>> jon: well thank you for joining us today. >> jenna: american news hq starts right now. >> sandra: a fox news alert. we are awaiting the white house daily briefing with sean spicer, amidst the jam-packed day with breaking news. i'm melissa francis. the senate judiciary committee about to vote on moving the judge gorsuch supreme court nomination to the senate floor. as the chamber appears likely headed to nuclear showdown. this comes amid developments on the investigation into russian meddling in the 2016 election. with the house intelligence committee now getting ready to hold a closed door meeting. and we get some new information about the unmasking of names. adam housely is live in los angeles with that part of the story. adam, what can you tell us? >> reporter: yeah, melissa. the story was coming out friday. we're getting much more details now.

multiple sources say susan rice requested to unmask the names of trump transition officials. the unmasked names, people associated with donald trump, were sent to the nsc, james clapper, john bannon including former deputy nasa security adviser ben rhodes. these names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate donald trump for up to a year before he took office. one of the names collected, they are supposed to be masked meaning they are redacted from reports unless it's an issue of national security or crime. there are loop holes and ways to unmask these through back channels, but americans are supposed to be protected from incidental collection. our sources say in this case, they were not. this comes in the wake of evelyn farkus interview. she said in part, quote, i was urging my former colleagues and frankly speaking to people on

the hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence before president obama leaves the administration. meantime, we're also told the house intelligence chairman devin nunes knew about the unmasking back in january, well before president trump's tweet alleging wiretapping. our sources say, quote, the intelligence agency slow rolled nunes. he could have seen the logs at other places besides the white house skip, which is a secure room. it had already been a few weeks. so he went to the white house because he could protect his source and get the logs, so it was two fold, end quote. also keep in mind the obama administration, as it left office, it approved new rules which gave the nsa much more power about relaxing rules about entering intercepted personnel information. we should also note that rice has been a bit controversial before. on sunday shows back in 2012,

she blamed the ben ghazi attack on a video and claimed bergdahl served with distinction and honor. a lot more coming. >> melissa: you can see it everywhere. it is a huge story, adam housely, and you have it. thank you for bringing it here. as we await the white house briefing, were questions about the unmasking could come up. the president is wrapping up his meeting with the president of egypt. chief white house correspondent john roberts joins us with more on that one. how did it go, john? >> reporter: melissa, good afternoon. by all indications, at least early ones, things are going quite well. the president is aiming to reboot the relationship between the united states and egypt, which is well known, fell into a dark period in the obama administration which presided in 2011 over the ouster of hosni mubarak. now, al-sisi was unwelcome here

in part because of his style of rule. also because of his record on human rights. the president is looking for a strong alley in the region to attack terrorism and the roots of it. by all indications the reboot is beginning to bear fruit. here's the president. >> we are very much behind president al-sisi. he has done a fantastic job with a very difficult situation. we are very much behind egypt and the people of egypt. and to the united states has believe me backing and we have strong backing. >> reporter: after the oval office meeting, there was a broader meeting in the cabinet room before the two headed off to a working lunch with the issue of terrorism and roots in the middle east front and center. president trump reacted to the train bombing in st. petersburg russia. listen here. >> terrible. terrible thing. happening all over the world. absolutely a terrible thing.

>> reporter: interesting. at thescheduled to speak about terrorism with the leader of egypt, something like that happens in russia. with that briefing just ahead now, maybe, oh, 25 minutes from now, we expect sean spicer, the press secretary, melissa, will get a lot of questions on these allegations that susan rice was the person who ordered the unmasking of trump officials. changed the mores to more broadly disseminate that information. so be watching because there will be some spwrefing things i think that come out of that briefing today. >> melissa: oh, it's teeing up to be another epic press conference, without a doubt. we will be watching. >> reporter: you know, it's just another normal day here at the white house. >> melissa: typical monday. this keeps happening. thank you very much, john roberts. for more on this, let's bring in fox news political editor and the editor of "the halftime report." okay. so break it down for us. why is it significant that it would be susan rice? what does that name add to this story? >> welsh what it adds to this

story, this is a person who is a very political, politicizing figure. this is an obama loyal loyalist. this is not some staffer nonpartisan being deep within the apparatus of the intelligence community and national security. this is a person who is for president obama, a political entity. so that certainly casts in a different light that it would have been a sort of career national security professional. >> melissa: so she's out there and pushing for the unmasking of these names. what do you take from that? what does that mean? >> remember, there are two basic theorys in the case. under one theory we have wrongdoing. there were people in donald trump's orbit or on his campaign that had inappropriate contact with russians or russian operatives in order to affect the outcome of the election. if that's not true, then the other thing has to be true, to some degree, which is that it is a frame job, it was a setup.

