>> you did a nonresponsive answer. i'm going implied admission. there is a principle of the law that says, if the answer screams out to be no, and you don't give a no answer it's like saying yes. he didn't answer the question. it's very clear he was asked what did you folks in the white house know -- he wasn't asked about the i.g. report. he said i didn't know anything about the i.g. report. the question is what did you know in the white house -- about the irs. that would be number one. i would be suspicious that the white house knew exactly what was going on. second thing, as important as the law is and the regulations of an agency is the ethos of the agency. we saw this in the 90s where they had the regulations people felt like they shouldn't cooperate. they went on irs because they felt it was okay to do the thing >> megyn: we're going to talk to ted olson, he thinks two things are related. andy mccarthy. we've got breaking news from washington. we are tracking reports the doj have been unable to locate two known suspects in the terror attack a

and met with silence and nonresponse? has that been your experience? >>> there was no -- on some of the issues that i specifically mentioned in my previous statement were never mentioned by live nation. it's only after the meeting that i thought about the question of the port-a-potties. they weren't mentioned. i didn't know how many there were. we had to do some serious investigating to find out there were going to be 120 port-a-potties. >> what do you mean you had to do some serious investigation? call different people? >>> yes, to find out how sanitation was going to be handlededthv we also found out that the port-a-potty truck -- the clean up trucks like to come in when there's noffic early in the morning. ~ >> has it been a fair statement to say at the time of the meetings, you didn't raise the port-a-potty and the movement of those and the timing of those, would that be fair? >>> they were not brought up by live nation and -- >> but it wasn't brought up by the neighbors either? >>> we're not planning the event. we're reacting to what's happening.

came out, was awesome, and we are now check with the white house to find out why his answer was nonresponsive. >> megyn: maybe we'll get a followup between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. >> shepard: we'll get a followup. see you later. news begins anew on studio b. another headache for the obama administration. a just released government report says the feds lost track of some suspected terrorists. the jet department is fighting back in a big way against the claims. the latest controversy it's trying to tamp down. at the white house, another story rocking d.c., reporters asking the president, did anybody at the white house know that the irs was targeting conservative groups? it's kind of an important question. did anybody know at the white house that the irs was targeting conserve conservative groups? we need an answer, the way president obama is answering is raising new questions. >>> devastation in reports of northern texas. deadly tornadoes destroyed homes and right now there are big fears that people may still be trapped under tons of debris. we have live breaking news coverage. coming up next o

medics were called to the cell after a prisoner was reported nonresponsive.ined and determined to be okay. only six are facing active charges. 86 have never been charged with a prime and approved to release three years ago. two weeks have passed since then, the house has still not appointed an official to oversee the closure of the prison and oversee the transfer of detainees. when asked about it yesterday, attorney general holder replied that the administration was in the process of working on that. joining us is carol rosenberg who's been reporting since the first detainee arrived there in 2002. thanks for joining the show, and thanks for your continued reporting from gitmo, which is massively underdiscussed. since you have covered it for an extensive period of time, can you give us a sense of what it is like there now, with 86 detainees who are not charged with anything? >> well, the vast majority of them aren't charged with anything, as you said, only six are. right now it's pretty grim. the vast majority of the 166 men are under lockdown. that means sing

not just their responses but their nonresponses, i mean, everything is beyond a pail.starting to gets democrats and republicans, just crossing party lines inconsiderate six they're getting in calls for them to handle them differently to get facts out there. >> greta: how do they dig themselves out of this? they're on the hot seat. you've got situations where jay carney with different responses. this irs meeting started april 24th notification they're near the end of preparing the report now getting more information that more people were involved. >> that is the whole point. everything we know about every administration when something like this happens get it out, get the facts out as fast as you can. and deal witness. because the drip, drip, drip, and spur of the ring of more information or things that you didn't put out immediately that sort of drip out every day, just continues to make the original problem worse. and that is where i think they are on both the ap first amendment james rosen hits against the press, and first amendment rights, and on irs, where you're o

,> if you can characterize it between a nonresponse or a disagreement, when it comes to these issuesof security for , were youersonnel receiving a nonresponse from washington, or was there disagreement in washington with your assessment of levels of need on the ground? >> i largely got a nonresponse. ,he responses i did get were you don't have specific targeting, you don't have specific threats against you. you're not dealing with suicide bombers, incoming artillery, and vehicle bombs like they are in iraq and afghanistan, so basically stop complaining. >> the gentleman's time has expired. thank you. we now go to the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you very much. i know it has been a long day. lots of questions and answers have been shared. last week, an unidentified individual described as a military special ops member appeared on national television to give an interview on the military's response to the attacks in benghazi. the man appeared behind a black screen in order to conceal his identity. he suggested that military assets in europe could have prevented the second attack in

congress, and they swear to tell the truth or they provide answers in a letter that are either nonresponsivefactually inaccurate, that really gets people fired up. so this report has been going on for quite a long time and it uncovers some things that -- >> my favorite role, about to play devils advocate. what's wrong to ask if the koch brothers gave to the organization? they don't like democrats. they try to defet them. they spend their money to do that. why not check and see if the koch brothers were giving to one of these groups to find out what the real purpose was? >> you can't single out the koch brothers. you can't single them out just because you don't like their politics, you don't like their expression under the first amendment against the obama administration. so that's the problem here. when the government singularly targets the koch brothers and those who support the koch brothers' efforts, that's a problem. and that's where i think the administration has really dropped the ball on this thing. >> let's get one thing straight. suppose they did this and looked under progressive as

