go to sskbaseballusa.com for more information. >> and there's a great auto biography and what a year you've had. >> bill: good morning. there's breaking news from overseas. ten said to be killed, others injured after an explosion rocks the russian city of st. petersburg. this is brand new video. the train going between two stations when the blast happened. the kremlin said investigators are looking into this as a possible terror attack. several trains stations shut down. the russian president vladamir putin offering condolences to the victims' family. more as we get it inside "america's newsroom." first here at home, this is a big week for president donald trump. the big three are in front of him, china, the supreme court

and we welcome you to a monday edition of a "america's newsroom." back in new york city, shannon bream. i'm bill hemmer. missed you last week. >> shannon: i'm shannon bream in nor martha maccallum. the president will host chinese president xi jingping at his mar-a-lago home later this week and meanwhile he grinds away on health care wheeling and dealing on the government course with rand paul. >> bill: neil gorsuch is expect to take a major step towards confirmation. the judiciary committee will vote setting up for a showdown with the democrats. the republican, mitch mcconnel said gorsuch will be a justice no matter what democrats do this week. >> look, what i'm telling you is judge gorsuch is going to be confirmed. the way in which that occurs is in the hands of the democratic

minority. during the course of the week we'll see how this will end but it will end with his confirmation. >> shannon: a ton of news to get to today. we'll begin with chief white house correspondent john roberts. >> how is this monday different than any other, shannon? >> shannon: it's been this way. >> the egyptian prime minister will be here for meetings and thursday and friday this week the chinese president xi jingping will meet him at mar-a-lago. they asked for that setting in particular and one thorny issue is north korea. the president will likely ask xi jingping to wield his influence on them and dismantle their

nuclear program. in an interview with the financial times he said china will either decide to help us or won't and if they do it will be good for china and if they don't it won't be good for anyone and adding quote, if china won't solve north korea we will. the president does plan to talk about trade as you mentioned but he says he's going to leave any discussion about possible tariffs he talked about many time in the campaign trail until their next meeting. he wants to get this to be a get to know you affair before he tackles the tough task. another attempt at repealing and replacing obamacare he took rand paul for an afternoon of little white ball diplomacy. i didn't know rand paul played golf. he sounded optimistic after spending 18 holes with the president. listen hear.

>> i think the sides are getting closer together and i remain very optimistic we'll get obamacare repealed. >> he said we're optimistic and will get obamacare repealed. the question is what to replace it with and that's what hung everything up a week and a half ago, shannon. >> shannon: also hung up is the nomination of neil gorsuch but attracting more democratic support this weekend. >> they're moving ever closer to the magic mark of 60 and there was a report of support for neil gorsuch. and he's a qualified jurist and senator donnelly joined joe manchin and heidi heitkamp of north dakota said they'd support gorsuch. it brings the volt total to 65. senator chuck schumer still says

he doesn't think he'll make it to the magic mark to avoid a filibuster. >> it looks like gorsuch will not reach the 60 vote margin. instead of changing the rules which is up to mitch mcconnel and the republican majority why don't they come up with a mainstream nominee? >> that won't happen. the president said he'd encourage mitch mcconnel to encourage the nuclear option if he doesn't get 60 votes and saying neil gorsuch will become the nominee regardless of what the democrats do. >> bill: analysis on this this with byron york a fox news contributor from washington. good morning to you. he sent a tweet saying had a great time today with president

trump. in the spirit of easter is it back? >> after the first bill collapsed donald trump said i'm going to tax reform and the democrats said we can't walk away from this we've been yelling at it for seven years and say we didn't do it. there's work going on continuously. i think you see a couple things going. donald trump is talking to the senate. the round of golf with rand paul and threatening the house freedom caucus and threatened to issue primary challenges to freedom caucus members who didn't go along. you're seeing a number of moving parts here and i think the president's idea is he has leverage over the republicans because they can't afford to walk away. >> bill: language patters, byron, and rand paul said repeal. he did not say replace. donald trump said this to the financial times. yeah, i don't lose. i don't like to lose but that

was a definitive day referring to the friday of ten days ago. they're negotiating as we speak but there was no reason to take a vote. i said don't take a vote and we'll see what happens but one way or the other i promised the people great health care. would he really work with democrats? >> the other way was he threatened to work with democrats. the thing is he couldn't work with democrats under the present sort of bill. any bill that begins with obamacare is repealed is a non-starter among democrats. if on the other hand, and trump did suggest this in his interview if he tried to fix the current system it's possible he could work with democrats. >> bill: on neil gorsuch -- you're about 55 yet votes do you think chuck schumer finds more vote and breaks what's been long standing in the senate? >> remember, there's two votes

here. the first vote is the 60-vote barrier which is to end debate and move on to a final vote which is an up or down majority vote. we know gorsuch already has 55 votes. all 52 republicans plus the three democrats earlier. what responds need is five more democrats who will simply allow a final vote to take place. they can vote against him in the final vote if they want and so i think either you're going to see the filibuster hold and senator schumer is right it will stop gorsuch and mitch mcconnel will change the rules or democrats will decide to vote for him. >> bill: the committee starts in about 50 minutes for the senate judiciary committee. thank you, byron york, analysis. we didn't get a chance to talk about china because at the end

of the week in mar-a-lago two big days for the chinese leader in the u.s. off we go. >> shannon: that could be critical for talking north korea and the pressure and people want to see china exert. there'll be an interesting conversation. more on the breaking news from the top of the show. a terror attack in russia. an explosion on a subway in st. petersburg. ten reported dead and 50 more injured. russian officials say signs point to terror. we'll have breaking detail in a live report. >> bill: and president trump's claim of being wiretapped is turning out to be true. he's arguing that point today and over the weekend. our political panel will take that on fair and balanced in a moment. >> shannon: and a dangerous storm sweeping through the south and possible tornados flipping a trailer with deadly results. where the severe weather is heading next.

