>> maybe. might tease it. turn in to fox news channel for that. was it hard to jump back in? >> some of us worked the holiday. >> we'll see you back here tomorrow. "outnumbered" starts right now. >> fox news alert. president trump to announce his supreme court nominee. we're told he's finished interviewing potential candidates. speculation is growing over who he's going to pick. this is "outnumbered" and i'm melissa francis. here, republican strategist, lisa booth. former director of strategic communications for hillary clinton, adrienne elrod. and former national security analyst, morgan ortega. joining me on the couch, my co-anchor, david asman. >> they can't keep us apart. they try but we drag ourselves back in.

>> and congratulations, melissa. this is your first day on job. >> yes. >> we wooed her away from fbn. >> i'm not leaving david. >> see you at 4:00. >> yeah. all right. moving on. president trump is expected to announce his nominee for supreme court on monday. a source tells fox news that he's completed the interview process. he spoke with six judges. we're told raymond kethledge is rising to the top. a lot of talk about brett kavanaugh as a topic and we're told that some conservative groups are trying to stop him because of a 2011 ruling which they claimed help legalize obamacare. democrats are not happy with any of the nominees including senator ben cardin from maryland. >> what the american people need to be concerned about, we're talking about changing the balance on the supreme court that will affect their rights.

a women's right of choice, consumer rights, worker rights. we need an independent supreme court that will protect your rights. we're talking about a supreme court that will not follow precedent, that have an agenda. a list prepared for the president comes from a group that has an agenda. that's what's at stake here. it's more than one issue. it's the whole direction of the court to follow what the president wants rather than what the american people need. >> john roberts is live at the white house with more. john? >> melissa, good afternoon to you. congratulations from here at the white house. that's terrific. the president we're told has completed the formal interview process. he spoke with six judges as you mentioned. still a lot of phone calls that have to be made as the president wraps up his selection process. he's got four more days to do it. it's probably likely that he will make the decision sometime in the next couple or three days. in terms of whether or not we're

going to hear anything before monday night, the president does have a penchant to tweet about things. he wants to roll this one out. we may have to wait till monday night for him to do that. as to who the frontrunners are, we believe after reading the tea leaves and using our dividing rod and talking to sources, brett kavanaugh of the d.c. circuit court of appeals is the frontrunner at this point. some conservatives are trying to take him out because of his 2011 opinion on obamacare where he wrote that the court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the case on its merits. at the supreme court, john roberts upheld the individual mandate for obamacare. the white house will have to admit a defense to him. watch for the white house to say the obamacare ruling adhered to the constitution.

kavanaugh is 53 years old. he could be a force on the supreme court for many years to come. running a close second or could even be a jump ball is raymond kethledge. his stock is said to have been rising. he's an appellate judge. he's a bush 43 appointee. 51 years old and a graduate from the university of michigan. unlike many supreme court justices, he did not attend harvard or yale. conservative groups are happy with him. his judicial record is not as comprehensive as kavanaugh's is. when you're on the d.c. circuit, you deal with fundamental things. judge amy barrett is in the running but she could be seen as the one to overturn roe v. wade. nominating here likely with democrats like heidi heitkamp and joe manchin could be in a

box. like if you're a democratic senator running in the state the president won, how do you say no to a woman being appoint on the supreme court? it would only be the second time a republican president has appointed a woman. the last time was ronald reagan, who was a moderate republican. so the president looking for a more conservative justice. the tip could tip his hand in montana tonight. if he doesn't say anything before, we could expect an announcement 9:00 p.m. monday. melissa? >> thanks, john. let's go to the couch. when senator cardin was talking about the agenda that the group has, is it fair to characterize what the right wants as supremes aren't elected, they can't make law? isn't it that simple? >> that's a part of it. he talks about -- ben cardin

talks about how america doesn't want what the president wants. they wouldn't have voted for the president if they didn't want what he wants in the supreme court. the supreme court played a big part in the president's election. specifically the problem with kavanaugh, to focus on the list, is that there are a lot of -- a growing number of conservatives that really don't like it. think he's too much a part of the beltway. he was born just outside of bethesda, maryland. grew up in that environment. too much to say he's part of the swamp. he has conservative issues that he's voted on. you already have ted cruz saying he's not going to vote for him. the president with a 50/50 split, the president can't afford to lose many republican senators. if ted cruz is against him -- >> what is his beef with him? >> he thinks he's the kind of swing vote that kennedy was.

