recently, his barber and boyfriend convinced officials to help rowland make his dream come true. we thank him for his service. thanks for joining us today. i'm dana perino. here's trace gallagher in for shep. >> donald trump jr. says he does not remember if he ever talked about the russia investigation with his father. that's according to newly released transcripts. they provide new details on the trump tower meeting with the russian lawyer and the president's role in responding to the media when word got out. plus, sanctuary laws that protect undocumented immigrants. san diego is the latest to take a swipe at the crackdown. president trump set to sit down with california officials including some that support the administration's fight against the laws and north korea warning the summit with president trump might not happen. is it a bargaining tactic from kim jong-un like a car buyer

threatening to leave the lot? we'll get into it in this hour of "shepard smith reporting." >> president trump confirms that he reimbursed michael cohen who paid hush money to michael cohen to pay off stormy daniels. the document does not mention the payment to daniels. last month, president trump denied knowing about the payment. >> did you know about the $130,000 payment to michael cohen? then why did he make the payment? >> michael is my attorney. you have to ask him. >> do you know where he got the money? >> earlier this month, president trump's attorney rudy guliani

said that the president paid cohen back. >> that was money that was paid by his later, the way i would do out of his law firm's funds. the president reimbursed that over several months. >> the white house has said president trump denies having a sexual relationship with daniels. let's get to john roberts. he's live with the news on the north lawn. john? >> trace, good afternoon to you. going through the documents here and putting together the pieces of the puzzle that this paints. there are three things at work here. first of all, this may be the reason why back at the beginning of may on the hannity program, rudy guliani dropped that blockbuster that the president paid the money back to michael cohen. the genesis of this is a lawsuit that was filed to the doj and the office of government ethics by citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington on march 8. a crew contended that the money that was paid to stormy daniels

by michael cohen constituted a loan and should have been disclosed on the president's financial disclosure of june 14 last year. now in the president's filing, there's a note that says while it's not required to be disclosed as a liability in the interest of transparency, we'll tell you about expenses incurred by michael cohen that were reimbursed by the president. however, on page 2 of the report, the office of government ethics concluded it had a report of liability and needed to be on the financial disclosure form. in a letter that the acting head of the office of government ethics sent to the deputy attorney general, rod rosenstein, he writes in the interest -- sorry. he writes oge has con clued that the information of the payment made be mr. cohen is required to be reported as a liability. oge has determined that the information provided in that

note, that's the one that was provided in the president's financial disclosure meets the reporting. so the oge is saying yes this should have been reported as a loan. the second thing that is at play here, the oge signed off on certified the president's financial disclosure in which the payments to cohen were described as repayment for expenses, which may give the president and his legal team some ammunition to say this was not an illegal campaign loan. this was reimbursement for expenses. just ask the office of government ethics. the one potential problem for the president here, oge has stated and sent a finding to rod rosenstein that this should have been disclosed last year that buttress the contention that the president made have violated law when he included that last year.

trace, stay tuned. >> meantime, president trump is responding to north korea's threat to cancel the summit with kim jong-un. >> the white house is hopeful that things are still on track. they're thinking that this may be more bluster on the part of north korea, potential negotiating tactic. in the oval office today, with the president of uzbekistan, president trump seemed unclear as to whether or not the summit on june 12 in singapore. going to go ahead. listen here. >> we haven't been notified at all. we'll have to see. we haven't seen anything, we haven't heard anything. we will see what happens. we'll see what happens. >> you can barely make it out there. they're trying to get the press pool. the president saying we didn't get any reports of this, we

don't know what is happening. we'll see what happens. north korea has another bur under its saddle with john bolton. bolton said on "fox news sunday" april 29 that north korea's denuclearization could resemble what happened with libya in 2003. north korea didn't like that one bit. they know what happened to moammar qaddafi. saying of john bolton, we do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards him. john bolton said he heard worse in 2003 when he was the undersecretary for arms control at the state department. listen here. >> what is your reaction of them calling you out by name? >> it's nothing new. back in 2003, when we were going through the six-party talks in the bush administration, the north koreans objected to my

