>> rachel, thank you. >> always fun to be here. >> sandra: all right. we will be back on tv tomorrow at noon eastern. as always, thank you for joining us. "happening now" starts right now. >> jon: we start with a fox news alert. president trump wrapping up an address to a room full of building people. >> jenna: this comes amid new developments on capitol hill over his supreme court pick and the future of obamacare. we're covering all the news "happening now." but now it does not appear to be the case. susan rice, president obama's former national security adviser named as the official who sought to unmask trump transition team members caught up in the russia intelligence investigation. plus, suspected chemical attack carried out now considered among the worst atrocities in syria's brutal civil war. who was behind it? all eyes on one state's high court, where a case could change

how federal authorities crack down on illegal immigration. it's all "happening now." and we begin with two major events on capitol hill. senate on the brink of a historic showdown as the house gets ready for round two on health care. welcome to the second hour of "happening now." >> jon: capitol hill is a busy place. republicans are preparing to use the so-called nuclear option as democrat senators have enough support to filibuster neil gorsuch. they return from a short break. meantime the gop and the white house now resuming efforts to repeal and replace obamacare. we have fox team coverage. mike emanuel is live on capitol hill with the latest. but first we go to peter doocy following that showdown in the senate. >> reporter: we think we're about an hour and 15 minutes

from a full senate vote to proceed or not proceed on the confirmation of judge neil gorsuch to the supreme court. so now all eyes are on the majority leader in the senate, mitch mcconnell, who is poised to change the precedent in the senate and lower the threshold of votes that you need to confirm somebody to the supreme court. from 60 down to 51. we're hearing from other republican senators who say they are on board with this nuclear option, even though they're not thrilled about how we got here. >> this is all politics. ly not allow a system where democrats get their judges and republicans cannot. trump won the election. he made an outstanding choice in neil gorsuch. if we have to change the rules, we will. and i blame my democratic colleagues for creating this mess to begin with. >> reporter: but senator graham said if the nuclear option becomes the only way to get bills passed that would do damage to the institution. that would mean the party in power would never ever need any

help from anybody from the other side of the aisle. in this case, the other side is the democratic party led by minority leader chuck shumer, who says he doesn't think filibuster a supreme court nominee is that big of a deal because it would mean the nominee at least made it to a vote, unlike president obama's most recent supreme court nominee garland. >> what the majority leader did to merritt garland, by denying him even a hearing is even worse than a filibuster. for him to accuse democrats of the first partisan filibuster on the supreme court belies the facts, belies the history, belies the basic truth. >> reporter: there are some democrats though who, like senator chris koons from delaware who say they're open to a compromise that would let republicans avoid the nuclear option then keep the filibuster process intact. but it still remains too soon --

it is too soon to tell if that is going to end up being the case, if the nuclear option will be triggered, that would be thursday, final vote on judge neil gorsuch would be friday. >> jon: so we could know, we should know the answer this week? >> reporter: yes. mitch mcconnell said neil gorsuch will be confirmed friday. he doesen say he could be confirmed. he said he will be confirmed to the court. >> jon: all right. we'll watch all of that. peter doocy on capitol hill, thank you. >> jenna: house republicans are in talks for a new plan to repeal and replace obamacare. this comes nearly two weeks after house speaker paul ryan withdrew the party's first bill because it simply did not have enough support. mike emanuel is live on capitol hill with more. >> reporter: there's been a flurry of activity here on capitol hill, to see with some fine tuning if they can get enough is up por to pass that republican health care package. there's been a serious push to see if they can get it done by the end of the week before lawmakers leave for easter recess. paul ryan tried to lower

expectations. >> now we're throwing around concepts to improve the bill. that's occurring right now. but that is not to say that we are ready to go. we want to make sure that when we go, we have the consensus we've been looking for. we're very close on consensus. 90% of the conference is already there, 10% was not. >> reporter: some of the top administration outreach has been from mike pence, and budget director nick mulvaney. they've been reaching out trying to win enough support to pass the bill. one offer made to conservatives was giving states the ability to apply for waivers to get out of two obamacare regulations. some conservatives said they want to see the actual text, but one freedom caucus member does not sound impressed. >> we promise people that we should stop the total use of individual and state's rights by

