on july 20th, neil armstrong walked on the moon, and that historic mission began 50 years ago today. friday is going to be a big day, too. [feedback] ow! at >> sandra: are you okay? right in the last leg of the show. "outnumbered" starts now. >> harris: we begin with this fox news alert. awaiting new comments from president trump, from the white house. where he is holding a cabinet meeting at this moment. we are expecting to hear more, it may about the controversy over the president's criticism of four democratic congresswoman known as "the squad." and there is new pushback from democrats and some republicans. you are watching "newsroom news vault" five. at harris faulkner here today, melissa francis. fox news contributor, emily compagno. also contributing, jessica tarlov. in the center seat, you know him, sunday night! goes "next revolution "

it steve hilton. i'm better now that you are here. shall we roll? >> steve: we should get on with it. >> sandra: let's do it. earlier today the president denied that he his tweets are racist after he appeared to reference work democratic horsemen on sunday. today he tweeted that he believes the congresswomen, based on their actions, hate the united states. yesterday, four lawmakers, those four, hit back at a dramatic press conference. here's a bit. >> i will always refer to them as the occupants, as he is only occupying space. >> this is a president who has ultimately violated the very value our country as buyers to uphold. equality under the law, religious liberty, equal protection, and protection from persecution. >> tweets and words from the president are a continuation of his racist and xenophobic playbook. we cannot allow these hateful actions by the president to distract us from the critical work to hold this administration

accountable to the inhumane conditions of the board of. >> the first note that i want to tell children across this country is that no matter what the president says, this country belongs to you. >> harris: house speaker nancy pelosi is set to introduce a resolution today condemning what she calls the president's "xenophobic tweets." but house minority leader kevin mccarthy says he will not vote for that resolution and says he does not believe the president's tweets were racist. >> no, and i do not believe the speaker of the house was reese's last week, either, when those individuals on her side of the aisle claiming the president is racist, when they claim she was racist, either. i do but not believe that. i believe this is about ideology. socialism versus freedom. i will vote against this resolution, if you are asking. it's all politics. if you look at the resolution itself and the rules of the house, you can't even name the resolution on the floor. >> harris: but some

republicans, including congressman peter king, said the president went too far. >> the president's remarks were inappropriate. there are many legitimate criticisms to make of those four members of congress, but shouldn't use terminology like that. >> do you think it was racist, what he said? >> i don't think he's a racist, no. it's language that should be inflammatory and he shouldn't have done it. >> harris: a short time ago white house counsel or can it kellyanne conway said the president was being given unfair criticism of america. >> they are the only four democrats to vote against humanitarian aid to the border when that vote was taken to peekskill. they have no moral authority to ever talk about the border and the kids and the humanitarian crisis there. with the president is doing, we are sick and tired of many people in this country. forget these four. they represent a dark underbelly in this country. the president has explained that if you don't like it here, get out. by the way, that goes way beyond these four people. >> harris: this is getting, as we say in my household, hotter

than stew on sunday after church. [laughter] >> steve: i'm glad you introduced a bit of lightness into the conversation. >> harris: it's heavy. >> steve: that's how i feel about it. i find it really, truly depressing, harris. the conversation itself is very self-indulgent. it's very decadent. it's people in the political industrial complex who live very comfortable lives, indulging, "you are a racist, you are a racist." whatever. >> harris: right. >> steve: how does that help a single person the real world? has it helped the life chances of a single child? how does it help the towns across america? their factories are gone, their communities are collapsed. all these problems we have, none of it is addressed by this. we are talking about it, so let's say some things that are true. which is that of the selective outrage, i think, is really offensive to a lot of people. yes, of course we should condemn racist language. i think the language we saw on

sunday was racist, and i said so. we should condemn it. but we should also condemn other forms of hateful, racist language. anti-semitism is racism. it is a form of racism. it's all very well for them to do a resolution condemning president trump. they couldn't condemn anti-semitism, the democrats, when it was their turn to do that. language that compares border guards during their job at our border to nazis in a concentration camp, that to me is hateful rhetoric that should be condemned, as well. but you don't see the media running around trying to pin down members of congress to see if they agree with that. honestly, we got to condemn all hateful speech wherever it comes from. >> harris: one of the things that i ask guests on the 1:00 hour following this one, yesterday, was whether or not there is room. a particular democrat guests said, "yes, there is room for nancy pelosi to also condemn by resolution anti-semitic remarks." but he also said, "may be the time has passed because those

