best way of telling that to lone wolfs, terrorists, al-quaida, boca haram, you may scare us but you stir us to ignoring you and fighting you. good night. >> kimberly: hello, everyone. we are closely following two big stories tonight, overseas and on the homefront. terror attack in london outside parliament. three people are dead, including a police officer. the suspect is also dead. multiple people are hurt. more to come in the moment. but first, to the breaking news out of washington from house intelligence committee chairman devin nunes. he announced earlier communications of trump transition officials and possibly even the president himself may have been monitored by the obama administration after the election. we are joined by chief white house correspondent john roberts with more. >> good afternoon.

the president promised us last week moore was going to come on his claims he was being wiretapped or in some other way surveilled. or at least people at trump tower were. we don't know if this is what the president was talking about but it would seem to fit along the lines of that narrative. house intelligence committee chairman devin nunes came out and said he's been told, from people individually and not an organization, that there was into her coincidental collection of u.s. citizens associated with the trump campaign. quote we can assume this is, he didn't lay it out is that the nsa, fbi or other intelligence agencies were listening in to conversations with foreigners who were allowed to be surveilled under the terms of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. people from the trump campaign may have been on the other end of the telephone and they were collected along with the intelligence from the foreign national that was being

surveilled. nunes didn't lay it out like that but that's probably what it was. nunes said he believed this was under the auspices of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. he said it was legal and it wasn't associated with any investigation into russia or criminal investigation. why is it troubling? nunes pointed out that the people surveilled on the other end of the line who were american citizens were "unmasked." that means that unlike the provisions of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, the identities are supposed to be protected and kept secret, they were unmasked. their names were published in an intelligence product. michael flynn's name was made public. he thought it was important enough that he just about dropped everything on the hill, talking about the house speaker and the head of the cia and nsa,

came down here in person to brief the president. i asked him, does this vindicated anyway or give corroboration to the what the president suggested what he tweeted out from mar-a-lago that he was being wiretapped, he said possibly. this is what else i asked. knew that there was some incident of collection because lieutenant general michael flynn was caught talking to sergey kislyak. does this go beyond that and does this qualify, the wiretapping that the president was tweeting. >> it definitely goes beyond what happened to general flynn. we don't actually know yet officially what happened to general flynn. we know his name leaked out but we don't know how it was picked up. >> the president was corrected and what he tweeted? >> it's possible. >> after that, he said to some

degree, he does feel vindicated by what chairman nunes told us. nunes will continue to look into it. >> kimberly: thanks, john. we are going to take you live to the capital with representative adam schiff. >> the surveillance was anything but lawful and what people need to understand about foreign intelligence gathering and incidental collection is, if we are listening to two foreign spies talking to each other on foreign soil or to representatives of a foreign government and they mention a u.s. person, that is incidental collection. doesn't necessarily mean there was a call from a foreign party to a u.s. person. even the mention of a u.s. person is incidental collection in that name would be masked. if there is a call with a u.s. person or u.s. person identities are involved, those names are masked. there are proper procedures for unmasking a name.

when it's necessary for the intelligence agencies to understand the significance of the intercept and they cannot do that when they names are masked, you can properly unmask the name. chairman has provided no evidence that any names that were unmasked were unmasked improperly. without the ability for the community to look at the intercept, we are not in a position to evaluate whether procedures were followed or not. moreover, as i understand from my conversation with the chairman, most of the names in the intercepts were masked, and the chairman's concern was that he could still figure out the identities of some of the parties even though the names were masked. that doesn't mean the masking was improper. again, it's impossible to evaluate whether there is any there there. thus far, the chair has not provided the evidence to the committee. troubling among any levels but the most significant level is it

impedes our ability to do this investigation the way we should. i've been part of investigations conducted properly when the house intelligence committee investigated benghazi and i've been part of investigations that were not, such as the benghazi select committee. it was my hope that our investigation could be conducted properly. it is still my hope this investigation should be conducted properly, but unfortunately the actions of the chair throw that very much in doubt. i would be happy to respond to your questions. >> reporter: are you planning on pulling out of the investigation, chairman nunes feels any classified information. >> we stayed on the benghazi select committee, though we knew from the outset it was

essentially going to be a political instrument to tear down secretary clinton's number numbers. and of course we will have to analyze what this development means. i do think that if there is any chance remaining for us to conduct this investigation, we need to do it. as i said earlier in the week, we could do a tremendous service to the country if we are able to do a credible investigation. at the end of the day, provide a report of the american people that has democrats and republicans on the same page. but if you have a chairman who is interacting with the white house and sharing information with the white house when people around the white house are the subject of the investigation and doing so before sharing it with the committee, it throws a profound doubt over whether that can be done credibly. >> reporter: chairman nunes revealed any classified information?

