>> sandra: right? a thousand dollars a week will go a long way. >> bill: how long is it going to last? >> sandra: good for her. >> bill: you got a big day? >> sandra: always, hemmer. how about you? >> bill: big day. >> sandra: good. "happening now" starts right now. >> jon: a fox news alert. more fallout from the administration's decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census. good morning to you. i'm jon scott. >> i'm julie banderas. california taking legal action against the feds last night. other states with large immigrant populations planning to follow suit in a growing effort to block the question about citizenship status from appearing on the next census. they say the census is meant to count everyone and that these citizenship question is a blatant and illegal attempt to undermine that goal. the white house, however, disagrees. >> this is a question that's been included in every census since 1965. with the exception of 2010,

when it was removed. this is -- we have contained this question that's provided data that's necessary for the department of justice to protect voters. and specifically, to help us better comply. >> julie: white house correspondent kevin corke is live with the story. kevin, with a dozen states so far now suing over the citizenship question, is there any reason to believe the white house will reconsider having that question in the 2020 census? >> it's a pretty good question actually, julie. let me put it to you this way. without saying it's out of their hands the white house is saying look, this is out of their hands. something decided at the department level. specifically the commerce department. i think it's fair to point this out as well. white house officials have said as much both on the record and off-the-record. this is about more than just counting people. the census is about counting citizens. which in term determines political representation and federal funding levels, among other things. however, california's attorney general says this

is about the trump administration trying to punish illegal immigrants. >> given the way that this administration had attacked immigrants. you can understand why immigrant families would be afraid to fill out the census questionnaire. adding a question on citizenship threatens to derail the integrity of the entire process. this latest move by the trump administration to threaten california is not just a bad idea. it's against the law. >> okay. that's a novel take on that. white house officials meantime insist this is not novel. in fact, they noted that it's been done for years. for that matter, it's the right thing to do. >> i would argue that this has been practiced of the united states government. the purpose is to determine individuals that are here.

it also helps comply with the voting rights act. without that information, it's hard to make those determinations and that information needs to be gathered and it has been part of the united states census every time we have had a census sips 1965 with the one exception of the 2010 census. >> over 50 years. one exception when president obama was in office. julie? >> julie: so, kevin, switching topics now to the white house interpretation of kim jong un's visit to beijing. this is the first time we have actually heard on behalf of kim jong un china saying not only the meeting went well but that the consideration is there that kim jong un might actually meet with president trump. >> yeah, very interesting indeed. keep in mind this whole meeting was sort of cloaked in secrecy. i think the white house is looking at this a couple of ways. on the otheon the one hand ther.

kim jong un is noted for the bait and switch. saying one thing and doing something else behind the back. this is still extraordinary nonels. i think on the other hand, julie the white house is hopeful, expressing optimism this will create an environment where we might see historic break through. let me take to you twitter. the president talking about this today. no real surprise, he has been commenting about this idea that maybe sooner than later he would have an opportunity to meet with kim jong un. in fact, the white house would love to get that all wrapped up sometime by may. >> this is further indication that the president's maximum pressure campaign is working. through a lot of countries around the world coming together and recognizing the destabilizing threat that north korea poses not just on the region but around the entire world. we think without this maximum pressure campaign this kind of thing wouldn't be happening. >> there was heather nauert there from the state department. the president mentioned on twitter said this. he received the message from

xi jinping last night. i want to share the one nugget from his tweet about this which i thought was interesting. maximum pressure and sanctions must be maintained at all cost. meaning, despite this idea, julie, that there appears to be some progress, you have to stay the course to see if it all pans out in the long run. of course, we will keep you posted. the briefing coming up about 1:30 give or take. i promise to be there for you. for now back to you. >> julie: we trust you will. kevin corke at the white house. >> you bet. >> jon: to marches across the country to calls for a constitutional change. the gun control debate is taking on new life. president trump though is saying no way to retired supreme court justice john paul stephens. he called for the repeal of the second amendment. president trump tweeting this. the second amendment will never be repealed. as much as democrats would like to see this happen and despite the words yesterday of former supreme court justice stevens, no way.

