point man for the administration on the president's controversial temporary travel ban. that should begin in less than 10 minutes, and he has ex-military, so he will probably be on time. >> we will be back here after an hour of "outnumbered" ." >> harris: we will begin without fox news alert, we are waiting homeland security secretary john kelly to hold a news conference beginning any moment now on the implementation of president trump's new executive order on immigration. and new developments in the controversy over it. president trump fire the acting attorney general, sally yates last night, just hours after she had defied the commander-in-chief by refusing to defend his mandate to block people and seven muslim-majority countries from entering america. the president replaced yates with another acting attorney general, that is because his pick for the job, senator jeff sessions, is yet to be confirmed. so dana boente, u.s. attorney

will take over in the interim. he said he will defend that immigration order. this is "outnumbered," i'm harris faulkner. here today is sandra smith, meghan mccain, former national security staff member under president bush and obama right on time today, gillian turner, and today's #oneluckyguy, fox news political analyst, juan williams is outnumbered, good to have you. >> juan: nice to be here on a snowy new york day. >> harris: there is no such thing as a slow news day anymore. it just cooks like popcorn. >> i can't wait to hear what you have to say, one williams. >> juan: it wasn't even like slow news tonight. >> harris: let's get to the news, president trump moved swiftly after acting attorney general sally yates, and obama administration holdover, said publicly she would not enforce as immigration order. in announcing her replace him, the white house stated that the acting attorney general has the betrayed the deferment of justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the united states. ms. yates is an obama admits

ration appointee who is weak on border and very weak on illegal immigration, it is time to get serious about protecting our country. all right, as i'm saying this, the news is breaking, let's get the homeland security secretary, john kelly, on this very topic. watch. >> i'd like to clarify that the most-recent executive order what it does and does not mean. this is not a travel ban, this is a temporary clause that allows us to better review the existing refugee and visa vetting system. over the next 30 days we will analyze and assess the strength and the weaknesses of our current immigration system, which is the most generous in the world. we will then provide our foreign partners with 60 days to cooperate with our national security requirements. this way we can ensure the system is doing what it is designed to do, which is protect the american people. this analysis is long overdue and strongly supported by the departments career intelligence officials. acting under secretary for dhs

intelligence and analysis, david, will speak to that in more detail shortly. furthermore, this is not, i repeat, not a ban on muslims. the homeland security mission is to safeguard the american people. our homeland, our values and religious liberty, it is one of our most fundamental and treasured values. it is important to understand that there are terrorists and other bad actors who are seeking to infiltrate our homeland every single day. the seven countries named in the executive order are those designated by congress and the obama administration as requiring additional security when making decisions about who comes into our homeland. as my predecessor, secretary like to state, it is easy to play defense on the 50-yard line then it is on the 1 yard line. by preventing terrorists from entering our country, we can stop terror attacks from striking the homeland. we cannot gamble with american

lives. i will not gamble with american lives. these orders are a matter of national security, and it is my sworn responsibility as secretary of homeland security to protect and defend the american people. and i have directed departmental leadership to implement the president's executive orders professionally, humanely, and in accordance with the law. since the court order related to the executive orders were issued over the weekend, we immediately began taking steps that customs and border protection immediately began taking steps to be in compliance. we are and will remain in compliance with judicial orders. we have also been working with our partners at the department of defense, justice, and state. we are committed to ensuring that all individuals affected by the executive orders, including those affected by the court orders, are being provided all rights afforded under our laws. we are and will continue to enforce president trump's executive orders humanely and with professionalism. our job is to protect the

homeland, these executive orders help do that. i'm happy to have my colleague answer any questions, clarify any positions, that may be confusion. we have with us today active commissioner of cbp, active commissioner of ice, and my department intelligence chief. with that -- >> good afternoon, kevin from cbp. i'm here to talk about the ample mentation of the executive order. upon receipt of the executive order, cbp took immediate actions to implement the key provisions, calling for suspending entry for 90 days to non-native-immigrant visa holders and immigrant visa holders from the seven affected countries prayed we routinely make changes in our systems and our policies for immigration entry at our border, and reacted quickly on friday evening to make the changes with his executive order.

