stuff. something nice you want to say, something mean. call the number on your screen, 877-225-8587. i would throw the real pigskin but i've broken martha. >> martha: breaking tonight, and just the last hour, house republicans unveiling legislation that if enacted would repeal the central tenets of obamacare. welcome to "the first 100 days," i am shannon bream and for martha maccallum, on this very busy day 46. let's get to capitol hill where this news just broke. hello, mike. >> hi, shannon. the republican health plan will describe much of obamacare. it would offer tax credits to help lower income americans buy coverage. but take a look at the key points. again, it would get rid of much of obamacare's taxes and also a, the mandates requiring you to buy insurance. it would expand health savings accounts and provide a monthly tax credit to people who don't

receive insurance through their employer. it would call for a patient and state stability fund having states more flexibility. supporters say it would responsibly unwind obamacare is medicaid expansion and it would overall strength and medicaid. the two house chairman of the middle of this effort, talked about this plan with bret baier on "the first "special report". >> the replacement of our long-standing republican policies of giving control back to the states and the individuals, as well. >> we've reached out to the states, they have said, please, please come a one-size-fits-all doesn't work for our state. this is why our markets are collapsing. >> some republican critics ahead of the release of the plan were warning it could be obamacare light, suggesting it might be too generous. >> there is a big divide between the conservative camp within the caucus saying, we feel refundable taxt this point with credit. other folks in, wait a minute, this is a way of funding a

health savings account that would be applicable to everybody. >> two key figures for the trump administration our budget director mick mulvaney and dr. tom price. they are having dinner with president trump tonight, as many lawmakers here on capitol hill are getting their first look at the g.o.p. health care proposal. shannon bream >> shannon: a lot to digest. thank you so much. also, breaking tonight, the white house of the center of a growing controversy after president trump accuses his predicates are of spying on him during the 2016 campaign. the explosive allegations coming over the weekend with president trump tweeting, "terrible, just found out that obama had my wires tapped in trump tower just before the victory. nothing found. this is mccarthyism." in moments, we will be joined by louise mudge, whose original reporting from last fall is at the heart of this serious back and forth. first, and chief national correspondent catherine herridge with the latest on what we know. good evening.

>> base in our parting, there was at least one surveillance border for the phone calls and text messages of the russian ambassador because he is an agent of a foreign government. former national security advisor mike flynn's phone calls and text messages were captured on that order. there may have been one at least additional order that was nonspecific to trump tower, conflicting with the presidents. the source at a second surveillance order may have intercepted with the trump team communications and operations. in the intelligence world, that is called incidental collection. meanwhile, a government source tells fox news fbi director james comey is so frustrated about the leaks that he has asked the board to identify who had access to surveillance orders from the secret fisa courts because it is a very small universe of senior government officials. one republican who sits on the house intelligence committee emphasized to fox today that no cooperation between the trump team and russian intelligence has been found and leaking fisa

court information for political purposes is unprecedented. >> if you are talking about fbi investigations and somebody in the obama administration, somebody had access to that, leaking out partial details to make it look more incriminating than it is, that is like an alternative government working against the president. >> this afternoon, the senate minority leader chuck schumer sending this letter to the justice department independent watchdog, calling on them to investigate whether the trump team has interfered or jeopardized to the fbi case. tonight, the house intelligence committee setting march 17th deadline to get all relevant data, including those phone transcripts. >> shannon: catherine herridge live in washington. thank you. joining us now, the journalist was reporting from last year's at the heart of this growing controversy. louise's vice president, creative and strategic division, the executive chairman of news corp.'s rupert murdoch, the chairman of this network. she is also the former editor of

an article that got a lot of attention. reportedly, some of that includes folks at the white house. the headline read, "exclusive come fbi granted fisa warrant covering trump camp's ties to russia." she is here now. we will separate fact from fiction. good to have you. >> thank you for having me. >> shannon: he reported that the fbi went to the fisa court, which is eager to cap and they were not successful but ultimately did get some warrant. expand with that is. >> what i reported that was my source and said i should say that they don't have a piece of paper with it in front of me, but a warrant was granted on the communication between two russian banks and specifically, to the fbi to look out u.s. persons. incidentally caught up in that investigation. i can't say if that is exactly what you're correspondent was reporting just there. it sure does sound the same. >> shannon: that is a legal process. it is when that happens all the time. we know that there have been thousands of these requests granted in the years since the

