tv Happening Now FOX News April 3, 2017 10:00am-11:01am PDT
tweeting about me. >> it was super fun to have you here. >> good to be here, ladies. >> you guys are going to stay, we will pop up online, foxnews.com/outnumbered, click the overtime tab or facebook, now "happening now" ." >> fox news alert, we are awaiting a key vote in the senate to advance the nomination of judge neil gorsuch for the supreme court. >> that is the vote from the senate judiciary committee expected any minute now, they can see minnesota senator al franken reading into the record for his part on the committee. the big question, is what happens when the vote goes to the full senate, all actions point to the so-called nuclear option. we're covering all of the music "happening now" ." a deadly bomb blast rocking a subway in russia in the same city, russian vladimir putin is visiting. i had come security crackdowns across that country as
investigators look into possible terror ties. plus, u.s.-russian relations now worse than during the cold war? that is what the top spokesman for putin says. >> you cold war, may be even worse taking into account actions of the present presidential administration. >> worse than the cold war? >> jon: how does he think diplomacy can improve? and capitol hill preparing for a supreme show down. >> it looks like gorsuch will not reach the 60 vote margin. >> gorsuch will be confirmed this week one way or another. >> jon: about lives as republicans bow they will get the nominate through it one way or another. it is all "happening now" ." >> jenna: will be given a fox news alert on a jampacked day of news in washington, senate hearing for a showdown of the supreme court nominate judge neil gorsuch. the president meeting with leaders of allies in the middle east and the white house press briefing as well on the radar. look up to the second hour "happening now," i am jenna lee.
>> jon: very busy monday, isn't it? i am jon scott. president trump welcoming egyptian president el-sisi to the white house. the hottest spot right now is on the senate judiciary committee, you can see that live on the left there as we await its vote on the gorsuch nomination. if he goes to the full senate as expected, the democrats apparently have enough support to wage a filibuster, raising the question will republicans pull the trigger and invoke the so-called nuclear option? which would bring on just a majority vote, simple majority, to put neil gorsuch on the supreme court. we have fox team coverage. john roberts life at the white house covering all of the bases, but we begin with chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel lived on capitol hill were a major showdown is about to begin. >> good afternoon. today is a critical step in judge neil gorsuch just nomination on the way to the supreme court. expected to be approved voted
out of the senate judiciary committee, republicans are praising judge gorsuch for his qualification to sit on the high court, saying he has the right temperament to do so. republicans suggest the controversy is not about judge gorsuch, it's because democrats have not got over the 2016 election. and they noticed historically that that senate did not filibuster supreme court nominations. >> i find it ironic and sad that we are going to change the rules over somebody who has lived such a good life. who has been such a good judge for such a long time. this says more about the senate than it does george -- judge gorsuch. >> let's take a life look inside the senate judiciary committee. emma katz have complained about the treatment of president obam president obama's nominate merrick garland received he was never considered by the senate, and some are complaining about republicans who are likely to change senate president to
get judge gorsuch confirmed. >> my conscience will not allow me to ratify the majority leader's actions, not last year, not this year. i will not. i cannot support it. >> some republicans have countered that democrats would not accept any of president trump's potential supreme court nominees, they say judge gorsuch is qualified it we expect a critical step in committee today. >> jon: mike emanuel on a very busy capitol hill, thank you. >> jenna: expected some speakers during the committee hearing, we will bring you back there when they get the microphone. in the meantime have a very busy day on the other side of pennsylvania avenue as well. president trump rolling out the welcome mat for the egyptian president, not to mention keeping a close eye on that show down over supreme court nominee paired she white house correspondent john roberts life with more. >> good afternoon. he's having a meeting with the president of egypt el-sisi, this is the second time the president has met with the egyptian
leader, they were first together at the plaza hotel in new york city back in september, the white house portraying this as a reboot of their relations between the united states and egypt which fell into a chill during the obama administration, talking to the pool in the oval office, as you can see there, the president said that the initial phases of this reboot are going well, listen here. >> we are very much behind president al sisi. he's done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. we are very much behind egypt and the people of egypt, and the united states has, believe me, back in, and we have strong backing. >> the president keeping a close eye what's going on in the senate today with the committee vote on gorsuch coming up, than a vote before the entire senate and yet another democrat here has not gone to the gorsuch site, but senator michael bennett of colorado says he will vote for cloture which means he will vote against a filibuster, put him together with democratic
