big i'll see you tonight, 7:00 p.m. great to be here, great to see you. it's because we've got to roll, see you tomorrow. >> harris: fox news alert, president trump may have already made his decision. we are waiting his primetime announcement of his supreme court nominee to replace retiring just as anthony kenned kennedy. lawmakers are already engaged in a showdown over looming nomination fight. in the decision that will potentially shape the high court for decades. this is "outnumbered." i'm harris faulkner. here today, another slice of summer, melissa francis. republican strategist and senior fellow for the independent women's voice, lisa boothe also bringing some plum summer. most of kennedy on the fox business network and always great to see, kennedy. joining us for the first time in the center seat, senior fellow

at the national review institute, former assistant district attorney for the southern district of new york and a fox news contributor, andrew mccarthy. he says we can call him andy. we will call him "outnumbered" for now. great to see you. >> andrew: great to be here. >> melissa: it is a great day to have you here. >> lisa: i'm so excited to be on the couch today. >> melissa: i'm going to keep my pretty in pink references and check. >> harris: will move on but we are coming back fast. sources are telling fox news that president trump as of last night had not given any indication to his advisors that he had made a final decision on his u.s. supreme court nominee. but the president said he may arrive at his final choice during this hour, noon our eastern for those of you were counting. the four contenders said to be under consideration are there on your screen now, appeals court judges amy coney barrett, brett

kavanaugh, raymond kethledge, and thomas hardeman. democrats are ramping up their opposition to the potential choices the weather even made. here is senator richard blumenthal singh the president is making his selection from a group of flawed candidates. >> i've never seen a president of the united states in effect to make himself a puppet of outside groups and choose from a group of right wing fringe ideologue. >> harris: senator lindsey graham says they will live in no matter who the president choose chooses. >> republicans are holding for lottery tickets and all of them are winners. every republican should embrace these picks. >> harris: chief white house correspondent john roberts live for us outside the white house. what you looking at their? >> i keep on looking at the west

wing entrance to see if the marines suddenly gets posted which means the president is not yet in the oval office which means that whatever ruminating he is doing at the last minute here in the closing hours on the supreme court picked, he is likely doing from the residents but we are expecting a tweet at any moment now for the president yesterday when he was departing morristown new jersey for washington, d.c., said that he would likely make his decision by noon today. here's -- i can imagine that the president is amused at watching all of the speculation about this this morning. indulge me while i amuse him a little bit more. the president tweeting this morning "i have long heard that the most important decision a u.s. president can make is a selection of a supreme court justice. it will be announced tonight at 9:00 p.m. in recent days, a new front runner has emerged in the person of thomas hardiman of the third circuit court of appeals. he was a bush appointee, drove a taxi, that you see him second from the left, drove a taxi to

work his way through georgetown law school, he is a colleague from the third circuit court of appeals with president trump's sister, marianne trump. he was a finalist last year for this glia vacancies so president knows a lot about him and made it to some degree feel that it's his turn. we will see. on the far left, you see brett kavanaugh from the d.c. court of appeals. he's always been considered to be the strongest horse and as race, 300 opinions to his credit. however, mitch mcconnell saying that when you have a record that big in that big of a paper trail, confirmation may get dragged out as democrats control through all of those opinions. they've only got 83 days before the beginning of october in the beginning of the neck supreme court term to get him confirmed. also on the list, raymond kethledge said to be a fairly safe choice, could probably be easily confirmed, writes his opinions in a very scholarly and colorful way and then you see amy coney barrett from the seventh circuit court of

appeals. she really kind of is i'm told the president's favorite, but she is the one who would likely face the most bruising confirmation battle and the one thing that president doesn't want to do with conservative balance over the court hanging in the balance here is not get his pick for the supreme court confirmed. leaving morristown yesterday, the president said whomever he picks his base will be happy with, listen here. >> i'm getting very close to making a final decision. and i believe this person will do a great job, but i'm very close to making a decision. have not made it official yet obviously. have not made a final bullet say it's for people, they're excellent, everyone you can't go wrong. >> because it will cement a conservative majority for years to come, there's going to be a lot of democratic opposition to this. to some people have said it could cement conservative court for a generation but when you look at judge clarence thomas, he's in his early 70s, it's likely he could say a decade but