>> not reliable. >> he's not been as straight-line conservative as somebody like antonin scalia, which is what ted cruz uses as his model. >> but similarly, the president also has to worry about the female republican senators that probably want someone more in that model, more moderate. at this point he can't count on many democrat votes unless he gets the red state democrats that want to vote for the supreme court justice because they're up for election. a lot of factions to control. but either way, the president will get his pick through. this is the whole ball of wax. >> let me say one thing about that. that brings up a great point. people say well, the president doesn't know much about the supreme court. he's not picking these guys. it's outside groups doing it. it's going to come down to the president deciding who this pick is. so even though outsiders like they always do provide a list for whoever is president, the president has got to pick the right choice. as you pointed out, a lot of

issues. damned if you do, damned if you don't here. >> who is the most palatable in your mind? >> a good question. there's a lot to be seen and known about these picks. the point that you made about the list here, the president did take the unprecedented step of listing the nominees before he was president. that was formed by the federal society and these other conservative groups. but to the point you just made, we're looking at heidi heitkamp, tester, some of these conservative democrats that are up for re-election and also looking at susan collins and lisa murkowski. murkowski said she is pro choice but she does not believe that any sort of precedent should be overturned by the supreme court justice. >> you mentioned the list that

president trump put together. you look at exit polling. 21% listed the supreme court as a number 1 issue. those individuals broke for president trump heavily during the campaign. that was really smart thing for him to do. look, president trump does have a difficult past ahead here. as morgan pointed out, some republicans are on the fence regarding the roe v. wade issue, ted cruz concerned over kavanaugh. the path is dicey. we're talking about being in the midst of campaign season. the mid-term elections are on the horizon. so that heats things up as well. >> this is a motivator in terms of they're trying to find things to get the republican base out to vote in a mid-term election, which is historically bad. when a president less than two years in office has the chance to appoint two supreme court justices based off of the exit polling, that is a huge motivator for people to vote.

>> can i mention a long shot? thomas hardiman. he was from the court of appeals in pennsylvania. really attractive judge in the gorsuch mode. again, that's the thing. president has gorsuch behind him. he's turned out to be a really significant force. he's written some terrific decisions that some democrats happen to like. so if with that behind him, with that as a model for the president, somebody like thomas hardiman might be the right pick. >> it's important to -- it's not necessarily about the individual rulings. what we're looking for, someone that sees on the right, they're looking for people that have a very strict interpretation, not trying to create law. on the left they feel the constitution is a living breathing thing and you change it overtop. just so you understand the difference. secretary of state pompeo on his way to north korea to meet with kim jong-un again. this as it seems the north is

not beginning the process of scrapping its nuke program. whether the third time is a charm and what the u.s. can do to bend the north to our will. the president's planned summit with vladimir putin. several republican senators travelling to moscow for high level meetings and bringing a warning. whether putin will heed it. >> if you want this relationship to improve, you need to demonstrate to us that our elections are off limits for your interference.

no matter who rides point, there are over 10,000 allstate agents riding sweep. call one today. are you in good hands? but she's got work to do.pain. so she took aleve this morning. if she'd taken another pain reliever, she'd be stopping for more pills by now. only aleve has the strength to stop tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. tylenol can't do that. get all day minor arthritis pain relief with an easy open cap. ...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.