>> we're following breaking news from overseas where ten people have been killed in what they believe initially is a terror attack and 50 injured after in explosion rocked a subway station in st. petersburg.

the kremlin said investigators are looking into this as a possible terror attack. several train stations have been completely shut down in stst. st. petersburg and security is beefed up. >> bill: president trump used the answer to defend his position on surveillance during the campaign. the president telling the financial times, quote, i don't regret anything because there is nothing you can do about it. if you issue hundreds of tweets and every once in a while you have a clinker it's not so bad. my last tweet the one you were talking about perhaps was the one being used in quotes about wiretap meaning surveil. guess what, it is turning out to be true, end quote. mary anne marsh and katy pavlich. good morning to you. i think i read that right.

i'll have to check it. the question is this story breaking in his favor? >> i would say so. the more we dig the more reporter like adam housley dig on this though we can't find collusion between russian government officials and the trump campaign we have more evidence the obama administration had surveilled trump campaign officials. they were looking into phone calls and listening to who was talking to them and when they found it was trump administration officials those american citizens were unmasked. the information was then sent to friends in the press and also sent to capitol hill. >> bill: what you're saying could be very important or could be misleading. what your arguing is they used the law to set up to spy on people from overseas to in

effect spy on americans and they were part of the trump team. >> it's not that hard to do. if you have a wiretap on a foreign diplomat and they happen to be talking to an american citizen they can take the information. they're supposed to keep the identity the american citizen private and confidential and classified but there were obama administration officials. we still don't know their names who were unmasking those american citizens and sending that information up to capitol hill and into the press. it's not that difficult to do and they get away with it because legally they have the wiretap on the foreign officials they just happen to be listening on phone calls of americans. >> bill: mary anne, is this breaking in his favor? >> i think he wants it and he's working hard to make it to if only 35% of the people in the country who support donald trump believes him.

here's what's important. the people under surveillance to katie's point were russian targets and a criminal counterintelligence investigation. they were wiretapped. if you're an american speaking them and you got caught up in this you're on tape. if you're only talking about your grandchildren or the weather you're fine but if you talked about something else, then you might have something to worry about and here's the other important point. donald trump was informed about this investigation last summer when he officially became the nominee of the republican party so he was told about the investigation and what was going on. donald trump can also end the speculation by revealing what's on the tapes and getting james comey to conduct an investigation and not muddy the waters. >> bill: adam schiff the democrat on the committee who has been throwing a fit a week and a half looked at the same

evidence devin nunes saw and was talking over the weekend when he said this, watch. >> i don't think we can say anything definitively at this point and we're still at the early stage of the investigation. only thing i can say is it would be irresponsible for us not to get to the bottom and it's premature to reach conclusions. >> bill: what he said is there's definitive evidence the trump team was working with russia. then the white house is going to argue as they are right now, katie, that's the real story. >> the thing is democrats for month since the election and since hillary clinton lost the election to donald trump argued there was collusion. of course the trump campaign was working with the russians to slip the election and a number of democrats believe votes were changed in swing states because the trump campaign was colluding with the russians. for congressman adam schiff to go on sunday shows and argue

there's no definitive evidence a is accurate and b, rich because that's the argument democrats is been make for months. >> bill: on the point on voting now you have to prove intent and have to get inside the mind of a voter in rural michigan to figure out whether or not you can prove that. that's for another day. perhaps another month. perhaps another year. mary anne, come back to the point the president's making. he's saying this is the real story that they were surveilling us last year. last answer. >> no, the real story is the fbi and others were surveilling russian targets under investigation. now, if donald trump and other trump associates are on the tapes then lets put them out there. let's list everybody out there and let everybody know what was said. that could clear it up and that could be done today. >> bill: i think we'd like to figure it out and understand it.

>> it will be in the news for a while. >> bill: at least a year is what newt gingrich told us last week. thanks to see you, ladies. twenty minutes past. >> shannon: three people facing charges for a massive highway fire for what caused a fire in atlanta last week and what caused the flames and why three people are now facing charges. >> bill: and a horrific attack streamed live on facebook. a 14-year-old boy under arrest accused of raping a 15-year-old girl. dozens of people reportedly watching and doing nothing. >> they humiliated themselves, humiliate their families and now they'll be held accountable for what they did.

weeds. nature's boomerang. at roundup®, we know they keep coming back. draw the line. one spray of roundup® max control 365 kills weeds to the root and keeps 'em away for up to one year. roundup® max control 365.

so you'rhow nice.a party? i'll be right there. and the butchery begins. what am i gonna wear? this party is super fancy. let's go. i'm ready. are you my uber? [ horn honks ] [ tires screech ] hold on. [ upbeat music ] the biggest week in tv is back. [ doorbell rings ] who's that? show me watchathon. xfinity watchathon week! now until april 9. get unlimited access to all of netflix and more, free with xfinity on demand.

>> bill: police arresting three in connection with a massive fire in atlanta. he now faces criminal charge. two others charged with criminal trespassing. police said they were smoking crack cocaine under an overpass. pvc piping caught fire and crews now working to repair 700 feet of highway damaged by the flames. i cannot believe that is the case? if that's the way it turns out you have six to eight lanes of concrete highway and one of the busiest parts of atlanta. they'll be dealing with this for months. we saw it last week and it was something else. >> shannon: the commute in atlanta is terrible no matter what. now they said most people's commute time is doubled overnight. >> bill: smoking crack can bring down a highway. >> shannon: so i heard and now we know. a fox stream weather alert.

a severe storm system bringing heavy winds and tornados over the southeast causing flash flooding and knocking out power for thousand of people. police say a mother and a 3-year-old were killed when a tornado flipped their home in louisiana. >> she was the love of my life, my daughter, everything. >> i saw hail falling and everything and i never expected for this to come about happening. >> always smiling, happy, gullible girl. always happy ready to help. whatever. the little girl loved everybody. >> shannon: we are live. what is the scene like this morning? >> we're talking about an ef-1 tornado with wind spends up to

110 miles an hour knocking sheds over like this but the home next to me took a direct hit. one child ran out running to his grandmother's house nearby but the mother and 3-year-old were sleeping when the tornado flipped upside-down. >> we'll be a closer family and be there for each other. i want everybody to know look at your relatives next to you, family, kids, call them and just tell them i love you because you never know with these freak storms. you never know >> it's one of ten tornado swept through the region and went through louisiana, arkansas and mississippi. some areas getting up to ten inches of rain in a couple hours. in alexandria businesses were damage and thousand left without

power. the governor called this a statewide event on an unprecedented level. shannon. >> shannon: are they out of the woods in this area? where does this go next? >> it's moved through the area and now shifting to the east to the carolinas. you'll get a lot of rain. you'll get the hail, the wind and the possible tornados. with that in mind i just got off the phone with the national weather service and asking everyone to have a tornado plan and have a room in your house without windows and keep your cell phone charge and if you live in a mobile home try to find another place. as you saw many trailers like this just cannot stand up to the types of winds you have with these tornados. shannon. >> shannon: thank you for the update. >> bill: it's coming to that season. stand by for more. jared kushner has just

arrived and what we're learning about his trip and how his role at the white house can grow more. >> shannon: we're awaiting a crucial vote over supreme court nomin nominee neil gorsuch. will side will blink first. >> it's the last try and they'll be confirmed this week one way or another.