were set a time ago." if something is wrong, it's wrong all day long on the calendar, every day of the year, and to deal with it. it's interesting you bring that back up. we will see what happens in the house. emily? >> emily: i agree with that perspective and i appreciate. it's a privilege to serve this country as an elected official and as a policymaker. as a constituent i find it exhausting that the hill is obsessed with back-and-forth, back-and-forth, being pinned into, "is it racist? are you this?" it's become so travel, as we talked about before the show. the nuances are being lost, and so too is the effort on policy. i want to point out that it has set off a firestorm, it was a mistake come in my opinion. it's enabling the democrats to rally around and against the president. to rally around condemnation of the remarks and against the president. i do feel, strategically, he is doing this purposefully. ultimately will benefit him and that he is basically saying, "you have two options, voters." this alternative to me as

unpalatable. these four voices of a new face of the democratic party and look what you would be voting for if not me." >> harris: jessica coming on once i can pray to have a specific point i want to get to with you. but the strategy idea emily is bringing up a something of that i know you feel -- >> melissa: it matters very much less what people are sayin saying, especially people like us. it matters much more what people are doing. i think this whole thing has cranked up the heat by a million on nancy pelosi to impeach. that's the first thing we hear them say last night. i think that could be his strategy. i don't know that it's a good one. i don't know how that turns out, i don't know that it's a winning strategy. but it did look like the moment they came out and said that, that it was his goal. it may be too clever by half, it may backfire, that is what feels to me like is going on. >> harris: now i want to segue to that point of impeachment.

when you watch the news conference yesterday, that was used quite a bit. is that, in the end, what this becomes about, jessica? this idea that maybe nancy pelosi, as speaker of the house, can stop battling with these four women, the squad, and how she has to deal again with impeachment. >> jessica: she does have to deal with impeachment. but it's about -- >> harris: does this make it more of a focal point? >> jessica: i don't think it makes it more of a focal point. we will talk about al green. separate topics from these four women. i think it needs to be what it is about. that's a president unleashing a tirade of racist tweets against four women of color in this country, three of whom were born in america, all four citizens. president trump says this is about living in america or not, bernie sanders and kirsten gillibrand, for instance, call for the same things as these four women. they talk about abolishing i.c.e. they say the same things about the president. they call on the races and

you >> harris: but he doesn't call them socialist? >> jessica: he doesn't tell them to go back to their country. he targeted for women of color with this. if you want to go after democrats who used to hate america, they're certainly not all black and brown. that's explicit and as part of a strategy. as he came down that escalator and talked about criminals and racists crossing the southern border, that he called for a muslim ban, he uses racial -- i shouldn't say racially charged, that's bopping around the subject. he uses racist language to fire up his base and it is reprehensible. and that is what this is about. we shouldn't switch to say, "is impeachment, exit strategy?" >> harris: i'm not switching, pointing out the fact that those four women -- and yes, you are correct -- they are all brown and black women. those four women or a mixture thereof are being the center, the focus on this. but the word they use over and over again was "impeachment. i think that's a practicality

when you consider who's got a deal with the sow previous speaker of the house. i want to let steve back in. >> jessica: about ilhan omar, this is important. we had so many new cycles about her tweet, "it's all about the benjamin's." and criticism of israeli policy. >> harris: she wouldn't back down on it. >> jessica: she did apologize, she said there was one that was misunderstood. >> harris: there were several before that happened, but go ahead. >> jessica: zach rose, you have on the program, came out or denounce it. chuck schumer talked about it. republicans are not being held to the same standard of these kinds of things that democrat side. some have been bold. joni ernst -- >> melissa: be just washed reporters -- >> harris: i really want to get steve back in here. >> steve: i think they are being held to a higher standard. i think -- it seems to me that it's all in one direction paid agree with a lot of what he said, jessica. i really do. i think you overstated it and modeled a whole bunch of things. before this row, we sought

marine dowd, of all people come in the art times on sunday read a column where she was bemoaning the fact that, aoc, come on. people can disagree with you and it's not because you are a woman or a woman of color. it's because they don't agree with your position. when you talk about things like the travel ban, or even president trump's remarks about the border, it's a fact that there is a lot of crime that is part of the immigration problem. that's a fact that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. the drugs, the fact that we've got people here who do commit crimes and should be -- >> harris: can i just ask one thing? >> steve: it's not racist to point that out. >> harris: she said the disagreement -- >> steve: it wasn't a muslim plan. >> harris: 's agreement doesn't have to be about gender or color. i want to make sure people really have that. because that's important. when you talk about someone who then makes themselves a focal point because of those things, then when the president weighs