>> it certainly... it is certainly inappropriate for us to be discussing whether specific people were the subject of collection or incidental collection to any degree that can divulge who the targets of that surveillance may be. i'm not prepared to say that what the chairman said was classified or unclassified. i can say it's beyond irregular to receive any evidence in the scope of an investigation and clearly if the chairman is right about the content, the scope of the issues we are looking at about whether masking procedures are followed and whether things are being leaked. and i would say that the most profound concern here i have is that these actions simply raise enormous doubt about whether the committee can do its work. and i think more than anything

else i've seen, this makes the most profound case for the formation of an independent commission. >> reporter: to follow-up, on monday, we heard about several committee members, about improper unmasking. what is the fundamental difference between what the chairman did today and what the complaints were on monday? >> first of all, with respect to what we were discussing on monday, we could actually discuss concrete things. we could, you know, if there were a specific instance where there was an unmasking we were concerned about, we could ask questions about it. here we have no information about who was masked or unmasked. based on what the chairman told me, the names were masked apart from a single name which wasn't necessarily anyone connected

with the trump organization. the concern the chair raised with me was that the names that were masked he believed were associated with the president or his associates. again, this is the problem. this is the precise problem. when the information is not shared with the committee itself. we will be seeking this information. we will be evaluating it. once we've had a chance to review it, i will issue a statement about what i think it says and what i think it doesn't say. here we are operating on hearsay on hearsay and this is simply not wait to conduct an investigation. >> reporter: committee previously briefed about intercepts in general. did you have any background knowledge of these intercepts? you said you don't have these intercepts. were you aware of them?

>> it's impossible to know. we don't know what intercepts the chairman is referring to. again, my assumption from what the chair said is that these are intercepts we don't have. but he also said this doesn't relate to the russian investigation. so if it doesn't relate to the russian investigation, if they were lawfully conducted, and he said there's no reason to believe they weren't, then we wouldn't have them as part of the investigation. we have made a request of the intelligence agencies for information about their masking procedures if indeed it's within the scope of the request, it's information we should be getting. if that's true, and i think the chairman indicated he thought the information he'd received is within the scope of what we've asked for, then it's a significant question, if this is within the information we've asked for, the agencies are going to be delivering to us later this week, then why make a statement to the press before we

have it? it begs more questions, frankly, than it answers. >> is there any reason to believe, to clarify, is there any reason to believe president or members of his family were people present in these documents? >> again, you would have to ask the chairman. he is the only one on the committee that i'm aware of that's been able to see this. i don't want to characterize precisely what the chair said, and i think if you look at what he's said publicly, it's not very clear. he's used words like "may have been" or "it might be." how can we evaluate the strength of that information? we just can't. again, it underscores why this is not how you conduct an investigation. you don't take information that the committee hasn't seen and

presented orally to the press enter the white house before the committee has a chance to vent whether it's significant. >> reporter: [indistinct] >> i'm sorry. i expressed my grave concerns about how this was handled and i'm not sure at this point that we are likely to get those kind of assurances. certainly were going to have a much more likely trickle lengthy discussion of this as a committee. it casts quite a profound cloud over our ability to do our work. i think the concern over russian intervention in our election is one that permeates the congress. it's a concern democrats have and it's a concern republicans have. and i have to think that most of the members of the house want a

bipartisan investigation to be done. but this is not the way to do it. >> reporter: did chairman nunes tell you how or where or in what ways he viewed these documents. you said your gravely concerned. >> this is not a situation where you can pursue something like that. we still have a very important job to do, even apart from this investigation. but right now, in the country is counting on us because in the house of representatives, we are the only investigation there is. if we don't do it, no one is going to do it. perhaps the white house would like it that way, but the american people i think want there to be a credible investigation and if we are not going to conduct it, then we

