to get progress on the health care front if we're to believe what some guests have said this hour, and the fact that it could pave the way for a tax cut deal, hope springs eternal. right now to trish regan. trish: thank you, neil. the president making our economy front and centered today, promising the u.s. will be back on top under his leadership. but first, also promising the ceo community lower taxes, less regulation and better infrastructure. he also spoke to union members and made the case of americance. all of this as more questions surface right now surrounding susan rice's alleged unmasking of the names of various trump campaign officials that were being reportedly surveilled by the obama administration. i am trish regan, we have your intel for you. i growing outrage this afternoon amid revelations that president obama's former national security adviser, susan rice, reportedly unmasked the identities of

president trump's campaign officials. now one lawmaker says rice went too too far and is demanding a criminal investigation. we have that lawmaker for you, florida congressman rob desantos, and he's going to join me in just a few moments. but first, here's president trump telling union member that is the u.s. is going to climb its way right back to the top. watch him here. >> we believe in two simple rules: buy american and hire american. the era of economic surrender has come to an end. it's come to an end. we have surrendered as a country to outside interests. the era of economic victory for our country has just begun. trish: and a lot of people like the sound of that. blake burman joins me now with more. hey, blake. >> reporter: hi there, trish. the trump white house clearly trying to get back on the message of pushing this economy forward. first, there was a ceo summit a couple dozen-plus of the

nation's largest ceos here at the white house today. the president spoke to them off the cuff, kind of a question and answer session for about 10, 15 minutes, and then just after that he made his way a couple miles down the road and spoke to a group of builders, a builders' union. and part of his discussion to both of these groups is infrastructure. as you know, the president has been pushing a potential public/private partnership, $1 trillion infrastructure plan. at some point down the line, of course, one of the big questions is at what point might that come. take a listen here to president trump earlier today at that second gathering as to how he sees infrastructure moving this country going forward. >> your help, we can -- with your help, we can rebuild our country's bridges, airports, seaports and water systems. we will streamline the process the get approvals quickly so that long-delayed projects can finally move ahead. and with lower taxes on america's middle class and businesses, we will see a new

surge of economic growth and development. >> reporter: and, trish, you heard the president there talking about streamlining the permitting process. he's got a little bit of a handy dandy new tool alongside him at both events to drive home that point. take a look at this video here, the president laying out, essentially, a spread sheet or a diagram that was even larger than him in size saying, look, in order to get a highway built in this country, this is what you've got to go through, some 10-20 years of permitting, going through 16 or so agencies, and the president said he wants to bring that process down all the way to one year. if he could do that, that would be a significant change. by the way, trish, the president talked about this infrastructure package being a trillion dollars and, quote, maybe even more. i asked the white house press secretary, sean spicer, earlier today what might that maybe even more entail, how much larger is he willing the go, and spicer kind of down played that a little bit saying, lk, the president for a while here has been talking about a large scale infrastructure package. trish: all right.

thanks so much, blake burman. for more analysis we have former spokesperson for president george w. bush mercedes schlapp and communications director for democracy for america, neil. sroka. mercedes, i have so much to ask you about, but let me start first with this idea of $1 trillion. we saw obama spend $800 billion, and it did basically squat for our economy, nothing. is that because of all these burdensome regulations? in other words, if donald trump can make it easier to get a highway built while simultaneously pumping money via stimulus into an economy, does that spell good news? >> well, republicans, especially conservative republicans, get very nervous when you start seeing the dollar signs on the infrastructure bill. republicans would prefer to see, for example, a tax credit encouraging the private sector to invest and build roads and bridges, etc. so this is very different from the democrats' approach of saying we want more federal government spending on our roads and our infrastructure. so this is where the president

is going to pretty much rely on democrats as well as moderate republicans to find that governing coalition to pass a type of infrastructure bill. on the part of the regulations, sure, absolutely. the fact that he's moving towards deregulation in these areas, i think, does help. but, you know, you know that when it comes to conservative economists, they don't like stimulus spending, it's not where they want to spend their time in terms of helping to boost this economy. but trump is willing to make that gamble. trish: yeah, you know, it may help him in terms of getting some other things through, whether it be tax cuts, whether it be health care. you're shaking your head no, neil, but if you're a democrat who needs that money in your state and he's dangling all this way out there in the way of infrastructure spending, how do you say no? >> because he's shown whenever a deal comes to the fore in his time in government here, he's choked. when he tried to pass the health care bill, it failed miserably. and there's no reason to believe

