steer the plane away from a neighborhood, and also once he ejected and got on his two feet he told that eyewitness that he had live munition on board. we're trying to sort it out. >> shannon: for now looks like all is well. >> hopefully folks got lucky there. we got to run. catch you later, everybody. "happening now" starts right now. >> we begin with a fox news alert on another busy day for the trump administration as vice president pence launches a full-court press to revive the healthcare bill, holding late-night meetings with key lawmakers to try to forge a new republican consensus on repealing and replacing obamacare. welcome to "happening now," to you. >> i'm julie bandaras. mitch mcconnell says he's confident he has the jets to get judge neil gorsuch confirmed.

jordan's king abdullah ii is visiting the white house, and the administration will exchange views on a range of issues, including the fight against isis and the conflict in syria, and a framework for a new israeli peace deal. >> jon: john roberts is live on on the white house lawn. john? >> reporter: we may getting closer to a vote on the american healthcare act, this renewed push to try to get it across the goal line is bearing some fruit. the vice president, the omb director, mick mulvaney, reince priebus, on the hill, talking to the house freedom caucus, the house study committee, and i'm told the bulk of the conversation during the two-hour meeting last night was on the or

people who are buying healthcare. they were buying them on the exchanges. of course the prices kept going up. they want to get the premiums down. a big topic of conversation is what to do about people with pre-existing conditions. the plan, as it appears right now, is to allow the states to ask for waivers from this so that they can deal with handling people in high-risk pools, pre-existing conditions, in the way they want. the chairman of the house ways and means committee, kevin brady, a short time ago said as far as he's concerned, even though there's concerns about critics of the plan, this might erode coverage for pre-existing conditions, it was a campaign pledge, and they're going to stick to it. watch here. >> in my view, that will remain as one of the basic patient protections. we ran on that issue as republicans. the president certainly did as well. >> there's a possibility there could be a vote before the easter recess. two concerns, this idea of modifying pre-existing conditions is spooking some moderates, and the white house

is also worried that there isn't yet a communication support package in place for a vote just like last time. so they wouldn't mind actually if the vote did not happen until after the easter break, because they say they want to get it right. they don't want to rush it. just a short time ago, in terms of where the membership is on all of this, a white house aide said that no one is saying no, they're just not saying not yet. senate debate, by the way, you see the pictures of judge neil gorsuch continuing at this hour over the nomination. no sign that the democrats are going to allow a straight up-and-down majority vote. today the white house is pushing back against charges that gorsuch pledge arrived sections of a 1994 article in the "indiana law journal." the white house called it a false attack, reputed by the person who wrote the article in question, but has a spokesman saying, quote, there is only one baseless accusation, those desperate to justify the unpress

dead filibuster of a well-qualified and mainstream nominee to the supreme court. the president welcomes to the white house in about 50 minutes' time king abdullah of jordan, who renewed the 2002 offer from the arab world to israel of recognition in exchange for the west bank in jerusalem. also the fight against isis, and what's going on in syria particularly in light of the gas attack yesterday, and basically what to do about syria in general. one issue of note, they'll hold a press conference at 1:10 this afternoon in the rose garden. so jon, an official declaration of spring here at the white house. >> jon: i wondered. it was funny in new york this morning.

>> jon: susan rice says blocks played no role in the unmask even of president trump campaign officials caught up in the surveillance of foreigners. senate majority leader leader mitch mcconnell says they'll get to the bottom of this as well as with everything else. >> i've asked the intelligence committee to conduct a bipartisan investigation of this whole episode. they will conduct it. hopefully at the end we'll find out what happened and they'll issue a report i hope on a bipartisan basis. >> jon: jake sherman is a senior writer for politico and co-author of politico's playbook. you heard the majority leader there saying he wants something, a product that is -- that comes out on a bipartisan basis. that's pretty hard to find in washington these days. what are the chances, jay? >> i think republicans are pretty confident that mark warner, the senator from virginia, the ranking member on the intelligence committee, will stick to his word, and do a bipartisan investigation. bipartisanship is a little bit easier in the senate, especially when you don't have an election around the corner.