fisa court has existed. it is so secretive. everything about it, where it is located, what they decide. when people hear that, it sounds sort of corporate but it is legit. >> it is legit. it is a court of the united states. contrary to remark, people can't go around wiretapping people. what was interesting to me, i think many of the other journalists were later cooperated my story, which includes the bbc and the guardian, is that nobody that reported this warrant ever mentioned so much as a wiretap at all. we just reported the warrant that our sources told us existed and we were part of thing. the only people that reported a wiretap at trump tower were breitbart news. nobody else. maybe steve bannon or some of these other acts breitbart staffers have got something to answer to. >> shannon: do think it is that they have more information then you had? or a misunderstanding of what the fisa warrant is? >> it could be a little bit of both. after all, a tweet came out from

the president's own account. i don't know, i don't even know if he himself is making those tweets. but somebody made those tweets under his name and they said that he just found out about a wiretap just before the victory. that's fascinating to me because he never reported it. either the president has a terrific imagination or the president is receiving some solid information that somebody in his team, like your correspondent said, an incidental threat to the election. that is not very good for team trump. >> shannon: original sourcing of reporting came from you, that the bbc, the guardian, also that they had sources for the fisa warrant. the former dni director, james clapper, appeared on the sunday shows yesterday. he said if mike it existed, he would know it. he categorically denied it. what you make of that? >> i don't know if he categorically denied what i reported. he was being asked about the president's accusations.

the president obama had targeted a warrant specifically at him or team trump and at trump tower. there is no such fisa warrant. it will be impossible to get one. indeed, i faithfully reported that a couple of times that director comey went to the court and ask for a warrant that named mr. trump. he was turned down flat. i think you heard dni clapper denying that there was a politically motivated targeted fisa warrant. i haven't reported that to my knowledge, nor has anyone else. >> shannon: my remembrance was that he was asked if there was such an order. is it possible that they dni wouldn't know about it? >> i don't know because they don't -- i try not to. >> shannon: good for journalist. we should stick to what we know. >> such an order, does that mean no fisa warrant of any kind? that will be really hard for a dni to deny or confirm. i think that would be illegal even. i think what he was saying, there was no order of a

politically targeted fisa court warrant that was aiming directly at trump tower. and the political campaign. >> shannon: you are confident in your sources is and what you reported. again, dealing with banks that were communicating with each other. if trump's staffers are campaign officials are people connected to him were caught up in it, that would have been. >> it gave incidental permission for people caught up in a secondary communication, incidental communication, gave permission for the fbi to look at that. they were not the target of grid communications between two russian banks were the target. my sources said. >> shannon: much more to come on this. very interesting. good to see you. we will continue to follow all of the breaking news' out of capitol hill tonight. there's a lot of it. i'm a house g.o.p. plan to repeal and replace obamacare. coming up, we will break down what is in it, what it means for you. plus, new reaction from the former intel chief under obama who denies president trump wiretapping claims. hillary clinton's presidential

campaign manager. plus, president trump signed a new travel ban executive order. at the same time it undoes the one that has been subject to 40 different cases stuck in the courts. what is going to happen now? judge napolitano is here to explain at all. >> it is the president solemn duty to protect the american people. with this order, president trump is exercising his rightful authority to keep our people safe.

>> shannon: brit hume tonight, former director of national intelligence james, clapper did not gain the allegations of the pre-election wiretap after the obama administration official to said that no such surveillance ever occurred. >> i will say that for the part of the national security apparatus that i saw, as dni, there was no such wiretap activity mounted and against the president-elect of the time or as a candidate or his campaign. >> shannon: some are now calling mr. clapper's credibility into question. we turned to trace gallagher. >> hi, shannon. the former national intelligence director doubles on his denial,

saying there was no court order from a foreign intelligence act or pfizer as we know it to wiretap trump tower. james clapper went on to say that if there had been a court order, he would "certainly hope he would be aware of it." he added that while he does believe the russians modeled in the election, he has seen no evidence that the trump campaign colluded with russia. even conservatives who are not defending trump when it comes to these wiretap allegations against the obama administration, are also quick to point out that james clapper has a bit of a credibility problem. namely, his false statements to congress concerning surveillance matters back in 2013. watch. >> does the nsa collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of americans? >> no, sir. >> it does not? >> not wittingly. there are cases where they could