senator joe donnelly from indiana, joe manchin from west virginia and heidi heitkamp from north dakota come you can now say that there are 56 votes for gorsuch, that is four shy of the number needed for cloture to avoid a filibuster, still time to find more votes between now and maybe thursday or friday, but if not, mitch mcconnell, senate majority leader may be employing the so-called nuclear option. he does have the support of the president on this, remember what the president said back on february 1st when i asked him about it, listen here. >> if we end up with the gridlock, i would say if you can, mitch, go nuclear, because that would be an absolute shame if a man of his quality was caught up in the web. >> mitch mcconnell told chris wallace on "fox news sunday" yesterday that gorsuch will be confirmed, quite possible he may have to explore the nuclear option. the sean spicer briefing is coming up at 2:30, and there is
an emerging headline that no doubt will command a lot of attention here in the briefing, and that is what role did president obama's national security advisor susan rice play in the unmasking of the names of trump transition officials and intelligence documents? several sources, multiple sources have told fox news that it was susan rice that requested that those names be unmasked. we will be pursuing this this afternoon, asking a lot of questions at the white house to see what they have to say. >> jenna: a lot of questions to be asked, we are going to run everybody back to capitol hill, senator chris coons is speaking at the judiciary committee. the question as to what he will do regarding judge gorsuch, we are going to listen here. >> and the bushing and reagan administration's and before. i am struck that half the committee serving here today has not previously participated in any supreme court confirmation on this committee. when justice dileo died, i called on president obama to nominate a consensus candidate to the court that would help us
to bridge our deep partisan divides and enhance the legitimacy of the court on which our rule of law so profoundly depends. president obama did just that. he nominated chief judge merrick garland, by any account, one of the most confirmable nominees ever nominated to the supreme court. but instead of healing the wounds from battles long since passed, new one formed. republicans held the seat open with over 300 days without regard of the damage it was doing to the court or this body. i prescient my colleague senator al franken's defense of the speech once given by my former boss on this committee, senator biden. let me be clear, this action by my colleagues was on except a bull and has scarred this process and this body. as senator cornyn previously
remarked, there has never been a partisan filibuster of a supreme court nominee in history. and while technically correct, i question what a seven month refusal to hold a hearing where vote is, if not the longest partisan filibuster on this committee ever. i have not forgotten the injustice done to it merrick garland, and neither have any of my colleagues. but we simply cannot move this committee and this body forward if we simply endlessly obsess over past grievances and revenge. and so, unlike the majority leader who announced before there was any nominee from president obama that he would get no hearing, i pledged to treat president trump's nominee, judge neil gorsuch fairly and to engage actively in this process, and i did so. throughout this process, i have kept an open mind. after reviewing judge gorsuch's record, after meeting with him twice, after participating in four days of very well-run senate judiciary committee confirmation hearings, submitting reading questions and
getting feedback from literally thousands of people, i've decided that i will not support judge gorsuch's nomination in the judiciary committee today. i appreciate that judge gorsuch is an intelligent jurist and engaging writer. i admire his commitment to being a good father to his daughters and a good husband to his wife and a good mentor to his cle i even agree with many of his decisions. but i believe my role in evaluating his nomination is more than reviewing his resume. it is more than recognizing he is smart and charming. i have to do more than think about a large number of consensus decisions because the law is shaped by circuit courts and even more so the supreme court, by a handful of very significant signature decisions, and thus, i must follow my predecessors practiced in considering judge gorsuch just philosophy, and its impact on the constitutional rights of
others, even those very different from himself and with values different from his own. that is why my question at judge gorsuch's hearings focused on his view of americans rights to privacy and liberty to make their most important personal life decisions. at the hearings, i focused in on 810th circuit case written by judge gorsuch, hobby lobby, which for the first time allowed for-profit companies to refuse to provide thousands of employees access to family planning based on the for-profit corporations religious beliefs. i laid out in great detail in the confirmation hearing questioning why i viewed that as not just a strained reading or an overreach, but as one that is wildly outside the context of the dictionary act and of previous law. but i think i can summarize it fast by quoting chief judge briscoe's dissent in that same case. it struck me. she said that judge gorsuch's view was "nothing short of a
radical revision of first amendment law as well as the law of corporations and that such views were wholly unsupported by the language of the exercise clause or supreme court free exercise jurisprudence." in his concurrence and hobby lobby, judge gorsuch advanced a broad theory, the religious freedom restoration act, under which an employer could avoid complying with any neutral universally applicable law and order to avoid complicity in the wrongdoing of others. i pressed judge gorsuch to give me a limiting principle to this new complicity theory, but was left in the end with more questions than answers. i also asked judge gorsuch about his understanding of core constitutional provisions that protect reproductive rights, death with dignity, in marriage equality. in his 2006 book "the future of assisted suicide and euthanasia," judge gorsuch it was critical of individuals rights to make their own end-of-life decisions. and asserted, i quote "that all