people inside the intelligence commune were trying to make it look like that. this will go strongly to the argument of people who say that it was a setup for team trump. but we still don't know real evidence here. we still don't have facts at hand to get to the primary question of, is there fire where all of this smoke is? >> melissa: so one of the confusing pieces of the story, and we keep hearing about this. devin nunes went in and looked at whatever documents those were. they say that had nothing to do with russia. that's not part of the russia investigation. >> and we are, the great cia man, famous cia man described his work as a wilderness of mirrors. sister, let me tell ya, we are deep in a wilderness of mirrors about who said what and what they saw. they're saying it wasn't related to the russia investigation. were people talking to russians? does that meet that description? we are flying blind with no altimeter with all of this

stuff. we have to be careful. we should do this as journalists and people, as citizens. wait and see. let's wait for more facts to come out before we jump to conclusions. >> melissa: probably most of america wants to see movement on the economy, healthcare and taxes while we're going in a circle about all these things, which are important, no doubt, but i'm betting not the number one issue to people that voted for donald trump, but we'll see. >> you said it right, sister. >> melissa: thank you very much. now to capitol hill wrrbg the senate judiciary committee is about to vote on the supreme court nomination of judge neil gorsuch. this as democrats appear to have the votes to support an filibuster, which could trigger, you guessed it, the so-called nuclear option. mike emanuel is live on capitol hill. so, do republicans sound discouraged that more democrats are not supporting neil gorsuch or did they just expect this? >> reporter: well, melissa, they seem to feel that's the reality

in the united states after the 2016 election. but republicans seem unified in believing that judge neil gorsuch is highly qualified and should sit on the supreme court. let's take you inside the judiciary committee room where senators are arguing for and against this nomination. there was a rare lighter moment when one senate conservative tried to reassure the american people that all is well ahead of this committee vote. >> today is a good day for america. baseball is back. and judge gorsuch is one step closer to taking his seat on the supreme court. >> reporter: indeed, judge gorsuch is expected to be confirmed, likely along party lines a short time from now. >> melissa: what more have we heard? we heard a couple answers and questions this morning. what more have you heard from democrats about why they're fighting this pick in particular? >> reporter: there's no question democrats are under intense pressure from their base that's still angry that president trump won and is trying to stop president trump's agenda.

there are also those quite upset about the treatment judge garland got. he was the guy nominated by president obama and was never considered by the senate for the supreme court. a key democrat explained a short time ago why he is a no on judge gorsuch. >> after participating in four days of very well run senate judiciary committee confirmation hearings submitting questions and getting feedback from literally thousands of people, i have decided that i will not support judge gorsuch nomination in the judiciary committee today. >> reporter: so that declaration by senator coons, the democrats have the numbers to throw an filibuster at judge gorsuch. unless some folks who are traditionalists can work out some kind of arrangement at the last minute. melissa. >> melissa: feels like we're going nuclear. what do you think? >> i think you're right.

>> melissa: thank you very much. keep us posted. an explosion on a busy commuter subway line killing nearly a dozen people. what police are still trying to figure out about the deadly blast in russia. and as mike just said, we are awaiting the big vote to move judge gorsuch supreme court nomination to the full chamber. as it looks like, the senate may be headed for a showdown of nuclear proportions. you don't let anything keep you sidelined. that's why you drink ensure. with 9 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals. for the strength and energy to get back to doing... ...what you love. ensure. always be you.

>> melissa: crews in atlanta are working to tear down an clear debris from the major portion of the interstate that collapsed last week after a raging fire. the 350 foot stretch of the i-85 bridge will be replaced, but it will likely take several months.

leading commuters to brace for major traffic headaches. atlanta's mass transit system has been swamped as other highways slow to a crawl. investigators say that a man smoking crack indicted the fire which burned construction materials stored beneath the overpass just north of atlanta. look at those pictures. wow. investigators in russia now launching a terror investigation after today's deadly explosion in st. petersburg. ten people died, dozens were hurt in the blast on board a subway train. police later finding and defusing another explosive device at a subway station. it all comes as president putin is in the city today for a meeting with the foreign leader. amy kellogg is live in mill hrapb with more on this. amy? >> reporter: hi, melissa. well the interfax news agency which is one of the premiere news agencies in russia, says that police are searching for

two individuals right now. one who deposited that bomb that actually did go off, killing so many people in one of the cars of the subway underneath the seat. and then another for a bomb that didn't go off that was found further on a train further down the line. and there is a picture that is being circulated now of one of the people that police say they are looking for. we don't have a name as of yet. of course that wouldn't mean much to many people, but there is this image of someone police believe may have left that first bomb that did detonate underneath the seat of a subway car in st. petersburg today. president putin, meanwhile, has been careful not to refer to this specifically as a terrorist attack. he said they are looking at all different lines of investigation. but the prosecutor's office in russia has, in fact, opened a terrorism file, a terrorism case, here.

