tv Outnumbered Overtime With Harris Faulkner FOX News June 26, 2018 10:00am-11:00am PDT
it's it was a lovely when you're here and thank you so much for making "outnumbered" a part of your day. we are back on couch tomorrow at noon eastern. here is the one and only melissa francis. >> melissa: a landmark supreme court decision today upholding president trump's travel ban. this is "outnumbered" over time. i'm melissa francis in for harris faulkner. the high court in a 5-4 decision ruling that the president does have the authority under the law to regulate immigration in the interest of national security. several mostly muslim countries is discriminatory. president trump releasing a statement saying in part that the ruling is "a moment of profound vindication of the following months of commentary from the media and democratic politicians who refuse to do what it takes to secure our border and our country." but democrats on capitol hill immediately blasting the
decision. here is illinois senator dick durbin. >> we need to keep out every dangerous person who tries to come to this country but you can't categorically ban people because of their religion or background or the country there from, is not the ways we should do things. >> melissa: with the latest on this, shannon. >> via a 5-4 decision didn't feel the same way that senator durbin does. the chief justice said the tax of this proclamation said nothing about religion and he said you've got to remember, that it only impacts 8% of the worlds muslim population so if that's the band, it's not very effective. he also writes this about the president's power. "the proclamation is expressly premised on preventative purposes or venting entry of nationals that can't be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to approve their practices." while the conservatives down the president was lawfully within his executive power on both the federal immigration law and the
text of the so-called travel ban, there were two separate strong defenses including one by justice sotomayor who said "the majority is wrong to ignore the statements president made on the campaign trail when he was a candidate. she wrote this, the president's statement with the majority failed to address and strongly supported the conclusion that the proclamation was issued to address hostility towards muslim vetting that exclude them from the country." the critics of the band and you can hear a lot of them here demonstrating speaking out now. >> melissa: shannon bream, thank you so much. going to go to the white house right now we're getting comments from the president on this very thing. he is going to talk a little bit about the travel ban and the supreme court's decision today, let's listen in. >> president trump: thank you very much, everybody. if you have probably all seen, otherwise he wouldn't be at the
top of your game, the fact that in today's supreme court ruling just coming out, a tremendous success, a tremendous victory for the americane. and for our constitution. this is a great victory for our titutio. we have to be tough and we have to be safe and we have to be secure at a minimum, we have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country. we know who's coming in, we know where they're coming from. we just have to know who's coming here. the ruling shows that all of the attacks from the media and the democrat politicians are wrong and they turned out to be very wrong and what we are looking for is republicans i can tell you is strong borders, no crime. but the democrats are looking at his open borders which will bring tremendous crime. it will bring ms-13 and lots of others that we don't want to have in our country. if they will bring tremendous
crime. so i will always be defending the sovereignty, the safety and security of the american people, that's who i was put here with discussing today, the funding of the wall which we very much nee need. spending a lot of energy and a lot of time and started up in san diego and other places, under construction now, $1.6 billion but we are going to ask for an increase in wall spending so we can finish it quicker. it stops the drugs, stops people that we don't want to have and it gives us security and safety and with that, i think we might just take a quick spin around the room, talk to a couple of folks and may be a senator i'll ask you, you want to say a couple of words about why we are here and what we are doing? >> melissa: that was the president of the united states obviously talking about the
supreme court decision today and in big support of it. let's bring in a republican congressman serves on the house judiciary committee first of all, you want to respond to the president's words there? >> i think the president understands that he has been given back clear resounding victory of his national security authority and that's what chief justice roberts was pointing out is is a valid national security interest there, the president's order was narrow and it address that, obviously, the same time, they were rejecting the religious claim since only 8% of the world's muslims were there and in fact, iraq improved their system for verification and that was the goal was wherever possible to improve it. but in war-torn syria, there is very little likelihood in the near future we are going to be able to properly vet if people are who they claim they are and that's exactly what the supreme court recognized and rejected the claims that many of
the people have made a remember, during the same period of time, we welcome refugees and immigrants from all over the world, a great many of them of that. >> melissa: as his decision comes down, a lot of people think that either you or the president would be thinking this clears the way for what next? >> i think it clears the way for targeted executive orders and executive action to protect our borders both literally and figuratively. and at the same time, this administration is working very, very hard to stabilize syria and to deal with terrorism and with the refugee crisis. i just left king abella a matter of 5 minutes ago the number one reason he's here is to try to get a syrian refugee solution that the united states can take a leadership role on because more than any other place, that the largest displacement since world war ii of any nation.