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 ten are dead and at least 50 injured. an explosion rocking the russian saying they're rsburg. now looking at this as possible terror. amy kellogg watching this. >> the original report were two blasts between two separate stations and now it sounds like there was one blast between the

two subway stations instead of one at each station. again, president putin saying they're looking into all causes including terrorism but when you look at the pictures from the aftermath of this explosion it looks like there must have been a bomb inside that train. ten people killed, 50 injured according to reports and many may be children. st. petersburg is russia's second city. it is president putin's home county and happens to be there for a meeting and they're looking into causes but a massive evacuation has just completed itself in st. petersburg. helicopters were brought to the scene to evacuate some of the dead and injured. it was quite a bit of shocking news. it wasn't at rush hour.

it was in the middle afternoon and the subways are extremely deep because they were used as bomb shelters during world war ii. there's a militant movement in chechnya but there hasn't been an explosion or terrorist attack in russia since 2011. again, no one is calling it that yet but a lot of reports are suggesting there was shrapnel use and it's possible casualty numbers will increase overtime. some image have not been shown circulating on social media are very disturbing and graphic and it really just does portray a scene of fear and chaos and bloodshed. we'll be watching to see how this story develops over the day but again at least one explosion in the subway in russia's second

city, st. petersburg. >> bill: interesting president putin was in the city at the same time. in milean, italy. >> shannon: and the big showdown over neil gorsuch and democrats are presenting a mostly united front so far but three democrat senators say they'll support gorsuch at least to get through the first vote. that still leaves republicans votes shy of what they'd need to break a filibuster. mitch mcconnel said ultimately it won't matter. >> he'll be confirmed how that happens will be up to our democratic colleagues. it's noteworthy no supreme court

justice has been stopped by a filibustering and that's a fairly recent invention of the now minority in the senate the democrats. >> shannon: judge nah pal >> i agree with the clip you just ran from senator mcconnell. judge gorsuch will be justice gorsuch by the end of the week and i don't think the american public care what procedures are used. we care because we're lawyers. the senate cares because it may change a precedent but the bottom line is donald trump promised a scalia-like nominee to replace the late antonin scalia and found him in neil gorsuch. the democrats were not able to find defects in his readings or

writings or demeanor or professional or personal history and the president gets to appoint somebody that agrees with the president just as president obama did. >> shannon: and the nuclear option used to be it took 60 votes to get certain nominees and judge through the process to get them to the actual vote. that was changed by the democrats in 2013 and now we come to this place where they're saying they're not going to put this particular nominee through and people say if they won't put this guy through you won't put through anyone trump would nominate? >> ok, in the old days when the senate would filibuster think of jimmy stewart goes to washington and you talked and talked and then pass the baton to somebody else and the purpose was to stop the senate from operating because you'd never get the final vote because you feared to lose the final vote. now it just takes one senator to

call for a filibuster. senator schumer has done that and it raise the bar in the senate from 50 to 60. if the republicans don't have the 60 they'll say to the chair we'd like to change the procedure. it's not a rule change it's just precedent and they have 52 votes and it takes 50. without getting too deeply in the weeds it's a simple procedure that will take five or ten minutes and prediction president trump will swear in supreme court neil gorsuch by friday this week. >> shannon: and some have been conservative on issues and here's what he said with neil gorsuch on the bench i'm keeply concerned dark money will continue to drown out the

voices. and he cannot support the nomination he also said what we hear from democrats is judge gorsuch wouldn't answer my questions. >> they've been unleashed to ask whatever it wants and the nominees have been unleashed to refuse to answer what they want and judge gorsuch just like justice ginsburg and justice sotomayor and justice kagan said you want me to tell you now how i'm going to vote? i don't have the factors case in front of me. you know what my general thinking is i wrote opinions. i won't commit myself to a vote. it's not fair to the court, the public or the litigants who will be before me on this issue should i be confirmed. i can't figure the senator out. i thought he was from a state

that went for donald trump there's a lot of people voted for donald trump because they wanted him to choose the next supreme court justice and the three in favor of judge gorsuch are all on that profile. >> shannon: super quick because we're out of time but if the rules change with 51 you're replacing a conservative with a believed to be conservative. if justice ginsburg were to step down in the next couple years while president trump is still the president if they change the rule to 51 the republicans will be able to replace a liberal with a conservative. do you think it will give any democrats pause for taking part in the filibuster. >> i think it should. it will be armageddon when a liberal, a strong, established liberal is replaced by a likely conservative. right now we have a conservative scalia, being replaced by another conservative but the democrats should think about do they want to disable themselves for the future.

>> shannon: no matter what changes it will come back to bite both parties at some point. >> it usually does. >> shannon: good to see you. bill. >> bill: gonzaga taking on north carolina for the ncaa tight game. gonzaga the number one seed in the west knocking out south carolina 77-73 saturday to make it to the final. north carolina just barely edging out oregon, 77-76. tar heels looking for their fifth national title. the bulldogs and tar heels set for the championship game tonight 9:20 if you want to stay up. i imagine millions we stay up. >> shannon: that's the last two in your bracket. >> bill: yeah, how did you do? not well? >> shannon: tar heels was the only one i had hanging on. >> bill: i had carolina winning it all. >> shannon: look at you. >> bill: i think that means

gonzaga wins tonight that's the way i works. it's been a great tournament. congratulations to everybody involved. dramatic new video. a sailboat crashing into a peer and passengers jumping in the water and what happened there on a popular pier. >> shannon: and president trump said the u.s. is ready to address the north korean threat with or without the chinese' help and this ahead of a meeting this week. >> have you north korea and nuclear weapons and china could solve that problem and they're helping us along. hello mom.