clearly, this has the hallmarks of a vicious premeditated terrorist attack. the blast went off between hey market and technological institute stations in central st. petersburg. the door of the train was blown right off the carriage door. the conductor made the split second decision to keep driving after the blast to the next station. people are praising that decision after the fact because it made the evacuation of the wounded that much easier. the st. petersburg subway system is extremely deep. st. petersburg is a city of canals. also this system was used as a bomb shelter during world war ii. as i mentioned earlier, another unexploded homemade bomb was found at another subway station at revolution square about an hour after the explosion occurred. it contained, melissa, two pounds of explosives. so if it had gone off, it would have had five times the impact

of that first bomb, which was so deadly and killed ten people and injured so many others. again, president putin, this is his home town, st. petersburg. he was there today for a meeting with the president of belarus. they were off having discussions, so we didn't hear from them. three days of mourning begins tomorrow in st. petersburg. russia has been sit with terror attacks in the past, melissa, but most commonly in moscow. sometimes in some of the further regions closer to where chechnya is. this is the first time i have heard of one in st. petersburg. it is the most european city. finally, one last thing to add to this. i did watch one russian media station that was criticizing western media for suggesting

this was throw back for actions in syria. >> melissa: amy kellogg, thank you. big day in washington. we are awaiting if white house press briefing with sean spicer, amidst new reports about obama administration officials requesting the unmasking of names of trump transition members. we are also waiting for a senate judiciary committee vote on neil gorsuch. democrats now have enough votes to try to block him with an filibuster setting up a showdown with republicans.

♪ ♪ ♪ wanna get away? now you can with southwest fares as low as 59 dollars one-way. yes to low fares with nothing to hide.

that's transfarency. my insurance rates are but dad, you've got... ...allstate. with accident forgiveness they guarantee your rates won't go up just because of an accident. smart kid. indeed. it's good to be in, good hands.

>> melissa: some heated debate before the vote clearing the way for a final showdown over the supreme court nomination of judge neil gorsuch.

>> 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. >> based on judge gorsuch record at the department of justice, his tenure on the bench, appearance before the senate and his written questions for the record, i cannot support this nomination. >> there's nothing wrong with him. there's a lot wrong with modern politics in the senate. >> melissa: they're not all talking about the same person. ed wheelen is the president of the ethics and public policy center and a former clerk of justin antonin scalia. thank you for joining us. when i listened to senator feinstein list why she can't support judge gorsuch, she talked about the outcome of some of the cases that he had worked on and never said anything about whether or not he followed the law. just that she didn't like the results of the cases. that seems to be a common

thread, is it not? >> it certainly is. on matter after matter the democrats have faulted judge gorsuch for results, including often results joined by liberal democratic appointees. i think this is all this political theater. >> melissa: yeah. if they want to change the law, it's up to them to do that. he's the one who is just supposed to enforce it strictly interpret it and they're sort of blaming him for, i would theurbg a job they haven't done well, by designing the law the way they want it to work. it does seem like though they are very much dug in and we are headed for that showdown that we've talked about. what are the implications of that going forward if republicans are forced to go nuclear on this? >> well, look. judge gorsuch is an extraordinarily well qualified nominee who received the american bar association's highest rating unanimously. he has a claim from across the political spectrum. the fact that democrats are even thinking ab filibustering him

shows they would filibuster anyone a republican nominee -- a republican president would nominate. and what the filibuster is here is a real abuse of the process. filibuster has never been an accepted tool of obstruction on a partisan basis. no supreme court nominee has ever been defeated by a partisan filibuster. the status quo that long existed understood the filibuster was off the table. so it is unprecedented here, as democrats trying to use this minority power to defeat a tremendously well qualified nominee, and republicans ought to use their majority power to abolish the filibuster and restore the status quo that existed for so long where the filibuster is not part of the process. >> melissa: seems like it used to be the case that lawmakers pretended that it wasn't about party politics. that they acted like it was

