tv Outnumbered FOX News October 18, 2017 9:00am-10:00am PDT
central to moving the economy forward in his opinion. >> jon: all right. so thank you for joining us. >> melissa: here we go. it was a busy hour. i love that. i'll see you tomorrow. >> >> sandra: fox news alert. our nation's top law enforcement officials on the hot seat today as we been showing you attorney general jeff sessions it was some tough questions from his former colleagues during a routine oversight hearing. if senators drilling him on everything from his conversations with president trump to conspire in a former fbi director james comey grade his hard-line stance on this cremation and anti-immigration laws. this is "outnumbered." i'm sandra smith in here today, harris faulkner. former deputy spokesperson for the state department marie harf and today's #oneluckyguy, fox news, sr., judicial analyst judge andrew napolitano. it is great to have you here.
>> andrew: a pleasure to be with you guys. some of it happening under our noses. >> sandra: you been watching every minute of it so let's get started. attorney general jeff sessions going before the senate judiciary committee for the first time as our nation's top law enforcement official. lawmakers questioning him on everything from the travel ban to immigration to voting rights and russia. chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge is live from capitol hill. >> sandra, we are entering our three of this oversight hearing here on capitol hill and they've been covering the waterfront, immigration, daca, the opioid crisis but there is one issue that republicans and democrats have agreed on. they wanted more answers from the attorney general about his role and knowledge of the firing of the former fbi director james comey. because the american people have a right to know why he was fired. especially in the middle of so many high profile issues going on including the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election.
>> it's important, i believe, to understand what role you have in this process. including conversations with the president and others in the white house. for the last hour, democrat senior said that he felt sessions had misled the committee about his contacts with the russian, the attorney general said there may have been casual contacts or conversations with the russian ambassador but there was no coordination for collusion with the russians to help the trump campaign. we also had a series of questions from the senior ranking democrat on the committee, dianne feinstein. she wanted to know from the attorney general whether the president had ever discussed lifting the russian cloud that hung over his administration in reference to the firing and many of these issues he could not discuss because of the confidential nature of those conversations. >> i can neither assert
executive privilege nor can i disclose today the content of my confidential conversations with the president. under the administration of both parties, it is well-established that a president is entitled to have private confidential communication. >> around the house intelligence committee, we've had a significant develop in this morning with two of the principles from the operation research firm fusion gps. fusion gps matters because it was the firm that commissioned the unverified anti-trump a dossier that was one of the linchpins that kick started the fbi russia investigation last year. thomas could tan, two of the principles and fusion have been behind closed doors of the house intelligence committee and they have taken the fifth to every question that was posed to them about their role in putting that dossier together. clint simpson who is one of the
founders of fusion gps is under subpoena to appear before the committee at a later date but based on everything we have learned from his communications to the committee through his attorney, they do expect him to also take the fifth. a couple of things that jumped out at the sessions hearing this morning is that on some of these really key issues whether it's the clinton email case, or it's the russia case, attorney general said that he has knocked himself out of the box on this. during his confirmation hearing, he said he would not get involved in the clinton email investigation because the statements he had made during the campaign about the clinton email case and then onto russia, he has also recused himself so those decisions largely he said rested -- completely rested rather with the activity to the back. >> sandra: thank you. let's dig right into this. this particular point, the attorney general defending the firing of the former fbi director james comey.
>> andrew: is very frustrated to the senators in both parties and to those of us watching when he doesn't give an answer. but the answer he's giving of the is the right one. the president is entitled to know that he can speak to his cabinet officers without the press or the public or another branch of government intruding into that conversation. so i'm yearning for an answer, i'm wishing he would give us some sort of answer. did you decide to fire him or to the president ask you to come up with a reason to justify the firing? the attorney general has given the right answer. having said that, the president gave three versions of firing fg him. i don't like the way he handled it. two, the russian thing. three, he has showboating a hot dog and the president's words, not mine. can you drag the attorney general into this mack know. why did the democrats wanted to drag him into this? because one of these is a great interest to bob mueller and that
is the russian thing. so what they want to get jeff sessions to say is donald trump told me to do something to stop the russian investigations, but he's not going to answer that because even if the president said it, the president is entitled to have that kind of conversation kept secret. >> marie: let me ask you a question. bob mueller has interviewed jeff sessions or talk to him. can he ask him in a closed interview to divulge that information? >> andrew: s, and if he refuses, it has happened, bring him before a grand jury and if he refuses there, they can get a federal judge to order him to answer because a grand jury proceeding is secret. before dozens of president have the authority regardless of what the reason is to fire him so was in at the heart of the answer right there? >> andrew: it is. the mother investigation is to determine whether that authority was used, i'm going to use the language of the statute, corrupt purpose.