need to have a independent commission do it. if the chairman is going to continue to go to the white house rather than his own committee, there is no way we can conduct this investigation. i don't have a lot of details on it. the most i think he was able to say is that it was shared with him alone. it doesn't appear to have been shared with the other republican members of his committee, and so all of us are in the dark. that makes what the chairman did today all the more extraordinary. >> reporter: you have any concerns about the way in which he got this information, where it may have come from. he said he doesn't have the documents in his possession but he knows where they are. >> obviously there are a lot of questions. if this came from people within the intelligence community, then you are looking at sort of a channel for a leak to the press, which raises a whole nother

category of concerns. if this is within the intelligence community, it ought to be shared with us by the intelligence community. i don't know if that's the source of it. and... >> reporter: [indistinct] >> you would have to ask the chairman. we have no idea where these documents came from, whether they even show what they purport to show but even if they do on the basis of what the chairman said, the underlying fact is still the same. there is no evidence to support the president's contention that he was wiretapped by his predecessor. i'm not sure what the point of this extraordinary process is, and i have to hope that this is not part of a broader campaign by the white house aimed to deflect from the director's testimony earlier week. again, not having seen the documents, not having the

chairman share those documents with republicans or democrats on the committee, there is no way to evaluate. there is no way for us to know about masking or unmasking. >> reporter: have you talked to paul ryan? >> i certainly intend to do so. the request has been made by our minority leader as well as the entire membership of the democratic membership of the house of representatives in the form of sponsorship of legislation by my colleagues. we have made it clear for many weeks that we ought to follow the model we did after 9/11 where we do an investigation through our intelligence communities but we have a truly independent commission. there are two reasons why i think the commission now is more

essential than ever. the first is a commission would have a dedicated staff and resources focused solely on this issue. an investigation of this magnitude justifies that kind of investment. second, takes it completely out of the political realm. today's events show why that is so essential. a commission like the 9/11 commission wouldn't have one of its chairs go to the white house when it obtained new informatio information. and we just cannot continue along that kind of path. i think more than anything else today's events have underscored the imperative of an independent commission. >> reporter: did the chairman give you any indication why he decided to go to the white house before he came to you? >> no, and that's a good question for the chairman. i certainly did express my

concern that that is simply not the way to conduct a credible investigation. thank you. >> kimberly: okay, we are going to take a listen to representatives nunes and the comments he made earlier. decode the reports i was able to see did not have anything to do with russia or the russian investigation. some of it seems to be inappropriate. what i've read seems to me to be some level of surveillance activity, perhaps legal, but i don't know it's right and i don't know the american people would be comfortable with what i've read. let us get all the reports. >> reporter: was the president correct in what he tweeted? >> it's possible. i think the president is concerned and he should be. he would like to see these reports. >> kimberly: quick round of

reactions. >> eric: it's explosive. when i heard this news, i thought, what do you lead with? this is massive. now we have a leaker or whistleblower who has confirmed what trump has kind of alluded to. but more portly has confirmed the opposite of what the intel department was testifying on monday in front of the panel where they said there was no surveillance going on on anyone in the trump administration. now we know it may or may not be flynn but there are others. incidental collection of data which is basically a surveillance. he has to come via surveillance. they didn't stand there and take pictures. they did it with data and they did it through a fisa court. it has nothing to do with russia. there is even further proof that james comey and rogers were less than "what -- with what was

going on tour the trump administration. it's exclusive. -- it's explosive. adam schiff coming to a microphone and playing games doesn't fix anything. this is big news. explosive. >> kimberly: >> bob: i would liy the first investigation ought to be nunes for leaking the information. secondly he didn't tell his republican colleagues. third, they said that the court investigated two foreign nationals in the names may or may not of come up. trump said barack obama tapped him. he lied then. confirmed that he lied. nunes is down there and what is the accomplish? he has muddied up the russia investigation and he's given trump a little cover for his lies. it's so transparent.