human beings are intricately viablend the intentional taking of life by private persons is wholly wrong." his book and other comments suggest a very narrow interpretation of a key precedent, planned parenthood of southeastern pennsylvania versus kc. an absolutely central case to addressing personal liberty and reproductive rights as protected under the 14th amendment due process clause. it is a critical precedent that the supreme court has continually relied on for 25 years to protect the freedom of many, including most recently, the freedom of same-sex couples to have intimate relationships into support marriage equality as the law of the land. on each of these important issues and more, judge gorsuch avoided responding concisely and thoroughly to questions, in fact as detailed by senator dianne feinstein, he avoided responding to questions that many other nominees nominated by both republicans and democrats have not just answered but answered squarely. he told me that the case remains
an open question in many ways. he would not agree with me that the right to privacy today extends to protecting women's rights to have autonomy over their reproductive choices and protecting the privacy of intimate relations between consenting adults, whether same-sex or the opposite sex. this and many more left me concerned, delete my judge gorsuch harbors a researcher view of the right to privacy and personal liberty rooted in the due process clause of the 14th amendment. let me be clear. i do not think these and other issues raised by many of my colleagues are just narrowly partisan issues. i think it is unfortunate if we lead the public to view members of the supreme court dimly as red pegs or blue pegs deciding cases along partisan lines. because there are many, many cases that are decided not along partisan lines, but along lines that are narrowly legal. in fact, i think it 62% of the cases decided by the court, they are unanimous.
indeed, several justices nominated by republican presidents have appreciated exactly this point, the important role of the 14th amendment due process and securing for individual liberty and have taken a far more restrictive view of their judicial role that judge gorsuch just record suggest he does. judge gorsuch sister record shows the tendency to surgically explore broader issues then what is necessary to decide the case before him. a willingness to revisit long settled precedent and to promote actively changes to the law. as others have discussed, he has insisted that the chevron doctrine should be revisited, this doctrine is a long stated president that ensures judicial deference to agency experts responsible for health and safety, environmental and consumer protection regulation. for me, even more troubling, he suggested restricting access to federal courts for access brought under section 983, a critical tool for civil rights enforcement. based on these and many other
concerns that i have detailed in my questioning, my questions for the record, and in further statements i made, that i will ultimately vote against judge gorsuch's nomination today. still, i shared the view of many of my colleagues that judge gorsuch is a talented, experienced jurists. i understand why all of my republican colleagues will support him and buy some of my democratic colleagues will support him today as well. i cast my vote well aware that he will receive the required votes on this committee to advance to the full senate. we are at a historic moment in history. thanks to action, decisions, even mistakes made by both democrats and republicans over recent years, over many years, we have eroded the process for reaching agreement and dishonored long traditions of acting above partisanship, especially when it comes to confirmations for judges and now justices. i said last week it would be tragic if judge gorsuch just confirmation process leads the
senate have against doing the majority leader in abolishing the 60 vote threshold for cloture on the nomination of a supreme court justice. let's be frank. the majority leader has assured us he will abolish the 60 vote threshold for judge gorsuch if eight democrats do not support him on the senate floor. i do not agree with the approach but like it or not, in number of you have showed us today that is the reality. on thursday, the full senate will participate in what is called a cloture vote. it is one of the senate's many long traditions and though many americans may not know exactly what it means, it means that we are done debating. that we are ready for the final vote. almost always a combination of both democrats and republicans are required for us to get to cloture. and so on thursday, we will be voting to decide whether we are ready to finish debating the confirmation of judge gorsuch. i am not ready to end debate on this issue. i will be voting against cloture unless we are able, as a body, to finally sit down and find a
way to avoid the nuclear option and ensure the process to fill the next vacancy on the court is not a narrowly partisan process, but rather an opportunity of both parties to weigh in and ensure replacement judge on the court who can secure support from members of both parties. the reality we are and requires us over the next several days to consider what both democrats and republicans are doing to this body into consider what both republicans and democrats have done to erode the trust that has long lasted between us and to consider whether we can stop the undeniable momentum toward abolishing the traditions that make this senate unique and important. democrats, including me, are still furious at the way judge merrick garland was treated last year, but the jewish ins and principles that have defined as our crumbling and we are poised to hasten the destruction this week. so for my part, i hope and pray that we can yet find a way together to find a solution.
thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator? >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> jon: that is another nail in the coffin, if you will, for judge neil gorsuch jacumba nominated to the supreme court. it appears that an f democrats have come out against his nomination that he will not be confirmed under the traditional, however senate majority leader mitch mcconnell has said that if democrats will not play ball and will not vote him into office using the 60 vote threshold that has always been the president in the u.s. senate, he will invoke what is called the nuclear option, changing the president of the senate and allowing for neil gorsuch just confirmation with just a 51 votes. and with the republicans and three democrats having voted or expressed support of judge gorsuch, it would certainly seem
that he would be confirmed under those circumstances per let's bring in ron meyer, editor of "red alert projects," also aaron blake, senior politics reporter for "the washington post" ." what are democrats hoping to achieve here? are they hoping that mitch mcconnell will actually back away from invoking the nuclear option? >> i think that is their ideal world, they are hoping this is all a bluff, maybe he won't have the votes to actually do this, republicans, of course, would need 50 out of 52 members to vote for that. i think what they are accomplishing here is mostly catharsis and senator coons talked about there, and a lot of this for a lot of members is hard feelings about what happened with merrick garland. he said his motivation personally was not that, but he seemed to be acknowledging that was a lot of what is behind this. i don't think democrats think they are going to stop neil gorsuch. i don't think they have any hope of preventing the nuclear option. but they recognize that this is
something their base is demanding and also recognize that the filibuster is probably an endangered species already. i think this is them being put in a position that maybe they prefer not to be end, but they recognize they are going to do what they feel they have to do even if it leads somewhere that is not going to be advantageous to them. >> jon: neil gorsuch neil gorsuch was handily confirmed by the senate to become an appeals court judge, what happened in the meantime to make him unqualified for the supreme court? >> you heard senator coons just say it, but democrats are saying is you handled the merrick garland process so badly last year, this is base of the just trying to get back at the republicans. so you have a qualified judge, someone who is widely respected, someone who democrats are saying they will support, if you democrats saying they will support, majority of democrats, 40 plus democrats are saying they will not support gorsuch because of last year's battles. i don't think it is a good strategy for them. i think it will be really rough on them, and it probably will be
>> jon: back now with ron meyer, editor of "red alert politics" and aaron blake, senior politics reporter for "the washington post" ." you suggested the filibuster may be going the way of the dinosaur anyway. if they were to change the precedent here and vote a supreme court justice into office using just a simple majority, is that the bar, is that the threshold for now on
into the future? once senate precedent hasn't changed, does it change forever? >> it's not going to change back any time soon, that is for certain. this has been part of a steady erosion we saw beginning in 2013 when democrats went nuclear for nonsupreme court nominees. it continued last year went republicans did not give merrick garland a hearing and left democrats very sore about that. now what is going to happen this week is democrats just got their fruit [boos] 41st vote to uphold the filibuster whether it happens with neil gorsuch just nomination of the next time we have a supreme court nomination for the balance of the court may actually be at stake, i think this is going to be summing that would happen just as a function of our partisanship and the fact that congress just behaves in a much more partisan way these days. i think that 60 vote threshold is going to continue to get chipped away as we move along here. >> jon: as has been pointed
out, this is the seat of justice antonin scalia, a noted conservative justice, and he would be supplanted here by eight noted conservative justice, so it does not change the traditional balance of power in the court as the merrick garland nomination might have. >> the issue is in a couple years, wouldn't it be better politically for democrats to have this still in their arsenal to say republicans are breaking precedent for someone more to the right than gore gorsuch? that is fundamentally their problem, gorsuch is a centrist or libertarian criminal justice on per 8 personal privacy, technology, so a lot of these things, they are picking the wrong battle, they should not be picking at this year, they should choose it later this year or next year or the one after that when there is another justice choice. they are setting themselves up for a tough fight and eliminating this president, and