inadvertently, perhaps, collect. but not wittingly. >> classified information later leaked by edward snowden showed at the the nsa did in fact collect data on u.s. citizens. james clapper himself ended up acknowledging his answers to congress were incorrect. conservative radio host laura and graham tweeted "clapper was on "meet the press" for the entire segment and choctaw didn't ask him one question about his own lying to congress. "even liberal writer glenn greenwald the tribe did with "shouldn't democrats get someone more credible than james clapper to make these denials, like andy randomly chosen person? "it is not just james clapper. ben shapiro points out how the left has now re-embraced fbi director james comey just a few months ago, many liberals accused him of throwing the election. now that he is asking the department of justice to publicly reject president trump's wiretapping claims, he is back in the good

graces. shannon. >> shannon: oh, washington. thank you, trace. joining me not to talk about allegations of wiretapping during the 2016 campaign is former campaign manager for hillary clinton. thank you for joining us tonight. >> great to be here, thanks for having me. >> shannon: is impossible, as i was discussing with louise, is it possible that dni clapper, former, would not have known about this request? it goes to the fisa courts, some on the fbi makes this request, it was a part reportedly granted. is it possible he wouldn't have knowledge of that? >> ivana national security expert. i have never worked at the dni office. i would defer to the specialists on that. i find this entire situation a little bit perplexing, to be honest with you. that is why i am glad you asked this question. the real story, what we know is a true fact, members of the trump campaign were caught on tape in the surveillance tapes because they were talking to russian intelligence officials.

we have this major national security issue staring us in the face, which is that trump aids were repeatedly talking to russians, they were repeatedly talking to russians before and after the election, talking to russians at the time that the broke into the dnc, stole information, leaked it out. we need to be focused on figuring out if any coordination took place. >> shannon: in every investigation we have heard and seen, this is democrats and republicans alike, including mr. clapper, they've all said so far, zero evidence of any collusion between the two. this has been going on for more than a year. democrats have come out and said that. zero evidence so far. >> there is no evidence of our that we know about. a lot of this evidence -- must be one that they know about. >> let's be fair for a second. think about how many millions of dollars and how many committees were devoted to investigating hillary clinton and her emails, the benghazi scandal. all of a sudden, when it comes to real evidence that communication was happening between trump aides and the

russians and there is a refusal to have any sort of opening investigation, the way that we had -- >> shannon: they are having investigations. a number of republicans have said, i am not going to sign off on something that is not legit, i want to follow this where it is. russians should never be interfering with what we are doing. we are hearing that from democrats and republicans alike. those investigations aren't over so we won't have the results yet. but they are ongoing. >> first of all, i want to underscore something you said. democrats and republicans are concerned about this issue. it is a bipartisan issue. unless you have seen it, i have not seen a single member of the trump staff, paul manafort, carter page, anybody else, go up to capitol hill and testify about what they did or didn't say. >> shannon: they have. >> all this is being conducted in secret. >> shannon: as intelligence investigations would be. you know that. >> again, when hillary clinton was being investigated, they

brought her in, on live television. what we are asking for is a nonpartisan independent review that is out in so, we can see what happened and make sure it never happens again. to your point, this is a bipartisan issue. this affected a democratic candidate. this time, it will affect a republican candidate. we need an open, independent, bipartisan commission. we look forward to having that. >> shannon: we will see if you get the independent part of it. for now, it looks like they are working together, along with the fbi, as well. robby, good to see you. >> thanks for the time. >> shannon: here now's reaction, a former kgb spy who was part of an elite group of undercover agents assigned to live in the u.s., eventually, his cover was blown idea since cooperated with the fbi. also, author of "deep undercover." jack, your life sounds so much

more fascinating than any of us will be in the show tonight. >> when you live it, it is probably not as fascinating as if you look at it from the outside. >> shannon: let me ask you this. so many people have been approached, do you have any remote tied to trump or his campaign, many of them have said, we communicated people, i do business deals in russia, we don't know who is part of the intelligence community. when it comes to speaking with ambassador, a lot of folks said that every embassy in washington has got some kind of surveillance or intel component to it. how do you separate what is legit legal communication and what is shady? >> that is a really great question. the bottom line is, any diplomat in the past on the soviet side, most likely today, from the russian side, is either part of intelligence or supervised by an intelligence officer, so, you got to be really careful what

