear they want to take our health care system back to the bad old days.

>> reporter: the measure had to be tweaked to fit the senate's rules, so it must go back to the house for approval which won't be an issue before it's sent to the president probably right before congress leaves for christmas. jenna? jenna: one to watch, mike, thank you. jon: we are learning more about the 14 lives lost this week in san bernardino. how thousands of people came together to honor them last night. plus, after nearly a decade of investigation, the u.n. releases its conclusion on whether or not iran tried to develop a nuclear weapon. also, we want to hear from you. are the media and the police sharing enough information with the public after major attacks like colorado and san bernardino? our live chat is up and running go. to foxnews.com/happeningnow and get your thoughts into the conversation. the pursuit of healthier.

it begins from the second we're born. because, healthier doesn't happen all by itself. it needs to be earned every day. using wellness to keep away illness. and believing a single life can be made better by millions of others. as a health services and innovation company optum powers modern healthcare by connecting every part of it. so while the world keeps searching for healthier we're here to make healthier happen. jon: we're learning more now about the 14 people killed in the california shootings. they range in anal from their 20s -- in age from their 20s

to their 60s. black, white, hispanic asian, hard working fathers, mothers, sons and daughters are taken too soon. thousands of mourners gathered last night at a baseball stadium in san bernardino pausing to pray and remember their loved ones. >> she raised her beautiful three kids, had the house, education, work, you know, enjoying life, vacationing and spending time with the family and, unfortunately, was taken away by an evil man. an evil woman. jenna: in the meantime, new information on iran's nuclear program. the u.n. releasing the results of a years-long investigation concluding that tehran did, indeed, work on developing nuclear weapons despite be its repeated and consistent denials. joining us now, executive director at the defense for democracy. the associated press says this:

no previous iaea report has so clearly linked iran's past nuclear work to weapons development. what's the significance of this? >> well, jenna, what's significant is the iaea can is coming out in very clear terms and saying that iran has lied about its nuclear weaponization work, that iran was actually developing nuclear weapons in a formal way up until 2003, that those activities continued at least until 2009, and it also completely undercuts the iranian narrative that they were never working on supreme, on nuclear weapons and that the supreme leader actually had some fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons. clearly, the iranians are lying, but they're about to get hundreds of billions of dollars in sanctions relief as a result of this deal. jenna: a state department spokesman said, well, this report is consistent with what we've long assessed, that iran had a nuclear weapons program that was halted in 2003. but i note you said the program continued until 2009? tell us more about that. >> right. the u.n. is actually saying that

iran had a organized, formal nuclear weaponization program until 2003 but then actually after the u.s. invasion of iraq, the iranians were so afraid that they were next that they broke off the structured program, and they had an unstructured program where they continued activities at least until 2009 and potentially beyond. and we don't know, because the iaea is also saying iran was completely noncooperative. they actually were stonewalling the iaea, they were not answering questions, so there may be activities that extended beyond 2009. but, certainly, this undercuts the add managers claim that -- administration claim that these activities stopped in 2003. jenna: now, don't we have to approve the results of this investigation for the nuclear deal to move forward? >> jenna, it's unbelievable, but the answer is, no. the way that the administration negotiated this deal, all the iranians had to do was, quote-unquote, answer some questions, and then the iaea's required to issue a report

december 15th. the administration is requesting that the iaea close the file on iran's weaponization activities, and then all the sanctions relief is going to be given as long as the iranians disassemble some of their centrifuges and send out some of their low-enriched uranium. hundreds of billions of dollars are going to flow to the leading state sponsor of terrorism that the iaea has confirmed has lied -- jenna: and we're depending on the iranians to uphold parts of the deal that we've worked out, trusting them rather than an outside agency over the terms of this deal which extend, well, you know, 5, 10, 15 years into the future. >> well, that's right. i mean, the problem now is that the administration has said they've had perfect knowledge about the past, and i guess a lot of intelligence officials sort of rolled their eyes when secretary kerry said that. the reality is we often don't have good information about what the iranians and other hard regimes are doing. and now looking forward, we're

