better-than-expected earnings, that's what we saw the belly of the gate this morning. but it turned into the red. >> bill: there is still time. the speech good to have you here, bill hemmer. >> bill: i appreciate that. nice and rested. >> sandra: that's it for us, "outnumbered" starts now. >> harris: a new push for a breakthrough in the partial government shutdown. the senate is said to hold procedural votes tomorrow on two competing bills aimed at reopening the government. there are already signs the senate may be headed for another stalemate. this is "outnumbered." i'm harris faulkner. here today, melissa francis. town hall editor, fox news contributor, katie pavlich. fox news analyst and cohost of benson and arif on fox news radio, marie harf. and in the center seat, former nfl quarterback, super bowl champion, joe theismann is in the house. he stars in the new movie, "no coming," airing this saturday. in the prime time hours, on the hallmark channel. anytime you're in a hallmark

movie i'm treating like crazy. and you are so kind. and then fire comes to my twitter feed. oh, my gosh, he's on tv! it was great. >> joe: i appreciate that, thank you. it will be fun. with the craziest of the nfc aves each have each of the games in the super bowl coming up a week from now, it's a great saturday night opportunity to sit down and relax their family. to sort of reload, reengage with everybody. everybody you've thrown out of the room so you can watch the game. and you get is that together. and enjoy a hallmark movie. [laughter] it was a fun movie to do. >> harris: if you need somebody to help you hold those rings, you just let me know. >> joe: the other thing, i get to play in agent and this one. so i get to yell and scream and throw things. it's fun. if that time of your. >> harris: for a few seconds, i will take good care of it. i'm glad you are here. let's get to the news. the senate is set to consider two bills tomorrow. the president's proposal which includes border wall funding and temporary protections for some

illegal immigrants who came to the united states as children along with some other measures. the senate democrats bill, which temporarily funds the government through february 8th, is without any wall funding. both pieces of legislation are expected to fail. yesterday, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell called on democrats to support the president's proposal. watch. >> the opportunity to end all this is staring us right in the face. all that needs to happen is for our democratic friends to agree that it's time to put the country out of politics, take yes for an answer, and vote to put the standoff behind us. >> harris: but top senate democrats chuck schumer doubled down on opposition. >> the president had to make a proposal to try and shake things up. it was not a good faith proposal, it was not intended to end the shut down. the president's proposal is one-sided, harshly partisan, and was made in bad faith.

>> harris: and, as the debate rages on, federal workers will be missing their second paycheck on friday if the deal is not reached by then. this now has gone on for many, many more days -- not just making history, but more than anybody anticipated probably on either side. >> joe: it really has. part of the problem, first of all, with what senator schumer said, that it was made in bad faith -- it was an offer made. i do you say it's faith? i don't quite understand the verbiage that is used there, but there are 70 people out there now that are looking for some opportunity to be able to pay more a mortgage, a car payment. to be able to go forward with no light at the end of that tunnel. that's the most frustrating thing for us as citizens of the united states. why is this contest between basically almost two people, that are saying, "i'm going to do it my way, i'm going to do it

my way," and no compromise? and then he present two bills and nobody expects them to be pass anyway. why present them if they aren't going to pass? >> harris: politics of the heart of any free thing you mention, and i think you are referring to the president and nancy pelosi is the two people. the president succeed he to expose one's ability. for the security is important enough to fight for. but on the flip side, they have said they won't give the president a dollar for the small. who wears this, politically, now? >> joe: to be honest, i think the democrats are wearing it. because at least there's an overture made. when i come back with something customer goats take the term "wall" out. it seems like that term, everybody is supposed to that. why don't we call it border security? in some way, shape, or form. let's fashion some something that we can abort a security. not a wall, but call it whatever you want. to get some funding started so the process can move forward. it doesn't have to be a lump sum

amount. >> melissa: you see it's one side against the other, but when i listen to him say it's one-sided i feel like the offer from the president is almost one-sided pro-democrat. if you look at it, 700,000 dreamers keep their protection. there are $800 million in humanitarian assistant. more border agents, drug technology, drug detection technology. why are we seeing ads that are saying, "go to your senator, tell them to vote for this." like we did with kavanaugh and the others. maybe it's because republicans don't support this. the offer that he made is too generous for the rest of you find them. >> joe: he's been been with that throughout the entire couple of years already. you have to remember, he defeated both the republican party in the democratic party to become president of the united states. there weren't a lot of republicans that were saying, "hey, go for you."