>> kimberly: bob is upset about leaks now. >> greg: the big picture about whether trump is vindicated, it doesn't matter if it vindicates him whole way. this is all about a tweet. a tweet in the broadest sense, doesn't have to do with him being proven correct. it is like saying you were assaulted but they only grabbed your arm. technically they are the same thing. he is saying obama was tapping me but it turns out maybe it was the administration doing some kind of incidental collecting. incidental collecting, it's like when you take a picture of your wife on vacation and behind you is some stranger picking his nose. >> eric: can i point out why this really does matter. we had understood this was an investigation into russian ties to the trump administration. according to devin nunes, it's not the russians. there had to be a fisa court request for surveillance. >> bob: an entirely different

issue. it has nothing to do with russia. >> eric: on monday, we heard comey and rogers. hasn't been nor is there an on ongoing investigation. these two things can't be true. >> bob: support these guys lies, go ahead. >> dana: it raises a lot more questions than answers. maybe that's the point. i think we also know if the white house really wanted to get to the bottom of it, they could do it tonight and get everybody over there. they could look at the warrant, find out what they warrants were for. that doesn't mean the fisa warrants weren't legitimate about something going on in that area. that doesn't mean that. the question of going, if i were nunes, i would've held. give it a moment so you can figure out how you can tell your bipartisan colleagues if you want to keep the integrity of the investigation. if you don't, maybe this is the

way to do it. i know that from working in d.c. and knowing that you can say what you're going to say today but what are you going to say in three days when this changes? then we will probably have more information. maybe nobody was doing anything wrong. this is interesting that the day after the white house says we should move on, this morning the headline out of the associated press is paul manafort, former chairman of the trump campaign, did have ties to russia and they did talk about putin. now there are multiple tracks. i feel bad for the fact that the american people are waiting for congress to get some things done, this is making it difficult to focus on bringing jobs back to america. >> kimberly: metaphor to -- -- >> eric: when you have the intel community saying there hasn't been an investigation into the trump administration. not one going on now and then we find out there's a leak.

>> dana: incidental collection is not an investigation about certain people. >> eric: nunes said this came directly from a speech one of our warrants. >> bob: may have been an investigation into something else. no on the russian thing. >> eric: no, they said there was no investigation into the trump administration ongoing. >> greg: the trump transition team, the people they were talking to. may not have anything to do with russia but there was something going on. it is either foreign agents or maybe it is potential criminal activity. could be something worse. >> bob: nunes said it was an investigation into two foreign nationals that had nothing to do with the trump campaign. >> kimberly: incidental collection.

>> bob: picking up incidental communications. >> eric: no one disagrees with that bob. the intel committee can say is not going on and now we find out it was. >> dana: but what was going on? >> eric: clapper said the nsa wasn't collecting data on americans. >> dana: i'm curious. what are you saying they lied about on monday? >> eric: they were asked is there an ongoing investigation going on and where they targeted? no and no. but they were and they are. >> dana: you don't accept that incidental collection about a different topic is not targeting and investigating them. >> eric: the way it was incidental because it went through the fisa court. >> dana: what was the original warrant about? who were they talking to? >> eric: if you're going to tap into an american, you have to go to the fisa court.

>> greg: we don't know anything. >> kimberly: lots of breaking news today, as you can see. more on this developing story and the london terror attack.

safety isn't a list of boxes to check. it's taking the best technologies out there and adapting them to work for you. the ultrasound that can see inside patients, can also detect early signs of corrosion at our refineries. high-tech military cameras that see through walls, can inspect our pipelines to prevent leaks. remote-controlled aircraft, can help us identify potential problems and stop them in their tracks. at bp, safety is never being satisfied. and always working to be better.

actually making your body feel better... that's exactly what tommie copper does for people everywhere. they call it "wearable wellness," and tommie copper has infused it into everything they do. why not experience the difference tommie copper can make in your life? go to tommiecopper.com, enter your e-mail to become part of the tommie copper community, and get 15% off your entire order, plus free shipping. life hurts, feel better. i'i've scaled theer toughest terrain and faced plenty of my fears as part of my training. and for the past two years i've been a navy federal member. so even out here i can pay securely with mobile pay linked to my free checking account. i don't know about this, it's ... [screams] what did she say?

