afloat long enough to compete in the short colors, although some teams very cleverly designed outweighed their seaworthiness. look at that. >> rick: i think i could compete there, i'm pretty handy. >> melissa: we will see. he was "outnumbered" ." >> fox news alert, new reaction from president trump for the latest of elements rounding special counsel robert muller's russia probe. the president says he has the right to pardon himself, that he done nothing wrong. this after his attorney said in several interviews the president might have the authority to pardon himself. but that would be unwise politically for him to do so. this is "outnumbered." i'm sandra smith. and here today, harris faulkner. town hall editor and fox news contributor katie pavlich. postf kennedy on fox business, kennedy. and joining us today on the couch, fox news contributor, david webb is here and he is "outnumbered" ." and in some sparkly fleshly cufflinks.

>> david: reagan cufflinks, i love them. >> david: they were made, she designed them for the president, says you have a date with destiny and aside from the official cufflinks which i also have, these are my other favorites. i have supreme court cufflinks which i know is something we are covering today. you would to think. i can't compete with charles payne on his cufflink but i like mine. >> harris: no one can. >> sandra: let's get to the ws come a of new reaction to developments rounding special counsel robert mueller's russia probe. the president's legal team grow back in january to his team. it says the president cannot possibly commit obstruction of justice because he has unfettered legal authority over all federal investigations. and then he has the broad authority to pardon himself. president trump's a lawyer rudy giuliani who has not yet joined his legal team when the letter was written was asked about

that. because he has no intention of pardoning himself but not to say he can't. would be an open question. it would probably get answered by that's what the constitution says and if you want to change it, change it. i think the political implications ohat would be tough. president trump has no need to do that. the idea is, you can't interfere with him either from the point of view of indictment or questioning. you can't interfere with the president's time. >> sandra: former u.s. attorney weighing in on all of this as well. >> i think it would be outrageous for a sitting president of the united states. the president decided that he was going pardon himself, that's almost self-executing impeachment. if >> sandra: this morning, president trump's tweeting as has been stated by numerous legal scholars, i have the absolute right to pardon myself. but why would i do that when i have done nothing wrong? in the meantime, the never ending witch hunt led by 13 very

angry and conflicted democrats and others continues into the midterms. kevin corke is live at the white house following all of this and more for us. good morning, good afternoon to me tell you, thareally quite ad talking about the letter that you just mentioned. the president's attorneys made clear their perspective. he could not only in the russia probe entirely, he could pardon hi ifesired so say the president's lawyers. my colleague john roberts actually got a hold of this a little while ago and he obtained this missive which frankly is lelly pretty csive and some would argue strategically bellicose, page after page laying out the parameters for a possible discussion with mueller in the future that is should his legal team allow it. let me take you back to twitter. the appointment of the special counsel is totally unconstitutional. despite that, we have played the game because i unlike the democrats have done nothing

wrong. the ferocity of the pushback by the president and his attorneys really undergirds the argument that bringing rudy giulian onto th team and eect represented it a real term to an aggressive posture and speaking of the mayor, he was asked if the president's claim about pardoning himself was legit. re's what he said. >> almost impractical. if he's the president of the united states. pardoning himself would just be unthinkable and it would lead to probably immediate impment. the house and senate would be under tremendousssure. a president trump hasto do that. he's done nothing wrong. it's been a president himself has been very cooperative but he makes clear everything will day through his considerable social media platform where he tells america instantly and simultaneously, everybody here is the information at the same time, how he feels about this investigation. >> it is indeed clear how he feels about it. meanwhile one of the president's

biggest critics, adam schiff writes this. the president's legal arguments would render whole sections of the constitutional mood and allow the president to engage in any form of criminality and obstruct an investigation into his own wrongdoing. dy is above the law, not as president, not any resident. very interesting. pundits obviously disagree about whether or not this would be politically expedient or even why should the president do it but legal scholars would certainly argue it is up for debate. very interesting indeed. back to you. if >> sandra: kevin corke at the white house, thank you. just past the noon hour and the quon ian the president pa himself? >> david: the fact is under the powers of the constitution, be a legal issue?off it would it yes. i think we're looking to close at this. let's pull back and look at what is the defining -- developing legal strategy when rudy giuliani was added to the team,