so where do you find your allies? where do you find allies who will support you and what you want to do, bringing out proposals? but a lot of proposals on the table. the art of the deal is to put a deal out there. >> harris: and isn't that what nancy pelosi and her team have done, marie? on the house side? the problem is, not one piece of legislation proposed has anything for the barrier at the border, which the experts are telling us is necessary in some places. >> marie: well, democrats have said they are happy to have that negotiation over where the barrier will go. >> harris: there is not enough, though. they say they don't trust it will get done. >> marie: i also think the democrat look at republicans who have had unified control of congress for two years, when they didn't do it, and they say, "now it's on the crisis question why didn't you do it then when you were in power? ">> harris: but you still needed 60 votes in the senate. >> marie: true, but in terms of what melissa said -- i think they should counter offer and engage in in a negotiation.

everybody knows, what has been put forward as in not enough for democrats. there's a lot of reasons for that. >> melissa: so what would you come up with? >> marie: a permanent fix for daca, not just three years. because of the supreme court they basically protected dreamers for the next year. not just 700,000, but for all the people. all of the kids. >> harris: the president originally gave $1.8 million. >> marie: let me just for this year. there are substantive ways to counter, and i think the democrats should. the challenge is that tomorrow republicans are going to be asked to be voting on a bill to reopen the government that they all voted for in december. many of them will vote against it tomorrow. there's nothing new, substantively, in that bill. it's just that donald trump won't sign it. but republicans are going to have to go out and explain why they voted for something in december that they are voting against now, because the president changed his position. and the polling is showing overwhelmingly that donald trump

and congressional republicans are getting blamed. but democrats should engage in negotiations. they just want the government to reopen first. >> katie: harris, he brought up the political point. the truth is that daca is something that goes across political aisles. republicans supported for the most part, democrats supported, independence overwhelmingly supported. and yet you still have democrats saying, "we won't negotiate over this. period" and nancy pelosi and steny hoyer, interestingly enough, are not on the same page when it comes to funding. he keeps saying we are about border barriers because they work. my question is, how long will they continue to say it's about president trump when border patrol agents on the ground have repeatedly said they need these tools to fight the problem? >> melissa: imagine steny hoyer. in the meantime, there's also a showdown over the state of the union set for six days from now. the president wants to go ahead with the speech, but speaker nancy pelosi could prevent him from delivering it in the house. sources telling fox news the president is preparing two versions of the address. when he can deliver in

washington, and another that he would give someone else in the country. here is white house press secretary sarah sanders. >> we always like to have a plan b, but the president should be able to address the american people whether he does that from the halls of congress or whether he does that in another location. the president will talk to the american people on january 29th, as he does nearly every single day. we are going to continue moving forward with a state of the union. >> harris: in the meantime, speaker pelosi says that she hasn't heard from the president after asking them to postpone his address while the government shutdown continues. the only response she says she has gotten his letter from the white house advance team asking for a walk through ahead of the speech. but the number two democrat in the house, steny hoyer, doesn't seem to have any objections. watch this. >> the patients of the congress, in particular, the house.

to address the president of united states. >> do think he said "i want to go to there in person and present everybody," would you be okay with that? >> sure. >> melissa: mr. super bowl, do you think there is brinks in the rank? >> joe: i don't think there is a security issue. but speaker pelosi has the final say in what happens. but she is also mentioned that she doesn't want the president to do the state of the union, but he can submit it in writing. what's the difference? in writing, versus showing up into it. the harm? if there such a concern about security, which they have basically taken care of, was arm of doing a walk-through? even if you decide at the last minute that you won't allow them to do it. i think there is a break in ranks there. i think there is not unity on the democratic party. you hear it, you just hear the explanations. i think everybody is moving closer and closer.