first, we made changes in our system to identify those passport holders and visa holders from the affected countries. we had a call with our field leadership, our director of field operations, to inform them of the executive order and the actions they needed to take. we issued written guidance to our field. we had calls with stakeholders, these are air carriers and airports starting just a few hours after receiving the order so that they would understand how to operate. we also overnight on friday and saturday worked through a process to be able to waive travelers that were in transit or had sensitive cases that should be considered for a waiver or in national interest as the executive order calls for periods to put this in context, in the first 72 hours of the order, 1 million travelers came through our borders by air. out of those travelers, 500,000 of them were foreign nationals. the people affected by this order, we denied boarding to 721 travelers that had visas from the affected countries, but we

actually processed for waivers 1,060 lawful permanent residents of the united states, as well as an additional 75 waivers granted to immigrant visa and nonimmigrant visa holders. to make sure everybody understands how the process is working today, lawful permanent residence and special immigrant visa holders are allowed to board their flight and will be processed for a waiver on arrival. we will and have done that over a thousand times so far in this three days of the implementatio implementation. secondly, immigrant visa holders and nonimmigrant visa holders that are covered, they will be denied boarding before they board their aircraft and will be referred to the department of state for further process. another question that has come up is whether dual nationals are treated differently. travelers will be assessed at our border based on the passport they present. not any dual national status. so if you are a citizen of the united kingdom, you present your united kingdom passport, and the executive order does not apply

to you upon arrival. i also want to talk a little bit about refugees. the executive order calls for refugees that were ready to travel where it would cause undue hardship, that they should be considered for waivers, we have done that in concert with our department of state colleagues, 872 refugees will be arriving this week. and will be processing them for ravers through the end of the week, and that is fully coordinated. as second kelly noted, we are responding immediately to any court orders, we did so quickly on friday night with the eastern district of new york order, and those parties that were affected by that order were processed for a waiver and admitted into the united states. lastly, i just want to tell you that the increased communication and provided additional information to travelers, we are updating on our web site and it will be there as you login. a statement about the ample mentation, frequently asked questions giving information to travels, the public, and other stakeholders. as well as a link for specific

questions affecting individual travelers in a phone number to call. all of that will be on our web site. thank you. >> good morning, i'm thomas homan, the acting director for i.c.e. i can tell he was a great honor to be contacted and step up. my plans to retire were put on hold, and i did so because i chose to serve my country once again. for those who don't know me, i have been in immigration enforcement business for 33 years, i started on the front lines and in the office of investigations homeland security investigations for over 20 years and climbed the ranks there. now i'm on enforcement operations on the back end, i certainly know the immigration life cycle and how to enforce immigration law. i chose to come back and act in this capacity because of my concern for the communities in the safety of our communities.

you know, folks, there are jurisdictions across the country where aliens are rusted, criminal aliens convicted of serious crimes that walk out of these jurisdictions without any cooperation with i.c.e., so they are back in the community. and that causes my officers to once again go out in the community, knock on the door, arrest somebody they should have arrested in county jail. so i'm here to execute a mission within a framework provided me that framework has changed under the executive orders of president trump, and the men and women of i.c.e. will execute them perfectly, and we are here to serve as an organization. thank you very much. >> thank you, i'm dave, acting under secretary for intelligence. i just want to echo secretary kelly's remarks, national security in the united states is the utmost priority. this is the fundamental responsibility of our government to protect the national homeland from nefarious actors trying to come inbound into the united states.

what this is is an action for us to take a temporary pause and take a look at how we collect intelligence and how we run that against databases to identify those nefarious actors. i'm taking a look how law enforcement, the intelligence community, the department of defense, our federal, state, local law enforcement organizations share information and how we run those data not just against refugee populations, but anybody trying to come inbound. to identify the sophisticated networks that are trying potentially to come inbound. we are trying to break down those barriers to share information, to continue our automated screening processes and vetting process, to make sure that once again, to identify those nefarious actors, nefarious networks, that are outside of the united states that may potentially be trying to threaten the united states. so again this is a pause to take a look at how we collect data and how we exploited against national security threats. thank you.

>> two quick questions. first, to the acting i.c.e. director, is i.c.e. planning to grow in attention space for people at the border and extending the time in which they are held? and also on cbp, with the image that you've about the order to hold 72 hours, wouldn't it be easier if you had any guidance before this order came out, could confusion have been avoided? speak on the first question, yes. we've got to secure our borders. for those of us, we need to detain those people arrested in the u.s., so we are in the process of identifying additional detention capacity. as far as increasing the length of stay, we look to do just the opposite, we would like to keep them in custody as little as possible, make sure they are getting due process, and once i

get that order from the judge, execute that order. >> before you step up let me frame it a little bit. we did know the executive order was coming. we had people involved in the general drafting of it clearly this whole approach was part of what then-candidate trump talked about for a year or two, so we knew all of it was coming prayed as i said we had high-level government lawyers from across agency to include homeland security that were involved in the drafting of it. so we knew it was coming, it wasn't a surprise it was coming. and then we implemented it. so, go ahead, kevin. >> our job at the operational level is to take guidance whether it is statute, whether it's executive order, or direction from the secretary, or in some cases emerging threat and respond as quickly and effectively as possible. so we go through that process. the system changes, to mitigation in the field, communication with stakeholders.