>> i largely get a nonresponse. the response is that i did -- the responses that i did get were, you don't have specific targeting, you don't have specific threats against you. the long and short of it is you're not dealing with suicide bombers, incoming artillery and vehicle bombs like they are in iraq and afghanistan so basically stop complaining. >> the gentleman's time has expired. thank you. we now go to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i know that it's been a long of questions and answers have been shared. let me ask the gentleman this, last week, in an -- an unidentified individual who is described as a military special ops member appeared on national television to give an interview on the military 'response to the attacks -- military's response to the attacks in ben gazzy. he appeared behind a -- benghazi. i appeared behind a black screen. he suggested that military assets in europe could have prevented the second attack in benghazi, specifically he said this, i k

they are in a state of basically nonresponse by the irs for many months. we need the applications granted. number two, kevin just mentioned and others there are real damages here. loss of grants. some of these organizations had accounting fees. we came into the case to litigate it. we're not charging them. if they incurred fees going through this process. so you have got that kind of damages. there is also a fundamental violation of constitutional rights here. kevin just mentioned. this whole idea what curriculum you're teaching, how are you teaching it and to whom you are teaching it to violate first amendment free speech and freedom of association clauses. all of those are combined in basically a one very significant lawsuit representing 25 groups. we're also asked for an injunction so the practices stop because bill, they have not. this is a continuous and ongoing violation by the internal revenue servicers still to this day? >> right now. i will tell you that we received last week in our office in addition to kevin's letter, we received a letter, quote

gun would be a transmission that says we are going to do something violent and her response or nonresponsejon: apparently the surviving brother dzhokhar said they only chose the boston marathon ahead of time because they haled the bombs financ bombs finished and it was a target of opportunity. does that fit the facts? >> without a doubt. that is exactly the way it has to work. there is an old saying, why hunt tigers when you can hunt sheep? go after the target of opportunity where people are not looking, not prepared. do that with some preop rational surveillance. this is what makes this case so difficult for law enforcement and security, again, these are guys had no prior footprint within the legal community, they hadn't been stopped, hadn't had arrest records and they got radicalized beneath the radar screen and go and develop a device using home-grown materials and they go around and say we are going to strike on no prior conceived timetable -fpblt it's very hard to pick up. jon: three of dzhokhar's friend have been arrested in recent days for having made a role in the aftermath of the

nonresponsive. >> gretchen: good morning, everybody. it's tuesday, may 14. i'm gretchen carlson.haring your day with us. shocking news out of hollywood. angelina jolie revealing she had a double mastectomy. why she made that decision coming up. >> brian: and in a move recalling the nixon white house days, the justice department secret recording phones at the associated press. did the attorney general holder allow that? >> steve: they got a list of all the phone calls that were made. meanwhile, he's the man behind a deadly attack on fort hood, but the white house still not calling him an enemy of the state. tea party patriots are targeted by the government. who is the real threat there? "fox & friends" hour two for tuesday starts immediately. >> gretchen: good morning, everybody. hopefully you had a good monday. major news, three big stories that we're focusing on today. we'll get to those in just a moment. first some headlines. bombshell admission from a list actress angelina jolie underwasn't double mastectomy. she carries a gene that increases her risk for cancer. as a result,

. >> yes nonresponsive this takes it -- >> this takes one step more.ons that look suspicion to our eye and then mark those and then scan them. now, this is painless. it doesn't cut into the skin and in less than a minute, it can give me more information that i can't see with my naked eye. >> gretchen: earlier you did one of the moles on my arm. i think they want to try and see this live. it takes 40 seconds. >> yes. what i would do is do the screening, i'd identify a spot and i found one on you that would be interesting to get more information about. and what we'll do is we just spray it with a little alcohol, just wet the area. then the scan will go on the skin. and it will go right on the skin. i'll hold it while you do that. just like this. and in 40 seconds, you'll see the images come up on the screen that will show how deep it goes into the skin, the parameters of it, and gives me extra information and then a score of high or low. yours came back low, which is what i would hope. that's really great news. even if it comes back high, that grade will

orrick's nonresponsiveness rose to the level well above what's typically the case with nominees. so the rest of my statement i'm going to put in the record on this nominee, and i am going to urge my colleagues to vote no, but i assume that he will be approved. i want to take a few minutes longer than i just did on that judge to discuss the president's nominee for secretary of labor, tom perez. mr. perez is not unknown to the united states senate, or you might say to the country as a whole now that he has been assistant attorney general for a long time. his tenure as head of the civil rights division has been marked by controversy, and that is, in my words, putting it pretty mildly. he was confirmed to his current post of civil rights under assistant attorney general by a vote of 72-22. i was among those who supported his nomination to lead the civil rights division, so i have voted for this person once already, but unfortunately based on the reasons that i'll outline, i have come to regret that vote. there are a number of issues about mr. perez' record that should give my colleag