going to have to try andererfy and en-- verify and enforce a deal against a country that continues to lie about its weaponization activities. it certainly doesn't suggest a good development for the future in our ability to enforce this deal. jenna: just real quick, mark, can anything be done with these results which are new, again, if you look at the associated press saying it's the most straightforward report we've had as far as the actual nuclear weapons program. can anything change? >> you know, congress needs to act. lawmakers need to pass legislation that makes it very clear that they do not believe that the file on iran's nuclear weaponization activities is closed and that it will remain open x as a result of that, it will lay the predicate for future action under a future president for a u.s. government to move forward vigorously in holding iran's feet to the fire. we can't trust this regime, and we now know this regime has engaged in, as i said, lying and

obfuscation of an enormous scale on a most potent and deadly program. jenna: interesting. as you're talking, we're showing on our screen the iranians' perspective which is that, well, our program was peaceful which is not exactly the way that it is portraying it. mark, great to have you on the program. thank you very much. >> thanks so much, jenna. jon: among the many questions still looming over the san bernardino shootings, all of the guns used in the massacre originally bought legally. so how did they wind up in the hands of these two shooters? plus, we've seen pictures of one of those gunmen, syed farook, so why have we yet to see a picture of his wife and accomplice, tashfeen malik? (vo) some call it giving back. we call it share the love. during our share the love event, get a new subaru, and we'll donate $250 to those in need.

bringing our total donations to over sixty-five million dollars. and bringing love where it's needed most. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru. i've got a nice long life ahead. big plans. so when i found out medicare doesn't pay all my medical expenses, i got a medicare supplement insurance plan. [ male announcer ] if you're eligible for medicare, you may know it only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. call now and find out about an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, it could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call now to request your free decision guide. i've been with my doctor for 12 years. now i know i'll be able to stick with him. [ male announcer ] you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals needed.

see why millions of people have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp. don't wait. call now.

jenna: well, authorities

investigating the san bernardino massacre looking for a man who bought two rifles which ended up in the hands of the alleged shooters. the fbi says those two rifles you were recovered -- were recovered after the siege and the later shootout with police. the fbi says the suspected gunman be bought the handguns himself, apparently they were registered to him, but not the rifles you're seeing on your screen. all these guns bought legally years ago, according to the government. joining us now, fox news' gregg jarrett. we're hearing the guns were bought legally -- >> right. jenna: we're not so clear about the ownership of the long guns, but we're also hearing california has extremely strict gun laws. tell us about how this all comes together. >> the guns that were used were semiautomatic rifles which are perfectly legal in the state of california. in other words, every time you press the trigger, it fires one round. what is -- and usually ten rounds in a clip. jenna: that's part of the law. >> right.

what is illegal is to turn them into assault weapons which continue to fire when the trigger is depressed, and they have more than ten bullets in the magazine, that's a high-capacity clip. as you know, that's illegal in the state of california. jenna: so turning it into a fully automatic weapon. >> exact -- an assault rifle is what they generally call it but, yes, fully automatic weapon. here's the thing, manufacturers are allowed to build them that way with what's called a bullet button. that is to say you take the tip of a button, you press -- of a bullet, you press a button, and it turns your semiautomatic, legal weapon into an illegal assault weapon. and, apparently, that's what happened here except it failed when the killers tried to do it. jenna: so you're saying they had to alter the weapons -- >> that's right. jenna: -- in a way that would make them illegal? >> that's right. jenna: so that's something else to watch. talk to us a little bit about

with the weapons they had. we're talking about the sales of those weapons and what was legal and what was not. what do we know about this other person who bought the rifles and how they somehow be wound up -- somehow wound up in the hands of these alleged terrorists at this point? >> the latest information we have is that law enforcement is searching for this other individual, but they're saying that it was bought legally. now, what his role was in the high capacity clips which, as we mentioned are illegal, we don't know. more than a thousand rounds of ammunition, which is an astonishing -- there was a whole complex of weaponry, allegedly, inside the garage. jenna: and just so we're clear, when we say "legal," gregg, we don't necessarily mean these weapons are easy to get. i think people think you can just walk into a gun shop and get the weapons. that's not the case anywhere in the country. you have to go through a series of steps to actually on obtain a legal weapon. >> that's right. and it's interesting that law

