plus, jonathan turley and newt gingrich both here live.shing line you want the best towing. all yours. or maybe you want best-in-class fuel economy. no problem. or how about brand spankn' new diesel? sure. you want fries with that? . . ♪ >> i always used to say toughest people in manhattan are real estate guys. i say they're babies. >> who is the toughest? >> the political people. this is the most deceptive vicious world. brian: i don't think the president has ever been more confident he can do the job than he is today. >> one of the things kim asked for to east the sanctions. >> we haven't done that this isn't the obama administration. >> president trump and first lady melania heading to the florida panhandle in the wake of hurricane michael. >> they had an operator on the ground they had detected on social media. they knew he was on the ground in the philippines. the problem you have to rely a lot on locals. >> the anger among the democratic party is genuine. >> we need to overthrow the government of the united states under donald trump.

let's bring in jonathan turley to discuss. how worried are you this is the path we are going down? this isn't just about what kind of judge he would be. this was putting out statements in a place where he would have lies about things from his past. >> there was an otherworldly feeling about these hearings when you have a us senator going literally through yearbook saying what did you mean when you told your friends this or that? that had the feeling of a perjury trap. democratic questions, they did not press much on the actual allegations of sexual assault, they kept trying to get him to define terms that would otherwise be quite embarrassing. the idea being he could either refuse and say that is not a very dignified question which i think he probably should have considered doing, or he might lie at which point you could say all this doesn't matter because he lied under oath. if that is going to be the new standard, one can only imagine what the future holds. shannon: and how many will put themselves through that. i haven't been covering politics that long but long enough, 11 years

joining me now is law expert jonathan turley. how damaging is it that the democrats -- they seemingly abandon the idea of fundamental fairness, due process. i think that's a way for the republican democrat prism right now and look at it, what are the facts? >> what's troubling is the democrats keep this mantra that it's not a trial and this is how you feel about the judge. they are acting as a fact finder. that's different from sitting on a committee voting on legislation. there is no element of fairness and decency coming in. what's your standard? even if you apply a clear preponderance standard it means you are about 75% certain of your decision. can you say that on this evidence? can you even say by preponderance it tips either way? i think the most he can possibly say that this is what we call an apple void, and equal, if you believe both sides equally. under those standards, is very hard to vote against kavanaugh unless you go against senator cavanaugh booker -- would you want a justice who took that position? senators kept

joining me, jonathan turley, george washington law professor and fos news contributor.ve you with us. >> thank you. >> martha: i, too, am a graduate of st. lawrence university. i know that you said that susan collins was the most famous graduate, i would say that's true. also vigo mortenson, kirk douglas, eleanor mondale, they went to st. lawrence. i've heard from many individuals, and there are many people who support her and do not agree with the sentiment in this alumni letter or faculty letter. that being said, this is a very strong letter. it basically says that they want to remove one of the two honorary degrees she got because, essentially, they don't like the conclusions she reached. >> right. and what's most disconcerting is that you have almost 100 professors from virtually every department in the university, signing this letter. the most fundamental obligation of professors is to preserve intellectual honesty and institutional integrity, to convey to students that a xlej or university -- college or university is a place for diversity of ideas. there's no one

first we start with constitutional law attorney jonathan turley for a levelheaded look at what the president actually can and cannot do. jonathan, good to have you with us here tonight. you say -- you are glad the president brought it up because you believe it will force the courts to look at it, and that is good. >> that is absolutely correct. we are about 150 years late in finding out what this amendment means. it has been a debate since this was first ratified, all of this debate turns on these six rather ill chosen words, what was meant by being subject to the jurisdiction of the united states? some of the drafters of the time clearly evidenced a belief that noncitizens that come to this country, whether they are diplomats or undocumented, would not have immediate citizenship for their children. and so, there is a good debate here. there are three different types of interpretations that have been put forward. i can't imagine how people can say with such certainty that this language means that anyone in the united states for any reason can have a citizen when they give birth on our soil.

