headed in. but i think this is -- we have entered a whole new league if this goes forward in terms of democrats really going and saying it's one thing to vote against the nominee. we have gone from agreeing that there are certain people that a president has the right as long as they are qualified. we have seen that with john roberts got78 votes. now that there's going to be the first filibuster in modern times on a qualified judge that's going to end up going on the court, we have really come a lock way. and i think democrats are setting a dangerous precedent when it comes to how they want to do this because this isn't about voting against somebody or having ab issue with them. it's literally trying to stop using filibuster for something it was never sbnded for nor been the principle we would vote down somebody that was qualified.

sglds if you look at four democrats now supporting saying they are going to vote against the filibuster, we feel good about that level of support. . e we have done a very good job of making sure we have the republican majority support that we need to pass it. it is now an internal question for senators to determine how they want to do it. but make no mistake, and i believe mitch mcconnell when he says ob friday judge gorsuch will be voted as the next supreme court justice. >> i think he's going to be heading to florida on thursday to engage in some bilateral and meetings with the president.

and his team from china. that will continue sbo friday morning. we'll see how friday evolves. but again, i don't think there's any question right now according to leader mcconnell and others we're going to have an associate justice of the supreme court ready to go. it's a question of how it happens. >> when given the options, he decided there was a list of government entities that can accept donations. ironically, it's not as easy as you'd think. and thn i don't think you're giving. but my point is that he looked through a variety and for this

he chose the national park service. but it was a decision that he made based on his counsel presented him with several options and he believed as the success tear pointed out there was some great work being done there that needed to restore or battlegrounds and needed to do that. >> the president has been going to florida. has been facing calls with decisions in florida. either to appropriate funds or request federal funds if they are not in the budget for the additional things on pace. or to reimburse the governments. and he has the capability to make those outlays. is that something the president is considering or decided to make those outlays? >> number one, the requests to go to florida is the something that the chinese was negotiated.

this is a very high level visit that really has a huge impact on our economic and national security. so secondly, the president has an opportunity as all presents travel to crawford and obama went to hawaii often. . this is not something that you can control. there's a a security aspect that the secret service determines when the president and family travels. that's not dictated by the president of the united states. third, this is a day that the president just donated significant amount of money of his salary back to the federal government. so respectfully, at what point does he do enough. he gave a sizable donation. >> that's small. >> i think to be able to say -- he isn't taking a salary. he stepped down from his business. he's walked away from a lot. i think let's -- at sol point he's done quite a bit in terms

of making a donation. >> if i could, the fact that it's allegedly a former national security adviser who requested the unmasking when it came to the incidental collection of the trump campaign and transition puts that now squarely in the white house. when you look at that, combine it with the rules that promulgated at the end of the obama administration to more broadly share intelligence, does this look at what she requested as a national security issue or political issue? >> that's a nice back dor into a line of questioning. until there's a finding of that, i don't want to start getting into motives because me getting to the motives assume things in fact that i don't think we're ready to go to yet because that would be getting in the middle

of an investigation. i think there's been enough public discussion and reporting on this stuff that i'm not going to comment on this any further until those committees have come to a conclusion of that sort. we're not going to start going down guessing the motives of something that's not assumed in fact. but i do think that it is interesting as i u mentioned earlier, the level of interest in this subject versus what has been commented on previously in terms of alleged people involved in processes. i think there's that. >> you mentioned jared kushner has a team working with him. help us understand what's in the portfolio and who is on the team? >> he's announced the office of american innovation the other day. we named a bunch of those folks that have been part of that team. he works with different people in the white house that oversee different parts of that portfolio. whether that's part of the team doing the middle east who has

won things. there's people part of the team that are talking about the office of american innovation that he's discussed last week with respect to opioid use and others. so there's a team depending on the subject that is working with him and he's providing oversight and direction. >> so he's overseeing teams handling these dumpbt issues. there's mexico, canada, palestine, iraq. >> on iraq, don't go too far there. he was invited by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. to e see the work that's being done there firsthand. i don't think let that translate into seeing iraq. he was invited to go see something by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and he's doing it. >> i appreciate how he's in such a unique position and entrusted

