his name, merrick garland. merrick garland was the principal associate deputy attorney general. he had volunteered to lead this investigation, telling his boss he had to do it. garland would stay in oklahoma city for a long period of time. by all accounts, he worked around the clock coordinating the efforts by law enforcement to gather evidence building the case against timothy mcveigh and terry nichols. every step along the way merrick garland was meticulous. he made sure no corners were cut in the investigation or the prosecution. there was so much at stake. one of the roles merrick garland took most seriously was to be in touch with the survivors and their families. keep them informed, keep them in the loop. he carried with him at all times a list of the names of the victims so that he would never forget the historic importance of his assignment. merrick garland would later call his work in oklahoma city -- and i quote -- "the most important thing i have ever done in my life." his work to help bring the perpetrators of this terrorist attack to justice earned him the respect a

let's give merrick garland a fair hearing. right now, conservative groups and some senate republicans are taking their swings blindly at merrick garland. they're flailing around hoping to find some argument to justify the mistreatment which they are offering. for example, there is a right wing advocacy group calling itself the judicial crisis network, whatever that is, that recently announced a multistate ad campaign against judge garland. how about that? they won't give him a hearing, they won't let him even sit down in a chair under oath and face questions and give answers, but they have started a multimillion-dollar ad campaign against him. the campaign said that with garland on the bench, the second amendment would be -- quote -- gutted because -- quote -- in two separate cases, garland has demonstrated strong hostility to gun owner rights. several senate republicans have echoed this attack. they have heard this so-called judicial crisis network ad and they have decided to amplify it. however, there is no argument that can

i have just concluded a more than hour long meeting with judge garland. it was an excellent meeting that allowed us to explore many of the issues that i would raise with any nominee to the supreme court as well as some of the criticisms that have been levied against him. the meeting left me more convinced than ever that the process should proceed. the next step, in my view, should be public hearings. but for the judiciareudiciary c so the issues we explored in my office can be publically aired. and so that senators can have a better opportunity to flesh out all of the issues that we discussed. i would be glad to take any questions anyone might have. >> are you going to approach leader mcconnell about your request and how much influence will you have with him and chairman grassley to relent on the no hearings, no vote? >> first of all, it's my understanding that senator grassley has agreed to meet with judge garland. so let's see if after that meeting senator grassley still holds to the position that there should not be hearings. i believe that the majorit

and when garland was appointed to the u.s. court of appeals, he received a broad and bipartisan vote. there is no doubt that garland is superior -- superbly qualified. this nation's constitution expressly states that the president has the power to appoint supreme court justices with 2/3 of the senate approving. nowhere is there some kind of an asterisk stating during their last year in office or even during the fast few weeks of their term that the president must relinquish this power to his successor. president obama was elected by the american public in 2012 to serve another four years in office. with nine months left in his term, there is no excuse for the senate to block him from filling this supreme court vacancy. precedent demands action. in the past, six supreme court nominees were confirmed by the senate in an election year, including current justice anthony kennedy who was then nominated by then president reagan, a republican president who was in his final year of his term, a democratic congress hoping that one of the

i also want to tell you the judgegs scheduled with garland.sday, senator grassley will be meeting with him again, followed by senator ayotte of new hampshire, rob portman on thursday, and lindsey graham as well. of arizona and lisa murkowski a little bit down the road. you missed any of the president's remarks, we will be showing them tonight at 8:00 p.m., where he used to be a professor, university of chicago law school. we will hear now from chuck grassley. he talked about the supreme court and also the nominating process. this is from earlier today. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: we have a unique opportunity for the american people to have a voice in the direction of the supreme court. the american people should be afforded the opportunity to weigh in on this very important matter. our side, meaning the republican side, believes very strongly that the people deserve to be heard and they should be allowed to decide through their vote for the next president the type of person that should be on the supreme court. as i've stated previousl