but the real over arching narrative here, you've seen the ground shift back in favor of republicans. you saw the last couple weeks, devin nunes, the house intelligence committee chairman, squirming a little bit on describing his interactions with the white house, where he got his intelligence from. we're seeing the narrative shift back to the republicans. even if the substance of the matter is not clear, the entire issue, the politics of this issue has shifted back toward the white house. >> jon: there's not been a lot of information out of susan rice, except for that interview yesterday about this time with msnbc's andrea mitchell. are you satisfied with the questions and answers in that interview? >> my satisfaction i don't think is important to anybody, but i think that the -- this is going to be something that is going to reverberate on capitol hill. as you heard mitch mcconnell last night on your network said this is something they're going to ask them dig into it. a drumbeat over the next several

weeks will urge susan rice to come to the hill and testify under oath. that's going to be the conversation in washington. that's going to be important for members of congress to get to the bottom of. susan rice, what did she know? what did she do? did she unmask michael flynn? did she give away that information? those are important things, things that congress, a republican-controlled congress, is going to want to get their arms arranged. >> jon: she and her defenders said there's nothing unusual about a top security advisor asking for such names, or that such names be unmasked. her detractors have said that's the purview of the fbi, or the nasdaq, onsa, should be making . do you know where they draw the line? >> from what people tell me, she could request from one of these

agencies the ability to unmask a name in incidental collection. again, i'm sure i'll get criticism for saying that. i've not, again, worked in the intelligence community, but this is what people have said. either way it's a tricky political issue with all of the ancillary issues at stake with the president of the united states, the current president, claiming that the former president's administration targeted him and his associates during a very highly charged political campaign. >> jon: a recent wall street editorial writes this, "we're told by a source, who has seen the unmasked documents, that they included political information about the trump transition team's meetings and policy intentions. we're also told that none of these documents had anything to do with russia or the fbi investigation into ties between russia and the trump campaign. while we don't know if ms. rice requested these dozens of reportings, we are told they

were only distributed to a number of recipients, including mrs. rice." again, that's the "wall street journal" relying on one of their sources. the spin they put on it is troubling, if it has nothing to do with the russian investigation, which susan rice suggested it did. >> right. if they were targeting members of the trump administration that would not be in line with what's been said so far. they say they were targeting foreign nationals, foreign diplomats, people of that nature, and other people were swept up in this. again, without having access to this information it's difficult to see, but i think that that wall street editorial is relying on a source, so that's important to keep in mind as well. >> jon: the long and short of it we should get ready for senate intel committee hearings? >> i think that's right.

that's the narrative dominating the next couple months on capitol hill, anybody to all the other things that the administration is trying to get done. >> jon: we have a lot of hearings and other issues to fake. jake sherman, politico playbook, thank you. >> thank you. >> julie: six men arrested in st. peter'sburg, russia, or suspension of recruiting terrorists, but not connected to monday's bombing. all are from predominantly muslim states, seen as prime recruiting grounds for extremists. meanwhile vladimir putin says the subway attack shows the terror threat has not subsided as loved ones gather to remember the victims of monday's bombing. for the very latest, i'm joined by amy keg log from milan, italy. hi, amy. >> these are former soviet

republics, and they're full of migrant workers from those countries. russia has in the past has been targeted by chechnya, but this attack on monday in a subway car in saint petersburg was the first to be carried out by a central russian attack. they want to know who encouraged him, who helped him to assemble the bomb. the former sushi chef, gym and martial arts buff, did not show outward signs of extremist behavior. the suspect's mother was flown to saint petersburg today from kyrgyzstan for questioning. the family said to be ethically

uzbek. they've been struggling with increasingly radical islamist movements. 14 people were killed in the suicide bombing. 50 remain hospitalized. six central asian men were rounded up in saint petersburg. there's no proof of links between them and the bomber. police believe, though, they were recruiting for groups like isis. isis, julie, has never carried out a major attack on russian soil, though they've threatened to do so. clearly investigators want to know if there are any connections between the suicide bomber on monday and major international terrorist groups. julie? >> julie: amy kellogg in milan, thank you very much. jon? >> jon: as president trump tries to win support from within his own party, there also are-n he's willing to reach out to democrats especially on tax reform. so what would it take to get the

opposing party on board? plus, border security front and center, but also very controversial. we'll talk to one lawmaker who warns against funding the wall. why he's calling the president's plan misguided and a waste of money. >> when you woke up thi

you had a long, stressful day, and now you need a little help falling asleep. time for unisom sleepminis. the little capsules work fast so you get a good night's sleep and wake recharged. unisom sleepminis. a stressful day deserves a restful night.