>> welcome back. secretary of state mike pompeo heading to north korea today to follow up on commitments made between president trump and kim jong-un at the singapore summit last month. this marks the third time the secretary has met with kim and talks to denuclearize the peninsula. meanwhile, there's reports that some experts in the u.s. intelligence community doubt that north korea is truly committed to denuclearization. former adviser to vice president cheney and congressional candidate lieutenant colonel michael waltz saying he doesn't trust the north koreans and neither does the administration. the stakes for the next meeting are very high. take a listen. >> i don't think the second the north korean missile engineers

have stopped working towards a full program. that's why the message has to be clear that it will mean your destruction and we he take military action. he needs to walk away from this meeting with a concrete timeline. verification and an inspection regime. >> i'm going to start with you. secretary mattis said he's not seen any steps from kim jong-un and north korea and the process of denuclearization. have you seen any positive signs that they're willing to denuclearize? >> not yet. but when secretary mattis made that point, he did say nor did he think there was sufficient time for the steps. so it's been about three weeks since the summit. there's been leaked reports to the media that the u.s. is aware of a secret facility where they may be continuing to refuel potentially. so i think this is really a game-changing moment for secretary pompeo. this is where we will see if the north koreans have any intent n intentioniintentio

intentions of following up. they clearly hope to get out of sanctions and we have not started that. so it's really important for the secretary to get full disclosure from the north koreans. they need to come to the table and say here's the weapons we have, here's the facilities and here's the facilities that are secret that we've lied about. full disclosure. sort of that, i don't think we should release any sanctions and michael is right, that we should keep up the pressure. >> david, you think we'll see any of that from this meeting with secretary pompeo? >> sure. but it's important to keep historical perspective. some of the president's critics on north korea have less. i'm older than all of you. i can prove it. but the fact is i can remember when ronald reagan was doing his dance with gorbachev. it took a long time.

it's so many years later. people think it happened overnight. it took months and months. this was one meeting between the president and the north korean leader that by the way i wouldn't trust as far i could throw him. i couldn't throw him that far. >> he's a big guy. >> a big guy. >> he's healthy. >> the other thing that mike pompeo and john bolton are the complete opposite of naive on the question of north korea. >> great point. >> they're hard-nosed guys. they know how north korea is capable and has violated every agreement that they have signed before. they're not go to be snookered her. >> and we talked about sanctions. kim jong-un is going to china. they want ease on the sanctions. where are we there? >> a great point. i always say, when you look what's going on with the sanctions, they've been tremendously tough on north korea and china as well. i still maintain that so much of what is going on with this trade war has to do with putting

pressure on china about north korea. the more they're economically strangled, both countries, the more they'll cooperate. it's not let up at all. there's a set of new sanctions on the president's desk when he decides that north korea is not cooperating. >> i do think that there's been some public evidence that the chinese and the russians are maybe backing away from implementing the sanctions, the chinese allowing the smugglers to come through. we're in sort of a period where we're testing it out. >> i meant our pressure on china. no -- i hear what you're saying. yeah, they aren't always helping us as much as they act like they are. >> adrienne, what are you hoping to see from this meeting with mike pompeo? >> i think we all are hoping democrats and republicans that there will eventually be full denuclearization. this is why former presidents have been concerned to meet with kim jong-un and his father. this is why people like bill

richardson were sent to have the meetings instead of the president. because you cannot trust will come out of north korea. right? so for president trump to stand in front of the united states and the north korean flag and declare victory was too early. >> but you have faith in his team? like at mike pompeo and mattis. do you have faith in the team? >> i do have faith in his national security team. mattis and mike pompeo, they share the same goals that the majority of americans share. we don't want the north korean threat. >> by the way, that's the right attitude from democrats. so many democrats -- i'm going to quote "the new york times," nicholas kristov. he said democrats are more interested in undermining trump than supporting the peace process. >> but a lot of democrats have come forward with the right view of expressing caution.

right? trump did jump into this. and this is -- there's a reason why past presidents haven't gotten anything done. >> we're going to solve world peace today. >> it's over. >> so president trump is scheduled to meet with russian president vladimir putin july 16 in finland. jon huntsman confirming today the two men will have a one-on-one. ahead of that meeting, republican lawmakers were in moscow to you talking to russian foreign minister sergey lavrov. the group of seven including richard shelby who said the meeting was arranged to improve the "strained relationship" between the u.s. and russia before the trump putin summit. john thune and jerry moran said ending the election meddling is crucial to better relations. >> if they want to demonstrate