by the president, but people would look at the situation and say the white house isn't meant to be run as a family business. there are institutions with with experienced diplomats who have years and decades of experience on the ground. >> you just -- can you be clear because you said with years of experience. what situation are you referring to? >> partly why i was asking what's in the portfolio. it's our understanding that he's involved with mexico. he's involved with saudi arabia. he's involve d with canada. he's involved with a number of different issues, china. >> i think there's been, as he's made clear initially during the transition, he played a key role in facilitating those. now that the state department is up and running, he's started to push a lot of those. >> there's a lot of relationships made over time.

it's being done. . quite in fact the opposite. he continue d to work with him and facilitate an outcome. he brings a perspective to this and began doing that during the transition. it's not a binary choice where he's doing this at the expense of somebody else. >> on health care has the president been reaching out to democrats in congress. can you say who? he still sees opportunity to work more closely with democrats given the difficulties with the house freedom caucus. >> i think the president has made clear that he intends to work with anyone who wants to help him get to the number of vo votes. . he obviously has had a productive discussion this

weekend. and they are going to try to find a way forward. i'm not going to expose every member that is had this. those conversations are happening at several levels within the white house to see if. we can find a way forward to get the number of requisite votes. the president continues to work hard. he's having these conversations. members have reached out to him to make their suggestions known. and so that's -- we continue to feel optimistic in the sense that there's a lot of constructive ideas coming to the table to get us to a way forward on health care. i want to make one announcement. tomorrow the president is giving a speech tomorrow with a roundtable of ceos on the american workforce and we'll be speaking at the trade union. we'll have some kind of background briefing before the

day. he's speaking live. we'll have something for what we'll do with working on that now. i'm going to end for today and have a good one. >> sean spicer, white house d e daily briefing taking off a will the of answers to questions including why is jared kushner in iraq instead of the secretary of state. how comfortable does the president feel with republicans sounds like potentially invoking the nuclear option when it comes to getting judge gorsuch as the next justice. and all kinds of questions in between. we have a great panel with me. >> how obama let progressives

down. brianna keilar, let's begin with you. let's start with the gorsuch. get in my ear and let me know if you have the sound byte where sean spicer was asked whether or not the white house is comfortable with the nuclear option. you thought washington pretty b bad. with the filibuster and changing senate rules, it has never been worse. >> the point that he was making in this briefing was it's not unusual to vote against a nominee but it's unusual to vote against in the course of sonia sotomayor, institutionalists

like lindsey graham, who i remember watching them during some of the confirmation hearings would say i don't support this nominee, but she is qualified. elections have consequences. so he would vote then it to proceed, which is this key vote. even vote to cob firm. but you're just seeing all of this fall apart at this point. >> this is something that was qualified ask there's certainly a lot of agreement. we have heard -- >> hang tight. i want to make sure everyone hears this. here's sean spicer on the response is president trump comfort canable with the nuclear option? >> is president trump comfortable with the nuclear option? >> the president said several weeks ago that this was something that he would support. we're comfortable in the sense that that decision is up to leader mcconnell.

>> i think this is we have entered a whole new league if this goes forward in terms of democrats really going and saying it's one thing to vote against the nominee. we have seen that in it the past. we have now gone from agree iin that there are certain people that are president has the right as long as they are qualified. when you see that going one direction and the first filibuster in modern times that's going to go on the court, we have really come a long way. democrats are setting a dangerous precedent when it comes to how they want to do this. it's trying to stop using the filibuster. nor is it been the principle we

would vote downen in who was qualified. >> we heard all those republicans. >> the idea being there's a little forum. you have seen a lot of this play out on many issues. there tends to be more decorum in the senate than in the house. this is supposed to be the the more level-headed chamber and the house is historically a little more raucous. we see the flinging around of opinions and there seems to be a more measured opinion. you could be take wag that important characteristic. of the senate. he's going to leave this to mitch mcconnell. and really urn itting this around on democrats. but to that point, i think in this polarized time, it's easy

to forget that, yes, you used to have people cross the aisle to vote for someone, but democrats are so mad. one, they have no reason to get behind anything of donald trump's because he's so unpopular with the base and they are ticked off about merrick garland. what antonin scalia died and president obama had to pick for, they were not able to proceed in any way and the republicans wouldn't go along with anything. >> senator mcconnell of the times said no way. i'm curious, let me ask you this question. it if the roles were reversed, it we were living the other way around where you had a democratic president and majority in the senate and you had republicans, your party would be just as mad as democrats are right now.