characterization of kim jong-il as a dictator and they called me human scum, a blood sucker, they said i was a very ugly fellow. i get used to it. >> kind of get used to it. it's what the north koreans do. bolton did add this morning that what north korea is saying now gives him reason to question whether or not they are sincere about this idea of denuclearization. so here's two we should stay tuned on. trace? >> yeah, indeed. john roberts live for us on the north lawn. thank you. donald trump jr. says he doesn't think it was wrong to meet at trump tower with the russian lawyer offering dirt on hillary clinton before the 2016 election. that is according to transcripts of his interview with the senate judiciary committee. trump jr. told the committee he did not tell his father about the meeting at the time. he said president trump may have helped come up with the first response to reports about the meeting through former white house communications director

hope hicks. that response said the meeting was mostly about russian adoptions. but trump jr. later released his own e-mails that showed that he was hoping to get damaging information on hillary clinton. they're's the exchange from the transcripts. quoting here. question, to the best of your knowledge, did the president provide any edits to the statement in trump jr. he may have commented through hope hicks. trump jr. i believe some may have been but this was through people, mostly council. donald trump jr. released a statement that reads in part -- democrats say they have not

interviewed trump jr. and paul manafort and jared kushner. robert mueller is looking into the trump tower meeting as part of the russian investigation. muling is investigating moscow's election meddling, possible collusion with members of the trump campaign and whether the president obstructed justice. president trump has repeatedly said there was no collusion and no obstruction. ellison barber is live for us in washington with more. ellison? >> hi, trace. trump jr. testified that he did not tell his father about the e-mails setting up the meeting and he doesn't know when or how the president learned of the e-mail. trump jr. told the committee that he agreed to the meeting apartment a publicist rob goldstone said that someone had documents that would incriminate clinton. the big issue here is the

meeting and the subsequent explanations of it initially. the president's son told "the new york times" the meeting was mostly about russian adoptions. never mentioning the fact that he agreed to the meeting after being told the person had information that might hurt clinton's campaign. some called trump jr.'s initial statement misleading and not long after "the washington post" reported that president trump actually dictated it on air force one. the committee asked that "the washington post" report was correct to which trump jr. replied, i don't know, i never spoke with my father about it. later in the interview, mr. trump suggested that the president was involved in drafting the statement through former white house communications director hope hicks. he also said that she wanted to know if i spoke to him and i chose not to because i didn't want to bring him into something that he had nothing to do with. trace? >> ellison, what else are democrats in the senate judiciary committee saying about this? >> so far they seem to be

disagreeing with trump jr.'s own assessment where he said he was candidate, forthright with the committee. they don't seem to be buying that. two committee democrats say they need trump jr. to clarify his remarks. >> he evaded and contradicted himself in many of his answers. he needs to come back for the committee, testify in person under oath the intention that there was no conversation whatsoever with the president by donald trump jr. defies credibility and i think has to be explained. >> when asked about bringing trump jr. back, the chuck grassley said if that is something that his colleagues ask him to do, he will take it unadvisement. trace? >> ellison barber live in washington. thank you. to help put some legal context throughout this, ron is here, defense attorney and formerly a prosecutor. he also worked at the department of justice. i want to start off where

ellison left off there. it's important because donald trump goes in and says, look, we wanted the dirt on hillary clinton, right? the president later said yeah, if they are growing to give me dirt on hillary, i wanted it and so would have any other presidential candidate. what do you make of that? >> there's a misconception in the public about what is going on. it's not illegal to talk to russians. everything we read, it's not illegal to get opposition research on your opponent. whether you're a british intelligence officer or a russian adoption specialist and you have dirt, you can talk about it. it's legal. it's only illegal if you have an illegal agreement to affect the election. it's not illegal to get e-mails that somebody has that they want to give you. if you conspire with them to get that information, hey, tap into their e-mail server and give that information to me, then you