in this case we had court orders come in right when we are implementing the operational plan, so we had to adjust our efforts a little bit. but we worked quickly to implement and i think the process is really smoothed out. and just to clarify, the initial communications weren't within 72 hours, they were within two hours of the executive order being received. >> two questions, whoever wants to take them, there are several lawmakers and groups that are saying that some order patrol agents ignored court orders and handcuff passengers and try to do detain some of them. are you looking into these reports and can you reassure people that agents are following these orders. the second question, the president has called the executive order extreme vetting. can you explain what is exactly involved in extreme vetting, which is over and beyond what has happened question might >> the first thing i would say without question, no member of the homeland security team ignored a court order. nor would they ignore a court

order. i've heard these reports, i've asked people to include numbers of congress who have called me about them and asked them if they could run down some information for me, and of course, we don't have any information. but we would not ignore a court order. okay, the second, and i will let you, extreme vetting we are looking at various options right now. led by homeland security, there are many countries, seven that we are dealing with right now, that in our view and my view don't have the kind of law enforcement, records keeping, that kind of thing, that can convince us that one of their citizens is, indeed, who that citizen says they are and what their background might be. so there are various additional things we are considering. on the other end, when someone comes in and asks for

consideration to get a visa, it might be certainly an accounting of what web sites they visit. it might be telephone contact information, so that we can see who they are talking to. but again, all of this is under development. but those are the kind of things we are looking at. social media. we have to be convinced that people that come here, there's a reasonable expectation that we don't know who they are and what they're coming here for and what their backgrounds are. and right now there are a number of countries on the planet that don't have that kind of records keeping police work, that kind of thing, and the seven in question right now for the most part fall under that category. so we are developing what additional vetting, extreme vetting, might look like and we will certainly work with countries on this. kevin, do you want question my >> i would just add to the secretary's comment, specifically we had a legal team as part of our operational

action team in place friday night. as soon as the court order was received. they advised us on the implications, we put a complete hold on anyone being removed in connection with the executive order. we then processed to those folks for waivers and release them into the united states. >> two questions, the first one just to clarify what you said, that you knew the executive order was coming and you knew it was going to be signed on friday, because there were reports the first time you found out about it was when you are on a plane and you are upset about it. so you knew it was coming? >> as i said, we knew it was coming from like two years agowo run from president. certainly didn't learn about it on an airplane. again, we knew it was coming, knew it was signed friday morning. i took a trip down to miami for a couple of different reasons, one of which was to visit the people on the front lines of this whole effort, and that is the folks at the miami airport tsa, border patrol, those kind

of people. had some time, as you probably all know, i came from before i retired, 39 months in southern command, went there and talk to the admiral and engage with him about the partnership that frankly is very strong between homeland security and self calm. i'm very proud to say that that developed very close between myself when i was in command at my very, very good friend, jake johnson, and we want to continue that. but no, i didn't learn about it on an airplane. >> how much guidance were you able to give, specifically when it comes to green card holders or people of visas and those i work with the u.s. military? because i think a lot of the problems that were encountered could have been easily foreseeable. >> from our perspective, again, people like me our expected and not just because of my military background, we are the department, the implementers of the policy.

developed by the white house, approved by the president, in collaboration, and then sent down to the departments for execution and in this case homeland security. the executive order to me, this was more or less a collaborative process. it was fairly clear. again, when i came down i think i was in my sixth day on the job, but i relied on people like the ones that are standing up here in the hundreds back at the headquarters to say okay, we've got a bus, this looks good to us and we are off to the races. really i kept being asked about chaos at the ports of entry. and as i said too many, many members of congress in individual phone calls, our officers who were at the counters, so to speak, the only chaos they saw was what was taking place in other parts of the airport. they knew what they were doing as immigrants, not immigrants, but as foreign nationals presented themselves, they knew what to do with it, and that is

to say the only, i guess, we had to step back and redress a little bit, based on the court order that we immediately implemented. so, no, i knew this was underdevelopment, and i think we're in pretty good shape and how it was implemented by the workforce. >> the white house has said repeatedly that 109 people were inconvenienced by this. the number that you gave for getting waivers is like ten times that. can you explain the discrepancy there between 109 and then the number of people that you just gave who were not let on planes, eventually given waivers? >> i think the 109 certainly was, i'm recollecting a phone call. the 109 i think was very early on. that was the first day of the thing. that evening. and of course over time that