that any infrastructure -- trish: well, it's not done yet. >> -- wouldn't fail just as miserably. >> neil, wouldn't you argue though that the democrats would be more inclined to support an infrastructure bill? this is about, as you know in washington, about building the governing coalition. it didn't work in terms of the heal care bill just yet, but i think nfrastructure bill who you will -- you will find democrats supporting him unless they're really sticking to the line of resist, resist, resist which is what it seems they're doing all the time these days. trish: it is, mercedes, very much a democratic platform to be spending -- [laughter] so, neil, if you're going to be honest and true to your democratic, liberal principles, i don't know how you look at this and say no way, i don't want it. >> listen, i believe in public spending increasing in building the economy. good old-fashioned keynesian economics has worked for a long time, and it could work here. but the plan we'll probably see come out of the republican house and senate is one that mercedes was talking about before which is primarily built around these tax credits which would basically allow big businesses

to build tollways and toll bridges and privatize what has traditionally been public infrastructure in this country. and if it's a privatized infrastructure that donald trump wants and pushes for, he's not going to get democratic support for it. trish: i don't know about that. all right, let me turn to another issue, and that's the unification, frankly, of the country right now. and this is where donald trump has actually shown -- as challenging as it's been as of late -- he's shown some promise especially when it comes to your average american worker. and he was out there today and, mercedes, he spoke to the top echelon, the ceos of america, and he spoke to the workers of america with those unions. and he had a message that was very much about bringing back american exceptionalism. isn't this -- wouldn't you say at least from a political standpoint important? this is perhaps, after all, why he won the election. >> sure. and it's interesting because i think, you know, we're all so focused on gorsuch and whether this judge will be the next

supreme court justice, and that's an important issue for social conservatives, but when you're looking at these independents, those individuals who voted for president obama back in 2008, 2012, shifted their vote over to president trump, that's what they're looking for. they want these jobs, higher wages, they want someone who's going to be battling in washington to insure that the economy is growing and bringing jobs back to america. it's no wonder when you look at manufacturers, for example, in a recent survey their optimism is sky high. this also includes ceos, small business owners. it's across the board, i think, in terms of where the business community is and workers in feeling optimistic of the direction that president trump is taking this country. trish: we should all want this length, the democratic party did not put forth the candidate that resonated with everyday americans. how does this move forward for the democratic party? if trump gets all your union members, what do you do then? >> well, first of all, he's not getting all the union members. richard trumka said most

optimistically he maybe got 34% of folks in his union -- trish: trumka's actually been quite friendly to trump as of late. >> there is optimism among the american people about the economy. a quinnipiac poll asked those american people who do you think the primarily responsible, and 67% of them said barack obama. that's the right call. donald trump owes, donald trump's responsibility for what's happening right now in this economy is limited at best. trish: well, i think people ought to move on from barack obama at this point. [laughter] anyway, mercedes, neil, i'm going to see you guys in a little bit. we have got a lot more to get to because there are new questions, of course, in the susan rice case. susan rice going on the record moments ago, insisting she did nothing wrong by unmasking the names of trump team members in intelligence reports. this is just an everyday thing, apparently. business as usual? here she is. >> the allegation is that somehow obama administration officials utilized intelligence

for political purposes. that's absolutely false. over eight years for me and others who served, it was not uncommon -- in fact, it was necessary at times -- to make those requests to find out the identity of u.s. officials on every topic under the sun when it seemed relevant. i don't have a particular recollection of doing that more frequently after the election, for example, than doing so before. trish: well, i'll tell you one thing, one member of congress certainly isn't buying what she's got to say, at least not now, at least not at face value. he wants a criminal investigation into ms. rice and her alleged moves. for more i'm joined by that very congressman, republican congressman rob desantos of florida. good to have you here, congressman. >> hi. trish: what's your fear? what do you worry may have actually transpired? >> well, she said that intelligence wasn't used for political purposes. we know that's false because there were a number of leaks of classified information involving u.s. persons including michael flynn that are illegal.