the federal government, and saying they can ask us for permission doesn't really seem to be the best way to go about that. >> reporter: one moderate member i talked to sounded openly irritated about all the outreach to house conservatives, questioning whether they would ever be able to get a question on a healthcare package. jenna? >> jenna: thank you. >> jon: for more on this let's bring in a columnist at "the washington examiner." also with us isaac wright, former executive director of correct the record superpact. thanks for being here. so, kristen, you heard the speaker of the house say that republicans are this close to consensus. does that mean that they get some kind of a repeal and replace obamacare bill very soon? >> they're going to try, but it's going to take a lot of time. that's why speaker ryan was trying to manage expectations in that clip about how long this will take. there was a sense of the first go around. there was a bill that a lot of

folks had little bit of an issue with. hey, if we take this political moment and run with it, can we get something done? that kind of passed. testify question is can you strike that very careful balance, where you're capturing some more votes from the very conservative side of the party but not losing any folks from the moderate side. that's what's gonna make it so hard for leaders to make this a reality. >> isaac, doesn't that mean that whatever bill finally comes out of the house is going to be a more conservative bill and that would suggest it would not be pallettable to democrats? >> we don't know. we don't know the entirety of where president trump and his administration want to go. we know meadows from the freedom caucus talked about dropping some major components of the aca. one of the things that they're on the negotiating table with right now. things like the guaranteed coverage that you can't drop someone or raise their rates because of preexisting conditions or illness, swell dropping things like mandated

maternity care, mental health care, etc. there are pretty basic and fundamental components of aca. >> you say that what the freedom caucus is asking for are changes to the bill that would make health insurance look more like real insurance. what do you mean by that? >> well, if you think about the way most types of insurance work. auto insurance, homeowners insurance. you get insurance to protect you against the risk of something really bad happening. your auto insurance doesn't cover when something little happens. your homeowner insurance doesn't happen when something little happens. doesn't cover you getting your house painted. just there for the risk of disaster happening. right now in the u.s. health insurance isn't just there for disaster happening, it's the way that we pay for all health care. what the freedom caucus is pushing for are changes that would make insurance not be the way that you pay for most things in health care. but the problem they're gonna run into is that, politically, that's not where most americans are. for most americans, health insurance doesn't really function like insurance and

they're okay with that. so that's going to be the real challenge. if you make insurance something real stripped down, just about covering really catastrophic events, does that too fundamentally change the way most people think about health insurance today? >> there are, what, 20 million people who have insurance now, isaac, who didn't have it before. doesn't seem like it's going to be politically feasible or palletable to kick those people off the insurance rolls. >> absolutely. i want to go back to something kristen said. that's a completely false premise on how the insurance system works with health care. let's remember. if you don't go to the doctor for that minor episode that she was referring to like, say, a sinus infection, then you wind up in the hospital with pneumonia for two weeks. it's much more expensive to the overall health care system, which means premiums rison everyone. it's just backwards to how the economics of health care and number one. number two, to your point,

that's absolutely right. there are 20 million more people right now who have coverage thanks to the aca than they did before. the aca works. does it have problems? yes. let's go about fixing those. for example, it works. right now we have the lowest rate of uninsured people under the age of 65 in america in 50 years. at the same time, there are problems. we see rising increasing fees in premiums in some of the market places, etc. and we need to address those. that's what we need to go about the business of is fixing the problems, not repealing and creating a huge mess to unwind it and trying to come up with something new. it's like the farm i grew up on. we had a saying. if the tire on the tractor is down, you fix the tire, you don't replace the tractor. >> all right. good analogy, i suppose. kristen, what do you think ab those numbers, first of all? and isn't part of the problem the fact that so many insurance companies are just pulling out

of the markets, so there is no competition in a lot of these states. >> that's right. there are things being expected of insurance companies under the affordable care act. the pieces all just don't work together. the rates that they're allowed to charge the masses isn't adding up. that's why so many are saying, i don't really think that i want to be in the business of offering coverage under the constraints that are placed on me through this law. but i think it's completely ridiculous to think that democrats are eager to fix the aca. democrats in congress are eager to stop anything republicans do now that they're in the minority and republicans control all the branchs. i don't think they're interested in doing much along the lines of fixing. you had chuck shumer gave an interview where he viewed fixes as creating a public option, moving the bill further to the left. so the idea that democrats are somehow gonna come to the table to fix the affordable care act in a way that it is palletable to the folks running the show in washington these days, i think is a complete fantasy. >> jon: all right.