you tell people, even if you think they are officially diplomats or trade representatives. >> shannon: where do you think this investigation goes? as i talk with robbie, we have several tracks on going. we have denials all over the place. we know that there were some kinds of communications there are people who may have been legit business contacts, may not have been. how tough is that to get to who did what and who knew what, who was operating as an agent, a puppet of the russian government and who wasn't? >> the world of espionage is so murky that it is very often, nearly impossible to find the truth. when it comes to my book, there are so many things that he read in the book that only i know and who knows if i am honest. my concern about this whole situation is that at this point, we are taking intelligence out of the intelligence realm and we are playing political football. i believe that there is some kind of a connection and a

tit-for-tat between the russian hacking on the one hand, and now, the allegations that trump was being hacked. in the meantime, mr. putin is probably sitting in russia, rubbing his hands, because that is what the russians want to do. they have always done destabilized democracies. right now, we are playing into his hands. >> shannon: do you think folks on both sides of the act, as i said, there has been consideredn expressed by democrats and republicans? do you think they will get that is putin's ? we won't give him what he wants? >> i would hope so. this is us, democrats and republicans, against them. we are not playing doubles in tennis. we are playing singles. putin is on the other side. he is the enemy. mack. >> shannon: jack barsky, no one could offer that perspective. we thank you for it.

>> you are welcome. >> shannon: still ahead, we are following breaking news on the house g.o.p.'s claim to repeal and replace obamacare. marc thiessen and matt bennett are here next to explain what it means for you and for your health care. plus, president trump signed a brand-new travel ban executive order and revoked the old one from january. what really changed and is this new version going to survive? what we know. judge napolitano has all the answers just ahead. >> we do not make the law, but are sworn to enforce it. are sworn to enforce it. we have no other option. safety doesn't come in a box. it's not a banner that goes on a wall. it's not something you do now and then. or when it's convenient. it's using state-of-the-art simulators to better prepare for any situation. it's giving offshore teams onshore support. and it's empowering anyone to stop a job

if something doesn't seem right. at bp, safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.

>> tonight, we deliver on president trump's promise to repeal and begin replacing with two big principles. one to restore state control of health care and get it out of washington. also, restore their free market. the second part is in in the ws and means area. we begin by repealing the awful taxes, the mandate penalties, and the subsidies and obamacare. we give americans their freedom to buy mack plans that they need need. >> shannon: that was house ways and means chair kevin brady, who finds himself at the heart of breaking news, as we

told her the top of the era, the house g.o.p. releasing plans that would strike at the central tenets of obamacare. what will this look like for you and your family and your health care? how will the fight and fold in the coming days and weeks? here now, marc thiessen, and matt bennett. good to see you both. >> good to see you. >> shannon: marc are they making progress, they seem to become of the leadership, the white house, on the same page with rolling it out, they can't lose more than 21 votes in the house and our concern is those who are still skeptical. >> we don't know because they haven't put out any coverage estimates. we do know whole new people will get covered. that gets to the big problems that republicans face. many of the people who got coverage under obamacare did through the medicaid expansion. there were some republican governors who said no and rejected it. in 13 red states that voted for donald trump, the governors excepted the. if you just repeal obamacare

without doing something to take care of those people, they will be millions of people who lose their health care plan. that is a democrats job to take over your health care. the senators from those dates, many of the states, will say, they will say, unless there is a plan to take care of these people, then, we won't vote for it. the other side, you have the conservatives who ideologically want to repeal this mandate and the problem is, they want to go back in a time machine to before obamacare existed and just say, let's get rid of it and start over. we can pretend it didn't exist. millions of people got coverage. we have to find a way to cover them any better way that is more cost-effective, driven by the market. and we'll cover those people. any plan that has millions of people losing their health care is both morally wrong and politically a loser. >> shannon: tonight, matt, leaders are saying that is not a case. there's a special fund for those who have trouble transitioning. no one will get kicked off their transition plans. they are rolling out a lot of

