facebook.com/outnumberedfnc. we already checked and you guys are logging on like crazy, looks like record numbers. join us, we are back on tv at noon tomorrow. "happening now" starts now. >> jenna: fox news alert, awaiting the start of the daily press briefing, another busy day at the white house, welcome to the second hour of "happening now," i am jenna lee. >> eric: i'm eric shawn in fort jon scott. we will bring you to the briefing as soon as it begins as we await president trump at the environmental protection agency who will sign a new executive order we are told repealing obama era regulations on possible fossil fuels and climate change, meanwhile g.o.p. lawmakers see their agenda moving forward that they could take another look at healthcare reform. >> jenna: mike emanuel had great questions during the conference about an hour ago. he is lived on capitol hill with the very latest. >> good afternoon. president trump says he is ready to move on to tax reform there

are signs lawmakers are not done trying to address health care, house speaker paul ryan and his leadership team held their weekly conference with g.o.p. lawmakers earlier this morning and were told healthcare was a major topic. ryan did not give a lot of details but suggested some g.o.p. opponents last week have soft end. >> some of those who were in the know camp expressed a willingness to work on getting to yes and to making this work. we want to get it right, we are going to keep talking to each other until we get it right. i'm not going to put a timeline on it because it is too important to not get right into put on an official timeline. >> house democratic leader nancy pelosi sent a dear colleague letter writing "after the collapse of trumpcare we want to ensure the administration does not sabotage the aca out of spite that we can work to approve and update the affordable care act and the health security provided to tens of millions of americans." today, other house democrats met and said they have a message for

speaker ryan about his repeal efforts. >> i want to be very clear she speaker paul ryan. your repeal efforts are unacceptably harmful to the american people, and they will be a political anchor around vulnerable republicans and 2018. >> one thing both sides seem to agree on is the fight over the future of american healthcare is not yet over. >> jenna: thank you very much for that. straight to the white house with sean spicer as he begins the daily press briefing. >> press secretary spicer: this morning, the present had a listening session with the attorney general and fraternal order of police with the vice president to discuss law enforcement issues related to terrorism and inner-city violence. the fraternal order of police is the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers with more than 330,000 members. they represent those who dedicate their lives to protecting and serving. they advocate for improved working conditions for law enforcement officers and for the

safety of our community. the president thanked the leadership for their support and reaffirmed his pledge to have our back. the president also remarked that his highest duty is the security of our people and pointed to several actions he has already taken to enhance our domestic security including the creation of a task force on reducing violent crime and entered agency task force to dismantle criminal cartel in historic action to secure our borders and remove criminals from our country. the group held an in-depth discussion about the rise of violent crime in some parts of the country, the disturbing increase in members of law enforcement being targeted ambition style attacks and the need to address the country's opioid epidemic. attorney general sessions told the leadership he looks forward to continuing to work closely with them to tackle the challenges facing law enforcement as they work to keep our communities safe. this afternoon as i mentioned at the top, the president will sign an executive order on energy independence at the environmental protection agency headquarters.

the president strongly believes that protecting the environment and providing our economy are not mutually exclusive goals. this executive order will help to ensure that we have clean air and clean water without sacrificing economic growth and job creation. first, it directs all agencies to conduct a review of all regulations, rules, policies and guidance documents that put up roadblocks to domestic energy production and identify the ones that are not either mandated by law or actually contributing to the public good. it also recent a number of the previous administration's actions that do not reflect this administration's priority. the full list is laid out in the executive order which we will provide later today after the president signs it. next, the order directs the epa to take several actions to reflect this presidents environmental and economic goals including a review of the new performance standards for coal-fired and in natural gas-fired plants that amount to a de facto ban on new coal plant

production in the amount due like united states. this is great news for states like wyoming and west virginia, kentucky, pennsylvania, and others. finally, the order establishes a director for agencies to use the best available science and economics in their regulatory analysis moving forward. for too long, the federal government has acted like a barrier to energy independence and innovation. by reducing unnecessary regulatory obstacles, we will free up american energy companies to responsibly use our vast energy resources, protecting the environment while creating well-paying jobs throughout the country. american electricity producers have already done an amazing job of adapting and utilizing new technologies to deliver clean power to the united states. under president trump, the federal government is going to acknowledge that progress and adjust its priorities accordingly. moving on, later this afternoon, the present will meet with secretary of state tillerson and secretary of homeland homelandy