what do you think ab that? are democrats out to fix it or not? >> democrats have thrown out plans like lowering the eligibility for medicade to 55 -- excuse me, to medicare, to 55. that would help curb the cost in the insurance market. >> it expands the government program to millions and millions more people which why it moves the program to the left which is why it is not on the table for the folks running washington. >> when the republicans used that plan in the medicare modernization act passed by a republican congress, many members are still there and signed into law by president george w. bush. it proved to work. they temporarily increased the subsidies. they came back down when the aca was passed. and at the same time, you have one in three medicare advantage subscribers on private plans. it worked. it worked well. when republicans were in charge previously, they were willing to try it. we saw the numbers work.

why not now? >> jon: we'll see what they come up with. again, we don't have the new legislation yet. isaac, kristen, thank you both. >> thank you. >> jenna: suspected chemical weapons attack killing dozens in northern syria including children. activist groups are pointing the finger to russia or syria. government leaders from across the world are reacting. plus, one man's arrest sparking debate. can local law enforcement hold people after their criminal cases are concluded based on federal immigration requests? that question argued in one of the state's highest courts today. we'll explain where and why it matters next.

♪ ♪ ♪ 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. aleve with direct thertens device, a relief from lower back pain. i put it on my back. i feel this electrical pulse grabbing at my muscles. it was more powerful than i was expecting it to be. it worked. i believe aleve. learn more and read reviews at aleve.com.

this is pete's yard. and it's been withered by winter. but all pete needs is scotts turf builder lawn food. it's the fast and easy way to a thick green lawn. it takes grass from hungry - to healthy. this is a scotts yard. >> jon: the russian government denies reports that it carried out a chemical weapons attack on syria after activists say at least 58 people died from air strikes released some sort of gas. they claim syria or russia

launched those strikes. france's foreign minister responding to the suspected attack calling on the united nations to hold an emergency meeting. kwrpb the highest court in massachusetts hearing arguments today on whether local authorities can lawfully detain illegal immigrants based solely on detaining requests from federal immigration and customs enforcement. the case involving a cambodian national who was held in custody after his criminal case was dismissed. his attorneys argue the move was unconstitutional. molly line is live at the massachusetts supreme court in boston. molly? >> reporter: hi, jenna. the supreme court heard these arguments and essentially the crux of this issue that the panel is set to determine is whether or not state courts and law enforcement officers here in the state, if they adhere with federal detainers if they are acting unconstitutionally by doing so. the attorney general's office, the aclu, the phrafs have an

argument that they're making. essentially, that law enforcement officers in trial courts lack the authority to make civil immigration arrests and would be acting in violation of both the u.s. and state constitution should they act solely on ice detainers to hold these individuals for a requested 48-hour limit, particularly if that person would otherwise be released. lawyers for the justice department said it is law in the united states that it does not preclude state officers from cooperating with federal authorities. here's just a taste of the arguments that were being made in court. >> if state officials choose to cooperate with the federal government, they have that authority and we haven't seen anything specifically taking that authority away from them. >> there is no backdrop of implicit authority to make war ranless arrests for civil violations. >> reporter: now, this case stems from the arrest of a man who was in the country illegally. he had previously been attempted

to be deported by immigration authorities, but cambodia declined to take him. in october 2016 he was charged with unarmed robbery at the time of his arraignment, it was determined that there wouldn't be a prosecution against him. but instead of being released he was held at the courthouse briefly. ice agents showed up and took him into custody. civil rights advocates argue this is a case to watch because it could have ramifications across the country, possibly, something that other courts, other cases, other attorneys may be watching as well. jenna? >> jenna: molly, thank you. >> jon: it is a fascinating case. president obama's national security adviser, susan rice, responding for the first time to those unmasking reports. what she has to say about the allegations. plus, it's perfectly legal for the irs to go beyond collecting your taxes and seize your assets. even if you haven't been charged with a crime. coming up what lawmakers on capitol hill are trying to reign

in that agency's awesome power. dom, your team is about to go up against

the only thing they can't handle... you. dominic toretto just went rogue. i don't know what she's got on him, but that wasn't dom. it ain't too late to stop this. come and get it. [ grunt ]

now i know what it feels like to be every cop ever chasing us. dom! is that a torpedo? take the wheel. [ grunt ] rated pg-13. experience it in imax. >> within that process and within the context of the trump campaign, the trump transition, did you seek the names of people involved, did you unmask the names of people involved in the trump transition, the trump campaign, people surrounding the president-elect in order to spy on them? >> absolutely not for any political purposes, to spy, expose, anything. >> did you leak the name of mike flynn? >> never have and never would. when the intelligence community would respond to a request from senior national security official for the identity of an american, that would come back only to the person who requested