we need more republicans in 2018 and must always hold the supreme court. justice stevens is making his case in the "new york times" writing, quote: overturning that decision via constitutional amendment to get rid of the second amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the nra's ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option. joining us now gabby moro more. this hit out of the blue. a supreme court justice saying let's get rid of the second amendment, gabby. >> the president was obviously a fierce defender of the second amendment and rival during the 2016 presidential election. this tweet responding to that op-ed this morning was really no surprise. nor was it a surprise to see this op-ed written by former justice stevens who was the primary descenter in d.c. vs. heller that landmark case on gun control back in 2013.

so, you know, looking at this, i actually spoke to a republican who is close to the white house yesterday. i asked this person what is the likelihood now that congress actually acts on gun control? this person said that the stevens op-ed and a lot of what you heard from the march for our lives activists over the weekend has actually hurt their cause because this is a former supreme court justice, fervently arguing for a repeal of the second amendment, which is something that has obviously been talked about by gun control opponents, used to instill fear in people who are gun owners who don't want their weapons confiscated who don't want to see the regulation of certain firearms. now that they can point to this and say look, proponents of gun control want to repeal the second amendment it gives the white house leverage. >> jon: this energizes the nra and those who favor gun ownership rights, you're saying? >> absolutely. >> jon: that's how it's perceived at the white house, at least. >> that's how it's being

perceived here, if you talk to gun control proponents, they really have tried to argue previouslily, these people pushing for expanded background checks, pushing to regulate certain firearms to get rid of certain firearms like the ar-15 what they really want is to confiscate weapons. that's not a message that goes over well particularly in conservative leaning states. red states like texas, states like west virginia. so for gun control proponents, including this president, to actually now have a prominent figure a prominent proponent of gun control arguing for a full repeal of the second amendment by ratifying the constitution as i said it gives them leverage. it gives them a concrete op-ed to point to and say this is what they want. we are not lying when we say that. >> jon: i was a little surprised to see justice stevens saying abolishing the second amendment would be simple. tinkering with the constitution is never simple and there is obviously going to be a huge upswell of opinion, you know, from states where gun rights are

very much supported. >> yes. it's no easy task and it's something that hasn't been done in decades. and i think it's really unlikely right now given that we have a republican majority in both houses -- both chambers of congress. excuse me. i don't think that's a simple thing to do and i was surprised to do to acto see that in the op-ed. >> jon: you also have a president who says it's not going to happen? >> right. they have no intention of pursuing something like that. looking at more reasonable options right now. you know the president has he has already mentioned has looked at getting rid of bump stocks or regulating nem them in some fashion. expanding background checks. working with senators on the state fix nics acts. there are things they are trying to put through congress but ratifying the constitution is not something that is going to happen. >> jon: gabby from "the washington examiner." thanks for coming on today. >> thanks for having me.

>> julie: federal immigration officers are looking for a man described as violent deportee, after officials took off his handcuffs at new york's jfk airport while he was being escorted to his plane. apparently the man dodged authorities at the gate and reportedly got away in a taxicab. >> jon: that's not good. a fox news alert. investors hoping for a rebound and they're getting a little bit of one. the dow up about 63 points right now. after it dropped 345 yesterday. and this is a short trading week on wall street. markets will be closed on friday in observance of good friday. >> julie: there is a new twist in the russia investigation. what some senate democrats want the justice department to do when it comes to special counsel robert mueller. you got to hear this one. plus, california, the first in what could be quite a few states going after a proposed citizenship question in the next census.

the fierce push back and politics behind it. >> only in america does a country get sued for asking who's in it. it is complete insanity. ♪ ♪ excuse me, are you aware of what's happening right now? we're facing 20 billion security events every day. ddos campaigns, ransomware, malware attacks... actually, we just handled all the priority threats. you did that? we did that. really. we analyzed millions of articles and reports. we can identify threats 50% faster.

you can do that? we can do that. then do that. ♪ ♪ can we do that? we can do that.