unisom sleepminis. what's the story behind green mountain coffee and fair trade? let's take a flight to colombia. this is boris calvo. boris grows mind-blowing coffee. and because we pay him a fair price, he improves his farm and invest in his community to make even better coffee. all for a smoother tasting cup. green mountain coffee. >> jon: a fox news alert. in the wake of the worst gas attack in syria in years, an attack that's killed nearly 70 people thus far, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations nikki haley is about to issue an address to the u.n. regarding that attack. now, far the u.s. government has been blaming the leading of the country, bashar al-assad. we will hear if she gets more specific, but expect a blistering speech from nikki haley any minute now. when she begins to speak we will take you back there live. >> julie: right now healthcare on the agenda on capitol hill as

house democrat leaders huddle with their caucus today, discussing some fixes to obamacare, this has the president and his team hope to build bipartisan support for tax reform by working with the democrats. joining us now, a democrat from new york, chairman of the democratic caucus. thank you for talking with us. yesterday you said the gop would be better off trying to find a better consensus. what issues are democrats willing to middle republicans in the middle on and what will it take to get the opposing party on board? >> one thing we have to do is stop talking about repeal and replace, and talk about improving the law as it exists right now. that includes working with democrats to -- on the ideas of improving the risk card for insurance companies in states struggling right now in terms of the exchanges. there are a number of things we can do to help make this law an even better law. i think that's one of the first things they should do.

i also think that the president needs to focus on whether or not he really wants to have a relationship with us. it's not just about doing healthcare or tax reform or, you know, infrastructure reform, while at the same time our constituencies feel very unsettled in terms of the executive orders he's issuing. >> julie: and what about eliminating the individual mandate, meaning people wouldn't have to pay a penalty if they went without insurance, do you have a problem with that? >> i do. they like the other mandates, of keeping children on their parents' plans till 26 years of age. they like the mandate of pre-existing conditions, not being a condition to get insurance in the first place. they like the mandate of keepins of lifetime expensing for insurance. those are mandates they like. no arrested to make all those work, you have to have everyone in the pool healthy, and those less healthy to ensure that

everyone has coverage. >> julie: what about meeting in the middle when it comes to pre-existing conditions? that's an issue that republican congressional leaders have in fact tried to uphold to apiece to the conservative caucus members, by protecting portions of the health law so people can buy insurance, even if they've had illnesses in the past? >> we have to talk to the people moo have pre-existing conditions about that. how would they feel about being left out, about not being able to afford insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or being denied insurance because of that? that's not the progressive way which we like to see the healthcare distributed in the united states. it's about affordability, about quality, and it's about coverage. >> julie: right. i want to talk affordability when it comes to the border wall as john kelly testifies about border security. attention is being focused on funding to build the wall, but the plan faces stiff opposition in congress. >> right. >> julie: start with the funding. on the campaign trail president

trump said he can get the job for no more than $10 billion, because he's the master of completing construction projects quickly and you should budget. those numbers have obviously changed dramatically. >> in fact, he said on the we wouldn't pay for it at all, that the mexicans would pay for it. he said that repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly. now we know it's not going to be $10 billion. in all likelihood it will cost between $26 billion and $40 billion. julie, the thing about this, it doesn't do anything for our national economy. you can't drive on the border wall. it's not like we can use this piece of infrastructure to some benefit to benefit our economy. our neighbors to the souther, we get 60% of our produce today. they like our american yellow corn and dairy, but they can go to europe, south america for that. >> julie: a border wall, a big beautiful wall, as he's referred to it as, cannot be built

without real estate, and eminent domain is extremely expensive. i've had our graphics department put together this nifty graphic to show that in in order to build the wall the u.s. would need to own all 1,954 miles of the border. most of this is private property, especially in texas. u.s. government only owns about 100 miles of the 1200-long-mile border. it would be extremely costly, not to mention democrats tried this before back in 2006 and still have failed. >> yeah. i think the president being a new york developer, he likes eminent domain, but he'll find within his own party that this is something, part of the core, as i see of the republican party being against eminent domain, the right to private ownership of property is something that democrats and republicans hold in high esteem within our constitution. >> julie: congressman crowley,

that's all the time we have. thank you. >> thank you. >> jon: the white house burning the midnight oil to find a way to replace and repeal obamacare. we'll talk with a congressman coming up. you do all this reseah

on a perfect car, then smash it into a tree. your insurance company raises your rates. maybe you should've done more research on them. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. and if you do have an accident, our claims centers are available to assist you 24/7. call for a free quote today. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