the broader strategy is to be more aggressive to set the american people up with a narrative and to have that contention with mueller. i think we are going where way close. it makes no sense if y actually read it because it doesn't do what he says in the first part, doesn't render portions of the constitution mood, but it actually shows that the president's strategies work because the democrats are being pinned into a corner. how did they counter this legally? >> kennedy: i don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind certainly when they were crafting the federalist papers at the president would have some f absolute authority to absolve himself almost completely. and i think that's why there is legal disagreement here. everybody knows that this would be horrible for business. the president knows it. rudy giuliani has said it, corey lewandowski has said it. so whether or not there people who work for the president were close to the president and big supporters and that's why again, you have the difference between

what if, so what if the president pardons himself is very different than what is happening right now, the president just pardon himself and there are many who despise the president who are acting as though he has already pardon himself which makes this thing a look the long game.d you have to if the short game and these questions are all the massive distraction to keep you from either talking about something in the future or did not talk about why the president is saying this. >> david: this is part of a strategy. i agree with you. >> kennedy: they fall for it every time. >> kennedy: operating as thoughe president. >> harris: i'm just going to bring up quick point because it seems like leaks. we talk about a leak at least once a week. how are these things leaking? >> david: deliberately. >> harris: what is the retribution? former president barack obama went after leakers and in fact, that administration was very

well known for its prosecution. i see you nodding. it got pretty serious. where is this administration on this? these are leaks. >> katie: if the leak is coming from the white house legal team president's legal team, than they can be prosecuting their own legal tea te what we saw was leaked was a series of defenses from the white house legal team against the mueller probe is very similar to what we saw last month when they released the questions that robert mueller was supposedly going to ask the president. if you read through the memo, it is very obvious that as a full throated defense of the president of my getting it out ere, making the case of the president doesn't necessarily have to sit down with robert mueller because his legal team has already answered all the questions. they go case-by-case, subject by subject. talk about all the memos they've turned over, all the documentation, millions of pages that they've turned over the making the case that all the information is there. >> harris: maybe it wasn't. but i don't know the genesis of

the week. i see you smiling. >> sandra: it may not have been them that based on the defense that is being put forward, i think that it is beneficial to the administration rather than hurtful. if >> kenned whenever you see something like that, it's rare that anything comes out that cast them in a positive light so i absolutely agree with katie there and also, they are making their case. they are laying the legal groundwork for really narrowing the parameters for a sit down because what everyone is focusing on it. it would be best if they sat down. be when i bring this up because it seems like no matter what, this is how we learn about things and is a double-edged sword. >> david: it is a double-edged sword but that's what i say go back and look at an overall strategy. all of us are really talking about a strategy here being put out by the administration. the other issue that's not brought up, i look for what's missing is when you look at the

charges that can be brought against the president, nothing's been sad. if they were criminal charges, that would be different when it comes to pardon powers. >> katie: i thent pardon himself before crime was even charged but the fac that thme and the narrative now is talking about the president pardoning himself when we haven't even seen charges or an indictment for robert mueller is getting ahead of it. >> sandra: he change that with that tweet come immediately to transition to calling it a witch hunt led by 13 very angry and conflicted democrats and more. the supreme court sided with the colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a couple but stopping short of the decision on the broader issue of whether businesses can refuse to serve gay and lesbian couples. more on the impact of today's ruling. hi, i'm joan lunden with a place for mom,

the nation's largest senior-living referral service. for the past five years, i've spoken with hundreds of families and visited senior-care communities around the country. and i've got to tell you, today's senior-living communities are better than ever. these days, there are amazing amenities, like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, blrsand bistros, even pet-care se. and nobody understands your options like the advisers at a place for mom. these are local, expert advisers that will partner with you to find the perfect place and determine the right level of care, whether that's just a helping hand or full-time memory care. best of all, it's a free service. there is never any cost to you. senior living has never been better, and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. call today. a place for mom -- you know your family, we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice.