things that sound like it will help people because, of course, morally and from a p.r. standpoint, they don't want the nightmare of millions of people not being covered anymore. they've talked about a lot of things, keep the pre-existing coverage, key people on untold 26. they were peeling the mandate, the taxes, how will they pay for this? do you think the g.o.p. will be able to sufficiently take the p.r. battle, explain how that will be done? >> no. i have no idea. those are exactly the right questions. i find myself in the unusual position of un-green with mark. they have not answered any of those questions. those questions are being raised by senators in their own party, democrats are coming out almost four square against this because there are so many questions. one of the things that they really attacked democrats for one obamacare was moving from congress, doing it too quickly. it took democrats a year. they are trying to do this in two weeks. no one knows so much it will cost, as marc pointed out. nobody knows so many people lose

coverage. nobody knows exactly what it will look like, et cetera couple things we do know. we know there will be a huge tax break for highly paid executives. if you make more than 500,000 a year, you get a big tax break. that we know. we know almost nothing else about the finances and the impact of this bill. >> shannon: we understand there will be people who can get the tax credits, the wealthier folks, they will try to award those based on age. they are going to phase out the more money that you make. they are trying to find a balance here of paying for it and not overtaxing people. marc, tonight, dr. krauthammer on to "special report" said the g.o.p. has to break this back. this it was a new entitlement under president obama. they can call it something else and move things around but essentially, he says, they will release the same thing. they have to embrace it. >> it won't be the same thing but they need to take care of the people who were covered. we can't have known -- we can't have people falling off of their health care. we should all agree that we

don't want people to lose their coverage. everybody agrees that obamacare is broken. it's not working. the problem with obamacare was that president obama did this in a hugely partisan way. he didn't go go to the republis and say, let's take our best ideas and work together on this. what you need to do if you want something that is politically sustainable is something that includes the best ideas from democrats and republicans and expands coverage or more people. the problem is, democrats are in complete resistance mode. they won't work with republicans. they aren't even confirming the cabinet nominees. they are aren't interested in helping. >> shannon: the numbers don't lie, some of these deductibles and premiums say that it is too expensive. if you are on the lowest level, individual deductibles average $6,000 for families. even if they have coverage, if they have an emergency, they will have to shell out $12,000. a lot of them say they can't do it. it's not sustainable. do you think there is anything

that will work with this plan to make the situation better? >> no, i think it will get much, much worse. >> shannon: how so? >> first of all, if you are under $30,000 in income, you lose not only the premium support, you lose the tax deduction that you would get. >> shannon: there will be a tax credit. >> again, there is a million unanswered questions about this plan. we are just beginning to peace through it. what we can gather so far is that it will make deductibles and premiums more expensive. >> shannon: that is not how the g.o.p. is selling it. we will leave that to matt and marc. there is a lot to get through before we understand the details. thank you. good to see you both. new reactions and i from president trump's updated travel ban after his january version prompter the protests you see here. with this new version passed the legal challenges we know we will get? judge napolitano is here on that, to talk about what changes and stays the same. the new challenges denied for the trump administration as

north korea and iran are launching ballistic missiles. they are acting up. that story is just ahead ♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any.

so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want. there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now.

because the time to think about tomorrow is today.

>> shannon: breaking tonight, a new reaction to president trump sending a brand-new executive order on travel. revoking the old travel ban in the process. among the big changes, iraq is now off the list of banned countries created a ban on syrian refugees is lifted and now, green card holders will not be affected. judge andrew napolitano is here to talk about this. first, we turn live to john roberts for the very latest on the new so-called travel ban. >> good evening too. a noisy protest just on pennsylvania avenue from the white house, already coming up against this new executive order. it has in even been implement it. he signed the executor parts are today, more than a week after he wanted to do it. he cited privately, not before the cameras, he left it to his

lieutenants of the department of homeland security, the state department, the department of justice to roll it out. here is a secretary of homeland security, general john kelly today. >> i have spent much of the day today on the phone with members of congress, the leadership, explaining the ins and outs under the same thing last week. so, there should be no surprises but it's in the media, capitol hill. >> the effect of this new executive order is the same as the last. some notable changes. you mentioned a couple of them. the temporary visa ban now affects six countries, iran, syria, libya, sudan, somalia, yemen. iraq was dropped from the list after they promised they would be better at screening and reporting the results of that screening. the extra screening of iraqis is to identify people who might be associated with isis or other terror groups. you mentioned there are no indefinite ban on syrian refugees, they will not be considered the same as all of the other refugees. there is a 120 day ban gone then coming into the country.