in with his treat, we get where we are. that's not to blame the victim, or anybody. it's when the conversation gets to such a basic denomination where it should not be. it should not be. you and i should be able to disagree or agree and it's not because -- >> steve: i agree with that. >> harris: and it's not because i'm black or -- >> steve: i agree with that. some on the left are now feeling that. whereas for years -- >> harris: nancy pelosi was feeling it because they were calling her racist in her own party. >> steve: disagreeing doesn't make you a racist. i think there's a really important point, as well, that needs to be made and addressed and perhaps a less heated way. what are the obligations of citizenship? i'm someone -- i just said to my audience on my sunday show the other week, i'm just beginning the process of applying for u.s. citizenship because i love this country and everything it stands for. i am undertaking that in a very clear knowledge that there are some obligations that go with that. that you love this country, you stand up for this country.

you don't smear this country. at all this lingered about concentration camps of the border, and a nazi in the white house, that is demeaning america in a way that i think is reasonable to describe that as anti-american. not a pro-american. >> harris: there are audience members right now wondering if the present would have ever said what he said to those for women of color to you. and that's a fair question. speech in the meantime, the turbine administration new a policy on asylum seekers had to go into effect today. a move that could drastically reduce the number of central american migrants eligible to enter the united states in this way. it requires that most migrants seek asylum in the country they pass through after leaving their own country. in most cases, if that application is denied, would they be able to seek asylum in the u.s. but in aclu official warning, "the trump administration is trying to unilaterally reverse our countries legal and moral commitment to protect those fleeing danger. this new rule is patently

unlawful and we will sue swiftly." house minority leader kevin mccarthy says the rules are needed because the system is being abused. watch. >> everybody wants to be able to protect somebody really has a challenge when it comes to asylum. what is happening today is individuals are coming from other countries, passing one, two, three other countries and never claiming asylum. we found throughout own court system. when you claim asylum you do get to be in court. 80% of those do not hold up. there are other ways to do it. >> melissa: democrat say it appears to be discriminatory against migrants from central america. watch this. >> take a look at his latest announcement, which i presume is anchored and dripping with xenophobia. donald trump is undermining united states law. i think that is something that the american people will reject. >> melissa: emily, let me ask you real quick, from a legal

perspective here. the lawmakers make the laws, asylum is about being threatened and going to a safe place. if they want to let people come here for economic reasons, don't they have the power to right the law in a way that would allow that to happen? should they do that? would that be an easier, more straightforward remedy? >> emily: yes, that would be the most efficient way. for viewers, the current backlog -- a typical immigrant estimate 727 days for that court case to be resolved. in terms of the immediate knee-jerk outcry to this proposal of policy change, we have an exception already in u.s. law for countries that are considered safe for immigrants who have traveled through those countries to get here. however, the immigration and nationality act, just like what you are just saying, is vague on what is defined as "safe." therefore it would behoove our lawmakers to be specific in outline exactly what that is. right now it defines it as an multilateral or bilateral agreement, basically as we

stated with the country. it's only with canada thus far. the recent talks with mexico and central america, we've been discussing having a regional compact. so that is something that goes into diplomacy, international relations. this is a larger issue than just our borders with the origin of the immigrant coming here. so i think it would -- i would appreciate the perspective for people when approaching this, in that it's not just those bilateral situations. it's a regional issue and it would be incumbent upon the policymakers to create this specificity rather than just stonewalling everything. a side note about my original point about how many days you have to wait, we need to triage this. it's crippling the immigration system and therefore we cannot let it stand out as is. we need to take action to reduce that. >> melissa: this is another place, when you go right to the racist place, saying this policy is racist, it feels like it undermines the argument. i would say in my own life, my kids going to catholic school here in new york, there have

been multiple families who are here and there visa ends and they have to go back to ireland. i know i heard you saying yesterday that they don't drown people up and send it back to ireland. they do, actually. >> harris: at my child's school, we just went to their going away party on saturday. >> melissa: they were here for economic reasons, they wanted to stay. they went back and -- >> jessica: it's not at all at the same level whatsoever. >> harris: but there are examples. >> jessica: of course there are examples. my point was that when you look at their purported i.c.e. raids -- and it looks like they haven't actually been carrying through with them thus far -- they were targeting people who had crossed the southern border illegally. they were not going after people who were visa over state playlists from eastern europe or western europe, which is the majority of these. if the policy targeting brown people. >> harris: you have evidence they were not specific or going after -- >> jessica: they talked about people who had crossed the border illegally and had missed a court date. >> harris: i mean, visa

