come at me on those platforms. i will come you next sunday, see you 11 eastern with the latest buzz. a dramatic showdown is playing out in our nation's capitol, sources telling fox news that there is a tentative agreement for supreme court justice nominee judge brett kavanaugh and his accuser dr. christine blasey ford to testify before the senate judiciary committee this thursday about her allegations that kavanaugh sexually assaulted her during a house party when both were teenagers in the early 80s, but at this moment there appear to be many details that need to be worked out. hello everyone. welcome to america's news headquarters. i'm arthel neville. eric: hello everyone. i'm eric shawn. thank you for joining us. this all comes as a fourth purported witness and long time friend of dr. ford says that she

has no recollection of attending that party where ford says the sexual assault by kavanaugh took place. and this other person says she does not even know judge kavanaugh. this makes yet another purported witness who cannot corroborate dr. ford's claims. south carolina republican senator lindsay graham sits on the senate judiciary committee and he does plan to be at the hearing this week. here is what he said earlier today on "fox news sunday". >> i'm going to look at this from a prism of being reasonable and fair to judge kavanaugh. everything i know about judge kavanaugh goes against this allegation. i want to listen to dr. ford. i feel sorry for her. i think she's being used here. i will do the following: listen to dr. ford, compare that to everything in the record, and make a decision. eric: what can we expect? garrett tenney live in our washington newsroom. what details still need to be worked out according to the dr. ford's lawyers letter that

they still need to negotiate >> the agreement is for her to testify along with judge kavanaugh on thursday and what's still being worked out is the format of that hearing. importantly who will be asking the questions. now, will this be outside attorneys which is something the committee has been asking for or will it be the senators themselves which dr. ford's legal team has been asking for. who will be testifying first? the committee has asked for dr. ford to testify first to lay out her allegations and then allow judge kavanaugh to respond. but dr. ford's legal team wants judge kavanaugh to be the one who testifies first. now, throughout these negotiations, democrat members of the committee have been criticizing the republican colleagues for in their words bullying dr. ford. and this weekend, democrats are vowing to stand up for her, throughout these hearings. >> in this circumstance, to have a categorical denial by judge kavanaugh and an assertion by dr. ford that really is extremely serious, as far as i'm concerned, even though it was 36

years ago, to have that situation, members of the committee on both sides want to be fair. this senate judiciary committee, the composition is 11 republicans, 10 democrats. if one republican senator should decide that dr. ford's allegations, assertions are true. >> while that is true, it's important to note that even if the senate judiciary committee voted not to recommend judge kavanaugh's confirmation, it would still go to the full senate for a vote, and there republicans can only afford to lose one of their own in order for him to be confirmed still. eric? eric: garrett, it really is close obviously. meanwhile, we're hearing from a friend of dr. ford who supposedly was at that party where dr. ford claims she was assaulted. what is this new person saying? >> dr. ford originally told the washington post that there were at least four other people at that party, where she was allegedly sexually assaulted by brett kavanaugh and the senate judiciary committee we have learned have spoken to four, and each of them have said they

don't have any recollection of this alleged assault occurring or hearing about it afterwards. the latest is a long time friend of dr. ford, leland kaiser whose attorney wrote the committee in part saying simply put ms. kaiser does not know mr. kavanaugh, and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without dr. ford. dr. ford's attorneys responded to that saying in part as dr. ford has said, she did not share her story publicly or with anyone for years, following the incident with judge kavanaugh. it is not surprising that ms. kaiser has no recollection of the evening as they did not discuss it. it is also unremarkable that ms. keyser does not remember attending a specific gathering 30 years ago at which nothing of consequence happened to her. the details of this format are continuing to work out, we are also continuing to learn details on the outside of these allegations against judge kavanaugh and dr. ford's claim. eric? eric: garrett, thank you. arthel: for more on this we will bring in a former chief