several lawmakers taking time to meet with judge merritt garland. at least two senators now say hearings should be held on his nomination. but senate majority leader mitch mcconnell and chuck grassley are sticking to their guns. president obama addressing their stance in his very first interview on "fox news sunday" with chris wallace. >> some republican senators say look, if a democrat wins in november, maybe we'll consider garland in a lame duck hearing. have you made a commitment to garland that you're going to stick by him through the end of your term, or perhaps let's say hillary clinton is the newly elected president, would you pull him and let her make the pick? >> as more senators meet with him, i think the recognize the qualities of this individual. i think we can't have is a situation in which the republican senate simply says, because it's a democratic president, we are not going to do our job, have hearings and have a vote. >> joining me now to talk about this is chief congressional correspondent for the washington examiner. hi. >> hi. >

[applause] judge garland: thank you, mr. president. this is the greatest honor of my life other than lynn agreeing to marry me 28 years ago. it's also the greatest gift i've ever received, except, and there is another caveat, the birth of our daughters jessie and becky. as my parents taught me by both words and deeds, a life of public service is as much a gift to the person who serves as it is to those he is serving. and for me there could be no higher public service than serving as a member of the united states supreme court. my family deserves much of the credit for the path that led me here. my grandparents left the pale of settlement at the border of western russia and eastern europe in the early 1900's, fleeing antisemitism, and hoping to make a better life for their children in america. they settled in the midwest, eventually making their way to chicago. there my father, who ran the smallest of small businesses from a room in our basement took me with him as he made the rounds to his customers, always impressing upon me the impor

and now that i've met judge garland, i will set about the task of reviewing judge garland's full record and all of his opinions. i'll set that aside, but the american people deserve to meet him and decide for themselves whether he is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. the american people deserve a hearing. but, mr. president, in my view, confirmation hearings also serve a broader purpose. hearings aren't just an opportunity for the public to get to know the nominee and discover how he views -- or she views -- important issues. open public hearings provide an opportunity for the american people to learn about the supreme court's jurisprudence and to demystify the court's role in our democracy. hearings also allow our constituents to see and judge for themselves how and whether the government is working, whether we are doing our jobs. but before any of us knew who the president would nominate, senate republicans wasted no time in refusing to fill the vacancy until after the election. the supreme court said -- and i quote -- "this vacancy should not be filled until we have

. >> is there cracks in the republican opposition to garland?> i don't think there are cracks that will be large enough to change the position of the majority. but yes, you do have some senators out there, up for re-election. and states that obama won and in some case won twice. and they're feeling the pressure on the re-election campaign to not be seen as an obstructionist and they want some cover. so you're going to see your portmans -- senator from ohio, and senator toomey and kirk in illinois. and in other states, you're going to see emwant to give the appearance they're not obstructionists when it comes to this and maybe hearings should not be out of the question. >> and kim, does this suggest that maybe the president's strategy of appointing nominating merrick garland, who is a respected jurist, wide experience on the dc circuit, not a progressive flame-thrower, was pretty savvy because it's easier to open up some of these areas of disagreement? >> yes, but only on the margins, i would make the case. i mean, i think that the left and the m

you're calling for an up or down vote on judge garland. back in 2006, senator barack obama joined a filibuster on sam alie alito, a bush appointee, which would have prevented an up-or-down vote. isn't there a fair amount of hypocrisy on both sides, frankly, including you? >> i think there's no doubt that democrats and republicans have gotten into a fix inside the senate in which the confirmation process becomes too much of a tit for tat. or becomes politicized. i will point out, chris, that never has a republican president's nominee not received a hearing, not received a vote. so i don't object to republicans saying, look, garland may be a fine man. he may be an excellent judge. but i just disagree with them philosophically on a whole range of issues. >> so you'd be okay if he got defeated as long as they go through the process? >> i think if they go through the process, they won't have a rationale to defeat him. my point is go through the process. go through the hearings. i think if you do that, the american people and the majority of sen