>> melissa: radio stand on the immigration bill right now in a house? this is the thing that's top of mind for anyone on the outside looking in. are you going to be able to get a deal together? >> my entire 18 years of service have been trying to get to things done. when is a real reform that changed a broken immigration system that rewards accidental application rather than merit. and that's part of what this bill does. at the same time, also helps strengthen the border, adds e-verify, a good idea but not yet mandated, mak it mandated and all of that will both strengthen our ability to hold our borders from illegal immigration but help resolve the sins of the past dealing with daca and so on. so there's a lot of good things in the bill. everyone has a reason to vote no but there's a reason to try to get to yes. >> melissa: are there enough votes in the house right now to get to yes?
>> if democrats who wanted to vote for this bill because of the good things that were in it were allowed to buy nancy pelosi and the other leadership on the democratic side, we would easily get there whether we can get to 218 republicans, 215 right now republicans necessary to do it is questionable. that's a big question. >> melissa: that sounds like no. >> i believe we have a real chance to get to it. i'm continuing to work a month there are additional things added to try to bring more republicans but again, if just a few democrats would look and say i will participate, i want to be heard and i will participate, this would be quite easy to do and most immigration reform should be and can be bipartisan but it's the democrat leadership that has made it painful for any democrat to cross lines on this issue. >> melissa: what change do thing is to be made in order to get enough votes? if he were to get those last few republicans, what tinkering do you think would have to happen in order to get that done? >> the president has shown leadership and saying daca is on
the table and i think all 200 and however republicans do agree that it's within the president's rights so they're all buying into some sort of daca fix. and it's the enforcement side and perhaps not enough in the way of guest worker programming for some of the middle but i think we can get there, certainly the addition of an agricultural guest worker program was important for a lot of moderates and a lot of members from form states like california, but we are doing this from no help from the democrats which is just wrong because they want so much of what's in here including the daca fix. >> melissa: thank you. fox news senior digital analyst judge andrew napolitano joins us now. let me take you back to the actual decision and what was said by the supreme court. it's almost amazing to me that a group of justices can look at a law, the same words in the paper and interpret the constitutionality of it so differently.
>> two things, some justices interpret the words of literally and justices interpret the words to encompass certain values and some justices want to look at words that aren't even on the paper. so the dissenters led by justice sotomayor or nice it say this as somebody who is a friend of hers were animated more by what candidate donald trump said when he was running for office, much of which was very incendiary about muslims than they were about what president donald trump wrote on the executive order. the majority led by chief justice roberts chose just to look at the words in the order, and those words conformed almost precisely to this constitutional is already and to the delegation to him to regulate control and even stopped immigration in order to answer national security. >> melissa: what you think the administration goes from here? no doubt there will be emboldened to a certain extent by this, with the next thing they tried to do?