it. it would be brought back to them directly. to me or who ever might have requested it on occasion. this is, you know, important. it was not then typically broadly disseminated throughout the national security community or the government. so the notion that which some people are trying to suggest that by asking for the identity of an american person, that is the same as leaking it is completely false. >> jenna: president obama's former national security adviser, susan rice, responding for the first time after she sought to unmask the names of president trump's transition officials who have been apparently caught up in some incidental surveillance before he took office. eli lake is a bloomberg review columnist one of the journalists who broke the story. long interview with andrea mitchell on msnbc. what are your thoughts from what you heard from susan rice? >> well, the first thing i would say, when she says that

unmasking someone in an intelligence report is not the same as leaking it, she's answering a question that nobody is asking. pr technique to appear you are refuting a charge no one is making. the second thing, she has not said, answered directly whether or not she unmasked the identities of trump transition officials in reports in the transition period that she was receiving. and there are many separate issues here, one of which is the leaking of mike flynn's name from his communications report. but the other is just the idea that a senior white house official, national security adviser who is also a partisan democrat, nothing wrong with that, is asking to see the identities of their phrt call opposition in the period when they are about to take power. that would make people feel

uncomfortable as welsh even though it is not as dramatic as exposing the private communications of the incoming national security adviser. so, i think there's still unanswered questions. she did say that she did not use any of this for any kind of political reasons, but saying that there was no political reason for that, i mean, again, i don't want to preface it, but i think there might be more questions on that, considering that we also know there was an effort according to "the new york times" to get information about russia's influence of the election and connections between trump and russia to, you know, as wide reaching as possible in the intelligence community and also, you know, to congress. so that's something that's kind of already out there. and i'm not saying these two thins connect. in fact, it looks like from what rice said, they don't, but there's still a lot of questions on that. on the key issue i wrote about, she didn't answer that question about whether she unmasked in

dozens of incidents the name of the people in the trump cabinet. >> jenna: just for viewers who might have missed your reporting, you have reached out to susan rice just asking for her response. you didn't receive a response. have you received any sort of response thus far, eli? >> no, i haven't, but we were all watching that interview with andrea mitchell. >> jenna: we hope she talks to you. dozens of instances. that's something that stood out from your reporting. it wasn't just one or two times apparently she requested it. it was dozens of times? can you give our viewers what dozens means? >> that's as much as i can kwan tpaoeu from the sources that i have, so i'll leave it there. >> jenna: got it. >> this is not in any way to disparage anything she said. she said, i would never leak. for someone who has been a senior official in washington, everyone leaks. right? i don't want to go any further. there's nothing wrong with it.

i just want to say for the fox viewe viewers, leaking is good. i am for leaking. leak to me. >> jenna: eli lake would like to put his personal e-mail anyone information. there are times when leaking is very valuable when a story needs to get out, that needs daylight. in this case leaking the names or even the fact that these reports exist isn't just a classified report. this is top top secret stuff. so it is a felony to leak these names. it is a crime. maybe felony is not the right word. i'm not a lawyer. >> my view is there's accepted secrecy in the u.s. government. >> jenna: fair. >> but that said, you're absolutely right. >> jenna: right. >> because when you leak the personal communications overheard by government monitors to the press, that's a tactic that is used in closed societies and policed states to intimidate one's political opposition. >> jenna: right. >> and it represents a breach of

the trust that we place in our eves droppers to not try to influence our politics. so the leak of flynn influenced our politics. it forced the national security adviser to resign. other things have come out, by the way, on flynn since his resignation, that do not look good for him. we can litigate that later. but at the time it was because of that leak that said he was not being straight with the vice president about his conversations with the russian ambassador. so all of that is really significant and rice said she's got nothing to do with it? i don't see why we wouldn't believe her on that but someone did leak it. according to the washington post it was nine former officials. >> jenna: that's a completely different debate. in your reporting though, eli, has your reporting at this point brought you any closer to who the leaker is? >> i kind of have professional reasons as to why i don't like to get into leak investigations.

