with the which are in syria anw he plays all of that, which is why we're alive saturday morning as they followed of all of this comes fast and furious. we're there. we hope you are too. "the five" is now. ♪ >> eric bolling with kimberly guilfoyle, juan williams, dana perino, and greg gutfeld. it is 5:00, and this is "the five." a very big news day, following four big breaking story speed devin nunes has stepped aside from the russian appropriate republicans have gone nuclear to get neil gorsuch confirmed. the u.s. navy coming closer to taking action in syria. and a high-stakes meeting is about to take place between president trump and china's leaders xi jinping. we begin with the house

investigation of russia's meddling with our election. devin nunes stepped aside from leading the probe as the ethics committee investigates whether he improperly disclosed information. texas republican mike conaway will take over for nunes with assistant from congressman trey gowdy and tim rooney. adam schiff says it was, after all, the right thing to do. >> i think it is the best interest of the investigation. it will allow us to have a fresh start moving forward, this investigation is of such critical important that we need to get philippe back on track. it is, i think, worth noting that the investigation never went into hiatus, so we've been continuing to develop our witness list, work out logistics in terms of how we bring people before the committee, but the process will be.

>> the white house says nunes' temporary recusal doesn't change the substance. president trump says he thinks nunes is a good and honorable person. cagey, there are whispers that nunes decided to step aside after speaking with paul ryan, paul ryan didn't answer that question when asked. >> it seems like there's something there, many people that felt nunes didn't do anything wrong, he received this information and there for was not transparent and disclosed it. it seems the main objection was the chronology of events in terms of come up with the obligated to notify the other people on the committee first before he went public, that seems to be a matter of protocol versus any kind of improper action on his part. ultimately, this is something we do want to know about us, and he put the interests of the

american people ahead of, perhaps, thinking about what need not be beneficial to him personally, and now we are aware of it. schiff has the information and didn't. >> much do you think is the reason to step aside? >> not looking into the fact that he didn't disclose information, that at the time he didn't have authority to disclose. he was used by the white house as it was trying to use the case that he had somehow told the truth when he said president obama had him wiretapped. nunes got himself really in the crosshairs of the ethics of the investigation, first and foremost, secondly with his own party, with paul ryan, the speaker. ryan really wants the house to have some credibility. he does not want adam schiff and the democrats to be able to say that republicans are the one who felt in leiden with trump's effort to put a smokescreen

around this. as a result, nunes had to go. >> let me throw this in here. i think devin nunes is an honorable and very good congressman, and also was the right guy to lead this committee. i wish he hadn't stepped down. it feels to me like a little bit of leadership pressure, but is that the right thing to do? >> i think you have to take congressman nunes at his word. i know there is a desire to paint paul ryan as somebody getting in the way of the far right, but i think it has been paul ryan that has been supportive of president trump on the agenda, and i think if nunes came to ryan and said, this ethics investigation, do you think i should step aside? it is prudent to do so to protect the integrity and to make sure they continue to have an investigation. came out a week ago, they were measured, work in a bipartisan way and have confidence in that

investigation. pretty much nobody had confidence in the house investigation. they don't even have a good relationship between the two of them, but the democrats don't seem to think that representative conaway is any better if you look at the responses about him today. it just feels so broken and partisan, and for an intelligence investigation to go forward and have some measure of credibility stepping aside while looking at the allegations, i'm think it's prudent. >> what about the whole committee stepping aside and handing it over to the senate? >> i don't blame nunes for leaving. he was tired of people ruining his good name. they kept mispronouncing it every single day. i was hoping they would replace him with steve bannon. you know when somebody says they are doing something out of their best interests? that means they are being forced. that is second to being forced to spend time with my family as an excuse for leaving quickly. .

so what page are going to reple him with a republican. it's not like replacing old darren with new darren on "bewitched." it'll be fine. no one gets hurt. >> the democrats are already trying to get that reputation of conaway. >> why does it have to be -- >> tit for tat. >> by the way, complain about adam schiff where he went out on a limb and said he had evidence something was going on and he has never come forward with that evidence. he has walks that back. >> it is not an eye for an eye. i think, republican or democrat, paul ryan or adam schiff, they can say, devin nunes got caught up in something where he was being used by people inside the white house later revealed to be members of the national security council to try to create an excuse for president trump.