we will talk to law professor jonathan turley.e ♪ before ♪ udge by raising your rates over one mistake. . . liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty ♪ billions of problems. morning breath? garlic breath? stinky breath? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath fresh breath oral rinse instantly fights all types of bad breath and works for 24 hours. so you can... breathe easy. there's therabreath at walmart. takes more than just investment advice. from insurance to savings to retirement, it takes someone with experience and knowledge who can help me build a complete plan. brian, my certified financial planner™ professional, is committed to working in my best interest. i call it my "comfortable future plan," and it's all possible with a cfp® professional. find your certified financial planner™ professional at letsmakeaplan.org. ♪ steve. >> supreme court justice brett kavanaugh set for a ceremonial swear-in at the white house at 7:00 p.m. >>

brian: jonathan turley said something very similar.is a debate we need to have at the highest levels. is he a constitutional attorney. he does this every single day. he is looking forward to the debate. he believes the founding fathers in some way said let the next generation figure this out what's best. ainsley: 14th amendment says if you are born in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, that's what is interpreted differently depending on how talk to. steve: what does that mean? ainsley: anton goes in to explain what they are saying in those few words you are the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants then you are entitled to citizenship. he says the president can do this. that the 14th amendment says your parents have to be citizens. steve: do you know who says you can't do that? paul ryan, speaker of the houses that's not going to work. obviously, if you wanted it work, you would have to change the law. >> steve: lindsey graham came out yesterday and said i'm behi

here with reaction is jonathan turley.u know, the fbi produces these reports called 302s, that detail what witnesses say to them. they may also take some physical examination of houses suspected of being the described by dr. ford. it's largely descriptive. it's largely just sort of documenting the accounts and what is available for other people to reach conclusions. steve: sure, what do you make of the suggestion by some democrats that even if judge kavanaugh is seated on the supreme court, they are going to have another investigation if the senate doesn't do a thorough enough job? >> i have a column coming out this morning in the hill talking about how exceedingly dangerous. steve: why? >> this suggestion is you know, the framers created a system to insulate justices from political pressures. that's why they made impeachment so difficult to maintain. once you confirm someone, then, generally impeachment and investigations are about conduct in office as a justice. steve: right. >> there are been other justices like elena k

joining me now is jonathan turley. how damaging is at that the democrats have seemingly abandoned the idea of fundamental fairness and due process? i take this away from the republican democrat prison and look at it just as, what are the facts sir or ma'am? >> they are acting as a factng finder, there is an element of fairness and decency that has to comeer in. so what is your standard? so a clear preponderance standard means you're a 75% standard of your decision. you say that on this, could you even say bye preponderance that it tips either way? if you believe both sides equally, so it under any of those standards it's very hard to vote against kavanaugh unless you go with senator booker's idea. >> laura: one accusation, uncorroborated is enough to knock you off. >> the senator 's kept asking him what type of justice would you be. what you want of justice that follows the standards of the senators are suggesting? >> laura: i wish that point was actually raised last week at the hearing. of course theyam wouldn't. many

to weigh in fox news contributor, constitutional law professor george washington university, jonathan turleyport? >> that is what most of us anticipated. most of these witnesses that have already spoken, this is locked in record, they were going to, they weren't going to depart with the fbi something they previously said under penaltity of federal felony charges. the likelihood there is nothing new here. these senators will be left with the same question. there is an unintended consequence here for the democrats. nobody is talking about roe v. wade or other issues anymore. it is come down to this fact, and that may not play well with them. because now talking about roe seems almost quaint and ridiculous, but if you look at the report, if you look at these allegations, what you're left with is a evidence that is, at best is equal and may not be even that. steve: jonathans the president just moments ago just tweeted this out. the harsh and unfair treatment of judge brett kavanaugh is having an incredible upward impact on voters. the people get it parfar better than the politicians. most import

i want to pull out a piece from jonathan turley who teaches law.he makes in the piece is he doesn't think will be a charge of obstruction. he outlines three reasons why that is. the first has to do with the criminal code. none of the allegations raised fit within the criminal code. he points out if robert mueller were investigating obstruction, he and rod rosenstein should have removered themselves. the third thing is bob mueller didn't ask about obstructions in those questions we have seen leaked from the lawyers. your reaction to this. we can take it one by one. let's start with the criminal code and the difficulty of charging one with obstruction. >> it is a difficult charge but it is charged from time to time. not infrequently. what you have to show is someone attempted to impede an investigation and they did so with a corrupt intent. i disagree with professor t turley's argument that the president cannot obstruct justice. i think you can if the facts bear that out. the other two arguments he makes are interesting. one is that rod rosenstein di