she said "i don't know about this." i couldn't hear over my helmet. your ears are completely exposed. mm-hmm, yeah i just ... open to the armed forces, the dod, veterans and their families. navy federal credit union. >> greg: welcome back. today's other top story, terror attack in london. benjamin hall as they are. i want to ask you about the victims. is there any update on the people that are injured. >> we know that for our dead. among them, the terrorist. a policeman and a 30-year-old woman. she was run down on the bridge behind me. westminster bridge when the attacker veered off the road and on the sidewalk, knocking down civilians were walking there. among them, many tourists. that car went to the houses of parliament where it rammed into the front gates. he got out, managed to run

inside the courtyard where he stabbed a policeman. he carried on inside and it was at that point he was shot down by two other armed police. the whole area was shut down for much of the day. the prime minister had been inside before this happened. she was ushered away. london very much on edge, security everywhere. helicopters, the river was shut down. a terror attack at the heart of the u.k. >> dana: what do we know about the suspect? 's to go very little at this moment. there were a few names bandied about and they are trying to piece together the connections using a lot of videotape. there were so many witnesses because it's such a busy time of day. at the moment, still no names to give you, no idea of what drove him pretty a lot of indications that this was perhaps inspired by isis. >> eric: can you expand on that a little bit? what is that indication? >> well, first of all, this is a year to the day that the

brussels attacks took place that killed 32 in the airport and the subway. it was also vehicle born, a tactic they have used. isis has been asking its followers to use vehicles as weapons. it is hard to stop them, though it is very unsophisticated. if there is little you can do about it. we saw in nice, berlin, munich. there was also increased chatter before the attack took place. it was on the same day that 68 foreign ministers were meeting in d.c. to discuss the anti-isis coalition. the technique. no confirmation. >> bob: has anyone taken responsibility? has isis said anything about it? >> nothing yet. you would expect that to come out. you would expect them to take claim if it was them. if it is not directed by them, it may be inspired by them. they ask there followers to

carry out attacks like this. no official confirmation from them or claim of responsibility. >> kimberly: any updates regarding theresa may? she was rushed from close by the scene when the incident occurre occurred. >> she has been speaking. she said an attack like this would never hurt the values of the u.k. they would continue standing strong. the battle against isis would continue. she is holding a cobra meeting tonight, the highest security meeting. they will be discussing who carried it out and who was behind it. very dramatic as she was rushed out of the parliament building. she had been in their moments before giving a speech in the weekly session she holds here. felt like the u.k. parliament was under attack. the police responded accordingl accordingly, very intense situation earlier. >> greg: thank you, benjamin. more up next on today's revelations that president trump may have been under surveillance after the election. there is a big health care vote

tomorrow. do paul ryan and the president have enough votes to appeal and replace obamacare? dana perino spoke with the house speaker earlier. introducing otezla, apremilast. otezla is not an injection, or a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. some people who took otezla saw 75% clearer skin after 4 months. and otezla's prescribing information has no requirement for routine lab monitoring. don't take otezla if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. otezla may increase the risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts, or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. side effects may include diarrhea, nausea, upper respiratory tract infection, and headache.

tell your doctor about all the medicines you take, and if you're pregnant or planning to be. ask your dermatologist about otezla today. otezla. show more of you.

it's the simple things in life that mean the most. boost® simply complete™. no artificial flavors, colors or sweeteners, plus 10 grams of protein and 25 vitamins & minerals. it doesn't get better than this. boost® simply complete™.

>> bob: john roberts of the white house. sorry. i want to ask john the first question. this is the same guy, nunes, who said there was no evidence donald trump was wiretapped by barack obama. nothing but nothing in this report, at least what he said today, which you should notice set any way, has anything to do with barack obama and tapping his phone, right? >> that's correct. what it has to do with is simply incidental collection of people who were associated with the trump campaign who might've either been talking to a foreign

national or been brought up in a conversation between two people who were being surveilled. according to devin nunes, nothing improper about the collection. what he is worried about is the specific aspect of people being unmasked, their identity being put into an intelligence document, and intelligence product. the fisa regulations say that the intelligence community must take pains to obscure and protect the identity of any american caught up in incidental collection. in nunes, whether to know that happened with the way it was. >> bob: don't you think it is unusual for the chairman not to talk to his committee before he hightailed it to the white house? it muddies the water for trump. >> the ranking democrat on the intelligence community, adam schiff, believes that. you carried the press conference where he thinks this is