frankly democrats could be smarter in republicans too to bring back the old school filibuster where you actually have to talk. right now, you just have to have 60 votes, and i think people would say if you think there is the debate to be had, come out and speak, don't just make it this 60 vote threshold, come out and speak, let's debate. >> jon: going back to my high school civics class for that one. your paper, "the washington post," had an article describing president trump as isolated without the allies that he needs to pass his agenda. there is the headline to thate. i wonder if that relates to this supreme court discussion. if this president was enjoying barn burning popularity, would democrats be as empowered, as they seem to feel calm and challenging his nominee for the supreme court? >> the answer to that question is may be peer right now, they have no incentive to do so. we do have a few democratic
senators who have announced their support, but they come from very red states, states that trump won by double digits in some cases. >> jon: west virginia, indiana, north dakota. >> exactly, so these are states you expect to be represented by a republican senator, they have to vote that way. more broadly speaking, trump is having a problem with his agenda right now because democrats have basically no reason to go along with him. they have all kinds of reason not to go with him. if trump really goes after the freedom caucus, those 30 or so members, and really alienates them, i'm not sure he comes to the middle and is able to get those democrats to support his agenda. it is just a very difficult thing to do in this day and age when our voters are so polarized. >> jon: i just democrats the president is having trouble with right now. >> that is right, the house freedom caucus, targeting them has probably been a mistake in his tweet this morning in meeting with rand paul yesterday, i think he has admitted it, and now has said, i think i need those people back
in my corner. he tried the strategy for a few days to say maybe i can work with centrist democrats but what he found when he picked up the phone to call them, those democrats are not so centrist. they are going to oppose his agenda because of what was being mentioned earlier. he is working with rand paul to try to figure out a strategy to get some small victories. rand paul has a proposal out right now to allow for co-ops for healthcare where people can buy in groups, and so it would not get rid of obamacare, but it would put in this thing to allow people to buy together to bring down the cost. i think he's trying to sell trump on that to give him a small victory to bring republicans in the freedom caucus back together and put the pressure on democrats as being the obstructionists. that is why he is meeting with rand paul yesterday at trump national. >> jon: a little golf to do some arm twisting. thank you very much, ron meyer, aaron blake. >> jenna: the subway blast that was deadly in russia, more on that, plus by one of cummins spokespeople says that our relationship is worse now than it was during the cold war.
hi dad. no. don't try to get up. hi, i'm julie, a right at home caregiver. and if i'd been caring for tom's dad, i would have noticed some dizziness that could lead to balance issues. that's because i'm trained to report any changes in behavior, no matter how small, so tom could have peace of mind. we'll be right there. we have to go. hey, tom. you should try right at home. they're great for us. the right care. right at home. >> jenna: fox news earlier, judge neil gorsuch church could be on the verge of taking a big step toward confirmation as we await a vote from the senate judiciary committee on his nomination to the supreme court. then it would be onto an even bigger battle on the full senate where the democrats appeared to have enough votes for a
filibuster. setting the stage for the republicans evoking the so-called nuclear option, we will get into that now, he's been following the play-by-play of this hearing, and we apologize for taking your way, but it's been great to have you watching minute by minute today. if you can generalize for our viewers what you witnessed, what do you think are the most significant statements from the hearing thus far? speak of the key statements came from dianne feinstein, bring a democrat leahy, senate senior democrat, former judiciary chairman and chris coons, more junior member, all of them have been undecided peer they had not announced their decision on gorl three came out against him, so this is going to be a partyline vote, and with chris coons comit gorsuch, means republicans will not have the 60 votes they need to invoke cloture. from the statement i heard of chris coons, he did not say explicitly whether he would vote against cloture, but i think that is to be presumed.