[applause] judge garland: thank you, mr. president.ago. it's also the greatest gift i've ever received, except, and there is another caveat, the birth of our daughters jessie and becky. as my parents taught me by both words and deeds, a life of public service is as much a gift to the person who serves as it is to those he is serving. and for me there could be no higher public service than serving as a member of the united states supreme court. my family deserves much of the credit for the path that led me here. my grandparents left the pale of settlement at the border of western russia and eastern europe in the early 1900's, fleeing antisemitism, and hoping to make a better life for their children in america. they settled in the midwest, eventually making their way to chicago. there my father, who ran the smallest of small businesses from a room in our basement took me with him as he made the rounds to his customers, always impressing upon me the importance of hard work and fair dealing. there my mother headed the local p.t.a. and scho

he made the case for his supreme case nominee, judge merrick garland. refusal of republican's to hold hearings and spoke to students at the law school. this is an hour and a half. [applause] president obama: thank you. mr. president, this is a tremendous honor for the university's law school. welcome back. president obama: it is good to be back. [applause] president obama: as some of you may know, i actually spent 10 years teaching classes and seminars here. it was really fun. [laughter] president obama: i missed it and i thought, well, why don't i hi toack and say everyone. there are a couple people i would like to acknowledge because they helped facilitate this. i would like to thank dean miles for closing down the school for one day. thank you. [applause] specialt obama: a acknowledgment for doug berry who were great friends when i was teaching here and were partly responsible for having me actually take on some responsibility straight out of law school, to mold the minds of students who were just barely younger than me. i know that because some of t

you're tacalling for an up or dn vote on judge garland. but in 2006, they did a senate vote on scalia which would have shot down a senate vote. is there a hypocrisy vote concerning you? >> there is no doubt democrats and republicans have gone into effect in the senate where the process becomes too much a tit for tat or becomes too politicized. i will point out, though, chris, never has a republican presence nominee not received a hearing, not received a vote. so i don't object to republicans saying, look, merrick garland may be a fine man, he may be an excellent judge, but i just disagree with him philosophically on a whole range of issues so i'm going to vote against him. >> so you would be okay if he got defeated as long as they go through the process? >> i think if they go through the process, they won't have a rationale to defeat him. my feeling is go through the process, go through the hearings. i think if you do that, the american people and the majority of senators will determine that, in fact, he is qualified to be on the court. >>

of garland.uding today's sessions, garland will have met with 14 democratic senators and three republicans so far. 14 republicans have now agreed to meet with garland and two have called for hearings to be held on his behalf. but mitch mcconnell shows no signs for opening up a path for garland. for the state of the nomination, i'm joined by deputy press secretary eric schultz. eric, nice to see you. thanks for being with us. >> thanks, kate, for having me. >> you have senator collins, a republican from maine, saying the nomination process should move forward. you have other republicans saying it should not move forward. only two republicans even say they want hearings. are there cracks in the republican wall that you see? >> i think so, kate. if you go back a few months now to justice scalia's untimely passing, in those hours, republicans announced they wouldn't even consider any nominee put forward by this president. we believe that position was absolutely untenable, and in the months since, you

garland has met with 21 senators, 3 of them republicans.tal, 15 republican senators have said they are open to meeting with garland. senator graham of south carolina adding his name to that list just moments ago. 5 of those meetings are scheduled for next week, including one with senator chuck grassley. garland slated to have breakfast with the chairman on tuesday. senators mark kirk and susan collins are still the only republicans who support having hearings on garland's nomination. this is where collins told chuck yesterday on this show. >> i don't think there will be hearings right off. i'm hoping that, as more of my colleagues sit down with judge garland, that they will conclude, as i've concluded, that he deserves a hearing. >> but majority leader mitch mcconnell holds steadily fastly against hearings or a vote. >> president obama will fly to chicago where he will try to convince americans, despite his own actions while in the senate, to deny a supreme court nominee a vote, the constitution somali how now, now, requires the senate to h