kelly. the president and first lady will host a reception here for senators and their spouses. this will be the first time president trump has invited all current senators to the white house, and he looks forward to this opportunity as well as to speak with some of the senators about the places they can come together to make this country better. one of those places he hopes to find common ground with senate democrats tonight is the confirmation of judge neil gorsuch to the supreme court. yesterday, many senate democrats began declaring support for senate minority leader chuck schumer's partisan filibuster of judge neil gorsuch. as i said, if the senators get their way, this would be the first successful filibuster of a nominee to join the supreme court. leading democrats have lamented the tactics as recently as last year. senator schumer in fact wrote last year in an op-ed in the new york daily news, and i quote "at a time when americans want to move forward, the last thing we need -- the last thing is a new recipe for good luck at the supreme court. democrat nominee hillary clinton said of the supreme court vote

that it should not be a exercise implacably summon midship and posturing in nominees deserve a full and fair hearing followed by a vote. senator claire mccaskill of missouri tweeted the constitution says the senate shall advise and consent and that means having an up and down vote. so who are senate democrats going to enact this on extra neri links to block? it's an individual frankly who their body including senator schumer unanimously confirmed for a seat on the tenth circuit not too long ago. this is a judge that received a unanimous well-qualified rating by the american bar association with a harvard law graduate he received the edward jay randolph award for outstanding service at the department of justice. it cannot be their qualifications they are taking issue with. judge gorsuch is frankly not a mainstream judge, facts and figures and stats point that out. and 91% of the cases were he issued the opinion, he received unanimous support of all his colleagues.

second, and divided cases over the last five years involving both republicans and democrats appointed judges, judge gorsuch decided with the democrat appointed judge one in three times. when the shoe was on the other foot, when the supreme court nominee for a democratic president went through the confirmation hearing in meetings with senators from both parties, neither justices kagan nor soto mayor faced and attempted filibuster. both received republican votes in support of their confirmation. in fact during the kagan nomination, when senator harry reid planned to file a closer motion to take it to a vote, it was then senator and now current attorney general jeff sessions who stopped him and said, i have a high standard before i would attempt to block an up or down vote and asked senator reid to proceed with a vote without the need for overcoming in republican filibuster peer judge gorsuch has met with most of the senate democratic caucus. he has gone through days of hearings and answered probing questions. he has eminent qualified and deserves the deference and consideration from the minority

senate democrats that president obama's selections were given once they had gone through the confirmation process. if you things i want to highlight p last night, the president announced his intent to nominate the assistant attorney general of the antitrust division at the department of justice. this morning, we announce the president's declaration of a major disaster in the state of nevada and ordered federal assistance to supplement recovery efforts in the areas affected by severe storms, flooding, and mudslides this past february. finally this morning, the president is pleased to see that ford announced $1.2 billion investment in three manufacturing facilities in michigan just two weeks after automobile executives came to the white house and met with the president. this as to the growing wave of positive news, jobs news under the president and continued investment from charter communications, approval of the permits for the keystone xl pipeline friday. in addition, energy transfer partners reported monday they decode axis pipeline has been

filled with oil as they enter the final station stages of preparation that will finally put this into service. according to data released by the conference board, in march, consumer confidence soared to its highest level in 16 years. and from individual announcements to the significant boost in both consumer and ceo confidence generally, it is clear the president's economic agenda is what america's businesses have been waiting for. these businesses have spent years being held back by unnecessary bureaucratic red tape and what we are seeing now is just a taste of the heights though economy can reach once the burdens are removed. lastly, i want to make a comment on a false report regarding former acting attorney sally yates. as a matter of fact, i would like to walk you through the sequence of events to make sure everyone is abundantly clear on what happened. march 14th, chairman nunes and reiki membership invited sally yates to testify on march 28th it on march 23rd, sally yates attorney sent a letter to the department of justice asking for their consent to testify

without restraint peer march 24th, the department of justice said they could only discuss those issues they were authorized to talk about and referred them to the white house but also on the 20th, the lawyer sent a letter to the white house counsel requesting that consent specifically saying if they did not receive a response by march 27th at 10:00 a.m. they would "conclude that the white house does not exert executive privilege over these matters" p the white house did not respond and took no action that prevented miss sally yates from testifying peer that is the story peer that is with the documents show. with that, i'm glad to take some questions. >> reporter: i would like to follow up, there are reports that even though they hearing that was set for the 27th was not scheduled, it was canceled by devin nunes prevent the white house from publicly invoking a claim of exec at a privilege. can you speak to that? >> press secretary spicer: i hope she testifies. i look forward to it. let's be honest. the hearing was actually never

notified -- it is a huge -- if they choose to move forward, great, we have no problem with her testifying plain and simple. the report and "the washington post" is 100% false. the letters they faintly publish on their website all back up everything i just read. all the letters are available on their website, hate to give them the traffic, but their reality is that they specifically say if you do not respond, we are going to go ahead. we did not respond. we encourage them to go ahead. but you suggest in any way, shape, or form that we stood in the way of that is 100% false. >> reporter: a couple things you said earlier. you said you want the agencies to use best available science, does that mean that you will not find additional science research? number two, what other issues would you like to see the presiden democrats on? >> press secretary spicer: on the first one, best science is best science. >> reporter: you said available. >> press secretary spicer: if