i don't want to discuss my on going stuff there. i agree with you it would be a big story. it is in some ways part of the story. i just feel it is not good for business to expose those who leak to reporter. >> jenna: we look forward to you breaking that news on our air. i do want to play more sound. i'm short of time but i want to play a little more sound on the interview with susan rice. have our viewers check this out. >> understand that over eight years, for me and others who served, it was not uncommon -- in fact, it was necessary at times to make those requests to find out the identity of u.s. officials on every topic under the sun when it seemed relevant. >> jenna: just curious. find out the identity of u.s. officials. these are americans. i was curious about what you thought. >> well, that is interesting. i mean, it raises a lot of questions, doesn't it? >> jenna: i think so. what u.s. officials are we

talking about? was it a slip of the tongue? i'm not sure. "washington post" susan rice wrote an opinion piece, when the white house twists the truth, she writes, we are all less safe. she went on to say, must maintain respect and trust. where do you think we are with that? >> i don't have a hard copy of "the washington post." maybe they could make an internet video on that. oh, sorry. i mean, come on. i agree, it's true. donald trump says outrageous things all the time. he tweets outrageous things. little rich coming from the obama administration which also had some whoppers, particularly when it came to the iran deal. we can go through the list. i don't want to get into this equivale equivalent. she's entitled to it. they've been a little high and mighty, don't you think? >> jenna: it was interesting to point out. where do the two administrations intersect? what's really important for the

american people i think is what we need to focus on. eli, it was fun to talk to you. great reporting. >> great. thank you. >> jenna: we look forward to continuing the conversation. there's a lot more questions to ask. i think that's the bottom line. >> thank you. >> jenna: we'll be right back. liberty mutual stood with us

when a fire destroyed the living room. we were able to replace everything in it. liberty did what? liberty mutual paid to replace all of our property that was damaged. and we didn't have to touch our savings. yeah, our insurance won't do that. well, there goes my boat. you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty stands with you™ liberty mutual insurance >> jon: this week is likely to end with the confirm eight of neil gorsuch to be a supreme court justice. but will republicans resort to

the so-called nuclear option if democrats use a filibuster against him? and if they do, at what future cost? we await a continuing debate on the senate floor set to kick off about 45 minutes from now. let's bring in senior fellow and constitutional studies at the kato institution and michelle juwondo, president and legal action for the center for american progress. thanks both of you for being here. michelle, i want to start with you. what is at stake? mitch mcconnell has said that he will move this nomination forward this week. that essentially justice gorsuch -- judge gorsuch will be sitting on the supreme court by the end of the week. democrats don't like it. what does it mean if the nuclear option has to be invoked? >> i think it's the end of the senate as we know it. and that's not being hyperbolic. that is just looking at the

deeply polarized and divided country and how things have been functioning in the senate. i spent much of my career there working on a number of supreme court nominations. and what we recognize is that every supreme court nominee since the eisenhower administration, with the exception of justice thomas, has received and crossed the 60 vote threshold at some point during their confirmation. so we will be throwing up a tradition in the senate of finding a bipartisan compromise of getting bipartisan agreement on judicial nominations. and i think once we go down that road, it's a slippery slope towards the elimination of filibuster on legislative matters. that's only a matter of time. >> jon: isn't it true that filibuster were not applied to supreme court nominees until, what, about 15 years ago? >> that's right. essentially nothing that michelle said is actually correct. justice solito got viewer than

60 votes. we had plenty of people confirmed. there's no magic 60 vote threshold. as you say, what getting rid of the filibuster here would do is return us to the norm, the status quo before harry reid and the democrats started filibuster george bush's nominees about 15 years ago. i have never been a fan of filibustering nominees. i think it would have been great for bill frist to get rid of it then. i think it would be good to finish it off now, to return us to what in the senate's history, has been the case of providing up or down votes without having to cross this inflated 60 vote threshold. the democrats are now gonna lie in the bed that they made 15 years ago. >> you had said, sticking with you for the moment, you have said if judge gorsuch cannot be confirmed then democrats wouldn't confirm anybody that president trump puts forward. >> that's right. neil gorsuch is a boy scout.

certainly, he's on the right. he's an originalist. he's not going to follow the same methods that ruth bader ginsberg does, but well within the main stream. sterling credentials. if someone like that will be opposed so harshly, then literally no nominee would be acceptable. that's the point. but a this is not about gorsuch. it's about sour milk, spilled milk over the garland nomination and about the supposed il legitimacy of the trump presidency. i would be happy if the republicans got rid of the filibuster in return. >> jon: michelle, there could come a time when there's a democrat in the white house and democrats lead the senate and possibly the house. why wouldn't they want an'ier path to confirm nominees in that scenario? >> a few things. first off, justice alito actually received over 60 votes.