about being a qualified judge. and there was balance on the court. someone who would be very conservative would be replaced by someone very conservative. we have blown through that. do you think going forward there is no pretense about it and someone decides on a candidate based on where they are politically based on their own politics? >> the process moved to one that focuses on judicial philosophy. i think there's a lot to be said for that move. the problem though is that the democrats, as indicated before, aren't really relying on judicial philosophy. they're playing pure politics. or perhaps their judicial philosophy is just reduced to politics, nothing more than opposing resulting. >> melissa: what does i mean for the next time around? it could backfire on republicans in the sense that the next time democrats are in control, they'll do the exact same thing and just ram through who ever they want. maybe they were gonna do that anyway? >> this is all upside for republicans. this would make the next vacancy

easier to fill for president trump or the next republican president. no democratic president would ever be so stupid as to nominate someone so politically toxic that senate republicans would ever dare filibuster that nominee. so i think this is, again, this is a very important battle for republicans to win and pave the way to make the supreme court better. >> melissa: we'll see. i wouldn't put anything past anybody in washington. thank you. >> thank you. >> melissa: the gorsuch nomination sure to be one of the topics at the white house briefing which is set to start just minutes from now. you see the briefing unfold, you will see it right here. you can see everybody taking their seats, getting ready. plus, he is the president's son-in-law and senior adviser. and now jared kushner's role seems to be expanding even more. where he is today and why. this

this this this is my body of proof. proof of less joint pain

and clearer skin. this is my body of proof that i can take on psoriatic arthritis with humira. humira works by targeting and helping to block a specific source of inflammation that contributes to both joint and skin symptoms. it's proven to help relieve pain, stop further joint damage, and clear skin in many adults. humira is the #1 prescribed biologic for psoriatic arthritis. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. want more proof? ask your rheumatologist about humira. what's your body of proof?

over hereno!ver here! (dog barking)

whoever threw it has to go get it. not me! somebody will get it... ♪ (dog barking) anyone can dream. making it a reality is the hard part. from the b-2 to the upcoming b-21, northrop grumman stealth bombers give america an advantage in a turbulent world. and we're looking for a few dreamers to join us. >> melissa: fox news alert. two big breaking developments out of washington right now. first we are live at the white house where the daily press briefing is set to start any minute now. that's what you're looking at right there. this as the senate judiciary committee is just minutes away. they might even be starting to vote on sending judge gorsuch supreme court nomination to the full senate. you can see that there. let's listen in. sounds like they're getting

started there. >> as i mentioned earlier, i'll put my statement in support of both mr. rosenstein and miss brance in record. i'm not going to take time to speak on them now, but they are both highly qualified nominees. i said earlier, it's imperative that the justice department have senior leadership in place as soon as possible. i would like to call on senator feinstein. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i intend to vote aye on mr. rosenstein and no on mrs. brand. i'd like to put a staple in the record. >> your statement will be put in the record. anybody else want to speak? senator kobachar? >> yes. i am also going to put a statement on the record on miss brand. while i am voting no today, i have some questions. >> melissa: we're hearing them with that vote which we expect to go along party lines there. once it passes here, it heads out to the poll floor then for a full vote. joining me now is democratic

strategist and senior director of research at bustle.com, mercedes schlapp former spokeswoman for president george w. bush. mercedes, first, what's your reaction to this? >> well, i think for democrats this is the garland revenge. it's the fact that judge garland was not given a hearing back in the day in the last congressional session, and so the fact is that this is the opportunity for democrats in the minority to resist and basically put a stop, try to put a stop to judge gorsuch as we know. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell stated very clearly that judge gorsuch will be confirmed. and quite frankly, when you look at the past, his past is clear that he had bipartisan consensus. when you look at legal expert, they basically say he is someone very acceptable to be on the supreme court. so it's more personal for the democrats, i think, than

anything else. >> melissa: isn't this possible that it totally back fires on democrats? >> yeah. >> melissa: republicans maybe tried to play nice and put somebody out there who was -- well, was at least liked by the majority and had, you know, been approved before. they could go very hard right the next time around. if you want to force us to go nuclear, we'll pick somebody you really hate. >> that's my major concern looking ahead. obviously, we wish everyone well and that they live in eternity. but we don't know what will happen. there could be another confirmation process. republicans could go even further right. as you said, gorsuch was confirmed 99-0. there was a time when democrats thought he was an acceptable option for an incredibly high court. it is a federal court. so i am concerned about that. also there's a slippery slope. as you were discussing earlier in the program. if we get to a point where lawmakers never deal with one another, never compromise, never