it is not available, it is tough to use it. >> reporter: is that code for not using it. >> press secretary spicer: it is code that it needs to be available, plain and simple, should not reach or read anything into that. the president will speak more to that on today's society at 1:30, 2:00, rather. i think there are a whole host of issues, talked about healthcare, they want to come together on infrastructure, tax reform, we would love to have as much support as possible. >> reporter: a couple questions. from what i am told, your actions today at the white house saying they are going to reverse president obama's so-called war on coal, coal industry has adjusted jobs are not coming back in that industry based on the way the industry has changed, technology and other things. does this admeasure should have an estimate of how many jobs will be created as a result of the actions taken today? >> press secretary spicer: i am not aware of one pit under the president has met with some of the coal miners the other day and senators in particular from

west virginia and kentucky that were here at the eo signing a few days ago. i will tell you from a mining perspective, the miners and owners are very bullish on this. the people who are actually in the business applaud this effort, believe it will do a lot to revive the industry. it is obvious that a private industry, so i am not going to get into who does what. i know the industry itself says so. i am sorry. >> reporter: use of the announcement today comes two weeks after the automakers met here at the white house paid to the white house or president do anything in that meeting that led to this announcement today? >> press secretary spicer: to have been efforts and commitments on the regulatory efforts going forward in the future that i think may have played a role. i would ask forward on that. it is a continued sign of it. i think we have seen a number of industry leaders, union leaders, truckers, truck companies come in and talk about burdens. i think there've been several

cases where meetings in the white house or frankly we went to michigan and held that roundtable out there as well, that meetings that we have have a very positive follow-up in terms of a commitment from a company or an industry to create jobs, to invest more in this country. in each of these cases -- >> reporter: so the president is taking political credit? >> press secretary spicer: i am going to leave that to forward, obviously we are pleased with more americans getting jobs throughout various sectors. i think that will continue in the present made it clear he continues to fight to bring back jobs in manufacturing here in the country. >> reporter: looking seriously at tax reform, can you go through what the president's bottom line is, is it middle-class tax relief, corporate tax relief, can you do it come pensively or piecemeal,o you add if the structure spending to it somehow, how are you looking at this? >> jenna: on the first two, those are both key components,

the middle class individual text piece of it and then the corporate rate has to come down. i think those are guiding principles that that president has laid out. as far as how the process works, -- i don't want to get ahead of the folks in the legislative affairs are the guys on capitol hill, but i would suggest there is a prevailing attitude out there that fy '18 reconciliation is probably the most likely vehicle to remove some of this. again, what we want to do is keep a lot of options on the table in terms of do we put infrastructure end, another vehicle to drive that. part of gathering folks together now from capitol hill from industries from these different groups is to begin that discussion, talk about what needs to go in, with the way forward is, and so that conversation has begun, and it is continuing. >> reporter: when do you think you will have recommendations to

take it to the president? >> press secretary spicer: internally, the team has been talking to him for a while. i think there is a bigger discussion that has to happen as we branch out with outside groups, industry, members of capitol hill, et cetera that start to formulate some additional listening that needs to happen on this and again, i think part of it is there is a legislate of strategy that needs to tie into this periods report of mike is the white house currently involved in any negotiations about the healthcare bill? and if so, in what manner? >> press secretary spicer: staff has met with individuals and listened to them. i don't know how detailed you want -- are we -- have we had some discussions and listen to ideas? yes. are we actively planning an immediate strategy? not at this time. i think there is a discussion that began as i mentioned yesterday of a lot of individuals on both sides of the aisle reaching out to key staff

members to share ideas and additional ways forward. there has been a discussion. i believe there will be several more. >> reporter: what would you say to the folks who have genuine concern that if you could not get healthcare done, how do you go about getting big ticket items like tax reform and infrastructure done, people say if you cannot get one, how are you going to do the next, what would you say to that concern? >> press secretary spicer: again, i think -- as -- we are going to build a coalition for this. each has different constituencies, and we are going to work with members of both sides of the aisle on both those big ticket issues to see where we can find agreement and move forward. i do not want to prejudge the outcome at this point. >> reporter: thank you. >> press secretary spicer: we will do both. i will stick here and then go to matt for straight up. john. just lucky day.