as judge garland said, being a federal judge does not mean you remakeis grip to society. ideally, you have political process that does that. getlect representatives and votes. we passedthose -- bills. it is rough and not always elegant, but that is the constitutional design. it has the benefit make sure that centralization of power in decentralization keeps this ship moving in the direction. , and this is by court engageshe in massive social and janine. there are whole range of purpose of causes that i will continue to fight for, as long as i have a breath. i believe the society that is doing something for climate change. i believe in the society in able toery child is get a decent education. i believe in a society in which everyone has the right to health care. i believe our criminal justice system is flawed in a whole range of ways. i had a lunch with a sample of people i have pardoned for nonviolent drug offenses. i had a woman next to me, who, at a very young age was sentenced to life in prison for drug offense. it is crazy. it is unjust and unproductive, and not only

garland back on capitol hill.and later today he'll met with dianne feinstein. he will have met with 14 democratic senators and three republicans. but is the gop's opposition to president obama's nominee beginning to weaken at all. 14 republicans have now agreed to meet with garland. two have actually gone so far as to call for hearings to be held. after meeting with garland, senator durban suggested a >> he is clearly a person well qualified to serve on the u.s. supreme court. i think that's one of the problems that the republicans have. they just know that when they sit down, get to know him and understand his background, it's virtually impossible to say this man is not qualified to serve in that position. >> nbc news capitol hill correspondent luke russert joins me now. the meetings continue, luke. any sense that hearings are going to happen? >> well, yesterday the leader of the senate, mitch mcconnell of kentucky, said it was still his position that there would be no hearing and no vote regarding judge garland.

maureen: garland met with nine republican senators so far. only two of those have called for the hearings. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell says the next should name the justice to fill the late scalia's seat. leon: more isis fight belgium. that -- europe and belgium. that is coming from the head of the government crisis center. he says he will not lower the country threat status keeping it at a second highest level where it has been since 32 people were killed at the airport. in afghanistan the taliban claimed responsibility for suicide attack in kabul. 28 people have been killed. more than 300 injured. truck bomber targeted a security office that protects top government officials. after the bomb went off, the gunman followed up, went in opened fire and killing the people inside. a broken helmet serving as a strong reminder as a soldier and his family. a bullet went through the protective gear. four years later he doesn't have a scar. but now a new reminder. amy aubert has the story. >> alive and well. four years after a bullet struck.

others have attacked chief judge garland record. they view some of the dark money groups to attack him. well, at least allow him a public hearing where he can respond. you know, it's not a principled thing to attack them knowing he can't respond. and by not voting, what they're doing is voting maybe. they can take any position they want. they can say yeah, i met with him and, of course, i met with him, knowing it would never have to vote with them but they can keep blocking it. they never have to be on either side. well, we are likely to vote yes or no, not maybe. you are going to hear a lot on some of the senate's most memorable confirmation debates. you see the senate has considered controversial nominees, but in every one of those instances the nominee received a public hearing and a vote. what would be historic is to deny chief judge garland a public hearing and a vote. that would be historic. this senator does not want that to be part of the history of the united states send it. you should demand your senators do their job by p

as they did when they confirmed merrick garland to the d.c.circuit, i ask that they confirm merrick garland now to the supreme court, so that he can take his seat in time to fully participate in its work for the american people this fall. he is the right man for the job. he deserves to be confirmed. i could not be prouder of the work that he has already done on behalf of the american people. he deserves our thanks and he deserves a fair hearing. and with that, i'd like to invite judge garland to say a few words. [applause] >> thank you, mr. president. this is the greatest honor of my life, other than lynn agreeing to marry me 28 years ago. it's also the greatest gift i've ever received except, and there's another caveat, the birth of our daughters, jessie and becky. as my parents taught me by both words and deeds, a life of public service is as much a gift to the person who serves as it is to those he is serving. and for me, there could be no higher public service than serving as a member of the united states supreme court. my family deserves