amanda's mom's appointment just got rescheduled - for today. amanda needs right at home. our customized care plans provide as much - or as little help - as her mom requires. whether it's a ride to the doctor or help around the house. oh, of course! tom, i am really sorry. i've gotta go. look, call right at home. get the right care. right at home. >> shannon: firefighters say four people are very lucky to be alive after terrifying moments caught on camera. powerful winds causing a sailboat to crash into a pier in southern california friday. you can see the passengers jumping from the boat to the water after it nearly smashed into the concrete there.

lifeguards were able to get everyone safely to shore. the captain and another man reportedly taken to the hospital but reportedly they'll be fine. that video is amazing. they should buy lottery tickets. >> bill: well done. 15 minutes before the hour. president trump now saying the u.s. is ready to address the north korean threat and ready to do it alone if necessary. he made that statement ahead of his meeting later in the week with the chinese president. here it is, quote, china will either decide to help us with north korea or won't and if they do that it will be very good for china. and if they don't it won't be good for anyone. former new hampshire governor john sununu wrote the book "the quiet man." how are you? >> i'm doing great. how are you? >> bill: i'm doing great. the president during his campaign held his cards close and doesn't want to reveal his strategy. i don't know if folks like you

would anticipate we don't need china to help with this. what's going on? >> there was talk president obama listed two or three most critical issues to the incoming president during the transition and there's a lot of speculation that the problem in north korea was right at the top of the list. i think he is responding to advice he got from obama. i think he has to indicate that he would like to do a cooperative program with the chinese they control the food flow into north korea and the chinese should be concerned because among the economic sanctions are sanctions on the banking process and north korea uses chinese banks to interact with the rest of the world and that would be part of receiving some problems as a result of the sanctions. i think he's setting up a good

negotiation. >> and we were told north korea is the number one priority and last week two nuclear tests in the north and two dozen blastic -- ballistic tests. he with you asked this: >> he'll have a tough negotiation with the chinese. they're always tough and always come very well prepared. they know what they're chips are and aren't and they play their hands very close to the vest. >> bill: do you remember a meeting with george h.w. bush number 41, similar to the significance of the meeting thursday and friday? >> yeah, i -- a few days into

the administration the emperor of japan died and president bush seized the opportunity to stop over in china. he knew if he'd gone to china without that kind of an excuse people would have wondered where he wasn't focussing on the opportunities in europe. we had a series of meetings. the whole process went through in about two days. the president really tried to laid down the foundation of getting strong results. unfortunately, teiananmen squar occurred and the president had to respond strongly and had to cut off efforts for quite a while. >> bill: that's awesome history. wow, what a moment. do you see any parallels to what this white house is facing now? so much of the world has

changed. >> it's a different world. there was a lot of emphasis on international security and arms control stability, the soviet union was beginning to crumble but hadn't crumbled yet so we didn't know how the three super powers would continue to interact after that so the world is extremely different today because the soviet union is not the same as it was. it's russia now and smaller but still seems to have the same kind of aspirations around the world. it's a different world. >> bill: you mentioned russia. a kremlin spokesman said it would go a long way for vladamir putin and donald trump to meet. is that smart? >> i think conversation is always important but timing is important. i think the president has to put into conte where he wants to see the sequence of events to take place.

if he has a good meeting with the chinese and come out of that with some political capital i think he can invest some of that capital into a meeting with the russian. >> bill: there's a meeting with the g-20 in july. maybe it happens then. thank you, great history lesson. >> shannon: a horrific crime allegedly screamed live on social media. a teen girl sexually assault and police say 40 people watched it happen and not one of them reported it. we'll have a live report. >> we've seen a couple of acts in this city now in the last few months involving social media and it just disgusts me people would look at those videos and not pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1.

>> shannon: a 14-year-old boy is now charged in the sexual assault of a chicago teen that was streamed live on facebook. chicago police more arrests are coming in a horrific crime that has shocked the city. >> i want to tell you the young man responsible should be ashamed of themselves. they've humiliated themselves, humiliated their families and now they're going to be held accountable for what they did. >> shannon: mike is live in chicago. police are looking for another suspect as well? >> yeah, shannon. they say as many as six young men are on the facebook live video participating in the sexual assault. they've identified and arrested one 14-year-old and actively seeking one 15-year-old. this is the case of a 15-year-old girl who went missing from chicago's west side. police say she was lured in the

assault by someone she knew and not allowed to leave and it appeared live that day and here's the catch, no one called police. police found out about it when the mother showed him the assault. >> what are we doing as a society people look at the crimes taking place and not pick up the phone and dial 9-1-1. that's just silly. >> police say one thing slowing the investigation is the little girl is so traumatized she can't articulate what happened. >> shannon: is it true the family has been threatened after the assault. >> it's part of a gang so much of the problem and one gang intimidates the neighborhood where the assault occurred. the family has been getting

visits at their house designed to intimidate them and the police and prosecutors relocated the family but it doesn't stop there. people have been coming at them over the internet. >> there's a bunch of social media i'm going to call it bullying that occurs where people are making fun of the victim and just a lot of off-color comments about what occurred. >> now, the 14-year-old who has been arrested has his first court appearance this morning. >> shannon: mike, tobin, thank you. >> bill: and it's a busy monday. breaking news on a likely terror attack. at least 10 or dead in a russian s subway station and the senate judiciary will vote to advance the confirmation of neil gorsuch and that should set up the ultimate senate showdown. what you need to know, top of the hour here on "america's newsroom."

>> shannon: at least ten people killed, 50 other injured as an explosion ripped through a subway train in st. petersburg during a visit to the city from president vladamir putin. an evacuation is underway. investigators are looking whether it was a terrorist attack or another cause. russia now tightening security following the blast. and a critical vote in the battle for supreme court neil gorsuch about to get underway. the senate judiciary committee meeting to consider gorsuch for a vote by the full senate and then it gets really interesting. welcome to a brand new hour of "america's newsroom." i'm shannon bream in for martha maccallum. >> bill: i'm bill hemmer. lots of issues including a

partisan battle and republicans vowing gorsuch will be confirmed this week as democrats threaten to filibuster has nomination and mitch mcconnell said how gorsuch is confirmed depends on democrats. >> it will be up to our democratic colleagues. it's noteworthy no supreme court justice has never in the history of our country been stopped by a filibuster. >> bill: let's start with mike emanuel. what are you hearing from top republicans heading into the critical week. >> heading into the senate judiciary hearing top republicans are praising judge gorsuch's qualifications. chuck grassley writing, quote, it's become abundantly clear if