>> reporter: thank you. just as a follow-up question, did the president himself have any discussion with the speaker ryan or leader mccarthy or anyone over the weekend about healthcare and making an actual vote on the american healthcare act? and one got the impression from speaker ryan today that he was going to try to pass this with republican votes which would contradict some of your statements about reaching out to democrats all along. has any of this come up with discussions between each side of pennsylvania avenue? >> press secretary spicer: i think i talked yesterday. they have spoken a few times. about different strategies, different ideas, different policy aspects of the bill. absolutely. at least on a number of -- two or three times they have spoken. i know several staff members have also engaged in

discussions. again, to talk about potential ways forward. those conversations have occurred. i mentioned that to blake and some of it yesterday. if we can find a way forward, we will do it. i don't think -- just so we are clear to your question, i am not saying that we picked a strategy and are going with this group or that group. i think the president -- several people reached out and expressed an interest, and the president's view is he is willing to listen to them and hear what their ideas are. i made a comment yesterday that was -- just so we are clear, we have -- let's call it 205, 207, somewhere in their votes. may be 210 depending on what it is. the point that i made yesterday is to get to 216, 218 depending on the day of the week, there are certain things that people want that would take what i think the president of use as a very good bill that were not worth doing because they would make the deal bad.

so the question is, can we add the additional votes with -- in ways that enhance the bill or bring people over that have been previous skeptics? there is a way in which people are saying, hey, if you bring me on board with these five provisions, i am on board, in which either take people off the bill or do not make it as strong and make it a bad deal. i think that is the balancing act that has to happen. one is can you add additional folks on without pushing additional folks off, and two, is what you had to add to the bill, does it make it stronger or does it not? i think there are suggestions by some out there that have said we are willing to come along with the bill, but in doing so, it would make it a bad deal. that is an important aspect. how do you take whatever that number is that we have now and get it up to 216 to pass without making -- without losing people and/or making it a bad deal.

>> reporter: with republican votes, not democrats. >> press secretary spicer: however we get there, john. >> reporter: yesterday, you are not able to tell us very much about congressman nunes' visit to the white house to view classified information last week. a democrat on the committee today said that the white house would have known that he was here, the same democrat also said it looked like a criminal cover-up to him. my question to you is have you learned any more information since you had the conversation yesterday about how he would have gotten it and how he would have gotten cleared? and do you think congressman nunes should recuse himself from being in charge of the russian investigation at this point? >> press secretary spicer: number one on the latter part, that is not up to me. he's a member of the house appointed by the speaker so that's entirely up up to the he speaker and representatives. were not commenting on that kind of stuff. i think he is running an investigation which we asked for. i think the thing that is important to know, is there somewhat of a double standard

when it comes to classified information? when leaks are made illegally to the press, you all report them, the coverage focuses almost entirely on the substance of the allegations that are part of an illegal leak, not on the illegal nature of the disclosure, the identity of the leaks or their agenda. but when the information that is occurring now which is to individuals who were properly cleared or three or whoever the amount, i don't know, that they are sharing stuff that is entirely legal with the appropriate clearances than there is an obsession on the process. it is a backwards way that when you all report on stuff with sources that are leaking, legally leaking classified information, that is appropriate and fine, no one questions that. the substance and material, went to individuals or however many are engaged in this process, have a discussion that is 100% legal and appropriate and clear, suddenly the obsession becomes about the process and not the substance.

i think it is somewhat reckless and -- how the conversation over classified information is discussed without while sort of attempting to press eight false narrative exists. while it is completely appropriate to share classified information with individuals who are cleared, it is clearly not the case to do that with when it is illegally leaked out, and i think that is the irony of how this whole conversation has gone. john. >> reporter: just following up on your statement in regards to "the washington post" article. with the white house counsel office ever considered invoking privilege as it relates to sally yates testifying before this congressional committee? >> press secretary spicer: no. >> reporter: why is that? you would be in a position to do that because after all, these were privileged communication speak tween the acting attorney general and the office of the president. >> press secretary spicer: i know this would be a shocker but

part of it is we have been very clear that when you actually get to the bottom of the facts, every single person has been briefed on this as i said acknowledging from this podium, they have been very clear there is no connection between the president or the staff here and anyone doing anything with russia. i think the view here was go share what you know. so no, and that is why "the washington post" should be ashamed of how they handled this story. it was 100% false. the letters they actually published backup exactly what we are saying. she was asked about this information, her attorney asked the doj, the doj said she had to ask the white house, they made it very clear if you do not do this, we are going forward. we had no objection to her going forward. that is it. hold on. matt was next. there is an order here. >> reporter: quickly following up on that, i have two question questions. we are taking what you are saying as assurance that

chairman nunes' decision to call off the hearing did not have anything to do with any pressure from the white house? >> press secretary spicer: no. >> reporter: okay, thank you. on a different topic, we are seeing more states, maine, virginia, kansas moving to expand medicaid with the affordable care act, what is the trump message to legislators and those estates now that the affordable care act future is uncertain? >> press secretary spicer: there is a reason he explained to congress and especially members who have talked about entitlement expansion why we should have passed this bill last week and why we need to address it now. it is a major issue. one of our talking points. i hope they listen. i think he understands that the way that it was handled in terms of the able-bodied provision under that right now are a leading to an implosion on that piece of the entitlement and that there was an opportunity to refocus it and to push the money