let's get something. i get the sense, the feeling that it isn't just the frustration of the american people. it's the frustration of the politicians trying to defend the positions that they are in. what steny hoyer comes out and says, that he's fun to come here, and pelosi says, "no, i don't want them." they have a conversations among themselves. >> katie: the fact of the president has the plan b to give the speech outside the capital, it says two things. one, that they are willing to do it anyway. the other, that they don't trust nancy pelosi. she didn't accept the invitation, she lied about their ability to secure the the ringp for this event. and then she said she didn't care about what they said about her lying about it. she has not rescinded the invitation. my guess is she's waiting until the last minute to pull the invitation, which would be another petty move on her part. the president should show up if she won't resend it officially, and heaven and future behind them. if nancy pelosi doesn't want to be there, it would look very bad for her to not be there, with an

empty chair next to vice president mike pence while the president lays out his negotiation, his compromise for getting the government reopened in front of the country. >> harris: what's interesting about that, remember the last empty chair. remember, the president tried to have schumer and pelosi to talk other issues earlier on in his presidency and there was an empty chair when one of them didn't show up then. so, thematically, this has been, "can they sit down at the invitation of the president even if they don't agree with whatever the deals on the table? "and actually get something done. marie? >> marie: i think the other thing is whether it's appropriate to have this big event with pump so my pomp and circumstance when all these people are getting paid. i agree, the security thing -- i probably wouldn't have gone in that direction. but is it appropriate to have this big event? should we wait till the government is open to then say, "okay, here's how we move forward." i wish white house would engage in a conversation about this.

>> katie: it isn't about donald trump, it's about the president. he could be anybody. the state of the union, it is ia historical event that is given every year. the first person to use it politically gives the president -- >> melissa: what better time to come out address was going on, when there's a crisis? it seems like it's most appropriate to go out -- >> harris: for most of our history -- with let joe have the last word. >> joe: a >> joe: i think it is appropriate for him to come out and talk about it. there has to be some dialogue. i would make a prediction, which i very seldom do, that within the next 30 days there has to be some type of movement. this cannot continue for the american people. all those people are going to miss yet another paycheck. and then if you think about it, two more weeks, that's through paychecks. you go all the mortgages and house payments and everything else that is out there. kids in school. all those things are affected. >> melissa: maybe they can come to resolution.

one of the worst because the nfl has seen. this is the other big argument everybody out there is having picked the new orleans saints fans, do they really have a business suing the league over it? should the nfl commissioner get involved? perfect questions for joe theismann. his thoughts on those ahead. plus, outrage after high school student caught in the viral video kicked out. the rush to judgment. anger now directed at the anchor who gave him the chance to give his side of the story. big questions about social media and pc culture. we will hash all of it out. >> it's been terrible. people have threatened our live lives. i have the utmost respect for mr. phillips. another person that freely uses his first amendment rights. i want to thank him for his military service. ♪ mom! he's blinking too loud. sorry, is that too loud? you don't need any more hormones in your house.

that's why you chose kraft natural cheese. made with fresh milk without the added hormone rbst. it's cheese as it should be. hi, i'm joan lunden with a place for mom. when my mother first began to forget things, we didn't really know what that meant or where to turn for more information. looking back i wish we'd asked for help sooner. that's why i recommend a place for mom. it's a free service that pairs you with a local senior living advisor who understands memory care and can help you find the right place for your mom or dad. our advisors have helped thousands of families and can help answer key questions like: we all want what's best for our parents, so get advice from someone who's done it before. call today and talk to an advisor who knows memory care. you'll be glad you did.

and the army taught me a lot about commitment. which i apply to my life and my work. at comcast we're commited to delivering the best experience possible, by being on time everytime. and if we are ever late, we'll give you a automatic twenty dollar credit. my name is antonio and i'm a technician at comcast. we're working to make things simple, easy and awesome. ♪ >> i was not disrespectful to mr. phillips. i respect him. i would like to talk to him. i mean, in hindsight, i wish we could have walked away and avoided the whole thing. but i can't say that i'm sorry for listening to him and standing there.

>> harris: new file it now as the catholic student at the center of the viral video involving a native american veteran is speaking up. last week, controversy exploded over the video of covington high school student nick sandman and his classmates who were attending a march for life rally in washington, d.c., on friday. online clips should an incident between the students and a man named nathan phillips. there was an immediate rush to judgment for money don't like many on social media after they claimed that the students blocked his path had surrounded them. best-selling author treated this -- "honest question. have you ever seen a more portable face than this kid's?" former democratic party chief howard dean tweeted this. "covington catholic high school seems like a hate factory to me. why not just close it?" many critics of the students have now apologized. phillips has changed his story, and it's become very clear but

he approached the students and on the other way around. now some high-profile personalities on twitter are going after the nbc news anchor for that interview. another best-selling author, angie thomas, tweeted this. "this is appalling. today show savannah guthrie, at all involved need to be a shame. i'm waiting for the day the kids with color are given this much to busy. do better." marie harf, where are we in all of this? >> marie: have never been happier to not be on twitter, by the way, then i was this weeken. part of the challenge over the weekend -- one side of the i was using this for political purposes. and now the other side a strength use that as well. i think it's more complicated. i have watched the hour plus a video. it seems clear that the original narrative wasn't accurate. it also seems clear that there were some bad things the students were doing. the tomahawk chop they were doing. there is new video of them yelling very offensive things at a group of female students.