>> if. it comes with the presidency is, while i have opposed certain judges in the past, i don't recall ever voting against allowing the vote to come forward. you give the president the right to select his people. you don't support them always, but you give broad deference. i have voted for a lot of judges that i didn't agree with, but i voted for them because they were qualified. i didn't think they would rule the way i'd like them to rule, but they were qualified to rule. in the case of this, president clinton, i voted for those judges. this is a whole different paradigm. what the democrats are involved in right now is appealing to their base. trying to stand up to donald trump. but in the end, they are throwing out an important tool that's been in place for a long time that will no longer be in place to there are judges.

things that we would want from the judge. they are now going to have a lower hurdle to cross than in the past. i don't think that's necessarily a a good thing. >> does the senator have a point? >> no, with all due respect. >> surprise. >> let me just say this. i heard lindsey graham, whom i admire a lot, say he was going to vote to break the rules because it's not fair when the democrats get their judges and the republicans can't get theirs. give me a break. merrick garland never even got a hearing. that's not the only reason to vote against judge gorsuch. but i'm just saying the rules are the rules. the democrats are using the filibuster that the republicans have used hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times. those are the rules. you cannot whine and complain about one party using the rules as a minority party when the republican party did the same thing in the minority.

live with it and move on. >> it's simply not true. the republicans have never use ed a filibuster to block a nomination. what happened with merrick garland is a long standing president in the last juror of a president's term you don't get the chance to fill in a very important 30-year term for a candidate. >> where did that rule come from? >> it's a long standing precedent. >> no, it's not, senator. let's go by the constitution. you said about president trump and i would agree. he was elected. he gets to nominate his person to the supreme court and it comes up for a vote. president obama was elected, he was reelected. he gets to nominate justice gar lachbd. there's nothing in the constitution that says he ceases becoming president of the united states -- >> maybe we need to understand the difference what's in the constitution and the term precede precedent. precedent is thnot in the constitution. it's a custom of the united

states senate not to approve justices at that late point. that was democrats and republicans. i understand that democrats are upset about it. >> i would add when it comes to what democrats and republicans believe on this doesn't have a lot to do with the constitution. it has to do with the balance of power on the court. and if merrick garland has been cob if you remembered, that would have changed the balance of power. this point this time, you're looking at a conservative justice who passed away being replaced by a conservative appointed justice. the next fight is really where some of this is all about. it could change the balance of power on the court. you have democrats -- i talked to people behind the march for life, which we covered. and they are very energized because they feel with donald trump in the white house that they are going to see very possibly a e reversal of roe v. wade. and democrats are very fearful of this.

so is that is what a lot of this has to do. >> i think it's the short-term. i want to get to the short-term business. how all senate rules will be changed as a result of what's happening this week. we have been having this huge l conversation about judge gorsuch here. another major thread in the briefing today was the questions about jared kushner, top adviser, pops up in iraq. how is he managing all this? >> i think on the quick question of neil gorsuch is, i will say it was pretty strike during the briefing today just to say very quickly that the white house is all but saying to the republican majority to trigger the nuclear option. that was the big headline coming out of that briefing. but as for jared kushner being in iraq right now, the white