>> is hard for me to say. this order has been in place since the supreme court last look flat it since april. at that point, the supreme court -- to april's ago, the supreme court said we are going to keep this in place until we can finally rule on it. and to be ruled with finality today. so someone could attempt to come and who is a muslim from one of those countries and file the complaint as to why the order doesn't apply to them. i've already been paid to give this speech for this lecture, look at my personal history. the judge might let them in. you can't challenge the order from being constitutional anymore. they can challenge whether or not it applies to them. will this embolden the president? it probably will. but that's smiling because we both know what he's like. that's really up to the creativity of his imagination
which can be pretty creative as to how he wants to use this. >> melissa: it makes me wonder, if congress is unable to move on the border than at that point, does he go to the executive order? >> he may try, but the supreme court opinion today i limited to rulings that a , are based on national security and b, where the congress has delegated the authority to him. the linchpin today is a federal statute in which congress specifically said and presidents have used this statute going back to eisenhower, and a president can after making the following findings danger to national security, the difficulty of weeding out the bad from the good block a group of people from a specific geographic location for national security reason for a finite period of time. whatever the president is going to do would have to fit into those four categories. >> melissa: seems like on the southern border, that's exactly where you can make those kind of arguments. >> the problem with the southern border is not those who are trying to get in legally, those that are trying to get in even
legally. so he is already using the authority including assistance from state reserves and national guard to shore up the southern border. this is not the case where it reflects his power in the southern border. if he wanted for example to ban all mexican immigrants for national security reasons, that would stop them from coming in legally but he still have this that been confronting in the past two weeks because of the separation of illegal immigration. this whole order only pertains to illegal immigration. >> melissa: does impact any other decisions that are out there right now or waiting to come up? doesn't make you look at anything else differently? >> there are many challenges to the executive order and judges were sitting on waiting for the supreme court to rule. whether those challenges can move forward depends upon what they're based on. if they're based on i'm different, i'm an exception, the court is going to hear the case. if this is the schism a muslim
man, they're not going to hear the case because of supreme court has ruled it's not a muslim ban. >> melissa: very interesting, judge andrew napolitano fabulous as always, thank you we are d no by california democrat john garamendi, the congressman who got a firsthand look at ice facilities, housing micro children over the weekend. let me start with your reaction to that. >> everything that america doesn't like about it is actually taking place. we saw in hardly a reception, actually it's a jail, a family sitting on a concrete floor, several eight or nine or ten of them and one thing that really caught my attention was a young girl, for five years of age just barely able to sit over the top of the concrete still in her jail cell and just tears streaming down her face, totally alone. it's a very, very bad situation at the ice detention facility which is a minimum security
prison similar to any other in the united states. there were mothers that had been separated from their children unable to get back in touch having no notion of where their children were. and unable to phone them because they didn't have any money in which to pay f thene call. it is a bad situation. it really hasn't ended, the zero-tolerance thing has created a different set of problems, the separations presumably are not going to continue on. but now we have a couple thousand children that need to be reunited. this is a major problem. >> melissa: what you see as a fix to this and also to the 80% of the kids that are in custody right now who came without their parents and are not here with anyone? >> that's been an ongoing problem. the unaccompanied minors. they do wind up somewhere in the united states for at least some period of time, some are sent back to the country from which they came, there is an ability to identify the families and so forth. others are finding their way here. there is a problem in those
states in the northern triangle, honduras, guatemala, and el salvador. that issue in those countries is going to have to be taken care of, otherwise these people are going to continue to seek something better to my something better states. >> melissa: what yo see as affixed to the facilities themselves? the president has talked about opening up military bases, would that be better? certainly don't want to just release children into the community worried because that is the case. there is a place for a family, a family unit to give a specific time to a court appearance. apparently, that is very, very successful and 90 to 100% of them show up for the court order. and they're either deported or they do obtain asylum. that's all possible. but the cages that we did see, that's just not right. they may be a very temporary by
the hour until they've moved up to a military base which would be far better, no doubt about it. >> melissa: ami ask about the supreme court ruling, what's your reaction to that? >> the supreme court looked at this not as a muslim ban but rather as a ban of certain countries where there apparently is an inability to determine whether a person seeking a visa is going to cause problems in the united states via terrorist, be it al qaeda member, whatever. and so in that context, the question comes down to can those countries provide the necessary information to the state department to identify who the individual is and that they are not a threat in the united states? apparently, we have in the current context a total ban on travel from those countries. my guess is that is going to be very quickly modified in several of those countries, maybe not all of them, yemen being one