>> jon: all right, now, we are awaiting a key decision in the penn state pledge death case. the judge who threw out the most serious charges against former members of the beta theta phi if a fraternity considering whether there is enough testimony to reinstate some of them after 19-year-old tim piazza who died after accepting bid ceremony last year where video shows himming you being put through gauntlet of drinking game stages. he fell and suffered head and internal injuries. he later died at the hospital.

>> administration has had an anti-immigrant agenda. i think they truly want to know who the citizenships are and who are the noncitizens are. the problem with that is that the census is not the vehicle for doing that. the constitution makes clear that the sole purpose of the census is to count everyone in this country trip for the status for apportionment. that is what the constitution requires. >> julie: fierce push back about adding the question about citizenship to the 2020 census. launching a legal and political battle pitting the trump administration against many blue states including california which was the very first to file a lawsuit. joining us now congressman darrell issa, republican from california who sits on the house judiciary oversight and foreign affairs committees. thank you very much, congressman, for talking to us. so, democratic lawmakers stand to lose political power if undocumented immigrants decline to take part in the survey. so then with that said, how

much of this is politically motivated? >> well, it appears as though it's all politically motivated. in 2010, when this basic question disappeared, you didn't see lawsuits. and, yet, bringing back a question, which was asked during the entire franklin delano roosevelt new deal democratic high period seems to be controversial. it isn't. the census is not just a line in the constitution it has become and for decades has been about providing vast amounts of statistics and information to help businesses and others to make decisions and this is a very legitimate question. you know, as an arab american grandson of lebanese immigrants, there is even a question about various ethnic background and so on. are they each questions we would sometimes prefer not to answer? maybe. but the reality is the census does us all good and

this is not a new question. >> julie: okay. it is not a new question but in this day and age, it is obviously something that's become politically incorrect for those who are arguing against it. so -- >> -- well, no it's become politically advantageous for democrats to say. >> julie: politically motivated but with the same sentiment of being politically correct because people do not want to feel as though people are being picked upon based upon their legal status. however, they are in this country and they need to be accounted for? >> well, we need to know a lot of things. one of them obviously is we keep records of how many people are naturalized. we keep all kinds of other records. we're not asking people who are not citizens, who are legally here. we're not asking them unfair question. if you are an ambassador stationed in washington, and you receive this, your embassy is going to say you live in the residence and you are not a citizenship. >> julie: right. >> remember, there are more noncitizens that are going to answer this, who are

perfectly legal than there are undocumented. >> julie: right. >> so this isn't just about documented and undocumented. it's about status that will be used for valid statistics that quite frankly democrats are going to want to have after they have it. >> julie: let's talk about the enormous legal battle ensued here. legally speaking, nothing can really actually happen any time soon. nothing is going to change in fact until september at the very soonest. nonetheless, legal challenges have been activated by a dozen states which began with california and then new york is actually promising multi-state lawsuit challenging the administration. now, there are critics, as you know, that question whether this status, you know, the census is going to deter illegals from participating for fear of being deported. how halls the census bureau prepared for that possibility? >> well, the one thing about the census bureau that has been true for generations is that this information is not presented for any follow-up legal action at all.

the privacy of the census is absolutely and, of course, they aggregate, but this -- it's been established for decades that it's not usable by the fbi or by any group in order to further an investigation. that's been true under republicans and democrats. i oversaw the last census as the head of the -- well, as subcommittee chairman then head of the oversight committee. i watched president obama try to politicize it by coming up with the idea that they would estimate the undercount. one thing under president trump is the destructions at census have been very clear. we are going to count everyone the way the constitution said so and that's what the secretary ross is doing. that's the president's wish. and getting accurate and full information is exactly what we're returning to, not what -- it's nothing new. >> julie: okay. i have got to go. i want to make clear. do you believe it is a scare tactic by democrats to say