enforcement is saying they were obtained legally, that is to say through a licensed gun dealer who did a background check to make sure these are not convicted felons, that they're not suspected terrorists, that they're not people out to do harm. there's a 10-day waiting period. but, again, even though killers bought the handguns legally through a licensed dealer, we don't know the individual who bought what turned out to be the almost assault weapons. jenna: okay. final question a lot of our viewers have been asking a little bit on a different topic. we've seen the pictures of syed all over the news, we've yet to see his wife. is there a legal reason why we're not seeing the picture of the woman in this? is there because there's no photo? why do we not see her face? >> you know, it's a complete mystery. my wife asked me about it today. jenna: absolutely. we want to know what she looks like. >> and there is -- to answer the question, there is no legal reason why her face cannot be shown. she's of age, she was residing in the united states.

she is alleged to have committed a hour oren douse -- a horrendous crime along with her husband. there's no legal reason. my guess is eventually her picture will emerge. now, is law enforcement keeping it under wraps for a particular reason because they're looking for a trail that may lead them somewhere, i can't answer that question. jenna: is it a possibility? as a lawyer, would you see that as a possibility? >> you know, i've seen everything in law enforcement. you know, all kinds of different maneuvers. as you know, the supreme court has said it's perfectly legal for law enforcement to use deception and lies in the search for the truth. who knows what's going on here. jenna: we have a lot of questions, that's for sure. gregg, thank you. great to see you, as always. just a little while ago i spoke to sheriff across the country in upstate new york because there's so much reaction, of course, to this national story. this sheriff is now asking all licensed handgun owners in his

county to remember to bring their weapons with them wherever they go. we're going to have that conversation a little later in the show, and you don't want to miss it. jon? jon: well, as the investigation intensifies, we are learning much more about the san bernardino shooters. details on some of the things authorities said syed farook was up to in the weeks leading up to the deadly massacre. plus, remember the infamous affluenza defense? it kept one texas teen out of jail, but now two years later that's where he might end up after all. jeb bush: here's the truth you will not hear

from our president: we are at war with radical islamic terrorism. it is the struggle that will determine the fate of the free world. the united states should not delay in leading a global coalition to take out isis with overwhelming force. their aim is our total destruction. we can't withdraw from this threat or negotiate with it. we have but one choice: to defeat it. vo: right to rise usa is responsible for the content of this message.

jenna: one sheriff in upstate new york is taking a strong stance in response to the san bernardino shooting. the sheriff is taking to facebook telling all private citizens in his county if you're licensed to carry a firearm, feel comfortable carrying one, please feel free to do so. here's what the sheriff had to say when i asked him why. >> the start of the facebook post, what's happened around the united states and around the country, i could not help but think if there was somebody armed in one of these crowds that maybe the scenarios would have turned out different. so i thought i would reach out to licensed handgun owners here in ulster county. jenna: what's the response of the community so far? >> i would say so far on our facebook page and the e-mails that i'm getting personally, it's all positive. not all positive, majority of

it's positive. although there are quite a few also negative responses. jenna: you're from this area that you've served for nearly 40 years. tell us a little bit about who you think will be carrying weapons. >> well, we know who carries weapons here. we process all the pistol permits here. you know, i'm extremely confident of the pistol permit hold tokers here in ulster county. we don't have any problems or have had very few problems with anybody that is a legal, licensed handgun carrier. jenna: is part of your motivation to put out this message to anyone bad who could try to do wrong in your community as a warning that people could be armed? >> well, that wasn't my goal, although i'm sure they could probably take it that way. i'm not looking for a fight, just really wanted to remind our hand gun, licensed handgun owners that if you're proficient with it and you're responsible, and, you know, you should be out there. law enforcement and the