work together and go nuclear on everything. that moves to legislation. it's not what the american people want either. >> melissa: go ahead, mercedes. >> it's a change in what is a tradition of the senate solution. it was harry reid, former democrat, who started this nuclear option. they opened the flood gates. so now the republicans were trying to play nice. they were working those senate votes. >> no, no. if they wanted to play nice, they would have put merritt garland in. >> melissa: there's plenty of blame to go around on all sides for the current environment in washington. you can spread it out everywhere. we are waiting for that white house press briefing. you see it getting ready to kick off there on the side of your screen. jessica, i'll start with you. jared kushner, son-in-law of the president going to iraq. what do you make of that? >> i don't understand it. why is he going to iraq? why is he qualified to be there? early on in his presidency, donald trump said if anyone can

fix the middle east, it's jared kushner. why? >> i can tell you why. jared kushner, he's the eyes and the ears of the president. he is someone who wants to go to the ground to see what is happening in iraq. he's surrounded by top military officials tphp is also for him to get a sense of what's happening in these very hot spots. so i just think that the fact that by saying, well, why would he be there? since he is a senior adviser to the president, someone the president trusts, i think it's important to have a connection between the department of defense and the white house. [ speaking at the same time ] >> same thing happened under president obama's administration. >> melissa: jessica, what about that? this is clearly someone who has the ear of the president. he really trusts family members, that inner circle. he is obviously someone who is very smart. you put him on the ground to get information and bring it back. i don't know. what's wrong with that? he's not there making decisions.

>> let's hope not. i just find this argument so interesting about how important it is for the president to have his family out there. i really wonder if hillary had been made president -- >> she did it during bill clinton's time, are you kidding? come on. >> chelsea clinton was not out there walking around in iraq. >> jessica in hillary clinton's case, guess who was running the hel care initiative back in the day when bill clinton was president? it was hillary clinton. to say that she wasn't involved. she had a west wing office. she was very involved. >> i'm asking about chelsea clinton. i'm not asking about hillary. >> melissa: let's pull the plug and move on. we did it. thank you, ladies. all right. the white house intelligence committee gathering for a closed meeting as they investigate russia's role in the presidential election. this after the senate skpwrepbls committee rejected a request for immunity -- here we go. let's go to sean spicer as he takes the podium today. lots of questions. >> good afternoon, everybody.

welcome back. got a busy week ahead of us. before i get started, i want to just give you a quick update on something. i know in the past, there's been several questions about the president donating his salary to charity. i have got an update for you on that. to that end, the president has spoken with counsel and made the decision to donate his first quarter salary in total to a government entity. he has chosen this quarter to donate it to the national park service. the park service cares for our parks since 1916 and the president personally is proud to contribute the first quarter of i his salary to the important mission of the park service, which is preserving our country's national security. so it is my pleasure on behalf of the president to present a check for $783388 to the secretary of the interior and the superintendent of the

harpers ferry park site. no, it's straight up. every penny that the president received from the first quarter since the day that he was -- right. the constitution says it. sorry. it's from january 20th noon forward. with that, i'm gonna let secretary zinke make a few comments about what they are doing helping with the president. >> well, thanks. i'm secretary zincke for those who don't know me. obviously great to be with you. those who don't know america i get my inspiration from ted roosevelt. and the motto now, if you go to yellowstone, had the opportunity to look at the roosevelt arc that says inscribed in stone is for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.

and that's our pledge. so, for those who aren't familiar with the department of interior -- >> melissa: okay. we want to take a quick break right here to take you over to where orrin hatch and john cornen are talking about judge gorsuch. let's listen in. >> -- will not accept the fact that president trump won. he did. when you win the white house you have the ability to appoint people to the supreme court. the list was give ton the public. nobody was surprised by the list. i can't thank president more than he listened to people who understand the law and understand the judges available for republicans to pick. president trump could not have chosen a better person. mike pence could not have chosen a better person. paul ryan, a county councilman, republican in south carolina, could not have chosen a better person. if you're filibustering him as a democrat that just means you don't accept the fact that president trump won. this is the end of the qualification standards for the supreme court. hamilton is rolling over in his grave.