overstays? we just give you examples. >> jessica: okay, maybe there were three or four people getting deported. >> steve: can i just make a point about hakeem jeffries? i nearly exploded watching my comment from him. >> melissa: i saw that. >> steve: that he is the problem. hakeem jeffries is the problem, with that incendiary rhetoric. wary of a policy disagreement over something which is perfectly reasonable. by the way, that is the e.u. policy. if you try and claim asylum, you have to do it in the first country you come to. you can't just travel through because you want to end up in germany or the u.k., which has a stronger economy. this is a perfectly reasonable policy and he's calling it xenophobic. >> jessica: but it isn't our policy, that's a problem. and the aclu -- >> steve: secondly, he talked about the policy being lawless and undermining the law. hang on the second -- the deportations, contrary to what you're saying, these are people who have been through a legal process. they've been through court process, they've been asked to leave the country, not enforcing that is what undermines the rule

of law. the way hakeem jeffries was speaking to us than it's exactly the problem with our politics at this moment. >> melissa: we are looking at a picture of the white house right now because the president is in with his cabinet, and a day like this, when there are so much dialogue going back and forth, it's hard to imagine that he won't be answering questions from reporters or making some kind of a comment. so we are monitoring that. we will bring it to you just as soon as we have it. in the meantime, democracy in action? an about-face from the city council that got rid of the pledge of allegiance. why the tide turned, and whether president trump's attention had any effect. plus, democrats making a new process for impeachment in the wake of the president's war of words with the so-called "squad." why this could soon put speaker pelosi in a tough spot. >> this xenophobia, homophobia, islamophobic him as part of our original sin. we in the congress of the united states of america have the opportunity now to do

something about the original sin. ♪ ha eh, not enough fiber... chocolate would be good... snacking should be sweet and simple. the delicious taste of glucerna gives you the sweetness you crave while helping you manage your blood sugar. glucerna. everyday progress who used expedia to book the vacation rental which led to the discovery that sometimes a little down time can lift you right up. expedia. everything you need to go. expedia. dealing with psoriatic arthritis pain was so frustrating. ♪ my skin... it was embarrassing. my joints... they hurt. the pain and swelling. the tenderness. the psoriasis. i had to find something that worked on all of this. i found cosentyx. now, watch me. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are getting real relief with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. cosentyx treats more than just the joint pain

of psoriatic arthritis. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms. if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. i got real relief. i got clearer skin and feel better. now, watch me. get real relief with cosentyx. has been excellent. they really appreciate the military family and it really shows. with all that usaa offers why go with anybody else? we know their rates are good, we know that they're always going to take care of us. it was an instant savings and i should have changed a long time ago. it was funny because when we would call another insurance company, hey would say "oh we can't beat usaa" we're the webber family. we're the tenney's we're the hayles, and we're usaa members for life. ♪ get your usaa auto insurance quote today.

♪ >> harris: congressman al green is set to launch a fresh bid to impeach president trump. the texas democrat who has failed twice in previous bids to force an impeachment vote now says he is going to go back to the well after the president called on four democratic congress women to go back to where they came from in his sunday tweet. hours after he announced his new push, some of the members of the so-called "squad" of four progressive congresswomen with whom the president is now battling also called to impeach him. watch. >> it is time for us to stop allowing this president to make a mockery out of our constitution.

it's time for us to impeach this president. >> we remain focused on holding him accountable to the laws of this land, and accountable to the american people. leadership, many of my colleagues come to take actions to impeach this lawless preside. >> harris: any member of the house can bring an impeachment resolution to the floor. i could keep the pressure on speaker nancy pelosi, who has so far managed to head off that effort. we are awaiting fresh remarks from the president. he's meeting with his cabinet right now. we will play out that moments-ago video for you as soon as we get it. we will get a heads up, hopefully a two-minute warning. steve? >> steve: as melissa was saying earlier, for many of them this is been the agenda all along. and the reason will do. they think the president was -- they think is illegitimate. they don't think he should be there. they can't accept the 2016 election. doesn't matter what it is, they want to get him out. they can't wait to do it democratically in 2020 in the election as it is supposed to be

done. so this is yet another example of that. but i agree with you, melissa, that the pressure is going to be higher than ever before. >> melissa: i thought nancy pelosi had kind of talked to everybody behind-the-scenes, it seemed like, and had calmed down a lot of that pressure. on the talk your hearing today s that it was different. because that was mueller. and this is his character, it goes to the very core of what america is about. this is a new reason to impeach him. when they said that, it gets you thinking. he's really wanting this to happen and i don't know that it's a good or smart strategy but i think he thinks it is. >> harris: why do you think that? >> because he's begging it to happen. he wants it to happen so badly. he wants them to get together and do it. he just thinks it's going to play really well for him. it's as irresistible to him as it is to the far left. they want to have this.