to america that they want a different relationship moving forward. obviously staying out of the 2018 election would be a big step in that direction. >> our big message to the russians were, we believe you meddled in our elections and don't do so in 2018 and 2020. if you want this relationship to improve, you need to demonstrate to us that our elections are off limits for your interference. >> so melissa, you always have the best takes on these. do you think it mattered that there were no democrat senators on the trip? it struck some people as a little odd. >> it would have been better to have both parties in the picture. when i think about the last sentence there, that have to demonstrate by not meddling, that will never happen. it's at the top of russia's playbook. we have to be vocal about it, on guard about it. the idea that it's not going to happen again is just nonsense. >> nor are we ever going to get

if truth out of somebody like lavrov or putin. lavrov said they had anything to do with the trouble in the ukraine. like they had nothing to do with the plane going down. they are such liars. in the case of putin, accomplices in murder. to take their word for it, nevertheless, you have to deal with them. it's a nuclear nation. you have to deal with it somehow. you have to start with the premise that practically everything coming out of their mouth is a lie. >> so adrienne, as a democrat, i'm curious what you think about no democrat senators being on the trip. to the larger point, should president trump be meeting with president putin? >> there should have been a bipartisan trip especially with russia. what i'm seeing here, the republican senators that are interviewed that went on the trip did what president trump will not do, which is saying we're going into this meeting say nothing more interference.

it's a shame that our president hasn't done this. you're seeing republican senators -- >> so they're focused on words. it's about what is he standing up and saying versus what is the outcome and what is he doing. i think the difference is that when president trump sits across the table from a leader and the reason why it's important for himself to go to kim jong-un and him himself to go to putin, you look in his eyes and you know he's not joking. they have to look in his eyes and know it's not an empty threat. we've been making empty threats for at least eight years and more. >> and let's talk about the actions. it's fiction that president trump has not been tough on russian. you look at the energy exports, the -- go through the list. >> syria where we attacked rush troops on the ground. >> there's a reason why there's

friction there right now. president trump is arguably been very tough on russia in his actions. >> i would say there's plenty of republicans in the senate that would be critical, lisa. this is -- i think republicans in the senate will give the president leverage on things like north korea, on afghanistan and syria and getting that right. i think the republican senators will continue to hold this administration's feet to the fire on russia. >> do you not think he's been tough on russian? >> publicly he needs to be tougher. >> but in his actions. >> listen, we're still letting russia get away with a ton in syria. >> we could a couple hundred troops on the ground in syria. that is dramatic. a lot of people were concerned that we were at war with russia in terms of the troops in syria. >> the russians and the iranians control syria. to be critical of president obama, the reason -- i was there in 2010. i lived in saudi arabia. i watched russia come in because

of a weak president. president trump inherited a mess -- >> so what does he need to do in terms of action? >> the summit presents an amazing opportunity for him to show that he can be tough on him one-on-one. at the same time he has to deal with tough issues that he inherited including cleaning up syria. there's ways that we have to find ways to agree, which is i think why the -- >> you and your twin sister. experts in the middle east. >> yeah. >> lots of opinions. we have to go to commercial. so an big stop by the president's attorney h. and plus, an attorney for embattled anti-trump official peter strzok says he may refuse to comply. detail and debate coming up.

>> we have reason to believe this is not a search for truth.

>> there's reportedly still no decision yet on whether president trump will agree to sit-down interviews with robert mueller in the russia probe. the president's attorney, rudy guliani, telling cbs news yesterday there's nothing to announce. this is despite a self-imposed deadline on the decision now passing. guliani telling the "washington post" last month, i'd like to get it done by july 4th. around that time guliani was pressed on why a decision was still pending and in terms of what the president's team would agree to. watch. >> why are you dragging it out? don't you know what you want to do now? >> yeah. sure. i don't want to do it. >> are you trying to change the president's mind? >> the president wants to do it.