nomination counsel to the senate judiciary committee. a good person to have this morning. thank you for being here. >> thanks for having me. arthel: thank you, greg. i want to start here, should there be an fbi investigation before dr. ford testifies before the committee? and once she does get there, should she actually show up? that's still a question. who should question both parties? and what should be the order of appearance? >> well, so first, with respect to an fbi investigation, i think there's been a lot of misunderstanding about what the fbi does in background investigations. really all they do is go out and comprehensively talk to dozens of people who have known you -- known the nominee over the course of their life, and they compile like a folder, big file, with raw testimony. it is meant to surface problems. that could have been done a couple of months ago when senator feinstein got this letter. she chose not to do it. and now it's the time for the

committee to weigh these allegations. the story is already out there. it is before them. and an fbi investigation wouldn't add anything but delay at this point. with respect to the hearing, later this week, i think you are right, that it could still fall apart. it sounds like dr. ford's attorneys are insisting on some unreasonable demands. the idea that she would testify after judge kavanaugh, just doesn't make sense, typically we want to hear allegations first and then hear from the accused so he can respond to the allegations. and with respect to the question, who does the questioning? i think that's still being worked out as well. but from my perspective, having trained lawyers who are accustomed to interviewing witnesses, particularly witnesses who allege trauma, sounds like quite a good idea. and i don't know why dr. ford's attorneys would object to that, unless they really want to make this a political event, where they can express outrage about older men questioning a woman

about -- arthel: typically it is the senators who do the questioning; right? >> that is typically the case, but on both sides of the hill, house committees and senate committees, have often -- have occasionally used trained attorneys to do these things, particularly when it is something that is sensitive, maybe not what they're most familiar with doing, as members of congress. arthel: okay. >> i don't think it needs to be an outside attorney, but it sounds like a good idea to me. i don't understand why dr. ford would object to that. arthel: would delaying a vote beyond this week, greg, in any way damage or dilute the process of confirming a supreme court nominee? >> yeah, you know, from my perspective having handled nominations for a long time, you don't want a nominee just sitting out there waiting for months while he's being relentlessly attacked. you have seen it in the polling information, this nomination has had an effect. judge kavanaugh has been subject to a merciless coordinated

campaign against his jurisprudence and his character for months now. that's not healthy for him and his family or good for our country. so i think once we have all the evidence that we're going to have, the committee should make a decision as soon as possible. arthel: as a former chief nominations counsel to the senate judiciary committee, how would you counsel this current committee at this juncture? >> well, obviously the committee itself is very polarized. you know, i think democrats all oppose this nomination and opposed it before these allegations occurred. and they have taken an any means necessary approach to trying to destroy the nominee and the nomination. the republicans need to keep the process moving. they need to treat it professionally. and when we hear from dr. ford, they need to let her tell her story and hear it with respect. i think that if they keep the politics out of this and focus on the facts, they are going to look good in tend. arthel: i want to share with you and our audience a new fox news

poll. and the question that the poll asks is would you vote to confirm scotus nominee brett kavanaugh? last month, greg, 45% said yes. now only 40% saying yes. last month 40% said no. and now 50% are saying no. so -- excuse me? excuse me, 46% said no last month and now 50% saying no now. so i ask you this, greg, if a record number of voters oppose this nomination, coupled with the controversy now surrounding this whole process, should judge kavanaugh recuse himself, or should the president pull his nomination? >> you know, arthel, i think we see similar numbers with virtually any nominee this president advanced. democrats and outside groups on the left don't like the idea of

this president choosing a supreme court justice for this vacancy. they don't like the idea that the court may be going in a more conservative direction. and they decided to use every tool at their disposal to attack him. and what's happened in the last two months is he's been out there. he's had his hearings, where his views were mischaracterized on things like executive power. he was basically called a liar which i thought was unprecedented of a treatment of a nominee. now we have an uncorroborated story about very serious allegations but allegations we haven't quite heard from the alleger yet. so i don't think the judge should withdraw. if he's innocent as he says he should tell his story and we should move to a vote. arthel: okay. then what happens after thursday? if dr. ford testifies, presents a credible case for herself, then judge kavanaugh states his case and provides a credible defense, what will or should

