busy morning. more on fox news channel now. "outnumbered" begins now. >> have a good day. >> melissa: fox news alert. a lot of new reaction to the supreme court decision to uphold president trump's ban on travel from several mostly muslim countries. the court rejecting a challenge of the ban discriminates from muslim or exceeds the president's authority. he is having lunch with the republican lawmakers right now. of course we do expect some remarks from him this hour. this is "outnumbered." i'm melissa francis. here today host of "kennedy" on fox business. kennedy herself. republican strategist and senior fellow for the independent woman's voice, lisa boothe. former deputy spokesperson for the state department, fox news analyst and the host of "benson and harf." marie harf. and joining us on the couch today, conservative commentator and editor and chief of campusreform.org lawrence jones. he is "outnumbered." you picked a big day to join us. >> lawrence: thank you for

having me. >> melissa: we will get our fill, no doubt. president trump hosting republican lawmakers at the white house right now. we expect to hear reaction from him to the supreme court's decision to uphold his ban on travel from several mostly muslim countries. the president tweeting, "supreme court upholds trump travel ban. wow! the 5-4 decision finding the travel ban which affects visitors from five mostly muslim countries, plus north korea and venz does not -- venezuela does not discriminate against muslims or cede the president's authority. and the number two democrat blasting the decision. >> every dangerous person trying to come in the country and to categorically brand people because of their religion, background or the country they're from is not the way we should do things in america. >> melissa: shannon bream is live outside the supreme court with more. shannon? >> shannon: it's been a busy day. you saw the president tweeted

congratulations to himself. bit of surprise it sounded like with the word "wow!" the white house calling this a tremendous victory and adding this. in this era of worldwide terrorism and the extremist movement bent to harm civilians we must properly vet those coming in the country. this ruling is a moment of profound vindication. the supreme court saying in a 5-4 ruling the chief justice writing for majority, the conservatives siding together saying listen, based on the law and the text of the proclamation, the third travel ban order he was fully within his right as the leader of the executive branch. there was a lot of conversation whether the comments about the campaign whether muslim ban or shutting down the border should have been taken in context. the chief justice writing this. the proclamation is premised on legitimate purposes to prevent entry of nationals who

cannot be adequately vetted. the text says nothing about religion. the plaintiffs and the dissent nonetheless emphasized five of the seven nations included the proclamation have the muslim majority population. that fact alone does not support inference of hostility given that the 8% of the world's population and limited to the countries designated by congress or prior administration posing the national security risks. there were two dissents and there was something unusual that happened inside the courtroom today. both dissenters read from the pieces from the bench. this is a heated case so no surprise there. it's high unusual. justice kennedy and then we heard from sonia sotomayor in her defense so who says this. the united states of america is the nation built on the promise of the religious liberty and they embedded neutrality in the first amendment. the court decision fails to safeguard the sunday mental

principle and it leaves undisturbed a policy first advertised openly and unequivocally of a total and a cleat shutdown of the muslims entering the united states because the policy masquerades behind a facade of the national security concern. that is not it for the case. it's a win for the white house. but it goes to the lower court for the reconsideration with guidelines from the court. so there is a chance that it ends up back here. in the meantime, this has been upheld by a majority of the supreme court. travel ban 3.0. >> melissa: thank you. terrific coverage. bring it out to the couch. lawrence, start with you. what is your reaction? >> lawrence: this isn't shocking. anybody that can plainly read the constitution understands the powers that the power has as it relates to immigration. i think what the democrats tried to do during this process is paint this as being anti-muslim. the fact of the matter, the president said what he said but it was in the middle of the campaign. politicians say things all the