have a problem. >> the optics is not good. you have donald trump junior who had been in politics for a cup of coffee. jared kushner was there. but he fell asleep. paul manafort has been in the business 30 years. he had to have known that there was some legal fringe here that might be -- >> really? when everybody says this now, it's probably illegal to talk to russians, nobody thought that back then. nobody ever thought that back then. people thought that if somebody has opposition research and it was -- you could obtain it, you obtain it. they don't think it's illegal to talk to a russian. did the clinton campaign think it was illegal to talk to steele? did they think it was illegal to hire a foreign intelligence officer to dig of dirt about their opponent? it's forthright and declare the money you spent and do those things, it's legal. >> it's fascinating. now you have the democrats saying we need more documents. we didn't get the whole trench

of documents. they were screaming collusion several months ago, right? the tone has changed a little bit on the outcome on this. >> it's clear what is going on. this is a criminal investigation, which has been since the beginning. the law is pretty clear. unless you can establish that they form an illegal agreement to obtain information legally, they have nothing. that's the problem that mueller is having. they don't have that. they have hey, you didn't tell the truth to this body or under oath you didn't say this that was truthful. >> i have at the time get your take on the payment to michael cohen. he said he didn't pay it and now he did. the office of government ethics is thinking maybe it is. what is your take on the expense thing versus this could be something else? >> first of all, i have closes that we negotiate nondisclosure agreements all the time. first of all the client usually gives me money first. but when you have -- >> 10 seconds.

>> when you have the facts coming out over time and don't make sense, people get suspicious. that's where we're at. >> thanks, ron. >> trace: a republican led senate committee said that russian helped president trump is more interesting than that. we'll have it next. you get the one-on-one partnership you need to grow your business. the dell vostro 15 laptop. contact a dell advisor today. with the right steps, 80%of recurrent ischemicide. strokes could be prevented. a bayer aspirin regimen is one step to help prevent another stroke. so, i'm doing all i can to stay in his life. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen.

this is bill's yard. and bill has a "no-weeds, not in my yard" policy. but with scotts turf builder weed & feed, bill has nothing to worry about. it kills weeds and greens grass, guaranteed. this is a scotts yard. >> trace: it's a capitol hill controversy over russian interference in our election. lawmakers breaking with their colleagues in the house and finding moscow did meddle in the

2016 election to president president trump. prosecutors agree with u.s. intelligence agency assessments. last month a report was issued saying the russians were not trying to help trump but wanted to divide americans. peter doocy is live with more. peter? >> trace, the reason that lawmakers wanted to hear from obama era intel officials how and why they can't to the conclusions to help president trump is because one of the witnesses, mike rogers, has admitted that part of the source material is the unverified and explosive dirty dossier compiled by christopher steele. however, after the briefing, the republican chairman of the intel committee was satisfied with what he heard. he said this. "committee staff have spent 14 months reviewing the sources, trade craft and analytic work.

there's no doubt that russia undertook and unprecedented effort to interfere with our elections. the democratic ranking member of the committee, mark warner from virginia, agrees. >> i've heard nothing to contradict anything from the ica. particularly in terms of the fact that russians intervened in our elections to the purpose of helping mr. trump and hurting hillary clinton. >> the former director of the cia, john brennan and james clapper both here today as well. james comey, formerly of the fbi was invited but he apparently had a prior engagement. didn't show up. trace? >> and peter, the committee voting to go forward with gina haspel today. >> yes, they advanced their nomination with a 10-5 vote. that means that all the republicans and two democrats,

mark warner and joe manchin both voted to send her to the senate floor. that is something that senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says will come expeditiously. she's still facing some questions that could affect the obama era spy chiefs that were here today. rand paul said have you or anyone else ever cooperated with foreign intelligence services to surveil, monitor or collect information for candidate trump during his travels outside the president in the preceding five years? specifically, was candidate trump under any surveillance during the cia during previous visits to europe. i expect it to be a no. >> trace: peter, thank you. and there's breaking news coming out of california. d.c. actually. president trump speaking at the white house. he's meeting with officials about the state's sanctuary laws. supporters say they improve public safety by cooperating

police. the president said the laws are unconstitutional and sued california. let's listen in. >> thanks very much. you folks are keeping busy. deputy ice director, tom holloman who will be leaving us soon for a life of retirement. but there's no such thing as retirement. [applause] i appreciate it, tom. you'll never leave. you'll always be in. always with us is house majority leader, kevin mccarthy who has been a special friend of mine. he represents california's 23rd congressional district. he's very popular. i just recently saw a poll of kevin. the opposition should just go home. they love him out there and he's done an incredible job. he brought it home.