happen then? >> you know, the question is going to have to be and every senator has to make up their mind for themselves, what's the standard of proof you're putting on judge kavanaugh? does he have to prove himself innocent beyond a reasonable doubt? or do we need to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? should it be whether this assault was more likely to have happened or likely not to have happened? that's a question everyone will have to answer. but i think once you hear from both of them, and you put that in the context of everything else we know, which judge kavanaugh has decades of an exemplary public life and as far as we know private life, we have now four people who are denying a party like this happened -- arthel: they said -- they did not deny that it happened, they just have no recollection of it because dr. ford is the person who is alleging sexual assault, of course she remembers what happened and they wouldn't. >> yeah. i think based on what we know now, it doesn't appear to me

that there's evidence to justify voting against this nominee, if you otherwise would have voted for him. but once we hear from her in her own words, that could change. right now i don't think we've even seen the letter that she first wrote to congress about this. so we need to hear more from her and it matters that her story has not been corroborated. that puts a little more burden on her being a compelling witness. arthel: really quickly, if you could for me, so if i said they both present credible arguments for themselves, should a vote take place? but when should that vote take place? because at this point, greg, should the senators be allowed to confer and sort of come up together and decide sort of their own deliberation, if you will, and decide how to proceed in terms of either going forward with the vote or not? >> they should absolutely have that conversation. you know, during the hearings, when this was all supposed to happen, on the final day of kavanaugh's testimony, there was an opportunity for the -- in

closed session where the senators could have asked him questions like this, and then they had the opportunity to discuss amongst themselves where to go next. i'm sure they will confer on this. but the reality is the judiciary committee has been radically polarized and divided on this nomination from the beginning. every senate democrat is going to vote no. right now it appears that the senate republicans on that committee are going to vote yes. so we will see if the testimony changes that. arthel: that's unfortunate because that means no one is listening to either of the people when they testify, either dr. ford or judge kavanaugh. >> if the senate republicans will have to look to next week and see if they hear something that changes their views on the merits of this nomination. certainly if dr. ford tells a compelling story about sexual assault, i think that would be enough to -- the senators believe that it more likely than not happened, then they are not going to move this nomination forward.

we don't know if this hearing is going to happen or under what conditions this will happen. arthel: thank you very much, greg. >> thank you. eric: stunning controversial report from the new york times that deputy attorney general rod rosenstein suggested that he secretly would record president trump in the white house. rosenstein reportedly also discussed recruiting cabinet members and others to try and invoke the 25th amendment to potentially remove the president from office. rosenstein has refuted those claims calling the story quote inaccurate and factually incorrect. ellison barber is joining us from berkeley heights new jersey which is close to bedminster where the president has been spending this weekend. hi, ellison. >> hi, eric. there's been a lot of back and forth about how these comments were allegedly said. sources who were if a meeting or sources who were -- sources who were in a meeting or sources familiar with the meeting, they

have not denied these comments were made but they have told fox news and other outlets that the comments were made sarcastically. the new york times is standing by their reporting saying the story is based on months of reporting and the doj claimed that rosenstein was sarcastic when he suggested he would wear a wire on trump is not supported by our reporting. the president has not publicly really gone out and talked about this. we know rosenstein adamantly denies the reporting. but some have speculated that this report could be used to justify firing rosenstein the man who oversees the special counsel russia's investigation. a key republican in the house, says if the allegations are true, it would be reasonable for rosenstein to lose his job. congressman nunes chairman of the house intelligence committee, he says rosenstein should not be fired at least for now. >> the answer i think is no, for now because right now before an election, without knowing all the facts, until you could

actually bring in all of of these people to know exactly what rosenstein said, look, i'm not a guy who is going to go on a witch hunt; right? so rod rosenstein should have his fair day in court. however, if rod rosenstein really did talk about wearing a wire, then for sure he should be fired. >> the top democrat in the senate, senator schumer says that the shg no -- says that the new york times report must not be used as a pretext for purpose of firing deputy rosenstein in order to install an official that will allow the president to enter we are the special counsel's investigation. robert costa reports that president trump told several people on friday that he is not going to fire the deputy attorney general. there's also reporting out there eric that this story is not particularly high on president trump's mind because he's so focused on everything going on with kavanaugh and trying to get that nomination through. eric? eric: ellison, thank you very