and a lot of the authority back to the states to best determine how to handle issues within their states both in terms of high risk pools and individuals that they wanted to cover. frankly, the bill made it a much more states rights program and a much more states rights decision-making process in terms of how to care for the population that they had to address. >> reporter: a couple things. how and what exact we did the white house encourage her to testify? >> press secretary spicer: the letter that her attorney sent literally says that if we do not receive a response by march 27th at 10:00 a.m., i will conclude that the white house does not assert executive privilege over the matters with respect to hearings or otherwise. i don't think he can be any clearer than that. >> reporter: you are saying that executive privilege does not -- >> press secretary spicer: i'm not saying anything. literally -- that is what she wrote to the action is if you do not act, we will assume the

following. great. i don't that you can read that any other way. i'm sure she's a very talented -- he is a very talented lawyer who wrote it specifically, wrote and reread it that way and we chose not to act because we have no problem with her testifying plain and simple. >> reporter: executive privilege would not be an issue for sally yates testifying? >> press secretary spicer: that is correct. you are -- i don't -- it is interesting to me -- this is very clearly worded, and yet somehow you are asking me how to interpret that in any other way than literally reading from it. >> reporter: does the president still believe that climate change is a hoax? >> press secretary spicer: you will hear more today about the climate and what he believes. he understands -- he does not believe -- as i mentioned at the outset that there is a binary choice between job creation and economic growth and caring about the environment. that is what we should be focusing on. at the end of the day, where we should be focusing is making

sure all americans have clean water, clean air and that we do what we can to preserve and protect our environment. april, go ahead. >> reporter: you don't seem so happy. anyway, with all of these investigations, questions of what is is, how does the admission try to revamp its image? two and a half months in, you've got other things going on, russia, wiretapping -- >> press secretary spicer: we don't have that. >> reporter: on capitol hill -- >> press secretary spicer: i get it, but i have said it from the day that i got here until whatever that there is no connection. you've got russia. if the president puts russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that is a russian connection. every single person -- no -- i appreciate your agenda here, but the reality is -- no, hold on. at some point, report the facts.

the facts are that every single person who has been briefed on this subject has come away with the same conclusion, republican, democrat, i am sorry that discuss you. you are shaking your head. i appreciate it. understand this. at some point, the facts are what they are. every single person who has been briefed on this situation with respect to the situation with russia, republican, democrat, obama appointee, career, have all come to the same conclusion. at some point, april, you're going to have to take no for an answer with respect to whether or not there was collusion. >> reporter: but how do you change that perception? >> press secretary spicer: we are going to keep doing everything we are doing to make sure that the president -- what the president of the american people he was going to do to fulfill those pledges and promises that he made, to bring back jobs, grow the economy, keeping our nation safe, that is what he has been focused on since day one. were going to keep focusing on that every single day. >> reporter: rice did not

support this, what is on the agenda, hows there relationship? has it healed since 2006 when he used a very negative word? >> press secretary spicer: here is what i will tell you -- interesting you asked those two questions back-to-back. on the one hand, you're saying what are we doing to improve our image then here he is once again meeting somebody that has not been a big supporter of his. hold on. april, hold on. it seems like you are hell-bent on trying to make sure that whatever image you want to tell about this white house states because at the end of the day -- let me answer. i understand. you're asking me a question. i'm going to answer it. the president -- i am sorry. stop shaking your head again. at some point, the reality is this president continues to reach out to individuals who have supported him, who did not support him, republicans, democrats to try to bring the country together and move forward on an agenda that's going to help every american bid that is it plain and simple. if you're asking what we are doing, we are continuing to do it which is bringing groups together that have been

supportive of him, have not been supportive, but to share a goal which is finding common ground on areas of national security, personal security, economic security, job creation, safer community, education, healthcare, that can unite us as a country, make the country stronger. i am not ready -- when we're done with that, we will see if we can have a read out. hold on. i understand that. we are not friday yet. i will have a readout when it is done for a neat delete might know the pool needs to get to the vans for the signing p thank you pete i will be back tomorrow. five days in a row this week, ladies and gentlemen. thank you, guys. >> jenna: five days in a row? a promise from our press secretary. you know where you can find his press briefing, you will find them here. usually during our 1:00 hour. it lacked covered in a press briefing, the tax reform issue, infrastructure, but there was a lot on the intel committee stili