companies are willing to fill bust -- filibuster neil gorsuch they'd filibuster anybody and despite that they'll get it done. >> what i'm telling you is neil gorsuch is going to be confirmed. the way in which that occurs is in the hands of the democratic minority. i think during the course of the week we'll find out exactly how this will end. >> today a critical step as the judiciary committee and expect a party line vote is likely. >> bill: how do you characterize the emotion on the democrats' sight on the story, mike? >> it has nothing to do with judge neil gorsuch. democrats are still furious about a previous nominee for the high court, merrick garland president obama's last supreme court nominee who never received consideration last year. some are calling that a stolen supreme court seat for that

reason. the senate democratic leader is calling on president trump to repla replace gorsuch. >> our republicans friends are acting like a cat on the top of the tree and have to jump off. come off the tree and sit down and work with us and we will produce a mainstream nominee. >> it seems unlikely. both sides seem to be quite dug in and all indications are we're heading for a rule change by the end of the week. >> bill: keep us posted by the minute. mike emanuel leading our coverage this hour. ism . >> shannon: for more, steve hayes. chuck schumer saying why can't we sit down at the table and together we'll take a mainstream nominee? i can't say it without laughing because whether it's republicans or democrats in charge it's not happening. >> look, it's a disingenuous

comment from chuck schumer. neil gorsuch is a mainstream nominee. if you look at his records and rulings and decisions over the year and aba qualifications and the kind of people who have endorsed him both democrats and republicans he is a mainstream nominee. chuck schumer just wants him to be a mainstream liberal come knee. >> shannon: i talked to judge na pal and if they were to step down during president trump's time in the white house if the democrats allowed this to go to a nuclear 51 vote threshold it will be uglier if a liberal steps down and replaced by conservatives. will that be enough to stop a handful of the democrats from going with the filibuster idea? >> we just don't know.

you heard people like pat leahy and ben carland about opposing the vote even if they oppose judge gorsuch. it's possible i suppose you could have enough democrats to allow us to get to a vote and they reach the 60-vote threshold and then gorsuch is approved in the traditional way. at is the same time you had harry reid signal the lowering of the threshold would come and he said this. he went out and made this declaration. it's not as new as democrats are pretending it is. >> shannon: he pulled the initial nuclear options so some could be jammed into the d.c. circuit. it flipped the balance of the court but at that point held off on the supreme court and get to where we are today.

over the weekend republicans picked up another democrat to stand with them, joe donnelly. they have manchin, donnelly and heitkamp but didn't get another. one wrote a statement on with he can't go with gorsuch. where do they go? if they need five more are there even five potential they can go to? >> i think if you had a leahy or ben cardon or michael bennet from his home state of colorado is thought of as a more moderate. there's not many moderate democrats but he's more moderate than others that would stand with his home state judge and allow him at least to have the opportunity for an up and down vote. and a handful of others including people who may be up in red states in 2018. i think it's getting pretty tough to chart that path and why you had mitch mcconnell say what he said looking resolute.

>> shannon: so the committee vote will happen and chuck grassley is now speaking and we want to see what he has to say. >> he made the announcement. the minority leader of the senate declared any nominee must prove himself in his words, mainstream, to be confirmed. well, that test ran into trouble the minute the president selected the nominee. he was confirmed to the 10th circuit, 2006 by unanimous vote. in the ten years since his record on the bench has proved the judge falls well within the mainstream. he's participated in 2700 cases. he's voted with the majority 99% of the time and roughly 97% of those 2700 cases were decided

unanimously. two of his former 10th circuit colleagues. one was a reagan appointee. one was a clinton a remarked upon and i quote them, his fair consideration of opposing views, his remarkable intelligence, his wonderful judicial temperament express to all the litigants and his collegiality among colleagues, end quote. you get words like fair, remarkable, wonderful, collegiality from people who served with him during that period of time. some appointed by a republican president and some appointed by democratic presidents. then you wonder what the uproar about him is all about. legal commentators across the political spectrum have recognized that he's mainstream.

even rachel madoff who isn't exactly a conservative who said the judge is a quote, fairly mainstream choice you might expect from any republican president, end of quote. once it became clear judge gorsuch is mainstream opponents then moved the goal post and said a whole different test. any nominee of president trump's the minority leader said must prove he's independent. there's no debate on this question either. the night judge gorsuch was nominated president obama

solicitor general wrote a piece and there was an argument one basic question should be paramount quote, is the nominee someone who will stand up for the rule of law and say no to a president or a congress that strays beyond the constitution and the laws question, mark, end of quote. he answered his own question, quote, i have no doubt if confirmed judge gorsuch would help to restore confidence in the rule of law. end of quote. he went on to right the judge's report, quote, should give the american people confidence he will not compromise principle in favor of the president who

appointed him, end of quote. it's for these reasons and others that david frederick, a board member of the liberal american constitution society argued in an opinion piece there is quote, no principled reason to oppose, end of quote, judge gorsuch and that we, quote, should applaud such independence of mind and spirit in supreme court nominees. so then another test, independence charge didn't stick either. next, we heard the judge is against the little guy and for the big guy. as a matter this is a strange criticism considering my colleague, the minority leader praised justice sotomayor as a judge who quote, puts the rule of law above everything else

even when doing so results in rulings that go against sympathetic litigants, end of quote. and the judge himself proves how absurd this argument is by citing a number of cases where he ruled with a so-called little guy. but regardless, it is, of course, a silly argument. no judge doing their job considers the status of the litigants before them when deciding the cases. that's why liberal harvard law professor noah feldman described the critique that judge gorsuch doesn't side with the little guy as a quote, truly terrible idea. the rule of law isn't liberal or conservative or shouldn't be, end of quote. in other words, a good judge

listens to the arguments regardless of who makes them and applies the law regardless of the results. so that didn't stick. so next we heard that the judge hasn't answered questions. that argument is basically a complaint that he won't tell us how he's going to vote on a whole host of legal questions that he might have to deal with when he sits on the bench. well, the irony here of course is that seeking assurances from the nominee how he'll vote on particular legal questions undermines the very independence that we demand of the supreme court and right now his nominees. his approach is consistent with the judicial ethics and the position taken by justice