it means that mitch mcconnell will have to go nuclear this week. he will have to change the rules if he wants neil gorsuch confirmed. >> jenna: he would have to change a precedent in the senate to allow this to take place. if that precedent is changed, and republicans are able to vote for gorsuch to go to the supreme court, what are the ripple effects of that? >> lawmakers are concerned that if this happens for the supreme court nominee, they will be growing pressure on mcconnell to get rid of the filibuster, get rid of the 60 vote threshold for legislation. that was something mcconnell was asked about over the weekend paired he said rest assured, wrote not going to change the rules on the legislative filibuster, but when we sat down with him earlier, we asked point-blank about the filibuster and he said we have no current plans to change the rules, a few months later, he is changing the president for all intents and purposes, this is a rule. the practice in the senate has been the supreme court nominee needs 60 votes, that will no
longer be the case. this is a very important precedent peer mcconnell says don't worry, this is as far as we will go, but people like john mccain say he is worried about the slippery slope where legislation could be next. >> jenna: what would that mean that? >> if they got rid of the filibuster for legislation? a lot easier to pass things through congress which is why some republicans are calling to get rid of the legislative filibuster. scott walker, wisconsin governor the day after the elect 3 elections that it's time to get rid of the filibuster. former republican congressman from arizona that i spoke to yesterday said the filibuster has got out of hand. it was once used only in extreme circumstances now it is so routine. if there is no filibuster on legislation, it becomes a lot easier to pass things through the congress, house, and senate, but the question, is that a good thing? it is good if you're in control, but if you're not, it is dangerous and scary. >> jenna: that is important to underscore, republicans have control and it favors them, but we will ask the question as it plays out, what does it mean for
a functioning government overall? not just this year but when you look decades out. we put that aside for a moment as it is a bigger question, but let's go back to gorsuch for a moment as we watch the live hearing on capitol hill. this is a committee hearing. he's expected to be approved to get out of committee to go to the senate where the general vote will be held eventually. i'm just curious again if you could underscore for our viewers, so looking down at a couple of my notes, the american bar association which democrats have called the gold standard, has given him a very high rating. most of his cases, 97% of these cases, they have been unanimous decisions many he did not go out on a limb, he was with the other judges who agreed with his ruling. what is the big reason why we are here where we are today, where it seems like the decision is amongst party lines, by party lines, what is the real issue for democrats for gorsuch? >> when he was first nominated, the assumption was he would sail through the senate. he seemed like a nominee that in
the past would have had no problems. he seemed to resemble john roberts in terms of his credentials, demeanor, and it has been kind of a surprise that you have centrist democrats facing reelection and heavily pro trump states like jon tester of montana, claire mccaskill of missouri, coming out and saying no, we are going to oppose gorsuch and vote for the filibuster. that is something that would have been unheard of a few years ago. the main difference i think is that democrats are really upset over the treatment of merrick garland, president obama's nominee. he sat around for months without a hearing or a vote. now there is a lot of back and forth as to whether this is justified by senate precedent, but the fact of the matter is democrats are really mad, and they feel this is their seat. it is not just the democrats in the senate, but the democratic base is incensed. the day trump announced judge gore suggest nominee, 3,000 people were protesting outside senator schumer's apartment in brooklyn, that is on the he was not used to, it sent a jolt to
the democratic caucus, they need to stand firm on him, that is what they are doing. >> jenna: very interesting, great perspective as to why we are here today where we all are. we will continue to watch where it goes from here, thank you very much, alex, great to have you on the program. >> jon: a deadly subway explosion in the russian city of st. petersburg all about president vladimir boudin was in the city for a meeting. now they say that searches on for two suspects. we will talk with our next guest about that state of security in russia and who might be behind this latest attack.