house was brushingoff these questions. it was announced he was going to be heading up the innovation initiative trying to make bureaucracies run more like businesses. so is the question was asked of spo sean spicer during the briefing that it sounds like he has a lot on his plate. he's in iraq too. why is the secretary of state not there. and sean spicer trying to make the case it's not a binary choice. you don't have to just have him in iraq or the secretary of state. but clearly what we saw during the briefing today was the white house defending the deployment of the president's son-in-law, a a. top adviser right now to iraq during a very sensitive time when the u.s. is trying to assist the iraqis in the fight against u.s.ist. he's with the chairman of the

joint chiefs. so sean spicer trying to make the case this is a team effort over here. no question about it. it seems almost every week that happens here at the white house we see jared kushner's portfolio getting bigger and bigger and this trip to iraq seems to be another indication of that. >> let's listen to sean spicer responding to this rolling portfolio of president trump's son-in-law. >> handling all these issues, there's mexico, canada, iraq, saudi. >> on iraq, don't go too far here. he was invited by the chairman of the joint chiefs. the assistant to the president for security to see the work that's being done there firsthand. i don't think to that trabs late into he's overseeing iraq. he was had invited to go see something by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and he's doing that.

>> i appreciate how he's in such a unique position and trusted by the president. there are people who would look at the situation and say the white house isn't meant to be run as a family business. there are institutions with experienced diplomats who have years of decades of linguistic and experience on the ground. >> whatever these issues are, just be clear with years of experience. so what situation are you referring to? >> it's partly why i was asking what's in the portfolio. it's our understanding that kushner is involved with mexico, saudi arabia, canada, he's involved with a number of different issues in china. >> i think that there's been -- as he's made clear officially during the transition, he played a key role this facilitating a lot of those. now that the state department is up and running, he's push ed a lot of those. there's a lot of relationships

that he's made over time with different leaders in mexico being one of them you mentioned. that doesn't mean it's going to be done without coordination with the state department. quite the opposite. he continues to work with them and facilitate an outcome. he's not a binary choice. >> i'm coming at you two next. pictures of jared kushner with the iraqi prime minister that have just come in. on jared kushner first, what do you make of this line of questioning into the son-in-law. >> it's really going to take charge. do we have a middle east policy.

. lock at the history of our middle east policy. henry kiz b engineer, some giants in diplomacy who dug in and understood what was going on and what was at stake. and these are people who not only have themselves to put in the balance, but they had had their deputies who spoke arabic and hebrew and the language of the middle east. we have that to the president. but going in with no real sense of what the long game is and that's really what is critical here. >> locking ahead to the end of the week and i see the split screen playing out between them down in florida and this fight on friday with this nuclear option and next supreme court justice. with regard to president xi and north korea being a major. topic of discussion, what will you be looking for? >> some kind of condominium between these two. they have really been talking

across. one of the first acts by president trump was to reach out to taiwan and to try to drive a a wedge between taiwan and china. that's not going to ever happen. we got off with bad tooting with the chinese at all levels. he has to start to repair some of the bridges and understand what leverage china really has and it is going to apply to north korea and it's not clear that china wants to come in and see a dysfunctional north korea or the korean peninsula. does president trump really understand all of the different stakes in a different level involved. this level on level on level. this is a very complex lasagna. . we have to try. he doesn't have a knife to cut through that. >> so he has these important conversations with president xi later this week. here's what i'm wondering.

visual ly in the split screen, you know what will happen with judge gorsuch later on this week. does it matter that this is a major deal? this was one of the reasons why people voted for donald trump. because they knew that he would have this power over the supreme court and the fact that he won't be in washington. . does that matter? >> potentially, i don't know his whereabouts matter so much, but this is a week where the trump administration really needs a a reset. they were very confident last week when i was talking to white house aids that they were going to get neil gorsuch through, that the roll out had gone beautifully so far. this is a big collision they are now dealing with just after the collapse of health care. so the optics here are really important. and i think that you're looking at his legacy within the first hundred days. they really want to put some points on the board. so it's going to be interesting to see what kind of pressure the

president puts on these members this week saying that the nuclear option is potentially u really not a good idea for the senate given the traditions there. and when it actually gets to the floor to see whether democrats will carry it all the way through. i do know that those democrats are hearing loud and clear from the folks in their districts saying vote this guy down and right now the risk for the democrats is being the party of no. so there's a lot going on here in the optics. >> thank you all so much. i appreciate the mega conversation. coming up next, there's more to talk about. new accusations of sexual harassment against fox news host bill o'reilly just days after "the new york times" he's paid millions of dollars to settle similar accusations in the past. how he's now responding and what is behind the network's decision

to renew his contract any way. we'll be right back. termites. we're on the move. hey rick, all good?