this is unfair because, if you are an illegal immigrant, you are in fear of being deported therefore you are not going to answer this question. you are saying there is no concern whatsoever that this is not going to be exposed to the fbi or ice officials and do you not subject yourself to possible deportation if you answer this if you are an illegal? >> you are exactly right. >> julie: okay. >> and historically that's been the case and i think people can rely on decades of when this question was asked. >> julie: glad to set that straight. congressman issa, always good to see you. thank you very much. >> jon: top secret meeting revealed between china's president and the enemien leader. what does it mean for kim jong un's possible summit with president trump? our next guest on why north korea made this move. plus, protesters shutting down a city council meeting and delaying an nba game. what led to this angry outburst next. >> the man wants to talk to me. police got my brother

killed. >> enough. >> he shows no emotion at all. >> at all. >> devaugntah.

your brain changes as you get older. but prevagen helps your brain with an ingredient originally discovered... in jellyfish. in clinical trials, prevagen has been shown to improve short-term memory. prevagen. the name to remember. when it comes to travel, i sweat the details. late checkout... ...down-alternative pillows... ...and of course, price. tripadvisor helps you book a... ...hotel without breaking a sweat. because we now instantly... ...search over 200 booking sites ...to find you the lowest price...

...on the hotel you want. don't sweat your booking. tripadvisor. the latest reviews. the lowest prices. you know what's not awesome? gig-speed internet. when only certain people can get it. let's fix that. let's give this guy gig-

really? and these kids, and these guys, him, ah. oh hello. that lady, these houses! yes, yes and yes. and don't forget about them. uh huh, sure. still yes! xfinity delivers gig speed to more homes than anyone. now you can get it, too. welcome to the party. ♪ >> jon: a fox news alert. we now know the name of that escaped detainee that we told you about earlier. he is mohammeduembaque. 31 years old originally from senegal. julie told you earlier the ice agents had taken him to jfk airport last night to put him on a plane back to his native country. he was being deported. they took the cuffs off him and he bolted. it all sounds a little comical and in some ways it is. this is a guy wanted for multiple weapons offenses. also immigration and

firearms offenses. so, people are being told not to try to apprehend him. call ice or your local police agents if you see this guy. he is 31 years old. 63 an and -- 6'3" and 190 pounds. julie? >> julie: sacramento residents outraged at the deaths of unarmed man at the hands of police disrupting a city council meeting. the outburst forcing lawmakers to take a recess and even blocked the entrance to the nba arena delaying a sacramento kings game. steven stephon clark was shot and killed in his grandmother's backyard as police initially thought he was carrying a gun. that gun, it turns out, turned out to be his cell phone. >> now this fox news alert, kim jong un makes a surprise visit to china. days of speculation finally put to rest after a secret meeting between china's

president xi jinping and kim jong un was confirmed. this high level face-to-face is the first known foreign trip for the north korean dictator since he took power in 2011. china says it will uphold friendship with neighbor while confirming pyongyang's commitment to denuclearization. president trump reacting on twitter earlier for years and through many administrations everyone said the piece and denuclearization of the korean peninsula was not even a possibility. now there is a good chance that kim jong un will do what is right for his people and for humanity. look forward to our meeting. joining us now retired u.s. air force general don alston, former commander of the intercontinental ballistic missile force. he knows an awful lot about the dangers of nuclear confrontation. general alston, did kim jong un blink? >> good morning, jon. i think that kim gets three

things out of this visit. i think that it reflects his understanding of the urgency and the stakes that are involved in the process. he needs china to succeed china can enhance stability as the process moves forward. he needs china if this process doesn't work well for him to try to reclaim some stability as necessary unless china refuses to allow kim get some sustenance that right now is being denied to him by all the players who are in working with the united states to provide maximum pressure. i think in addition to that, he gets to raise his profile as a statesman, gets to burnish this image that he is going to meet with two heads of state prior to -- prior to him having the most important meeting of his life with president trump. he will meet with the president of south korea and, of course, this past weekend visit with xi. i think that the third thing is, finally, he has gotten external legitimacy for his regime.