if it was used for corrupt purpose, an example would be to get the fbi off of my back, then it would be an improper use of that authority and that might be a part of the puzzle of whatever muller is putting together. space we will keep monitoring this hearing. meanwhile attorney jeff sessions defended the travel ban today but he did so after two judges ruled against president trump's version of the band. it would've barred certain people from syria, libya, iran, yemen, chad, somalia, north korea, and venezuela from coming into the country. first a federal judge in hawaii temporarily blocked it from going into effect for all of those countries except for north korea and venezuela. it plainly discriminate based on nationality. a second judge in maryland also blocking at writing it in his the initial announcement of the muslim ban offered repeatedly and especially through president trump's own statement forcefully and persuasively expressed his purpose in
unequivocal terms. again, new restrictions on travel from north korea and venezuela were not impacted. the white house is planning to appeal saying in a statement blocking the band from going to affect undercuts the president's efforts to keep the american people safe and enforces minimum security standards for entry. a lot to get to her. >> andrew: we examine them upstairs before the show started and these judges have begun to call it the muslim ban. which is a very, very unusual for the judiciary to be so disrespectful. >> harris: or political. the disrespect is one thing. that falls in the category. >> andrew: here's a mistake that the government made, and i've never seen this in the years that i was there. the government said to the judge, federal judge in maryland we have a report from the department of homeland security demonstrating how dangerous the like propensity of refugees from
this country and the report also shows how the danger would be diminished if we block everybody from coming in except for those have have bona fide relationships. the judge, let me see the repor report. the u.s. attorney. we are not showing it to you. now i've never seen that before. the judge will examine the report in what we call in camera, in secret, and private and see if they come to the conclusion that they says it comes to credit by not showing him the report, the judge concludes quite properly so he stopped the order for the band from coming into effect. >> harris: we've got a lot of judges. we're glad we have one on the couch. let me just put that out there. how would you have looked at that differently though? what you are saying is the judge wasn't given all of the information that he needed to see, i.e. the report. before i would've ordered them, would've ordered them to give them to me. >> harris: why didn't they do that? >> andrew: the rule of thumb is if they have evidence that they say will help them and they don't produce it, you assume
that it would not help them. otherwise they went. >> marie: which is common sense and i think the other thing that shows yet again that president trump's statements including his tweets do have consequences. and i'm not saying they should or shouldn't legally, you're the expert on that, i'm not, but clearly these judges entered into evidence and they've put in the ruling that how could they not listen to some of the things he said as he was describing this travel ban? >> andrew: should have the president be treated differently when he's in office then what he said of when he a candidate? >> harris: them he had to what you're saying. if you are saying that his tweets have an efficacy in all of this and they are effective as shaping the message then if they are using labels like muslim ban, they are watching other media. they are getting information coming from everywhere. in all fairness, they're going to get it from everywhere, then how can you single out one? >> marie: which is a key difference here because the light has had to come out and say yes, those are official.