we appreciate it, kevin. a great job you've done for the country. thank you very much. unfortunately congress -- i have to say congressional democrats, you take a look at what has been going on and what is going on with the laws, whether it's catch and release and whether it's any of the things that we're fighting for it's so hard. now we have started the wall. we're spending $1.6 billion between fixing and starting. you know, melissa, what's going on. we're getting it up. we have a lot of folks in california. they don't talk about it but they want the wall up. that's one of the reasons that we started in california. we made a lot of progress on it. now we're going for the full funding for the wall and we're going to try to get that as soon as possible. it's become a very popular issue. in january, the los angeles police department arrested an illegal immigrant from mexico for drug possession. instead of honoring the ice detainer, they set him free.

just a few weeks later, he was arrested again, this time for murder. so they arrested him, they had him, let him go. tom, you've seen this. they let him go and he killed somebody. it's happening more and more. we get them out as fast as we can. we have the worst laws anywhere in the world for illegal immigration. there's no place in the world that has laws like we do. catch and release. think of it. we catch somebody. we find out they're criminals. we end up having to release them. and they go into our society. now we do the best we can. i'll tell you, we do better than anybody. and our numbers are much better than in the past. they're not nearly acceptable and not nearly as good as what we could have. we're down 40% from those other standards. so that's really good. meaning 40% crossings. so that's good. we can do better.

part of our problem, our economy is so strong, people want a piece of it and that makes the job even tougher. we want to keep -- we want people based on merit. we want people to come in to our country based on merit. we're not looking to keep them out. we're looking to bring them in. we need them. we have companies moving back into the united states like never before. chrysler is opening up in michigan. we have so many companies actually coming from mexico even and coming back in. so we want people coming in based on merit. we already the tragic case of maryland, murdered by the illegal immigrant who was arrested six times before breaking into marilyn's home and raping her and beating her to death with a hammer, this is one example. but there's many examples. i've been saying it a long time.

we cannot let this butchery happen in america. the state of california's attempts to nullify federal law have sparked a rebellion by patriotic citizens that want their families protected and borders secured. they want border security. they want protection. that's what we're about. we're about protection. both from international and frankly people crossing a border illegally. i will now go around the room and ask these incredible mayors and officials to discuss their brave stance on behalf of their constituents. they are very popular, they are very well-respected. these are the top people. they have people that other people listen to. and they listen to them from around the country. so i'll begin by asking california assembly woman melissa melendez. you have been an inspiration to a lot of people.

so maybe you can say a few words and we'll go around the room. >> thank you, mr. president. i just want to start off by saying on behalf of everyone here, thank you for inviting us. there are more people in california i think than you know who support what you're doing, who believe in your agenda and securing our borders. everywhere in between from san francisco to los angeles. you have millions of people that want to see that our borders are secure and our neighborhoods are safe. we want to thank you for what you're doing. i have been in office in california for five years now. and it's interesting to me that you have been in office a year almost. >> 17 months. 17 years would be nice, too. >> but you -- you have invited us here to talk about this issue. i've been in office in california for five years. not once has governor brown invited any republican to discuss this issue in california. it is a crisis. that's the point we're at, a

crisis. so for me and my constituents and those are democrats and republicans and independents alike. i get e-mails from all of them. they don't want to see another kate steinly. that's what i hear. they don't want to see another kate. so when my husband and i talk about this issue, we have 37 years of service between the two of us. we both served in the navy. that's where we met. we know a lot about what it takes to protect our way of life, what it means to protect other people, but we want to make sure that our citizens are protected. and i think the resistance that started in the democrat party, this is your republican resistance right here. what they're doing in california. >> this is really a democrat issue, a republican issue. a lot of the democrat politicians don't understand what is going on. because it's actually good politically. people want safety.

thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i appreciate it. sam? go ahead. >> thank you, mr. president. i am a proud immigrant here from lebanon 30 years ago. i came here to live the american dream. we did well. jerry brown wants to take this american dream from us. >> he will be retired soon. >> i hope. >> end of the year. >> i think he's going to run for president. i said please run. no, i think he will be retired soon. >> i see myself fighting for the values that made our country great, mr. president. we are aligned with your goals. when i was elected mayor in 2010, i made the agreement with ice. we brought eight ice agents to our police station. since then, we deported over 2,700 illegal criminals from our city. and made escondito safe.

it's a very compelling model for the nation to follow. in our city, more immigrant people report crime. this narrative that sanctuary city will allow more immigrant to report crime is fake news, mr. president. >> fake news. >> california is going down the drain. it's going to be sorry. california is the least business friendly, the poorest city in the nation. the highest poverty rate, the highest taxes, you name it. instead of fixing the golden state and making it the american dream for everyone, they are dealing with illegal criminals. when jerry brown cares more about illegal criminals that he cares about the hispanic community and the american citizens, this is insanity. this is unconstitutional.

when i swore to be a citizen, again, as mayor, i swore to defend the constitution and to keep my community safe. this is personal to me. i'm going to work hard to make sure that our community is safe. escondito is a great example of our success. as a result of making our city safe, we brought $2 billion in investment and we outperformed san diego in economic growth. i'm passionate about it. we're going to fight the fight. we want to make sure if the supreme court does not repeal the sanctuary state, we're going to do make sure the grass roots team like you see today, we will repeal that. we are with you. we need the wall. we need to end the sanctuary state. we had 11 sanctuary cities. now we have 560. 10,000 illegal criminals have been released under the sanctuary city -- >> now it's reversing sam. it got bad and now it's

reversing. it's a big change of heart of mind, people don't want sanctuary cities. they're dangerous. they don't want them anymore. thank you. >> most of the people support us, mr. president. 65% of the hispanics support us. the liberals, the democrats, everybody is -- in my city, 90% are with us. thank you. >> i had more support in the state of california than people understand, too. check the voting records, folks. >> i'm sitting here in this room in awe of god's power, how he can take someone who was homeless, in a tent, make them a mayor and and bring them before the united states of america and wants to hear the cry. sacramento is angry because they lost an election. for god's sake, get over it. they're angry. you know what? now we're more angry.

they're releasing these criminals not by their houses. they're releasing them by our houses. my community is my family. you're putting my family at risk. every day we're getting more and more reports from the police department about how they can't arrest these people. they arrest them. everything from misdemeanors because it's not near jerry brown's house. not near the elected official's house. it's in our community. we're tired of it. we need help, mr. president. we need help protecting our city of san jacinto. the state of california, all of us need this help getting this solved. i was at a church the other day, at my church. i went to another one, a hispanic church. the people in there were out there. think said if you send -- tell mr. trump that we have a message for him, we want help. you see? everyone of us came from somewhere else. we all came from different

countries. my husband is from mexico. >> trace: you hear from the president there, some of the mayors in california. that's the major of san jacinto in riverside county. saying here's the deal. we have these illegal immigrants being released. the president says the tide is turning. to a certain extent it is. we have 22 cities that have opted out of the california's sanctuary city policy and three major counties, but you have to keep in mind, there's 58 counties in california. so it's really just the tip of the iceberg. there's more cities trying to get involved in this. there's more resistant. the president is right to a certain point. hillary vaughn is covering this story. you talked to these mayors. you know where they're coming from. the question is what is next? how many more cities are we expecting and will california budge on this? >> right. i talked to several mayors that are in that room right now with the president. they tell me their goal, the next step here, is funding.