ari melber is with me, following this debate over judge garland this whole time. you heard the president say, many times there, that he thinks he's supremely qualified, he thinks republicans and democrats both support the judge -- that's certainly not what republicans are saying on capitol hill. give us a fact collect of this. is he right there is support for this particular judge? >> well, he's certainly right a lot of conservative scholars and jurists have talked about the strong credentials and respect for judge garland. the way republicans have been putting it is, the process needs to change, democrats dialed this up politically and they're not going to go this confirmation in this year period, no matter how good the judge is. looking at president speaking to david strauss, who used to handle these nominations as council to the senate judiciary committee. they are making an argument. the president trying to say the process is broken but the way we fix it is giving this man a fair hearing that in and of itself is not how effective the republicans have been, mak

the president explained why he keeps pushing for hearings on supreme court nominee merrick garland despite the republicans vow that the hearings will never happen. >> i don't object to republicans saying, look, merrick garland may be a fine man, he may be an excellent judge, but i disagree with them philosophically. i think if they go through the process, they won't have a rationale to defeat him. my point is go through the process. go through the hearings. if you do that, the american people and majority of senators will determine that in fact he is qualified to be on the court. >>> hillary clinton's subway troubles from last thursday were in the crosshairs on "saturday night live." kate mckinnon mocked her turnstiles. >> the new york city subway is the best way to get around. this isn't working metrocard. i'll just go in the old fashion way. i'll take a cab. cab is the best way to get around. >> you knew that was going to come up. clinton joked about her swiping snag at a charity event asking bill de blasio, do me a favor to fix the metrocards. >> the best part is hillary clinton giving

judge merrick garland now scheduled to meet with more republican lawmakers on tuesday.ee senator collins of maine and senator john boozeman of arkansas. collins has stressed that garland should, at the very least, get some kind of consideration. boozeman has said little about the road ahead. the white house hoping to slowly build support, while republican leaders have said emphatically, they won't hold hearings let alone a vote on garland this year. joining me now, someone who knows garland well, lawrence tribe, who has talked to president obama, chief justice john roberts, elena kagan, and ted cruz, all former students of yours. quite a roster. your view on what washington is looking at here. is judge garland any closer to getting the usual confirmation process, a hearing and a vote? >> well, he certainly should be. if the senate does its job and performs its constitutional responsibility, it will not, for the first time in american history, simply turn its back on judge garland, on the theory that anybody this president nominates in the last year of his term, just sho

as you know, some people on the left were disappointed with your choice of chief judge garland. they thought you should have appointed someone who would've been more aggressive of moving the court in a certain direction. what i just -- i guess want to say is, those of us who knew you back then could say, you should not be surprised. if i remember correctly, when you are teaching constitutional law, you held up the court as the model of holding of the law within societies problems, and if i remember correctly, you were skeptical of that is a law professor. mi remembering that? -- am i remembering that? is my memory bad? president obama: i think you are right about this. it is an adage in law and you are familiar with this, prior students are as well. the courts are a terrific shield. they are not always an effective sword. what i mean by that is, there have been moments in history, brown versus board of education being the best example, and on the other end of the spectrum, a decision like dred scott. there are certain moments brown, the in democracy has broken down. in a fundame

. >> ifill: supreme court nominee merrick garland made the rounds on capitol hill again today. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell remains determined not to hold confirmation hearings. some senate republicans, including judiciary committee chairman charles grassley, have announced a willlingness to meet the nominee, although he and senate majority leader say they will not schedule hearings or a vote. today judge garland did meet two republicans: senator john boozman of arkansas and senator susan collins of maine. she joins us now from capitol hill. senator collins, tell us about your meeting with the judge. >judge. >> it was an excellent meeting. we talked for over an hour about a range of issues that included his judicial philosophy, second amendment cases, the separation of powers, the executive over-reach. we were able to touch on a great many issues. >> ifill: did you conclude that he is qualified for at least a hearing, if not confirmation? >> i certainly believe that he is qualified for a hearing. he has been a distinguished jurist for 13 years on the d.c. circuit cour