ginsburg during her nomination. in fact, that's where the ginsburg rule comes from. she put it this, way, quote, a judge can offer no forecast no, hints for what would show -- for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of a particular case, it would display disdain -- disdain, for the entire judicial process, end quote. judge gorsuch' response reflect the ginsburg principle. so at last ast all these charges leveled against the nominee and his record have fallen flat we learn that the nominee should be opposed because of his record -- not because of his record or

qualifications but because of clients he had or the groups who now support him. we've heard criticism of the judge's former client, the department of justice and the opposition on these grounds may be creative but they're in fact baseless. here's the inconsistency. judge justice kagan argued as solicitor general the government could ban pamphlet material when that issues was raised at her hearing she said she was a government lawyer acting on behalf of her client. that client happened to be the same united states government that gorsuch had worked for for a while but today the other side is all of a sudden arguing that government lawyers should be

held personally responsible for every legal position the government takes. so once again that argument doesn't stand up under scrutiny. and finally, of course, we heard criticism of the advocacy groups speaking out in support of his nomination and spending, quote, unquote, dark money. now, as an initial matter i think it speaks volumes of a nominee that at the end of the day after reviewing 2700 cases and more than 180 pages of documents from the department of justice and george w. bush library and thousand of briefs filed as a lawyer in private practice all his detractors are left with is an attack on the

people who support the nomination. now, as a senator who has participated in 14 supreme court hearings i must say these comments strike me as really odd. to hear my friends on the other side tell it, it's only conservatives, outside groups engaged in the nomination process. but we all know that isn't true. it's no secret there are dozens of advocacy groups on the left who get involved in the nomination process and there's absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever wrong with that. we call it free speech. a group called the coalition for constitutional values ran ads in support of justice sotomayor and justice kagan before their

confirmation. the american constitution's society touted justice kagan as a justice, quote, a justice for everywhere american, end of quote. where did their money come from? i don't know and i suppose lots of people think i should say i don't care but people can use their money for political speech or any advocacy they want and of course as we see advocacy groups on the left are engaged on this nomination as well. liberal billionaires like tom stire, george soros found their own organizations like next gen climate. a group that describes judge gorsuch as quote, an extreme candidate wrong for the supreme

court under any circumstances, end of quote. everyone in this room knows that liberal and progressive groups have been pressuring the minority leader to find a reason, any reason to filibuster the nominee. narol has run ads to pressure members to filibuster. we even had some groups called progressive change campaign committee target a senior and extremely well-respected democrat over his quote, unquote, squishy comments suggesting he might not filibuster. in short, they've said the primary any democrat who supports the nomination. now that's very dark. and of course all last year the groups on the left who coordinated an attack on me because i didn't hold hearings on garland. they followed me all over iowa,

ran commercials, put up billboards, even had a plane pulling a banner over a special event in des moines. can you imagine that plane travelling around iowa with that banner saying, grassley do your job or mobile billboards do your job at every town meeting or billboards in des moines, iowa touting three republicans that were ashamed of grassley. i found out there were republicans maybe 20 years ago. tv ads, radio staff bringing people to my town meetings, op-eds cluteringing town meetings with trackers and even brought in somebody i found out from washington state to make sure everybody knew how bad i was. now, that's what i know about dark money but i don't care

about it because that's the american way we do things in this representative can democracy. in fact at my town meetings i tell people one thing up front and in two minutes of opening the meeting. i don't talk, i let them set the agenda and i tell them i'm one half of the process, you're the other half and how can you be representative of the people if you don't have dialog with them. and so these people come with dialog with me and it's part of our democratic system. now, i've never heard any democrat complain about all that money spent last year. we had a debate i believe then and i believe now we took the right course for the senate and for the court. and as i said regardless of who won the election, we'd process this nominee so we're processing the nominee. 9:00 on election night everybody

thought hillary clinton was going to be president of the united states but long time before that 9:00, months before, i said whoever's elected president we're going to process that nominee and that's what we're doing right now. that's democracy at work. by and large, i disagree with the advocacy groups but i don't take issue with their engaging in the process and making their voices heard and i don't try to intimidate or silence them. the bottom line is this, if you don't like the fact that issue advocacy groups are engaged in the process the remedy is not to attack, intimidate or try to silence them. the remedy is to support nominees who apply the law as is threatened. the remedy is to support nominees who leave legislating to congress. if you want politics out of the

process the solution is judges who apply the law is the threat and leave the policy making to the other branches. which brings me back to where i started. judge gorsuch is imminently qualified. he's a mainstream judge who's earned the universal respect of his colleagues on the bench and in the bar. he applies the law as we in congress write it. as a judicial oath says without respect to persons. and he refuses to compromise his independence. this nominee that we're voting on today is a judge's judge. he's a picture of the kind of justice we should have on the supreme court so i urge you to join me in supporting his nomination. senator feinstein.

>> thanks, very much, mr. chairman. in my view this is not a routine nomination. so i want to begin with just some brief comments about what has made this different for me. the first of course is what happened last year which is unprecedented. as a noted in our last meeting, throughout our nation's history a total of 19 supreme court justices have been nominate and confirmed in a presidential election year. and three of these have been nominate and confirmed after the presidential election took place. so there was simply no reason that the nomination of judge garland could not proceed other than to deny the then president of the united states, president barack obama the ability to fill the seat. and that's what has taken place.

secondly, president reports indicate $7 million of dark money was spent to defeat judge garland's nomination. this too was unprecedented. however, with the nomination of judge gorsuch the spending of dark money has only grown. weeks ago press began reporting the cope brothers through concerned veterans of america and other conservative donors through the judicial crisis network planned to spend at least $10 million on a political campaign to support judge gorsuch's nomination. since then the national rifle association has launched a $1 million ad buy and just last friday the judicial crisis network announced another $1 million targeted to specific

senators in missouri, montana, indiana and colorado. so this nomination is not the usual nomination. it comes in a different way and it has proceeded in a way of excessive spending of dark money that in the time i have been on this commi i have never seen before. so this is deeply troubling and i don't believe it's the way a serious process of evaluating a supreme court nominee should be conducted. i want to be clear though. although my vote will not be based on these factors i strongly believe the spending of millions of dollars should not be permitted in the nomination of a supreme court justice. however, we have four days of full and fair hearings and today we begin our mark up.