we have to sort through it. we owe him a presentation of something to the special counsel may or may not offer, which gets to the point here. we're in rather sensitive negotiations with him. >> meantime, bloomberg reports that mueller is tapping additional prosecutors at the justice department and fbi agents and current and former u.s. officials say that's a sign that he may be laying the ground work to eventually hand-off parts of the expanding investigation. trey gowdy blasted rod rosenstein over the seemingly endless scope of the probe. watch. >> if you have evidence of wrong doing by any member of the trump campaign, present it to the damn grand jury. if you have evidence that this president acted inappropriately, present it to the american people. whatever you got. finish it the hell up. >> stephen, what do you think of the report that they may be

adding more prosecutors and fbi agents? >> to gowdy's point, i wonder if the report is true, who signed off on giving these in group of prosecutors. rod rosenstein. rod rosenstein has to sign off on it. so it gets to gowdy's point that rod rosenstein ask not doing due diligence in trying to steamline this investigation. americans want it over. that is clear. that americans want it over as soon as possible. it's one of the things that is dividing this country so much. instead of wrapping it up, it looks like he's expanding it. it's just going in the wrong direction. >> the same report, they mention the fact that they're facing -- the higher volume of court challenges to mueller and his team than expected. that's why they're looking at more prosecutors. but also important to point out about rod rosenstein, he laid out the case for firing james comey and appointed special counsel and looking at potential obstruction of justice. >> conflict of interest.

>> after the i.g. report, that issue is taken off the table. look at james comey who is just scrutinized in the i.g. report, failed to do his job, and james comey's memos said that president trump came to him and investigate the rest of his team. the obstruction of justice case there is weak. >> adrienne? >> i disagree with that. there's a lot that we need to find out. going back to the mueller investigation, we've got to let this play out. whitewater took a long time. people can argue that that took way too long. >> a lot of democrats did. >> a lot of democrats did including myself even though i was in high school at the time. this investigation has to play out. whereas in americans want this to be over, many americans want to make sure that our elections are not interfered by russians again. >> maybe i'm interpreting this wrongly.

i took it at in this report that mueller is starting to hand-off parts of the investigation that are not related to collusion or obstruction. so perhaps by bringing more people on and sticking it to the career rank and file people at fbi and doj, it's more money laundering related charges. when it comes -- >> that's a step in the right direction. >> there's no charges of collusion. so he suing -- >> that's one interpretation -- >> and axios is saying that it is expanding, not contracting. >> get clarity from adrienne. you said the obstruction of justice case what is the case? >> part of the case why did he fire james comey. >> because everyone under the sun said he should be fired. >> including rod rosenstein. >> nobody believes that donald trump fired james comey because of the way he handled the investigation. secondly, if he wanted to fire comey, he should have done it

the day after he became president of the united states. >> there was so much evidence that comey had been doing a terrible job. democrats and republicans, one thing that this country agreed on. >> correct. correct. >> that he should be -- >> it was a bipartisan agreement. >> do you think that hillary was elected she would have fired him? >> i don't know the answer to that but no one believes that james comey -- or that donald trump fired james comey because of the way he handled hillary's e-mail -- >> because of the fact that he got this pressure from a lot of people at justice and fbi. go ahead. >> may the house lawmakers search for answers on apparent anti-trump bias at the fbi. now peter strzok reportedly may refuse to comply with the house subpoena. so what should lawmaker dos if strzok doesn't testify? we'll debate.

(door bell rings) it's open! hey. this is amazing. with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, are you okay? even when i was there, i never knew when my symptoms would keep us apart. so i talked to my doctor about humira. i learned humira can help get, and keep uc under control when other medications haven't worked well enough.

and it helps people achieve control that lasts. so you can experience few or no symptoms. humira can lower your ability to fight infections, including tuberculosis. serious, sometimes fatal infections and cancers, including lymphoma, have happened; as have blood, liver, and nervous system problems, serious allergic reactions, and new or worsening heart failure. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you've been to areas where certain fungal infections are common, and if you've had tb, hepatitis b, are prone to infections, or have flu-like symptoms or sores. don't start humira if you have an infection. be there for you, and them. ask your gastroenterologist about humira. with humira, control is possible.