>> harris: this is other politics, that would ask a different question. whether the president would walk down i want this or not. we will set that aside. the question would be, is this a strategy that allows the democrats to crack up and split? to fight over impeachment, as they fight over what is incendiary, what is racist, what is xenophobic. as they have that -- because many democrats might feel they set the rules on some of that stuff. ask joe biden. >> emily: i think this is one more example of the continued inability to agree and to maintain a united front. thus, it's like an abscess. where it's kind of just destroying itself underneath the surface. 21% of americans support impeachment as of this sunday. that was after the tweets. i want to point out that this is strategic on the part of each individual, as well pair this is not altruistic. for example, congressmen rashida tlaib's facebook, as of tuesday,

had five ads and as of wednesday said 15 ads. "invest in my leadership, it holding the president accountable, asking for money." we don't have time to wait for the mueller investigation. >> harris: that's an intriguing perspective. >> jessica: i didn't know that about the facebook ads. nancy pelosi is in a tough spot. she has been for months about this, we seen a slight uptick in public support for impeachment. the number of democrats supporting it is still hovering around the same point. but people have to do what's best for them. if you are in a moderate constituency, which of the majority of democrats are, generally the newly-elected ones, you will be talking about this. they will keep doing it. we will see what jerry nadler does. he was in favor, he spoke to nancy pelosi, had backed off of it. >> melissa: it's cracked wide open and the democratic party. i think that's the plan. >> harris: nadler, though, might a little bit distracted right now by the delay in the mueller -- >> jessica: he's got muir on

his mind, yeah. >> harris: we will move on. democrats plan their strategy for questioning robert mueller, speaking of him, at next week's hearing. the bombshell claimed that the former special counsel has a back channel with the democrats. what does that mean? by republican devin nunes is raising the alarm. ♪ (ben) if you're a grandparent,

you know what i'm talking about when your little grandchild starts talking to you. something i couldn't hear for a long time. (wiley) it's funny how something like just a hearing loss can have an effect on a relationship.

(melissa) somebody would ask her something and she would just walk right past them. (deborah) i just could not hear. (avo) these are real people who are now living life to the fullest. thanks to miracle-ear. call out toll free number to start your 30 day risk-free trial at your locally owned miracle-ear. and schedule your free hearing evaluation. (john) when someone new comes in, i take the time to listen to what's important to them. then i run a comprehensive hearing test to find out if they even have hearing loss. if they do, i'll custom fit a hearing aid that fits their lifestyle and their budget. (aurelia) with miracle-ear, it's all about service. they're personable. they're friendly. i'm very happy with them. (deborah) when i finally had miracle-ear and i could hear for the first time, i started crying. i could hear everything. (ben) i went to miracle-ear. (bobby) i went to miracle-ear. (ben) but i told you to go to miracle-ear. (bobby) that's not--oh! (avo) call our toll free number today to start your 30 day risk-free trial at your locally owned miracle-ear. (deborah) i was hesitant to get the hearing aids because of my short hair, but nobody

even sees them. (avo) featuring our latest technology, our hearing aids are nearly invisible, so no one will notice and they're so comfortable, you might forget you're wearing them. (grandchild) can you hear me? (ben) yeah! now i can hear my grandson again. (avo) call our toll free number today to start your 30 day risk-free trial at your locally owned miracle-ear. your 30 day risk-free trial is only the beginning. we also provide you with unlimited checkups, cleanings, and adjustments free. it's why we've been trusted for over 70 years. and we have over 1,500 locations nationwide. (wiley) i see someone new, someone happy. (bobby vo) it's really made a difference. [laughter] (avo) call our toll free number to start 30 day risk-free trial and book your free hearing evaluation at your locally owned miracle-ear today. crabfest is back at red lobster with 9 craveable crab creations. like crab lover's dream with crab...crab... and more crab. or for those who want it all... new crabfest surf & turf. grab your crab crew, hurry in or order it to go!