you have one city that is currently battling the aclu that is suing them for suing the state of california over this. they need money and funding because these legal fees are being pushed to the taxpayers. so they're hoping the president will either indirectly or directly help them out with funding here. then you also have the main argument that they want to get across is that this is not a political fight, this shouldn't be. this is about safety. they want the support of the white house. they're hoping that at the end of this meeting there's some sort of coalition or organization that is bit out out of this that gives them support from the white house to their home towns. these people are accountable to their constituents and they're hearing from them that they don't feel safe. so these mayors are grateful to have a voice. one mayor told me that he's thankful that the president is listening because he doesn't feel like the governor is listening to them. so the fact that they're being brought to dc, that the president is listening to them and their message is very important. but this does come down to

funding and additional money as these cities battle several lawsuits that they're trying to win this legal fight. >> if you look at california, we're in the middle of a gubernatorial election here and the leading candidate is gavin newsome who is further left than jerry brown. he's more in favor of sanctuary cities and more in favor of funding for the homeless. so this is not going away. it's not like we're going to make this move to the right here in california, this is tough. when the old saying, you can't fight city hall, california has a lot of money and the small cities don't have much money. it's a battle for years to come. >> right, this resistance is growing. for example, the city of ridge crest, a city in leader kevin mccarthy's district. >> in the mohave dessert. >> yeah. we'll have to see what comes out of that kevin mccarthy will be

there. >> trace: and kevin mccarthy is in bakers field. it's about 120 miles east of los angeles. that's the red part of california. there's two californias. along the coast, very blue. the deserts, very red. you can see the left there, most of those cities are in red california, blue, which is los angeles and san francisco, really not having the same impact. they're all in favor of the sanctuary laws. hillary vaughn, thanks for joining us. this is zeke miller from the associated press. it's fascinating to see the president bringing together these mayors from the cities that have opted out of the sanctuary policiepolicies. it's a small contingent but it's growing. >> i listening to raj shah. he said the president's aim is to buck up the local officials and those that agree with his

immigration policy, whether they're democratic state lawmakers as they're trying to build a coalition to fight the sanctuary policies, whether in congress or in the courts. >> and you know, we can't forget that california is at war with the department of justice. the department of justice has filed lawsuits against california. california has filed counter lawsuits. the question now becomes down the road, everybody is wondering, can the federal government truly take away some funding for these states who abide by these sanctuary policies? i think the answer so far is we don't know. >> yeah. this is something that is locked up and active, litigation, probably find its way to the supreme court quickly. and then -- that's the legal side of things. the other is, is there a motivation, is there a willingness in congress to do some of this on their end. going to a mid-term, it doesn't

seem to be likely. you could see the potential for more show boats of republican lawsuit makers and a racist issue and bring it to the forefront. in terms of legislation to get it through and pulling money back from some of those jurisdictions and municipalities that doesn't seem likely at this point in time. on the legal side, it's too soon to tell. >> yeah. i don't want to miss represent myself or the state of california. while it's a small contingent, look at polls. polls show that in some polls half or more than half of californians are against these policies. you have 14 million that are against these policies, that is a very large block. i know the corridor, san francisco and los angeles, are in favor but that's a lot of people saying we should take a hard look at this.

>> this is obviously a polarizing issue. somebody on both sides of the political spectrum, democrats and republicans care deeply about. the big question, where does that end up? is this an issue that motivates them to go to the polls. the president believes the issue of illegal immigration is something that does motivate people. he believes that's why he's here in the white house. that's why he's hosting meetings like think and why he brings issues to the fore. and this is this an issue that republicans care about and motivates them to go to the polls and choose one way or the other. >> i hear the siren. i have to go here. i want your read on the optics of this. does this help, does it push the ball forward at all? >> it certainly does push the ball forward in raising awareness. it does elevate the opposing

side of the argument, the side of those opposing sanctuary city jurisdictions. does it move -- change the underlying dynamic? probably not. this is probably going to get sorted out in the courts. issues of public opinions. it could be a political force come november. >> trace: yeah, ninth circuit court says nope. we shall see. good of you, zeke. thank you. >> thanks for having me. >> trace: the internet as you know is soon set to change. last year the federal communications commission scrapped net neutrality rules. that move means companies will be able to slow down certain traffic or give preference to their own websites except right now in washington, senators are trying to overturn the fcc's move. we'll explain their plan and exactly how it could affect your

life and your wi fi speed. next. dear foremothers, your society was led by a woman, who governed thousands... commanded armies... yielded to no one. when i found you in my dna, i learned where my strength comes from. my name is courtney mckinney, and this is my ancestrydna story. now with 5 times more detail than other dna tests. order your kit at ancestrydna.com