>> har a fox news alert, the supreme court has sided with the colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple but the narrow ruling is leaving some big constitutional questions open. a senior political correspondent mike emanuel ise at the u.s. supreme court. mike? >> good afternoon. at the high court essentially deciding that an organization within the state of colorado,

this baker's home state treated him unfairl the opinion saying "when the nsiders thist did notn do so with the religious requires.y that the constitution i spoke with an attorney who argued this case on behalf of that colorado baker and as you t imagine, he sounded thrilled. decision protecting jackh the phillips rights and religious les of this country founded upon. justice kennedyas held that tolerance is a two-way street and jack phillips was not tolerated by the civil rights commission of colorado. >> what is striking in this particular case as it was a 5-4 decision. seven justicesed in favor. kennedy, thomas. theegal director for the human rights campaign says she is disappointed but she is not shocked. stick with the court actually reaffirmed the dignity of same-sex couples and reaffirmed that lgbtq people should not be

denied services as they go about their daily lives. the decision really so narrow as to apply only to this particular baker. because both sides are saying this is not the end of the erall fight but a very happy day for a christian baker from colorado and his supporters. >> harris: thank you very much. as we come out to the couch on this, this is such an explosive issue and people were looking for religious liberti to be dealt with in all of this but it is so narrow that that's not where it's going. >> i like what the court said about toleran that there has to be tolerance on both sides of this issue because there hasn't been to. essentially, what this case is was a set up for the supreme court. if you had one part of the case, the rights of the owners of the masterpiece cake shop, they have rights based on their christian beliefs not to participate. not to not sell them a cake. if they can do that.

they're willing to do that but not to participate fully in this wedding. that is important, but the bigger set up is do we have to o do this and then the narrative comes out, do the rights of the gay couple override the rights of the christian couple? and i think americans come down on you, both get rights and call it aple solution, go to another cake shop. >> harris: 's of the courts came down to this on art and freedom of expression which is not a template or precedent for freedom of religion. >> katie: there's a few things that they addressed in the opinion. justice kennedy discussed how this was not just an issue of the first amendment or antidiscrimination laws which is where this comes down to but also an issue of how the colorado commissioners handled the case of religion. if you look at the details of the opinion, the commissioners were very hostile towards the argument that religious beliefs the reason why this baker didn't want to get involved with this par wedding cake. he told us couple he would bake their birthday cakes and any

other cake that they wanted, just could not participate in the marriage part of it to his religious beliefs. so if you look at the way the commissioners handled it, comparing his religious beliefs to the holocaust and things like that, the court argued that there are discrimination cases here and issues, but you cannot be overly hostile to religion while you determhow you handle i. >> harris: soha lambda legal was on twitter ahort time ago and said we are gng to see years of needless litigation by those seeking to evade responsibility for discriminating against members of our community. their next tweet, the court today has turned in -- turned its back on long-standing precedent and goes on to hashtag lgbtq and hiv. they are mixing things. what you make of this? >> kennedy: i think they were looking for a more broad decision than they got. and it's interesting because

katie and david are right, these are very specific and narrow parameters of the supreme court decided on and that's why you saw only two justices disse libertarians have very much been curious about this case and individuals and businesses to make their own decisions without the government imposing its will and forcing certain people to serve others. if it doesn't come down necessarily as a violation of the civil rights act, but when you take it from an area of expression and the counterargument was what if you had a jewish baker and a couple that one of the sh baker to bake a cake for them? and the jewish baker didn't want to do that, with this law also protect the jewish baker? >> harris: with that, and is a little bit different. i will get too much into the weeds here. as katie pointed out, it's not