>> jon: one of our top stories, vice president pence leading an all-night effort meeting with house freedom caucus members on potential changes to the measure aimed at scaling back obamacare's market reform. let's bring in one of the key lawmakers who attended last night's gathering, texas congressman michael burgess, a member of the house energy and commerce committee, chairman of the subcommittee on health. congressman, any progress to support? >> first off, thanks for having me on. can i also say your coverage of the f-16 accident up at andrews

has captured everyone's attention. we're glad to see that the injuries seem to be manageable, and that's great news. thank you for delivering it to us. >> jon: absolutely. >> last night, i was there as a part of the authorizing committee that worked on one of the bills eventually put together to become the american healthcare act. my role in that meeting was to represent the people on my committee, as well as the people back home in texas. but people who sat through that 28 hours and voted multiple times in that 28-hour markup we had a few weeks ago. i'm also on the rules committee, so i had an 18-hour opportunity to deal with the bill in the rules committee a week or so later. look, this was never going to -- this was never intended to be the end product. it is not perfect. i will stipulate that it's not perfect, but it's the key that gets us through the door. there are problems across the country today with the

affordable care act. we see the democratic governor of minnesota pumping money into the exchanges in his state because they're at risk of going away. the affordable care act as written is not working, and it needs serious repair. so the reconciliation bill the house of representatives had voted on in 2015 was the basis for our reconciliation bill this year. remember that bill in the last congress passed both the house and senate, passed muster with the berger rule over in the senate, but vetoed by president obama. that was our starting point this year. people wanted more replace added to the repeal bill we did last year. that's been accomplished over the last several months. and now we are where we are. i think it's still a good product. i'm glad people are talking about it, pushing ideas out there. i think that's important, but at the end of the day remember this is not the final analysis. this is not the end of the road. this is the beginning of the

process. this bill is a key that gets us through the door, over to senate, to let them work on things that concern them, and then it's back to the house to be further refined. it's a long process, not a short process. >> jon: there's an article in the associated press that says your party seems adrift and divided over how to move forward. would you agree with that assessment? >> no is the short answer to your question. thank you for asking. what i see is people who are earnestly involved. they are genuinely concerned. but again, i go back to the fact that the basis for this bill that we had before us in the house today was the reconciliation bill -- i think there were 213 returning republican members who had voted for the reconciliation bill in december of 2015. so it's not like this was new information. certainly people did not seem to be divided in december of 2015. we now have a president who will sign it. he will not veto the bill, as is what happened last congress.

i think it's incumbent upon to us get it done. >> jon: the president is, you know, closing in on the end of his first 100 days with frankly not a lot of legislative accomplishments to point to. he certainly issued a lot of executive orders, but do you think that there can be some kind of, you know, progress that is going to get the -- the president get the congress cheering about what has been done so far in this congress? >> the short answer to your question is why. will it happen? i don't know. certainly i'll do everything within my power. you know, the president made a commitment, and i want to help him deliver on that commitment. obviously i've got people at home concerned about the state affairs in the affordable care act now. primarily patients. doctors as well. we need to fix those problems. the president has committed to doing that. i believe him. it's our job to help him get that done. >> jon: it's going to be fascinating to watch,

congressman michael burgess, republican of texas, thank you. >> thank you. >> julie: an emergency meeting of the u.n. security council, and we are awaiting u.s. ambassador to the u.n., nikki haley to address the security council on the chemical attack in syria. of course we will bring that to you live as it happens. meantime how will the fight over supreme court nominee judge neil gorsuch end? one republican senator says that's up to the democrats. john thune, chair of the nat republican conference will join us next. plus, more saber-rattling from north korea. a missile launch just one day before president trump meets with china's president.

z282uz zwtz

y282uy ywty >> jon: the senate debate on supreme court nominee judge neil gorsuch began last night. democrats say they have enough support to block him, but majority leader mitch mcconnell says gorsuch will be confirmed one way or another. how it happens is up to democrats. >> it appears if we'll find out on thursday. either way, we'll be moving toward confirming judge gorsuch on friday. >> jon: south dakota senator jonathan chairs the senate republican conference.