much. there is some new reaction to tell you about from president trump walking back his initial call to immediately declassify the secret documents related to the ongoing russia investigation. late last week, the president tweeted this, saying, quote, i met with the doj concerning the declassification of various unredacted documents. they agreed to release them but stated that doing so may have a perceived negative impact on the russia probe. also key allies called to ask not to release. therefore, the inspector general has been asked to review these documents on an expedited basis. i believe we'll move quickly on this and hopefully other things which he is looking at. in the end, i can always declassify if it proves necessary. speed is very important to me and everyone. earlier today on sunday morning futures with maria bartiromo, house judiciary committee chairman congressman bob goodlatte who is calling for transparency reacted to the president's new hesitation. >> well the president needs to remain hands on on this issue.

he needs to be personally engaged in overseeing the process by which those documents are declassified. i'm glad he has entrusted the inspector general at the department of justice to help with this because i have great confidence in the inspector general, but he needs to be in constant contact with the president and the white house staff about accomplishing this and accomplishing it very quickly. eric: for more on this let's go to a man who has a lot of experience with these masters, former assistant special watergate prosecutor and former special assistant to the united states attorney general. he joins us from miami. what do you make of the president having second thoughts on this? >> i think the term that we use all the time, breaking news has gone to a new level, talking about the events of the last few days. the president i think should be given a lot of credit that i've had clients -- i have clients who think that when they are under investigation that it's

corrupt and ill motivated investigation but we can never prove that. here the president is clearly under a great deal of stress and he has evidence that shows the investigation was bias, was corrupt, there are texts that we know about, and so he in the interest of transparency and in his own interests, he is saying make it all public. but when the people from the intelligence community say to him that it could compromise sources and means and the allies are objecting, he's taking a back step, which is really not in his own interests and in the interest of the country, but he's saying let the inspector general look at it. he retains the ultimate article ii responsibility to declassify, and at least he will consider if it does jeopardize national interests. eric: couldn't he prove it -- you said he couldn't prove it but couldn't he prove his claims that there was a conspiracy against him, but just reading and letting this information out to see what these folks are actually saying between the texts, be e between the fisa

applications, whether the basis of the investigation was based on one drunken encounter or other type of evidence? >> what's already public he can definitely make that judgment or he could make the judgment without any reason. he's the commander-in-chief. but it has to be considered, intertwined with the breaking news about the deputy attorney general. if anybody had a subordinate who talked about, whether in jest or not, about wearing a wire and meeting with him, how could you let that person work with you? i think sean hannity was right on the money it would be a big m mistake to fire him now, because it would be perceived as interfering with the investigation. he should wait till after the midterms and take a look at it and say i just don't have confidence in people who are talking about removing me from office, under the 25th amendment, or wearing a wire when they meet with me.

how can people like that work for me? those people should resign. eric: stay with us. we're going to pay some bills with some commercials. we will get back with more on whether you think rosenstein should be fired. stay with us. >> okay. a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace. to and practice... kidlots of practice.tion. get them started right with carnation breakfast essentials. it has protein plus vitamins and minerals to help kids be their best. carnation breakfast essentials.

♪

the new capital one savor card. earn 4% cash back on dining and 4% on entertainment. now when you go out, you cash in. what's in your wallet?