i want to thank the chairman for his leadership and the very cooperative manner in which the hearings were conducted. i want you to know, mr. chairman, you're allowing all members to fully ask questions and have the time they needed to examine judge gorsuch's record and hear from outside witnesses is very much appreciated so thank you. in reviewing the list of judge gorsuch's decisions on the 10th circuit, two stand out as appearing to indicate his view of how a law should be interpret and whether precedent should be overturn and the first which has been talked about before but nonetheless very important is a case called trans am trucking. the driver, was stranded in subzero temperatures for several hours with frozen brakes on a

trailer and no heat in his cabitt was so cold his torso was numb and could not feel his feet. after waiting hours for assistance hes with he was instructed to drive the cab together or not at all and when he could no longer stand the cold he unhitched the trailer and drove to get help. because of this he was fired. the department of labor found he was illegally fired for refusing to operate the vehicle. in fact, he administrative law judge and administrative review board and the majority of the 10th circuit all agreed he had been illegally fired for refusing to operate the vehicle as instructed by his employer. judge gorsuch disagreed. instead he argued in his defense

that the term operate should be interpreted by the oxford dictionary's definition that operate should include only operating the cab of the truck and his employer could fire him with impunity. i find this striking. first, judge gorsuch's argument ignores the reality that mr. madden was given an impossible choice. risk your own life or the life of others on the road. secondly, it ignores the fact that that judge's are not evaluating cases and interpreting laws in a vacuum or law school classroom but rather cases are about real people and real life. in fact, the man -- majority of his own court noted his narrow

interpretation of the word operate was based on one dictionary while they had found a different dictionary definition that supported their reading of the statute. simply put, which dictionary a judge happens to select should not and cannot determine whether a just outcome is achieved in a case. the second case that really stood out and the father testified before us was luke p. luke perkins was diagnosed with autism at 24 months. as he got older the services needed increased. in response his parent and grandparents did all they could and dug deep into savings and sought support from the school direct as provided for under the individuals with disabilities education act known as idea but

were denied. the independent hearing officer, the administrative judge and united states district court all determined the school direct was wrong to deny funding. but when the case got to the 10th circuit, judge combrgorsuc inserted the world merely into the standard. up to this point the 10th circuit held the educational benefit had to be quote more than de minimis. adding the word merely made a narrow interpretation of the law even narrower. as luke's father rest testified to us and i quote his education for my south son that was one small step above insignificant was acceptable, end quote. luckily the supreme court

unanimously rejected judge gorsuch's interpretation of the law actually during our hearings. in both cases judge gorsuch unnecessarily went out of his way to imply his own view of what the law should be even when it would have devastating effect on people's lives. because these cases were troubling i had hoped judge gorsuch would better explain his judicial philosophies and personal views at this hearing but that did not happen. judge gorsuch's views were difficult to discern because he refused to answer many questions. even basic questions that have been answered by previous nominees. for example, senator blumenthal asked the judge if he agreed with the results of brown v. the board of education.

one of the most important cases in our history i think everyone would agree. rather than agreeing that schools shouldn't be seg reg -- segregated he said it was the right application of precedent. to be clear when asked if he supported brown judge gorsuch refused to directly answer. in contrast, when justice kennedy was asked about brown he replied and i quote, i think brown v. board of investigation was right when it was decide and i think it would have been right if it had been decided 80 years before, end quote. in another exchange senator franken asked about a wave of recent laws to restrict access to voting. these laws were found to target african americans with surgical precision.

senator franken discussed the effect of these laws but he simply asked if judge gorsuch was disturbed by efforts to disenfranchize african american voters. the question has but one easy answer and it's yes. yet, instead of agreeing judge gorsuch ducked the question and responded, and i quote, if there are allegations of racism and legislation in the voting area there are a variety of remedies, end quote. even justice alito was more candid when asked about affirmative action he replied i having a diverse student body is a compelling interest.

going further in 1987 senator biden asked justice kennedy not what he thought about affirmative action generally but whether the voluntarily affirmative action plans are legally permissible. judge kennedy unequivocally responded, yes. unfortunately, judge gorsuch's answers were so diluted with ambiguity one could not see where he stood even on big and long-settled cases. when i asked judge gorsuch about his work at the department of justice involving the bush administration's defense of the use of torture despite providing relative documents judge gorsuch said only, quote, his memory is what it is and it isn't great on this, end quote and the position he took on torture, quote, was

the position clients were telling him, end quote, to take. not only did he not answer my question, he raised an additional concern. i strongly believe that when you work for the government either as a lawyer or a policy maker it's important to comment on the legality on the issue you advisor write. to say i did what they wanted isn't enough particularly if the legality is contradicted by both law and treaty. i also believe it's important to remember the context. at this point our country was involved in detaining people indefinitely without charge or trial leaving them with no rights, no meaningful opportunity to challenge their confinement. the government had also decided the executive could order the use of certain enhanced

interrogation techniques that included water boarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation as well as a host of other techniques which would and did result in death and serious debilitation of detainees. it was 2004 when the public learned about the prisoner abuse chronicled in the abu graib photos and then information was leaked to the media the department of justice issued legal opinions that stated enhanced interrogation techniques were within the law unless they inflicted the kind of pain associated with organ failure or death. judge gorsuch reached out to the white house' political director in november 2004 approximately six months after the revelations

to say how he wanted to help the cause and be a full-time member of the team. then in march 2005 he reached out to the chairman of the republican national committee who vouched for gorsuch as a true loyalist and a good strong conservative. judge gorsuch ultimately joined the bush administration in june of '05. through our examination of his documents we learned that during his tenure at the department of justice he was involved in efforts to strip detainees much their ability to have habeas cases heard by federal courts. defend and protect the bush administration's position on torture and issue an expansive signing statement on the detainee treatment act. these statements were used to highlight parts of the law the

administration intended not to follow. importantly, we learned that judge gorsuch advocated for the bush administration to issue a broad signing statement. he said it could be used to and i quote, help inoculate against the potential of having the administration criticized some time in the future for not making sufficient changes in interrogation policy in light of the mccain portion of the amendment. this statement clearly and in a formal way that would be hard to dispute later puts down a marker to the effect that the view that mccain is best read as essentially codifying existing interrogation techniques. nothing could be farther from the truth.