everyone here should have just walked away. my question has always been, where were the parents? where were the chaperones? where would the adults? >> harris: well, you had a lot of adults there who also were not walking away. >> marie: i hate the fact that every site is using what is clearly a complicated interaction for political purposes. i just hate it all. >> joe: is a spontaneous moment. there are confrontations that we have in our lives every day, whether it's on the street, coming out of the store, no matter where you are. there's that spontaneous moment where, when given a chance to think about it, you would say, "maybe i would've handled it differently." the young man i said that, nathan phillips has also said he wants to go talk to the young man. >> harris: yes, he said that. a >> joe: which really ought to be a lesson for everyone that is criticizing it, saying that the two principles involved in this want to sit down and say, "let's sit down and talk about it." people and that's very biblical way of handling it.

take it to the source. >> joe: with social media come everybody so quick to judge. everything that is said and done. >> melissa: that's very true. rather than parsing who said what, when, and what it was like, who is to blame, there are two lessons we could take away from this. one is don't join the mob. whether that's online when everybody piles on -- everybody has been guilty of that on every side. don't join the mob. and in person, when tempers are flaring, don't join the mob. number two is everybody on the cows has been attacked at one point or the other. he feels a lot worse than you think it's going to. he feels a lot worse even than it looks like from the outside. >> harris: that's because we allow ourselves to be offended by so much. >> melissa: but everybody is coming out you. it feels awful. >> harris: it does feel awful. i have been -- the children are the ones with the least amount of experience with that.

then you have to navigate the issue of why didn't the adults walk away? i want to say this, and full disclosure -- a lot of this played out on twitter. many of us are in social media. we are on twitter. i didn't take that beat. all of my 25 years in journalism taught me differently, because we couldn't independently confirm that video. howard kurtz and i talked about this on "overtime" yesterday. we are of that generation, gently over 29 -- [laughter] the trigger for that is a lot different. because we are looking at it as permanency. nothing goes away on the internet. when he stepped down, get on red with, "i'm sorry," whatever. everything is, don't feel gifted to her thing. >> katie: i can't buy that this is the two-sided thing. what this started out as was the assumption that we should should believe a native american man overweight students because he's a native american. instead of just looking for the

truth. that is what led to this spinning out of control. the idea that there was a longer video that showed the students were approached by nathan phillips, who has a long history of bloating has record, not talking about his record truth way. and being an activist who does things like this to promote people. he went up to children, under the age of 18, to provoke them. and they didn't fight back in a way that maybe they could have. and they were in a public space, on the national mall, expressing their first amendment rights by wearing a "make america great again" hat. the media and everyone turns around and says, "they started it by wearing that hat. that's why they were approached." but it was the other way around. they were the ones recipient of homophobic and racist comments, and yet everybody is saying it was two-sided when it wasn't two-sided. the bottom line is -- >> marie: but why the tomahawk chop and yelling at these women? >> katie: it happens to

conservatives, especially on campus. >> harris: i've got a slight it is a breaking news here. >> melissa: breaking news, the president has just put out a letter saying he's going to accept speaker pelosi's invitation and he looks forward to the evening of january 29th when he is going to deliver important information to the people and the congress of the united states. and he's going to go to the chamber of the house of representatives in order to deliver that state of the union. right now the president issuing a letter to speaker pelosi, letting her know, in essence, that he is taking her up on her offer. >> marie: her first offer. >> harris: well, she never rescinded the invitation that is originally what he calls a contract. what do you think? >> joe: so the offer is there. what he has done, he's being proactive and saying, "i'm going to show up." now it's in her court. now you make the decision. >> harris: what do you think she does? >> joe: i think she won't let

him speak. >> harris: really? >> joe: yes. >> katie: that would look so bad for them. >> marie: it's a good question. >> joe: i think it's a great question. personally, she has taken such a stance. we've heard it so often, that she is adamantly opposed to anything of the president would say, that she would probably say no. >> melissa: can i get in one more quote here? "i've already accepted your kind invitation. however, i received another letter from you dated january 16th where new expressed concerns regarding security during the state of the union dirt tell mike do to the shutdown. even prior to asking, i was contacted by the department of homeland security and the secret service to explain there would be no problem. "so he's acknowledging that second letter. >> harris: that rings me to my next point with you, mary. it would have done the speaker a great deal of power behind her words had she picked up the phone and talked with the secret service and with dhs to find out what it would be like to actually secure the state of the union speech location.