it's just not -- i mean, clearly you have democrats on the committee who say commit not only did he disclose information he didn't have authority to, he didn't say, the committee has seen this, and here's what i think of it. it still would've been inappropriate. >> he still maintains he's done everything properly. >> people are going to objects because maybe he put the cart before the horse. what he did do was tell the truth and revealed the information, two nsc staff is not white house personnel that helped them pull up the documents. okay, they are nsc. not the white house personnel, people who are able to see that information. >> let's go back to the parts that democrats don't want to talk about. susan rice and her part in unmasking. we are now learning that the

reports contain personal detailed information about them, completely unrelated, that is important. here is intelligence committee member peter canning. >> desist everyday information. talking with, meeting, where they were going to meet, really nothing of any substance or value less you're just trying to lay out a dossier on somebody, sort of like a divorce case where lawyers are hired, investigators are hired to find out what people are doing. you try to piece it together later on. >> aside from leaking, which will get to later on, the unmasking has to have some sort of threat. it looks like this had nothing to do with that. >> how do you know that? based on what we know -- none of us have seen it.

none of us know. none of us were there. that's why there's an investigation. uncomfortable to comment when we have no intelligence to comment on. >> i'm not positive. i think adam hauser is the one who reported this last night and this morning. >> i agree that there could be something there, but -- >> personal nature, not national security threat. >> are not able to comment. she did something wrong, it will come out, i think she said she would be willing to go and talk to them, so that will take place. >> i'm sorry, it was catherine herridge who may have reported it. >> i think both sides have to create their scandal matters. don lennon says, were not going to report, then, this is more important inclusion. for the democrats, exclusion, republicans, the leaks. they both matter. what do you do any of two kids

in the backseat and one and one kid wants pizza and one once a cheeseburger, you go to the cheesecake factory, the cheesecake calf cat factory hes where you look at it. this is going to go on for four court years, it is going to keep going, these two tracks, for four years. >> i think it was an abundance of caution, he tried to do that. probably, yes, there was an abundant of party pressure. we are trying to get health care reorganized. we are trying to get taxes redone and regulations taken care of. there is a lot on the plate, north korea to deal with, syria to deal with, a visit from china today that is significant internationally. he kind of did what sessions did commit said, i'm going to remove myself from this as a lightning rod. they'll know what the real deal

is. >> let me ask this question of my good friend commit juan cannot get to hear a good answer from the left. why would they demand the unmasking of trump team names, and now we know even further, not just names, but all the information they had that they demanded, demanded dozens of times had to do with personal information, nothing to do with russians and national security risks in nature. >> i think it is pretty obvious, but susan rice is national security advisor to the president, gets these documents, her job is to look up for america's national interest when there is a threat from a broad, in this case, the russians intervening in our election. she looks at this and she requests, she can't demand, she requests, who are these people they are talking about who are on the intercepts themselves talking. i don't know which one is the

case. once you know that, then you would want to know background information as to whether or not, for example, money pouring in from overseas. >> here's the rub though, mann, the agencies in charge of keeping track of those things all did not deem those names necessary in order to further an investigation. the eyeballs on the alleged risky or illegal activity didn't feel it unnecessary to unmask. >> i don't know that, eric. i don't feel that's possible. >> more than two dozen occasions to unmask, seems to be know the reason to do that. >> this is what is striking to me. i have such respect for the question, but there is not one person in the intelligence community who would tell you that this is anything out of the ordinary for the national security advisor reading these intercepts to say, who are they

talking about is that potentially is collaborating with one of our enemies. >> but they didn't make a finding that there was -- here's the deal, juan. i want to explain, i hear what you're saying. you're saying we can't assume that she has some sort of untoward event, but the issue is whether or not, completely different when you're dealing with foreign nationals versus american citizens. there has to be some kind of substantive reason or believe that there is some kind of collusion. absent of that, you're not supposed to unmask. the question is, why did they come out they said, we don't find a reason to do it, but she did. >> we don't know that. >> made requests. >> dozens of requests with different questions, not necessarily -- >> may be intense doesn't matter.

maybe it's pure stupidity or political partisanship. >> you're going to make her into your whipping boy? >> no, i'm pointing out that she was somebody who blamed a terror attack in benghazi on a video, and that was a partisan move. >> let's interject. >> they are wrapping us anyway. >> going ahead, will they make good on their threat to go nuclear? today's dramatic showdown, that's next.