oh yeah, we're good. we're good. terminix. defenders of home. [vo] quickbooks introduces and her mobile wedding business. she travels far and wide to officiate i do's. and quickbooks automatically tracks those miles. she categorizes with a swipe and is ready for tax time. find more than $4000 in tax savings. visit quickbooks-dot-com. i use what's already inside me to reach my goals. so i liked when my doctor told me that i may reach my blood sugar and a1c goals

by activating what's within me with once-weekly trulicity. trulicity is not insulin. it helps activate my body to do what it's supposed to do release its own insulin. trulicity responds when my blood sugar rises. i take it once a week, and it works 24/7. it comes in an easy-to-use pen. and i may even lose a little weight. trulicity is a once-weekly injectable prescription medicine to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. trulicity is not insulin. it should not be the first medicine to treat diabetes, or for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. do not take trulicity if you or a family member has had medullary thyroid cancer, if you've had multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if you are allergic to trulicity. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms such as itching, rash, or trouble breathing; a lump or swelling in your neck; or severe pain in your stomach area.

serious side effects may include pancreatitis, which can be fatal. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your risk for low blood sugar. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, decreased appetite, and indigestion. some side effects can lead to dehydration, which may make existing kidney problems worse. with trulicity, i click to activate what's within me. if you want help improving your a1c and blood sugar numbers with a non-insulin option, click to activate your within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. you're watch iing cnn.

i'm brooke baldwin. less less than a year after a sexual harassment scandal brought down the chairman and ceo, fox news is facing more explosive accusations surround ing bill o'rye lee. "the new york times" reports five women have now received payouts from o'riley or fox news since 2004 totaling $13 million. after reports of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior from bill o'reilly, one of the accusers used to be a regular on the show. she told the story to "the new york times" that o'riley invited her to dinner in 2013 where he promised to make her a network contribute or. she declined an intry viation to his hotel suite and he became, quote, hostile telling her she could tergt any career advice and she was on her own, end quote. several months later, wendy walsh disappeared from the show

ask never got that contributor job. walsh held a a press conference a short while ago. her attorney is lisa bloom who is calling for an independent investigation into fox news. >> apparently fox news does not think the aubt diskrim thags laws apply to them. they believe they can pay woman after woman to go away and keep the harassers in place to victimize the next woman. no, just no. >> joining me now is cnn senior media correspondent brian stelter and legal analyst danny savalos. how does this man still have a job? >> if it was any other host or ceo of a normal company, he probably would not have a job. that was the dominant reaction to this "new york times" bomb shell. this stoirp was in the works tr many had months. they may have found other women,

but it focused on the five women who were paid settlements. we knew about one of them, but four other settlements have been disclosed. i made these payments quietly because i'm trying to protect my family so they don't hear about this stuff. his reputation is not a surprise. this is not a surprise inside fox. it may sting, it may be e embarrassing to hear about it. certainly the bosses at fox other women are concerned they may be coming forward. wendy walsh is not asking for money. she wants to make sure people know about his behavior. >> here's a statement so we report this accurately. just like other prominent people, i am vulnerable to lawsuits from individuals who want me to pay them to avoid publicity. in my 20 years at fox news, no one has ever filed a complaint about me with the human resources department. not even on the anonymous hot line. the worst part of my job is