number would increase. but go ahead if you have anything else. >> just a follow-up, can you expand why the white house didn't have a current number question mike they were saying 109 yesterday. >> as kevin would probably outline, the records keeping we do is based on yesterday. so, kevin, acting commissioner, can give you some very good numbers yesterday. but in order to get the numbers today, we have to wait until tomorrow, that is just the way they collect the information. obviously it is an ongoing period of comings and goings. that is why they do it that way. >> the secretary is absolutely correct, i understand the white house was referring to the initial hours in the folks that were in transit to the u.s. when the executive order came about. that was a much smaller number that were affected who had landed in the u.s. and were being addressed and some of them were subject to that court order. so i think that is the difference in the numbers, and we are going to keep updating the numbers on our web site so you have the accurate, current

information as of a validated number from roughly about 20 hours before of the time we post. >> did homeland security have a specific operational plan in place prior to the executive order being signed? and then secondarily, when did you learn specifically that president trump was signing the order? >> i guess i go back to, i knew he was going to sign an order about a year and a half or two years before he became the president-elect. from day one in terms of the inauguration, finishing touches, i would have to put it that way, were being put on the executive order. as we say, the high-level folks in the government, attorneys as well, were part of that. people on my staff are generally involved. i guess probably wednesday, i think, tuesday or wednesday, that it would probably be during the week that it would be signed

out. as you can imagine, copies go back and forth and our tweaks right up until the last minute or adjusted right up until the last-minute. i think probably thursday we found out it was going to be signed to the day. certainly if you really want to know what was in the executive order, just read the newspaper the day before and you would find out. so it was done in that way, and of course kevin and his team, the whole team, knows it's coming, knows certainly the president-elect and what direction the executive order, the draft executive order was outlining, so people like kevin, i don't know nearly as much about this as he does in terms of how you actually execute right down at the counter level, at the airports, but he was leaning forward on that. so when it was signed we executed that. as kevin, i think you would agree, the only adjustment that had to be made was when the court order came out of, and of course we reacted as fast as we

could. >> would you explain a little bit about the impression of confusion. we heard from some of the airlines that they felt they were getting contradictory guidance. especially with regard to whether or not people who were legal permanent residents would be allowed to board aircraft and where they will get the secondary screening that people started talking about. perhaps you could explain a little bit about that level of confusion and why that develope developed? >> so, under the executive order section three, there is a provision for granting of waivers when it's in the national interest. so lawful permanent residents are technically covered in the executive order as immigrant visa holders. we've worked quickly with counsel to devise a waiver process. the secretary had given guidance that a returning resident, their status is dispositive that it's in the national interest to welcome them home. so what we got that guidance, we were able to delegate the

authority to grant a waiver out to the field and were able to clarify with the carriers that these folks were allowed to board. >> that happened like sunday. >> it unfolded over a matter of hours friday night into saturday afternoon. >> i'm a little bit confused, and i don't want to beat a dead horse, but you talk about a year and a half, two years ago, we published where the ap published it several days in advance with details of the draft. that doesn't preclude you not knowing what was in it. did you know the details of what was in the order outside of the open sourced media, who exactly in the department of homeland security was involved, you can't provide names, that the landing team from the transition, from the trump administration or was it career staff involved from the department of homeland security prior to this announcement? >> i did know it was under development. i had an opportunity to look at

at least two, as i recollect, drafts as it got closer to friday. again, i don't exactly know other than my legal shop, representatives were involved. i would imagine some on the landing team, i would imagine some of them -- but the point is, it came to the department, it was on a close hold basis, meaning we didn't is riveted to everyone in the department, only those people who needed it, my self included, my chief, the lawyers, so it was was a back-and-forth process. i did talk to representative in the white house. certainly early in the week. about where it was going, how it was being developed. i commented that i had seen some of the initial drafts. pretty busy week, i didn't get involved in correcting grammar or reformatting the thing.

so i don't know if that answers your question. >> what was the draft that you saw were they from the white house or were they from the associated press? >> no, they were from the media. although i will give you credit, you had it, but no, they were just the drafts that were coming back and forth within the interagency. >> a little clarification pleas please. you had no personal input or any sort of advanced working with making the drafts? in other words, the draft is made, it's presented to you, and then? >> presented to me. this is a staff process primarily. so the policy gurus in the white house are working with the interagency people. not a large number, i wouldn't expect, of interagency people. i saw the draft. because it is still in staffing