jeopardizing the integrity of the entire investigation into what russia was trying to do during the election campaign and whether or not there was any kind of connection between what the russians were doing and the trump campaign. he is on board. >> eric: lets explain for the audience so we understand the relevance of the fisa court. the reason why it's relevant is that you need a fisa warrant if you're going to surveillance american. you don't need one if you're going to surveilled foreigner the you think is creating some sort of terror operation going on. if you're going to surveilled an american, you have to go to the court. intel department told us that hadn't happened. now we know what has happened. you point out it wasn't regarding the russians. there is more going on then we have been led to believe. >> we haven't had it confirmed through any official channels but we are led to believe through the reporting and leaks that michael flynn had been talking on several occasions

with the russian ambassador, sergey kislyak. that was part of the routine intelligence gathering. if you are talking to a foreign national, we listen in on these people all the time because we want to know what they are doing. it seems like this might be at least part of that but when i asked chairman nunes about it, he said this goes beyond just michael flynn. because all of this is classified, i'm not sure we will ever find out exactly to what extent people were being surveilled and who was being surveilled. what's also interesting about this, i should point out, is the fact that according to chairman nunes, this didn't come from the agencies. it was an individual or individuals who came forward to him to tell him, and that has the democrat very upset. >> kimberly: to follow-up on what what you mentioned, the information representative nunes is getting, is it perhaps coming from a whistleblower?

somebody provided backed information and that's why the other republicans were not privy to it. >> if not a whistleblower specifically, someone who thought he would want this information. the reason i was turned around, i was talking to mara liasson from npr, frequent visitor on the fox news channel, about all of this. to connect some of the dots, the president said last week we expect we are going to hear something next week about it. earlier in the week, i was told by a white house official, when i said what are you trying to do to get this off the books and get out of the hole that's been dug, they said they'd been working on it. two days later, outcomes devin nunes with information that was apparently given to him privately by an individual or individuals. there are some dots you can connect in different ways but do i want to say there was coordination? no, but it is interesting and curious. >> greg: regarding the

breaking "new-nes" ." and obscure joke. where do you see this going? i don't know what's going on. i don't believe anybody. i don't trust anybody prove what is going to happen tomorrow? 's >> what's going to happen with the health care bill? >> greg: no, where is the story going? >> this story. there's another story, the health care bill. we might not hear anything more about this until friday. that's when chairman nunes said he expected to hear more about it. he said the nsa was cooperating. where i think this is going in the overall, when i look at where we began here, i think it's going nowhere. i think eventually it will be one of those things, in geostationary orbit. it will be up there but no one will remember it's up there. >> dana: i will ask you about

tomorrow's health care bill. president trump has pulled out all the stops to move all the republican members from a "no" to a "yes." is there anything happening for tomorrow? >> there were some members of the freedom caucus here and legislative affairs, as you know, dana, you know far more about this that i do. working of the phones, trying to wrangle as many votes as they can. focus on the hill believe the arm-twisting will go on until they decide to put it to a vote because they have the votes or they decide to pull it because they don't. we will see. >> bob: coming up, we will preview tomorrow's vote on the obamacare replacement bill. will there be enough votes for it to pass? speaker ryan spoke to dana earlier. hear what he has to say.

with e*trade's powerful trading tools, right at your fingertips, you have access to in-depth analysis, level 2 data, and a team of experienced traders ready to help you if you need it. ♪ ♪ it's like having the power of a trading floor, wherever you are. it's your trade. ♪ ♪ e*trade. ♪ ♪

start trading today at etrade.com the newly advanced gle can see in your blind spot. ok let's call his agent. i'm coming over right now. [ dinosaur roar ] onboard cameras and radar detect danger all around you. driver assist systems pull you back into your lane if drifting. bye chief. bye bobby. and will even help you brake, if necessary. it makes driving less of a production. lease the gle350 for $579 a month at your local mercedes-benz dealer. mercedes-benz. the best or nothing. on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call

for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

>> dana: we are 24 hours from a vote on capitol hill, the first major legislative test for president trump. lawmakers will decide on the bill to replace and repeal obamacare. not clear whether they have

enough support in their party. i interviewed speaker paul ryan. >> we are in the fourth quarter of the house passing this bill. that's when a lot of negotiations intensify. that's what this is. this is legislating. there are people who want various provisions but what's important is we have to have to broker compromises to make sure we draft legislation that can pass. members promised we would repeal and replace this disastrous and collapsing law. the president has been a fantastic closer. he's been getting votes. to me it's encouraging. we've never seen this kind of level of presidential engagement with our members. it's very constructive. >> dana: we were talking to john roberts early. >> kimberly: i think it's going to be tough. like you said yesterday, you never want to count them out. this is very important to him but he was tweeting about it this morning. they are working it behind the scenes but it's been busy.