. >> i've heard thus, i just disregarded it and then i heard our friend jonathan turley say about ten days ago, i think we need 19, an odd number, does that make sense. >> yes. are you interested. >> no. >> the constitution doesn't fit the number of justices. that is something congress can determine. the concept is if you have 19 then you kind of dilute the effect of a particular justice. in congress, if there is a democratic president or even if they just get the house, they want to increase the number. >> you can slowly grow the courts so that it would be going from nine to 1 19 overnight. >> if they have it their way they would do it quick. >> you want 19? >> no. >> let's be clear, democrats aren't interested in good governance. they're talking about forwarding the conservative justices that have made it on the court. they're trying to undo the success of president bush and president trump, including people on the court who believe in the limited role of the legislature, because they want to turn it back into an idol logical battleground no matter who rides point, there are over 10

. >> let's bring in jonathan turley, what do you make of this discussion, bad advice for the democrats are good to continue to discuss this impeachment idea? >> there has to be finality in the system and respect for the institution. if the democrats want to create this monster they have to wonder how to control it. there were allegations a lot of kagan was not truthful in her testimony but people did not call for an investigation and impeachment. at some point you are doing serious harm to the foundations of the system and that is happening here. as if every confirmation could be redone when a majority shifts we are going to lose the stability the court has had. we have been through terrible things in this country that would break a lot of constitutional systems into small pieces but we survived in part because of that stability and because of the supreme court. shannon: seems like within the democratic party you hear top leaders like former speaker nancy pelosi saying things like it is not a priority. but congressman nadler who would be the chair of the judiciary committee if they too

. >> i've heard thus, i just disregarded it and then i heard our friend jonathan turley say about ten days ago, i think we need 19, an odd number, does that make sense. >> yes. are you interested. >> no. >> the constitution doesn't fit the number of justices. that is something congress can determine. the concept is if you have 19 then you kind of dilute the effect of a particular justice. in congress, if there is a democratic president or even if they just get the house, they want to increase the number. >> you can slowly grow the courts so that it would be going from nine to 1 19 overnight. >> if they have it their way they would do it quick. >> you want 19? >> no. >> let's be clear, democrats aren't interested in good governance. they're talking about forwarding the conservative justices that have made it on the court. they're trying to undo the success of president bush and president trump, including people on the court who believe in the limited role of the legislature, because they want to turn it back into an idol logical battleground know what goes great with steak and shrimp?

but as jonathan turley said, they still apply by analogy.a tradition in this country that people who are accused of these kinds of activities should get a presumption of innocence and the accuser should have to produce evidence or credible evidence. nobody is denying -- some people are denying -- i don't deny the sincerity of dr. ford but it seems like she is troubled. there are some inconsistencies in her testimony. i'm not even -- my quarrel isn't with dr. ford, who i believe is in goodth faith. my quarrel is with the democrats who are lying in wait to ambush anyus nominee who is a constitutionalist because they want judges on the supreme court, justices, who will legislate their political liberal agenda. and it's horrendous. they i have no moral or ethical standing. my real thrust here is for feckless conservatives, feckless republicans, naive republicans, accommodating republicans, to realize why president trump is so popular. it's because they feckless conservatism is an impotent conservatism. we are in an existential war. our struggle,

joined by jonathan turley who says it could be time for rod rosenstein to recuse himself from the investigationill tell us why after the break. ♪ my love has come along ♪ my lonely days are over at last. applebee's new neighborhood pastas. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. >> tucker: fascinating fox news a >> tucker: fascinating fox news alert for you. hillary clinton's security clearance has been revoked. this occurred in august and we only learned a short time ago from the senate judiciary committee that got the information from theen state department.t according to the committee, clinton surrendered her security clearance. we are trying to find out why. five of her aides lost clearances and so why did hillary clinton and her five aides have the security clearances a year aftern the election? more than a year. we don't know. we'll continue to follow the story and maybe we will find out. well, the russia investigation, the one going on since fire and the wheel were invented gone to background of politics. it doesn't mean it's over. fusion g.p.s. owner says he is going to plead the fi