>> terrible thing happening all over the world, absolutely a terrible thing. >> jenna: that is the president with some new reaction to what the news is today. we have breaking out of russia, new reports revealing that russia law enforcement agencies are searching for two suspects in today's subway bombing. the bomb went off on a train
between stations in st. petersburg at least ten people are dead because of that, in russian authorities say that was within two hours, they found and deactivated another bomb at a separate busy subway. investigators are looking into the possibility this is an act of terrorism, so far no claim of responsibility, but russian trains and planes have been targeted in the past as we know by terrorists. it comes as president vladimir putin is in st. petersburg with his top spokesman maggie headlines forcing the u.s. relationship with moscow may be worse than during the cold war. this comes as you see the president continues to be asked about what is happening in russia and our relationship with russia is under re-examination. a lot to talk about here. ambassador is a former deputy secretary general of nato and former investor to russia as well as a few other countries, quite a career and we are honored to have you back on the program ambassador, thank you. we all bring our own set of understanding, expertise to headlines when they cross.
when you see this first headline cross today, russia subway bombing, no one claiming responsibility, what goes through your head? >> for may come of course, brought back some very sad memories when i was ambassador 15 years ago, there were several bombings in the metro, the theatre of moscow that was taken hostage, a school down in the caucuses, and i so i feel great sympathy for the russian people to have to go through ths again. i think media speculation as to who did it points to the north caucasus to places like chechnya where there are radical islamic movements where you have seen thousands of russian citizens who are from these places going to fight with isis in the middle east, so at least initial speculation would point to these groups who are still waging a type of undeclared war against the russian state. >> jenna: that is really important to remember, russia's role in syria and how it may
play in here. we still don't know, don't have anyone claiming responsibility. looking at reports out of russia, you see different theories present themselves, one writer out of moscow was commenting that there are those that are pointing at the russian government. there has been big protests in russia in recent days and some are reporting it as protesters. is there any precedent for this kind of blame game, conspiracy theory in light of those facts? >> russia has properly surpassed americans in their fondness for conspiracy theories, and some of those past terrorist attacks i referred to did lead to finger-pointing including even at the united states, which was truly ridiculous. i would not be surprised if some of the same conspiracy theorizing goes on in the next few days. >> jenna: important for us to re we see reports come out of russia. we have been spending so much time on hypothetical relationship between the trump
administration and russia, paying a disproportionate amount of time to that and not as much on actual policy. i am wondering what you think when it comes to our russia-u.s. relations, what questions we should be asking and what we should be seeking? >> i am concerned that these investigations certainly are important and need to run their course and provide the answers that the american people are looking for about what the russians did first and foremost, and if there is a connection to the trump campaign, we need to know that, too. but more importantly, we have to figure how we are going to do with a very dangerous and aggressive russia still waging kind of undeclared war in eastern ukraine, still intervening in the middle east in ways that are not entirely consistent with american interests, continuing to so trouble and many parts of europe using the same techniques in our election with disinformation, propaganda, cyber attacks, so we need to handle our approach to
russia aimed at limiting the dangers and hopefully solving some big problems starting with ukraine which is where all of the trouble began. if we can get past these big problems, maybe we can have a better relationship with russia. the president's right to want to do that, but he should not underestimate just how hard it's going to be. >> jenna: baking of that, a spokesman for the kremlin had something interesting to say on television a few days ago, let's play that sound. >> new cold war? may be even worse, may be even taking into account actions of the present presidential administration. >> worse than the cold war? >> well, of course. i've been just saying about this illegal actions against russian property in washington and new york, about extraditing russian diplomats and all that stuff. >> jenna: curious your thoughts on that, you worked in russia and for nato, would you describe our relationship in the