nobody really disputes that. so the question is, is where did that information emanate from. and was the information that was unmasked by susan rice the same information that was put out to "the new york times," washington post to try to kneecap politically the trump transition and then the trump administration. and i think she dug herself more of a hole, because two weeks ago she said she never had heard of any type of unmasking -- trish: by the way, do we have that sound? we might have that sound that you're referring to. it was a pbs interview -- >> that's right. trish: just asking the producers. not yet, but we're working on it. she did, in fact, act as though she knew nothing about any of this back then, congressman. >> that's right. and so now she's acknowledging unmasking happened, and she's acknowledging leaks occurred. now, she's saying she didn't do anything wrong, but why would the national security adviser need to unmask information of this nature? understand, she's a white house official. they're not conducting the

investigation, whatever investigation at the white house. that's the purview of the fbi. you have other agencies who deal with this, nsa, cia. so the fact that someone like susan rice who east really tied at the hip with president obama was the one doing it, to me, that is very suspicious, and i think we need to have this fully vetted. i've been supportive of the fbi looking at the lking, because i think that's serious. but if there's a connection between e leaking and the unmasking, i think you have a major, major abuse of power on your hands. trish: we do have that sound for the viewers. so here is susan rice explaining to pbs just a couple of weeks ago she didn't know anything about anything. here we go. >> i know nothing about this. i i was surprised to see reports from chairman nuñes on that count today. i really don't know to what chairman nuñes was referring, but he said that whatever he was referring to was a legal, lawful surveillance and that it was

potentially incidental collection. trish: and now, of course, congressman, she's saying that this was just, you know, par for the course, and they unmask names all the time. i guess if you take her at face value -- and we can get to whether or not one should given her benghazi history in a moment -- but if you say, all right, you know, she unmasked these names because for whatever reason she felt it was important for herself to know who they were surveilling, how does it then make its way to, say, "the new york times"? >> well, that's the million dollar question. and there was clearly a concerted effort by obama administration officials, former officials to disseminate this information to the press. and it's led to a lot of these extravagant stories that don't necessarily have a a lot of meat on the bone, but allow for splashy headlines for papers that are opposed to president trump. i don't think that happened by accident. although she claimed she had the ability to unmask, i think that's probably true, the question is, why would she need

to? if it wasn't for political purposes, what washe reason? she didn't really give a reason as to why that needed to have been done. trish: let me ask you while i have you here about health care because there's some talk you've been presented with a new option and mike pence has been instrumental in this. what does that new option look like? >> i don't know there's been any formal presentation, but i through there are a lot of very positive discussions, and i think what we're trying to do now is really what we probably should have done from the beginning, come to a consensus as a conference. then once you reach that consensus, then go to the floor and pass a bill. i think we're getting much closer, and i actually think there's a good chance we will be able to come to agreement on a bill that actually repeals and replaces obamacare and is going to lead to people seeing relief from these rising premiums. trish: you are a member of the freedom caucus, so significant in that you guys have really been effectively a thorn in the president's side on all of this. but you think that that can change and that members of your caucus will come around here? >> well, look, i think we want

to support the president. the bill wasn't ready for prime time. i think we're getting to where it will be. the key is, is it going to be a good piece of legislation, and to me the directions indicate that that's where we're going. so i'm hopeful, and i'm optimistic, and i think that we may be able to get a good bill across the finish line. trish: congressman desantos, so good to have you here. thank you so much. >> thank you. trish: news that the trump administration is looking into new vetting procedures that would force foreigners to turn over their cell phones and their social media passwords before ever entering our country. you know, the left is all upset about this one, totally outraged. are they about to derail what the white house deems a necessary plan to keep us safe from terrorists? that's next. ♪ predictable. the comfort in knowing where things are headed. because as we live longer...

and markets continue to rise and fall... predictable is one thing you need in retirement to help protect what you've earned and ensure it lasts. introducing brighthouse financial. a new company established by metlife to specialize in annuities & life insurance. talk to your advisor about a brighter financial future.

please repeat the objective. ♪ thrivent mutual funds. managed by humans, not robots. before investing, carefully read and consider fund objectives, risks, charges and expenses in the prospectus at thriventfunds.com.