probably a little bit of distraction going on given the developments in london and about the nunes conference and the information we got with schiff. i think it is still possible. i think it's going to be tough given the reports we've been accumulating over the day in terms of people saying they will not vote for it. >> dana: we know that today at least two of the members who said no after talking with president trump, they changed their minds. what do you think might happen? >> bob: if you believe the freedom caucus and what they say, that 25 are going to vote against, i don't think it's going to go down. i think eric is right. they won't let it go down. they will pull it off the floor and try to negotiate again. it should go down but it probably will not see the light of day for a long time if they pull it. >> dana: if it was going to

fail, why wouldn't you wanted to fail and you can blame the small cohort and move on. >> eric: i don't know. there's that chance it could actually pass. the freedom caucus said 25. said they weren't in favor. they vote as a proxy. i don't know. i guess there's a chance it passes but personally i think it's the worst thing that could happen to donald trump's reelection campaign. if it does pass. the bill as it stands right now will increase the costs of health insurance to average americans, not just the costs of the insurance but the deductibles. total out-of-pocket costs on an annual basis, most middle to lower class americans will have an increase in total out-of-pocket costs. this will kill him in 2020. i would like to see the strategy where he hangs on paul ryan and says you promised to deliver a better bill. i don't like it.

>> dana: you don't think that's hard to do? >> eric: of course it is. they may twist some arms and they may delay it. greg hates this "when the rubber meets the road," a year or two down the road. the heritage foundation, they say don't do it. medical practitioners say don't do it. >> dana: there is one democrat who is going to be absent tomorrow. that is making it slightly easier for republicans. >> greg: that's good. i always go back to the bigger, sadder picture. government programs have a way of existing forever independent of quality or results. they just don't die. the best you can do is somehow improve upon it. all government programs, the only thing you can do is limit their impact. that's all you can do, and if

they can limit it a little bit. it's like you try to keep a zombie chained to a tree paid that's a government program. the democrats created the zombie and the republicans have to chain it to a tree. tomorrow is about chaining the zombie to a tree. >> kimberly: like chewing off their own arm. >> greg: shaun of the dead. >> dana: final thoughts. next. [vo] quickbooks introduces jeanette

and her mobile wedding business. she travels far and wide to officiate i do's. and quickbooks automatically tracks those miles. she categorizes with a swipe and is ready for tax time. find more than $4000 in tax savings. visit quickbooks-dot-com.

>> kimberly: a lot of breaking news to digest. final thoughts. >> greg: i want to talk about the terror attack. there was a police officer killed. police officer one of the first people there. against the backdrop of higher per -- hyper criticism of law enforcement, these are the people who bear the the hell wt something like this happens. >> dana: i think it's a good reminder when one of our allies is attacked that this is not a fight we chose. this is a fight we can choose to win. in the next six weeks or so there will be a couple meetings that will be very important as president trump meets with nato allies. and also the big-budget fight, president trump has asked for more money from the pentagon. i think it's something that will

probably pass we should all be aware that we need more resources in order to continue to fight this. it's not going away. >> eric: the health care debate is important because it number one, it's health care. difficult thing to tackle. trump is having a tough time with it but it needs to be fixed. also it has to be fixed so we can get the tax reform. that is the big one we need to be getting to. let's figure out a way to do it. >> bob: president trump at mar-a-lago to play more golf. cost half a million dollars bird projecting out for years, the cost of taxpayers paying for donald trump to go to mar-a-lago's half a billion dollars. >> kimberly: more thoughts on the london terror attack, thoughts and prayers go to the families. we hope they find who is responsible. set your dvr so you never miss an episode of "the five." see you back tomorrow. "special report" is next.

>> a deadly attack in london. a new twist in the case of president trump's wiretap claims, and some republican lawmakers claimed the republican president is on track to lose a historic vote on obamacare set for tomorrow. this is "special report" ." good evening and welcome to washington on a very busy news day. i am james rosen sitting in for bret baier. "special report" is following three major stories tonight. the bill president trump is backing to repeal and replace obamacare may be on life support tonight. just hours ahead of a crucial vote in congress. the president claims vindication after the house intelligence