♪ >> jessica: series new questions out of next week's testimony was former special counsel robert mueller. that testimony was delayed for week by house democrats. the top republican on the house until committee, devin nunes, telling sean hannity he is suspicious of the delay. >> i am a little bit concerned that mueller doesn't purposely try to create a narrative and that he's not working with the democrats already. being that this was postponed a week, there's got to be a reason for it. i fear what's going on right now is that mueller is working with a lot of his staff who are back channeling to the democrats.

so it's very possible that mueller is going to have a few little sound bites that are going to give the democrats exactly what they want. >> jessica: congressman nunes' remarks come after house democrats reportedly met to discuss the structure and design of questions for the revamped mueller hearing. that was last night's interview, steve. is there any basis for what devin nunes was saying? or is that complete conjecture? >> steve: i don't think you need a devin nunes conspiracy theory to make that point. i think robert mueller told us himself when he did that press conference every week. he very clearly came down on the side of the democrats and basically said, "right, you got to go for it now." that's what he did. he's clearly on one side. he picked a side. i think what is going to be important is that he is challenged on some of those things. for example, he lied at that press conference. robert mueller lied. he said, to the point about whether or not it was the convention that president -- he

said one thing in the press conference that was totally untrue and then he was corrected. and they had to clean it up after the event. he needs to be challenged on that. i also think since he is sitting there that there's a whole bunch of stuff that would be useful for robert mueller to be challenged on. for example, it is their personal corruption between mn james comey when mueller was had at the fbi and he was at lockheed martin, massive contracts being wrought dominic reported to james cummings lockheed martin. what's that all about? what's the connection between the two of them? there's a lot of questions that he should be forced to answer. i don't think this will be playing the ceiling for those who want to detect the present. >> jessica: i don't think any of it indicates, though, that he's on the democrat side. he said in the press conference that -- >> steve: its establishment. >> jessica: but there's no evidence of that since the presence of the mueller report was no collusion, no obstruction, clean bill of health there. do you think there is back

channeling? what you make of the delay that democrats are saying is for formatting issues, to make sure the question can be done as effectively as possible? do you buy that? >> emily: at this point, who knows? i'm not going to conjecture. that will reveal itself once we do see the hearing, whether we see this orchestrated approach. in terms of the expectations of the result, of course it will be politicized. if he says nothing beyond the four corners to the document, which is what he said before, "it's all there and i will say anything be above or beyond it," if he does say something additional then it will be lending itself towards marvin orchestrated effort. i want to point and that again, for me as a citizen, what matters more to me is the result of the investigation rather than the hearings. >> jessica: isn't the point to have an orchestrated effort? the republicans will have one, as well. they will want to talk about fisa abuse and the origins. democrats want to talk about

obstruction of justice. >> melissa: i think the point is that for the rest of america, they watch them in the situation working on mueller in something that is so old when there's a whole bunch of problems that are going on. it goes back to what we were talking about before. with this whole racist thing and whatever, when we were talking about this in the break, the president has democrats voting on words. when they say they don't have the time or organization or whatever it is, to write legislation to fix the board. for those who aren't knee-deep in this already, they are looking on going, "what are you guys doing? you are rehashing the mueller report? that's over. you're working on that? are you not working on the border? you're not working on all this other stuff? because i've got to feed my kids and pick somebody up from soccer and do this and that. and you guys over -- now you are voting on words? you're going to condemn someone's words? can you do any actual work?" whether that's right or fair, i'm not saying.

i think that's what a lot of people sitting at home kind of think to themselves as they watch this. that it's nonsense. >> jessica: harris, do you want to jump in? >> harris: i just don't know why anyone thinks that robert mueller was lying when he said he won't say anything outside the confines of the report and then he walked off into the sunset. now they've been dragging him off the beach. it's already been postponed once and they got to figure out the parameters of all of this. i think everybody will have an agenda. a lane to go down. we will see how far they get with it. don't be shocked if he doesn't really see much more than a loud or reading in a different voice. >> jessica: you know how partial i am to that aloud reading. [laughter] >> steve: with senator john kennedy, he put it best. your point. "this thing is as dead as fried chicken!" i thought that was a nice way to put it. [laughter] >> jessica: it felt like a live chicken when he said, "i would have said, if i --" we've got to move on. three big congressional hearings

coming up today. featuring america's tech giants. as one silicon valley power players said the feds should investigate google for allegedly aiding china's government. president trump weighing in on doll, of course. stay with us. ♪

did you know congress is working to end surprise medical billing? that's when patients are hit with medical bills they thought would be covered by insurance. the problem is big insurance companies want a one-size-fits-all approach that lets them decide what they'll pay doctors for yocare. letting insurance companies decide means it could be harder for you to see the best doctors when you need them the most. tell congress, "end surprise billing, and don't let insurance companies put profits over patients. paid for by physicians for fair coverage.

front slams on his the hbrakes out of nowhere. you do, too, but not in time. hey, no big deal. you've got a good record and liberty mutual won't hold a grudge by raising your rates over one mistake. you hear that, karen? liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. how mature of them!