and the people who worked in and around we were saying, we've got it, boss, this is kind of what we expected it to be. i did not look at it from the perspective of, as i say, correcting the grandma or saying, we need to change these words or do this thing. people that know the immigration process better than i do right now, and that includes people around the interagency, were the ones that did the staff work and ultimately the president signed it did then, as you know in our government, that is now passed down to the relevant agency, in this case, homeland security, and we execute it. as kevin has indicated, and i certainly would endorse, the people on the front line, border protection, and in this particular case, cbp, did an outstanding job. i think more credit is due because they acted very quickly when the court order came out and throughout all of this, the people that were inconvenienced

for some period of mack of time as they were entering our country were treated in the way they always were treated, dignity and respect. >> two more questions. contents related to the executive order itself and not the timing only please. >> molly needs to get a question. >> you said that no cbp officials violated the orders. but the court order that came out saturday night require that people have access to people who were held. [inaudible question] what is your view on why -- and second, there have been numerous reports of people were held were given copies of different documents on whether they were legal residents, is

that correct, were cbp directed to give copies of that order to people they encountered at airports -- -- [inaudible] >> that is about six questions. >> very quickly, the eastern district of virginia order applied to lpr that were in process at dulles, and as soon as we got it we developed a process to give counsel to those that were being processed at dulles that is offered to every lawful permanent resident that is coming through, and it was implement it immediately. it didn't apply to everyone that was being processed. >> how does that process work? >> we make sure that the arriving permanent residents have a list of legal counsel. again, at this point we are processing for a waiver expeditiously and they are being released, so we are not aware of anyone who has taken the opportunity to call counsel from inside the inspection area, they are departing and welcome home. in terms of the formant issue,

we will look into that. there were some issues with expedited removal that was canceled by the court order, and we quickly moved to change the status in the system and corrected, so if there were any and issues of individuals, i would give them the information on the web site, we are happy to look into it and work with immigration counsel. we briefed the american association of immigration lawyers on the process and are happy to work through it to make any corrections. >> just to be clear -- >> harris: all right, so what we've been watching for the last few minutes as a homeland security secretary, john kelly, and along with members from i.c.e., leadership from there, and also border patrol, talking about when they found out and what they knew and the implementation process of president trump's new immigration executive order. and it got kind of into the weeds, you might describe it that way, because they really wanted a line by line, the reporters in the room let out by reuters, as to when they found out and if there could have been any avoidance of may be some confusion and chaos. what we found out from secretary

kelly was that he was taken by surprise by reports of chaos at airports, because he had known himself through the drafting process of the executive order, so this is some fresh reporting that we are getting. so he had seen the draft of the eo coming past his desk, and so he knew that it was coming and had i guess been tasked his team. i want to go straight to jillian. under two different presidencies served in the capacity of looking at admissions like this, if you are national security, first of all your reaction to the news conference? >> gillian: just to pick up on a thread you touched on, for what it's worth, i didn't really take his comments to mean that he had been seeing the drafts of the el. i think he alluded -- >> harris: that's what he said. >> gillian: he said he was aware, which i think is different. i don't know that drafts were given to him. to the point here when you are bringing in the interagency community, as we call it, the policymaking community, what you're trying to do is get their

buy-n, so you want their feedback. if the administration wasn't soliciting his feedback, that is the problem, and i don't know if they were or they weren't, he did not say they were, he said they were aware that there was a drafting process going on, he did not say he was a part of it. >> harris: maybe it was semantics, he said he was not tasked with looking at the grammar of that executive order, which i guess we'll leave some people by myself that if you are looking close enough to even consider grammar, would you be looking at it? but the broader issue here is, how to avoid that initial confusion at airports. what did you get from that? >> gillian: what i took from this press conference overall is that there is a very clear and harsh lesson here for president trump. personally. because he has not served in a policy position before, that is not to his discredit, it's just a reality. i don't mean that disrespectfully, is what i'm saying. i think that the lesson here for him is that the federal government is not homogenous. it's not going to line up to

support him on his policies. as the president, one of his really important job responsibilities is to be a consensus-builder, and it's to bring people into his policy processes, especially on national security. a lot of talk this week about how the national security council is organized. now we are talking about whether certain departments and agencies were brought into this homeland security process that resulted in the eo. a look like they weren't. >> harris: and we got a new acting director at i.c.e., we saw him as well, thomas homan stepped up, because i changed yesterday as well. during those you had some interesting comments. >> juan: i don't remember what comment i said, but i will say -- >> harris: i wouldn't say you were taken by surprise, but you commented on the fact that secretary kelly might have known two years ago just by watching the campaign. >> juan: that's what he said bread i thought this was an example of almost like humpty dumpty falling off the wall, now all the kings men are trying to put humpty dumpty back together again. they are backfilling, they are