time. when it comes down to puten to paper, it's much different. they want this to be the standard, the supreme court would enter the muddy water because they'd criticize every politician for what they said on the campaign trail. what we also saw is that the supreme court said look, these were more than muslim countries. so if you are saying that this is just based on being a muslim, why did the other countries, why were they included? so this is a win for the president. i will advise the white house on this. this is different than what is happening at the border. the president has the authority when it relates to the people not coming to the country. once they hit the american soil the legal process is much different. >> melissa: marie, the supreme court looked at the words and the text of the law. that is the law right there. if you went and you tried to interpret what everybody was thinking in all the situations in every decision brought to them it would be difficult to do that. does it make sense to focus on

what is written? >> marie: i think people are surprised that court discounted everything he said as a candidate and he has said some of those things as a president. if you look at something is discriminatory, intent does matter. they calm down where they came down in this case. but the intent in his words does matter. this fees could have far-reaching consequences on other decisions based on what the president has said. this is a broad endorsement of the presidential power and prerogative. this has the consequences far reaching beyond the issue. there is also the question of not about the legality but whether it's an effective policy. for example, countries like saudi arabia aren't included which has had many more terrorist attacks the united states than for example venezuela. so when we look at how you prevent terrorists coming to the u.s., national security threat which is the intent of the policy, there are a lot of people in the national security world who may think it's legal but may not think it's the best policy. that is where i tend to fall down as well.

whole countries excluded isn't how you taylor a national security -- tailor national security argument. >> melissa: and saudi arabia is majority muslim. >> marie: but this undercuts the national security aspect if countries like saudi arabia isn't included. >> melissa: but they have a strong government where they can verify who is coming over. what this is established on do you have an established government where we go back and forth or a government falling apart? >> they looked at the 200 countries and multiagency review and what this came down to is the data-sharing capability of the information the countries were willing to share. if you look at the countries specifically stated the iran, state sponsor of terrorism. >> marie: they are non-muslim majority countries. >> where is iraq? >> lisa: they met the capability of the white house. the president has the authority to take the national

security into account. which is what he did. >> lawrence: that's the legal argument. >> kennedy: i want to pivot in a slightly different direction. you look at a decision like this and the influence that the court is going to have for a long time. and with neil gorsuch taking his place on the court and it looks as though the president is going to have at least one, maybe two more picks, it goes to show you that there is a lot of foment and rhetoric and possibly intent. but that doesn't meet the threshold for the confines of a legal document. i think the president's legal team knows that. the first role out was botched. no doubt about that. what the president did is he went back with his team and narrowed the confines to make it through the sort of judicial scrutiny. now we are seeing there may be something else in the works other than the president's impulsivity and love for social media.

there may be people behind the scenes in the administration and that could be the republican stand against the resistance. saying that he does mean things may not be enough to thwart his policies. that is one of the things we can glean from the decision. >> the way the proclamation is written is the way it will be executed by the white house. so it's plainly stated. >> lawrence: i said it's a slippery slope because then he would be judging all politicians. look, this president is unconventional. you can't deny that. but all these policies say a lot of crazy things on the campaign. some wouldn't be legal. but the supreme court has to go with what is on the pad. what is the law and the order he plans imple innocent? that is what he judged him by. i know hawaii judges are activist judges and they want to cater to their party but that is not the law. >> kennedy: they are angry about the outcome of the election. >> lawrence: exactly.

>> kennedy: lawrence, you and i talk about this many times and the sanctity of the constitution is the rule book we agree to play by. it seems when the constitutional aspects that are inconvenient for them, they want to chip away at it. including not just this and the power codified with the president in terms of immigration, which i may wholly disagree with. but i side with the constitution. then you have hillary clinton, we will talk about this later, harping on the electoral college. tough tea time. that is what the rule book says. we don't run bases in basketball. >> i love your side commentary, kennedy. makes me laugh. >> melissa: i love her reasons. i like her drama. in the decision they talked about the fact it seemed to be laid out could we communicate back and forth with the government of the country and check people in the background. i'm paraphrasing. they said they were satisfied they had, that the countries had the ability to get off the