that the baker said i wouldn't bake a it was that it was a wedding cake. with the example that you gave, they are just oppositional in every way. >> sandra: after five years, the supreme court ruled 7-2 on this and that this wasn't a more narrow decided. justice kennedy wrote the reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. and again, they were the only dissents in that. >> david: i'm not surprised. i think people try to read too much into the decision and not enough into the 7-2. the fact is that on the constitution back to the point of respecting both sets of rights, that was what was being ignored in in the public a narrative or by lambda legalor others. the ones who filed the lawsuits, you don't see christians filing a lawsuit saying you came and asked me to pick a wedding cake

for your gay wedding. you see the civil rights commission, the different groups getting involved and filing lawsuits. it's a form of legal terrorism in some ways to continue to push an agenda rather than a solutio solution. i'm going to go to your point. i want the people to resolve it, more libertarian approach under the constitution rather than frankly spending all this time in litigation. >> kennedy: and through the free market and not the court. >> david: go to another baker in less you have a case. they searched for this baker and in a number of cases, we have seen this where they look for the baker who is going to object they can have a case against the courts. >> harris: we will move on. reports of potentially big new developments in nuclear north korea after president trump announced his plans summit with the nation's dictator bac o what all this could mean for the trump-kim sit down and how the president is handling the run-up

to the election or the events i should say. plus, a very positive jobs report and rising wages. the growing economy is great news. hoping to unseat incumbent republicans in september and they're going to need an economic message which apparently they haven't come up with. stay tuned. hear that sizzle? yeah. red lobster's lobster & shrimp summerfest is back! get all the lobster and shrimp you crave, together in so many new ways. there's new cedar plank seafood bake. tender maine lobster and shrimp, cedar roasted to perfection. or new caribbean lobster and shrimp. sweet pineapple salsa on grilled rock lobster, paired with jumbo coconut shrimp. and wait. there's lobster & shrimp overboard! it's a seafood party on a plate. so hurry in. 'cause lobster & shrimp summerfest won't last.

- [voiceover] this is an urgent message from the international fellowship of christians and jews. there is an emergency food crisis for elderly holocaust survivors in the former soviet union. - this is a fight against time. at we're dealingwith is com, meeting someone who's 85, 90 years old, can't get around, has no food, has no water, and just wants to give up and die. and that's where we come in. we are called to comfort these people, to be a blessing to their lives. - [voiceover] for just $45, we'll rush an emergency survival package to help one desperate elderly person for a month. call right now. - [eckstein] call the number on your screen.

- in ukraine, there's no supper network. they don't have food cards or neighbors that come in to help. they're turning to us because they have nowhere else to turn. - [voiceover] your gift is a life line to help these elderly jewish holocaust survivors, help them to live out their final years with dignity and love. call right now. - [eckstein] call the number on your screen. - what i pray is that you won't turn your eyes, but you will look at their suffering and your heart will be changed. - [voiceover] with your gift of just $45, we can rush an emergency survival package to help one desperate elderly person for a month. call right now. - [eckstein] call the number on your screen.

it's just a burst pipe, i could fix (laugh) no. with claim rateguard your rates won't go up just beacuase of a claim. i totally could've... (wife) nope! switching to allstate is worth it. >> katie: potential new development in the run-up to a plan st between president trump a north korean dictator kim jong un. the north is really removing the nation's top three military officials from their posts. an analyst telling writers as could be an attempt by kim jong un to tighten control over his army and a critical time. defense secretary james mattis in the united states will

continue taking a hard-line stance on dealing with the rogue regime. >> we will continue to implement all u.n. security council resolutions on north korea. north korea will receive it when only when it demonstrates a verifiable and irreversible steps for denuclearization. they can anticipate at best a bumpy road to negotiation. >> katie: former house speaker newt gingrich echoing those concerns. >> until they actually walk in the room that day, don't assume it will happen. i can imagine that breakfast that morning, the whole thing blowing up. >> katie: meanwhile, national economic director touting president trump's progress on the issue. because a key point is that we are sitting down. and the second key point is that the president has been bolder on this in korea and on world trade than any other recent president and everybody says we can't do it, we can't do it, president