so, by meeting with xi jinping. that's been withheld up until this point. i think this reflects that he is doing his due diligence in order to prepare for this most important meeting. >> jon: but the chinese have said denuclearization is the commitment here. that's something that i mean that's huge if the north koreans uphold their end of the bargai bar. >> that's the end game and that's where we need to get to. that's the only way that he gets to try to walk this tight rope with the pressure that's being kept on him right now. so, it's not a surprise to me that he continues to prepare for this -- the beginning of this process. but i think that the process is going to have to start with things that are in the art of the doable and that we establish wait points and timing and that he is going to be bargaining in good faith. i think that president trump sees the initiative when he

agreed so soon to meet him. i think he put his foot on the accelerator. and i think that's creating these conditions that you're seeing kim react to right now. >> jon: the state department spokesman heather nauert was on "fox & friends" earlier this morning and commented on some of what's at stake here. listen to this. >> china holds an incredible amount of china over north korea as its central trading partner. so getting on that train and going over there is certainly a step in the right direction. schin strategic partner for the united states. we have done a lot of work and getting more full some readout of what happened in that meeting yesterday. >> jon: obviously the president feels holding china's feet to the fire and north korea's as well has paid off here. >> there is no doubt that that's true. and we need to look at china's self-interest here with kim's nuclear program, kim has forced the united

states and allies to bring pressure and presence in the region. this is not what china wants. china does not want a long standing increased u.s. presence and increased pressure from its competitors in the region. when you just reflect on china's self-interest in this pro-process. it's understandable they want to play an active role and get to end state that serves their needs. one of the pedestrianments is the nuclear program that north korea has. >> jon: certainly some promising outlook there. let's hope it all comes to fruition. retired air force general don alston, thank you very much, sir. >> thank you, jon. >> julie: republicans weighing new strategies to hold on to their congressional majorities in the november mid terms. why we could see more tax cuts this year. plus, another gerrymandering case before the supreme court. with an argument from republicans this time. so did politicians go too far in redrawing their districts? >> partisan gerrymandering

has been part and parcel of the american political scene for decades and frankly probably centuries. it's time for the 'sleep number spring clearance event' on the only bed that adjusts on both sides to your ideal comfort, your sleep number setting. does your bed do that? it's the last chance for clearance savings up to $800 on our most popular beds. ends saturday. visit sleepnumber.com for a store near you.

today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.

i kept putting it off...t get what was i thinking? ago. ok, mr. jones... we're all done. i told you it was easy. with life line screening, getting screened for unknown health conditions is so quick, painless and affordable, you'll wonder why you hadn't done it before. so if you're over age 50, call now and schedule an appointment near you. for just $149- a savings of over 50%- you'll receive a package of five screenings that go beyond your doctor's annual check-up. ultrasound technology looks inside your arteries for plaque that builds up as you age and increases your risk of stroke and heart disease. after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke. so call today and start with a free health assessment

to understand your best plan of action. so why didn't we do this earlier? life line screening. the power of preventvention. call now to learn more. ♪ >> jon: the supreme court expected to hear arguments today in a case about partisan jerry man derg. this time they are trying to determine the way maryland redrew a congressional district to swing from republican to democratic seat. doug mckelway with more on that. >> hi, jon. in some ways this is a cut and dry case of gerrymandering. in fact, in his deposition in a lawsuit challenging maryland's newly redrawn sixth congressional district former governor martin o'malley admitted it he said it was my hope to create a district where the people would be more likely to elect a democrat than a republican. well, he succeeded. the sixth district and far western rural maryland had