probably not a generation. at any rate, there's going to be an awful lot of democratic opposition to this but the white house believes that it's got at least three democratic senators in a box and it would be joe manchin, joe donnelly, and heidi heitkamp. they are up for reelection and states that the president won handily. how could they turn down his nominee, but they do need to have democrats because with john mccain not voting, there were only 50 republicans and so they need to get a couple of people on the democratic side. don't know who the president is going to pick, you've got my phone number, you can call me. if not, we will see. >> harris: do people realize how much i love working with you? i have to remind them every now and then. that whole marine spin thing and bring us into the fold, john roberts, you're just hip. speak of the president is on at the oval yet. to be given us something to watch for now. so the democrats are against this pick. we don't quite know who it is

yet, but we've narrowed it down to the four according to john roberts reporting via the president. how much should they be against a pick before it's happened because might there be one of them that they could get behind? >> andrew: no. the opposition to the pick is political and no matter who the pick will be, they will be a fight over it. one is concerned they have a bigger paper trail than the other, different critiques that they make of each individual one, it's going to be a brawl no matter he picks. i think a big part of the process will be how the person performs in the tested. >> harris: was interesting in this whole thing is we heard john touch on it for just a second but let's dwell on it now. this is it for the president and until a new congress comes along. so if he doesn't get who he wants at this point, that battle

that you're describing is going to just get tougher. conceivably. >> lisa: i think republicans will keep the senate but of course you got that deadline looming looking ahead in november, so the going to want to move forward with the confirmation before then just in case matter what happens. you also have to look at politically who has pressure being applied to them. is not someone like blumenthal. he's in a state of connecticut, that's not even an issue. you have to look at the red state democrats who ultimately voted for neil gorsuch getting the political pressure. i know that pro-abortion groups are trying to put pressure on them but they're not up for reelection right now either and i think ultimately they're going to end up voting for whoever the nominee is much like they did with neil gorsuch because i think whoever president trump chooses is not going to engage in hypothetical questions just like neil gorsuch did. think what we are going to see is the same dynamics play out that we saw with neil gorsuch and he will get his nominee confirmed. >> harris: so you've got one of two women who were the original 25 candidates, people saying that she's not out, the

president according to john roberts really likes her but she would have a difficult time and again you've got one shot at this before new congres congress. >> kennedy: you also have a president who goes very much on his intuition and how he feels talking to someone and getting to know them. that's why we have. >> harris: how do you think the president has done on that? >> kennedy: look at vice president pence. there were other people in the running for the vice presidency when he had locked up the nomination but was that he had the closest connection with. mitt romney although he would've been a great secretary of state, he and the president never really gelled personally. the president has endorsed him. >> harris: he had some pretty incendiary things to say about the president. >> kennedy: was interesting is to have this dynamic cure of dick durbin saying is much more important for democrats and close races in red states were trumped won come about with this

democratic caucus and really throw yourselves on the altar of sacrifice. so he's telling joe manchin, joe donnelly, heidi heitkamp that it doesn't matter, if you're in close races, it doesn't matter if you have a political future. that's how important this is. speech he was interesting to me, and i don't think this is lost in the american public. it's not about are you pro-life or pro-choice, how do you feel about this issue or that issue, it's do you think that a judge should be doing magic tricks with the constitution to make it say something it doesn't? 's and that what it's really supposed to be about? >> andrew: that's exactly right and what's really lost is what terrific craftsmen of the law these four finalists are. it really shouldn't matter. they're all very much committed to what ought to be conservative principles for interpreting the constitution. >> kennedy: we heard a lot