so, the president really had more than one choice. could have handed in the written report on it. also he could have gone to a different venue. we know he's protected no matter where he goes. what is her thinking at this point? is this capitulation to the base, and who is the base? is it inside the house, or wider america? >> marie: just be clear, i think she should have made her initial argument that we don't think all the people in the secret service and everyone should have to protect this huge event -- >> harris: but she did, we can't revise history. >> marie: let's not forget these people still will be paid. >> harris: right, but that wasn't her argument. she based her argument on something she didn't vet. >> marie: next tuesday, he comes, they will be getting paid as long as the government is still closed. i have no idea what she's going to do, because now the president has put it back in her court. i think she's going to let him speak. i honestly -- i think she, if i have to make a production, will have him come to speak. >> harris: are going to potentially see that awkward moment that we saw, a rebuttal

to his first oval office primetime address with her and senator schumer? >> marie: that's good question, who will give it -- it's always the opposition party giving the rebuttal. but that it's awkward because there's no audience. >> harris: she could own the union confusion the way the president said he would on the shutdown. it would be apropos for it to be her, perhaps. again. >> marie: it would be interesting. that's an interesting question. >> katie: i think it would look really bad for a politically she tried to censor the president. it would be worse if she didn't show up i did. >> joe: that he has really put her in a situation where she has to make some very difficult decisions from a public perception standpoint. as well as a political standpoint of what she wants to do, as the speaker. it's basically, "thank you for the invitation, i appreciate very much, and i accept. i'll be there." but will they open the door and

allow him to do what he's done come over so many presidents before have done? except for i think harry truman, he was the one who wasn't allowed a few years ago. before we were 29. [laughter] >> melissa: they were clearing to see who would do the respons response. >> harris: why wouldn't she step up and say, "i own it?" very interesting. at some point we have to talk about who the base really is. that's for another day, i guess. freshman congresswoman alexandria ocasio-cortez, known on social media as aoc, making waves once again saying a system that created billionaires alongside extreme poverty is immoral. now she is one of several progressive's name to the powerful house oversight committee. what could that mean for the democrats, washington, and for the greater economy? stay close. ♪ if you're a veteran homeowner who needs cash, call newday usa. home values are rising, and with newday's va cash out home loan, you can borrow up to 100 percent

of your home's increased value. you could get 54,000 dollars or more and lower your payments by over $600 a month. with automatic authority from the va, newday can say yes when banks say no. take advantage of your home's increased value. call newday usa now. go to newdayusa.com or call 1-800-405-6714

carla is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking prescription ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive her2- metastatic breast cancer as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death.

before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. carla calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance. the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc. reach her health goals! i'm in! but first... shelfie! the great-tasting nutrition of ensure. with up to 30 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals! ensure. for strength and energy.

>> harris: breaking news, the president has just sent a letter letting the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, know that he accepts her original invitation to talk with joint congress. the state of the union address, on january 29th. we have been sharing with you parts of that letter. i want to read the final paragraph, because it kind of sums it up. "i look forward to seeing you on the evening of january 29th, in the chamber of the house of representative. it would be very sad for our country if the state of the union were not delivered on time." now i'm going to go to the next bit of information here, from our producer, chad, keeping us informed of what the next steps are. it's still going to be speaker pelosi's call, and here is why -- the house and senate still must approve a concurrent resolution approving the use of the chamber for the state of the union, and authorizing the president to speak before a joint session of congress. but the president now accepting, skipping over the second letter, telling him that perhaps it weren't going to happen but not

completely canceling it. but accepting that january 3rd letter, which he then points out also in his that, you know, it was long after the government had shut down. so for her to then dip in and say she was worried about security -- i will add again, she did not check with the secret service on that. joe, i see you nodding. >> joe: one of the things that would be very important, if you're going to make statements -- which, i have sat on the spot before, i've made some statements and i get tweets and emails that say, "are your facts correct?" >> melissa: know, that never happens! [laughter] >> joe: it's probably never happen to you! it did happen to me, one of the first times i was here! it put me on alert to say, make sure you understand what you are talking about before you talk about it. make sure you have your facts correct. if you are going to make a statement that is verifiable. i think it lends credibility to the position that you taken.