for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ ♪ >> melissa: three tech hearings going on at l today, all alleged censorship business practices and facebook's plan to create its own digital currency. all this as a big-name name in silken valley, facebook board member, tells tucker carlson the fed should investigate google for aiding china. >> the weird fact that is indisputable is that google is working with communist china but not with the u.s. military on its breakthrough ai technology. >> why is that? speak about the question. there's probably a broad base of google employees that are ideologically super left wing, sort of "woke" and think china

is better than the u.s. speaker or the u.s. is worse than china. >> is more anti-american than anything. >> melissa: today president trump tweeting, "a great and brilliant guy who knows the subject more than anyone. the trump administration will take a look." the justice department declined to comment on the president's tweets, but google releasing a statement saying, "as we've said before, we do not work with the chinese military." steve, they are trying to make the point that they are saying, "we work with the government, not the military, they are different." they couldn't possibly believe that's the thing to say, but it's a technicality. >> steve: peter thiel is bright about this. i made the same point over a year ago on my show. i called it economic treason. i got a lot of grief for it from all my friends, full disclosure, my wife used to work there. many of my best friends are senior executives at google. i've not held back from saying it because it's quite clear they

are doing this. this latest story is a story which showed that they are hiding it behind a friend, a nonprofit. plus, ibm doing this. it's really disgraceful. i think we need to separate that from the other issues that are being looked at in terms of competition. >> harris: intellectual problem. >> steve: i think it's a national security strategic question. it should be complete the outlawed. there should be a legal sanction to prevent google and any other tech company from working with the chinese state, because as you mention, the state isn't just the government of the military. it's the entire economy. that's how it works. in terms of competition, i believe in markets and that we don't have enough competition in these tech markets. that's why we should be looking to break up google and facebook particularly, because they dominate not just the platform. >> harris: don't ask me to

absolutely. harris, was interesting to me the situation with iran. >> harris: i was going to say, at the sanction you are calling for. >> melissa: countries want to do business with him because he won the money. you expect out of business. it makes sense. they were willing to overlook the possible moral implications of it because they wanted to do business. that's what tech companies have done with china, that they wanted the money and they want to do business. that's a big word, treason, but it's not that they sympathize in my mind necessarily with china. they just want the money. but on the flip side, they don't want to do business with the american government in ai because they say that morally we don't want to help serve rail our own people. you can't have it both ways. >> steve: they don't understand the nature of the chinese regime. it's there in plain sight because the chinese regime -- >> melissa: i think they don't care. >> jessica: they just want to make money. >> harris: wow, jessica and melissa are agreeing on this

point! a >> jessica: capitols and unites all of us. i don't particularly trust a facebook board member bashing on google. i think all these tech companies have a lot wrong and how they do business. >> steve: very good point. >> harris: that's fair. >> melissa: emily? >> jessica: just a quick legal angle. i also think that china is consistently under representative in every vernacular in terms of its threat on this country and a multitude of areas. so i agree with you. we talked about this in the past. legally, just that the doj and for the average viewer, just stay tuned for any referral that can happen for these hearings into the criminal realm. there's a lot that could potentially be exploited. and the doj has been quiet these last two years, which may be that they are ramping up or waiting to see what evidence is coming their way. >> melissa: a city council in america's heartland doing an about-face on saying the pledge of allegiance at its meetings. next, why the council stop saying the pledge in the first place and how the backlash

reached all the way to the white house. ♪ 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. ♪ 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. who need money for their family. veteran homeowners with our service, veterans like us earned the powerful va home loan benefit

that lets us borrow up to 100 percent of our home's value, instead of just 80 percent like other loans. at newday usa, that can mean a lot more money, especially if your home has gone up in value. on average, our veterans take out 54,000 dollars. the newday 100 va loan lets you refinance your mortgage, consolidate your high rate credit card debt, get cash and lower your payments by over 600 dollars a month. so if you're a veteran and need money for your family, call newday usa. -[hüzz here, hello! starts with -hi!mple...

how can i help? a data plan for everyone. everyone? everyone. let's send to everyone! [ camera clicking ] wifi up there? -ahhh. sure, why not? how'd he get out?! a camera might figure it out. that was easy! glad i could help. at xfinity, we're here to make life simple. easy. awesome. so come ask, shop, discover at your xfinity store today.