about that after the death of justice scalia. >> andrew: if he could rank them, probably amy coney barrett of the top and we don't know enough about thomas hardiman to my mind but as to the other three, whoever said you can throw a dart and end up with a great judge, i think that's true. and i think the court will be the better for it because you have to consider not only the fact that we are dealing with people who are philosophically and that of mind, the replacement is of justice kennedy who was a swinging justice on the court. >> melissa: is at important? >> andrew: i think it's very important. >> kennedy: obviously for every president, biggest concern is if you appoint someone to the supreme court thinking that they are of one mind philosophically and they completely shift like stevens or even kennedy to some degree, what's more important of an insurance policy, having some with a long list of opinions

behind them or someone who is fairly fresh? >> andrew: that's a great question and i disagree with senator mcconnell to that extent. i think you want to have somebody who has thought about things and written about things. and the worst thing that we can have taking a leap like this because you're quite right, this is the only chance that we will get. >> harris: we have that information on david souter, didn't we? >> lisa: we also know that whoever present a trump is going to have a barrage of questions and criticism. we've seen democrats get out there when we don't know who the nominee is. he should pick whatever he wants to pick because ultimately they're going to face the same criticism regardless of who it is of the most important thing is picking someone who can deal with that line of questioning the way that neil gorsuch did because part of his benefit was he was so likable and facing those questions. i think that's what's important as well as having someone who is not going to implode their line of questioning. >> harris: now you've given us

a fresh way to see it and that is that you see you can throw a dart and hit just about anyone who would be good for the court and i take that to mean good for the court is replacing a conservative vote the kind of was the deciding vote in sometimes, that's different than good for the court overall. >> andrew: thing to weave together. >> harris: maybe it's the same same. >> andrew: you want to know why democrats are lined up against the nominee no matter who it is, this goes to your point about we want someone who isn't going to play games of the constitution. what the democrats want is somebody who uses the law as a tool to drag the society along to where they wanted to be and what we want based on the conservative side is a judge who recognizes that the law is a reflection of who we are. and we want to enforce as our values or principles. we don't want to be somebody else. and that's why this is a more political than legal battle.

>> lisa: that's interesting. >> harris: the way that people may look at this is conservative versus liberal but what you're saying is. >> andrew: is the living constitution crowd versus the dead constitution crowd. >> melissa: magic tricks to the constitution to make it say something it doesn't. because you don't want people legislating from the bench. they were not elected. only people who have been elected by the people should be making laws. >> harris: will quickly before we move on, different values for different sides. people see things differently. if you've got the whole roe vs. wade conversation going on too. >> andrew: i think roe vs. wade is a political demagogic talking point more than a practical reality because we've actually been living under casey, which is a case that was excited about 19 years after roe and opened up a lot of avenues to regulate abortion rather than

have to grapple with the holding in a roe vs. wade that this writing says. is of the cases that are likely to come up in the future are going to be about are these regulations okay, not doing need to confront. >> harris: was also interesting is you've got susan collins which democrats are saying you better watch out, she might go get. actually, she doesn't believe that john roberts or any of the other judges would go against roe vs. wade the way that it is, it's kind of a false argument that she wouldn't support a candidate unless they came clean about how they feel about roe vs. wade. >> andrew: i think this is so overblown because to me, it's highly unlikely that that kind of challenge comes before the court, much more likely we will be talking about regulation and let's say even if the fantasy of some that the court jumps in and overrules roe the moment i think is highly unlikely but let's say it happens. all that would mean with that the regulation of abortion would

be returned to the states. it wouldn't make abortion illegal. and to me, it seems highly unlikely that any woman who wanted an abortion the day before roe was reversed would be unable to get one the day after, it simply not going to work that way. >> harris: andrew mccarthy, it is great to have you. it's a great day to have you in a center seat. glad you're here. you can watch complete coverage of the announcement of the presidents supreme court twice tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern. kennedy on the fox news channel. shepard smith on the fox broadcast network, don't you miss a beat. a potential interview between president trump and special counsel robert mueller seeming less likely to happen as the president's legal team sets new conditions for that sit down. all the details on it and whether this hard-line strategy by his team is a good idea. a new reaction to president trump's personal attorney michael cohen potentially cooperating with federal prosecutors. by rudy giuliani says he's not worried either way.