>> welcome back. republicans had no choice. today they were forced to use the nuclear option to break a filibuster. >> when history weighs what happened, the responsibility for changing the rules will fall on the republicans and leader mcconnell's' shoulders. they have other choices, they have chosen this one. when the dust settles, neck no mistake about it.

it will have been the republicans who change the rules on the supreme court. >> our democratic colleagues have done something today that is unprecedented in the history of the senate. unfortunately, it has brought us to this point. we need to restore the norms and traditions of the senate and get past this unprecedented partisan filibuster. therefore, i have raised a point of order that the vote on cloture is a majority vote on all nominations. >> republicans change the rules to eliminate the 60-4 threshold after democrats denied them the votes they needed earlier. they will be able to proceed to a vote with a simple majority. dana, do the math. >> they didn't say there would be math in this. >> it's interesting that the democrats decided to go ahead and do it on this one. if president trump is given a

chance to put another person on the bench, they're not going to be able to stop it, that's where you could really get somebody quite partisan. there is lots of possible good opportunities. back home, i think they might look very silly. they all voted to unanimously confirm this judge. the arguments against him are that american garlands didn't get a vote, and that just seems like a really bad reason, because merrick garland was never going to get a vote. >> sometimes playground tantrums feel really good at the moment, that it out, you're upset, you want to go down the slide, but then they have a bigger problem down the road, like dana said.

>> they're going to do it anywa anyway. i don't think it's the worst thing in the world that the senate now votes for supreme court nominees on a priority basis, or on a simple majority basis instead of a 60-foot super majority. i think this is fine. i understand the politics behind pushing back, but you're going to end up with it anyway. but the senate has decided to d do, donald trump is president for eight years, think of the probability of, and 83-year-old and 84-year-old on the bench, one conservative, one liberal, if both retire or aren't on the bench anymore, you could end up with a 7-3 -- i'm sorry commit 6-3 majority for republicans. look, elections have consequences. i was talking about donald trum donald trump, a great reason to vote for donald trump is exactly this. certainly going forward, it will

be a republican bench, a conservative bench. >> if elections have consequences, think president obama was elected twice, he doesn't get a choice. you know it's interesting to me, trying to step back for a second? we live in an age of a broken congress, and i think the american people -- i think the approval rating for congress is, like 11% or something. we live in an era where republicans use at the filibuster 2 blocks much of the obama administration, now the republicans try to use it, and they say, even at the supreme court level, we don't believe in bipartisanship. okay, moving forward, will they then extend this to legislation? at looks likely to me. back to simple majority on everything, hardly any difference between the senate

and the house, and we have a broken political structure. >> trying to figure out where this partisanship first started. i wonder who turned the supreme court into the super friends of judicial activism. we knew where these confirmation hearings were going. it is as predictable as adult films. you want to fast-forward to the end. like the nba, skip to the playoffs. again, we are living the left and the immediate dictate the terms, calling it a nuclear option. all we are doing is shutting up a filibuster that everybody hates. the only reason they exist is for second and third tier politicians to gain attention. they do some flashy thing cannot read from a children's book, then they go on the tv program of their choice and everybody goes, that's so good. you were up there for 12 hours, i'm glad we are shutting this

crap down. both sides do it. and h. this guy gorsuch is as bad as maroon five. i'm tired of this partisanship. >> both sides are guilty of this. john mccain said -- he voted to kill the filibuster. it is party politics. we have gotten to the point where even the senate now is going to end up being straight down party lines. >> i hate "straight down party lines" says no one. >> when "the five" returns.

why pause a spontaneous moment? cialis for daily use treats ed and the urinary symptoms of bph. tell your doctor about your medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain,

or adempas® for pulmonary hypertension, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have a sudden decrease or loss of hearing or vision, or an allergic reaction, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis.