example where the state department is able to gather efficient information about an individual, a grandmother that wants to come and see her grandchild here in the united states. is that grandmother a security risk? if yes, you don't get a visa. if you are not a security risk, come to united states. so there ought to be a determination with the state department to be able to determine with their local government that the person is or is not a security risk. that's a modification that could easily take place here and it would that it does happen. stay when they are countries that are on the list and they were able to prove that they could come up with background information that could work successfully with the state department including places like iraq. that makes you think that this doesn't have to do with religion, that it truly has to do with trying to communicate with where these people are coming from. >> presently, the supreme court order clearly doesn't deal with
religion. the problem is, they started during the campaign and then carried on into the early years of the trump administration where it was perceived. correctly or incorrectly without getting into that as a ban on muslims. and that created all this problem now. the president and his staff modify the rhetoric that dealt with countries who could not have assurances provide the necessary information about the individuals. that's clearly the case in yemen, iraq that is not the case any longer. syria is a mess, probably applies they are. it's what we really need to do here is to make certain that people seeking to come to united states to work on these visa programs or in a visitor visa or even a student visa that there is sufficient background information on that individual. >> melissa: it sounds like you agree with the ruling. it sounds like you agree with i
it. >> the gentleman, retired judge, i didn't get all of it, he went into it in a very good detail and it would be well for us to listen carefully to the way in which he described the ation. we have forever except for the european union had a program in which we would vet individuals who wanted to come to the united states for a student visa, work visa, or just a visa to tour the united states. prior to 9/11 and prioritizes, it was just basically wide open. and we relied upon the european countries to very, very carefully that people that were seeking a visa from those european union countries. not all of them, but nearly all of them. they provided the assurance. we backed off of that with the immigration weight that went
into the european countries where there was an uncertainty that we could. >> melissa: i'm so sorry, we have to interrupt you because we are going to the white house and i thank you, congressman garamendi so much for your time. let's us into president again. >> president trump: that's all we need, border security. we got to get going. a lot of bad things are happening and i think we are doing incredibly well. we have bad laws. we have the worst immigration laws in the history of the worl world. and it's a joke. people can't believe it. other countries look at is and they say how is that possible? some of these countries, we take them to a court, to a judge, they want us to choose 5,000 judges, how do you 5,000 judges? can you imagine the corruption just from a normal standpoint, just common sense, can you imagine the corruption? go to the barbershop, grab somebody and make them a judge, everybody's being made a judge,
5,000 judges more. it's crazy. other countries, it'salled i'm sorry, you can't come in, you have to leave. this one, we have judges. if they step on our land, we have judges. it's insane. so we are going to have to change our whole immigration policy. i was saying last night in south carolina when i came in, i inherited some things. we inherited north korea, that's going really well. we inherited horrible trade deals, that's going really well. nobody knows what's happening behind the scenes but these countries that have been really -- i don't blame them, i blame our people but they have been ripping us for years, they want to negotiate so badly you have no idea. we inherited a lot of different things but of all of them, immigration is making the least sense. it is a hodpodge of laws that have been put together over the years, and we have to change it. it's so simple. it's called i'm sorry, you can't come in.
you hav go into a legal process. you don't have to see a judge where the judge is going to take three years before you can come back and in the meantime you never come back because you're already in the country. you're someplace in the country and that would be bad, but it's really bad when it's a criminal and we have plenty of them coming into the country this way. and they use the children, they use these young children for their own benefit so we have to change the whole immigration picture. it will be able to do it, we need the border wall, we need border security. and we need modern equipment. and we will get it done. i have no doubt. anybody else would like to say something? anybody? we will that these guys go out and have lunch. >> on trade, there are some people who are saying that your terror threats threaten to plunge the economy into a recession, harley-davidson announced it's moving a plant to
thailand. >> president trump: they announced it earlier this year. so harley-davidson is using that as an excuse and i don't like that because i've been very good to harley-davidson. they used it as an excuse and i think the people that write harley's are happy with harley-davidson and i wouldn't be either. but mostly companies are coming back to our country. i was the one that explained to harley about 100% tax in india where they had a tariff of 100% and i got it down to a much lower number. i think it's 50% which is far too much but they were paying 100 step percent tariff, and the prime minister brought it way down but still way too high. i will say this, other countries are negotiating. you never do that. just remember, we are the bank that everyone wants to steal from and plunder.