you know, one party in control of one branch of congress or something, but jonathan turley was on fox & friends this morning and the noted georgetown law professor says it may not matter all that much if democrats win the house. listen. >> if the democrats take the house, as many people expect, it will make no difference at all as long as the republicans keep the senate. if they keep the senate, probably by a close margin. they will still have some issues involving some of the nominees, but they could continue at this pace. he could end up appointing more judges than any president in history. jon: it is interesting the president has made a number of appointments to the federal courts and appeals courts. it isn't just justice kavanaugh and justice gorsuch before him. >> absolutely. and that's something that we see mitch mcconnell repeatedly pushing on the hill as extremely important moving forward, and when you consider elections and whether to vote. i think you had a segment earlier on local politics that's true for voters. it can fly under the radar but it is important when going out

let's bring a man, jonathan turley. professor, great to have you with us. how worried are you that this is the path that we are going down? and on your pc is said that this isn't just about getting to him what kind of judge she would be, this is about putting up statements and potentially putting him in a place where he would have discrepancies or lies about things from his past. >> it was an otherworldly feeling about these hearings. when you've a u.s. senator going literally through a yearbook and saying, what did you mean when you told your friends this or that? that really did have a feeling of a perjury trap. what is fascinating about the democratic questions is that they didn't really press that much on the actual allegations of sexual assault. they kept on trying to get him to define terms that would obviously be quite embarrassing. the idea being that he could either refuse and say that is just not a very dignified question, which frankly i think he probably should have considered doing. or he might ally and which point you can say that all of this

in george washington university in george washington university constitutional law professor jonathan turley. good to see you. what you make of this discussio discussion? bad or good to discuss impeachment? >> it's terrible advice. there has to be some finality in the system. there should be respect for the institution. if the democrats want to create this monster, then they have to wonder how they're going to control it. there were allegations elena kagan was not entirely truthful in her testimony, but people didn't call for investigation and her impeachment. at some point, you're doing serious harm to the very foundations of our system and that's what's happening here. if every confirmation can be redone when a majority shifts, then were going to lose the stability that the court has had. we have been through terrible things in this country, things that would break a lot of constitutional systems into small pieces. we have survived in part because of that stability and not in small part because of the supreme court. >> shannon: seems like there's a little bit of split, even within the demo

joined by jonathan turley who says it could be time for rod rosenstein to recuse himself from the investigationill tell us why after the break. ♪ my love has come along ♪ my lonely days are over at last. applebee's new neighborhood pastas. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. 'saved money on motorcycle insurance with geico. goin' up the country. later, gary' i have a motorcycle! wonderful. ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ ♪ i'm goin' up the country, baby don't you wanna go? ♪ geico motorcycle, great rates for great rides. back pain can't win. now introducing aleve back and muscle pain. only aleve targets tough pain for up to 12 hours with just one pill. aleve back & muscle. all day strong. all day long. this is not a screensaver.game. this is the destruction of a cancer cell by the body's own immune system, thanks to medicine that didn't exist until now. and today can save your life. ♪ ♪ your society was dearled by a woman, who governed thousands... commanded armies... yielded to no one. when i found you in my dna, i learned where my strength comes from. my name i

. >> i turned to jonathan turley go to source on anything dealing with the constitution. he suggest the president would have the power to use the u.s. military and not just the national guard but the u.s. active duty military to assist in enforcing federal laws on the border. as to whether or not the president would pull that very big trigger remains to be seen. there is no question is he worked up about it. a lot of it is probably politics but he definitely cares about immigration. >> shepard: certainly a loft politics in here. john, thank you. >> you bet. >> shepard: remember the last time this happened in aim. politics flared then, too. families seeking asylum were separated at the border. many are still separated all these months later amnesty international report some face harassment and violence. a few hundred came to the border at san lea san heedro. they were forced to wait on the mexican side. many were deported. most never allowed to seek legal asylum at all. the current group making its trek over hundreds of miles is not expected to arrive in whole at any u.s.