trying to say yeah, i was aware when he was running two years ago that he was thinking about this kind of policy. >> we all wear. >> juan: that is a dodge, that is a clear dodge and spin. so he is as a loyalist to president trump, trying to say make the best case possible for what happened, for the chaos that we saw at the airports. and subsequently, you see people saying well, we were thinking about this, but obviously if they didn't know what to do with green card holders, they didn't know what to do with legal permanent residents, they didn't know how to deal with people who were in transit. there was not the forethought that you would normally associate with a review of the executive order. >> harris: we will move on parade one other nugget that we learned, the question to i.c.e., will you be growing detention space as this goes on for the next 90 inside of that. the answer was yes. so we willover this story as it continues to develop. we are also just hours away from president trump revealing his

supreme court nominee. and some senate democrats were already planning a filibuster, while others say it's smarter not to put up a fight this time. stay close. rodney and his new business.

he teaches lessons to stanley... and that's kind of it right now. but rodney knew just what to do...he got quickbooks. it organizes all his accounts, so he knows where he stands in an instant. ahhh...that's a profit. which gave him the idea to spend a little cash on some brilliant marketing! ha, clever. wow, look at all these new students! way to grow, rodney! know where you stand instantly. visit quickbooks.com. burning, befoof diabetic nerve pain, these feet... kicked off my high school games...

and helped those in need. but i couldn't bear my diabetic nerve pain any longer. so i talked to my doctor and he prescribed lyrica. lyrica may cause serious allergic reactions or suicidal thoughts or actions. tell your doctor right away if you have these, new or worsening depression, or unusual changes in mood or behavior. or swelling, trouble breathing, rash, hives, blisters, muscle pain with fever, tired feeling or blurry vision. common side effects are dizziness, sleepiness, weight gain and swelling of hands, legs, and feet. don't drink alcohol while taking lyrica. don't drive or use machinery until you know how lyrica affects you. those who have had a drug or alcohol problem may be more likely to misuse lyrica. now i have less diabetic nerve pain. ask your doctor about lyrica.

>> a fox news alert, you've been watching us as our, you know that what is making news among other things, but what's popping right now is the news conference at just wrapped up right inside of "outnumbered" a few moments ago with a homeland security secretary, john kelly, members of i.c.e. leadership and also border patrol talking about the implementation of president trump's brand-new immigration executive order. and we now want to get some response back from the couch, meghan i want your thoughts. >> meghan: we were talking about it during the commercial

break, that this rollout to donald trump's base of supporters is the red meat that they crave bread to the muslim ban, his words, he set on the campaign trail, those people love this. that is all well and good, but the chaos of this rollout just from a political standpoint, the optics of it were done very hastily, and i think they are blowing political capital too soon, too quickly, and i understand that the reason why donald trump or a big part of the reason why donald trump got elected was because he is an outsider, he doesn't have anything to do with government and politics, but this is when strategists and people who know about objects and people who know about rolling out legislation, this is when it would come in really handy to have some people with government experience helping them. >> harris: so the travel ban, as it's been called for that executive order, is actually growing and support with members on the hill. remember yesterday was talking about "the washington post" and its whip account which they keep updating, those opposed, and that would be in house and senate, according to their

account, 24 now, that grew by six from yesterday. but here is the number that jumped, those in support who have come out on the record up to 84. >> just going back to the language that you referenced back to as a travel ban and we are running this banner down here, secretary kelly said this is not a travel ban, it's a temporary pause that allows us to better review the existing refugee and visa vetting system. >> that is a great twist of rhetoric, but the question i would shoot back at the secretary is, the president was elected months ago, why didn't you review existing procedures during the transition? why do you now have to halt all refugees coming into the united states? you should have been better prepared. a >> harris: so we are now inside the 90 days for that process, 124 refugees, we will continue to cover the news as this makes. >> sandra: all right, fox news alert, president trump planning to announce his supreme court nominee tonight in prime time. you've been seeing the ticker we are running in the bottom of the screen here, two federal appeals

court judges are seen as the leading candidates, neil gorsuch from denver, and thomas hardiman from pittsburgh. but even before the president named his picks, some democrats are already talking about a filibuster. oregon senator jeff merkley calling on colleagues to block any nominee. that's payback for senate republicans not granting a vote to former president obama's nominee, merrick garland. he said "this is the seed that senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and his team have stolen from president obama. i want to be complicit in this theft." meantime, mcconnell says democrats will use predictable scare tactics, watch. all right, we don't have that, we will get that for you. and now an "kansas city star" op-ed warning that democrats should not risk the g.o.p. using a nuclear option to end the filibuster, saying they should save their powder for the next fight when a possible liberal justice is replaced. juan williams, we were talking before the show, what is going