been held by republican roscoe bartlett for 2 o0 years. after the 2010 census o'malley and democrats who dominated the maryland general assembly said about redrawing the district eliminating carroll county and frederick county and including a heavily democratic part of montgomery county outside of d.c. that contained nearly three times the population as the rest of the district. the democrat john delaney won the seat in 2012 and has held it ever since. today the supreme court is deciding what to do about this admittedly blatant manipulation of the district. and how far a court should go in intervening in redistricting. >> the justices have been concerned about finding a way to administer any sort of rule that says that an overly manipulated district is unconstitutional. >> the courts ultimately get to decide number one is this an issue that we as a court can decide and resolve or is it something best left to the political branches. and, number two, if it is something that we can decide

what the heck do we do? >> the court is hesitant to intervene too strongly. they are duly elected bodies. in this case focuses on the democratic gerrymandering, 32 state legislators are controlled by republicans and they have been especially adept at redrawing districts in their favor. jon? >> jon: doug mckelway in washington. doug, thank you. >> my pleasure. >> julie: senate democrats responding to recent criticism of robert mueller by the white house in letters just released dated march 7th to senior justice department officials. lawmakers urged them to publicly promise not to interfere in the special council russia's investigation. writing in part quote we have concerns that the president or his white house could order individuals at the justice or the department of justice with the authority to oversee special counsel mueller's probe to interfere with the probe or shut it down. our panel now leslie marshall is a fox news contributor and syndicated radio talk show host.

matt schlapp is the chairman of the american conservative union. thank you both for talking to us and this just gets thicker and thicker by the day. so now there is a concerted effort to protect mueller. senator richard blumenthal has co-written a piece in slate.com with an american historian. and in it he compares president trump to nixon when in 1973 watergate investigation was heating up. president richard nixon announced the resignation of several administration officials. including the attorney general. so unsatisfied, the senators from both parties wanted reassurance that a, quote, special prosecutor would be truly independent. they wrote a letter promising the special prosecutor and this is why this is relevant here will, quote: be subject to removal only by reason of extraordinary improprieties on his part. now last fast forward to 2018. i had to give a little history lesson in order to prop up this letter. final senators, all democrats, including senator blumenthal who have written a letter to five doj

officials. they fall in line of succession at the department of justice. if deputy attorney general rosenstein were either to be resigned or removed. so here is what it reads in part. in light of news reports that white house council ordered don mcgahn special counsel inquiry proceed without interference. we write to request that he provide a written and public commitment that you will not interfere in the special counsel's investigation into the russian melingsdzing in the 2016 elections, possible collusion with such meddling by the trump campaign. efforts to obstruct justice and any related inquiry. matt, do you believe there is still a chance president trump would consider firing mullen anmueller and does this r change anything. >> absolutely. actually it's the president's obligation to fire any employee at the department of justice if there is any reason to do. so fringes, if bob mueller -- fr

instance, if bob mueller were to do things in these investigations where he would be going on a fishing expedition for the whole 70 years of donald trump's life, that would be clearly outside the scope of his investigation and they should take immediate steps. let's remember, we have separation of powers which was what our whole constitution framework was built on. everyone in the executive branch in the end works for the president, just like the president can't fire senator richard blumenthal's chief of staff, senator richard blumenthal can't tell the president who he can hire and who he is fire. bob mueller, although i have respect for him, he is not above and beyond the law either. if he does things that are inappropriate in this investigation, i would hope the president would fire him. >> julie: leslie, what do you make of the letter. >> first of all, there is nothing or no indication by anyone left or right, matt, as you know that mueller has done anything inappropriate. so the rumblings that we hear here on the left outside of the white house and all of this disarray and attorneys who don't want to work for him or that of

being fired is this could be problematic. what is further problematic with regard to this letter, julie, the difference between now and back in '73, there were two main differences. one you had bipartisan support. you don't have that. as you stated correctly. >> julie: all democratic senators, correct. >> yes. they are all democrats. and the president is not going to fire him. and secondly, i have to say and i think it's sad but i really think that both democrat and republican care more about their parties in 2018 than the people. and i think it's proper that the democrats ask for this loyalty just to be sure that the doj and all of those people within it that they sent this letter to, the inspector general, et cetera, are fully pledging their loyalty to the u.s. constitution which is their job and not -- >> this is really important. the constitution gives the president the right to hire and fire in the executive branch. >> that's correct. >> if the president wants to fire rod rosenstein for any reason under the sun he can