they close. >> you have no concerns at all about anything that michael cohen might tell? >> we are home for it.

this is frank. sup! this is frank's favorite record. this is frank's dog. and this is frank's record shop. frank knowns northern soul, but how to set up a limited liability company... what's that mean? not so much. so he turned to his friends at legalzoom. yup! they hooked me up. we helped with his llc, contracts, and some other stuff that's part of running a business. so frank can focus on the beat. you hear that? this is frank's record shop. and this is where life meets legal.

...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.

new ensure max protein. this wi-fi is fast. i know! i know! i know! i know! when did brian move back in? brian's back? he doesn't get my room. he's only going to be here for like a week. like a month, tops. oh boy. wi-fi fast enough for the whole family is simple, easy, awesome. in many cultures, young men would stay with their families until their 40's.

>> melissa: speak to the presids personal lawyer rudy giuliani setting new terms for a potential interview between the president and special counsel robert mueller. as mr. giuliani suggest that likelihood of such an event is becoming less likely. the president's top lawyer now saying that he wants mueller to provide evidence that the president committed a crime before his legal team considers an interview. watch. >> we like to know if there's any factual basis for the investigation originally or they've developed one because we can't find one, nor can anyone else. nor have they with all the leaking they've done. >> melissa: this is a new poll shows how a number of americans are unhappy with the way the special counsel is handling the russian investigation, 45% now say they disapprove of the job that mueller is doing. that's up from 28% last november. let me start with you, what you think about this latest attack from rudy giuliani? what evidence you have of a crime? that's the only way should be able to interview the president.

>> andrew: a couple of things here, rudy is my first boss way back when. and he's a great lawyer. but this is a different kind of litigation than he's ever been involved in or we are used to seeing because the president is never going to be indicted, so this is always been about impeachment from the beginning. and impeachment as a political process, not a legal one. i think what rudy has been doing for the last six weeks or so is taking these public positions in the court of public opinion where this is playing out in the fact that the polls are moving away from mueller is telling. if this were a legal proceeding, i think you'd be much more careful about some of the claims being made because they could come back to bite. in a public proceeding with a really interested in shifting public opinion, that's really where it's at. and as far as talking to the special counsel's concern, if

you wanted to talk to a journalist as a prosecutor, you would have to show that there was a serious crime that had been committed. and that the journalist was the repository of information that the prosecutor couldn't get from anywhere else. why are we comfortable with that being the standard for a journalist but not for the president of the united states? what he is saying is you don't get to talk to the president because it would be interesting. we have to have a reason to talk to him as a prosecutor and the reason is is there a serious crime? i think it's where he's quite right to go there. >> harris: i'm curious to know how different it is for rudy giuliani to take in the ire and the fire and let the president sort of be the good person and all of this in terms of politically saying i want to sit down, i want to do all of these things, but i have to listen to my attorney and letting rudy giuliani now take all of that in coming. >> andrew: the other thing you

have to always evaluate with this kind of a thing is what is the client comfortable with? so trump previously had lawyers who were of the man to let's try to work this out with mueller quietly behind-the-scenes. that might've been a perfectly fine legal position, is not with the president likes. the president likes to fight and the president may have had a better understanding of his lawyers that what he is in is a public controversy over impeachment. to be he's got polling that shows people want him to sit down so he can answer to that then the rudy giuliani can make something different. >> lisa: what you make of the recent news that he's not going to bring forward any evidence of collusion in the paul manafort case? >> andrew: under the rules of criminal procedure and evidence, if he were to bring in any evidence of collusion, then he would have to provide discovery of all that he's been investigating and all that he's been trying to keep under wraps. i think there's certainly

evidence that he is been pursuing and there are strands that have to do with connections with russia. i've always thought collusion is a weasel word. prosecutors don't care about collusion. >> kennedy: is also a political term that is so incredibly loaded but it's interesting because as public opinion works against robert mueller, you wonder what happens if he doesn't have anything? what happens? if you remember with the hillary email server investigation, we kept hearing these big weeks and it felt like we were building toward a scenario until the moment that james comey said that he was not suggesting the charges. >> harris: just a few weekends ago, we learned that mueller was never going to indict. what i understand you're saying is that was never the goal in the beginning but to actually get it from reportedly from that team for someone there is really startling.