this whole thing takes effect in march 16th by the president will provoke the original executive order. one of the problems the courts had with the original one was quantifying the threat posed by the six countries that were involved. it was seven back then. and the refugees, as well. attorney general jeff sessions address that today. listen to what he said. >> in fact, today, more than 300 people, according to the fbi, who came here as refugees, are under an fbi investigation today for potential terrorism related activities. like every nation, the united states has a right to control who enters our country and to keep out those who would do us harm. >> the white house is hoping to get dismissed for dozens of lawsuits that were filed against the original executive order by revoking. judge napolitano will be able to articulate that point better than i paired with democrats lining up to challenge this one, as i said, the protest on the

street, a lot of action planned in court. >> shannon: john roberts. thank you. here to weigh in on all of us, fox news senior judicial analyst and best-selling author, judge andrew napolitano. i have so many questions. i don't know where to start. let's start with the revisions made today. you and i know the argument that was made against the original order, does this resolve those orders? >> it does in part. their two categories of judicial objection. one is, there was no reason given in the original order for the selection of the seven countries. how did they address that? be reduced it to six and they gave a summary, a nonclassified summary, of classified information, about the likely dangers posed from each of the six countries from whom immigrants have been banned. that is clearly enough to show a rational basis, which is what the legal standard is, as you know, to justify this. second part of the judicial objection as a little bit more troublesome. second part, the judges call

this a sort of mass anti-muslim ban. they base that on some of the more incendiary things that candidate trump and some of his surrogate said during the campaign. things that president trump doesn't say anymore. the issue, the challenge for the drafts of this, to remove religious references in this. the first one had exemptions for persecuted christians and jewish people. this has no exemptions. there is no mention of religiosity, there is no mention of any religion test at all. will that pass muster? i don't know. if you find judges that think what candidate trump said can impale president trump, it will not pass muster. if you find to judges who believe that with the president now says, he means, it will pass muster. all of the benefit of the doubt is to go to the president on this. not to his challengers. the president is charged with securing the borders. >> shannon: do you think, like i do, that this will go right

into the courts? the aclu saying it is same thing in a different package. that is her estimation. i think what will happen, it will go through the court system, get different circuit court rulings, this thing as of the supreme court. it's at the end game of how this thing was drafted, knowing, -- >> that is a great question. a couple of potential and games, as john roberts just pointed out, one of the purposes of rescinding the old ways to undercut the 48 lawsuits that have been filed against the president. this would automatically undercut them. they're just as the department will have to move to dismiss those. i think all of those motions will be granted. then, some new cases will be file that will necessarily be filed before the same courts. you won't necessarily get the same judges. you may get the third circuit, pennsylvania, new jersey, delaware, rather than the ninth, where you'll get a different view of how this should be treated. the first goal is to find a circuit court that will side with the president. if that doesn't work, they expect that judge gorsuch will

be just, justice or search by the time this reaches the supreme court. there is no guarantee, he is not a rubber-stamp for the president. he has a mindset closer to the president to break the likely 4-4 tie. >> shannon: interesting because you know this court has done a lot, including justices kagan and sotomayor, president obama's nominees, they have ruled against him. we will see how they feel about this. >> another hope they have is that justice kagan rick uses herself because her involvement in these very situations. if that happens, score an extra vote. >> there were many cases that she didn't recuse yourself. you make an excellent point, as you always do. >> always a pleasure. i started my day with you. now, a bulk end. >> shannon: couldn't be luckier. straight ahead, iran and north korea engage in further provocations. both countries log wow launching

ballistic missiles. former congressman pete hoekstra and julie roginsky join us to talk about that. plus, a pro-trump rally descends a scene of violence from leftist agitators. tonight, we are learning the chaos may be the result of some potentially insightful language potentially insightful language from a former obama official. various: (shouting) heigh! ho! ( ♪ ) it's off to work we go! woman: on the gulf coast, new exxonmobil projects are expected to create over 45,000 jobs. and each job created by the energy industry supports two others in the community. altogether, the industry supports over 9 million jobs nationwide. ... ... ...