you lost $500 billion last year with china. we lost $151 billion with a european union which -- our farmers can't trade. we can't send farm products in, it's very hard to send cars and appear to be have countries where as an example, they charge as much as 100% tariff. we want the tariffs removed. what i'd like to do and often at the g7, i said let's drop all tariffs and all barriers. is everybody okay with that? and nobody said yes. i said wait a minute, you're complaining no tariffs and no barriers, you're on your own. let's do it. and they couldn't leave the room fast enough. speak what you say it's a risky business here, could have tipped the economy into recession and what you plan to do? because we are so high up, we picked up if you look at the kind of numbers we have picked
up, it's up almost 40%, and the real market is the overall and the all is much more than that. but we picked up about $8 trillion in value doing what we're doing. and we've got a little bit of uncertainty because of this trade. to me, there's no uncertainty into other people that happen to be smart, there is no uncertainty. but we can't allow the european union to take out $151 billion at of the united states. we can't allow mexico to have a nafta deal that gives them over $100 billion, and i call it profit. you can divide that up anyway you want to do it. i call it profit. we can't allow mexico to take $100 billion. we can't give china anywhere from 375 to 100 to 500. it's 375, some people depending
on your formula, $375 billion, it could >> katie: hundred $4 billion. it's a tremendous amount of money being taken out of our economy. we have to straighten that out now. what's happening, we would still tariffs on. i'm still investing is going through the roof. u.s. steel just announced they were expanding or building six new facilities. last night in south carolina, go ahead, georgetown steel, the factory has been closed, the plant has been closed how long? >> about three years but was interesting, a steel manufacturer in britain, georgetown steel wants to make steel here. >> president trump: solar panels, we put tariffs on solar panels, 30% that were all being made in china, 32 different factories now starting to open again. new plants because solar is pretty new technology. we have 32, two that were open. everywhere else was closed because of what happened and what came in from other places
in particular china. and now we have seven that are opening and many more considered in the two that were dying were going to close, they are thriving right now. washing machines, they were being dumped all over the country, not good ones. once it didn't work really well and other opening up washing machines. we put a 30% tariff on. so tariffs could be a very positive thing. in the old days when we had tariffs, we didn't have income tax. when people wanted to come in, you look at the days of mckinley and some others, when people wanted to come here, they had to pay a price. when they want to comment and rate our treasury, they had to pay a price. he didn't need income tax. we didn't have debt. so we are doing this, i will say in every instance, every country that you can mention has been extremely nice. even less than the media, but extremely nice they want to negotiate a deal.
and we are open to that. if we are open to that. but it's going to be very strong. we are putting on tariffs on certain industries. we can't lose our steel industry. our steel industry was ready to go out of business. he was at the bottom, our aluminum industry was ready to go out of business. now the steel industry is thriving. think of it, united states steel, first time in 35 years, actually expanding. it's going up. they are building new places, georgetown steel closed for three or four years, they announced yesterday that opening up their plan. it's been closed for four years i think they said. in south carolina. we are doing the right thing 100%. in some people agree, some people don't agree. the bottom line is countries are coming back now to negotiate including european union wants to negotiate because of a doubt, we are going to tax their cars.
they send mercedes n, bmw and, they pay almost no tax. when we send cars to the european union, they drove a tremendous tax. five times greater then what we charge them. but more importantly, they don't want our cars. they have a barrier. we don't want your cars but if you do get them in, you're going to pay taxes. with china, if we sent a card to china they charge is a 5% tax. so we make a car, we send it to china, we want to compete, that's not free-trade. that stupid trade. so we said 25% tax. when they make a car in china and they send it here, we charge them 2.5%. so we get 2.5%, china gets 25%. that's not fair, that's not free, that's just stupid. >> in terms of chinese investment restrictions. >> president trump: it's not
just chinese. we don't want people coming in hey, look, we are very smart country. we have the most incredible people in silicon valley. we don't want china and other countries, not necessarily or particularly because they covered it incorrectly, they had either a leaker that doesn't exist or a leaker that didn't know his business very well. but they gave it to bloomberg and they gave it to i believe "the wall street journal" and it was either a bad leak by somebody who didn't know the probably they just made up a story and there was no leak. i'm not sure of my political friends would agree. i think a lot of leeks are into leaks, they are made up by the writers, they don't exist. but this was a leak that was just off. we want to have our jewels. those were great jewels. that's like united states steel from 70 years ago, these companies. we have to protect these companies. we can't let people steal that technology. we have the greatest technology in the world. people copy it and they steal it. but we have the great scientists, the great brains and
we have to protect that. and we are to protect it. and that's what we were doing and that can be done. we have a lot of things we can do it through and we are working that out. but the bottom line is, we have charged a very substantial tax to some people, they are coming back to negotiate and frankly, if they don't negotiate, i'm okay with that because i'd rather get the tax. any other questions? so the supreme court ruling was a tremendous victory for this country and for the constitutio constitution. the supreme court ruling was a tremendous victory for our country. >> also the idea of deporting people without due process as well, do you think? >> president trump: we have to find a system where you don't need thousands of judges sitting at a border. other countries look at us and i think we are crazy. they say what kind of a thing is that?