says hang on, we may be able to do it. >> katie: so we are fresh off of president trump's meeting with north korean officials. he has a letter in his possession, seeing movement on the senate, would you make of everything that's happening? >> david: it's all going in the right direction and there are a series of steps that have been laid out in a strategy to deal with north korea. when using all the instruments of power that we have across the board, keeping them on the table, that's an important part of it. we shouldn't underestimate or at least underreport the removal of these three officials. you're talking about is 68, 77, and 81-year-old from the old regime, it's a transition. it appears to be a tight e control, and i think it's important as we move forward that we realize the leverage game the president has been playing with china. with a breccia, with all these matters because think about it. if north korea actually goes full on nuclear, south korea has already indicated they will go

nuclear. japan will go nuclear and china will have nuclear neighbors and instability on a greater level than they willf they have in 20 years or reunified peninsula in the river between them. >> har interesting. also this just happened. in some key senate democrats are sent a letter to the president laying out the terms that any deal with north korea must include, some of the mirror what we've already seen, that we know the president is seeking and that is at a very clear ride definition of nuclear was asian also making it permanent. but they enumerate those things and what caught my eye about this letter which is a couple of pages long and perhaps people like senator menendez and other on here who signed off is that we look forward to working alongside you as this goes forward. and they named the june 12 in their very first sentence, the june 12 summit so there isn't a whole lot of daylight between republicans and democrats on whether or not this will happen.

>> katie: the president has not talked about this in a sense of the administration doing it. he talked about bringing congress and it seems like these democrats are willing to work with him. >> kennedy: they have to because of becomintabl it is interesting because you are seeing that there is more political unity in this country certainly than there was at the beginning of the process with democrats realizing that we have to support the president in order to bring about peace on the korean peninsula. what is vastly different is how things are being received in north korea. the military is not wild about denuclearization. the military is not wild about giving up their control which is total control. it is military control, state control over everyone in noh korea. so kim jong un is worried about a coup. >> harris: it's where they've chosen as a government and the military to spend their money. they're going to haveo be accountable to those hardworking people at the president called

out. hardworking people of north korea. >> kennedy: there are also going to get a taste of freedom and if that if you was a cute. >> katie: they are hardworking people because they're in labor camps. what about the economic sanctions part of this? the campaign has a lot to do with that. >> sandra: and will continue to until this takes place and the word that couldn't he just uses an interesting one because newt gingrich also went on to make the point this could fall through all the way up until the morning before this meeting takes place. >> harris: and likely will. >> david: could be a walk away. it could be anything. but i would also say to the republicans, do not trust the democrats on this one. if they have no position, but to go along with their position in this letter because it is not in the benefit of them to give them the president success. to be i would say the president is trying to equivocate a few in north and south korea, and i don't think that was more than just wear their spirits were in

terms of their hard work in their ability to go forward. >> sandra: i think there's a big difference between the way the south koreans are able to move forward. >> kennedy: right now, no. >> leject quickly ontion. the information, something we have been doing since last year. we've been putting the internet into north korea. the black market is functional with this. if telling you something that's going on. i went over this in a briefing a long time ago. we are giving the people at least some more information as an active black market, that's how some people escaped. so is not going to affect everybody but little by little, information is key in helping north korea understand what's coming. >> harris: with the president to was kind of showcasing or at least pointing to is the fact that kim jong un and others have wanted a unification. that may not be what comes out of this summit or further meetings or anything else. it may not totally be the goal anymore.