>> welcome back. the house judiciary and oversight committees have issued a subpoena to fbi agent peter strzok. they want him to testify publicly next week. something he said he wanted to do. strzok sat down with lawmakers last week behind closed doors. that following showing his text messages. strzok was a key part of the investigation into trump's campaign. now there's questions over whether strzok will answer the subpoena. his later said this. >> my client will testify publicly soon some where, some time. we just got this subpoena today. so i don't know whether or not we're going to be toughing next

tuesday in front of these two particular house subcommittees. we have come to the conclusion, forced to the conclusion that this is not a search for truth. it's a chance for republican members of the house to preen and posture before their most radical conspiracy-minded constituents. from our experience with the committee thus far is obvious that they don't want the truth. >> last week house oversight committee member mark meadows spoke on what exactly the committees do hope to learn from strzok. >> there's a growing body of evidence that while the i.g. may have been hacked with peter strzok's bias not affecting the hillary clinton outcome, i don't know that you can make the same conclusion on the russia investigation. what we're finding is the text messages were indicative of other decisions that were made or not made throughout the

initiation of the russia investigation. >> david what do you make of his attorney's comments that this is just republicans wanting to posture? >> he went further. he said these are radical -- it's not a radical idea that u.s. justice should be free of political bias. it's a cornerstone of our justice system. it's not a radical idea to believe that the fbi shouldn't be used to pursue that political bias and there's ed that it was through peter strzok and perhaps others. this has to be investigated. the questioning of mr. strzok under oath is important. i wonder why pete, as his lawyer calls him, why pete is still on the payroll. >> i want him to come out in public. i want to see the way he answers the questions. >> me too. >> i feel like it's one thing to read the testimony but when you look at how somebody thinks about something before they say it, gives you insight. it's amazing. he volunteered to testify.

he acted like he was dying to do it. now no. >> about that, him and his attorneys are calling for the transcripts to be released. if his interest is transparency, why not testify in open committee? >> first of all, he should testify. no question. but at the same time, the republicans should release the testimony from his closed door testimony -- >> why not -- >> both should happen. we need transparency. republicans should release it. >> there's no institution or organization in the u.s. government that is above scrutiny and above reproach. this is why you have congressional oversight so the american people can have faith in our institution. that's why there's congressional oversight. we saw after 9-11, all of the scrutiny that congress gave to cia, the fbi, the intelligence community because of all the signs that were missed. in this moment in time, there's a large population of the american people that lack faith in the fbi at the moment. there's so many wonderful men and women at the fbi that i

appreciate. at the moment, a lot of people don't have faith in that institution. this is why we need congressional oversight so we truth the people not being political -- >> oversight is another cornerstone that we talk about. >> the i.g. report said peter strzok indicate add biassed mind but willingness to take action. will we get to the bottom of that? >> it takes time. to the point we made earlier, it has to be wrapped up quickly. if he's obstructing the pursuit of getting to the bottom of this, we have to force him to testify in public. there's ways that the fbi could have been used to put his political bias, which we saw in the texts, to use. one of those was he was instrumental in the startup of the russia investigation. to mueller's credit. mueller kicked him off of his own team once the texts were discovered. he was instrumental in starting the process. >> it's more than that. he put pen to paper and started

the russia investigation. >> we'll be talking about this more, i guarantee that. but not the next segment. neck segment, harvard law professor alan dershowitz and james wood are not feeling the love lately as people close to them are shunning them and it's all over president trump and politics. whether that is fair or holds more than a hint of hypocrisy. we'll debate it. it has protein plus vitamins and minerals to help kids be their best. carnation breakfast essentials.

your hair is so soft! did you use head and shoulders two in one? i did mom. wanna try it? yes. it intensely moisturizes your hair and scalp and keeps you flake free. manolo? look at my soft hair. i should be in the shot now too. try head and shoulders two in one.