i'm sorry we got here, but we are where we are. i'm going to vote to change the rules because i'm not going to be part of a senate where democrats get their judges and a republican can never get theirs. that's not what it's all about. >> there's an old saying that in the court room when the law is against you you go to the facts. when neither one is against you you pound the table. we heard a fair amount of pounding today. we also fair amount of that while we held our hearing week before last. the fact is this is a judge that is qualified. this is a judge who has one objective and one objective alone which is to achieve correct outcomes under the law. to figure out what the law says and then apply it. unable to attack him on any other ground and afraid of what this mean, namely that it will be more difficult, rather than less, for the supreme court to legislate from the bench, to make laws, set policy. some of our colleagues are determined to just pound the

table in order to stop judge gorsuch. all they can come up with, a fact that has nothing to do with his qualifications as a juryist or willingness to follow the law. i'm pleased to stand with my colleagues to confirm him. stand with my colleagues in following the same precedent that we've been following for years. the fact is that a few years ago when the president was changing, there was not a single distinction, not a single rule based argument that doesn't apply equality to the votes we will be taking later this week. that's why i am pleased to stand with my colleagues to support this nominee and move forward with this confirmation. thank you. >> today was a victory for the rule of law and also a moment of clarity. for those of us who value and cherish the constitution and bill of rights, today is one step closer to judge neil gorsuch being confirmed as the next associate justice on the supreme court. it was also a moment of clarity. but an in the process of the

supreme court hearing, we saw democratic senators throw every fastball they could, use every attack they could and end up with no meaningful criticism of judge gorsuch record. a decade on the court of appeal, a decade following the law, following the constitution, being faithful to his oath. the position of the democrats, we just saw a party line vote in the judiciary committee, where every democratic voted no, not based on qualifications, not based on temperment. a decade ago no democrat opposed his appointment to the court of appeals. what we saw is the modern democratic party, who is opposed to donald trump appointing anyone. if they will filibuster neil gorsuch, they will filibuster any nominee. that is why if the democrats persist in this foolish filibuster, the senate majority

will have no choice but return to the standard that has prevailed for over two centuries in the senate which is confirming supreme court justices by a majority vote. by the end of the week, i believe judge gorsuch will be confirmed as the next associate justice. that is a victory for the constitution for the bill of rights for individual liberty and for the american people. >> neil gorsuch is a good man. he's been a good judge. he's going to be a good justice on the supreme court. a partisan party line vote in the committee is sad, but it's a reflection on a break in the u.s. senate, not any problem with judge gorsuch. americans should be excited about a guy who will go on the court who wants to serve as a judge not a superlegislator. there were people in the committee who clearly decided the judge was going to be guilty until proven guilty, and then tried to read 2700 opinions and find something to support their views. they didn't find anything. judge gorsuch will be a great justice on the u.s. supreme

court. >> judge gorsuch is a great man and gray judge. i was proud to support him in committee and look forward to supporting him on the floor of the senate. >> it's unfortunate that we had a partisan vote today. we've had phenomenally long process here. 33 days of testimony by judge gorsuch. took over 20 hours. over 30 witnesses. now this markup. and it truly is unfortunate that it has evolved into a partisan vote. lot of members on the other side brought forward reasons today why they wanted the vote no. in some of my colleagues said, they were pretty strained arguments. there is a difference between voting no and filibuster. there's only been one filibuster successfully of a supreme court issue. this was a nomination to be a chief justice.

that was not a partisan filibuster. both parties supported that filibuster. other than that one example, there has never been a successful filibuster of a supreme court nominee. and it's unfortunate to see us potentially moving toward that kind of outcome now. it really does reflect much more on the senate than it does on judge gorsuch. >> well, last night i cut my hand on a piece of sheet metal, had to get five stitches. now that ranks as the second most painful thing i have experienced this week. what we saw in the committee hearing today, to me, really just -- it is an amazing theater that we have created here to create the pretext for a partisan filibuster. this will not be successful. judge gorsuch is going to get nominated. he is going to get nominated because he is extremely qualified. he did an extremely good job in 20 hours of hearings.

senator grassley did as good a job in managing that process. i hope my democratic colleagues will rethink what they're trying to do this week. they will not be successful. hopefully we can get consensus. but if not, i'm confident we're going to see one of the great judges confirmed to the supreme court later this week. >> the american people deserve an up or down vote on neil gorsuch. the american people expect an up or down vote on neil gorsuch. and the american people are entitled to an up or down vote on neil gorsuch. some of our democratic colleagues are gonna try to prevent that vote. that would be wrong. and i don't think the american people will agree with it. >> senator grassley? >> forgive me, there are so many