now when you go out, you cash in. (woman) learned ao play second language. applied to college. applied for a loan. started a business. started a blog. shared a picture. shared a moment. turn your wish list into a checklist. learn more. do more. share more. at home, with internet essentials. eric: we are back with former assistant special gate watergate

prosecutor and former special assistant to the united states attorney general. we are talking about rosenstein and that report. he denies the report as you know. others say he was sarcastic in a heated argument with the fbi's mccabe when he flippantly said that. do you think that's a basis for the president of the united states to dump him? >> well, i think we have to be fair to mr. rosenstein. and we can't pick and choose what parts of the new york times we want to believe and what we don't want to believe. but his denial, rod rosenstein's denial are very carefully phrased. he's saying he didn't pursue or authorize wearing a wire. we know it never happened. he's not denying he talked about it. regarding the 25th amendment, he says he doesn't think the president is presently unfit. he's not saying he didn't talk about it. so i think in fairness to him, he should be heard. the president ought to call him in, after the elections and ask him if he said this. but he should not be fired because of the russia investigation. i was part of watergate. i was part of saturday night

massacre. i was fired in the saturday night massacre, and the public reaction was such that it was the beginning of impeachment of president nixon, before that, nobody even talked about it. so i think after the midterms, it's simply a manner of if the deputy attorney general even considered removing the president after two weeks in office, he just can't work for him. he should be fired or the honorable thing to do is he should resign. rather than -- otherwise it is a coup to have three or four people talk about removing the president. that happens in third world countries. here we remove a president at the ballot box. eric: there is a process of potential impeachment in the house and in the senate. by the way, one comment i was going to say about the lawyers, you know, it is always the definition of what is is, remember that from president clinton? the lawyers know how to parse everything. that's why people are so suspicious about a lot of things. do you think that the fisa applications then should be released? all the texts should be

released. why should the american public not know exactly what went into all this that kick-started this investigation? >> no, i think that the president is doing exactly right to his credit, that it should be released, with any redactions of anything that could jeopardize national security. and i don't think any people of good faith would disagree with that. eric: would the redactions be sources and methods? you know what they do. they give you whole sheets with blacked-out pages all over the place. it is unbelievable, looks like they are trying to hide something beyond legitimate concerns. >> well, as a prosecutor, i was part of those type of processes, but the president is the ultimate decider. i mean he's going to get from the inspector general is a recommendation. and then under article ii, it is his decision, he can release it with redactions, with some redactions or with no redactions. eric: basically the president can actually decide and release it all even without redactions,

he has that executive power to let it all out if he wants? >> i don't think there's any doubt. he's the president. eric: all right, we will see what happens. the president taking some advice and hesitating for now. we will see if indeed the american people will see it and hear it all for themselves. >> thank you. arthel: as this political storm continues, major flooding remains the number one concern in many areas in the carolinas. more than one week after hurricane florence came to shore. several rivers there are overflowing as hundreds of national guard troops are still carrying out rescue operations. a fox news poll just out this morning indicating more people approve of the way president trump responded to hurricane florence compared to his response to hurricane maria, one year ago. jonathan serrie is live in lumberton, north carolina, where rivers remain at flood stage this week. jonathan? >> arthel, an example of that right behind me, this used to be

a public park, now under water. what happened is the lumber river rose to such high levels, the water over topped this protective flood control berm and now the waters are beginning to recede, the berm is keeping floodwaters on the other side. the city of lumberton brought in the industrial grade pumps which are now pumping the floodwaters back into the lumber river. many roads remain closed here in lumberton and throughout this part of north carolina, as part of last week's damage assessment, the north carolina d.o.t.'s division of aviation sent up a drone to survey conditions on interstate 40 about 30 miles north of wilmington. three days after the storm made landfall, this is what i-40 looked like near mile marker 387 in pender county. it looked more like a river. a week later, 547 roads remain closed statewide including sections of i-95 and i-40. state highway officials are asking people to avoid travel in

the southeastern portion of north carolina if at all possible. typically flooding poses the greatest risk to life in a hurricane and florence was no exception. for more than a week, the u.s. coast guard sector north carolina has been sending shallow water response boat teams into flooded areas, since the storm made landfall on september 12, these teams have rescued 258 people and 205 pets. duke energy says approximately 26,000 customers remain without power, but that's way down from a peak outage of 1.8 million customers. arthel? arthel: so some progress still a lot of work ahead and many thanks to those rescue volunteers. jonathan serrie, thank you very much. eric: it is that time of year again. here in new york city. it is september and that means yep leaders from around the world will once again gather for the annual united nation general assembly session starting tomorrow. police and authorities are on

high alert ramping up security measures. we will take you behind the scenes for a live look on how they are protecting all those dignitaries. last year the president was pretty blunt and direct about kim jong-un. during his u.n. speech. what will he say or what should he say this year about iran? former u.n. ambassador and new mexico governor bill richardson is with us for a preview of what the president may do. your brain changes as you get older. 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. healthier brain. better life.