list. by proving they could go back and forth to say we can vouch for who these people really are. does it not give you any comfort? >> marie: i the government made the argument and the court clearly bought it. they were looking at what countries can share information. when you lookround the world there are a lot of countries that do not meet the standard, that are not on there for the different geopolitical reasons. >> lawrence: is the argument it didn't go far enough? >> what a xenophobe, marie. >> marie: my argument is the best way to keep dangerous people coming to the country is not a blanket ban on any one country but better vetting by the united states. >> lawrence: how do we do that? >> marie: if i can finish my sentence i would tell you. lawns do more vetting but there is no system in place to do that. >> marie: intelligence committee worked well. >> lawrence: they have done so well. >> melissa: let her finish. >> marie: if you want to keep jumping in, that's fine. >> lawrence: the intelligence community has done so well. >> melissa: let her finish. >> marie: i worked in

intelligence community for six years and they work with partner country around the world to make sure dangerous people don't come here. they work with d.h.s. and created after 9/11. they work with a lot of these agencies. if they work with the partner countries as well. there are ways to individually vet people better. blanket bans on the people coming from certain countries -- >> lisa: this is not a blanket ban from people. not all countries -- it's not effective. they also said they would remove countries from the list if they complyith the standard they set. chad has been removed from the list. other countries could as well. if they take part in the day that that the united states is requesting. >> marie: there are countries that don't do that that are not on the list. >> i'm not sure it's part of the revetting process. we don't know what the vetting process is. part is it depends on the person who is interacting with whoever is trying to come in to this country. we have seen, you know, failures that a lot of people talk about.

terrorists over the borders. i don't know if that is true but i know there are so many layers of bureaucracy and you list the multitude of agencies involved but it goes to show how there could be so much miscommunication and bad actors missed. >> no one on the couch is part of t multiagency review so we don't know what standards are set. >> marie: we don't rely on any other country to come to the united states. they may give us information and share data with us but we don't rely on any other country to do our vetting of people for us. >> melissa: the argument was -- >> marie: we do it ourselves. >> melissa: the argument is we don't get reliable information from the country. we get information from saudi arabia so we are talking -- >> we also got 9/11 hijackers. >> melissa: they said after 9/11 they changed the standard with saudi arabia. that is the argument. >> marie: pakistan or iraq. countries with the government and varying level of the

functionality now i guarantee you -- you -- >> melissa: you want them added to the list? >> marie: i don't think that is how to protect our borders. picking out country saying you give us information or we don't. that is arbitrary. every visitor coming to the united states has to apply from a visa from the country, they go through vetting. multiple layers in country before they come here by the united states. not be another country. >> lawrence: we can't trust our own vetting system. >> marie: do you trust other countries more than us? >> lrence: we s many terrorists on the watch lists. how many attacks on the u.s. soil? >> marie: that is a good point. >> kennedy: how many times did the f.b.i. have to be tipped off about someone who commits an atrocity or act of mass murder for the faith in the vetting process to be eroded? i would love to see a vetting process that is better at picking out and separating people who are good who want to come here, two want to add to the economy and to our society because there are people all over the world who

want to work like hell to make their lives and our lives bett. >> marie: no american has been killed by a united states by a terrorist who came from one of the country on the ban since 9/11. >> lisa: this goes back to what they allow the countries -- >> marie: no. you talk about theerrorist attacks here -- >> lisa: what about san bernardino? >> melissa: they came in on a marriage visa. >> marie: you're talking about these type ofans. travel ban. >> lisa: supreme court upheld it. >> marie: they said it was legal. i'm say ig it's not good -- saying it's not good policy. i'm talking about what is good policy. >> melissa: so did you feel good about how it was before this or did you want other changes that would be better to the vetting process? >> marie: when it comes to the people coming from the country, there are dangerous people that live in many of the countries our vetting actually was pretty good. we can always improve it.