in speaker pelosi's case, you have that about the security. which really isn't an issue. >> katie: i don't know how she thought she would get away with it. >> marie: they are playing the game. >> harris: can i talk about the dealmaking that is going on right now? the dealmaking is not really about whether or not we are going to see a state of the union, or nancy pelosi can use military transport. the dealmaking is about the government shutdown right now. so now my question is, where are these two and their relationship and their abilities to do a deal? john roberts is about to join us from the north lawn. john, i just got interesting yet again. at the center of this is opening the government. what difference is this going to make in the overall picture? >> i don't think this will make any difference in the overall picture of opening the government. i mean, that all depends on what happens in the senate later on today. but now the president -- and we knew that the president was likely going to make this move,

because we were told yesterday that the president wanted to fulfill its constitutional obligation to deliver the state of the union address as scheduled next tuesday. so now he has codified that with a letter back to nancy pelosi, saying he plans to be there next tuesday night. security was the reason why nancy pelosi had originally asked the president to postpone or deliver the state of the union in writing. the president says in the letter, "i would contacted by the deferment of hemp down my homeland security at the secret service that explained there would be no problem with respect to the event. they have since confirmed this publicly." we had that last week. "accordingly, there were no security concerns regarding the save the union address. therefore, i will be honoring your invitation." he missed and letter are there." as my constitutional duty, deliver important information to the american people regarding the state of our union. i look forward to seeing you on the evening generally 29th in

the chamber of the house. it would be so very sad for a country if the state of eden wasn't delivered on time come on schedule, and reportedly come on location." was that it does now, harris, this firmly whacks the ball back into nancy pelosi's court. she's got a couple choices here. she can't live the state of the union go ahead, or she can just invite the president. if she really doesn't want them up there on tuesday with the forum to be able to talk about all the things he wants to talk about, that she is going to have to diss invite him. that would be precedent-setting and i'm not sure how that would go over with the nation. >> melissa: john, can ask you -- because if you move on to the idea of getting this whole thing resolved, which is really backed up to the whole state of the union thing, there is all this talk about how there has to be big idea out there. some big deal that everybody could come together on. i believe it was axios who had

the story about republicans floating an idea of green cards for those 700,000 daca recipients. that may be that is something -- a big deal, that would make this all kind of come to a conclusion. what are you hearing on that front? is any of that real? >> in terms of big deals, the state of the union is not it. it's not part of the big deal. so let's put that to the side. but this idea of green cards or some sort of path to status or citizenship for daca recipients -- that something that is a nonstarter among most of the president's base and among a large swath of republicans in congress. you bring these bills to the floor, you open them up to the amendment process, anything can happen. so who knows what would ultimately get passed by the senate? and then the house can either take up the senate bill, or they could even start action on their own if they wanted to. i think what's interesting here, melissa and harris, is this idea that we are beginning to see some movement in congress, at the very least.

the president, again, throwing down the gauntlet's nancy pelosi to say, "if you don't want me there are tuesday night, you got the diss invite me." we will sue happens. >> melissa: john roberts there at the white house. thank you so much. we will be her back with a lot more, you can count on that. mom and dad got a new car. it's not theirs, it's mine. the rx350l with three rows for up to seven passengers. lease the 2019 rx350 for $449 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.

sleep number 360 smart bed. it senses your movement and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. save up to $500 on select sleep number 360 smart beds. plus, 36-month financing. ends saturday.

smile dad. i take medication for high blood pressure and cholesterol. but they might not be enough to protect my heart. adding bayer aspirin can further reduce the risk of another heart attack. because my second chance matters. be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. and i don't add trup the years.s. but what i do count on... is boost® delicious boost® high protein nutritional drink has 20 grams of protein, along with 26 essential vitamins and minerals. boost® high protein. be up for life. oh! oh! oh! ♪ ozempic®! ♪ (announcer) people with type 2 diabetes are excited about the potential of once-weekly ozempic®. in a study with ozempic®, a majority of adults lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than seven and maintained it.