. >> judge napolitano: i disagree with my dear friend and colleague, jonathan turley. this is not been a serious debate other than in academic circles. in fact, the 14th amendment has been in the constitution for 150 years. for 150 years, without exception, it has been consistently interpreted to mean whoever is born here is an american citizen. if you want to put it back on the screen, that phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," about which the president tweeted -- and you just read the tweet -- everybody here, except for foreign diplomats and foreign heads of state, is subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. illegals can be prostituted prosecuted, they are subject is the jurisdiction as those of us who are born here. that phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is there to make sure that somebody was not subject to our jurisdiction, like a foreign diplomat or a foreign head of state who gives birth here, that person is not an american citizen. that baby. >> melissa: make the other argument. when they are saying -- what does the other side t

. >> constitutional law professor jonathan turley on the big brett cavanagh confirmation development.and so do you. [ doorbell rings ] janice, mom told me you bought a house. okay. [ buttons clicking ] [ camera shutter clicks ] so, now that you have a house, you can use homequote explorer. quiet. i'm blasting my quads. janice, look. i'm in a meeting. -janice, look. -[ chuckles ] -look, look. -i'm looking. it's easy. you just answer some simple questions online, and you get coverage options to choose from. you're ruining my workout. cycling is my passion. pete: as the senate prepares its final vote to confirm brett kavanaugh democrats are not ready to give up the fight yes. democratic congressman jerry nadler telling the new york times of his party wins the house they will investigate him saying, quote, we are going to have to do something to provide a check and balance to protect the rule of law and the legitimacy of one of our most important institutions. here to react fox news contributor and constitutional law professor george washington university jonathan turley, professor. i ask

joined by jonathan turley who says it could be time for rod rosenstein to recuse himself from the investigationfter the break. with my bladder leakage, the products i've tried just didn't fit right. they were too loose. it's getting in the way of our camping trips. but with a range of sizes, depend fit-flex is made for me. with a range of sizes for all body types, depend fit-flex underwear is guaranteed to be your best fit. when you have something you love, ♪ you want to protect it. at legalzoom, our network of attorneys can help you every step of the way. with an estate plan including wills or a living trust that grows along with you and your family. legalzoom. where life meets legal. what's going on? oh hey! ♪ that's it? yeah. that's it? everybody two seconds! "dear sebastian, after careful consideration of your application, it is with great pleasure that we offer our congratulations on your acceptance..." through the tuition assistance program, every day mcdonald's helps more people go to college. it's part of our commitment to being america's best first job. this is not a screensaver.game.

. >> bill: let's bring in jonathan turley. constitutional law professor at george washington university. welcome back. i want to go back to the jeff flake interview with savannah guthrie early this morning. he was asked if kavanaugh and ford are not interviewed by the f.b.i. would he have a problem with that? this is his answer. i want to capture one phrase he said there. watch. >> we have the statement of dr. ford and then we have hours of testimony, so frankly, when we talked about an f.b.i. investigation, it was to follow up leads that might corroborate her account. so i am not troubled by that as much as if we came back and found out that the f.b.i. only followed a couple of leads or interviewed just a couple of people. i believe they can get it done in a week and we're anxious to see the report. >> bill: if they came back and found -- if we came back and found the f.b.i. only interviewed a couple people or followed a couple of leads. that would suggest what is in the f.b.i. reports. does that sound like there is wiggle ro

brian: i would like to bring up from the legal perspective jonathan turley on last night with shannon says it's a coincidence but it turns out that kavanaugh who is going to work today with all clerks who happen to be female and i believe that's a first. coin deposition is he starting out in all areas where is he likely to really take the court in a different direction from justice kennedy. criminal cases, environmental cases. it happened to fall in that direction. democrats realized they lost so they were very humble in the way they handled it and they realized let's turn the page and move on, right? steve: you're so funny. absolutely not. if you missed some of the critical coverage of the confirmation and his new job, here's 41 seconds of it. >> women who are shrieking out in agony saying you cannot impose this on us. you can't send us back to the 50's but mitch mcconnell says yes i can. >> this is a president who says he is for law and order but not when it comes to sexual assault. >> in many ways this is a crushing defeat for women and women's rights. >> trump has delivered for th

what impact is it going to have fox news contributor and constitutional law professor jonathan turleyut a real shift in the court? this will likely be the most lasting legacy of president trump. when he came to office 10% of the seats on the federal bench were vacant. he then proceeded to set a record in terms of how many confirmations he has received at this point in his presidency you cannot under estimate the impact of all of this. most cases do not get to the supreme court. so those court of appeals seattle are usually the last court for the vast majority of states. you change that level you change the law across the country. trial judges are very, very important. when they make bench cases it's very hard to overturn that if you are looking at changing the legal landscape, this could not be more of a game changer. and so, you have these judges developing these cases. now, the president has had now two aappointments to the supreme court. he may have a third or even a fourth. these are the judges that create the conflict in the circuit that give those justices the opportunity to cre