>> all those in favor, signified by saying aye. opposed? that passes noticeably. >> jessica: an about-face in st. louis park, minnesota, just

outside of minneapolis as their city council voted unanimously to reinstate saying the pledge of allegiance at its meetings. they dropped the pledge last month. sparking nationwide backlash, even president trump was tweeting about it. here is from last night. >> from people in my community, i want to know that i've never been prouder to be a mayor that i am tonight. >> i'm not sure that if you say the pledge three times a month instead of this two that you are more patriotic. or if you say it one time a month, you are less patriotic. >> you're making no sense! >> that's ridiculous. >> we don't need to stay at the epicenter of a manufactured stand out about what it means to be a good american. >> melissa: well, that's true. >> jessica: melissa! [laughter] i hear you think that's true! >> melissa: when she sang, "okay, enough. we don't have to sit here and have this fight any longer." i thought that our need that situation with other government leaders and they don't want to pledge of allegiance to the united states. if anyone should pledge of allegiance, if you're in the military or running the

government. you should be more committed to the united states than to any other country. >> steve: of course you should! >> melissa: that's your responsibility. it was funny when they were like, "why are we getting national attention for this? why is this such a big thing?" >> jessica: but it was the inclusivity issue. there are two issues that play. it's the way i understand the story. it's not just be a part of the city council but people who are coming who are saying, "i've got a puddle on my street." they might not be an american citizen. there's also the issue of saying "under god." we have a separation of church and state. the pledge of allegiance since 1954 says "under god." >> steve: i don't understand -- it's the most beautiful thing, the pledge of allegiance. coming from a country where, back in the u.k., the whole notion of patriotism and loyalty to the country was somehow sneered and looked down on as kind of embarrassing. it's so lovely to come to a country where everyone, across party divide, i thought, was so 100% happy to be here and proud of the country and proud of the

flag and all the rest of it. that seems to be diminishing and under assault in the last few years. this is why it's a big story, it's symptomatic of something bigger that's going on. the notion of patriotism and being proud of america somehow is under attack. i think it's really important to fight back against that. >> jessica: and this would be the argument -- why does wanting to say the pledge of allegiance making more or less american? it doesn't change your daily life. why are these -- why do these have to be so closely associated with what steve is talking about, patriotism? am i less patriotic because i don't want to say the pledge of allegiance? >> melissa: it depends what you don't want to say it. >> jessica: are not comfortable, first of all, about "under god." i know there's a higher percentage of christians in this nation than any other religion, but i'm comfortable with that. we have a separation of church and state in this country. the u.k. famously separates it. >> emily: i hear what you're saying. i do not think that it's a barometer for one's level of

patriotism. that being said, i think there's a certain oma's and tradition and procedure, and there's a certain larger than each of us individually that those things represent. singing the national enemy come stemming from a national anthem, saying the pledge, for that moment it unifies us under the flag. it really represents -- it represents our commitment to something larger. but i also think it's not mutually exclusive to be inclusive and patriotic. one of the arguments that the city council member is saying, if somebody comes up and wants to talk about something on their sidewalk and they are not necessarily an american citizen, maybe it's an awesome thing for them to attend this meeting, the city council, formal government process, and be treated to the recitation of the pledge. that they are welcome. >> jessica: we will hear more about this but not right now, because you've got to go. sorry. ok everyone!

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, for strength and energy. and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, hmm. exactly. so you only pay for what you need. nice. but, uh... what's up with your... partner? not again. limu that's your reflection. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪ there are three words when you live with migraine... "i am here." aim to say that more with aimovig. a preventive treatment for migraine in adults

that reduces the number of monthly migraine days. for some, that number can be cut in half or more. don't take aimovig if you're allergic to it. allergic reactions like rash or swelling can happen hours to days after use. common side effects include injection site reactions and constipation. aim to be there more. talk to your doctor about aimovig. and i...was... take shocked.test. i'm from cameroon, congo, and...the bantu people. new features. greater details. richer stories. get your dna kit today at ancestry.com.

>> melissa: thinks to steve hilton! this was an exciting one. >> steve: we got through it in

a civilized way even though we got a lot of heated topics. >> melissa: begot the talk about it. that's really what it comes down to. it's healthy to talk about it, get it all out there. we'll be back here at noon eastern tomorrow. now, here's harris. >> harris: breaking news as we await remarks from president trump. he is meeting right now with his cabinet inside the white house. this, as his war of words with the so-called "squad" in the house has heated up. this is "outnumbered overtime," and harris faulkner. house lawmakers gearing up for a vote later today on a resolution condemning retreats from president trump on sunday about a group of progressive congresswomen. yesterday, those four freshmen democrats known as "the squad" went after him, calling him a racist in a televised news conference with two of them calling for him to be impeached. the president defended himself again today, tweeting this. "those tweets were not racist. i don't have a racist bone in my body. the so-called vote to be taken in