oh! under seven? and you may lose weight. in the same one-year study, adults lost on average up to 12 pounds. oh! up to 12 pounds? a two-year study showed that ozempic® does not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events like heart attack, stroke, or death. oh! no increased risk? ♪ oh, oh, oh, ozempic®! ♪ ozempic® should not be the first medicine for treating diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not share needles or pens. don't reuse needles. do not take ozempic® if you have a personal or family history of medullary thyroid cancer, multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to ozempic®. stop taking ozempic® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, itching, rash, or trouble breathing. serious side effects may happen, including pancreatitis. tell your doctor if you have diabetic retinopathy or vision changes. taking ozempic® with a sulfonylurea or insulin may increase the risk for low blood sugar.

common side effects are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, stomach pain, and constipation. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. i discovered the potential with ozempic®. ♪ oh! oh! oh! ozempic®! ♪ ask your healthcare provider if ozempic® is right for you. ♪ >> melissa: former high school football coach joseph kennedy is sparking a national debate which ended up costing him his job three years ago. kennedy filed a first amendment suit against his former school district, but this week a setback. the supreme court refusing to take up the ninth circuit appeal court's decision that his firing was justified. four conservative justices writing severely to express concerns the case raised about religious liberty, but agreeing the case should not be reviewed at this time.

the president of first liberty university, which represents kennedy, vowing to keep pursuing appeals. joe, your thoughts on this one? they say he was acting as a public official, as a coach on a public school team when he went out in view and prayed with the team. the other players weren't forced to pray with him but he was there in plain view and was doing it on a regular basis. >> joe: the first thing was the supreme court said they are not prepared to reviewed at this time, which doesn't mean it's not completely on their docket at some point in time. in the national football league, we have place at the end of the game from both teams, players, coaches, representatives of the team, equipment men -- they get up to the center of the field and they pray together. i don't know what's wrong, if you allow somebody the freedom to be able to make a choice of whether they want to be there or not. it's not like you are making someone come out. why do we have to legislate all the freedoms that we have in this country?

if the coach wants to go out, and if he's by himself, or team members during him, i don't see where the problem is. i don't see where you are forcing something on someone else. religiously asking someone to do something that may be against their religion, or their belief beliefs. >> harris: being a parent with kids in sports, there are times when you will hear leadership of teams use cuss words and all sorts of things. my husband played basketball for high school and college at a pretty high level. when you think about the things that could be said over and around your children, i just wonder where you put that in comparison with praying over them. if parents want to weigh in and opt their kids out, is that an answer that keeps us from legislating? because there's a lot of things i would prefer not be set around my children, but they are not in this particular cauldron of conversation. >> joe: be even have it in the world of professional football. there is language that is basically legislated out. back when i played, guys said things to other guys and he said

things people and it was just part of the society. this is a different society we live in today. >> melissa: it sure is. saints fans want a do over. they are taking the nfl to court over it. the hail mary of a lawsuit, as serious fans threatened boycotts and even purchased billboards. >> i don't have to tell you the damage to the city, to the state, to the fans. it is monumental, the amount of money it has cost. and the english it has cost of the fans. not to mention the fact that it's a black guy on the nfl ♪ lets you refinance your home and take out 54,000 dollars or more to pay credit card debt, or just put money in the bank. it even lowers your payments by over 600 dollars a month. as a veteran, you've earned the powerful va home loan benefit that lets you refinance up to 100 percent of your home's value.

and with home values rising, that can mean a lot more money for you and your family. and because newday usa has been granted automatic authority by the va, they can say yes when banks say no. and they'll do all the va paperwork for you. we all know some of life's most important financial decisions are made right here at the kitchen table. so, if you're a veteran and need cash, calling newday usa could be one of the best decisions you'll ever make. go to newdayusa.com, or call 1-877-423-5734. is our command. your steak & lobster wish

steak & lobster is back by popular demand, starting at only $15.99. hurry in to outback! steak & lobster is only here for a limited time.