garland, would you consider voting for him or would you vote for him? >> would i in fact -- >> would you vote for him if you had the opportunity ? >> it's premature for me to reach that conclusion. whenever there has been a nominee to the supreme court, i always wait until after the public hearings are held before reaching a decision. that's only prudent, because after public hearings, you have a far better sense of the nominee. we covered a lot of ground in our hour-long meeting. but obviously, public hearings with many senators posing questions allows for far more in-depth review of the qualifications, decisions, philosophy of the nominee. >> how disappointed are you at the stance of no hearing stance? >> in my time in the senate, i have always found that whether it's legislation, nominations or treaties, that we are best served by following the regular order that produces better bills, it makes sure that nominees are fully vetted and that, to me, is the way that we should proceed. i am not optimistic that i will be changing minds on this issue. but i

i would encourage all of my colleagues to sit down with judge garland. i believe that that's how the process should work and works best, when we have these one-on-one meetings followed by public hearings. >> senator, beyond the principle of regular order, what about the strategy, can you comment on the strategy of mcconnell in terms of how risky it is that hillary clinton could become president and nominate someone much more liberal? in talking to him, do you feel like he would be a good choice for republicans if that happens? >> i can't -- i don't want to comment on the majority leader's strategy. that's really a question that should be directed to him. i will say that from the conversation that i just had, i found that judge garland was, he has a humility about him, he's clearly thought very deeply about the issues confronting the courts. there was not any question that he could not handle, and he has a long record of accomplishment as a jurist on the d.c. circuit for 19 years. it would be ironic if the next president happens to be a democrat and choos

to have some kind of hearing for garland? joan: they believe that when merrick garland introduces himself to the american people through televised hearings, that folks will say, look, he's moderate. here? the threat there's no reason to hold him back. right wing like justice scalia but he doesn't seem to be the kind of person who would rule in an extreme way. it seems like there is a sense because he actually is about the most centrist individual that president obama named given president -- prioritiess for for the bench so they feel it's another step of progress him to senators and to americans and once you have hearings it would be easier to a senate vote even in the lame duck session. gwen: what do you think will happen? to predict.so hard gwen: i know. joan: because of mitch mcconnell. if mitch mcconnell wasn't there, down that marker, i would say that they would make progress because the white house made some progress, already made progress with republicans. made it aobama has major priority. but i actually think we'll b

or vote on merrick garland. at one point, there seemed briefly to be the sense that not had talked about doing it before the presidential election and then there was a brief rhetorical window where he said, maybe after the election if we lose the election, we would be happy to see merrick garland on the supreme court and out mitch mcconnell says no way on that. he is a practical man. more practical than ideological, and yet for whatever reason he concludes that going back on his very predictions is in his party's s political interest and things maybe change. i do not think that is likely. in the next administration will all depend on whether we have at present of one party in the senate of the other or if they are aligned. one thing you are reminded of, cannot help be reminded of when , it isch this footage always the senators and presidents on the political losing end of debate that say let's reform ourselves, let's behave better in the future and it is always the folks on the winning side that use the power le

that's where he'll make his case for confirming merrick garland.ating him to the nation's highest court. >> i ask that they confirm merrick garland now to the supreme court. he is the right man for the job. he deserves to be confirmed. >> reporter: garland's nomination remains embroiled in politics in the senate. the 63-year-old harvard educated federal judge is making the rounds on capitol hill. meeting with senators on both sides of the aisle. >> how do you feel, judge garland? >> reporter: over the past 20 days, garland met with 14 democrats, but only 3 republicans. senate republican leadership is holding firm on their vow not to hold hearings or a vote on his nomination. >> i think it's safe to say that there will be not be hearings or votes. >> reporter: two gop senators who met with garland disagree. >> the meeting left me more convinced than ever that the process should proceed. >> reporter: democrats argue other republicans would feel the same if they agreed to meet with garland. >> i think that's one of the problems that the republicans ha