>> kennedy: you do have to lay the foundation from that and we saw that historic meeting between the leaders of the two koreas, you realize that on both sides, they were family members inrmixed that they have not been able to see for decades. there's a deep love and connection there and that is something that is also critically important to making forward.s peace process goes if i were a north korean looking at my family members and south korea when they've got a pop at mcdonald's in sephora. >> katie: we have talked about the military exercises here, the worry read from china by the u.s. military influence on the korean peninsula, also talking about completely different forms of government and economic societies. north korea is communist, south korea is more of an open market capitalist society to their also having to look at that and kim jong un is paying i

don't necessarily know if i won a free market system in north korea, and china certainly doesn't because the communists. >> david: democracy is not there yet. >> katie: you don't have to be democratic to have a capitalist. space is a lot of state control economy and culture. >> david: here is what's important, we are not talking about regime change and what does he want by most indications? he wants to stay in power. in his own stability. so the trump administration has kept regime change off the table deliberately. >> harris: he hasn't kept it off the table, the president has promised security and protection from kim jong un and sandra and i were just going back and forth, that's just not simply keeping your name and title in the family and in the house if you will come it's also staying alive. as a country that has people. >> sandra: how big of a victory if and when this happens is this for the administration? >> david: i don't know if you can define that off the meeting. give to see this play out when

you're looking at a decade-long structure including proper denuclearization which has to include mass destruction such as chemical, biolo high-impact weapons. they are talking about a very longrocess. it enumerates everything. it would be interesting if they could work together. >> david: interesting but i don't trust them. >> kennedy: if this is one area, this is it. >> sandra: we will continue to watch. meanwhile, bill clinton and the me too movement the new reaction when confronted about his role in the monica lewinsky scandal and why he feels he has paid a steep price and haspologized enough. the interview getting a lot of reaction today. >> i do. i never talk to her. but i did say publicly on more than one case that i was sorry. high protein

to help get us moving. and help you feel more strength & energy in just 2 weeks. i'll take that. ensure high protein, with 16 grams of protein and 4 grams of sugar. ensure® with 16 grams of protein andcome hok., babe.r. nasty nighttime heartburn? try new alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only fast, powerful heartburn relief plus melatonin so you can fall asleep quickly. ♪ oh, what a relief it is!

captured tning in be. over 260 years later as the nation's leader in energy storage we're ensuring americans have the energy they need, whenever they need it nextera energy.

>> sandra: bill clinton says the me too movement is long overdue. in an interview up on the today show, clinton saying he has apologized enough over this case and that he has no plans to directly ahe former white house intern for forgiveness. watch. >> i felt terrible then and i came to grips with that. baby did you ever apologize? >> yes. nobody believes that i got out of that for free. i left the white house $16 million in debt. i had not talked to her. i never talked to her, but i did say publicly on more than one occasion that i was sorry.

>> sandra: earlier this year, monica lewinsky penned an essay in "vanity fair" taking responsibly for her part in the scandal but pointed out that bill clinton used his power to his advantage saying "i'm beginning to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a white house intern. i'm beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance, the idea of consent might well be rendered moot. he was my boss. he was the most powerful man on the planet. he was 27 years my senior year with enough life experience to know better. he was at the time them at the pinnacle of his career while i was in my first job out of college. none of the above excuses me for my responsibility for what's happened. powerful note by her. >> harris: makes me think of the women who were collecting dresses but were they telling her those things? >> kennedy: where was the mentorship and advice they are? where was someone who grabbing her by the shoulders as a friend

saying snap out of it? like a scene from airplane, it's really sad because of her life, she became a punch line. she was completely railroaded and there was no one on the left talking about that incredible power differential. and now when kristen gillibrand says looking at that in this modern context that he should have resigned, that was an abuse of power on every level, political power, emotional power. >> harris: is in a special category with as any of talk about that on the show. >> kennedy: that's why he's so defensive. she brought it up with a way with an unkind lens looking bac back. >> sandra: downright combative at moments as well. >> katie: left said need to look at this and deal with this in a certain way. the left is feminist defended