on, where is this going? >> juan: obviously we live in highly-polarized times, so what you have is a situation where the democrats feel that they were, welcome as you heard senator merkley's language, that they had the opportunity to appoint a supreme court justice stolen from them, and so the question is then, should they respond in to in tit-for-tat fashion and say we are going to stonewall any opportunity for a trump nominee? >> what is the answer? >> juan: the answer, there are two of them. one is the political answer, which is i think yes, they're going to try to stonewall as much as possible, because they feel that no matter who it is, even if it's a mainstream candidate, and i think what we will hear from president trump tonight is that he has nominated someone who is a mainstream, right of center, but mainstream candidate, and not deserving of any kind of filibuster or being stopped because he is portrayed as some extreme candidate. but the second part of that answer is that we as a country, i don't think, were benefited by this kind of behavior that

someone, obvious lee president obama twice was elected, but they no longer can put a candidate up, nominee up, and suspect that that candidate will be treated fairly in terms of needing a hearing. that is dysfunctional. >> meghan: i think if the democrats end up making this a do-or-die fight, i think that's exactly what americans hate. it's exactly why congress has a 12% approval rating. i think they should be very careful with this. i'm talking about political capital on both sides. don't blow this too early, democrats, i keep telling the democratic strategist at come on his couch, pick your battles very wisely, because you just lost a historic election, and if you look like crybabies that can't face reality, it is going to backfire. and ultimately, what do you expect donald trump to nominate? ruth bader ginsburg the second? of course not, he's a conservative politician. so the idea that they're going to somehow come out -- [laughter] it's irrational, the idea that he would put a liberal supreme court nominee up and it

seems like that's the only thing that democrats would be able to accept. >> meanwhile, the countdown clock is on because it is happening tonight in prime time. >> gillian: on the filibuster issue, i would just say that don't underestimate the galvanizing power that something like this weekend's executive order on immigration and refugees will have on the democratic party. they are now not just looking at this as a supreme court nomination issue. they are looking to this as the first sort of rebuttal they are going to have to the events of the weekend. and i think from that perspective, as meghan was talking about the political moves, not a great one. >> harris: what i hear in her lien what you are saying is that democrats are looking for momentum, so when we got word this morning that democrat in michigan, the senator, said that democrats will not participate in today's committee vote on the candidate for treasury secretary, i start to think, are they trying to check some boxes to build momentum? to your point, ntu, meghan,

because i think you agreed, that all this really does is make it more about politics and lust about policy and substance. so if there are things i need to be addressed with the executive order on immigration and if there are somethings that need to be come up with the vetting process, that goes by the wayside as democrats try to check some boxes. it easily could backfire. >> getting back to mitch mcconnell's words, warning that democrats will paint the nominee in apocalyptic terms, it's the same tired playbook. >> juan: the problem is the political problem, because even with the firing of the acting attorney general, all of a sudden you hear this apocalyptic language, this is a "monday night massacre" hearkening back to watergate. i think the key point is that this had not been fully thought out had they fully thought this out, they would have waited for sessions. and they wouldn't have all of this political static that i don't think is to the advantage of the trump administration. >> sandra: the show is getting compressed because of the press

conference, we are awaiting the senate judiciary committee vote on that jeff sessions, this after votes on two other nominees put on hold after democrats boycotted, saying they need more information did the furious reaction from republicans. and whether this is fair play. you don't let anything keep you sidelined. that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you. when i was too busy with the kids to get a repair estimate. i just snapped a photo and got an estimate in 24 hours. my insurance company definitely doesn't have that... you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance

seconds can mean the difference between life and death. for partners in health, time is life. we have 18,000 people around the world. the microsoft cloud helps our entire staff stay connected and work together in real time to help those that need it. the ability to collaborate changes how we work. what we do together changes how we live.

we're opening more xfinity stores closer to you. visit us today and learn how to get the most out of all your services, like xfinity x1. we'll put the power in your hands, so you can see how x1 is changing the way you experience tv with features like voice remote, making it easier and more fun than ever. there's more in store than you imagine. visit an xfinity store today and see for yourself.

xfinity, the future of awesome. i walked in with a bald spot, and that same day, walked out with a full head of hair. just call or go online now to receive your free information kit and dvd at no obligation. you'll hear more about our full range of solutions, including exclusive non-surgical xtrands and xtrands plus. now i look in the mirror and i just can't believe that's me. this is my hair, and it feels great. it feels natural. it's growing. it's strong. i leave my house. i'm not thinking, "oh, how does my hair look? i know it looks good. [ nemeth ] this was me before going to hair club, and this was me by the end of my visit. the moment you see yourself with hair again, you'll wish you'd done it sooner. call and set up your free hair analysis at a hair club near you. ♪ ♪