trish: new reports say the white house is looking into new extreme vetting procedures that would force foreigners to disclose their personal information before they enter the united states of america. according to the report, the new measures could require travelers to reveal financial records, cell phone contacts and social media passwords. now, we already expect liberals to lose their minds once they get a whiff of this, right? but shouldn't we be doing what is necessary right now to keep our country safe? and if that means getting a little tough on terrorism, that's what we have to do. joining me right now, a republican strategist. i'm guessing you agree with me on this one, christopher. right now 38 different countries you can come and go as you please, and we know terrorists don't just hang out in syria. you've seen at least from the european attacks they're all over the world including in some these countries that we have reciprocity with. >> that's right, trish. you know, we continue to see terrorist attacks in the united states and abroad from people that are extremely dangerous.

they mean ill, and they do not care about civil liberties. we need to remember that these policies are intended to protect the public from those people. so it is always helpful to start from that vantage point. it's a very tough task, right? we all want to have our civil liberties, want to be free, but we need to be safe. so it's a difficult task, but i think we need to look that president trump did put this out to the voters, and i think many voters did vote to have restrictions in the short term to protect the public from these sorts of individuals. trish: all right, you know the concern from the left is i somehow this is unfair, un-american, you can't deny entry to people from other countries, you can't infringe on their privacy rights by asking for passwords and checking their cell phone records to which you say what? >> well, we need to take a look at some of these attacks that have happened and the people that have lost their lives. you can't experience civil liberties or have privacy if you're killed in a terrorist attack. i would share many of the

concerns that they have, but the fact is i think people that do have good intentions are going to clear the process. i don't want to hand over my cell phone either, but if i can do that for two minutes and get cleared and go through the process, that's fine by me. the fact is we do have dangerous people out there, and i think we need to take a look at this and, you know, we're here for a reason. we have people that have meant ill -- trish: yeah. it wasn't necessaril you, it wouldn't necessarily be me, but i would think there would be some kind of rhyme or reason to who they look at, right? i mean, otherwise you run the risk of bogging down business travel. you run the risk of really making it difficult for people to get around the world. i mean, how would you determine whose social media passwords you should be looking at and whose you should not? >> so you're exactly correct. there's an algorithm and things you'll look at, but i think the people who do not have bad intentions will clear through pretty easily. for every inconvenient situation that arises, there are hundreds and hundreds of situations that

are made safer and people that are prevented that you never here about, and those are the things you don't want to hear about. i think we need to take a hard look at this -- trish: but they'll say it's religious profiling, of course. get ready for that because that's what they're going to say. and i would anticipate as they've said it before with some of these other restrictions on seven, now six countries that sponsor terrorism somehow it's religiously discriminatory to not include them. anyway, chris, i've got to leave it there. thank you very much, good to have you. >> thank you. trish: breaking right now, the senate is voting on whether to launch the date for neil gorsuch's confirmation. democrats have secured the necessary 40 votes to block his confirmation, that would force mitch mcconnell to use a unilateral floor procedure, a change dubbed as the nuclear option. this lowers the confirmation threshold to a simple majority rather than the whole 60es. mcconnell has promised gorsuch

will be confirmed on friday, so it looks like the nuclear option, indeed, will be on the table. the markets, meanwhile, pushing higher just a bit, up 34 points after president trump laid out his economic agenda today, an ambitious one including a possibly more than trillion dollar stimulus package, and these markets could go higher as the republicans look to repsi all these -- revive all these talks to repeal and replace obamacare. how close are we to getting any kind of deal, and what is it going to mean for your markets and your -- for the markets and your portfolio? i'll see you here next.

to folks everywhere whose diabetic... ...nerve pain shoots and burns its way into your day... ...i hear you. when that pain makes simple errands simply unbearable... ...i hear you. i hear you because my dad struggled with this pain. make sure your doctor hears you too. so folks, don't wait. step on . and talk to your doctor. because you have places too... ...and people who can't wait for you to get there. if you have diabetes and burning, shooting pain in your feet or hands... step on up and talk to your doctor today.

trish: check out the markets right now, you can see the dow up about 30, almost 40 points, s&p trading higher by a bit and the nasdaq as well. stocks trading higher alongside the president saying he's going to invoke a lot of stimulus money to the tune of better than a trillion dollars. it is a very ambitious economic agenda.