>> andrew: because of special counsel is actually subordinate to the justice department. this is not an independent counsel, its independent doj. so there is office of legal counsel, this positive opinion in the justice department at the president, sitting president can't be indicted and there are so many structural protections in our system that would prevent a president who didn't want to be indicted from being indicted that no one, no prosecutor is as sophisticated as mohler would ever have got into this thinking indict the president. so i've always thought that has been about impeachment from the first and to go to your question, i think what you get at the end is a report which the special counsel regulations provide for where i would imagine that where you may end up coming out is there's no collusion, there's no prosecutable obstruction, whether congress thinks there's obstruction in the way of misdemeanors is something for congress to decide and i think

what mueller would do is take that as an opportunity to try to defend the fbi and the justice department. >> kennedy: and the expenditure of the special counsel investigation. >> melissa: in the meantime, giuliani is saying he has zero concerns about trump's former personal attorney michael cohen potentially cooperating with federal prosecutors. it is as long as cohen tells the truth, the president has nothing to worry about. watch this. >> michael cohen should cooperate with the government. we have no reason to believe he did anything wrong. the president did nothing wrong with him. mueller himself is indicated that he has nothing because he would've given it away and not taken it back in every indication we have is the president is not involved in that. >> melissa: what do you think? >> andrew: until we hear that there's something that comes out of the southern district of new york investigation that affects the president about we ought to assume what we've heard which is that rosenstein, the deputy attorney general told the president that he was not a

suspect, so until we get something more than that. i think that's where we are at. >> melissa: somebody went in and sees everything, if i had a lawyer who was working for me for a long time and they went in and seized everything, i think they would find something i'm good for you have and i can't imagine what that is that i'm not confessing to a crime. but what i'm saying is. >> harris: now i'm googling melissa francis. >> melissa: here looking for a crime against a person, couldn't you find something that almost everyone including everyone on the couch but not me? >> andrew: why would mueller then have given the case up to the southern district of new york? if they thought that michael cohen was the key to getting at trump. a federal crime? >> kennedy: i think you gave it to the southern district of new york to separated from the federal issue that mueller is overseeing. then it becomes unpardonable.

>> andrew: i think he could always do that down the road. but i think if they thought that michael cohen was the key to making a collusion case where there was a real concern to be doing espionage that there is no reason. >> melissa: what if it's a totally different crime? what if they're just looking for anything that would be a crime? >> harris: i do think any of us would be open to a crime but what we would be open to that has been this whole trap argument of if there's any point of inconsistency, but that look like flying and ending memory can force you to do that. a lot of things. i think that's where we may be laid bare with that. >> andrew: this has been the big objection to the investigation. at the beginning of the investigation, with a big objection to this has been is that in this country, was supposed to happen is we have a crime and then you assign a prosecutor. >> lisa: is the payment of crime, the origin of this with michael cohen? >> andrew: it could be. it's more likely that there is a high intent issue with these

campaign financing to begin with. let's assume for the sake of argument that is against the law. they're usually handled as regulatory or administrative violations and is usually a fine grade >> harris: judge napolitano has said that they would involve the banks at that point. with the many lied about that that situation where the funds are being moved? a lot to drill down on. sharp words for north korea from secretary of state mike pompeo after pyongyang accuses the u.s. of gangster like diplomacy. what this means for the nuclear power ahead.