all four of the last supreme court justices have crossed the 60 vote threshold. and why? i would say listen to what senator graham said. when we move to a point where we have more ideological nominees on either side, you create a destruction of the way bipartisanship has worked in the senate. which is exactly why chuck shumer is saying don't change the rule, change the nominee. >> bipartisanship has to extend both ways. i mean, you've heard people like lindsey graham say they weren't particularly big fans of ruth bader ginsberg's judicial rulings, but they voted for her because, you know, she was the woman that president obama wanted. >> of course. and that's why you had also other democratic senators like senator leahy who also voted for republican nominees. the point here is not whether or

not you can find a nominee that can find consensus. of course you can. it's happened in history. it will continue to happen. but changing a threshold only puts people into different corners and it creates an environment where bipartisanship cannot exist. and you don't have to do that. no one, including mitch mcconnell, has to take the dramatic step of up ending literally hundreds of years of precedence to change the rule. >> jon: or 15 years, if you want to accept what elia said earlier. elia, michele, thank you. >> jenna: new details about the man suspected of carrying out a deadly subway bombing in russia. the attacks may mark a turning point for russia's president. can a toothpaste do everything well?

this clean was like pow! my teeth are glowing. they are so white. step 1 cleans. step 2 whitens. crest [hd]. 6x cleaning*, 6x whitening*á i would switch to crest [hd] over what i was using before. hey, i'm the internet! ♪ i know a bunch of people who would love that. the internet loves what you're doing... ...so build a better website in under an hour with... ...gocentral from godaddy. the internet is waiting. start for free today at godaddy.

>> jenna: an alleged chemical

attack in syria killing and leaving others struggling to breathe. rescue crews say a strike by syrian government or russian warplanes dropped some sort of gas in the northwestern province and a secondary strike hours earlier targeted a clinic that was treating victims. you see a child on the screen. children and women are among the victims, as we're getting the first initial reports on this. let's bring in the director of the kennon institute at theed with row wilson center. we appreciate having you on our program. this is one of the big international news stories of the day. here we go again. another chemical attack. there's outrage. there's a question of what's next? what is next? >> well, you know, we can't say. this has an an unpredictable, chaotic, bloody situation in syria. i think one of the reasons this particular attack is significant

is because we, in fact, really haven't seen, or at least haven't had documented, use of chemical weapons by the regime since it was putin's intervention after president obama declared the red line then outside chemical weapons. then putin brokered a deal to get most of the chemical of syr. clearly not all of them. we don't know exactly what they were. some are relatively easy to manufacturer. years have gone by. it's not surprising they have the capability again. the fact that they're using it is very very significant. for two reasons. one, assad has been winning. he is not in a desperate position as he was a year ago. why use it now? maybe just to terrorize the population, to set the tone for re-establishing his iron fisted rule. number two, think of the awkward position this puts putin in. putin was the one who intervened and said get the chemical

weapons out. now it's been thrown back in his face. this is at a moment when putin is facing a terrorism threat of his own. >> jenna: it's difficult sometimes to look at these situations and simplify them. we want to get to a point where women and children are not being killed by their own government or another government. i say another government because there are rumors it was russian warplanes although not confirmed yet. ian pwrepler a top foreign policy voice tweeted out. said last time assad used chemical weapons, obama asked for russian help. probably works for trump, too. what do you think about that? we want to get to a different result than what we've seen over the last several years. how do we get there? >> one of the problems that we face in syria now, and this has been many, many times before, is assad, the guy who was back physically in control of key areas of the country. he's been supported not only by

the russians, but by the iranians who work to shock troops on the ground, hezbollah and others. he's a guy you have to deal with. on the other hand, given what he has done to his own people, he's not someone that almost any feeling, thinking person can see as part of a long term future of syria. that is an unresolvable dilemma. as that war continues to play out on the ground, people are dying. the russian factor in this, i got to be honest, i would be really surprised if this was a russian chemical attack. this isn't something the russians have done in the course of their interventions in various conflicts. they've been providing air support. but assad has air access of his own. remember the barrel bombs his forces were dropping out of helicopters. i suspect this is probably a regime attack that's being done under russian air cover. as i say, kind of spitting sand right in putin's face, since putin was the one who brokered the deal to get the chemical