being a target for those who would harm me and my employer, the fox news channel. he says no one ever, ever filed a complaint with h.r., but we know the story with roger ails and what happened then. so i imagine people wouldn't feel comfortable. >> it was an environment where it wouldn't necessarily pick up the phone and try to report something because the boss was allegedly doing it. roger ran that network with an iron fist. he's been accused by many women. >> that failure to report has significance. under the law, employees are required to report. the employer's duty is to set up a a system. if there's a hot line, an avenue so complaints can be reported and the employer has an opportunity to respond. in many cases, an employee's failure to make any report to hr can be fatal to their case. at minimum, they then have the burden, the plaintiff does, to show they had a really good reason for not reporting. >> can we play some sound from

last summer? he was on with seth meyers and he was talking about the scandal involving his boss roger ails. >> in this country every famous or wealthy person is a target. you're a target, i'm a target, any time somebody could come out and sue us, attack us, dpo to the press or anything like that. that's a deplorable situation. i have to have body guards. i have to hire body guards. until the united states adopts the english system of civil law whereby if you file a frivolous lawsuit and you lose, the judge has a right to make you pay all court costs. until we adopt that it very fair proposition, we're going to have this out of control tabloid society that is tremendously destructive. i stand behind roger 100%. >> we all know what happened to

roger. the department of justice is investigating fox news as to whether or not they fail toded o divulge this information. >> it's the southern district of new york which has a reputation for this kind of tuft. the effect of a federal investigation is very serious because they have an ability to dig that you just don't have in a civil lawsuit. if the doj is interested and start issuing subpoenas. if they decide to dig deeply, they are the agency to do it. and they could unearth things to make a plaintiff's case very powerful. the doj wants to get to the bottom of it, they will. >> if they want to get to the bottom of it. >> does this ding him? >> will his viewers care enough? i think the answer right now is probably not. will there be a boycott. the justice department now overseen by the trump

administration and this is trump's favorite tv channel. in some ways president trump the charges against him during the campaign, the women who came forward accusing him of harassment, the way that was handled. the way people reacted to that, there might with. some similarities here. >> brian stelter, thank you very much. we do have some breaking news here. president trump responding now to that subway terror attack that killed at least 11 people. we are live in st. petersburg, russia, on this, next.

breaking news here on what's happened in st. petersburg, russia. the motive behind the deadly

subway attack still unclear. 11 people have been killed when some sort of explosive device detonated within a packed commuter train. officials say the explosion is totally ripped the car door. you see it there just off. the train was pass iing through tunnel hours before the evening rush hour. then a second device was found at another station, which was disabled. president trump speaking today and speaking out against the heinous act. >> happening all over the world. absolutely a terrible thing. >> paula gnuton is in russia with more on this. i see people lighting memorials behind you. . what more do we know about how this happened? >> yeah, not so much roigt now. right underneath me in this subway station, investigators are combing the area.

they are speaking to eyewitnesss and as you were already explaining, this was a crude e device. the subway car was traveling from one station to another. untrntly that bomb or the improvised explosive device was inside that carriage car between stations in the tunnel. it meant it was all about more violent. the driver of the train took it to the next station and then it was sheer panic. the eyewitnesss we talked to saying what they were going to die. people scrambling under the carriage car. they were breaking windows and trying to pry open those dors to try to e get out. other people running towards the car to help those already lying on the ground or on the platform and were clearly quite hurt. in terms of the investigation itself, this is a terrorism investigation. people are saying they are not running out. but unfortunately, many people here know russia has been attacked before and know that given the offensive right now in seyria that they would possibly

be a target again. it's been heartbreaking. i have seen dozens of people breaking down in tears, coming to light candles and lay flowers. it's been a traumatic eight hours. everyone trying to find family members. you can imagine you're sitting right there in columbus circle in a busy train station. that's what it's like here. this is a a station where your family members would be passing through at least once a day, sometimes two or three times a day. so still profound shock here. >> so totally frightening all the people injured including the children there. paula newton, thank you so much. coming up next, could the u.n. ambassador be stealing a a little spotlight on the world station from secretary of state. she's talking right now there over at the united nations responding to that very question. we'll hear from her, next.

remember when you said men are supeyeah...ivers? yeah, then how'd i get this... ...allstate safe driving bonus check? ...only allstate sends you a bonus check for every six months you're accident free. silence. it's good to be in, good hands. we're on the move. hey rick, all good? oh yeah, we're good. we're good.