they have countries where they have n problem with people pouring in and you have countries where people do want to go in and if you look at the european union, their meeting right now to toughen up their immigration policies because they been overrun.they've been . and frankly, a lot of those countries are not the same places anymore and i'm sad to say it and i said that a g-7, they are not the same places. we have a tremendous victory today and we greatly appreciate it. we needed it as a country. that was a big victory and i can tell you everyone at this table was very happy about it but that was a big victory for our country. i think it's pretty much the final word, the supreme court. we just waited for the supreme court. that's the final word. now, do i want to go in with a different one and may be a different variety? i don't think there's any reason. that's a very strong victory.
>> in terms of wall funding, you said you wanted an increase. >> president trump: spending 1.6 billion now, there's a plan for another 1.6 billion but i'd like to assess room if we could increase that. in light of what happened the drugs, with the human smuggling, with all of the problems, we have to have the wall. we have to have the wall. in the walls, you have ports of entry. that's what people come through. and they can come through legally. and i want people to come into our country because our country is doing so well and we have companies moving into our country had numbers that nobody has seen in a long time. we need workers. so i want people to come in, they have to come in through the merit system. they have to come in so that they can help our country and these companies. in wisconsin, one of the great companies of the world, they make laptops for apple and iphones. and they are building a tremendous plan right now in
wisconsin. they need worrs. i have to let people come in. but they have to come in through merit, they have to be people that can love our country and help our country. thank you all very much. we will see. >> melissa: joining me now is deputy editor of "the wall street journal"'s editorial page and judy miller, author and pulitzer prize-winning investigative reporter. judy, you did not like that. what was making you gasp their? >> i think there were so many contradictions and what the president said. for example, talks about the protection of intellectual property and yet he is willing to give cte the chinese company that has been stealing our intellectual property and is a great national security threat to the congress of our country, willing to give them a pass. >> melissa: they had to pay quite a bit of money. i don't know if that was a pass.
i don't think their bank account thought it was a pass. >> letting them operate in this country given their record raises questions. if that's why you have the pushback from congress. i think you see statement after statement by the president which was really a half-truth or the context you need to do it evenhanded assessment of whether or not his policies make sense such as his trade policy. >> melissa: went to get to trade in a second because some of the things he said were very revealing but let me stick with immigration and what we heard there on the end and i thought it was interesting that he is now echoing the sum of the points that we are hearing from the house which is this idea of the ad workers, the e-verify, a way to bring people in for the labor shortage that we do have that as an opportunity and i don't think we have heard a lot of that before. real physical ways to get that done. because the question would be is in fact the president committing himself to those pieces of the
legislation that's in the house to this an interesting exercise, the president really covered a lot of ground there. and someone in the administration said recently, the present and provides what they call broad guidance on these iues. but when the rubber hits the road, you have to have a piece of legislation that has, b, c, d specific language and that's what they're struggling with in the house right now. what will the president commit to or what will he won't? and as he himself said, we have to change our whole immigration policy. to do that, you have to know specifically how you want to change and that's the discrepancy. >> melissa: if you're listening closely, i don't think there was a discrepancy because he echoed the points we've heard from lawmakers from the top of the hour that were on the show but it said it was the bill that you saw but we need to add -- we have added workers, e-verify, added a way to get people into work, that's the way that we are
getting people on board and some of those states like california. he seemed to echo back what we heard from lawmakers at the very top of this hour. >> he has changed his position several times in the past week. >> melissa: you don't think that? >> if i can hold true to the point of holding a vote later today or tomorrow on the immigration bill than possibly they can make some progress that i think the white house the president will have to say this now is where i stand. they would be verified agricultural visas. that would be the big one. >> melissa: sounded like he said that, trying to shift where the bill is now. in other words, signaling i want to get this done, let's get this done. >> exactly come after telling congress not to go there because it couldn't be done, he is trying to find a way to make it happen. but as you pointed out in your interview, he doesn't think it's going to happen. he doesn't think he has the votes of the president