of you. can we get a show of hands who will vote for the nuclear option? >> we're not going to show hands. >> no? >> melissa: okay. there you go. that is the senate judiciary committee coming out talking about what happened today as judge gorsuch nomination moves on. gregg jarrett is joining us. he is an attorney and fox news anchor. the best line, of course, i sliced my hand on sheet metal and now that's the second most painful thing that's happened to me this week. that says a lot about this process. >> it's painful to watch the polarization based on ideology play out here. it may be entirely misplaced. you heard one of the gentlemen talk about the 2700 decisions by gorsuch. well, two law professors at the university of virginia actually looked and examined in depth those decisions. they concluded he is surprisingly moderate, especially on social issues. and among the republican appointees on the 10th circuit,

they found him to be actually liberal. remember, during the hearing he said, abortion is the law of the land under roe v. wade. it is solid precedent. which totally belies president trump's promise that he would pick somebody who would automatically reverse roe v. wade. >> melissa: interesting. at the same time, he does have a lot of support from almost everybody on the right. so they must believe that he's conservative. >> yeah. they thought that of earl warren and harry blackmon and william brennan and john paul stevens and david suter, all republican appointees that were thought to be conservative. and guess what? they ended up being liberals. you never actually know what's going to happen when a judge becomes a justice. >> melissa: interesting. all right. gregg jarrett, thank you very much for that. now we want to go back to sean spicer right now who is back at the podium now at the press briefing. lots of top eubgs today. let's listen in. >> this will be the first successful filibuster of a nominee to join the supreme

court which is clearly unprecedented. with a vote on judge gorsuch expected friday the american people will see which senators are willing to keep his seat open to get in the way of president trump making progress on one of his most significant choices so far. also today, opens the application process for this year's visas. the president spoke about the h1b visa program in the past. the white house acknowledges there are issues with the program as it currently stands. however, there are several laws that are on the books that went unenforced in the previous administration. as the department of justice made clear and released this morning, the trump administration will be enforcing laws protecting american workers from discriminating hiring practices. looking ahead to the schedule for the rest of the week, the president will host a ceo town hall meeting on the business climate tomorrow morning. and then in the afternoon he will make remarks to the 2017 north america building trade union national legislative

conference. on wednesday, as i mentioned last week, he will host the king of jordan. on thursday after welcoming participants of the wounded warrior soldier ride, the president will depart for a visit for the president of china xi. the president is devastated by the flooding in columbia and we are working with the governments columbia and per rue to discuss the losses caused by this natural disaster. the president has also been briefed on today's attacks in st. petersburg metro. the united states condemns this reprehensible attack and act of violence. our thoughts and prayers are with the injured and the russian people as we extend our deepest con kol -- condolences. attacks like these remind us that the world must work as one to combat violence in all forms. the united states is prepared to offer assistance to russia that it may require investigating this crime.

and with that, i'd be glad to take your questions. cecelia? >> yes. i have a couple questions on the same topic. jared kushner is going to remark today. why is he there and not the secretary of state today? what's the message that the president is sending by having jared kushner be the one to take this trip? >> i don't think there's -- it's not a binary choice. in this particular case, both jared kushner and tom bosser the assistant to the president for homeland security are on the trip at the request and invitation of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who is going there and believed it was an opportunity for both of them. it's ironically the first trip for both mr. kushner and bosser. they're going to receive briefings and updates with respect to what's going on on the ground, our military involvement there and our efforts to defeat isis. jared's going to specifically express the commitment of u.s., of the united states to the government of iraq, meet with

u.s. personnel engaged in the campaign. mr. bosser will participate in meetings and briefings to reinforce the strong u.s./iraqi partnership to defeat isis. but it's not like this is a one-shot deal. in the course of conversation in extensive meetings, that invitation was extended. >> his portfolio is jam packed and has grown in recent weeks. among the things, our understanding that are in his portfolio, he is to broker middle east peace and overhaul the federal government. can he do all of these things? >> i think not to -- it's not like he -- he has a team that he oversees. there are a lot of areas that he has been working very dill generally on behalf of the government and behalf of the president's agenda. getting a first-hand understanding of the work that's being done to thank the government of iraq, to see some of the sacrifice and progress that our team is making on the u.s. side is an opportunity that i think every government official and every member of the media should, frankly, take