and our shirts from custom ink help bring us together. we order custom ink to welcome new employees,

personalize team shirts, and even for company events. the design lab is so easy to use. we just upload out logo and if we have any questions, customer service is there to help. seeing our team together in custom ink gear is an amazing reminder of how far we've come as a business. - [narrator] custom ink has hundreds of products to help you look and feel like a team. upload your logo or start your design today at customink.com >> on tuesday president trump is expected to deliver a second address before the united nations general assembly. an exclusive interview on "sunday morning futures" earlier today, national security advisor, john bolton gave a preview of what to expect. >> does general assembly speech onto that dimension, we'll talk a lot about american sovereignty. how that fits into america's place in the world as a whole. i think the present have a

chance to show how full the international agenda is. and how active he has been in each of these different areas. arthel: gillian turner joins us now from washington with more. reporter: good afternoon. the trump foreign policy in your city today for participation in the 73rd meeting of the un general assembly. president trump gearing up for what will be his second major address delivered to that global gathering. and some of this year's theme may sound familiar. >> the united nations has tremendous potential. but it has not lived up to that potential. >> president trump face backlash last year for what some countries perceived to be criticism of their internal affairs. the key national security officials tell fox news the criticism is a deterrent and this year they plan to hammer home in america first foreign policy. the first party is to highlight what they believe other foreign policy successes. top of the list in north korea. >> demonstration position has not changed from the time that we entered this discussion.

we have talked about particular facilities, particular weapons, the conversations underway and we are hopeful we can deliver this outcome. >> iran also features on the list. >> the europeans have a decision to make. and i think the decision is already being made. if you look, they are dropping business from around left and right. iran's economy is plummeting. and it is because they cannot continue to sustain this. we not giving them a pass. >> the other major party, u.s. sovereignty. something advisable to lay the groundwork for earlier this month. in his address to the federalist society. since then the top brass is have the same message. committing to america first. every time you suggest and parties rub up against those of the international community the administration will choose the us. arthel: thank you. >> you got it. >> the united states has great

strength and patience. but if it is forced to defend itself to its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy north korea. "rocket man" is on a suicide mission for himself. and for his regime. the united states is ready, willing and able. but hopefully, this will not be necessary. >> it was president trump of course addressing the annual united nations general assembly session last year. will he use similar blunt and direct language when targeting the regime in tehran when he takes the green marble podium this week. i ran we are told will be at the address. potentially raising the regime support of terrorism. the ballistic missile program, arresting political opponents, the billions we see from the controversial nuclear deal and the new confrontation with us. former un ambassador, bill richardson is here on what we

can expect. governor, always good to see you. what you think the president will say? will he be similarly let me say pointed and sharp when it comes to rouhani and they regime in tehran? >> he will be very tough on iran. he basically will justify his decision to get out of the iran nuclear deal. he will highlight that i ran still involved in the yemen war, that he military and tragedy in syria, the continued support for terrorism. i think in contrast to north korea, where he will i think say, probably nice things about kim jong-un and north korea. after the speech last year. he will continue this very strong stride view toward iran. in an effort to pressure mainly the european allies into continuing with sanctions and not investing in iran.