to be their best, kids need good nutrition. and practice... lots of practice. get them started right with carnation breakfast essentials. it has protein plus vitamins and minerals to help kids be their best. carnation breakfast essentials. ywhen the guy in front the highway slams on his brakes out of nowhere. you do, too, but not in time. hey, no big deal. you've got a good record and liberty mutual won't hold a grudge by raising your rates over one mistake. you hear that, karen? liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. how mature of them! for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident.

liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

in honor of my dad, who was alzheimer's. i decided to make shirts for the walk with custom ink, and they just came out perfect. - [announcer] check out our huge selection of custom apparel for every occasion. you'll even get free shipping. get started today at customink.com. >> kennedy: welcome back. a secretary of state mike pompeo hitting back at north korea after they slammed america's diplomatic behavior. the regime's statement "the attitude of the u.s. and the first high-level talks were indeed. credible.

it went to the extent of regarding the democratic people's republic of china rehab would be compelled to accept out of its patients the demands reflecting gangster like mind-set." pompeo sang the two nations have productive talks and north korea has reaffirmed his commitment to dismantle its nuclear arsenal. watch. >> i am determined to achieve the commitment that president trump made and i am counting on chairman came to be determined to follow through on the commitment that he made. and so if those requests were gangster like, the world is a gangster because there was a unanimous decision of the u.n. security council about what needs to be achieved. >> kennedy: what happens now? that seems to be a direct page taken from north korea's playbook where they acquiesce, and they back off, so were to we go next in this? >> andrew: we wish we could rewind the tape and not go where we went first place but i think he's got to turn the page back

to maximum pressure and we have to recognize that this is a folk anti-american regime that really doesn't want to have the kind of vision as the korean peninsula, their vision of the korean peninsula is north korea running the korean peninsula. and they are not moving off of that. and i think we have to recognize that the nukes are an end to that -- a means to that end. >> kennedy: you have south korea and the united states on one side hoping that there is some opening of the fleamarket and greater freedoms of choice but then you have china who is stoking this north korean abstinence and in fact lindsey graham said it wasn't just kim jong un stroking his own chin but rather big brother. watch. i go i see china's hands all over this. we are in a fight with china. if there is no doubt in my mind that is the chinese pulling the north koreans back.

>> kennedy: the president tweeted i have confidence that kim jong un will honor the contract we signed an even more importantly, our handshake when we agreed to the denuclearization of north korea. if china on the other hand may be exerting never negative pressure because of chinese trade. hope not. is there a direct correlation here between the new tariffs and the back and forth between the u.s. and china and all of a sudden, north korea once again being a bit bearish on these talks? >> melissa: i absolutely think there is. i was on the terracing was connected to this as well. however, a more positive on this then you are andy. i think that we are in a good place if we have kim jong un saying things are unhappy. it's interesting that the naysayers when there's happy talk, they say look, the president is a sucker, he is getting walked all over. and then when there's talk like this, they say i told you so, i told you nothing was happening. you can't listen to them. but i think this is part of if

you listen to general jack keane, this meeting was about pompeo going over there and being tough and crusty say and guess what? it's time to put up or shut up and here is what we want. if we didn't get pushback from north korea at this point, i wouldn't be confident that he really carried the right message. >> lisa: shouldn't we want to be gangster like in this? is an attempt has touted the maximum pressure campaign and sanctions and leave in the military option on the table is a reason why north korea wanted to sit down with us in the first place. so i think we should be gangster like in our approach saying there's a stick here and we are not afraid to use it. and senator lindsey graham also said we have more leverage with china as a president trump should not sway or reduce that pressure we are putting on china. on that front in general, jack keane said earlier today on "america's newsroom" that is these working groups talking about denuclearizing, where the action is going to take place so as those warm out, i think we will learn more about it. >> kennedy: what is more attractive to north korea?