>> trace: breaking news. the senate voting right now on whether to restore regulations that affect what you see online and how fast you see it. last year the fcc overturned rules which banned internet service providers from slowing down and blocking certain websites and speeding up their own content. the republican chairman of the fcc says restrictions were discouraging. let's bring in chad pergram. they're voting and which way do you see it going, clad? >> this vote will wrap up in ten minutes. they'll have the votes to pass this. this is a byproduct of a sharply divided senate. two have already cast their ballots in favor of this.

so far john kennedy, republican of louisiana and susan collins, republican of maine that voted yes so far on this. lisa murkowski joined them on an earlier test vote this afternoon. she's expected to vote yes as well. that puts you above the 50-vote threshold. this is what happens when you don't have a margin in the senate. the democrats say we can pluck off a couple of republicans and rebuke the trump administration on a policy they tried to alter, this is something that the obama administration put into effect a couple years ago. this really deals with the throttle. whether or not all the traffic on the internet is given the same weight. given the same speed. and they want to undo the fcc policy that basically says wait a minute. we're going to allow some traffic to go through faster, some slower. they want everything to be treated the same, trace. >> yeah, and explain that, if you can, chad. that's confusing to people.

that's the whole thing. people think -- is at&t playing favoritism with some of their shows. i mean, what is the bottom line here for the user, for the guy that is looking at his wi fi saying could they slow it down and speed it up? >> and that's where the internet service providers like at&t and comcast and verizon, the issue has been do they accelerate certain traffic, things that they want to push out there. if you just have a standard issue blog or maybe run a garden service or run a block or something, do you get the same weight as that. democrats say they want more democratic control of the internet and not picking winners and losers which is what republicans often talk about. >> our senior capitol hill producer, chad pergram. thank you, chad. we have breaking news. we just got an update on a deadly explosion that ripped through a medical office building here in california. a federal official tells the associated press the blast may have been intentional. might have come from a package.

it happened yesterday about 40 miles south of los angeles in orange county. the explosion blew out windows and tore the siding off the two-story building. the blast killed one woman and injured three others. firefighters evacuated a day care center across the street. they rolled out babies in cribs and led a line of toddlers holding hands. nobody was hurt but one dad said he felt helpless waiting to see his son. what are we learning about this, william la jeunesse? >> we found out this is intentional, not an accident. number 2, the intended victim was indeed the target of this bomb. number 3, the victim is a 40-year-old owner of a day spa, which is one of the offices inside this 14-office building. the two i'm told, the victim and is suspect, may have had prior animosity between them. law enforcement did serve three search warrants, one on a business, one on a resident, one

in long beach. police believe the victim and the suspect may be related if not just friends. two others were injured. it was a package bomb. it literally knocked this building off its foundation. the fbi and the atf did retrieve bomb components at the scene. >> the damage at the scene was extensive. it's hard to identify some of the pieces of the potential device. what we have located is items that are inconsistent with a business of that time. we sent them back to the laboratory in quantico in order to have trace evidence and other tests done right away. >> so the u.s. postal inspections service did confirm that the bomb was not delivered through the u.s. postal service. ups, fed ex hand delivered. nothing on motive, no arrests

made. they do say this is not a serial bomber. >> you hear package bomber. we hear arizona, it's not the case. william, thank you. >> new drama just days before the royal wedding. what we're learning about meghan markle's father's plans. will he or will he not walk her down the aisle? we might have some answers for you next. ( ♪ ) only tena intimates has pro-skin technology designed to quickly wick away moisture to help maintain your skin's natural balance. for a free sample call 1-877-get-tena. for a free sample and taking cared abof the boys.e zach! talk to me.

it's for the house. i got a job. it's okay. dad took care of us.