know that gets confusing so we will talk about everything covered at the press briefing but i would like if we can to go to our chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge who is alive in washington. if you can sum up the news of the day regarding this intel community and why it matters. >> let's start with sally yates. she is not really a household name, but she was the deputy attorney general in the last administration. she had been recalled along with two former intelligence officials to testify today on capitol hill and the public hearing. that hearing got canceled, but the process we learned that the lawyer wrote to the white house counsel and decide if we do not hear from you, she is going to talk about an element of the investigation involving the former national security advisor mike flynn and these allegations that what was being said about sanctions and him from the white house were different than the transcripts they had of his conversations with the russian ambassador. there was a "washington post" story saying that the

white house was trying to block sally yates testimony and what we heard at the briefing was in fact the white house never responded to the letter so it was clear that she was free to talk about the flynn case in a public setting as long as it was not classified information. >> jenna: that was actually great. that was the best expiration all day, thank you for that. that is one of the big questions when it comes to the story, who knew what when, what about these leaks, still all these questions about devin nunes, chairman of the intel committee, where he met and the white house grounds, with who, when. again, if we can just go back to the big picture, what are some of the big questions that still remain regarding this investigation about whether or not there was again a connection between the trump campaign and it team in russia? >> this is really in a lot of ways the tale of two stories if you will on the one hand, there is the story of congressman nunes going to the white house grounds, meeting with his source

for these intelligence reports and his public confirmation that they show that through something called incidental collection, he feels that there was information about the trump transition team that should never have been there, it was not related to russia and this goes to the idea that there was some kind of monitoring or surveillance that was going on after last year's election. on the other hand, democrats say that nunes was way out of bounds, coloring way outside the lines, he really could not go to the white house grounds and see this information and not shared with the ranking democrat because they are doing a bipartisan investigation and they need to really coordinate their moves. republicans would say it is hypocritical of the democrats to say that because they kind of went full steam on the unverified russian dossier that was very negative two trump. so we have got the shoe on the other foot for both parties here. i think for folks at home, the

thing to really pay attention to is whether a lawful way to gather information through phone calls, it is called the 702, it is a special ability the nsa has, whether this was in fact abused by the last administration and turned on american citizens because that has been the concern ever since this was expanded and made possible through the nsa. based on what congressman nunes says, it was abused within the letter of the law, but what every american should be focused on is whether there was some sort of abuse of power or whether this is really political grandstanding at this point by the republicans. >> jenna: we know there are politics at play with everything but a former nsa whistleblower told us about this program and underscored your point that if it could happen to someone like mike flynn, it was his assertion it could happen to any american at any time.

that is the big picture, did that indeed happen? we will leave it there, thank you very much for walking through the breaking news. a lot to follow, we're doing our best. in the meantime, isaac standing by, former director of a pro-clinton super pac and wilson, former campaign senator for ted cruz and an opinion research, one of the biggest republican pulling firms. we want to talk about tax or form and healthcare because it affects all of our viewers but we are experiencing the same thing as the white house. even though we want to talk about these key issues to our everyday lives, this intel story keeps on rising to the surface. that is why i started with catherine herridge at the press briefing because a lot of questions were on that. how much is this issue on the intel committee and who knew what when dogging the trump emaciation and their attempt to try to control the agenda and thinks they would actually like to accomplish? >> i think you saw that represented in the press conference with sean spicer paid the fact is that it continues to

dominate the news cycle. it is unfortunate because it doesn't distract -- does distract from other aspects and i would say to the trump administration and everyone around that it is import they co so publicly because the best thing for their agenda and for the republican party as a whole is to get this behind them and be able to move forward because otherwise it is going to continue to be a distraction and take away from things like pushing healthcare, infrastructure, tax reform, and it is problematic on several levels. >> jenna: i know you and chris do not agree with a lot but i'm grass back guessing you agree little bit on that. the press secretary said there, fine, have sally yates testify, get it all back, do you believe that? >> there have been comments today already that nunes canceled the hearing in order to prevent her from testifying. we don't know. there are a lot of moving pieces to all of this, and there are a lot of questions about our national security and the credibility going back to the

trump administration and their dealings with russia. we certainly want to have a fair and thorough probing of that to know where we are and where we stand as we battle the big issues and attack on the big issues facing our country. >> jenna: there we go, we are all looking for facts, so we can agree on that, week the limit that is great. we cannot talk about facts because we are waiting on more of those, so in the meantime, let's talk about tax reform. you heard about middle-class tax cuts, corporate tax rates as well come a question about whether or not this trump administration links that did infrastructure to try to push nothing really big three appear with that be wise or beneficial for the american people? >> this is where you get into the drain the swamp aspect because they are semi-components that fit into it. and we will talk about what he has done that can be successful, so if there is one lesson from healthcare reform it is if republican party and leadership and the trump administration do not bring in the middle of the party in the right of the party