♪ >> marie: you might call it an epic mistake. it certainly was. note the legal equivalent of a hail mary pass, some saints fans are suing to try and reverse the results of the game that sent the los angeles rams to the super bowl. or, have a do over. this, after the refs failed to call a blatant pass interference or roughing penalties when they rams player leveled a saints

receiver with a helmet. the helmet hit the end of sunday's game. you heard melissa's reaction there. one saints fan is behind billboards have gone up in atlanta, the site of super bowl liii. billboards are bringing to nfl for the blown call. the saints owner and louisiana's governor both firing off letters to the league in protest. the blown call is certainly string a lot of direction. speak up when the president come up when. this became a blame the refs game. the average 4.5 yards per play come easily the lowest and weakest of the final four teams. todd gurley got benched. the best offensive player for the rams. and sean payton inexplicably passed the ball instead of running to either corporate or annuity was looking but pay, it's the refs. >> is not a bad call, that's around us call. it's the worst one i've heard in the nfl history because of implications. it's devastating. [laughter] >> marie: most people agreeing that was a terrible call.

in addition to this lawsuit, they are saying maybe pass interference should not be able to be reviewed by the refs. currently it's not. you have a suggestion, i think. >> joe: first of all, it was egregious. secondly, if the officials are claiming one of them said they thought it was a good hit, if that's the case you have to reposition the officials on the field to be able to see different things out there. i think it was terrible. i feel for the saints fans. i feel for sean. as a player, you play your heart out. the kansas city game, they lined up outside during the interception. that's a player doing something. >> that was awful. >> joe: i know, that was for you. that's another story. in this case, as a player, the coach, fans, everybody involved in the organization -- you did everything you did right to be able to get there and it didn't happen. i think we ought to do is keep the three challenges that exist and give a coach one more challenge. this challenge falls outside the three that are there, because if something inside the game happens -- whether it's pass

interference, face mask, whether it's helmet to helmet -- something at a critical point in the game that you deem is critical. you have the right to challenge. it goes to new york, new york at the chance to look at it, they evaluate it, and they say yay or nay. but give the opportunity for one more challenge. you cannot review every call. it's like to review walking in the nba. it happens all the time. if you look at the national football league, there are three stages of officiating. there's preseason where they emphasize things, there is a regular season with a try and implement the rules, and there's the postseason received very few penalties called. example real quick -- last year's super bowl between the philadelphia eagles and the new england patriots, the new england patriots had one penalty. i think it ought to be that way all year round. let them play. let the guys play football. plus, you also do with different perceptions and different views from different officials. so there's a lot going on, but for the saints fans it's not going to happen. there's not going to be replaced. you're not going to the super bowl. >> marie: who are you taking

to the super bowl? >> i think the new england patriots have been there so many times they lived there. >> marie: i can't support that! >> joe: the rams have defied so many odds against them, it would despise me if they can do it. but right now i say the patriots. >> marie: we will watch. morse between five just a moment. you don't want to miss it. stay tuned.

hey, who are you? oh, hey jeff, i'm a car thief... what?! i'm here to steal your car because, well, that's my job.

what? what?? what?! (laughing) what?? what?! what?! [crash] what?! haha, it happens. and if you've got cut-rate car insurance, paying for this could feel like getting robbed twice. so get allstate... and be better protected from mayhem... like me. ♪ reach her health goals! i'm in! but first... shelfie! the great-tasting nutrition of ensure. with up to 30 grams of protein and 26 vitamins and minerals! ensure. for strength and energy.

>> melissa: fantastic, joe has a new movie premiering saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the hallmark channel. it is called "no coming." play a sports agent. who doesn't love hallmark? >> joe: it's exciting, i had a chance in 2016 to do one called "love on the sidelines." i appreciated the opportunity so much breathe asked me to do another one. the producer came back, and peter ws directed it. >> melissa: what's it about? >> joe: it's a hallmark movie. there's the coach who was going to retire, my god, my player, is thinking about going back and supporting him. but then he gets caught up with an old romance. >> melissa: there's always romance. >> joe: there's a reporter trying to get the scoop on whether he placeable. where he's going to do, what he's going to do. i've got a bunch of deals for

jacob table. i can't have them walk away from them. >> melissa: but we are all going to love it, right? sit around with your love ones and enjoy it. joe theismann, thank you for being here. that is it for us. we are back here at noon tomorrow. here's harris. >> harris: well, a lot more coming together on this. breaking news last hour, new developments on the showdown between president trump and house speaker nancy pelosi. it's all over the state of the union. you are watching "outnumbered overtime." i'm harris faulkner. president trump just minutes ago sent a letter to the democratic speaker saying he intends to deliver his state of the union address to both chambers of congress next week, as she originally invited him to do. this, after speaker pelosi had asked the president to either postpone his address or send it in writing until the government shutdown is over. chief white house correspondent john roberts navigating all this breaking news for us. from the north lawn, and now more. john? >> harris, good afternoon to you. we knew when he reporte