>> now no love this summer for alan dershowitz from some people on martha's vineyard. dershowitz, a fox news contributor, wrote an op-ed saying friends are snubbing him for his legal argument against impeaching the president. check out this headline. "the martha vineyard's crowd strikes back against dershowitz." and he said he was opposed to a special counsel for hillary clinton's campaign and i'm against it for trump. i'm a neutral libertarian when it comes to the constitution. that's not good enough for my old friends on martha's

vineyard. he said what i said about the constitution might help trump so they're shunning me. one prominent lawyer sent this e-mail to dershowitz in their inner circle. you defended and gave cover to this present who relentlessly disrupts and causing damage to our political system, our courts, our standing in the world and the environment and more. in all of that, you're complicit. this comes as james woods revealed and e-mail from his agent reading, it's the fourth of july and i'm feeling patriot tick. i don't want to represent you anymore. i don't want to rant. woods say if you're feeling patriot tick -- patriotic. melissa, you know hollywood

extremely well. you worked there as a kid. i never would expect anything. but dershowitz is interesting. he's a liberal that defends the constitution, defends people no matter what their political indication. he defended hillary and defended donald trump. but that's not good enough for his liberal friends. >> it's sad. a lot of us are finding out who our real friends are. people make suppositions. he's defending the law the way he always has. the lack of tolerance is -- has been mind boggling to me. but it's just -- it's amazing. i don't know when it was okay before to out and shun and vilify people for having a different political point of view. i mean, how recently have we been in this spot? i thought we got over this. >> let me say for the records, if alan dershowitz is looking

for someone to grab a beer with, i would love to. it would be fascinating conversation. if he's looking for a new friend. but there's a lot of reasonable americans that look at this stuff going on and people showing up at the door step of secretary nielsen's house, elaine chao's house and trying to intimidate them and look at it in disgust. we're seeing this pop up in campaign ads. i don't know if you see the rnc ads with madonna, kathy griffin and -- it's damning. >> i grew up in d.c. and washington. i'm part of the swamp. >> you're part of the swamp. >> but i escaped the swamp and i'm still taking baths to get rid of the stuff. >> it's new york city. >> the fact is that new york city has -- is more than just politics. the arts, business, et cetera. washington is a political town. that's why i wanted to get out.

now it seems like washington is everywhere. you can't escape it. i have friends in new york that are liberal democrats. we never talk about politics but we have other things to talk about. now you can avoid it. >> there's many families that couldn't spend holiday dinners together because of the dividing views on politics. what is crazy here, why did this story run about alan dershowitz and his social life on the a-1 of "the new york times"? >> a lot of stuff going on in america that should be taking up that real estate space instead. >> sure. but it feels like we have gotten to a place that we can't disagree and still break bread together. i don't know how we've gotten to this. >> or can't be nonpolitical. we just celebrated july fourth. one of the best things about america, you didn't have to be political. you could go through life without talking politics.

now you can't avoid it. >> and dan rather tweeted lebron going to california was part of the resistance and going to california. i tweeted to dan rather and said that it has to be exhausting for everything to be about trump. and i'm a big republican and we spend almost every day together in new york. so those relationships can be had. they can be cultivated. we should all take it upon ourselves to get together with people we disagree with. >> i got shunned by two ladies at the dog park for being a conservative. >> what? were they -- >> they stopped being nice to me. >> but your dog is so cute. >> i know. >> at least be nice to the dog. >> i say it all the time, we get together here and we may talk loudly at each other and we can always leave and go have lunch

together. i'm not sure that's the same in a lot of parts of america right now. we have to get back to that place. more "outnumbered" in just a moment. no matter who rides point, there are over 10,000 allstate agents riding sweep. call one today. are you in good hands?

...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. >> a warm thank you to david asman, always so kind. >> you can see melissa and me at 4:00 on fox business, you can also see lou dobbs tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. on

fox business. >> we are back tomorrow, melissa francis is in for harris, stay tuned in the 1:00 hour. >> melissa: any moment, president trump will be leaving the white house and heading to montana where he has a rally tonight, reportedly expected to finalize his choice for the supreme court by today or tomorrow. our source tells fox news he is done with the interview process after speaking with six judges. welcome to "outnumbered overtime," i melissa francis in today for harris faulkner. president trump heads to montan montana, we may hear more of his supreme court nominee. he is going to announce his pick on monday, likely in prime time. our source tells fox news he completed the interview process after speaking with six different people. earlier we heard from republican senators, one of the lawmaker who is going to play a role in confirming the president's nominee. he previewed what pr