from the outset, they are almost destined for failure from the beginning paid you cannot present some ink to republicans in congress that our elected officials and say to pass this because it is coming down from us. that will not work. the other aspect is they are so many landmines with how they go about it, tax reform, young lobbyists, people who want to make sure they are protected than the infrastructure, groups want to make sure they get the contracts coming out of that. there are so many aspects to this that make it a difficult road to hoe that i think it is incumbent upon the white house to learn what went wrong with healthcare, work with conservatives, moderates, those democrats willing to work with republicans from the outset to make sure they have a bill that is a little more acceptable once it arrives. >> jenna: i'm curious for your thoughts on that. do you think there are willing democrats to work with the white house on an issue like tax reform? >> i think where we agree on the issue of what president trump is talking about, for tax reform as well as for infrastructure is that there are significant

obstacles. where we disagree is the major obstacle is arithmetic. the math just is not there. donald trump, the tax plan he allied during the campaign would provide massive tax cuts to the wealthiest americans at the expense of very little for the middle-class and the plan to fund that largely came from throwing about $20 million or more americans off their healthcare. so without the ability to throw americans off healthcare, where would they pay for that and wear what they pay for the one chilean dollar proposal by president trump for infrastructure expenditures? remember, the republican u.s. senators in 2011 voted down barack obama's stimulus package for infrastructure that was one-tenth of the size of president trump's. >> jenna: it was structured differently, but you said that the democrat opposition to this sort of tax reform, so what does the response to isaac, there are real issues here? >> you have to look back at history, two of the largest

periods of economic growth where jfk back in the oppression he 60s and ronald reagan and the '80s. take the reagan tax cuts as example, they would not happen without a democrat member of congress at the time being part of pushing them through. i really hope you will see a more reasonable democratic party. >> jenna: have to run, isaac give you the last word, is there a democrat like that? like he is describing, is he or she out there? >> i think they are democrats ready to talk about tax reform, but where the trump tax cuts heat proposed during the campaign would give a 1% rebate which is like $500 in tax cuts to those making 40000- 40000-$50,000.350000 or a 30% of their own money back for those making over a million dollars as about those priorities, and we want to see help for the middle class. >> jenna: great to have you both, enjoyed the conversation, look forward to having you both on. >> eric: around president sitting down with vladimir putin. he wants to strengthen the islamic republic tight with

russia, so what does this partnership mean for us? and how does u.s. strategy fit into that friendship as congress considers what makes this simple salad the best simple salad ever?

heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple veggie dish ever? heart healthy california walnuts. the best simple dinner ever? heart healthy california walnuts. great tasting, heart healthy california walnuts. so simple. get the recipes at walnuts.org. you need one of these. you wouldn't put up with an umbrella that covers you part way,

so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day? aleve, live whole not part. tell you what, i'll give it to you for half off. >> eric: right now president trump planning to deliver on his promise to build that wall between the u.s. and mexico. but first, the government needs to access a lot of private property along the border and now some texas residents are getting notices that they are at land that would be needed for the wall could possibly be seized by the federal government under the law known as eminent domain. that could lead to some long legal battles for the federal government. what does this mean? criminal defense attorney fox news legal analyst, will come to you both. mercedes, let me start with you, eminent domain has been a big issue especially with conservatives for many years who cannot stand it because it is the government taking your property for public use, but also and what decision, private

use. this may come to a surprise as a lot of folks on the border that there land could be taken. >> it is pretty shocking for first of all, they will site we have due process we will go to the court and challenge the government taking our property, and is it really public safety, do you need to seize my property to make this happens? number two, what is the compensation for me? if the conversation is not just, it's unconstitutional and you cannot take it so we are talking, you are exact right, the battle by these private citizens will be years in the making. >> eric: there are legal battles now that our 400 cases under the bush demonstration just part of the fence, like 90 or so are still open today, so how long could this take? >> this could go on for years paid the bottom line is the federal government does have the right. eminent domain has very broad power, they can take your pet poverty if it is for public use and as you said in certain cases private use. if it is a wall that is sanctioned by the president and

congress, they can take your property so you have to go and fight and they have to give you fair market value and you can fight and say they can rely on the constitution but it would be a long, hard-fought battle in most like we in favor of the government because they do have the right. >> eric: if it is up in the court like it will become how long could it take? could that more and partly prevent the wall from being built in the first place? >> absolutely, the first thing they will do is say they need a restraining order right away because if they take my property, it is a foregone conclusion pure they will tie it in the courts that way then get to the litigation, could be up to seven years. it goes through this process, start at the trial level than applet level, who knows? talking about constitutional rights. >> it is a -- it is an injunction because it is real property so you get the injunction, the other problem the president has is how he's going to find it. we have a problem with the litigation and saying he wants one point $4 billion now, it