weapons out. >> jenna: we want to draw the news out together. i'm not making a connection between the terror attack and russia, but it is something that vladamir putin is having to handle. alleged terror attack in st. petersburg. there's initial reports that the suspect is from kurdistan. we have one leader under pressure in his own country. syria with increased attention. and you have this new trump administration being tested on foreign policy across the board. what would be your advice to president trump, how to handle all these situations? how do you take them one by one or handle them together? >> you start from the american national interest, the american national security interest, our foreign policy interest, our economic interest at home and globally. look, russia is a major country. this is the one country on earth that has the ability in under an hour to destroy life as we know it in the united states. so in terms of dealing with the russians this is not a priority we can kick down the road. we're going to have to negotiate

with the russians. also from a position of strength. i think one of the things that gives us strength right now is we have some things that the russians really want. we have sanctions in place. those sanctions are conditional on the russians complying with the deal that they had made, that they have agreed to to implement a cease fire in ukraine, to get their troops out of ukraine. the russians are also asking for counter terrorism cooperation. there are areas where that's potentially in the u.s. interest. since russia suffered a real terrorist attack. women and children have been killed there, too. we have an opportunity to negotiate serious and hard from a position of strength and say, look, guys, the stuff you're doing in syria, the stuff you're allowing to happen in syria, is not unrelated to this fury especially in the sunni world. you've got to stop this stuff. let's work together to bring that situation in syria under control. it will help you on the

terrorism front. >> jenna: it's interesting to hear all of that. great to have you back on the program. we appreciate it. we'll be right back. 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: the senate votes in under an hour on whether or not to filibuster neil gorsuch's nomination as we wait to see if the gop pulls the nuclear option. plus the senate intel committee goes behind closed doors during our hour. we'll see if we get any reaction to susan rice's interview about unmasking before they head into that meeting. and does trump care 2.0 have any chance in the senate? we're gonna ask senator mike lee about that and what's next for neil gorsuch on "america's news hq."

>> jon: a new bill aimed at regulating the irs making its way through congress. it would change law and require the irs to issue criminal charges before seizing someone's assets. jerry willis has more on that. >> that's right. congress may soon make it harder for the irs to seize your money in what is called civil asset forefiture. the tool enables governments to seize people's money if the banking habits of the subject mimic those of money launderers and drug cartels. under the law amounts as small as $10,000 could spark a seizure. agents scan for continuous small deposits into bank accounts. plenty of small business owners do exactly that with no intention of laundering money or selling drugs. randy fowler said he is one of those ensnared in what is simply an abuse of the program. government agents took $65,000 from the maryland dairy farmer's

bank account in 2012 and held some of the money for four years. he was never charged with a crime. >> shouldn't be able to take my money without proving that i did something wrong first. i think they need to keep track of cash because, you know, people do bad things. >> congressman peter roscoe and joseph crawly introduced legislation late last year to limit the irs ability to seize people's money without first charging them with a crime. it passed unanimously. now u.s. senators tim scott and jared brown are introducing companion legislation in the senate. changing the law is essential to maintaining property rights and preventing small business owners from getting caught in the irs cross hairs. jon? >> jon: lot of people would welcome that. we're back in a moment.

my insurance rates are probably gonna double. 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. you need one of these. you wouldn't put up with an umbrella that covers you part way, so when it comes to pain relievers, why put up with just part of a day? aleve, live whole not part. tell you what, i'll give it to you for half off.

can-am spring fever sales event. get a cash rebate of up to $3,000 on selected models. or get the outlander l, starting at $5,499. visit your local dealer for details. can-am. the ride says it all. nitrites or artificial mesquite preservatives.added nitrates, now it's good for us all. like introverts. extroverts. (cheering) and even bert. man you gotta' try this sandwich. who's just overt. oscar mayer deli fresh. so good!

>> jon: you're not gonna be with us? >> jenna: my little girl turns 1-year-old tomorrow. we're taking some family time. >> jon: i hope you recover from your cold. >> jenna: thank you. "america's news hq" starts now. >> melissa: we begin with a fox news alert. president obama's former national security adviser susan rice now responding for the first time to claims that she requested the unmasking of trump transition members after the election. hello everyone, i'm melissa francis. rice is not denying the unmasking, but flatly rejected any claims of wrongful or political motives behind the move. especially concerning michael flynn. listen. >> did you seek the names of people involved in -- did you unmask the names of people involved in the trump transition, the trump campaign, people surrounding the