judge gorsuch's e-mail shows a knowledge of the bush administration's position on torture. it also demonstrated he supported efforts to codify existing interrogation policies such as water boarding and other extreme techniques. in our written questions i asked again about his views on enhanced interrogation techniques. i know something about them. the intelligence committee while i was chairman had in classified status documents for all of this. i tried to understand his opinions on right and wrong and whether he was at all disturbed by what our government was doing. unfortunately, once again the answers i got were nonresponsive. for example, i asked judge

gorsuch what he meant when he suggested that a signing statement could inoculate the administration if they were later criticized for not making quote, sufficient changes to the interrogation policy, end quote, based on the mccain amendment. judge gorsuch responded once again that he was, quote, a lawyer advising a client, end quote. and that his client, the government, was arguing that the mccain amendment simply codified existing policies. judge gorsuch's defense is that he was only doing what his client wanted him to do. many of his colleagues -- excuse me, of my colleagues, on the other side of the aisle have praised judge gorsuch's qualifications and there's no question he's well educate and credentialed but we're not just

evaluate resume. if we were, every supreme court nominee would pass unanimous hi 100 to 0 but we evaluate not only their education and experience but also their judicial philosophy, temperament and views on important legal issues. we do this because if confirmed a nominee's decisions will affect the lives of all americans for generations. as i've said our job is to assess whether the nominee will protect the legal and constitutional rights of all americans and whether the nominee recognizes the humanity and justice required when evaluating the cases before him. unfortunately based on judge gorsuch's record at the department of justice, his tenure on the bench, his appearance before the senate,

and has written questions for the record i cannot support this nomination. thank you very much. >> thank you. senator. >> bill: we've been listening to opening statements by the ranking and minority number first chuck grassley the republican from iowa and diane feinstein the democrat from california. we wanted to give viewers a sense where they are in the discussions over neil gorsuch. this is the committee, shannon, that will likely vote maybe within the next hour to advance his nomination and i would guess with 11 republicans and 9 democrats they'll vote 11-9. >> shannon: and the interesting thing the supreme court nominee doesn't matter if they get voted out of the committee they get reported to the full senate floor favorably or unflavorably. >> bill: meanwhile there's significant stories overseas. a deadly blast aboard a subway

station in russia and we'll tell you what we are learning from at least 10 dead and 50 injured. a bomb filled with shrapnel exploded

>> we have some wonderful people. now, get out of here. get out. get out of here. because we is another wise guy. go ahead. get him out. get out of here. get out of here. look at these people. get out, out, out. get out. >> shannon: words from then-candidate trump during the campaign. now a federal judge in kentucky saying mr. trump may have crossed the line into inciting violence at one particular rally

in louisville as he allowed a lawsuit proceed. we have a fox news contributor and a director at american progress action fund. good to see you both. >> good to see you. >> shannon: so i want to read what the judge said, he said trump's direction to get them out of here advocated the use of force. it was an order, an instruction, and command. was he telling people to hurt other people? >> he obviously didn't say that but context does matter. the context of the trump campaign does matter. throughout the campaign he may have put in a word in about not inciting violence but the fact is the entire tone of his campaign was xenxenophobic and

dissent is not a value in trump's america. >> shannon: though people would take umbrage with the characterization you just made. >> every presidential candidate has kicked people out. hillary clinton did it and so did bernie sanders. it's not exclusive to now president trump. he was elected in my opinion in response to the anarchy we'd seen in the country. you look at places in ferguson where we had people burning down cities and churches and businesses and you look at the riots at some trump rallies and there's reports of rioters and taking trump supporters hats.

spare me on the concern of the tactics and the violence and frankly anarchy in the circumstances which i never heard democrats oppose. >> shannon: we're tight on time and the lawyers say there was a duty for the plaintiff. they assumed the risk when they decided to protest at the rally. >> you assume a certain amount of risk but it does not have to purely say due violence unto them for them to be accountable. it matters in a legal context and emotionally for the country. you cannot have a president who every time there is dissent says kick them out, don't listen to them. >> shannon: final word. >> that's ridiculous. we're talking about events with tens of thousand of people and kick out protesters which every presidential candidate has done. >> shannon: it was wild. >> bill: the hearing continued and it's a big week ahead for the white house and this is part of the reason why.

the committee set to advancing neil gorsuch that's next top of the hour here.

>> bill: we are awaiting the committee that will determine the short-term fate of judge gorsuch. we'll watch that for you. as we do stand by for the vote. this while there's been debate across the country on a controversial tactic of arresti arresting illegals at the court house and other sensitive locations. is there law or policy, dan, that would prohibit an immigration officer from making an real estate -- arrest at a location? >> it's illegal for ice agents to make arrests at the court

house and judge and lawyers have a feeling the practice has been increasing since president trump took of the and two supreme court justices have written to try to get ice agents out of the court house. they say fear is spreading throughout the immigrant community and leading to people not showing up for hearing and that's affecting the justice system for everybody. >> i have a duty and responsibility to speak out when the administration of justice in washington is impact by policies and activities. i do not view myself as taking any side. >> now, ice gave us a statement which reads in part many of the arrest targets ice has sought out at or near court houses are for nationals with prior convictions in the u.s. and it wasn't necessary before sanctuary cities began releasing criminal aliens back on the

streets. homeland security just got back to a chief justice friday and defended the practice but it's possible ice could add court houses to the list of so-called sensitive locations along with schools, hospitals and churches. it seems unlikely. critics are blasting the justices saying they're lobbying for one side of the heated national debate and hurting the court's impartiality. >> it's not up to judiciary to tell ice where and how and when they should be detaining people. the court's there to adjudicate cases. cases in controversy. >> now, ice doesn't track arrest locations so they can't tell us the practice of arresting illegal immigrants at court house up. >> bill: in seattle on that. thank you. >> shannon: was an explosion at

the russian state terrorism and what vladamir putin is saying now.

's before morning. >> bill: yes, it is. >> shannon: it's not going to slow down any time. good energy here in new york city. >> bill: have a good morning, everybody. "happening now" starts right now. >> jenna: we start with a fox news alert, and russian investigators looking into a possibility. it is a act of terror, something we are going to be looking at closely. hello, everybody. i am jenny lee, and lucky for us, jon scott is back. >> jon: back with a brand-new knee. feeling pretty good. >> jenna: it looks great so hard to what i can see. >> jon: they say it will get better. so we are going to be checking in on this explosion in russia. a st. petersburg subway train appeared to be the target. investigators are calling it a possible act of terror. >> jenna: at least ten people reportedly killed.