him at the time. including hillary clinton who was about to be this woman who is about all women and until the me too movement actually started, they justified every single thing that bill clinton did beyond monica lewinsky including ans of sexual assault to push his progressive polic in the name of what they say are feminist causes. so where are the feminist now defending her? they destroyed her life, destroyed her credibility for years. it's been very difficult forever for her to be able to do her own thing because everyone always says it's the monica lewinsky scandal. with the bill clinton scandal. he took advantage of her in the oval office and her most vulnerable stay because he was the president of the united states of america and yet feminists did not consider that sexual harassment. the definition. if >> harris: one of the reasons i put her in a different category is because she's within the party that generally generates this type of thing that you're describing in terms of that let's go everybody who

is wronging women. >> david: you have to go to the hypocrisy of being a progressive which i think you use the correct term. i've always said they're willing to sacrifice their own for their agenda. they will sacrifice monica lewinsky and nina hill, think of all the women that have come along that have been ponds in this political chess game under the guise of feminism. what have they really done on the left to advance, i really advance for women? legislatively, spend the republican party in this country, women's right to vote, look who actually does the job. women's job approval numbers. >> harris: why do you think that is? >> david: is the mind-set of a progressive. sacrifice for the agenda where his honest people will look and say what is the truth here? your point about this is the monica lewinsky scandal, it is not. it is the bill clinton scandal. >> katie: i know we had a lot of scandals so it's hard to keep track of them.

but she is not the one who could've handled the situation, bill clinton could have handled the situation. >>: could you imagine if you took responsibility with his words the way that she has? a long time for him to play the victim. >> harris: it is because she felt like she was on the outskirts and vilified. and she talks about her participation in this as a scandal, not like trying to find credibility. space is what makes me so upset is and he hates being wrapped up in the same conversation as bill cosby and harvey weinstein. he feels like he is better than and separate from. >> sandra: is interesting that you say that because you go back to his words when he was asked if he would've done everything differently in the era of the me too movement and he said i don't think it would be an issue. >> david: that is the hubris that comes with the clintons.

they have sought power and they know how to wield power. >> sandra: he would've approached the accusation differently if he were president in 2018 but everything is going with me too. >> katie: that would be admitting he did something wron wrong. >> kennedy: because a dress would've been on instagram? >> sandra: firing back at google after they list is a mess part of the ideology of the california republican party. the lt fallout and whether congress should take action. we will debate. >> google has an obligation to have some system of testing things like this and be able to do it within a couple of hours and they do run a risk, if, in fact, this is used as an engine, left wing propaganda.

you totanobody's hurt, new car. but there will still be pain. it comes when your insurance company says they'll only pay three-quarters of what it takes to replace it.

what are you supposed to do? drive three-quarters of a car? now if you had liberty mutual new car replacement™, you'd get your whole car back. i guess they don't want you driving around on three wheels. smart. with liberty mutual new car replacement™ we'll replace the full value of your car. liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance. only marshall tuck will change that. year after year, policians fail to improve public schools. tuck turned around failing schools, raising graduation rates 60%. marshall tuck for state superintendent. marshall tuck.

to california schoolsd, need big change. marshall tuck is the only candidate for state superintendent who's done it before. less bureaucracy, more classroom funding. marshall tuck for state superintendent. marshall tuck. >> sandra: more "outnumbered" and just a moment but first, touch base with harris on what's coming up in just a few moments. >> harris: a busy hour, a supreme court ruling in the colorado same case, but it still leaves some very key legal questions wide open. a former federal prosecutor breaks it down with me. and it's as close as we get to a super tuesday. in a nonpresidential election

year tomorrow, eight states holding primaries with a lot of eyes on california where quirky electoral rules could really hurt demrats chancesf taking back up to ten seats. the head of the california g. joins me in with whatt means for the midterms. that and more atop the hour when we go over time. back to you. >> kennedy: republicans outraged after google lists is him as part of the ideology of the califoiacan party just days before the states primary. the ever showed up in google's knowledge panel which pulls information from various sources from across the web. a spokesperson for the company telling fox news "this was not the result of any manual change by anyone at google. we don't bias our search results towards any political party. sometimes people vandalize public integration sources like wikipedia which can impact the information that appears in the search. california republican