[and her new business: i do, to jeanetgo. jeanette was excellent at marrying people. but had trouble getting paid. not a good time, jeanette. even worse. now i'm uncomfortable. but here's the good news, jeanette got quickbooks. send that invoice, jeanette. looks like they viewed it. and, ta-da! paid twice as fast. oh, she's an efficient officiant. way to grow, jeanette. new. get paid twice as fast for free. visit quickbooks-dot-com. >> i thought it was a terrible thing. when you see little babies that

are dead from gas, a very, very heinous form of gas which very few people have access to, it's bad stuff cannot really bad. >> that was the president earlier on tuesdays chemical attack in syria. images of the horse changed his position in syria. he now believes he has a responsibility to act but he would explain it with that means. he is being briefed on military options. he here is more from senator john mccain. >> the president talk to me on the phone and said that he was going to consult with general mcmaster and general matters. senator graham and i have from the mixture wrongly suggested grounding the air force. don't let those planes fly. >> secretary rex tillerson discussing this earlier. >> it is important that they continued their continued

support -- consider their continued support for the assad regime. the acts that he has taken, it would seem that there would be no road for him to govern the syrian people. we are considering an appropriate response. it is a serious matter, it requires a serious response. >> let's bring in our national security correspondent jennifer griffin. catch us up on what was discussed and what actions we could see before the end of the week. >> dana, what we are hearing right now from well-placed sources is that discussions are taking place at the highest level about what, if any, military action will be taken. we know that h.r. mcmaster, the national security advisor and defense secretary james mattis flew down to mar mar-a-. we understand that the u.s.

security conference is meeting, they plan to debate further the syrian resolution this afternoon, and the u.s. is pushing for a vote on the serious resolution condemning the assad regime for that attack. again, a great deal expectation that the russians will try to block that move and that vote could be pushed off. again, the u.s. would like to see a vote on that today. i would not expect any military action before there is a vote, but very few diplomats who expects that a resolution will go through because the russians have already blocked seven times, in the past, any resolutions. >> will take it around the table. eric? >> jennifer, i am probably in the minority of people that think we should do nothing beyond humanitarian aid and quite a bit of humanitarian aid. here is the thought though. i think the emphasis is getting

assad out of the presidential palace in syria, but what happens afterwards? you remove assad, is it a responsibility to make sure the syrian people are taken care of? are we going to build another nation? has anyone thought about the fallout post assad? >> there is a great deal of reluctance here at the pentagon, you remember libya and iraq with saddam hussein. nobody thinks that regime change is a good idea. however, you just heard rex tillerson talk about that very thing, regime change. there are sources i spoke to after tiller's and made those remarks who suggested that perhaps he misspoke because they did not seem to be any sort of appetite for regime change. that being said, there is a great deal of frustration and a feeling that there needs to be some response to the assad regime's use of chemical weapons, and i think the feeling we get right now, again, the

decision rests with president trump, the feeling is that there will be some sort of military action. the other thing to think about, not just regime change, but if the u.s. strikes with cruise missiles, there are russian soldiers, russian troops on the ground at syrian airbases, they are likely to die in the process. we understand that is a consideration. if the u.s. launches strikes against syria and kills russians, that could complicate things in terms of international relations. >> gutfeld is next. >> depression collusion story, does that make a confrontation perhaps more likely because military action is proof to the critics that there is no collusion between russia and the united states, that trump is more than likely to act then

not act. >> i would like to think that there is no connection between the two. this essay. serious security issue with regards to syria, and i think the reactions you are seeing at the highest levels, whether it is the statements by the secretary of state, the president himself in the rose garden yesterday, the offense of nature of seeing these children, dozens of children killed, i think they are very concerned about having delivered a red line and letting the assad regime get away with this again. >> you highlights one of the complexities of this. with iranian forces on the ground, significant diplomatic problem in terms of ecological l

problems. it complicates our relationship with russia. there are some alternative targets that we could step away from the russian -- -- -- code you can hit infrastructure. also, assad needs to be able to move his forces. do you have any information about that? >> i don't have any information per se. >> most likely going to hit iranian fighters or generals, i think that is less of a consideration than the collateral damage with regards to the russian forces on the ground. that is the real difference. the presence of so many russians is really the biggest sticking point for the pentagon. >> a quick last one from juan williams. >> my principal concern is americans, because we have

american forces on the ground. if we go with cruise missiles, then there might be retaliation against the americans on the ground, and that could further escalation escalate the situation. is that the correct analysis? >> exactly right. the pentagon is very concerned, hundreds of americans on the ground who are advising those forces in the event that those forces move forward in raqqa, and the protection of those forces is very high in terms of concern here at the pentagon, yes. >> jennifer, as the number about 700 in terms of tech ops? >> i believe so. it is a bit fluid, remember, marines put outside raqqa with the heavy artillery. they are vulnerable. there are a lot of things to way when it comes to military action against syria. >> thanks, jennifer.