before my understanding of this as they have done an extensive review on document sharing from other countries and have determined what they deem appropriate from these countries, they share that information with them. if they did not comply, then they got put on this list ready get places like north korea, places like somalia where they had a massive terror attack a couple of days ago. and my question to you judges how is of legally different than president obama taking a 2015 law, expanding upon it, and adding various countries to it? >> andrew: the religious aspect to it would be upheld by this court. >> harris: we've got a lot of judges. glad we have our own. >> sandra: the republican budget taking center stage today. it has to pass to pave the way for the republican tax reform plan. one of the party and the white house are going to be able to actually get it done. and if they don't, what happens next? and new calls for former fbi
in just two weeks! i'll take that. -yeeeeeah! ensure high protein. with 16 grams of protein and 4 grams of sugar. ensure. always be you. >> tech: don't wait for a chip like this to crack your whole windshield. with safelite's exclusive resin, you get a strong repair that you can trust. plus, with most insurance a safelite repair is no cost to you. >> customer: really?! >> singers: safelite repair, safelite replace.
>> harris: we want to go back to capitol hill now. a senator al franken is talking with the attorney general jeff sessions about russia and whether or not he has meeting and part of that original conversation on the hill. let's watch together. >> at any time to discuss any political campaign. on twitter, you said "i never met with any russian officials to discuss issues of the campaign" so confronted with the truth, you started to qualify your answer. later in the letter you sent to this committee to clarify your testimony and to disclose two of your three meetings, you wrote "i do not recall any discussions with the russian ambassador." or any other representative of the russian government regarding the political campaign on these
occasions or any other occasion." this summer, "the washington post" reported that american intelligence agencies intercepted communications between the russian ambassador in moscow in which he described two of his conversations with you. the april meeting at the mayflower hotel and the july meeting at the republican national convention citing both former and current u.s. officials, the intercepts reportedly indicate that you had "substantive" discussions on quality policy matters important to moscow. intelligence reports, the investor was well known for accurately delaying his interactions with u.s. officials back to the kremlin. attorney general sessions in response to this report, the justice department declined to comment on the veracity of the
intelligence intercepts but doj did assert that you did "not discuss interference in the election." which is also how you described your communications to the senate intelligence committee. so again, the goal post has been moved. first, it was i did not have communications with russians, which was not true. then it was i never met with any russians to discuss any political campaign. which may not or may not be tru true. i did not discuss interference in the campaign. which further narrows your initial blanket denial about meeting with the russians. since you have qualified your denial to say that you did not "discuss issues of the campaign with the russians," what, in your view, constitutes issues of
the campaign? >> let me just say this without hesitation that i conducted no improper discussions with russians at any time regarding a campaign or any other item facing this country. let me say that first. that's been the suggestion that you raised and others that somehow we had conversations that were improper. you had a long time, senator franken prayed i'd like to respond. >> senator cruz went 2 minutes over. they're going to cut me off. i want to ask you some question questions. >> i'm not that chairman fred i don't have to sit in here and listen. >> you're the one who testified prayed >> without having a
chance to respond. give me a break. >> thank you. go ahead. >> it was not a simple question, senator franken. it was not a simple question. the lead-in to your question was very, very troubling, and i answered to you in a way that i felt was responsive to what you raised in your question. let me read it to you. you said "cnn has just published a story," meaning that day, while we were in the hearing. that i had never heard about. and i am telling you this about this new story that has just been published. i'm not expecting you to know whether or not it's true, but cnn just published a story alleging that the intelligence community of the united states
of america provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that "russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about mr. mr. trump." you went on to say these documents also allegedly say "there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trumps surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government." now, again, i am telling you this as it's coming out, but if it's true, it's obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the trump campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do? so taken aback by this dramatic statement that i've never heard before and knew nothing about, i
responded this way. senator franken, i'm not aware of those activities. i have been called a surrogate a time or two in this campaign, and i did not have communications with the russians, and i'm unable to comment on it. i don't think that can fairly be interpreted as saying i never had conversations with any russians. it was referring directly to the suggestion that there was a continuing exchange of information between trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government, which is not happen, at least not to my knowledge and not with me. and that's why i responded the way i do. i am disappointed, yes, you can say what you want to about the accuracy of it, but i think it was a good faith response to a dramatic event at the time. i don't think it's fair for you
to suggest otherwise. >> 3 minutes and then finish. >> he took more than 3 minutes. >> took about two and a half. >> how much do you want? i don't want to spend time bargaining with here. the guy didn't take as much time as senator franken prayed >> let me just deal with senator franken prayed three more minutes please. >> first of all, you said i didn't have communications with the russians. this is about ongoing communications, you had three communications and now you can't recall answering senator leahy, you can can't recall what you discussed with him.