>> kennedy: if president obama did this, you'd be the biggest critic. >> lisa: where are the problems for intel standard that oth country provide us. >> marie: why can't we do that without -- >> lisa: what is the core problem with laying out additional standards that the countries have to meet? i simply don't understand. >> lawrence: it couldn't hurt. >> kennedy: the only thing i would say and push back on that and say there are a lot of people in a lot of parts of the world from, someone from indonesia not on the list who will slip in and seem completely normal and the neighbors saw they screwed around in their garage at night but by and large he coached a little league team. then all of a sudden they are building pipe bombs. >> lisa: there are people up the street that are not good either. you can't stop everything. >> kennedy: it goes back to i don't trust the government to separate them out. >> lisa: there are two countries that are state sponsor of terrorism or syria

that are a disaster that don't have vetting systems we have in the united states. simply don't -- the way i see this from someone like you, marie, you hate the president so you use this as an oprtunity to hit him over the head. >> marie: it's not true. it is easy argument against me. >> melissa: let her ask her question. >> marie: there are young people in iran for example who want to com the west who do not like their government and they can't travel here because we have told them they are a threat. they want to meet us and become more westernized and we said just kidding because some people in your country are bad, you can never come here. >> lisa: we have to look after the safety of the united states. >> kennedy: that is also incentive, we talked about this on the couch yesterday, make your country better. >> lawrence: right. >> kennedy: that is the thing. work hard, overthrow your leaders. make your country better. >> lawrence: there is the security of the american citizens first. >> kennedy: it's incentive for them to -- that ultimately, the rising tide would lift all boats in this

vast ocean. >> melissa: do you think we can get reliable information from a country like syria about who the people are who are applying? >> marie: i don't b we can vet them tgh intensive process. >> lawrence: it does not exist, marie. >> melissa: everybody take a breath. we are waiting to hear from the president. we expect he will talk about the big supreme court ruling upholding the travel ban and possibly immigration as well. we will bring you his remarks as soon as we get them. plus the battle for civility engulfing washiton and everywhere else. lawmakers on both sides saying enough is enough. as the democrat who called for the public harassment of the trump officials refusing to back down. >> i have not called for the harm of anybody. this president has lied again. when he is saying that i called for harm to anyone. alright, i brought in new max protein

...to give you the protein you need with less of the sugar you don't.

i'll take that. [cheers] 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. new ensure max protein. in two great flavors. and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am.

>> kennedy: this is a fox news alert. we are waiting to hear from president trump after the supreme court voted to uphold the ban on travel from several mostly muslim countries. the president is hosting republican lawmakers athe white house ahead of a planned house vote this week on

compromised immigration bill. we'll bring you remarks from the president as soon as we get them. now meantime, the president doubling down on tweets about deporting people without judges or lawyers if they are caught crossing the border illegally. watch what he said in his white house meeting with jordan's king yesterday. >> president trump: we have to change our laws. we have to make them sensible. we want a system when people come in illegally they have to go out. a nice simple system that works. mexico holds people for two hours and they are gone. we have people for four, five, six years and they never leaf. >> kennedy: white house press secretary sarah sanders defending the president from critics who say he can't just do away with due process. >> sarah: just because you don't see a judge doesn't mean you aren't receiving due process. the president would like to see us stop people illegally entering the country at all. we would like to have secure

borders. the democrats are the ones that want open borders. the president would like us to secure the borders and have a very legal and easy immigration process so people can come here the right way, not the wrong way. >> kennedy: democrats on the other hand slamming the president for the way he is handling the issue. >> wing of my ongoing concerns about president trump that he makes official statement on twitter that are official statements by the president of the united states that undermine the rule of law. he may not like immigrants coming to the country, he may view them of invaders, as he said in tweet, he can't deny them due process. the president is not a king who by pronouncement or strike of the pen can eliminate their due process rights. >> kennedy: meantime there are reports that border officials backed off zero tolerance and are back to catch and release to keep the families together. sarah sanders says that is only temporary and the policy has not changed.