give judge garland the confirmation vote that he needs. the process that is so important and has been so good for the country over these many years. out of sight meetings where republican senators slip out of back doors to avoid reporters are not transparent and are not nearly enough. there will be no transparency if senator grassley fails to call an open hearing, a hearing when chief judge garland can present himself to the american public. and when he does that, the american public will focus on him and they will be as impressed with him as we are. we hope our republican colleagues will join us and sign this letter. senator schumer? >> thank you. we're so pleased that a number of our republican colleagues changed their mind in recent weeks and decided to meet with judge garland after all. the meetings are an important part of this process. but they're only the first step. it's every senator's right to meet with a judge, but it's the american peoples right to have him explain his legal views in an open and public hearing. having a private

she met with judge garland yesterday and is urging her republican colleagues to do the same.to the show. >> thank you, chuck. >> what do you make of judge garland? is he somebody that belongs in that echelon of, of nominees, that he is of that caliber of a judge? >> he's clearly an accomplished juror. he's highly intelligent. i found that he had thought very deeply about the issues facing the courts, and we had a very good discussion for more than an hour. i can't say, for certain, that i would vote for him. that's why we need hearings. >> what do you want to hear from the hearing? what is it -- obviously, hearings are important in this process, but what specifically are some areas that you want to hear him have to answer questions on in a public forum? >> he's had 19 years on the d.c. circuit court. and during that time, he has authored some controversial decisions that we discussed yesterday. but the issue that is most important to me are his views on the separation of powers. i think that in both president bush's administration and especially in president obama's administr

to go forward, from soutsouthcarolina, they have and plans to meet with garland as well. a lame duck session, and that's the hope of president obama, and the senate remains in the democratic hands, or even if it goes into democratic hands, for republicans to see the writing on the wall with a democratic president coming in in january, to go ahead and confirm garland, makingent best of a bad situation. >> mike viqueira there for us, and a new report claims that people have been credible allegations of sexual abuse against former house speaker, dennis hastert. the alleged victims wer, the federal prosecutors have been hinting that the money was to fend off the allegations of sexual abuse. >>> police in belgium want a man in connection of the brussels bombing today. he is believed to have escaped after his explosives failed to detonate. and we have more on where the footage came from. >> walking away from an attack that caused carnage. this video has been released by the brussels police the so-called man in the hat who fled the airport when his bomb failed to explode. the po

the moderate republican from maine susan collins fwreeted garland on capitol hill. lindsey graham, the conservative of south carolina has announced plans to meet with garland as well. even so, the strategy points to a lame duck session. assuming that a democrat wins the white house, obviously, that's the hope of president obama, and the senate remains as it is in republican hands or democratic hands, the best hope the white house has now is to have a lame duck session when republicans see the writing on the wall with a democratic president coming in in january to go ahead and confirm garland making the best of a bad situation. back to you. >> mike, thank you. >>> in syria isil has taken scores of workers captive. the prisoners were taken during an isil attack on a cement factory just northeast of damascus. we have the report. >> reporter: there are conflicting reports with regards to the news of the abduction of these factory workers, these cement workers. state television saying that isil kidnapped roughly 300 workers. however, sources on the ground in damascus hav

could you see republicans supportingmaker garland? >> i could see it in the context of a lame duck as steve alluded to. but the reality is, the history here is very clear. you know, it's been since 1888 was the last time you had a senate that was led by the opposing party confirm a supreme court justice in the presidential election year of someone on the other side. that's just not going to happen. the president knows it. and i think that's why he was so willing to give up the leverage as a.b. said. >> we'll take a short break. winners and losers when we come back. hey, need fast heartburn relief? try cool mint zantac. it releases a cooling sensation in your mouth and throat. zantac works in as little as 30 minutes. nexium can take 24 hours. try cool mint zantac. no pill relieves heartburn faster. >>> and finally tonight, winners and losers. we will start with ben. >> my winner for this week is america because it's opening week in baseball season. we live in a time where when we are very disconnected but baseball brings us together. t