>> go ahead. you go and make a lot of allegations, it's hard for me to respond. >> can i have a little bit more time? okay. you've said today in response to senator leahy that you don't recall whether you talked about the campaign, you don't recall whether you talked about issues and trump's views on issues with russia. those are very, very relevant to the campaign. whether a surrogate from the campaign is talking with the russian ambassador about the candidates' view on russian policy, especially at the republican national convention
at the mayflower hotel the day before trump is going to give his first maiden speech on foreign policy? that's a very different not being able to recall what you discussed with him is very different than saying i have not had communications with the russians. the ambassador from russia is russian. and how your -- how your responses more from i did not have communications with the russians to i did not discuss substantive -- i did not discuss any political campaigns, and then finally going to i did not discuss interference in the
election, that to me is moving the goal post every time. and we are starting off with that and by the end, we are going to a 75-yard field goal. if it has to be us, saying i didn't discuss interfering with the election is your last statement, that's a very different bar than i can tell you i did not meet with any russians. >> so he got to do about 10 minutes and properly framing this and i'm giving a short chance to respond? >> proceed please. >> first and foremost, senator franken, you and i have had a good relationship on this committee. i would tell my colleagues i think most of you know i've
committed myself to high level of public service to reach the highest standards of ethics and decency in my service to be honest about things that i say. so you have now gone through this long talk that i believe is totally unfair to me. it all arose from this question. when it was charged that these documents allegedly say "there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between trumps surrogates,," as if all of them, trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the russian government. as in that what you said? said trump's surrogates. he didn't say some of. it said his surrogates. and i felt the need to respond. and i responded on the spot,
we've been six hours in the hearing. end of the day and i said i'm not aware of those activities. and i wasn't. and i am not. i don't believe they occurred. and i said i have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and i did not have communications with the russians. i am unable to comment on it. i was talking about a surrogate in the campaign, i didn't have continuing exchange of information. so now everything else, now you take that and say if i ever met with the russian and not been candid with the committee and i reject that. >> in general thanks for being here. it was some drama there. sorry to have added to the drama and distracted from it. i dumped a doctor pepper on senator cruz so that's what was distracting us on the side of the dais. i would like to continue talking about the russians but in the context of the long-term
objectives that vladimir putin has to undermine american instant issues and on the public trust, obviously the 2016 election matters a lot and there were multiple ongoing investigations about that. i'm trying to talk about something slightly different. the longer term that they have because anybody who reads intelligence beyond the prism of who you voted for in the 2016 election of what you happen in the 2016 election, as important as all of that is, anybody who reads intelligence knows that we face a sophisticated long-term effort by a foreign adversary to undermine our foreign policy and our ability to lead in the world by trying to undermine confidence in american institutions. there is nobody who is reading intelligence right now but doesn't know that vladimir putin has that objective. so this shouldn't be -- this part shouldn't be a republican versus democratic issue. vladimir putin is an opportunist which means that any partisan or ideological alignment he has a
temporary prayed he wants to undermine america and every patriotic american ought to be concerned about that. he listened to certain news outlets and it sounds like there's a russian behind everything that's happening in america, and it is laughable but you listen to other news outlets and it's the case that vladimir putin is someone that we should trust and he has america's best interest at heart which is more absurd. so i think we know again people who are reading intelligence know that russia is going to be back in 2018. they're going to be back in 2020 and they have goals to undermine american democratic, republican, institutions and to undermine our confidence in these institutions and to exacerbate american on american hatred. we live in a time where info ops and propaganda and misinformation are far more cost-effective way for people to try to weaken the united states of america then by saying they can outspend us at a military level though we are under investing in a lot of military hardware and long-term planning.