okay. cut and paste. so lawrence, let's discuss this a little bit. the president says, you know, he is ruminating on twitter he wants to get rid of judges and courts and just send people back to where they came from before they stepped foot in this country. is that anti-constitutional? >> lawrence: it is. i'm a libertarian. you have to go with the constitution. i said this earlier when we compare the travel bans. this is not a travel ban but the president cracking down on immigration. once they hit the soil they have legal right. i do share the president's frustration on the issue. i went back home in dallas and people in my community are upset. i mean the black community. there are a lot of laws we don't like, like the war on drugs that democrats were supporting and we were stripped away from the families in our community. they say that there seems to be a double standard.

it seems like the democrats are fighting for latino vote right now. they are not fighting for the people that actually vote for this. this has become a political issue. the democrats know it's a political issue. that is why they shut down the government over this issue. >> kennedy: that is another wedge we didn't see coming. identity politics and the immigration combining for the perfect storm. how did democrats combat the perception? >> marie: it's interesting. trump believes this is a winner for him. immigration in general. looking at the midterms. he has gone back and forth whether he thinks congress should act to fix immigration now. the republicans in the house are trying to cobble together a compromise bill that i think has good things in it. republicans on the hill want more judges. >> lawrence: i'm not disagreeing. >> kennedy: so why don't more democrats get together and say this is what we like about the bill and vote on and come up where a bipartisan narrow bill? >> marie: in the senate, toad cruz and dianne

feinstein -- ted cruz and dianne feinstein leading an effort. the house republican caucus is operating differently. but the question is whether trump will sign something if it passes -- i don't think it will pass -- because he is saying don't do anything. wait until after the midterms when more republicans are in there. >> lawrence: he says that when he gets frustrated though. >> marie: so republicans are like wait a second. we are trying to do something but we need presidential support and he is all over the map. >> melissa: i don't think there is any doubt he'd sign something that pass. the opportunity that the democrats are missing is thousand you have a big group and you are getting close and you need to add more people on one side or the other. it would be the democrats' opportunity to say if you give us this we will give you the last votes you need. if you don't the people on far right come the in to say take away daca. >> kennedy: here you have all the house republicans need is a majority. they are having a hard time finding that. in the senate you need more than that. so you have two processes that

work so differently that it seems -- especially on immigration. somehow they found a way to do it on taxes. why can't they take that system that worked for the tax reform and apply it here? >> lisa: i have not seen any democrats interested in helping out in the house on this more moderate bill and you have to pass something in the house to get something done here. but look this is laughable for the democrats to talk about the rule of law when it's basically that illegality on the border and they don't want border enforcement. that is what the discussion has come down to for the trump administration. >> lawrence: they want open borders. >> marie: that is not true. >> lisa: to prosecute families -- parents that are coming over, even if they have children in tow for breaking the law and coming over here illegally. you even have jeh johnson, the former secretary of state, who went on this network -- >> marie: homeland security. >> lisa: homeland security. thank you, marie. he said catch and release is untenable and not something we

want to see in the united states so what is president trump to do? >> kennedy: this adds more chaos. there is a disconnect -- liz this -- >> lisa: it will mean the same fate which is why he separated families in the beginning. >> kennedy: they are also letting people go so they will realize this is the new policy and we are not prosecuted and we have much more on this issue and the president who we expect remarks from. he is meeting with the republicans right now. he is talking with them about the compromise bill and a vote in the house. we are expecting remarks on that supreme court decision. upholding his travel ban. i'm sure he will have words for us very soon. we will bring it to you as soon as we hear from the president. stay right here. your heart doesn't only belong to you. child: bye, grandpa! and if you have heart failure, entrusting your heart to entresto may help.

entresto is a heart failure medicine that helps improve your heart's ability to pump blood to the body. in the large heart failure study ever, entresto was proven superior at helping people stay alive and out of the hospital compared to a leading heart failure medicine. don't take entresto if pregnant. it can cause harm or death to an unborn baby. don't take entresto with an ace inhibitor or aliskiren, or if you've had angioedema with an ace or arb. the most serious side effects are angioedema, low blood pressure, kidney problems, or high blood potassium. ask your doctor about entresto. and help make more tomorrows possible. entresto, for heart failure.