the ceo community is one that he spoke to, and he spoke to workers as well, union members. all of this as top republicans remain pretty on optimistic on health care. they're pushing to revive negotiations for an obamacare replacement bill after being forced to abandon the plan last month. fox news' mike emanuel has the latest and, you know, mike, we just spoke with congressman desantis who says, yeah, there's a pretty good shot. you heard rand paul after that round of golf also saying he thinks something can get done. what are you hearing? >> reporter: there's been a flurry of activity here trying to see if they can get enough republican support to pass that gop health care package, trying to see if they can get it done by the end of the week before lawmakers leave for easter recess, however, paul ryan today tried to manage expectations. >> now we're throwing around concepts to improve the bill. that's occurring right now, but that is not to say that we are ready to go, because we want to make sure that when we go, we have the votes to pass this bill, we've got the consensus

we've long been looking for. we're very close. like i said, 90% of our conference was already there, 10% was not. >> reporter: some of the top administration outreach has been from mike pence, reince priebus and budget director mick mulvaney all trying to talk to conservatives and moderates to see if they can work out a deal. bottom line, one offer was giving the states the ability to apply for waivers to get out of two obamacare regulations. some conservatives said they want to see the actual text of the bill, and one freedom caucus member didn't sound overly impressed. >> we promised people that we would, would stop the total usurpation of individual and state rights by the federal government and saying they can ask us for permission doesn't really seem the best way to go about that. >> reporter: one moderate member i talked to sounded

irritated by all the outreach to the conservatives who snubbed their leadership a couple of weeks ago. this member was basically questioning whether these conservatives could ever get to yes on a republican health care package. trish? trish: all right. thank you so much, mike, appreciate it. mike emanuel, everyone. former national security adviser susan rice is denying any unmasking on trump team was done for political purposes. i'll tell you, this is quite a switch from just less than two weeks ago when she acted as though she had never heard of this surveillance to begin with. will the mainstream media finally start to cover this story? i doubt it. but we will, and we have more details on this next. don't let dust and allergens get between you and life's beautiful moments.

flonase allergy relief delivers more complete relief. flonase helps block 6 key inflammatory substances that cause all your symptoms, including nasal congestion and itchy, watery eyes. flonase is an allergy nasal spray that works even beyond the nose. so you can enjoy every beautiful moment to the fullest. flonase. 6>1 changes everything. buttrust ane's list to help.et, [ barks ] visit angieslist.com today.

trish: well, yahoo! and aol, they are about to become a new company called oath, this after verizon's $4.5 billion acquisition of yahoo! closes sometime early this summer. the ceo of aol telling fbn's mornings with maria that the name change is an effort to tie global brands and value into one whole business. there are reports that yahoo! ceo maries saw my writer might leave the country, however, tim armstrong, the ceo of ao to l says no personnel announcements will be made until the second quarter. meanwhile, there are new questions this afternoon about barack obama's former national security adviser, susan rice.

reports have surfaced saying she's the one who reportedly unmasked the identities of president trump's associates. but she is denying any unmasking on her part was done for political purposes. in fact, here she is on another cable network just a short time ago. watch. >> we only do it to protect the american people, to do our jobs inhe nional rity quell realm. that is the only rean. >> within that process and within the context of the trump campaign, the trump transition, did you seek the names of people involved in -- did you unmask the names of people involved in the trump transition, the trump campaign, people surrounding the president-elect? >> let me -- >> in order to spy on them? >> absolutely not for any political purposes to spy, expose anything -- >> did you leak the name of mike flynn? >> i leaked nothing to nobody. trish: nothing to nobody, so she says. but, you know, she doesn't exactly have the best track record, right?

given her benghazi history? this is a woman who was spinning the obama administration's narrative on that one, saying it was all about a film that incited that terror are attack. and then we, of course, learned otherwise. two weeks ago she was out on pbs saying she didn't know anything about any of this, and yeted the she says, oh, yeah, i used to unmask names all the time, that was just business as usual. so what should americans think right now? who should they believe? i want to go to adam shapiro with the latest on this developing story. >> reporter: hey, trish. fox news did, indeed, confirm with multiple sources that former u.n. ambassador and national security adviser susan rice requested to unmask the names of trump transition officials who were caught up in what they're now calling incidental surveillance. rice recently told, as you pointed out -- even played it earlier this hour -- told pbs that she knew nothing about the claims that trump transition officials, including president trump, may have been swept up in the surveillance of foreigners t end of the obama administration.