so at the nation's chief law enforcement officer and as a supervisor of multiple components of our intelligence community, i am curious about your views on this issue and i want to ask you a series of questions. the first is, do you think we are doing enough to prepare for future interference by russia and other foreign adversaries in the information space? >> probably not. we are not. and the matter is so complex that for most of us we are not able to fully grasp the technical dangers that are out there read we have commercial penetration to some of our trading partners. we've got disruption in interference by russians officials people. when it requires a review. >> so under your leadership, what concrete steps has a department taken or should the department take to learn the
lessons of 2016 for the purposes of fighting against future foreign election interference? >> we are looking at a number of things. we specifically intensely reviewed as a commercial interference and theft of trade secrets and important data on information that some private companies have spent decades developing hundreds of millions of dollars and have it stolen in the moment. and we've got indictments that deal as some of those the national security division of the department of justice has gotten some really talented people. the fbi has a good a group of experts on sophisticated computer technology as probably exists in the world, but whether we are at the level we need to be yet, i don't think so. >> listing was between two things. the first is, i think you were
asked earlier if you have confidence in the january 62017 intelligence community assessment of russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 election. >> i acknowledge that in my confirmation. i have no reason to deny that. because you have confidence in the integrity and the professionalism of the men and women of the intelligence community. >> yes. is because they may be an issue about whether or not our pipeline is robust enough. we have enough people coming into the national security division. if you are arriving at doj today is the attorney general and you you are going to focus for "the first 100 days" you're there, talk is there a little bit about how you would prioritize in that space because my view is that we are investing way too little in the pipeline to be ready for offensive and defensive aspects of cyber at large but especially info ops and misinformation campaign. speak of the campaign is
something that i'm not sure we are at the bottom of yet. i need to continue to be examined. when i was on armed services committee, i got legislation passed to review our entire defense department situation to see how vulnerable we are there. and we have many vulnerabilities and are defense department and our missile systems perhaps. and then we've got the commercial penetration that we have some cases that ongoing now that validate that concern quite clearly. >> that is looking chiefly at current hardware and software exposures and retrospectively, but you think the department of justice has a proactive role in looking at hardening our democratic process? >> i think you make a valuable point. if the legislation had thoughts on that, i'd be glad to hear it.
i'm not sure we have a specific review underway. at this point in time. of course, most of this has to be coordinated with the intelligence community, nsa, cia, director of national intelligence. >> i appreciate your responsiveness to me on a number of other issues so i will follow-up with you in a less public form about that. i'm nearly had time and i won't ask for president of the 13 minutes and 20 seconds mr. chairman of the questioning that preceded me pretty but if i could run over by 30 seconds. i would like to just draw to your attention, general, the fact that we have a number of crimes committed by illegal aliens in nebraska, some of these are some of the most heartrending crimes you can imagine, but i want to point out that this isn't just a case of cherry picking particularly isolated bad apples. we know that some of the crimes that we are dealing with
committed by illegal aliens in the country are dealing with threats that are posed in particular by transnational organizations like ms-13. i've got a series of questions i like to ask you about that but because we are at time, i'm going to pivot to would you commit to coordinating a briefing for my team and me on the financing and payment systems used by some of these transnational criminal gangs? >> we would be glad to. transnational criminal organizations has been given to us by the president as a priority for us in prosecutions and particularly ms-13, and we are giving great attention to it and we will be pleased to discuss it with you. >> i wanted to ask for your accommodation for it i was going to call on senator coons and senator tillis. >> harris: we have been watching some of the most fiery moments now of the senate judiciary committee hearing that you see attorney general jeff sessions there to left testifying at today. most recently, we were watching
the nebraska senator ben sasse, and he brought up a lot of issues that have to do in particular outside of the scope of russia, which is where got really heated and he and the ag just talked about getting together to discuss some things that are important to the state. let's pull away from this for now. we have judge andrew napolitano as our #oneluckyguy today and free counsel to us today. we appreciate we won't be getting the bill because believe me when i tell you this is expertise to parse some of the stuff. no matter which side of the political aisle of your arm, al franken and jeff sessions went at it. >> andrew: they did and senator franken asked the most aggressive, most poignant and most challenging questions for the attorney general. in the attorney general is in a little bit of a box. he's already the attorney general, he doesn't need their approval to stay in office, but he knows, he is sworn to tell the truth. he also knows he cannot mislead them. so sometimes, telling a sterile