with the u.s. has to offer and that economic promise being welcomed into the global community or further dependence on china? >> harris: that's an excellent question. i'll tell you one thing the dependence on china gets them is the idea of consistency in their livelihood. they know that that's something they can count on. and they know that as we are exerting extreme pressure, china is going to delay their energy. in terms of what is possible, may be a low ceiling but the bar is low for them anyway. they're looking at that consistency and sing the matter what america or other countries do, we know somebody is clutch for us in terms of her energy is not going to go away. i question about china and the trade in all of that, the president is negotiating. he is negotiating some deals simultaneously with regard to trade trade so you can bring that into the conversation but remember, the president made the observation a couple months ago. every time north korean leadership gets together with the chinese, they change their

behavior. regardless of what we do and what our trade looks like. >> andrew: i just think if you're going to have an effective negotiation come it be nice to know that everybody meant the same thing. >> harris: is where we started, that's where general keane and others began. >> andrew: we think that means giving up the nukes. and they think it means we are out of the korean peninsula. until we are settled on what we actually are doing. >> kennedy: there has to be several tough conversations before we get to somewhere substantial which is with the secretary of state was doing with this most recent meeting. top democratic senator now suggesting red state dems should be willing to lose their reelections to stop president trump's supreme court pick. so what do you make of that and have the president's decision tonight play out in the midterms for both parties? we will debate and discuss in a moment.

>> harris: we are now just hours away from president trump's announcement of his supreme court choice amid new questions and how this could affect the midterm election. red state democrats on the hot seat over whether they will support the president's nominee. now the second highest ranking senate democrats dick durbin is suggesting that opposing the president's choice is more important than getting reelected. watch. >> it's about more than the next election. it's about what in the country, the united states of america is going to return course in the future court. i think each and every one of them take that seriously, that personally. it goes beyond the next electio election. >> harris: so you've got the politics and this is where we started with the hour, now we are hearing from dick durbin we got politics versus the reality of what somebody might do. like after their name then you can actually ask them questions.

>> andrew: i actually think he's right from the standpoint if you're a progressive and you rely on the courts to blaze the trail that you can't enact electorally and you need the courts to block someone like trump were conservative congress that comes in and move in a particular direction, that obviously the court is more important than anything. so for him to say it is more than being elected, i think from where they're coming from, that's true. >> andrew: are to be willing to throw yourself on the track some of the train right over you and kill you for your party. >> lisa: what is hilarious about this is that dick durbin represents illinois. blumenthal has also been very critical. it's hilarious for him to be asking these red state senators to throw themselves when they're not facing tough reelections

like the people like joe manchin in west virginia or president president trump won every single county in the state. you're going to see where the pressures being applied and that's where you need to look in trying to read the tea leaves of the confirmation process, as the states where the pressures being applied, those of the red state states. >> kennedy: is shocking to me that he's asking a group of people, not just one person, but a group of people to essentially end their political careers. because the democrats, the democrats are going to lose and then you've got these people who've been touting in their own campaign ads that they vote with the president, a majority of the time democratic senators, that is their biggest message running for reelection. going to those voters and say i know you like this nominee better, i totally understand that, but i'm beholden to dick durbin and this establishment, this party that has done nothing for you, sorry,

vote me out. >> harris: it is an interesting argument. >> kennedy: are not only are you losing the nominee, your being republicans in a much bigger lead in the senate. >> harris: when you look at the fights that democrats say they're willing to wait here without any leverage or majority if you will. conceivably if the three democrats do join. when you look at that whole thing, does this reflect how they are smarting over the fact that they didn't push back so far on neil gorsuch? >> andrew: of course they are smarting about that. but this is what it's all about for them. the court is critical for them. and the politics ebbs and flows, i think this is so epically important to them that they would be the same no matter what the line above the political factors were. >> harris: interesting. for the first time, the american people will finally get their

chance to hear directly from the anti-trump fbi agents involved in the investigations in the hillary clinton email server. in the trump campaign. what to expect from peter strzok goes before congress. i have so many questions. no matter who rides point, there are over 10,000 allstate agents riding sweep. call one today. are you in good hands? 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 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 and 4 grams of sugar. where we're making the next generation of multiscreen welcadvertising possible.ght, we have the broad and targeted reach you need to access the customers you're looking for on tv and digital platforms. then we connect you to our team of media experts, who are ready to help you maximize your budget while elevating your advertising effectiveness. sounds like an advertising opportunity knocking. visit comcastspotlight.com today.