senator thune, what happens on friday? >> on thursday, procedural votes, and the democrats are conducting a filibuster of this supreme court nominee. as a canadiens of that we have to have a series of votes on thursday to allow us to proceed to get to where we can vote on his nomination, at some point probably friday night. that's the timeline at the moment. we would like to see the democrats work with us so that all those procedural votes aren't necessary, but at the moment they have decided to do something that hasn't happened in the 230-year of the senate, and that is to conduct a successful partisan, one-party filibuster f supreme court nominee. >> jon: if republicans change the press department, go nuclear, allow a supreme court appointment to be passed on a simple majority vote, are you doing permanent damage to the institution? >> i don't think so, jon. i think we are restoring what's been the history on the supreme court. every supreme court nominee

that's been considered -- and we had -- president clinton had two of them in his first two years in office, president obama had two in his years in office, all confirmed without a republican filibuster. so, you know, filibustering supreme court moms is unprecedented. we believe the history and tradition in preserving that is really 51 votes, simple majority, up and down vote in the senate, and that's essentially what will happen as a result of the steps we'll take on thursday, and going forward. the democrats, of course, paved the way for this in 2013 when they went to 51 votes for appellate and lower court nominees. >> jon: when judge gorsuch came before the senate a decade or so ago to be confirmed as a federal appeals court judge, he was confirmed unanimously. what has changed? >> i think the politics of the moment. there was an election that the democrats still haven't gotten

over. obviously there are a lot of democrats here in the senate who are in denial of the outcome of the election, they don't like this president, they don't want to have to support this president's nominee for the court. the arguments they've been making, they can't say that judge gorsuch isn't well qualified. he simply is. everybody agrees on that. they can't say he's not mainstream. he's been involved with 2700 cases on the tenth circuit since he was confirmed there a decade ago. 99% of those cases, he's been in the majority, 97% have been unanimous. so if he's not mainstream, then nobody on the tenth circuit, most of whom, by the way, have been appointed by democrat presidents, aren't mainstream either. so the democrats are finding it hard, i think, to attack him. i think the american people find him to be a judge that they view to be not only well qualified, but mane stream, and somebody who will exercise impartiality when it comes to applying the law and constitution, which is what you want a judge to do. he's very much about calling balls and strikes. that's what most of the american

people want to see in a justice on the supreme court. >> jon: want to talk to you about this latest and controversial and provocative move from north korea. the country fired a missile that failed. it comes a day before the president trump meets with the chinese president only hours after the white house warned that north korea has run out of time on its unusual program. what's your take on the best way to proceed with north korea? >> the best way is to get china, who has economic leverage on north korea, to step and exercise that. they're in the best position to corral north korea and some of these ambitions they have. so i hope that these discussions this weekend between president trump and the chinese president actually get us to a result where china groceries t agrees n

some of bad behavior by north korea. obviously it's a serious issue. we have to take it seriously. we have to be prepared, the united states does as well, to take the steps that are necessary to contain that threat. >> jon: senator thune, we have to end it there. appreciate you spending time with us. >> thank you, jon. >> jon: you bet. >> julie: the death toll is rising from a horrific gas attack in syria as we await for nikki haley to speak at an emergency meeting at the u.n. security council, how the u.s. should respond to an attack on his own people with retired four-star general jack keane. that's next. that makes it easy to find what i want. booking.com gets it. they offer free cancellation if my plans change. visit booking.com. booking.yeah.

>> julie: a fox news alert. we are still awaiting u.s. ambassador to the u.n., nikki haley, to address the security council at this emergency meeting. we're watching to discuss the chemical attack in syria,

killing dozens of civilians. we will bring that to you as soon as it happens. in fact, it appears as nikki haley is about to begin to speak about that death toll. let's listen. >> it was interesting to hear of the talk from my russian colleague about the independent investigations, and the importance of them, because this entire security council decided on what the joint investigative mechanism would be, and decided what it would do. it was actually voted on unanimously. and the joint mechanism came back and said that the syrian government committed chemical weapons acts against their own people three different times. but somehow now we don't like what the joint investigative mechanism does. having said that, i will say in

the life of the united nations, there are times when we are compelled to do more than just talk. there are times we are compelled to take collective action. this security council thinks of itself as a defender of peace, security, and human rights. we will not deserve that description if we do not rise to actions today. yesterday morning we awoke to pictures, to children, foaming at the mouth, suffering convulsions, being carried in the arms of desperate parents. we saw rows of lifeless bodies, some still in diapers, some with visible scars of a chemical weapons attack. look at those pictures.