will take 20 but you dollars to fund it, it is a tough promise he made an it may not be able to be done. >> eric: it could be a surprise for folks on the border especially supporters, "the washington post" said this the other week, "to build a wall along the nearly 2,000-mile border into fulfill a key campaign promise, he would need to wield the power of the government to forcefully take private properties including those belonging to his supporters." let's say you are a supporter. you've got your back yard, ranch, someone comes knocking on the door to say we are taking your land. >> and they raid it. >> unquestionably, go to the court to say i need immediate assistance. while you're up, go to court and get the injunction then move the process along. it's going to tie things for years to come. >> there is no other option, you have to run to court because the bottom line is if you do not, they will give you money and you will not have a property to live in. clearly, you have to take

legislative action. >> eric: everything ends up in court these days. >> luckily for us, we are happy with that. >> jenna: high-profile meeting abroad raising some big questions here at home, iran's president in moscow for a series of meetings. why this is concerning for america's safety and security next. i had frequent heartburn, but my doctor recommended... ...prilosec otc 7 years ago, 5 years ago, last week. just 1 pill each morning, 24 hours and zero heartburn. it's been the number 1 doctor recommended brand for 10... ...straight years, and it's still recommended today.

use as directed. youthat's why you drink ensure. sidelined. 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.

>> jenna: new information on this week's hypo from meeting between iran's president and vita may pu, hassan rouhani visiting moscow to strengthen ties between the two nations trying to figure out what it means for us. executive director for the foundation for defense of democracy. what does it mean for us, why are these two meeting? >> russia and iran have had a very close partnership, not necessarily analyze, and certainly rouhani fears that putin at some time might throw

them under the bus to be closer to the united states so he's running to moscow to reassure the iranians that they are indeed allies and for him not to do so. >> jenna: the weapons trade between the two countries, because we focus so much on the nuclear program, we will talk a little about that but what about weapons that go back and forth between iran and russia? >> significant weapons transfers, particularly russia to iran and symptom air defense systems, working on deals for sophisticated fighter jets, battle tanks, and the russians are chomping at the bit to sell billions of dollars worth of conventional weaponry to the iranian army. >> jenna: in the meantime, this question about the iran nuclear deal, the trump administration, congress taking out potentially new sanctions against anyone that is seen to do any sort of dealings in that area with iran. what do you think is the right way forward when it comes to protecting the united states of america? >> the right way forward is for the trump administration to

develop what ronald reagan developed in the 1980s which is a national security strategy at the time to subvert animal back soviet power p this would be the iran equivalent so it means all instruments of american power including but not limited to sanctions, financial power in order to check the iranians, their regional aggression and ensure they do not take that nuclear weapons and icbms under the nuclear deal. >> jenna: talk to us a little bit more about that because it is your assertion that iran does not need to cheat to get nuclear weapons, they can just wait. >> they can wait because there are restrictions in the nuclear deal that started it but will disappear over time beginning at about six to half years from now, and then after nine years, 12 years, many of the restrictions go away and iran can develop an industrial sized nuclear weapon capacity with an icbm powerful economy and regional hegemony and all they can do is follow the deal. the whole talk about enforcing the deal, vigorously and aggressively enforce the deal, it is a delusion that actually gives iran exactly what they

want. >> jenna: that is nerve-racking that it is only six years away. going back to the trump administration, is there anything they can do right now to make it harder for iran? we understand your strategy overall using the reagan strategy but in the immediate, is there something they can do that would have an impact? >> one is to really rebuild that sanctions pressure, economic pressure that congress has introduced the bill which is the beginning of that. number two is to begin to rollback iranian aggression in the region in yemen, syria, iraq and elsewhere. number three is to make it very clear to our partners that we will not tolerate a patient tactic for nuclear weapons and keep the iranians one year from breakout which is where they are today permanently, not allowing these restrictions to the extent that regarding and regardless of iranian behavior and the same hard meant ruling the regime in a decade from now. >> jenna: interesting that the meeting was taking place in the timing so we wanted to make sure to tell viewers about it. mark, thank you very much and your expertise as always.

we'll be right back with "happening now" ."

>> busy tuesday. >> we'll take it. >> thanks for joining us. "america news hq" starts now. we are waiting president trump to sign an executive order aimed at rolling back obama era epa regulations. this after a white house briefing dominated by questions on house intelligence chair devin nunes and former deputy attorney general sally yates. hello everyone i'm sandra smith. sean spicer questioned on the washington post reports that the trump administration sought to block sally yates from testifying in the house probe of hreufrpbs between russian officials and trump's campaign. things at the presser got even more heated when spicer was pressed on the russian investigation. >> there is no connection. you've got russia. if the president puts russian salad