4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... entresto, is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable.

and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now tow to learn more. >> melissa: we are awaiting remarks from the president who is meeting right now with the republican lawmakers and he

will talk a bit about the decision from the supreme court which he calls a great victory and the latest going-on with the border wall. as soon as we have the comments we will bring them to you. >> don't put this on nancy pelosi. don't put this on anybody. put it on trump. trump is the one creating lies, trying to have people believe that i talked about harming people. there is nowhere in my statement anytime, anyplace we talked about harm. >> that is democrat maxine waters saying she wasn't calling for folks to harm trump officials when she urged folks to harass members of the administration, wherever they may be. this is as the president tweeted maxine waters extraordinarily low i.q. person has become together with nancy pelosi the face of the democrat party. she has just called to harm of supporters of the make america

great again movement. be careful what you wish for max. and a republican member is trying to censure waters and ask her to resign. sarah huckabee sanders is taking the high road after she was tossed from a virginia restaurant friday night. >> sarah: we are allowed to disagree but we should be able to do so freely without fear of harm. this goes for all people regardless of politics. healthy debate on the idea and the political philosophy is important. >> marie: not just republicans are firing back at maxine waters. she is drawing rebuke from her fellow democrats including tim ryan. >> it's inappropriate for any of us to condone any political harassment. i think we have to get to higher ground here. in the country, honest. the president has not embodied civility at all.

he talk about punching people in the face and he'll pay legal bills if you get roughed up. this started under his watch and it has gotten this point. >> marie: chuck schumer in a speech on the floor condemned the idea of harassing trump officials saying an approach is un-american. watch. >> no one should call for the harassment of the political opponents. that is not right. that is not american. but the president tactics and behavior should never be emulated. it should be repudiated by organized, well-informed and the passionate advocacy. >> marie: last time at president's rally in south carolina cnn chief white house correspondent jim accosta trouted down with the trump supporters yelling "go home, jim." watch. >> president trump be here later campaigning for man who wants to be the governor of south carolina. [chanting] the crowd is fired up.

there are a couple of thousand people in this room so far. they are letting the press corps here know how they feel about what we are doing here, wolf. >> marie: melissa, i watched that last night and that reminded me of themca pain rallies when you remember the president said he would pay legal bills for people who got in fight with protesters? was a heated campaign. lawrence mentioned that the president uses different let rick than any other politician we have seen. on the flip side i don't think maxine waters is right. you shouldn't respond with the resistance. i don't think it's appropriate or effective. where do you come down on all the stuff we deal with, with the civility? >> melissa: both sides are wrong. we are seeing bad behavior all over the place. i don't like what we have done to jim acosta. having been a reporter this that position you can crank up what you are hearing in your ear and you can block it out.

he was professional but i don't think it was fair or right. maxine waters one of the first people i interned for had a tape of maxine waters, you know,, inciting this type of rhetoric. this time she was caught on tape. i don't think it was the right thing to do. this is not good and it can only lead to bad consequences. you need to use your voice to vote and do something constructive and have a conversati not this. >> marie: kennedy, a lot of people particularly democrats point to the president's language to say he said very offensive things about women and minorities and john mccain and others. how much responsibility do you think he should take to set a different tone at the top? >> kennedy: he is plain-spoken. that is how he is and his temperament. lawrence and i were watching the speech last night, the rally in south carolina and laughing out loud.