and that is what i suspect it will do. but it will be a contrast with north korea. >> do think what he said last year just showing in the summit shaking hands with kim jong-un. do think it rattled kim and the hierarchy north korea? and do you think that it could rattle tehran? >> well, here is the worry that i have. i think north korea policy is going the right direction. the north and south met last week. the leaders, that was good. less tension. my worry is this. one, we will continue dividing a little bit with south korea that wants to move a lot faster than we do. secondly, i think north korea still has not done anything on denuclearization. nothing substantial with missiles with nuclear weapons, with material. and the last worry i have a north korea is that china and russia, especially china, now that things are going in the

right direction, the president over praises kim jong-un, they will loosen sanctions. those are my worries. with iran, you know that aggressive policy that we have with iran is going to continue. and i do not think iran is helping themselves. they are continuing to support terrorist activities. they continue to hold americans in detention. i am not necessarily thinking that iran is going to get a free pass from anybody at this un general assembly. eric: we are going to stick with this. we were going to commercial for a second. he mentioned iran targeting people. they allegedly targeted the main iranian opposition group, the national castle a resistance of around including a bombing plot. of the general meeting and surveilling officials here on our soil. ambassador richardson, in a moment i will get your reaction to what iran is doing here in america against us. stay with us. we will be right back. value of your car.

♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition... for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure. now up to 30 grams of protein for strength and energy!

what does help for heart fait looks like this. entresto is a heart failure pill that 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. ask your doctor about entresto. ♪ the beat goes on. yeah! eric: there any opposition has

allegedly been targeted by tehran. yesterday there was a large rally in manhattan against the regime. prosecutors said annual meeting in paris was a bombing target by reading agents in july that wanted to assassinate its leaders. california man accused of being a spy targeting leaders at home. former ambassador and governor richardson is with us. your reaction to the charges that several times now tehran has targeted the american supporters of the ncri. >> they seem to be credible reports. this enormous concern with conferences in paris and around the country as democrats and republicans. like myself they want to see freedom. they want to see in iran an end to dictatorship. we want to see a iran economy started to grow again.

and muslim clerics keep stifling this freedom. so it is an illness concern. also, they keep detaining americans. american journalists. iranian americans, there is a young man, of chinese descent from princeton university that is detained there. there is robert levinson, an american agent who nobody knows where he is. the iranians will not tell us where he is. an american that has been i think, detained unlawfully. so, iran does not help itself. i do think, eric, this nuclear deal, i would have stayed in it. but it is done. at the same time, iran continues their support for terrorism and nefarious activities. so i'm very concerned about that. eric: do think the president should raise these issues that you just raised? and should the president in fact talk about the fact that iran has been charged with

targeting americans right here at home? >> the president should say that. you should publicly raise levinson. he has gone after regimes that imprison americans. that is good, he should. another interesting fact may be at the un general assembly, whether the president bumped into rouhani informally and what happens. for sure, they will not be formally meeting. but if so, if they come together, what would the president say? what would rouhani say? i think it will be one of the very interesting facets. i have been at those meetings with heads of state. lunches, where informally, everyone comes together and we will see what happens. maybe they will have a conversation. eric: finally, the president has ruled out a potential meeting. do think or would you advise him to sit down with rouhani? despite all of the differences between the two nations? >> i would want secretary pompeo and the national

security team to be there. sometimes the president having these unilateral meetings without staff, like he did with vladimir putin and kim jong-un. i will reserve judgment if he has a staff with him, i think it would be okay. eric: no alone one on one is the mesh -- the message. always good to see you. thank you for weighing-in and on the national council. >> thank you. arthel: the trump administration proposing a new rule that could make it harder for would-be citizens to obtain permanent legal status in the us. why immigration advocates are opposing this as the biggest change to illegal immigration systems in decades. coming up next.

for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve. all day strong. this is loma linda, a place with one of the highest ♪ life expectancies in the country. you see so many people walking around here in their hundreds. so how do you stay financially well for all those extra years?

well, you have to start planning as early as possible. we all need to plan, for 18 years or more, of retirement. i don't have a whole lot saved up, but i'm working on it now. i will do whatever i need to do. ♪ plan your financial life with prudential. bring your challenges. arthel: welcome back.

the trumpet ministration moving to limit various welfare benefits to immigrants, visa and green card holders. the proposed rule aims to lessen dependency on government programs. and it could make it harder for those immigrants to be granted u.s. citizenship. william longeness is following the story from our west coast newsroom.