another foreign policy crisis at head korea. back in a moment.

stay with me, mr. parker. when a critical patient is far from the hospital, the hospital must come to the patient. stay with me, mr. parker. the at&t network is helping first responders connect with medical teams in near real time... stay with me, mr. parker. ...saving time when it matters most. stay with me, mrs. parker. that's the power of and.

♪ >> a high-stakes meeting is about to take place and mar-a-lago between president trump and china's leader xi jinping. they are going to talk trade and north korea which test fired a missile ahead of their system. he doesn't know if you will bill is to convince china to toughen its stands. greg, what do you think? >> used to think that north korea firing a missile was like a kid in class that's pulling pigtails, but i'm beginning to think he's just insane. it's like donald trump is heading across the street to the family to talk about the fact that their pet is never on a

leash, and that family is china and north korea is their pet, and the dog not on a leash keeps crapping in our yard. china has got to be sick of this guide. china is run by very smart engineers, and north korea is a bug in the system. i think they realize it. maybe today, tomorrow something will get worked out. >> the problem is that their pet is cujo, not benji. maybe you have to put it to sleep, i don't know. >> typically the response comes back, even though 90% of north korea's traders with china, but if we do anything there will be a tremendous influx of refugees and we don't want to deal with that. what could president trump possibly say to change the way that the chinese are thinking? >> i think he can use the

chinese desire for stability to his advantage and say, if you want instability, we can provide that. i think the president will try to show china that it is in china's best interest to help us. i think china has done some. i remember in the olympics in 2008, i was so surprised when the north korean team was announced and we were in beijing and the crowd went wild with cheers. i don't know if we can say if china wants to wash their hands of it. they don't want refugees, but there might be more to the facts that they are the family pet, to carry that metaphor farther. >> there is concern in the diplomatic community about the lack of a team supporting president trump as he meets with the chinese because they are so many key positions. assistant secretary of state. so who does president trump have

with him? henry kissinger. >> he has the most important person with him, president trump. i think it is very big that xi jinping decided to come here. clearly xi jinping open to come here with his wife if it was going to be hostile. up to the chinese to decide whether this will be hostile or not. i think they are going to work at out. we will work with them, work things out. the number one and number trico economies and number one and number two economies meeting together at mar-a-lago, this is a great thing. an interesting thought. xi jinping has north korea to worry about. i would say russia, putin has almost the same issue with syria going on. would we be just as likely to have a discussion with russia, another superpower? that might be a great thing, but will the left and some of the

people on the right say, this would be fantastic if trump could sit down and work with the russians? >> i think the obama administration did just that. with trump, a difficult situation given all of the interference in the election. >> my point is, i think this is a very positive thing. >> it is. and he is capable of exerting pressure on them privately and not making any kind of overt statements. it is very volatile, dealing with someone that is mentally unstable with kim jong-un. the dnc, only 30 miles away, a huge complication for the chinese. again, another complicated situation. >> we are going to have to lighten things up here a little. we've got the way to do it. greg gutfeld has got another one

of his secrets to happiness and you're going to want to hear that.

♪

>> so according to a new survey commit two-thirds of people over 70 are happier than at any point in their lives. obviously the less you have of something, the more precious it becomes, and that his time, more precious than gold or silver. however, a british story, so they could be grateful because they survived socialized medicine. what doesn't kill you makes you healthier. also key come up worrying less about what people think. the longer you are here on earth, the more people who are younger our view, more of them than there are younger ones who croaked. fewer people that interest you and more people, the younger ones, who annoy you. for every john glenn you lose, you can two miley cyruss. finding the 20s and 30s makes stress, makes sense, the younger less happy -- the youngs