community are partners in crime preseven, and -- prevention, and i can use all the help i can get. i'm not trying to form a posse. jenna: that's an interesting point, because there are those that say, listen, more guns on the street even by law-abiding citizens could lead to more violence. that's one theory of one particular group. why do you think this could be part of the solution for your community to keep it safe? >> well, i don't -- i think it's part of an overall solution maybe to keep it safe. if something like happened in california or happened in colorado happens here in ulster county, i'd be glad if there was somebody in the audience that had a license to carry and maybe could put a stop to it or at least make it so it's not as bad turnout. jenna: how do you balance warning, also encouraging the community and not scaring the community? >> i've gotten some e-mails telling, people telling me now they're scared where they weren't before. well, then i think, without

being rude, that they're naive. there's people out there carrying guns. we have 10,000 permits out there on the street here in the county, so there's a lot of people that are already carrying their weapons. jenna: i was noticing in a few write-ups -- and i know you just put up the facebook post -- but you've been referred to as a democrat. and in situations like this, you know as well as anybody that all the political parties sort of jump to their corners. what would you say to fellow democrats that are saying we need less guns, more gun control in light of what happened in california? >> well, i'm a registered democrat, for sure, but, you know, you have to respect my opinion. just because you're a democrat doesn't mean you march down the aisle to every democratic ideal. i don't do that. i was also endorsed by all the other political parties here when i ran for my third term last year. so i'm hoping that, you know, as i respect their opinions on the issue, that they'll respect mine. jenna: you gave us lots to think about. it sounds like you value right to bear arms. >> i do. i'm not telling anybody to go

out and get arms, but if you've gone through the process, i'm encouraging you to tab carry -- to carry it. if you're comfortable. i'm not telling anybody that doesn't want to, it's a personal decision. jenna: well, it certainly got our attention, sheriff, and it sounds like a man of your expertise, almost 40 years in the county in which you grew up, we really appreciate the time today. thank you so much. >> thank you, jenna. have a good day. jenna: i think that's really part of the key of all this. you're talking to a man who's worked in law enforcement for four decades, so you're not just talking to somebody who, you know, is just an elected official who has certain motivations, whether they may be. he's worked in that community, he's done a ton of different parts of law enforcement, and this is what he's saying, if you have un, feel comfortable, make sure you have it on you. jon: people who have concealed-carry permits have generally demonstrated they are upstanding, reputable people and have the ability to use their weapons. jenna: it is interesting to note though after all that's happened, and we've had a

really, you know, incredible year here in this country, that after one specifically, this is when the sheriff decided let me just remind my citizens in this county to carry if they can. jon: good for him. jenna: we'll check in with him. jon: we are learning federal investigators now belief syed farook's wife pledged allegiance to isis using a facebook alias as it looks increasingly likely the deadly rampage was, in fact, terrorism. fox is also now told that the alleged suspects attempted to mask their communications by damaging personal electronic devices. an intelligence official says syed farook had been in contact with known islamic extremists on social media. authorities also say he had a heated conversation about islam two weeks ago with a coworker who was killed on wednesday. joining us now is jeff lanza, a retired fbi special agent. jeff, we are told that these two

had been on the fbi radar because of some contacts they had made, but the investigation basically went nowhere, didn't seem to amount to anything, and the fbi kind of dropped the investigation. obviously, the methodology is going to be looked at again after what's happened here? >> it'll be interesting to see what the actual allegations were that put them on the fbi's radar screen and how that all transpired. a lot of people get on the fbi's radar screen, and a lot of times resources are expended to check those individuals out for sometimes extended periods of time. and then there's no other evidence that's developed that would lead the fbi to believe they're a danger. i'm talking in a very general sense here, not about these two individuals. and then they drop off the radar screen because other people come on, and those resources have to be used in other areas. jon: are there looking at this

case and what we know about it now, are there mistakes that were made anywhere that you can point to? one i can think of is just that a neighbor was suspicious about all of the deliveries that came to them, all of the activity late nights in their garage but didn't want to be accused of profiling, and so apparently didn't say anything. along those lines, anything else that you can see? >> i don't think there's any evidence right now or any reports of mistakes made by anyone in a law enforcement sense. i mean, that could turn up at a later point in time upon review. certainly, a neighbor who saw suspicious activity, you'd think that they might report that activity. but, again, a lot of people are hesitant to report those type of things because they don't want to get someone in trouble or don't want to report something that may not even be a crime. we do have that reluctance factor that plays into these type of things. jon: this is going to be the fbi's biggest priority, isn't it?