>> trace: three days out from the royal wedding and it's not clear who will walk meghan markle down the aisle. kensington palace not commenting on reports that meghan's father will miss the wedding because of health problems. there were reports today that he

had a medical performance today. jonathan hunt has more. >> pulling poor meghan into this. the wedding is in windsor. the drama is 6,000 miles away on the pacific coast of mexico. and she like most brides wants her dad to be there and walk her down the aisle. first he said yes. then he said no after a bizarre story after him staging paparazzi photos. then he said yes, he wants to be there. then he revealed he's having this heart surgery. so it's probably definitely no. we don't know. if he's having the heart surgery, trace says there's no way he's going on a plane to england. if he doesn't walk her down the aisle, her mom may be the one to do so. might be better for everybody. >> so dad is in mexico with sammy hagar. how about the rest of them?

>> there's the half sister, samantha. she's blaming the press for hounding her father. meghan sent a message not to talk. even would-be british royalty doesn't quiet an american. and then there's thomas jr., another half brother. he wrote rather charmingly an open letter to prince harry in which he told harry not to marry megan because she's shallow and conceded. britts are rolling their eyes at this. there's a lot of hope that the fab four as they're called, megan and harry, william and kate might bring some modernity here. as all things royal, my mom is in her picture perfect village in england. she told me today, we just want harry to be happy. that's all that matters. >> i think your mom is right. he looks happy to me.

>> anybody marrying meghan markle is going to be happy. she's happy. >> shepard smith will be live tomorrow in windsor leading up to the big day. he and sandra smith will have live coverage starting is a saturday at 6:00 a.m. eastern time right here on fox news channel. big dreams. ♪ we came with big appetites. with expedia, you could book a flight, hotel, car, and activity all in one place. ♪

it's abor it isn't. ence in 30,000 precision parts. it's inspected by mercedes-benz factory-trained technicians. or it isn't. it's backed by an unlimited mileage warranty, or it isn't. for those who never settle, it's either mercedes-benz certified pre-owned, or it isn't. the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event. now through may 31st. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. >> vo: they want more out of life in every way. so they're starting this year's garden with miracle-gro potting mix and plant food. together, they produce three times the harvest to enjoy...

and of course, to share. this soil is fresh from the forest and patiently aged to guarantee more of what matters... every time. three times the harvest. one powerful guarantee. miracle-gro. and an ice plant.rs with 70-megawatts, 35 mules, but we brought power to the people- redefining what that meant from one era to the next. over 90 years later we continue to build as one of the nation's largest investors in infrastructure. we don't just help power the american dream. we're part of it. this is our era. this is america's energy era. nextera energy >> trace: we have breaking news. the move to bring back net neutrality has just passed the senate. the vote was 52-47.

john mccain didn't vote because he's in arizona with health problems. the measure is less certain in the house of representatives. the president doesn't look it at all because this is a rebuke to him. net neutrality keeps internet providers with the ability to speed up and slow down the internet. old rules say yes you can do that. but now they're saying we want everybody to get equal time. the fcc decided to scrap the rules last year. telecommunications companies say they want the internet fair and affordable. the vote is 52-47. it goes for the house. if it goes to the house, it would go to the president and likely stop there. the dow is up 59. not a great day at the corner of wall and broad.

now a bad day either. shep is covering the royal wedding live from london tomorrow, friday. the wedding is saturday. neil cavuto is up right now. >> neil: you heard that. you wait and you wait a long time still. is that true? >> that is correct. as a matter of fact, the hail did a report on this just in martha v.a. had been caught sending false reports about wait times. we know veterans are waiting more. this is something the talked about fixing when he ran for office. >> neil: guess what? our vets are still waiting. sometimes longer than they had before. welcome. i'm neil cavuto, this is "your world" on top of a dramatic development. no development. no progress when it comes to the care our veterans have getting.