happy. it is not until you are old and gain wisdom that you understand the fun you could've happy new year younger. obscure the potential for joy standing in front of you. the thing about being old, if they ask if you're happy, you're going to say yes. the alternative is being dead. i wanted to find something upbeat. it is good to age. don't you feel better? i don't know who to go to with this one. >> i feel like we are improving. >> juan, you may be the senior hire. >> and i'm going to get older in a few days. >> we all are. >> my clock goes click to 63. i'll be much older. >> so youthful. >> you know what i think, it is so hard to be 19, like, can i get into this college? especially today, the kind of

competition, oh, i need a raise, when you are 70, that is all in the past. >> that is why my counsel a lot of people in my free time. >> that is helpful. so happy. they get all the fresh air, they have active brains, medication, positive outlook, out and about, healthy diet, well, financially stable, it makes sense, don't you think. [laughter] >> youth is wasted on the young, this is optimistic. i loved every decade come up with the extension make exception of the teens.

>> you get to look forward too many years because you are still young. >> life expectancy is so much longer here, . >> people are living longer. more likely to make it to 80, they say. >> especially women. [laughter] if you total your new bike, they replace it with a brand new one. so, kinda like your second husband. kinda. it's good to be in (good hands).

take 5, guys. tired of your bladder always cutting into your day? you may have overactive bladder, or oab. that's it! we really need to get with the program and see the doctor. take charge and ask your doctor about myrbetriq (mirabegron) for oab symptoms of urgency, frequency and leakage. it's the first and only oab treatment in its class. myrbetriq may cause serious allergic reactions. if you experience swelling of the face, lips, throat or tongue, or difficulty breathing, stop taking myrbetriq and tell your doctor right away. myrbetriq may increase blood pressure. tell your doctor right away if you have trouble emptying your bladder or have a weak urine stream. myrbetriq may affect or be affected by other medications. before taking myrbetriq, tell your doctor if you have liver or kidney problems. common side effects include increased blood pressure, common cold symptoms, urinary tract infection, constipation, diarrhea, dizziness and headache. okay, time to do this! don't let your bladder always take the lead. ask your doctor if myrbetriq is right for you. and visit myrbetriq.com to learn more.

>> kimberly? >> okay. [speaking spanish] president trump thanked the wounded warriors at a special event and thanked them for their service. keep in mind that members participating in the soldier ride, a four-day ride through washington, an opportunity for these service members and veterans to come together to overcome physical, emotional, or wounds. >> you have risked all that you have, other to process, to keep our people safe, and our democracy secure. you have earned our freedom with your sweat and your blood and your incredible sacrifice. we salute you, we salute your service, and we salute the flag you have so courageously protected. >> we thank them for their service.

speak up very quickly, you know who's not fire? seth meyers. you know who is really funny? watch this. "the daily show." watch. >> that worked well. >> watch. you know what's really not funn funny? >> cecelia? >> can i feed the fish? >> when are we going to learn about russia? >> jonathan, somebody is asking a question. it's not your press briefing. hold on. >> we need to go to the bathroo bathroom. >> i look forward to seeing you tomorrow. i think tomorrow is going to be 1-question friday. >> he does look like a substitute teacher. >> don rickles died today at 90 years old. when you were a kid, maybe he

worshiped baseball players, i worshiped him. anything that he was on, i watched. i had the good fortune of interviewing him 20 years ago, and the first thing he said to me was, ua -- you a jew? i explained to him that i was catholic, didn't seem to matter. >> congratulations to my son as the new press secretary to ben carson at the department of housing and urban development. he began and politics working for the study committee, he was a spokesman behind sean spicer at the rnc, most recent white house correspondent, now back in politics, much to my shock, a member of the trump administration. >> all i'll say is that tomorrow's one where they will be very special, a little five

year birthday of someone. >> i am more than five. >> set your dvrs so you never miss an episode of "the five." our podcast. "special report" is next. >> bret: this is a fox news alert, i'm bret baier. president trump considers options for military action in syria. following but seems to be a chemical weapons attack that left dozens dead and scores wounded in rebel-held territory. comes as president trump hosts his chinese counterpart for a summit in california that will deal with another major troublemaker in the world, north korea. fox team coverage tonight, jennifer griffin at the pentagon with what an operation in syria might entail and how fast it might materialize. first, john roberts at mar-a-lago with the