trying to stop this kind of terrorism here at home? >> absolutely. so all the fbi agents in that area of southern california, if they can stop what they're doing, they will stop what they're doing and be working on this case for the very foreseeable future, because they have to figure out not only what happened here, but if there was inspiration from a terrorist organization, then what was that inspiration only or direction? if there was direction from a terrorist organization, then who else might they be directing? the idea now is, yes, we have to investigate this particular case and follow out all the leads and fill in the pieces of the puzzle, but we also have to figure out if there's groups that are directing others to do the exact same thing that happened this week in san bernardino. jon: fox news has confirmed now that the wife pledged allegiance to al-baghdadi, the leader of isis. now, hasn't isis basically said we want you to go out and commit mayhem any way you can? that doesn't take a lot of

direction for a couple like this to go out and kill as many people as they did. >> well, that's right. well, that's the nexus. that certainly is a nexus to terrorism. and the only thing that has to be really specifically determined besides that overall direction in the general sense is did they get training. i mean, did they get help in acquiring all this, all this material, the long guns, for instance, that you've been talking about? and then the training and making of the bombs. so what role did that all play in the preparation for this event is an important part of the investigation as well. jon: yeah. perhaps some of the only good news is that those dozen bombs that they were working on in their garage apparently never were employed. jeff lanza, formerly with the fbi, thank you. >> you're welcome. jenna: well, various media outlets were quick to lay blame in the wake of the massacre in san bernardino. we're going to debate some of those responses as well as the journalists' responsibility to share information with the public and what information the

journalists get. @oyu0x?hy@x@p

jon: while federal officials have so far been reluctant to categorize the shooting in san bernardino, some media outlets not holding back whatsoever. the newsstand here in new york city, for example, had the post blaming islamic terror. and another pointing a finger at republicans and the nra. judith miller joining us now and lynn sweet, washington bureau chief for the "chicago sun-times." little late for the morning headlines, lynn, but fox be has confirmed -- fox has confirmed that the wife in this massacre had been in touch with and had pledged allegiance to the leader of isis. doesn't that make this islamic terrorism? >> well, let me cite fox news analyst frances townsend who was on a little less than two hours ago who said that for government officials as opposed to journalists and just other

people term "terrorist" has a legal, has a definition to it. and because some of this, and because this massacre occurred on the shooter's workplace, it creates another factor. i think this time you will have -- in time you will have the wording that correctly describes it, so i would withhold judgment that anyone's trying to hold back anything. but i take to heart what fran access townsend, who is an expert on this said, in explaining why there is reluctance to put the official government label yet, although certainly we know where one is going. jon: all right. judy, is there, i don't know, is there justification for that kind of reluctance on the part of the government? >> using the term "terrorism" which implies a political motive and agenda. but for journalists we are free to conclude anything we wish as

the daily news did when it blamed the people who were refusing to pass gun legislation for the outrage and as the post did in blaming a muslim terrorist. jon: the republicans are generally saying that the democrats are trying to steer this into a discussion about guns and gun laws when it really should be about terrorism and the motivations of people who would carry out such an act. lynn, what do you think about that? >> well, i think that i was at the republican jewish coalition yesterday and, certainly, some of candidates said this was a terrorist act. you know, we're a big society. i think we absorb both, discussion about guns and the accessibility in society, but of course why this horrible act occurred, who these people were, who -- the wife from pakistan and her, as reports are coming

out now, her pledging allegiance to isis. we're big, you know, this is a big story, and the ability to have two storylines, in a sense, i think are there. politically, yes, that is true that the democrats in congress have continued to have a drum beat for more gun curbs, and every time there's a horrific massacre, it does resurrect a cry from the white house down for more measures. jon: couple of more questions for each of you, but the computer is about to take us to a break. we'll give you a minute to -- well, we'll be back in just a minute with more thoughts on this. sure, tv has evolved over the years.