now,ice -- who did appeaon msnbc -- said the obama administration did not use this for political purposes, you just heard her say it, and she says she leaked nothing to nobody. rice says there were occasions in order to understand intelligence reports that she asked for a name to be provided to her. >> the president, his associates, their names could have been bandied about by foreign officials, they could have been picked up in incidental collection -- >> yes, they could have. that is possible. >> and you could have asked for those names of american number one, american number two, however it's identified to be unmasked so you would know how significant it was. >> that's exactly right, andrea. the fact is if, whether we're talking about russia or any other topic, if i saw an intelligence report that looked potentially significant -- and understand by definition if it's being provided to me, it is significant. i don't solicit reports, i only receive what the intelligence see.nity thinks i or any other

>> reporter: and, trish, this morning's "wall street journal" included a column citing unnamed sources who had seen the unmasked names and documents claiming that they included political information about the trump transition team's meetings and policy intentions. those sources told the journal none of the documents had anything to do with russia or the fbi investigation into ties between russia and the trump campaign. there are members of the house of representatives calling for susan rice to testify before or the house intelligence committee. she would neither say yes or no to that idea. trish: all right. and, adam, we of course learned earlier from congressman desantis that he's calling for a criminal investigation into all of this. thank you so much. >> reporter: yep. trish: there's some hypocrisy that i need to point out, and i say this because you've got the mainstream media ignoring this story. on the network evening news shows, only cbs devoted only time to it -- a whopping 46

seconds -- and that 46 seconds was devoted to defending ms. rice. watch. >> according to a former national security official, trump associates were not the sole focus of rice's request, but they may have been revealed when she asked to understand why they were appearing in intelligence reports. however, rice did not spread the information, according to this former official who insisted that there was nothing improper or political involved. trish: okay. now, cnn went a step further when a host there said he would never report this story at all -- somehow he doesn't want to insult your intelligence by even reporting it. watch him. >> there is no evidence that backs up the president's original claim. and on this program tonight, we will not insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise, nor will we aid and abet the people who are trying to misinform you, the american people, by creating a diversion. trish: and yet when there is no evidence that trump was somehow

involved with the russians way back when during the actual campaign, cnn went wild with that story. so i don't understand the double standard here at all. mercedes schlapp, neil sroka back with me, or practice i do understand it, mercedes, because, you know, the reality is most of the media is in the tank for the left. they absolutely despise, hate donald trump, so why would they ever want to do anything that would encourage the story he put out there about the surveillance to begin with? >> well, why not just simply report the news and let the american people decide? let's just make it even that simple. but i think for -- one of these networks, actually, you had seen that they called it a fake scandal being peddled by the right-wing media. i mean, this is networks basically -- and let me tell you, you've got to separate like the opinion shows from the news shows. trish sure. >> these are news shows. these are networks and shows that are basically saying,

instructing their viewers don't listen to the story, we're not going to give you any of this information, this is just a hoax. and i think that's a very dangerous line to draw, because i think they do have to separate the news shows who should just be providing the news -- >> mercedes, who's the source of this originally? it's the same guy behind the ridiculous and, ultimately, nearly deadly pizza-gate controversy. >> what are you saying, "the wall street journal" has it wrong? what are you trying to say? >> this was a story that was peddled by the white house -- [inaudible conversations] trish: neil, neil, neil, as mercedes says, are you to say "the wall street journal" has it wrong or fox news has it wrong? adam houseley has reported on this, sources are telling fox news that, in fact, she did unmask these names -- >> and what i'm saying is there's nothing untoward about the unmasking of these names. trish: at this point, it doesn't necessarily matter who the original source was, you have

cred call news organization -- credible news organizations that said it happened. answer that question. >> there is nothing to suggest that anything that susan rice up to this point has done is untoward about the unmasking. that was perfectly within her per view as national security adviser, someone who was actually looking into one of the most profligate examples of a foreign government intruding in our election. she had every reason to be going over those reports -- >> but wait a second, did you see those reports? they had nothing -- >> did you see the reports? i haven't. so then how are you judging? >> how are you judging, neil? trish: hang on, hang on. >> you don't have any facts -- >> you don't either. trish: you know, ooze i've said before, that is what is so frustrating about this entire story, and i would only point out that the leftist media brought it all up to begin with, a whole bunch of innuendo and no real sourcing and no real information -- >> you kidding, trish? trish, we already have the national security adviser to donald trump out of office