about it this is debatable, something he feels, i talked to a few attorneys, coming up after this jonathan turleyitutional attorney from george town, george washington. he came out and they said there are clauses in there, you don't have to change the constitution, interpret it according to the president accurately. which says if your parents are here illegally but you're born here you became a citizen right away. and that should to me galvanize the conservative portion of his base which is, you know, 95% of it. >> how do you feel about it? i mean absent -- i don't care whether it's a constitutional question or do it with executive action. suppose it is put in place. just because you make it across the border doesn't mean any child you have is going to be an american, what do you personally feel about that? >> i think the law is the law. if you're sneaking into the country, have a kid in order to do it, to change the trajectory of generations i rather you do it through the right immigration system, through our processes. i wish it was easier, stuart, you didn't have to take years and a lot of mon

. >> jon: jonathan turley is a noted legal authority.ys that justice kavanaugh is going to have a huge impact on the court right away. listen to this. >> i think kavanaugh was viewed as a long-term investment because of his age. he will have some pretty short-term returns. this docket is designed, it seems, for kavanaugh. >> jon: what do you think about that, a docket designed for brett kavanaugh? >> well, i think i would be a little cautious about overstating the impact of this nomination. remember, kavanaugh replaces anthony kennedy, probably one of the 10-most conservative justices of the past 70 years and voted with the conservatives in every 5-4 case last year. having said that justice kavanaugh will be faithful to originalism and be there for 10 or 20 years. the new makeup of the supreme court, a solid majority that will be faithful to conservative legal principles is quite a legacy for president trump and senator mitch mcconnell. the only person at the center of the garland, gorsuch and kavanaugh nominations. he prevailed in all t

. >> bill: from your lips to jonathan turley's keyboard.ate comes down to six poorly chosen words, quote, and subject to the jurisdiction there of, he could challenge that. >> the supreme court hasn't touched this part of the amendment for many years. more than a century. so there is some running room. i think the president's attitude here is look, he will do what he wants to do. if he does this by executive order i think his attitude is i'll do what i want to do. let the courts step in and stop me if they will. the one thing everyone regardless of their views this would be challenged within nanoseconds in court if the president were to attempt to repeal birthright citizenship by executive order. >> bill: some said by lunchtime. >> julie: 1857 supreme court ruling the dread scott decision. harry reid even said that no sane country would award citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. basically saying that he would go for passing a law that would essentially grant citizenship only to the children of mothers in the u.s. that are here leg

jonathan turley wrote a piece for the hill.e reasons mueller may not charge trump with obstruction. the whole premise of that piece the questions that he has knowledge about do not suggest obstruction. >> the other premise of that piece is if there was obstruction, meaning if jim comey were fired for some personal venal purpose on the part of the president. to keep him from getting too close to the president. that's what obstruction here means. one of the witnesses would be rod rosenstein and rod rosenstein is in charge of the investigation. from which professor turley is concluding if rosenstein were going to be a witness he would have taken himself out of the investigation. the people around rosenstein have said he didn't expect the memo he gave to the president to be used as the reason for firing jim comey and he was embarrassed when that memo was released. when he walked into the oval office that day to talk to the president he had no idea the president would say give me some reason to fire comey. >> bill: you don't entirel

brian: jonathan turley said yesterday big hope there is no demonstrations it would break all decorum.ave him alone. they did. steve: there were a couple of protesters outside beyond the bike racks but that was for the most part it. meanwhile, straight ahead. remember when maxine waters said this: >> if you see anybody from this cabinet, you get out and you create a crowd. [cheers] >> you push back on them. steve: now she says president trump is the violent one. is it hypocrisy? you have to hear it and it's coming up. brian: gets stranger every day. todd piro is having breakfast with friends ahead the president's rally in eary, pennsylvania. we will find out what voters want to hear next ♪ only in america pain relieving cream has 4 active ingredients, to fight pain 4 different ways. get relief fast with new thermacare ultra pain relieving cream. too hot to work? nah. this is the gator xuv835. with game-changing heat and air, it's never too anything for anything. whenshe was pregnant,ter failed, in-laws were coming, a little bit of water, it really- it rocked our world. i had no idea th