it's gotten squarer. brighter. bigger. thinner. even curvier. but what's next? for all binge watchers. movie geeks. sports freaks. x1 from xfinity will change the way you experience tv. ♪ ♪ jon: back once again talking media coverage of san bernardino with judith miller, author and

fox news contributor, lynn sweet, washington bureau chief for the "chicago sun-times." new york daily news sort of lumps wayne lapierre, the head of the nra, in with the terrorists, describing him as equally culpable for the nra's sick gun jihad against america in the name of profit. is that really accurate and at a time when we've seen this kind of carnage in san bernardino, judy, pop pointing at the -- to be pointing at the head of the nra as culpable? >> look, it's their opinion. the daily news is a tabloid. i think people are absolutely outraged by the role of guns not just in this shooting, jon, but in the fact -- as "the new york times" reported this week -- that there is a mass shooting every day in this country and that guns do play a role. as someone who's covered

terrorism for 25 years now, i can tell you it is just really much harder to stab 14 people to death in a minute than it is to take out a weapon and shoot them. and that's what people are reacting to. that's what the tailly news was saying. -- daily news was saying. i don't think they were equating wayne lapierre with the terrorists, but the question of whether we're going to begin to enforce the laws we have on the books restricting guns is an appropriate one. jon: does this change the argument, lynn, about nra -- i'm sorry, msa surveillance, for instance? -- nsa surveillance, for instance? >> well, this is going to raise questions about what did we know about this couple, when did we know it, why did we lose track of them? i saw some preliminary reports that said they were on a radar. so this is an unfolding story and, yes, that will raise questions about, you know, about whether or not the surveillance was good and whether or not it

was followed up on appropriately in this tragic massacre. jon: all right. we're going to have to leave it there. lynn sweet, judy miller, thank you. jenna: this is an important part of the story, the weapons, obviously, being used in the terror attack that we now believe happened in san bernardino. law enforcement won't go on the record and say it at this point, but here we have the new reporting at fox news that there's the connection, direct connection to isis especially with the female suspect in this. so we're going to move ahead using that and what we know. the guns that were modified are very key to all of this, and it seems that some of the information we had on earlier in the show isn't correct, and we want to make sure that we talk about the modification of those guns in the correct way, so we're going to be talking about that next hour on "happening now." in addition, we want to get to some other news as well. french president hollande is visiting the french aircraft carrier being used to conduct airstrikes against isis. the latest on the recovery and resilience of paris three weeks after the deadly attack -- we

don't want to forget about that. plus, new report that is the female san bernardino shooter pledged allegiance to isis. we'll have the very latest, next. aren't they all the same? you know, i had to see for myself. so i went pro. with crest pro-health advanced. advance to a healthier, stronger, cleaner mouth from day 1. this toothpaste... ...and mouthwash make my whole mouth feel amazing. and my teeth stronger. crest pro-health advanced is superior in these 5 areas dentists check. this is gonna go well, for sure. advance to a healthier stronger, cleaner mouth from day 1. great check up. my sister was right. some of these experimentse're notmay not work.il. but a few might shape the future. . . . . as the average car today. ideas exxonmobil scientists are working on

to make energy go further... ...no matter how many tries it takes. energy lives here. or the freedom to choose what doctor you want to see. so if you have medicare parts a and b, consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, these let you choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. you're not stuck in a network, because there aren't any. plus, these plans help cover some of the part b medical expenses medicare doesn't pay. so why wait? call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. like all medicare supplement plans, you'll be able to stay with the doctor or specialist you trust, or look for someone new - as long as they accept medicare patients. but unlike other plans, these are the only ones of their kind endorsed by aarp. rates are competitive. so call today.

and learn more about choosing the doctor's you'd like to see. go long.

>> we'll be back in an hour. jenna: "outnumbered" starts right now. andrea: this is fox news alert. new chilling details behind the couple in the chilling shooting rampage in san bernardino. investigators believe that the wife pledged allegiance to isis online. and the couple had a ability to launch more attacks. they also believe tashfeen mall look may have radicalized her husband before they turned an office christmas party into a massacre. i'm andrea tantaros. here with us today, host of "kennedy" on fox fox business network, kennedy. host of "after the bell," melissa francis.