because of his lying about his contacts with the russians to the vice president. so the argument that there is no cloud over the white house is just absolutely -- >> so are you okay with leakers leaking classified information to the news media? you're fine with that? >> no. what i'm saying is you're attacking susan rice for, at thisoint- >> i'm not attacking -- yes, you did. [inaudible conversations] trish: back to susan rice for a second, this is not a woman with a ton of credibility. >> i know, she's a right-wing bogeyman. i know -- trish: truly, neil, she -- [inaudible conversations] >> i get it, go along with the pizza-gate controversy. trish: -- which were all wrong. is so now as you look at her comments on pbs two weeks ago where she pretended as if she didn't know what anybody was talking about, and now she's saying, oh, sure, i did do this all the time, this was just normal, you know, course of business, you've got to scratch your head and say just exactly why is she tuning her -- changing her tune again?

i've got to leave it there. in a stunning move of defiance against president trump, california moves closer to becoming a sanctuary state. why is the liberal state working so hard to protect illegal immigrants but not california taxpayers? whether it's connecting one of the world's most innovative campuses. or bringing wifi to 65,000 fans. businesses count on communication, and communication counts on centurylink. at crowne plaza we know business travel isn't just business. there's this. 'a bit of this. why not? your hotel should make it easy to do all the things you do. which is what we do. crowne plaza. we're all business, mostly.

your parents have been ittalking about you for years.. they're all about me saving for a house, or starting a college fund for my son. actually, i want to know what you're thinking. knowing that the most important goals are yours. it's how edward jones makes sense of investing. trish: the liberal state of california is one step closer to becoming a, quote, sanctuary state, a move that clearly goes against president trump's vow to keep americans safe. president trump's immigration order is meant to keep criminal illegals out of this country, to restore law and order and have a country with actual borders. but for some odd reason, the state of california thinks entirely otherwise. and the state's senate has just approved a bill that'll make it harder for immigration officials to do their jobs. joining me right now the president of citizens united, david bossy. if i'm a california taxpayer, i'm paying a lot of taxes, number one --

[laughter] >> yes. nor mouse, that's right. -- enormous. trish: and california's not so interested in protecting me, they seem to be more interested in protecting illegals and a political philosophy. what's going on? >> well, look, this is the reason that president trump and attorney general sessions have said actions are going to have consequences now. in this day and age of the trump administration, if you defy them, they're going to hold back federal funds from the state of california if they tend up doing this. and i think that's what it should be. look, we can't allow illegals who are being deported over and over again to be able to stay in this country. you look at what happened -- trish: it's wild. i mean, you used the kate steinle example, but i was looking through an i.c.e. detainer sheet just the other day, and they looked at nearly 200 people who had been detained over a one week period all throughout the country. and in all of these cases, many were convicted, many were arrested, and they were all let go.

and they were let go because these local governments didn't agree with i.c.e. policy on this. i mean, isn't the law pretty clear, and in this case shouldn't federal law trump whatever an individual county or state wants to do in that, again, as a country you've got to have borderses? >> you know, it's an amazing thing. we're talking about california, but just last week or so in rockville, maryland, just outside of washington, d.c., illegal -- two illegal immigrants here in a high school, an 18 and a 19-year-old -- 17 and an 18-year-old here illegally who had been arrested, one of them at least had been detained, were allowed back in the school, and they raped a 15-year-old girl in the high school. we cannot allow -- it really is going to require these localities to stand up and say, enough's enough. we need the police to protect us -- trish: but let's not forget the politics, and i think that's really what is at the root of all of this. you have liberal lawmakers that are campaigning for a bloc of

the population that feels very sympathetic to the illegals. >> you know, in california -- trish: and they're hopeful that they can incasingly ing, you know, or this population over to them and that they will win elections this way. isn't this why county officials are basically, you you know, gig the middle finger to the federal law? >> that's right. and if you look at donald trump's campaign, it's one of the reasons he won, was on this very issue. it's a very emotional issue to the american people, and he won saying very straightforward things. he said i'm going to build the wall, we are going to enforce the laws, and we're going to deport these criminal illegals who are here -- trish: and by the way, there's nothing that, you know, there's nothing that should be upsetting about it. someone's committed a crime being here illegally to begin with, they've then committed a crime, in many cases been convicted of a crime, and yet taxpayer dollars are wasted away paying for them to continue to be in here.