♪ >> shannon: developing tonight, the trump administration facing challenges as abroad as north korea and iran launched fresh ballistic missiles this weekend. a vessel came just 600 yards from a u.s. naval ship. former congressman pete pete ha and julie roginsky can my democratic allergist and a fox news country preacher. good to see you both. i will start with you. what do you of this? we know that foreign powers will saber rattle. is this anything more than that? >> i think it is. they are being much more aggressive. north korea has been kind of an interesting case. bill clinton, george bush, barack obama, they never found a way to slow down north korea's nuclear program and admissions. that has been a bipartisan

failure. even with its meager resources, it has been able to continue its development program. iran, we had gotten into a box. when the sanctions were lifted with a nuke deal, the bottom line is, a bunch of money flute into iran. the key point is, iran and north korea worked together. they work together other nuclear program, there ballistic missile program. when this money started flowing into iran, you can be sure that that money has made its way into north korea. these countries now are better equipped and better financed to pose a challenge to the united states than what they have ever been. >> shannon: julie, factually, that is true. we talk about the influx of cash. what does president trump do now that he's in charge? >> there is no easy solution. nothing we can discuss in a few minutes. that will ameliorate the situation. i will say, the president has saber rattle quite a bit of the china. now, we come to find out that

china is a critical player. we knew this and north korea specifically. we have to work with china to some extent on this issue. the congressman pointed out exactly correctly that this has been an issue that has been ongoing, not just for the past four or five administrations, going all the way back to eisenhower or earlier, to harry truman. the north koreans, obviously, rely on china for trade. for whatever meager income they have. as the congressman pointed out, they also rely on former soviet engineers, nuclear engineers, iran and other hostile powers, work in tandem. the pakistanis and others. i think the president may not understand how interconnected these different policies are, when you accused china on the one hand of all the things he is accused china of, then, appropriately, he will have to work with them on issues like this. you cannot go it alone. >> congressman, what advice would you give to president trump?

ballistic missile test going off or both of these nations repeatedly since he took office. >> the trump administration understands the threat very, very clearly. that is why they have engaged with south korea, why one of the first visitors to washington and after the president won's election, he invited the leader of japan. he recognizes that this has to be a regional solution to box and north korea and china is going to be a key player. like i said, no one has been able to pull that off again. he is also going to have to start working to try to tighten the screws on iran if that is at all possible. or try to get around to change its behavior. iran has not changed any of its behavior. it has helped north korea. >> shannon: thank you both for coming on tonight. we

>> they marched, they bled, some of them have died. this is hard to.

every good thing it is. we have done this before. we can do this again. >> shannon: let us former attorney general a loretta lynch calling for more marching and somewhat argue blood in the streets. since those are marks, we seen examples of violence. this was the scene at middlebury college last week. over the weekend, a pro-trump rally in berkeley, california, erupted into chaos. for more, let's go to trace gallagher live in los angeles. trace. >> the actual class happened about a mile away from the uc berkeley campus. the trump supporters had marked for several blocks that were met by a group of counter demonstrators and as the videos and pictures on social media can attest, the fights began almost immediately. a combination of punches, hair pulling, and pepper spray. others were trying to burn an american flag and knocked it make america great hats off people's heads. both sides are trying to make their voices heard or in some

cases, trying to silence the opposition. watch. in the end, seven were injured, ten arrested. and here are both sides of the argument. watch. >> i am an immigrant myself. i wasn't born here. we came here from algeria. i do think that i thought that trump had a good message. if you listen to him, you would agree with me. >> we don't have honesty, we don't have transparency, i don't know if that has been a strong suit over the government. it seems to be getting worse. >> not just berkeley, six people protesting a pro-trump rally in st. paul, minnesota, were arrested on felony riot charges for lighting fireworks inside the state capital. in denver, a mark for trump rally was interrupted by a group of anti-trump protesters who ripped up an american flag and shared some select awards for trump supporters.

supporters at mar-a-lago did get a waiver from the president. >> shannon: thank you, trace. thanks for watching "the first 100 days." i am shannon bream. we will see you tomorrow at ♪ >> tom: welcome to "red eye," hello everyone, i am tom shillue. let's check in with tvs andy levy at the "red eye" tease deck. >> andy: president trump's tweets and accusation that former president obama wiretapped him. plus, a ymca jam bands cable news after several fights break out. and finally, emma watson's braless