same terms? >> i hate to agree with eight putin spokesman, but i do not think he's entirely wrong. their relationship in many ways is more risky and more dangerous than it was since the height of the cold war. i would think you have to go back to the early '60s defined a more dangerous time, the cuban missile crisis, the berlin crisis that led to the building of the berlin wall. we achieved a little more productively later on in the cold war, reach arms control agreements at least in europe, we observed certain rules of the game, but now with president putin having chopped off a piece of ukraine by force, waging this illegal insurgency in eastern ukraine, we do not operate on the same basis. we have different rules. we have rules, the russians have basically torn up the rulebook. in that sense, it is very dangerous and unstable. we do need to get on with defining a strategy toward russia. to do that, we need to work with congress, our allies who can be
a source of strength so we can get russia to start playing by the rules again. that is the big challenge. >> jenna: you see that as a possibility? what mistakes can we not make based on your experience that you have seen past administrations, republican and democrat both make? >> i think it is possible. i think president trump and his efforts to rebuild our military strength, to work with allies, now come out more in favor of nato, we have the basis to engage with russia and tried to convince them to climb down from this position of being lawbreakers number one. but we have to be very careful to verify that the russians deliver on things that they say. the old ronald reagan axiom of trust but verify, and we need to look at the facts as they are on the ground and not with the russian sometimes say in their propaganda. for example, they say they don't
have any troops in eastern ukraine, but of course, they have thousands. they just pretend that they are locals, but the russians are running the show there, they keep pumping and more very sophisticated weapons. >> jenna: i hate to interrupt you but we will get cut off by commercial. ambassador, great to have your expertise, we value it. thank you. get everywhere else, like claim free rewards... or safe driving bonus checks. oh yes.... even a claim satisfaction guaranteeeeeeeeeee! in means protection plus unique extras only from an expert allstate agent. it's good to be in, good hands.
>> i am melissa francis. we have breaking news about who from the obama administration requested the unmasking of names of trump's transition officials, and who else had access to that information? our own adam housley will be life at the top with the details plus we are awaiting the white house briefing where that could be one of many hot topics. we are also awaiting the senate judiciary committee vote on neil gorsuch's which should come down in our hour on
"america's newsroom hq," so don't touch that remote. >> jon: a tactic used by immigration and customs enforcement officers is now coming under fire. judges on the west coast are criticizing i.c.e. officers for arresting illegal immigrants at local courthouses. dan springer has the details from seattle. >> the law is differently on the side of i.c.e., nothing prohibits agents for making everest at local courthouses but that has not stopped to state supreme court justices from writing letters to the department of homeland security asking that i.c.e. stay away from the courts. california's chief justice even went so far as to accuse i.c.e. of stocking people at court buildings. washington states top delectable judge asked for them to treat courthouses like schools and hospitals, and while it has happened in the past, judges and lawyers believe the practices on the rise since president trump took office and critics say is having a chilling effect on the entire justice system because some people including victims
and witnesses are not showing u up. >> it is compromising that basic constitutional duties of the court. the court's constitutional duties are to ensure a fair and just process for everybody. >> attorney general jeff sessions responded to the california chief justice on friday, slamming her for the stocking allegation, calling it irresponsible. he also said she should take her complaints to the politicians who approved sanctuary city loss because he says jails ignoring i.c.e. detainer requests is really driving the need to arrest criminal aliens at the courts. >> their job is to administer the law fairly and without political bias, and this is an area where they need to step back into their role as judges. >> i.c.e. does not track arrest locations so officials say they cannot tell us arrest at courthouses really is up or not. >> jon: thank you. we are back in a moment.
come close, come close. i like that. [ all sounds come to a crashing halt ] ah. when your pain reliever stops working, your whole day stops. awww. try this. for minor arthritis pain, only aleve is fda approved to work for up to 12 straight hours with just one pill. thank you. come on everybody. aleve. live whole. not part.
>> jon: well thank you for joining us today. >> jenna: american news hq starts right now. >> sandra: a fox news alert. we are awaiting the white house daily briefing with sean spicer, amidst the jam-packed day with breaking news. i'm melissa francis. the senate judiciary committee about to vote on moving the judge gorsuch supreme court nomination to the senate floor. as the chamber appears likely headed to nuclear showdown. this comes amid developments on the investigation into russian meddling in the 2016 election. with the house intelligence committee now getting ready to hold a closed door meeting. and we get some new information about the unmasking of names. adam housely is live in los angeles with that part of the story. adam, what can you tell us? >> reporter: yeah, melissa. the story was coming out friday. we're getting much more details now.