we cannot close our eyes to those pictures. we cannot close our minds of the responsibility to act. we don't yet know everything about yesterday's attack, but there are many things we do know. we know that yesterday's attack bears all the hallmarks of the assad regime's use of chemical weapons. we know that assad had used these weapons against the syrian people before. that was confirmed by this council's own independent team of investigators. we know that yesterday's attack was a new low, even for the barbaric assad regime. evidence reported from the scene indicates that assad is now using even more lethal chemical agents than he did before. the gas that fell out of the sky yesterday was more deadly,

leaving men, women, the elderly, and children, gasping for their very last breath. as first responders, doctors, and nurses rushed to help the victims, a second round of bombs rained down. they died in the same slow horrendous manner as the civilians they were trying to save. we all also know this -- just a few weeks ago this council attempted to hold assad accountable for suffocating his own people to death with toxic chemicals. russia stood in the way of this accountability. they made an unconscionable choice them. chose to close their eyes to the barbarity, defying the conscience of the world. russia cannot escape responsibility for this.

in fact, if russia had been fulfilling its responsibility, there would not even be any chemical weapons left for the syrian regime to use. there's one more thing we know. we know that if nothing is done, these attacks will continue. assad has no incentive to stop using chemical weapons as long as russia continues to protect his regime from consequences. i implore my colleagues to take a hard look at their words in this council. we regularly repeat tired talking points in support of a peace process that is regularly undermined by the assad regime. time and time again russia uses the same false narratives to deflect attention from their allies in damascus. time and time again, without any

factual basis, russia attempts to place blame on others. there is an obvious truth here that must be spoken. the truth is that assad, russia, and iran, have no interest in peace. the illegitimate syrian government led by a man with no conscience has committed untold atrocities against his people for more than six years. assad has made it clear that he doesn't want to take part in a meaningfumeaningful political p. iran's has reinforced assad's military, and russia has shielded assad from u.n. sanctions. if russia has the influence in syria that it claims to have, we need to see them use it. we need to see them put an end to these horrific acts. how many more children have to

die before russia cares? the united states sees yesterday's attack as a disgrace at the highest level, an assurance that humanity means nothing to the syrian government. the question members of this council must ask themselves is this -- if we are not able to enforce resolutions, preventing the use of chemical weapons, what does that say for our chances of ending the broader conflict in syria? what does that say of our ability to bring relief to the syrian people? if we are not able to enforce resolutions, preventing the use of chemical weapons, what does that say about our effectiveness? in this institution? if we are not prepared to act, then this council will keep meeting, month after month, to

express outrage at the continuing use of chemical weapons, and it will not end. we will see more conflict in syria. we will see more pictures that we can never unsee. i began my remarks by saying that in the life of the united nations there are times when we are compelled to take collective action. i will now add this -- when the united nations consistently fails in its duty to act collectively there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action. for the sake of the victims, i hope the rest of the council is finally willing to do the same. the world needs to see the use of chemical weapons, the fact that we will not be tolerated. thank you.

i will now resume my function as the president of the council. i now give the floor to the representative of the syrian arab republic. >> madame president, some members of the council today make statements that proved -- >> julie: there you have it, we were just listening t to u.s. ambassador to the u.n., talking about the suspected chemical attack, believed to be carried out by the syrian government, and also russia possibly being involved. for more on this, let's bring in general jack keane, a retired four-star general, and fox news military analyst. general keane, thank you very much. the united states obviously replying in a very stern warning to syria and the syrian government. i mean, western leaders,

including president trump, blame the syrian government of president bashar al-assad, calling on russia and iran to prevent a recurrence of what is without a doubt a war crime. what needs to happen to the assad regime? >> first of all, condemning is one thing. don't hold our breath, here waiting for the u.n. to do anything that's meaningful here. they haven't in the past. what they are good at is identifying, in fact, that a chemical attack has taken place. we do know it came from the air. therefore syrian assad regime are the culprits. we likely strongly suspect that the attack on the hospital was done by russian bombers. that's a pattern that they have fallen into, because they have the accuracy to deliver those penetration bombs to those hospitals given their locations. so both of those acts, julie, are indeed war crimes. so going after russia, going after iran to try to leverage them in curbing the assad