fire him for any reason under the sun. that is what the constitution provides. that is the constitutional option. >> julie: doesn't seem that the president is headed toward firing mueller. he wants to sit down with mueller. obviously if he wants to sit down and be interviewed by the special counsel that doesn't seem like an indication that he plans on firing him before doing so matt and less is i thank you very much: >> thank you. >> jon: dramatic developments underway in the trial of the pulse nightclub widow. why defense counsel says he never helped her plan this massacre. >> this trial has been so personal and putting things out there that you and i would never want the world to know. many sleep-aids have pain medicine but zzzquil is different

because why would you take a pain medicine when all you want is good sleep? zzzquil: a non-habit forming sleep-aid that's not for pain, just for sleep.

♪ >> jon: now this fox news alert. closing arguments underway in the trial of noor salman, the widow of the pulse nightclub shooter. she is accused of helping her husband plan the attack which killed 95 people.

she could face life in prison in convicted. defense attorneys say she was in the dark about the terror plot and was coerced into making a false confession. >> noor did not know what her husband was doing to do. she didn't participate in the purchasing of the gun. she didn't participate in the purchasing of the ammunition for the ar 15. she did not participate in the scouting of any location. and she didn't know he was going that night. she did not make up a story. >> jon: let's turn to our legal panel jonah spilbore former prosecutor and defense attorney mercedes fox news legal analyst. jonah, to you first, the prosecution has taken some hits in this trial because some of the things that they portrayed as being, you know, her active participation in the planning of this didn't exactly pan out. but you seem to think the prosecution still has a pretty strong case.

>> yeah. i think they did their job. first of all, it's very unusual to bring an action against the wife of a terrorist in this situation. it rarely -- i don't know if it's ever happened. but, i like the message that it sends because if she really were complicit, it has to be more than simply knowing. she had to assist in the making of it appeared the planning of it in order to be found guilty of substantially helping a terrorist, which is going to get her the life sentence. and i think the fact that she texted when he was at the scene of the crime, trying to help him cover up, shows that she knew all along what was happening here. >> jon: but her defense attorneys say, look, this is a woman with an 84 iq. well below average. somebody who is sort of under the thumb of her husband and she couldn't possibly have had the wherewithal to help him plan this. >> i think the defense attorney did her absolute best in this case. she tried to put out all those things, she is an abused wife. she has a low iq. she is a simpleston. she didn't know what she was

saying or doing. she was coerced by the fbi. she threw it all against the wall and hoping against hope that something will stick. but, at the end of the day, you have these jurors saying 4 people were killed. we're not giving you a pass. and what was it that you said to the fbi investigators when they were asking you questions? you were like oh, i wish i should have done something. maybe i could have stopped him. these are things that are going to fall weigh very heavily on those jurors' minds. they probably won't give her a pass. >> jon: folks from florida hearing that case and that massacre at the time which was the worst in american history is still going to be very fresh in their minds. >> absolutely. they want somebody to pay the price. the actual shooter cannot pay the price because he is dead. now they have the wife of the shooter in front of them and the jurors are going to want her or somebody to be accountable and, look, you can be dumb and guilty. the fact that she has a low iq doesn't get her off the hook in this case. >> jon: will her own words spoken to investigators come back to haunt her as this

case proceeds? prosecutors read something in court. we are going to read that for you. her own statement that seems to implicate her in this case. that's coming up after the break.