sometimes he uses it to great effect and it's funny. and sometimes he crosses the line and when he does that he should be called on it. and we do. but just because he operates in some way it does not give anyone else the license to do the same thing. harassment for one person may be shouting or protesting. another person it could be shoving someone or hurting someone or do whatever they can to silence another person. that is when it crosses the line. i do buy maxine waters her excuse saying i didn't tell anyone to hurt anybody. sometimes you don't have to. if you have a crowd and people are emboldened by the crowd and give in the mob mentality you will see bad stuff. i don't wan anything to happen to maxine waters. i don't want her surrounded by a group of people shoutal and threatening her. >> lisa: but it has crossed over to violence. there is a long list since the

president was elected and before that. you get the it shooing and the bernie sanders supporter, the attempted assassination of the republicans and the tennessee representative run off the road. the woman came up to -- >> marie: gabrielle giffords, the democrat. >> lisa: awful. 100% with you on that. you look there was a man sentenced to 15 months in prison for president to martha maccallum. there is a long list of violence that went beyond the rhetoric. that is a scary things. >> marie: both sides of the aisle. we continue to await remarks from the president on the supreme court ruling to uphold the travel ban. we'll bring them to you as soon as we get them. stay close.

>> melissa: fox news alert. new fallout over the justice department i.g. report detailing anti-trump bias from the investigators. and they have announced that rod rosenstein and f.b.i. director christopher wray will testify this thursday about that report. the f.b.i. and the d.o.j. action surrounding the 2016 election. in the meantime, nine house republicans yesterday sending a letter to rosenstein asking for the name of everyone past and present. >> melissa: who worked on the special counsel investigation in collusion with the trump campaign. lawrence, what do you think? >> lawrence: my biggest problem with this is now that we know there is dirty play in the constitution, i wish the leaders of the institutions, the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, wray, all of them would stop trying to protect the institution and be honest about what is happening in their house. it seems they are being so defensive. the fact of the matter we already know. we know. the american people, the

f.b.i. has been like this for a minute now. as it relates to the leadership. this is not the first time there has been corruption within the law enforcement on the federal level. i wish they would be more forthcoming. saying this is what we want to do to improve. but they just want to hide. >> kennedy: we know some of the other name of the agents guarded or masked in the i.g. report. it's a fair ask. who was part of the investigative team beforehand, who has been removed, who is still there now. if there is crossover between those on the hillary clinton e-mail server investigation and those who were part of the russia special counsel investigation, that is a fair ask and we deserve to know. if there are people with approvallable bias that is going to be another thing that is problematic. lawrence is right, stop hiding behind the sources and the methods for every query. that doesn't hold up every time. if you are more forthcoming

and more honest with the american public we will feel much better about trusting an institution that is necessary. >> lisa: the i.g. report raised concern of not just a bias state of mind but a willingness to take action with the peter strozk specifically. sadly, i think the only person that will get to the bottom of any of this is michael horowitz, the inspector general who is the one who unearthed text messages between peter strozk and lisa page from the beginning. he got the message, "we'll stop them" never given to congress by the f.b.i. so sadly we'll probably have to wait for his report to come out. >> melissa: let marie in here. >> marie: they found that the political bias they had didn't investigate the hillary e-mail investigation. >> that is not what he said. >> there are aspects ongoing with strozk. >> melissa: he said transition from the e-mail -- >> marie: he said there was

no evidentiary bias. i read the i.g. report. i know what it says. in the hillary e-mail investigation they couldn't find that it impacted the investigation. >> kennedy: they didn't say that. it's much more narrow. >> marie: the russian is separate. and the mueller investigation is more separate. i don't want the republicans using this information politically for the partisan reasons. let mueller finish the investigation. >> lawrence: what do you mean? it was partisan when they. we after him. >> melissa: they are ripping mark warren over to the friends that if he had secret information on the mueller probe. was the senator out of bounds? we'll debate. y right into the harbor. i'm gonna regret that. with new car replacement, if your brand new car gets totaled, liberty mutual will pay the entire value plus depreciation. liberty stands with you. liberty mutual insurance. come hok., babe. 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!