regime's behavior is fine, but this has come to the doorstep of 1600 pennsylvania avenue in a way a lot of arbors come to the president, even though he'd rather not have to deal with. after all obama passed up on the opportunity when the red line was crossed in 2013 to do something constructive about it. that is take assad's airpower down. given that jordan's king is here, he spoke to the third leader in saudi arabia last week, aassisi this week, speak to your arab leaders about the way ahead with assad. we cannot underwrite the use of chemical weapons. the world cannot suck its thumb and sit on its hands and do that. >> julie: recall. >> obviously we can issue another red line, taking his airpower away if he persists in doing this. we need to step up and take a stand here, more than words, more than condemnation. >> julie: we cannot also

undermine the ability of the assad regime to deliver these deadly and brutal blows against its own people. as you just mentioned, in 2013, they used a sarin gas attack in a damascus suburb that killed a thousand people. the obama administration, what did they do? nothing. sean spicer is blaming the attack on the obama's administration to follow through after you mentioned drawing its red line. then president trump on monday, in fact, came out and had said that the administration's signaled it no longer saw the departure of president al-assad's syria as a priority. here, by the way, is sean spicer, these heinous actions by the assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness. does president trump's administration now maybe back step a bit when it talks about the need and the departure of

al-assad? >> i'm not sure where they're heading with assad. certainly with russia there, propping up assad, assad's not going anywhere soon. that's for sure. the momentum is on the side of the regime, just witness what we saw take place in aleppo just a number of weeks ago. that's the harsh reality. there's a number of things we can do here, in addition to what i think is another red line. if we can put in safe zones so that the civilians have a place to escape to, where they are protected, multiple ones. obviously that requires some forces on the ground, international forces to protect them, but, again, are we just going to keep wringing our hands and let this killing go on? is there any moral outrage, moral underpinning for the united states of america to deal with this problem? i think there is. also we need to bring down isis quickly. the planet table is a little bit more of the status quo, and our arab allies have told us,

listen, we're willing to go in there with forces on the ground. come with us, let's get this thing done in a couple of weeks. then we can turn our attention toward the assad regime and the pressure on the assad regime would be significant as a result of that event. syrian moderates would be uplifted as a result of that then. there are things we can do. >> julie: we have to go, leave it there. a lot of breaking news happening. thank you very much general jack keane. always good to see you. >> good talking to you, julie. >> jon: a fox news alert, a major turn about from the trump administration. the man who helped president trump win the white house, his political advisor, steve bannon, has been dropped as a permanent member of national security counsel. council in the early days of the administration steve bannon was appointed to the national security council. at the time many detractors said someone who is mostly concerned about politics has no role in determining the nation's security situation.

now the president has apparently decided for whatever reason that steve bannon should leave the national security council, and that we are told will happen. back with more in just a moment. ♪ there's nothing more important than your health. so if you're on medicare or will be soon, you may want more than parts a and b here's why. medicare only covers about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you.

you might want to consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like any medicare supplement insurance plan, these help pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay. and, these plans let you choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. you could stay with the doctor or specialist you trust... or go with someone new. you're not stuck in a network... because there aren't any. so don't wait. call now to request your free decision guide and find the aarp medicare supplement plan that works for you. there's a range to choose from, depending on your needs and your budget. rates are competitive. and they're the only plans of their kind endorsed by aarp. like any of these types of plans, they let you apply whenever you want.

there's no enrollment window... no waiting to apply. so call now. remember, medicare supplement plans help cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. you'll be able to choose any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients. whether you're on medicare now or turning 65 soon, it's a good time to get your ducks in a row. duck: quack! call to request your free decision guide now. because the time to think about tomorrow is today. ♪ everything your family touches sticks with them. make sure the germs they bring home don't stick around. use clorox disinfecting products. because no one kills germs better than clorox.

whfight back fastts, with tums smoothies. it starts dissolving the instant it touches your tongue. and neutralizes stomach acid at the source. ♪ tum -tum -tum -tum smoothies! only from tums >> jon: we're back in an hour. "outnumbered" starts now. >> we begin with breaking news and a live picture now. actually this was just moments ago. then we'll roll live when we can and pick it back up. that's because seconds ago the king of jordan, abdullah, arrived at the white house. you can see president trump waiting outside the vehicle with the first lady as well. this meeting is so important, because this is the king who can deliver consensus on middle east peace. he's meeting with our president today. a couple things will happen now. they're going to meet. they're going to have a dual news conference as is customary when a leader comes and visits this way. we are also expecting in the next little while, once they get into the white house, they'll go into the oval office. we