congressman devin nunes fighting back. because there is a bias against conservatives and republicans all across this country. these companies, facebook, google, apple, et cetera, are they monopolies? and should they be rned in? i would hope we don't have to go there. i would hope that they don't get involved in politics and don't censor conservatives and republicans but if they continue to do it, then we have t move obviously to hearings on these issues. >> kennedy: slowed down, captain antitrust. kevin mccarthy also had this to say. because this is disgusting. at the one i know is is a bias has got to stop. if it continues along the way, this might want to see more transparency. let's get all the facts and let's put a clear aim of the direction that we think is right for the american public. >> kennedy: what do you do? do you frog march every tech ceo before congress like mark zuckerberg and make them explain to some of our golden

elected americans how technology really works? >> david: first of all, please don't waste another 11 hours o testimony oes nowre like we did with zuckerberg. a lot of people on my show get mad at me for this. i say they have a right to do what they want, just be open and honest about it. he or something. i went to wikipedia so that others when they said this. frankly from everything i have looked and found, they lied. wikipedia didn't mention as and when it came to republicans. their excuse, people can edit wikipedia so they can look at other sources. whatever they are doing whether it's an individual group or whatever, they have a right to do it if they want, be open and honest about it. the free market will decide on this because if people keep pulling away, i gave my mother a tablet as a gift. it has google chrome on it. and she said screw this, not in those words. but it points to what people are doing. they're saying you know what?

>> sandra: what if it wasn't pointed out? it originally popped up and then pe started chasing and kevin mccarthy, he ultimately called for a solution. i'm not sure what that is. >> kennedy: government solutions always scare me tech companies in a matter what they do, it's going to be ham-handed and i don't necessarily think that calling these companies monopolies. >> david: that was a veiled political stretch on that one and i like you, devon, but let's stay within. it >> katie: the fight is against conservatives is obvious whether it's an tech in hollywood, and that is something that we know. i do know someone running as governor and california, he does not believe in nazism in the least so whoever did this, however this phrase got put into the platform of the republican party in their beliefs, it is

typical, it is predictable, it is something the left accuses republicans of all of the time and i think people are sick of it because they view it without any kind of bases are backing on a regular basis. >> kennedy: and if you know how the state of california works political leak, there's a great deal of authoritarianism on the left. >> sandra: it seems like they should've put some more thought into it. this huge immense responsibility ctrol orttempt to control what people see, they reference is their statement as vandalism and they have systems in place to catch vandalism they said before it impacts search results but occasionally, evers gets through. >> david: the timing was fascinating. >> sandra: there is all this about does social media actually affect people's votes? and when they go to their ballot box, what are they actually do? to they pull the lever differently? and i can't imagine too many

people who will say i guess i'm not going to vote for john cox now. >> kennedy: more "outnum in just a moment, stay right here. george woke up in pain.

but he has plans today. hey dad. so he took aleve. if he'd taken tylenol, he'd be stopping for more pills right now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong.

>> sandra: thanks to david. any final words? >> well, i can't be here tomorrow. i wish you'd have me back so i want everyone to remember june 6. the longest day. very important day in world history. two days away. >> sandra: all right. good to know. hopefully we get sunshine on

that day. >> that would be nice. that would be nice. >> kennedy, you have been in rare form. last word? >> give you a tip. never pet a burni dog >> sandra: here is harris. >> harris: fox news alert. presidt trump reaing to a leaked memo that appears to outline some of his legal team's plan in the russia investigation. this is "outnumbered overtime." i'm harris faulkner. fox news has obtained that letter that the president's legal team sent to robert mulroy in january outlining the reasons -- robert mueller in january outlining the reason he should not sit down with an interview with mueller and they say it should answer questions the special counsel may have and they contend the president cannot obstruct justice because they have unfettered authority over all federal investigations. not just this president, all presidents they say. itrg