advantage of if offered that opportunity. matt? >> a recent report out today revealed that president trump can draw money from his businesses at any time without disclosing it. so on that, i have two questions. one, has the president withdrawn any money from his businesses since taking office? and, two, can the white house commit that the president will disclose future withdrawals if they take place? >> i'm not sure what he's withdrawn. i think that -- i'm somewhat surprised in the sense that anyone would find it shocking a blind trust or any kind of trust rather, the whole entire point of setting it up is somebody can withdraw money. that's part of the point of setting it up. >> why was the change not made? it was made after -- >> no, no. no, no. i do. you just went and started to say this change was made -- i'm not aware that there was any change. just because a left wing blog makes a point of something changing doesn't mean it

actually happened. i'm not aware that there was ever a change in the trust. and the idea that the president is withdrawing money at some point is exactly the purpose of what the trust, why a trust is set up, regardless of an individual. >> last question on this. so you're not saying whether or not it has changed, just to clarify? >> no, no. to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't changed. olivia? wrong person. >> i got a couple for you. one, reports that the administration is looking at arms packages for taiwan, including missile defense, fighter jets. can you clarify? >> no, i'm not going to discuss that. >> okay. and then last august the president sharply criticized then president obama for not making more of a public case for human rights throughout the muslim world or the arab world. you have now said that it's better to raise those issues privately. i'm trying to understand the evolution of the thinking there. what changed his mind?

>> what changed? >> his mind. >> the president recognizes those are conversations where we can, as i said in the statement, there are areas that we can work with in cooperation and concern. that is discussed privately in terms of how we address areas that need to be discussed like that in order to make progress on them. i don't think that should be a huge surprise. >> can you raise them in this meeting? >> i'm not going to get into what they discussed privately, but i will tell you we understand the concern. i think those are the kind of things that i believe progress is made privately. sara? >> thanks, sean. i have two. one, has president trump spoken with president vladamir putin about the terror attack in russia? >> not yet. i know that obviously the president of egypt just left moments ago, prior to me coming out. but i do know that, as i mentioned at the top, our teams have been reaching out to both the government of russia and the government of columbia. i know that there have been some

outreach, i believe, to the folks, to the government of peru with respect to their situation, mudslides there. then, obviously, the violence that occurred in russia is something that we've already started to reach out from a government to government standpoint. if there is a call, we will make sure that we read that out. >> okay. and secondly, senator rand paul has called the reports about susan rice ordering the unmasking of president trump's associates, quote, a smoking gun. does the president agree with that characterization? what does he think about the reports? >> i saw senator paul's tweet. look, i think i want to make sure i'm clear and consistent. i think we've been trying to say that from the get go that there's been an on going investigation that we have supported looking into this matter. i will say that we have continued to say that i think there is a troubling direction that some of this is going in. but we're gonna let this review go on before we jump to it.

but i think that it is interesting the level of, or the lack of interest that i have seen in these developments when it goes in one direction versus where i think it was going, where other amounts of interest that have come from this room and beyond. i'm somewhat surprised in terms of the level of interest that i have seen from the press corps at one set of developments versus another set of developments. that being said, i'm not going to start getting into a further discussion of that. >> sean, thanks. let me pick up here, a couple questions. does the white house believe susan rice may have done anything illegal? >> i'm not gonna -- appreciate the effort there. i'm not going to start going down that road, as we've said before. we go down one road, we need to go down em all. at this point we've supported this review that we've asked for. but i do think that when you see the developments that we've seen in terms of the public on the record comments that dr. farkus, evelyn farkus, deputy assistant

secretary for defense for russian affairs said very publicly that this was part of an attempt of the obama administration to spread classified information, then you see the developments that have happened today, i will just say, again, i'm somewhat more from a media standpoint somewhat intrigued by the lack of interest that we've seen in some of these public revelations and reportings that have gone in that direction than we've seen in some of the other directions. that being said, i'm not going to get into -- >> as it relates to neil gorsuch. >> yeah. >> is the white house comfortable with the nuclear option potentially being invokeed? >> the president said several that this was something that he would support. we're comfortable in the sense that, obviously, that decision is up to leader mcconnell to make, how he wants the senate to deal with this. i think majority leader's comments are very clear and the direction he's headed in. i think this is -- we have

entered a whole new league if this goes forward, in terms of democrats really going and saying -- one thing to vote nens a nominee. we've seen that in the past and i understand that. but we've now gone from the evolution of agreeing that there are certain people who has the right as long as they are qualified. we've seen that in the past. john roberts had 79 votes. when you see that go in one direction versus now, that there will literally be the first filibuster of a qualified judge, we have come a long way. i think democrats are setting a very dangerous precedent when it comes to how they want to do this. because this isn't about voting against somebody or having an issue with them. it is trying to stop using the filibuster for something it was never intended for. never has it been the >> what is president trump doing