william? >> say an immigrant is hereunder work, student or family visa and want to get a green card. it would allow them to live and work in the u.s. permanently. the new rule says that you will not qualify if you have taken welfare benefits, food, housing, medical care in the last two years. about $2000 for individual, $4000 for family. importantly this is a rule change. it does not require congressional action. meaning it could actually happen. so the change affects millions of illegal immigrants who currently receive some form of government welfare. cash assistance, food stamps, medicaid, housing or energy subsidies. saturday dh said this in a statement. those seeking to immigrate to the united states must show that they can support themselves financially. the rules intended to promote immigrant self-sufficiency and protect finite resources by

ensuring that they are not likely to become a burden on american taxpayers. but opponents say that the rule change could affect up to 20 million because immigrants who currently receive money for their children will stop taking benefits fearing deportation, or missing their chance at citizenship. both the trumpet ministration keeps finding new ways to demonize and punish america's immigrant families. that is a two according to a california congresswoman. they want immigrants to choose between letting the children go hungry and risking their chance for a green card. that is outrageous. so the ministration says that the rule is simply clarifying an existing law was to prevent president clinton in 1999 that says an immigrant cannot become a public charge, the new rule defines separate changes entirely as a to boost political turnout if you according to critics in the midterms. arthel? arthel: william, what happens

next? >> well it goes to federal register and the public has 60 days to comment. it could be a legal challenge but theoretically it could become a law. back to you. >> we will keep an eye on this. thank you liam luncheon us in los angeles. eric: thank you. arthel: we will be back here for easter. eric: we hope that you have a good rest of your sunday. we have more coming up from washington as we continue coverage about the kavanaugh controversy and doctor ford here on the fox news channel. we will see you in three hours. i don't keep track of regrets. and i don't add up the years. but what i do count on is boost®.

delicious boost® high protein nuritional drink now has 33% more protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals boost® high protein. be up for life. boost® high protein. what i just introduced you worto my parents.g? psst! craig and sheila broke up. what, really? craig and shelia broke up!? no, craig!? what happened? i don't know. is she okay? ♪ craig and sheila broke up! craig and sheila!? ♪ as long as office gossip travels fast, you can count on geico saving folks money. craig and sheila broke up! what!? fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. >> tech: so you think this chip is nothing to worry about? well at safelite, we know sooner or later every chip will crack. these friends were on a trip when their windshield got chipped. so they scheduled at safelite.com. they didn't have to change their plans or worry about a thing. i'll see you all in a little bit. and i fixed it right away with a strong repair they can trust. plus, with most insurance

a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> tech: being there whenever you need us that's another safelite advantage. >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.

i'm still giving it my best even though i live with a higher risk of stroke due to afib not caused by a heart valve problem. so if there's a better treatment than warfarin, i'm up for that. eliquis. eliquis is proven to reduce stroke risk better than warfarin. plus has significantly less major bleeding than warfarin. eliquis is fda-approved and has both. so what's next? seeing these guys. don't stop taking eliquis unless your doctor tells you to, as stopping increases your risk of having a stroke. eliquis can cause serious and in rare cases fatal bleeding. don't take eliquis if you have an artificial heart valve or abnormal bleeding. while taking eliquis, you may bruise more easily and it may take longer than usual for any bleeding to stop. seek immediate medical care for sudden signs of bleeding, like unusual bruising. eliquis may increase your bleeding risk if you take certain medicines. tell your doctor about all planned

medical or dental procedures. eliquis, the number one cardiologist-prescribed blood thinner. ask your doctor if eliquis is what's next for you. >> is happening. an agreement to testify at the days of negotiations. jet cabin is accuser doctor christine blasey ford is set to go before the senate judiciary committee on thursday. >> plus, millions of americans face new flooding this weekend. this time in texas and oklahoma. >> plus, a visit from two special friends. i got to spend time with in the carolinas last weekend. rescued from near death. they are looking for forever homes. leland: yes, there will be puppies!