terminix. defenders of home. what would help is simply being able to recognize a fair price. truecar has pricing data on every make and model, so all you have to do is search for the car you want, there it is. now you're an expert in less than a minute. this is truecar.

live pictures here of former south carolina . live pictures right now nikki haley is speaking live. she has not seen a rising star in the republican party. she voiced strong opinion on russia and china and north korea. >> one of the big questions of tillerson of smaller role of ambassador haley eclipsing him on the national stage. she was asked about that moments ago and here was her response. >> every position i ever had, people have assumed that i am looking towards something bigger. when in reality, i am the daughter of indian parents who

said to me whatever i do, be great at it and people remember you for it. that's all i am trying to do. >> lets talk to michelle about this. understanding her answer, what's the word in washington as far as ambassador's role compares to secretary state tillerson >> we knew she's being considered. so we knew that was the case, as to all of the this intrigue as to why he may have turned oit down and her thinking. that's kind of talked about now. her world has been interesting. he's out spoken, it seems like she's speaking her own mind and it will turn out that the white house was going to say it is news and the russia example was

a good one. early on, the question, it continues to be a question but the fact that you know what is the stance on russia going to be. what about sanction and all of a sudden one day, it was a hard line. she was one of the first ones to say those sanctions are going to be in place and crimea belongs to ukraine. we knew that she's going to say that, we are on board of all of that. >> she's been high profile of things she says freely. hear a lot less from rex tillerson but he wants it that way. coming from the corporate world where he had seen jobs for decades, he's not a big media guy. he likes it that way. haley is a governor and used to that kind of attention and makes it work and getting her points across even though it does not align perfectly of what we are hearing of members of the add

ma administration. >> michelle kosinski. >> thank you very much. >> coming up of ties of the russians russians. are they set to get back on track, we have an update for you on capitol hill, live, coming up. 's here. [wife] hi [dad] hey buddy [son] hey dad [wife] i think we can do this. [chancellor] adam baily. [chancellor] adam baily.

breaking news from capitol hill of looking into the russian ties o f the 2016 election. about an hour from now we are learning. this is coming from the committee seems to fall apart last week with the ranking members of adam schiff and others calling for republican chair nunes. intel committee is working on this issue. michael flynn requested immunity for his testimony on this investigation into the trump administration in ties of russia. >> he joins us what -- they scrapped all the meetings last week and they are getting together in an hour, ?

>> they have been calling for chair nunes recusal. nunes is saying he's not going anywhere. you will start to see the two sides coming together and we'll see who to bring forward. on the senate side, they're finding interviews up to 20 witnesses and they're beginning today of some people who are not trump's associates. but, that's the thing with the house intelligence committee is going to look at and of course, bound to come up this meeting o f the secret classified documents. schiff on friday and devon nunes looking at -- surveillance or whether or not people are improperly unmasked. now, one thing that the committee are also doing is this issue of whether to give michael flynn of any immunity as part of the exchange testifying before

the commit kty. committee. >> i talked to republican lyndsey graham who does not think it is a great idea >> do you think congress should give immunity to michael flynn? >> the whole situation general flynn is a bit bizarre. he said in the past that nobody should ask for immunity unless committed a crime. the whole situation is really strange. >> what about the president saying he should be given immunity. >> i think he's coming forward. i am not sure if that's the purpose. the bottom line is there were contact of the trump campaign and contact with the russians, i want to find out about it and the whole world to know about it. >> i talked to john cornyn who sits on the committee he says it is too premature to consider that at this point.

>> as you point out. the house intel committees holding this meeting at 5:00 eastern time, manu, we'll look for that report. i am brooke wall, thank you for being with me in new york. the lead with jake tapper starts right now. >> "the lead" starts right now. where does jared kushner's role leads the secretary of states. >> democrats hitting the magic number leaving republicans no choice but to go nuclear of confirming neil gorsuch of the supreme court. republicans are pricking a bled blood bath for any