>> harris: upping the ante in the california. not ruling out arresting a sheriff if refuses to uphold state laws protecting illegal immigrants from the feds. how will it play out and effect the midterm election? >> katie: president trump firing back after former supreme court justice says the second amendment is obsolete and should be repealed. the president says never but could it happen? and what if it did? >> harris: all that plus in the center seat outnumbered at the top of the hour.

happy wednesday. >> katie: see you soon. >> jon: a fox news alert. and continuing our legal discussion on the case against noor salman which is wrapping up this week. she is the widow of the pulse nightclub shooter. can a statement she gave to the fbi be her undoing. in it she admitted that she knew ahead of time that her husband was going to be doing something bad and she wrote: i wish i had done the right thing but my fear held me back. i wish i had been more truthful: if i'm on that jury, mercedes, that statement alone convicts me. >> isn't that it? isn't that exactly what the jurors need to say? of course you knew. you wrote this voluntarily. you knew your husband was doing something wrong. you were with him when he purchased ammunition and with him where he staked out certain places to do this massacre. you knew. it's in her own words.

>> jon: jonna. >> i have to agree with that i don't think her low iq or the fact that she was under his thumb is going to relieve her in the eyes of the jury because she did so much. she made so many trips with him. i can't get over the fact that she texted him while he was basically at the venue where he was about to off 49 people and she tried to help him cover his tracks. that's it for me. and i think that's going to be it for her, too. >> jon: the spokeswoman for her family denies all of this. here's what she had to say. >> she did not have a job. she did not work outside the home. when his friends came over, she never officially met them. she never went out with him and his friends. never went to the gym. she was basically a mother who stayed home and cared for her son. she baby-sat her, you know, her husband's nephews. and she was never really -- she wasn't an equal partner. >> jon: that's susan clery.

>> what does that have anything to do with anything in the fact that she worked -- she stayed at home and took care of the kids? baby-sat children? what does that have. >> she wants to be a stay at stay-at-home mom and not hang out with her husband. >> jon: implication she had no idea what her husband was up to because he kept her off in her own little world. >> goes back to what jonna said she actually gave him an alibi. >> say i wasn't feeling well. say whatever you want. say you are with your friends. all these things when you add them all up and this is what is great about all these jurors they will sit and put all these pieces of the puzzle together. >> no doubt she goes down under the obstruction. she basically admits lying to the feds hard parted is whether she provided material support top charge. she is going to find it. >> jon: she has a young child at home. obviously the father is dead. are jurors going to have trouble sending away a mother for a long time knowing -- >> -- jurors have done that time and time again. i don't think that's going

to be in their minds so much. >> 49 people dead? no. they are not going -- >> they probably had children too. >> jon: the case as i said should wrap up this week. we don't know when the verdict is coming but we will certainly stay on top of it and let our viewers know. mercedes colwin and jonna spilbore, thank you. >> thank you. >> jon: julie. >> julie: a fox news alert. penn state hazing is issuing a press release essentially saying that all involuntary manslaughter charges have been dismissed against the 11 former beta feta phi fraternity members. they faced charges with the 2017 death of timothy piazza following an alcohol-fueled hazing which led to him becoming so intoxicated he fell down a flight of stairs and was left there he died the next day. the fraternity has been banned from penn state. this is the second time this judge has dismissed the involuntary manslaughter charges. more after this.

and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. pssst. what? i switched to geico and got more. more savings on car insurance? a-ha. and an award-winning mobile app. that is more. oh, there's more. mobile id cards, emergency roadside service... more technology. i can even add a new driver... ...right from her phone! geico. expect great savings and a whole lot more.

wgreat tasting, heart-healthys the california walnuts.ever? so simple, so good. get the recipes at walnuts.org.

>> thanks for joining us on this wednesday. >> let's do it tomorrow. "outnumbered" starts now. >> the battling is intensifying over california sanctuary law. citizens have taken action against the measure that shield illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement officers. now the state attorney general not ruling out arresting those in law enforcement who don't comply with sanctuary law. this is "outnumbered" i'm harris faulkner. former director of strategic communications for hillary clinton adrienne elrod and katie pavlich and in the center seat, fox news senior judicial analyst judge