anyway, david bossi sexer, final -- bossie, final quick thought. >> between 5-10 president of the population of president, the records show they are here illegally. the illegal immigration population in california is between 2-3 million people, closer to 3 million, that we know of that are undocumented. so this is an economic issue for california and for the nation. trish: absolutely. david, good to see you, thank you very much. >> thanks for having me. trish: speaking of economic issues for the nation, boeing is set to sell planes to iran in a deal worth to up to $6 billion. why on earth are we allowing an american company to do business in iran if we don't allow people from iran even into our country? and more unintended consequences from our government gone wild. in an effort to track drug traffickers, the irs is trapping small business owners in its crosshairs. why your money is at risk. nor next. more next.

trish: all right, boeing inking a deal for up to $6 billion to sell planes to iran. the first major sale by a u.s. company to iran under president donald trump. this marks the second deal the company has struck with the iranian airlines since sanctions were eased last year by president obama and other world leaders. however, the company still has to receive final approval from the government, and that could be challenging. i mean, if the administration doesn't want to allow people into this country from iran, if we're really serious about cutting off iran's economy and having them listen to us, then why the heck are we allowing an american company to do busess ov there? i mean, i'm all for boeing makingoney, but why does it have to be with iran? anyway, moving on, lots of news today. washington lawmakers are taking on the irs right now. the irs has the power to seize

your assets if it suspects you were doing something illegal with your money. no proof required. although the law is meant to stop crime, you know what it's doing? it's hurting small business owners in the process. now a new bill is making it through congress to try and limit the power of the irs. gerri willis has more. >> reporter: that's right. congress may soon make it harder for the irs to seize your money in what is called civil asset forfeiture, the tool used by the justice department and irs agents enable government to seize people's money if banking habits were similar to money launderers and drug cartels. amounts as small as $10,000 could spark a seizure. agents scam the continuous small deposits into bank accounts, they watch that. trouble is plenty of small business other than ors do exactly that with no intention of laundering money or selling drugs. randy says he is one of those ensnared in what is simply an

abuse of the asset forfeiture program. government agents took $65,000 from the maryland dairy farmer's bank account in 2012 and held some of the money for four years. he was never charged with a crime. >> they shouldn't be able to come in and take my money without proving that i did something wrong first. i think they need to keep track of cash because, you know, people do do bad things. >> reporter: so congressman peter roskam and joseph crowley introduced legislation late last year to limit the irs' ability to seize people's money without first charging them with a crimement it passed there unanimously, and now u.s. senators tim scott and sherrod brown are introducing companion legislation in the senate. advocates say changing the law is essential to maintaining property rights and preventing small business owners from inadvertently getting caught in the irs crosshairs. trish. trish: thank you so much, gerri

willis. i'm taking a quick break, we'll be right back. things are headed. because as we live longer... and markets continue to rise and fall... predictable is one thing you need in retirement to help protect what you've earned and ensure it lasts. introducing brighthouse financial. a new company established by metlife to specialize in annuities & life insurance. talk to your advisor about a brighter financial future. ♪ yes?

please repeat the objective. ♪ thrivent mutual funds. managed by humans, not robots. before investing, carefully read and consider fund objectives, risks, charges and expenses in the prospectus at thriventfunds.com.

>> it doesn't end here, please follow me on twitter at trish regan or on facebook at trish regan tv. liz claman, over to you. liz: trish, we've got some breaking news just as the senate debates the nomination of judge kneel gorsuch. th's the live picture chuck speaking at the moment. judge neil gorsuch to the supreme court, senator chuck schumer moments ago threatening to derail president trump's agenda if the republicans move forward with the so-called nuclear option. one big one on the president's agenda, laying the ground work for what he now says might even be more than a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. the pitch that he made to both ceos and to construction workers aimed at cutting red tape and putting together a plan to rebuild america. no