>> a fox news alert, we are waiting the senate judiciary committee vote on attorney general nominee jeff sessions. meantime, republicans delayed indefinitely to plan senate committee votes on two other nominees who were were supposed to be voted on today. this after democrats boycotted boycotted the sessions, saying they need more information. those nominees, congressman price for health and human services, and steve mnuchin for treasury, republicans and president trump blasting democrats for stall tactics in getting the cabinet in place. this is sort of what we're talking about, stall tactic, why government is so unpopular, what do you make? >> juan: i think they are stalling, i don't need there is any question. but remember, a lot of these nominees have not given the financial information that was requested by the democrats, so the democrats response is, if you give us information, we will

act more quickly. in the absence of the information, they feel they are justified in stalling. but you can only stall for so long before it becomes a political liability. >> meghan: i 100% agree. harris, do you think if they stall for too long that there will end up being protesting in the way that there has been on other issues? the gridlock in d.c. is a big problem. >> harris: i can tell you who is not served and that is the american people. not anybody who is in the constituency from one of these democrats actually voted for the candidate that they voted for, hillary clinton, some voted for trump and some didn't vote at all. many didn't come according to what they say. so your job is to represent them. so my question is, who are you serving? stalling aside, who are you serving? is the stalling going to fit this person clinically? if so, they are snide smiting the nose for the face. so the next time around, people would think why would i vote for you because you didn't represent me last time. >> we will get this in here, just a note coming from our own

fox news anchor, brett barrick saying watch the markets, boycotting a treasury secretary. to his point, we have been watching, down 130 points yesterday after u.s. stocks suffered their worst drop of the year yesterday. markets do seem unsettled. there is a lot of uncertainty. >> juan: come on, there is chaos. >> whoa, i did not say that. >> juan: i said it. i'm just telling you that right now if you are watching the government, you are thinking to yourself, what is going on? you look at the airports over the weekend, you look at the charges, the counter charges, there is a fight going on. >> harris: i want to tap into you, you are my money girl. you've got a lot of foreign countries that are sending their people over here to travel. is this travel ban or the longer version of what the secretary called it today, is not also playing in on the markets? >> sandra: absolutely, remember markets close over the weekend. when you have things that are unsettled or look uncertain, or some who think it's chaotic like juan williams, the average investor looks at that and says

wait, hold on, the markets ran up so far, so fast right after donald trump was elected, that if you are in the market right now you're thinking of i have experienced such big gains, what do i do now? because now you're watching a new administration have to play this out and they are being judged in real time and it's only been a week and a half. but, he noted this, bret baier in his note, economist david smit, author of "the great equalizer" believes that the delay in confirming a treasury secretary is destabilizing these markets, so there are economies that are weighing in saying that this is an issue. >> juan: obviously have treasury secretary play such an important role, but you go back to the relationship with say mexico, and the idea of adding tariffs and potentially trade war, this is not good news for stockholders. >> just as a word to make everyone feel a little better, the idea that even the treasury department is going to fall apart without a treasury secretary or any cabinet, any department or agency is going to

fall apart without a leader, is a little bit overblown, too, in a sense that these organizations, these federal departments and agencies, are well-oiled machines. they are all staffed by some of the smartest folks we have in this country, career civil servants, who know what the policy is, they know what their prerogatives and priorities are, no one is going to die if we don't appoint a treasury secretary. >> sandra: he was simply noting that it could be unsettling. >> i understand, but no reason to have fear. >> meghan: were back in just a moment. hello, i'm an idaho potato farmer

and i finally found our big idaho potato truck. it's been touring the country telling folks about our heart healthy idaho potatoes, america's favorite potatoes, and donating to local charities along the way. but now it's finally back home where it belongs. aw man. hey, wait up. where you goin'? here we go again. my insurance rates are but dad, you've got... ...allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee >> indeed. insurance rates are probably going to double

>> action-packed hour with juan williams along and are one lucky guy, thank you for being here. we're going to pop up on mine, facebook life, now "happening now" ." >> jon: we begin with a fox news alert on another eventful day in washington as we await the white house news briefing, welcome to the second hour of "happening now," i am jon scott. >> heather: i'm heather childers and for jenna lee. very busy day to say the least as we've been telling you, the briefing is scheduled to start any minute now. second sean spicer will probably field some tough questions about the firing of acting attorney general sally yates over the president's immigration orders. she was of course replaced by federal prosecutor dana boente who will serve until the nominee jeff sessions is confirmed. we are also awaiting the president announcement of a supreme court nominee and the battle likely to comeve