>> melissa: okay. we are awaiting comments out of the president. he is right now meeting with republican lawmakers. we know he will talk about the supreme court decision. also the latest on the wall and all of the legislation going on with immigration as well. we'll bring it to you the second it happens. >> lisa: as we await that, president trump is ripping senator mark warner the top democrat on the senate intelligence committee for joking at a weekend retreat of the democrat donors. that he and robert mueller have damaging information that could create rocky few months for the trump administration. the president in response tweeting, "why is senator mark warner perhaps in a near

drunken state claiming he has information that only he and bob mueller the leader of the 13 angry democrats on a witch hunt knows? isn't this highly illegal? is it being investigated?" senator warner telling politico, "it was a bad joke. you know how seriously i take the investigation." kennedy, i'll start with you. do you buy senator mark warner he was just joking on this? >> kennedy: i wasn't there. but from the sounds of it and t came out of his mouth he was probably half in the bag and trying to make a funny joke. but these are really serious times and serious issues. george papadopoulos started this by getting drunk in a bar and being like oh, my god, we have hillary e-mails. burp! so if warner is doing the same thing he has to be mindful. the sitting senator. this is not some young neophyte trying to get in the

proximity of power. he is the ranking member of the committee. he has a responsibility to lock it up. >> lisa: so that point, he is part of gang of eight. they are trying to portray themselves as the only committee above board in the investigation along with senator burr. >> marie: they have been working well together. >> lisa: this this undermine that? >> marie: no. is a stupid joke at a party. >> lisa: shouldn't he know better? >> marie: sure but it's a joke. the republicans on committee have been complimentary of him. he made a dumb joke at a party. >> lawrence: i have to put back. what is it with the democrats with the leadership investigations joking about the investigations. >> marie: trump jokes about it more than anyone. he is the president. >> lawrence: he is not charge of the investigation. democrat members part of the f.b.i., department of justice now ranking member in the senate joking about an investigation. american people are supposed to say it's okay. >> marie: it's a joke.

>> lawrence: if the average american going through any type of criminal probe and they find out people responsible for it are joking at a bar, why are you talking about it at a bar? >> marie: he is not responsible for the criminal probe. >> lawrence: he is aanking member. >> lisa: lawrence, does this give fodder to president trump's tweet and the accusation this is a witch hunt? >> lawrence: i'm not saying its a witch hunt but every time they do this -- >> marie: this is a stupid joke. >> lawrence: about an ongoing intelligence investigation. >> melissa: this reminds me of when folks on the other side said lock her up, lock her up all the time. we talk about that in break we'd go that is not really going to what. this feels like the same sort of thing where it's the democrats get gleeful there will be some conclusion to that that impeaches the president and i don't think it will what. >> marie: it's a joke he made offhand at a party. >> melissa: that is why it was funny to him.

we're going to get him. >> kennedy: it goes to show you that people are always listening. >> marie: sure. >> kennedy: we are always listening to you. in fact, we have more "outnumbered" in a moment. stay right here. people would stare. psoriasis does that. it was tough getting out there on stage. i wanted to be clear. i wanted it to last. so i kept on fighting. i found something that worked. and keeps on working. now? they see me. see me.

see if cosentyx could make a difference for you- cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. never give up. see me. see me. clear skin can last. don't hold back... ...ask your dermatologist if cosentyx can help you find clear skin that lasts. with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you.

dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com

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. yes because thank you so much to lawrence john who have to catch a day with his liberty. >> i hope you know that i love marie. we just debate hard. >> we were talking about basketball during the break.

because there you have it. it's it was a lovely when you're here and thank you so much for making "outnumbered" a part of your day. we are back on couch tomorrow at noon eastern. here is the one and only melissa francis. >> melissa: a landmark supreme court decision today upholding president trump's travel ban. this is "outnumbered" over time. i'm melissa francis in for harris faulkner. the high court in a 5-4 decision ruling that the president does have the authority under the law to regulate immigration in the interest of national security. several mostly muslim countries is discriminatory. president trump releasing a statement saying in part that the ruling is "a moment of profound vindication of the following months of commentary from the media and democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country." but democrats on capitol hill immediately blasting