those that say they will now meet with chief judge garland.hat south carolina senator lindsey graham will meet with the senator next week. but without the support of grassley and mcconnell, they may be wasting their time. >> kevin, thank you. >>> senate democrats are blocking the confirmation process for two of president obama's nominees to the securities and exchange commission. several democratic members of the banking committee are taking the stand because nominees lisa fairfax and hester purse have waffled in their positions on requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending. >>> the dow lost 174 today, the s&p 500 was down 25, the nasdaq down 72. >>> just how did the fbi break into a terrorist's cell phone? we have some new information for you. >>> we are learning more tonight about how the fbi was able to crack the encryption on a smart phone belonging to one of the san bernardino shooters who massacred 14 people last december. chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge is here to tell us what we know. good ev

here's what she had to say after meeting with judge garland. senator: -- sen.lins: i just concluded a more than one-hour-long meeting with judge garland. meeting thatellent allowed us to explore many of the issues i would raise with any nominee to the supreme court as well as some of the criticisms that have been levied against him. me moreing left convinced they and ever that the process should proceed. step, in my view, should be public hearings but for the judiciary committee so that the issues that we explored and my office can be publicly aired and so that senators can have a better opportunity to flash out to all of the issues we discussed. i would be glad to take any questions. it is my understanding that senator grassley has agreed to meet with judge garland, so let's see if after that meeting senator grassley still holds to the position there should not be a hearing. leader inthe majority senator grassley are very sincere in their believe that the next president should make this decision. i do not happen to agree with shouldd i believe we follow the no

those that say they will now meet with chief judge garland.hat south carolina senator lindsey graham will meet with the senator next week. but without the support of grassley and mcconnell, they may be wasting their time. >> kevin, thank you. >>> senate democrats are blocking the confirmation process for two of president obama's nominees to the securities and exchange commission. several democratic members of the banking committee are taking the stand because nominees lisa fairfax and hester purse have waffled in their positions on requiring publicly traded companies to disclose political spending. >>> the dow lost 174 today, the s&p 500 was down 25, the nasdaq down 72. >>> just how did the fbi break into a terrorist's cell phone? we have some new information for you. th test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test test chalev another pill stop. can i get my aleve back ye

they are meeting with supreme court nominee merrick garland as he makes his courtesy calls an capitolill. yeah, they are having a meeting. garland is also invitation from chuck grassley, the head of the senate judiciary committee plans to have a chat with garland at a later today to explain why the senate does not want to consider a nominee anytime soon. a lot of political rhetoric one of the republican lawmakers sitting down with merrick garland today is the senator from maine. happens to be a republican, susan collins met with the nominee and is joining me right now. thank you for taking the time to do this. i'm confused why you will have the meeting when i assume you and your republican colleagues have no intention of confirming merrick garland. >> my position, ashleigh, is we should follow the normal order. having a sit down with the nominee, as i did today for more than an hour to explore the issues is the first step. i then have called for the judiciary committee to hold hearings on the nominee. that's in the normal second step. the meeting i had today confirmed my belief that w

just grassley also invited garland to a meeting but apparently it's only to explain why garland won't get a hearing until the next president takes office. grassley's communication direction said the time of the meeting isn't set. >>> alabama governor robert bentley may be one step closer to impeachment. he is accused of having an inappropriate rim relationship with a former staffer. a state lawmaker announced his intent to file a resolution containing articles of impeachment. he denied the relationship was sexual but rejected calls to step down. >> let's check the weather. everybody is so happy. we have the sunshine unlimit visibility great air quality and jim in napa says it is 79 degrees. a nice stroll for this afternoon hours. north-northeast at 6 in san ramon. 6 gentle in san francisco. record heat expected on your wednesday. today within a couple of degrees of striking distance. high pressure continues to build in from the western pacific. end result temperatures in the 90s. last time we saw that was way back in october. so we're not quite acclimated. take care of seniors, childr