scrambling. it's good that he is flexible because that's the only way this is going to get done but i still question whether or not they're going to be able to come up with about the needs to get this through. >> melissa: are not going to get any democratic votes. they're only going to go to the right from what darrell issa said was i said what changes you think you need to make in order to get more people on board? and he was talking about is that language about getting those other people into the country that can do the job based on that site you get through those states. to think that something more than that going to the right? you think it's about the language? sent they had through that. >> i don't think they're wearing too much about democratic votes but what they're worried about is getting something the republicans can actually vote on because they're all these republicans running in november who would like to have something they can take to their voters out there and say i voted in favor of abc dna and the question how do you include both something like e-verify and legalizing the dreamers? that's where the dispute is among the republicans in the
house right now. >> melissa: why is that a dichotomy? with the dreamers, they saved and get on the end of the line after a period of time and with e-verify, they're saying you got to know who everybody is is coming to work. >> up until now, the most conservative members of the house have not wanted to include the dreamers in the bill and the moderates have a problem with the e-verify. but they're not going to get anything done in less all of those elements are in a final bill. >> melissa: we are going to have more the panel in just a second, will be right back. alright, i brought in new max protein
>> melissa: we are back now with our power panel. so there was a lot of talk about the tariffs in there. the president said we are doing great on the trade deals, going really well behind-the-scenes. we can't tell you about it a lot of people would be surprised to know we have really terrible deals but without the tariffs, we couldn't get any new deals. >> i think what he's doing is
starting a trade war and this is what those of us who favor free-trade have been warning about all the time. 31% tariffs on harley-davidson harley-davidson's, is hardly responsible for their decision to move, and the president made a statement which was factually incorrect that harley-davidson was closing the mystery plant in order to expand into asia. the fact of the matter is, those two decisions were unrelated to one another. and whether or not -- he says he's going to tax motorbikes coming into this country that hardly sends here. the fact of the matter is, hardly sells bikes here so he's not going to be able to tax anything. this plan that he has two live with the tax revenue instead of a good trade deal is really an empty threat and a dangerous one. >> melissa: he says they made the announcement they were expanding over there before he ever talked about the tariffs and he said that without the threat of tariffs, you have no leverage to renegotiate these deals because why would anybody
ever renegotiate a deal that they were winning? >> we do not understand the president's theory of trade negotiations. he does say that unless he threatens these tariffs emma they will be no deal. okay. that's the road forward to a deal. at this point, we have no deals. we have the threat of tariffs and we have tariffs about to be imposed. we have no deal with mexico, canada, the european union or china or xi jinping saying i will punch back. he said at the end of that press conference today that if we don't get a deal, i'll take the tax on the tariff. that means a 25% tariffs on imported goods will raise prices in the united states. i think the presence of you is to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs we are supposed to be able to observe that. the question is, or more workers are consumers going to be hurt than the ones he says are benefiting from the tariffs that would be the issue there.
they can't help everyone. >> melissa: the copulation is he's going to get a deal and be able to make a deal and you have to say i'm happy with outcome the way it is over us nobody is going to. and they have to believe the madman is willing to go forward with a plan for us you don't take as threat seriously. he saying i can live with the tariff money so that they know he's serious. we are also seeing asian stock markets get hurt by this, everyone hurting as a result. you think it's a game of chicke chicken. >> it is a game of chicken, no question about it. >> melissa: dangerous chicken, all right. the justice department declining to provide more information to house until chair devon nunez about the reported use of fbi informants while investigating president trump's campaign. why that is, and what that could mean for the congressional investigation. we knew helping our communities was important then. and we know it's even more important today. so we're stepping up to volunteer more
and donate over a million dollars every day. so our communities can be even stronger. it's a new day at wells fargo. but it's a lot like our first day. come hok., babe. nasty nighttime heartburn? try new alka-seltzer pm gummies. the only fast, powerful heartburn relief plus melatonin so you can fall asleep quickly. ♪ oh, what a relief it is!