brief truth can leave a misleading interpretation in the mind of the questioner. that is an independent crime. misleading congress and they can't do that. so senator franken asked a five-part question and general sessions answers three of the parts as you can see, the other two he didn't address. some of this is for political consumption back home in minnesota. others, if it makes you wonder is jeff sessions tongue-tied or can he get anything out? >> harris: while we are it was going on, to be say does he need personal counsel and you said yes why? >> andrew: i think he needs an unbiased nonjustice department right legal mind to help him sift through some of these things. it wouldn't be unprecedented. >> harris: it continues and we will dip in and out as it makes news obviously pretty president taught meanwhile is treating that new documents show fired
>> harris: a calls for fired fbi director james comey to return to congress and testify prayed about new documents showing comey began drafting a letter on his conclusion in the hillary clinton email program months before interviewing several key witnesses including hillary clinton. house oversight committee trey gowdy among those demanding answers. speak of the chronology does not add up.
his answers have been all over the map. both the intelligence committee and the clip you displayed from oversight. so we need to talk to him again. >> harris: here is the exchange that he was referring to back in september of last year. >> did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges related to classified information before or after the reclaim ten was interviewed by the fbi on july the second? >> after prayed >> on going to need your help on understanding how that's possible. to me, the only way the interview takes place with the two central witnesses and the subject of the investigation is if the decision has already been made that all three people in that room are not going to be charged. >> harris: meanwhile, president trump just as morning tweeted "well met, fbi confirms report that james comey drafted letter exonerating crooked hillary long before investigation was complete. many people not interviewed,
including clinton herself. comey stated under oath that he didn't do this. obviously affixed. where is justice department? "so blunt. >> andrew: this was raised in the hearing with general sessions earlier saying there were more problems with jim comey's decision not to seek it. if there were problems, than the justice department should examine those problems and do something about it. if the president wants the justice department to follow the evidence, take jim coming out of it, look at the evidence and follow it, is it enough to seek an indictment or is it enough to exonerate? >> harris: do you think you'll do that? >> andrew: i don't know if you'll do so because he prefers to communicate via tweet. i have to explain the significance of james comey drafting and exoneration letter before all the evidence is in. and i will tell you, this happens all the time. it's like a candidate on the
morning of election writing a victory speech at a concession speech and you don't know way it's going to go. in the case of a criminal investigation where a federal prosecutor, they usually know at the beginning of the investigation was going to end up in they look for evidence to support his conclusions. before i think the problem that chairman gaudi does and others do to is that you have comey basically testifying that he intentionally leaked information which the hill has reported basically break in same protocols he criticized hillary clinton to force a special counsel investigation when his own credibility is called into question given the fact that he has given testimony that seems to be contradictory to other things that he has said, not to mention the fact that he said he leaked the information after president trump tweeted. if you look at and "new york times" articles giving that memo his friend prior to when he said he did. and there's another layer of this as well, well as not gettg discussed pretty catherine herridge brought it to the attention of the beginning
of the show but the role of fusion gps, what they played in that dossier into a lot of the russian investigation as well. >> harris: being one of the things that trigger the investigation. >> andrew: like you, i will be very anxious to hear his answers when they bring him back as i'm sure they will. but he's probably going to say when you asked me, i had a predilection which way was going to go. >> harris: with that answer be okay? >> andrew: it would not only be okay, it would standard operating position. >> marie: i'm not going to defend jim comey. have him testify again. i'd love to hear some of his answers. but the judge hit on a key point that this is not unusual. if this could standard operating procedure when there are more important issues of things to be focusing on right now. >> harris: is having a short time ago and because it is in real time today, it gives us an opportunity to see what the
attorney general has to say about this. let's watch it. >> i don't think it's been a fully understood the significance of the error that mr. comey made on the clinton matter. for the first time i'm aware of and all of my experience and i don't think i've heard of the situation in which a major case in which the department of justice prosecutors were involved in investigations that the investigative agency announces the closure of the investigation. >> harris: judge? >> andrew: so general sessions, do something about it. he reopened the investigation and reevaluate the evidence. if it was wrong for jim comey to make the decision not to prosecute, and i have harshly criticized comey for it, tell us what the evidence is. >> lisa: you mention standard operating procedures for these individuals to come to a conclusion prior to some of the
interviews, is it standard operating procedure when we've seen a comey give contradictory information under oath to essentially lie under oath to the extent that he has? >> andrew: of course not. before i knew what the answer was going to be. >> marie: let's not forget ivanka and jared recently were found to have that up a private email server and use their personal emails to do government business. let's look at that. we have to have the same rules for everyone. >> than they did delete tens of thousands of emails? my understanding is they also gave a statement. speech is a legal answer is yes, it is, they just have to disclose that they are using that. didn't they turn those emails over? i believe they did.
