joining us now is bret hume. you may tell everybody the fox news report is based on anonymous sources. that makes me uneasy but houseley is a good reporter and now john roberts is getting the same information. >> and eli lake at bloomberg has the story and susan rice has not responded. if this not the case the consensus is she'd be quick to say so so we can't conclude it's' real deal but there's real efforts and confirms of surveillance and unmasking is a legitimate thread. >> bill: we don't want to be like other cable networks who put anything on the air and say it's through and have putin and trump vacationing in thailand. it's madness. here so people understand, susan rice, very close to valerie jarrett who is the top adviser, was the top adviser to barack obama. susan right said the video caused the benghazi uprising and attack turned out not to be true and we have houseley, robertson and lake now saying that rice ordered in january right before the inauguration unmasking of people who should not have been un

. >> bret: maybe is not -- maybe it's two tracks. brit hume talked about two tracks yesterday. there's really two investigations. what was unmasked and what was leaked in the investigation -- >> one investigation democrats are eager to pursue and one investigation republicans are eager to pursue and both are going to be pursued. >> bret: andrew mccarthy writes in a piece "susan rice's white house unmasking, a watergate style scandal. there would've been no intelligence needed for susan rice to ask for identities to be unmasked. if there had been a real need to reveal the identities, and intelligence need, the unmasking would've been done by the investigating agencies. national security advisor is not an investigator. she's a white house staffer. president staff as a consumer of intelligence, not a generator or collector of it. if susan rice with unmasking americans, it was not to fulfill an intelligence need. it was to fulfill a political desire based on democratic party interest." andrew mccarthy. >> and he is one of the smartest analysts on these questions. i don't agree with

bret: reince priebus, we appreciate your time tonight. >> you bet. thank you. >>> what does it all mean. brit hume is here with us tonight to give us an assessment. good evening, brit. you just heard reince, the big news about the tax reform. your thoughts? >> well, i think the tax reform is unmistakebly a tax cut, whether they can make it tax reform by making it revenue neutral remains to be seen. when you cut tax rates as steeply as they are cut, they plan to cut them in this, the revenue loss may be tremendous and the deficit will balloon. that will be offset, i think it is fair to argue, how great an extent is unclear from the growth you'll get out of it. never pro growth tax cut pay force itself. there is this, bret, and this will be part of the argument, you can bet on it. that is that as the -- if the economy gross, a larger ee c ec can carry more debt. in the 1980s, the deficit grew strongly, the economy was robust and company came through fine. such a build-up in the national debt over the past decade or so, that i'm not sure that that's very comforting. so they're going to have a fight o

bret: john roberts live on the north lawn. let's get some analysis on the president's foreign policy challenges. senior political analyst brit hume is here tonight. good evening. with all of this tension, let me ask you about how this administration is playing it in your thoughts. >> the one thing we've seen is a distinction will force and the willingness to use it. that doesn't mean when it comes to north korea or even the mideast that the president will go much beyond what he's already done. it does at least raise, i suspect the administration feels, in the eyes of foreign leaders friendly and unfriendly, the idea that the united states is poised to backup its diplomacy with the potential use of force. in the korean situation, it's always been assumed, as john roberts pointed out, there is no real military option because of the possibility that even using conventional weapons and artillery, the north could launch a devastating attack on south korea. the whole area, 30 miles south of the border, seoul. it was always thought there was no way to counteract it. we once had nuclear forces until about 1991. we had nuclear forces, tac

bret: kevin corke alive on the north lawn. thank you. let's talk more about the president's day, the gorsuch appointment and the foreign policy challenges. brit hume with us tonight. good evening. i may have to interrupt for the alabama governor's announcement which we can talk about too. first your thoughts on this day, this week and what we are seeing here. with gorsuch's swearing in and how the trump administration has been doing. >> well, it seems to me this has been a reasonably good several days, the gorsuch appointment going through is a very big deal and it's built on something he promised in the campaign. it's been a widely praised nomination, one of the first things he did. he gets real credit i think they are. this bombing raid in syria, it strikes me as a surprise militarily and a surprise politically. policy wise, and it's generally been well-regarded. i am sorry about the ever-changing background behind me. we are having trouble behind me but hope the audience can disregard that. in any case, i think this has been, the last several days have been a plus for him. i think when you hear the criticism that's going down about this bombing

bret: mike emanuel, thanks. what's really at stake in this latest down to the wire fight, and what about president trump's first 100 days? senior political analyst brit hume has thoughts. good evening. let's start with this battle. why is it that republicans get blamed? >> well, i think it's because republicans are most assuredly not known as the party of government. they are the party that wants to cut taxes. they want to reduce spending. they are the party that talks from time to time about the abolition of whole departments. they are always about cutting the government down. and that has widespread approval, as a general matter. cutting it down is one thing. shutting it down is another, and when there is a shutdown, the suspicion is that republicans who would like to see the government cut down, responsible for the shutdown. it's always been that way as long as i've been covering this for decades. i don't that gets going to be different this time. stu and let me get your thoughts on president trump's first 100 days. people say it's an arbitrary thing but 100 days as a marker for a lot of presidents, even candidate trump remarked on the website about wh