>> melissa: a fox news alert, the justice department declining to provide more information to house intelligence chairman devon nunez about the reported use of fbi informants. while investigating president from 2016 campaign. the departments as the fbi has already provided a classified letter and that it must protect its sources. in joining me republican congressman jody heise of georgia, he is a member of the house freedom caucus. thank you for joining us, what
is your reaction? >> this is exactly why we need to get to the bottom of this. we've had a stonewalling for a year and a half with the documents and the information we need to do our job of oversight and rosenstein has been right in the middle of that. he has shown a pattern of stonewalling without responding to subpoenas, without giving documents even earlier this month, threatening staffers and we got to get to the bottom of this and find out what really took place. >> melissa: you know what their responses, this is part of an ongoing investigation until the probe is over, they can't show you the documents. what do you say? >> is also part of an ongoing oversight that we have. the oversight is necessary to make sure corruption is not taking place and we have the right constitutionally to ensure to the american people that corruption is not involved in this whole investigation. there are three things we know from the ig report that came out a couple weeks ago, we know that
in the hillary investigation, they were fbi agents who were extremely biased against the president. text after text, email after email clarifies that. secondly, we know that many of these people not only were infected by their own bias but they were willing to use their status in their position in the fbi to try to influence the election. we also know that many of them went to the mueller probe. so we've got to get to the bottom of this. >> melissa: speaking of that, you're one of the lawmakers that once the names of those who worked on the mueller probe, what would you use that for and you think they're going to hand them over? >> i don't have any confidence, he's been stonewalling, perhaps even obstructing for over a year with this. but listen, we are trying to get to the bottom of, no american citizen should have the skills stacked against them when there's an investigation taking place and here we know there was
extreme bias against the president, they were willing to even try to alter the election when many of them were put on this mueller investigation probe. so we need to find out the list of these people, these individuals so that we can find out who they are so that we can do our job of oversight to ensure that a fair investigation is taking place and that this is not a witch hunt. >> melissa: you think they were more in there with beliefs like peter strzok and some of the other individuals where their thoughts were revealed through those texts, but we know the names of a lot of those people, do you think there is even more than that? >> i certainly believe so. the ig report itself, the american people now with peter strzok, lisa page are becoming familiar with the name kevin kling smith, but we know from the ig report they were more, at least two. we also know that there are already part of the mueller probe, at least eight attorneys who have been strong supporters of democrats and the democrat
party, so we want to know who else is involved in this thing? with got to have that list of names vetted. >> melissa: the ig's job is only half done. he did the first part of the investigation about the clinton email scandal, the second part is going to be about the russia probe. why not wait until he finishes his work? >> we certainly are. we are going to see what he finds but we have oversight responsibility ourselves. at this point, the ig report that has come out has raised a lot of questions for which we need answers and part of that is the fact that many of these bias people willing to use their position to alter the election they went from there into the mueller probe. so is our responsibility, we're just pursuing that which we have a duty to pursue and of course horwitz will do his investigations. >> melissa: you in him? >> i think is an incredible job in various hearings we had with him that on oversight committee,
he always seems to be a straight shooter that's very fair, i think the ig report that he came out with, i liked what it said and i thought it was extremely thorough and i look forward to the upcoming report. >> melissa: thank you for the time today, we appreciate it. we'll be right back. let's take a look at some numbers: 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health.
we're life line screening... and if you're over 50... call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now tow to learn more.
i found something that worked. and keeps on working. now? they see me. see me. seif cosentyx could a difference for you- cosentyx is proven to help people with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis... ...find clear skin that can last. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx, you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease, tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. never give up. see me. see me. clear skin can last. don't hold back... ...ask your dermatologist if cosentyx can help you find clear skin that lasts. >> thank you so much for watching "outnumbered overtime." i'm see you at 4:00 p.m. on the fox business channel today f the market close.
"the daily briefing" with dana perino starts right now. >> dana: fox news alert. the security upholding the president's travel ban presenting several people from mostly muslim countries from entering this one. i'm dana perino. this is "the daily briefing." the high court ruling was a chose one. 5-4 decision. affirming the president's authority to regulation immigration. the president praising the ruling a short time ago. >> a tremendous vick for the american people and for our constitution. this is a great victory for our constitution. we have to be tough and we have to be safe and we have to be secure. at a minimum, we have to make sure that we vet people coming into the country. >> chief legal correspondent, shannon bream is outside the