>> andrew: where is commissioner football today? when we are waiting to hear from nfl commissioner roger caddell as the meeting is wrapping up in this after the leak decided yesterday it would not require players to stand during our national anthem. how will this go over with fans and the president with plenty of thoughts on it as you know already. we will bring you what's happening out of that meeting live. stay close.
>> sandra: we are waiting roger goodell at a news conference happening in new york city. obviously, any news coming out of that is going to be incredibly important for this story. if judge andrew napolitano sitting on the couch with us today, but this is after the decision not to require nfl players to stand for the national anthem. of they suggest they do so but it will not be a requirement. and so we will go to roger caddell about what you expect? >> andrew: i expected nfl owners will make a business judgment and the choices between impairing revenue because taking the knee though in my view constitutionally protected is unpopular with their base and punishing their best players who may not produce the best work, and their business judgment is probably going to be what you want. ps, networks, don't put the
cameras on them at this point. but the cameras elsewhere do not make a big deal out of it. that's it i think the compromise is going to be but i'm very interested to see how he answers this. >> sandra: the president's morning tweeting the nfl has is that it will not force players to stand for the playing of our national anthem. total disrespect for our great country. >> marie: he's been trying to make it a question of patriotism and the players say that's not what it's about. it's about raising awareness of certain social issues that they want to talk about. so the nfl were to try to middle test with us and we want you to send that were not going to force you to and we are going to help our country have a conversation about these issues, i think that would be splitting the down the middle where the players will be happy and maybe some of the businesses. >> sandra: the nfl is not a political entity. i think roger goodell has proven himself to be a complete and utter joke when he absent absolute double standard in the nfl and collin capra nick is able to wear socks without being
punished depicting cops as pigs. players allowed to go on the field with fictitious arguments of hands up don't shoot. set it up and is going to be happening at any moment. we'll go to it when it begins live. more "outnumbered" in just a moment. [bell rings] so i was at mom and dad's and found this. cd's, baseball cards... your old magic set? and this wrestling ticket... which you still owe me for. seriously? $25 i didn't even want to go. ahhh, your diary. "mom says it is totally natural..." $25 is nothing. abracadabra, bro. the bank of america mobile banking app. the fast, secure and simple way to send money. one nation in all of human history was built on that bedrock, ours.
few seconds left. >> try to be here no matter how combative it can get. >> sandra: what do you mean, judge? we're back tomorrow at 12:00 eastern. >> harris: democrats now are grilling attorney general jeff sessions on a host of issues today. from russia to immigration, from civil rights to james comey the former fbi director. even on sessions' private conversations with the president. let's go "outnumbered overtime." that hearing is in a break for the next 30 minutes. you'd have to go as far back as january for the last time jeff sessions appeared before the judiciary committee. that was for his confirmation hearing. democrats, ready to pounce on a host of issues, including the private conversations the attorney general had with president trump. here it is. >> did the president ever mention to you his concern about ft