>> melissa: more "outnumbered" and just a moment but first let's touch base with harris and what's coming up on "outnumbered" overtime in just a few moments. he went inside this countdown which is about eight hours away, we've got a big show until the president reveals his supreme court nominee. adjoining the next hour, someone who has taken part in the confirmation of every single sitting justice on the supreme court right now. republican orrin hatch of the senate judiciary committee will be with me. what questions will senator hatch ask of the next nominee? and what does he need to hear from the president tonight? watch for it, over time atop the hour. >> melissa: we look forward to it. fbi official peter strzok who got bounced from the mueller russia probe for his anti-trump text messages set to testify publicly for the first time on thursday. he will go before the house judiciary and oversight committees. republican lawmakers want answers about those texts and what role his bias may have played in the russia probe and the hillary clinton email case. this coming after his 11 hour

closed-door meeting with lawmakers on both committees last week. what would you ask him? >> andrew: i believe it when i see it. >> melissa: you don't think it's going to happen. >> andrew: you see has lawyers talking about whether this is a perjury trap and that certainly makes it sound like there thinking about taking this fifth amendment, he doesn't want it in the air that he's taken the fifth amendment because he is afraid of criminalizing himself. i think what they are doing at the moment looks to me like they are looking to shift the spin or the blame for when he doesn't testify. >> melissa: what would you ask him if he got up there and actually did it? >> andrew: i would want to know about the origin of the investigation which is i think the thing that congress has been trying to hone in on for weeks now. the origination story that they put out that this all started on july 31st doesn't hold water. so i think they have to ask some very hard questions. >> lisa: why haven't we learned more about that?

>> andrew: i think we are speculating, he could say that upfront. but you probably have participation of the intelligence community, you may have participation of the intelligence agencies of other governments and if not the intelligence agencies may be officials of other governments and are probably concerned about all of that. >> kennedy: i want to know what the insurance policy was and why was peter strzok so quick to insert himself and really start the russia investigation straight off the heels of the hillary email server investigation when michael horowitz said that is not protocol and not how things are done or investigations work. you don't go from one to the next and i want to know why he violated that. >> lisa: is kind of hilarious they're trying to pin this on republicans and set it up on some sort of republicans have a disdain for the truth when it's the independent investigator in the ig report that said not only did he have a by a state of mind

but a willingness to take action. he was texting about we will stop the president. what was he going to use in his arsenal? i don't think we're going to the answers even if he does testify. >> andrew: the day after mueller gets appointed, he says he wants to get on that investigation because it's unfinished business as far as he's concerned. >> melissa: we've got to go, that's quite a tease. more "outnumbered" in just a moment. your heart doesn't only belong to you.

so if you have heart failure, ask your doctor about entresto. it helped keep people alive and out of the hospital. 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. entresto, for heart failure.

tap one little bumper and up go your rates. what good is your insurance if you get punished for using it? news flash: nobody's perfect. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise your rates due to your first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

>> melissa: thank you so much to andrew mccarthy, you were awesome. what a great day to have you here. we will be back here at noon eastern tomorrow on the couch. for now, here is harris. >> harris: a fox news alert, we are now just hours from learning president trump's pick for the supreme court. which could tilt the balance of the high court for a generation or longer. if we go "outnumbered" overtime now, i'm harris faulkner. who will it be? the drama, the anticipation ahead of the presidents primetime announcement building hour by hour. if the president telling reporters that he is very close to making a decision and that he has whittled his list down to four top contenders. >> i'm very close to making a decision, have not made it official yet obviously. but we are very close to making a decision. let's say it's for people, but they're excellent, everybody, you can't go wrong. >> harris: let's say it is for people, the