tv Outnumbered Overtime With Harris Faulkner FOX News April 23, 2019 10:00am-11:00am PDT
microphone. another turning point usa event. >> katie: will be back tomorrow at noon eastern. but now, melissa francis is in for harris. >> melissa: fox news alert, joe biden is set to announce another run for the white house on thursday. welcome to "outnumbered overtime." i'm melissa francis in today for harris faulkner. fox news can now confirm that joe biden will make his candidacy for the presidency official in two days in an online video. sources familiar with the planning say the former vice president will also make an appearance on monday in pittsburgh. biden will be joining a crowded democratic field where the parties progressive ideas were front and center during a series of 2020 town halls last night, including elizabeth warren announcing a new plan to cancel existing student debt for millions. kamala harris veiling executive action on gun control if congress doesn't act in her first 100 days.
and bernie sanders defending his stance to grant voting rights to criminals while they are in prison, including the boston marathon bomber. just days after the sixth anniversary of the attack. peter doocy has more on all of this from washington. it's heating up, peter. >> melissa, a video announcement on thursday morning and a pittsburgh rally on monday afternoon will announce the start of joe biden's third attempt at the presidency. in 1988 he dropped out early and never made it to the primaries, amid a plagiarism scandal. in 2008 he got out after iowa and later became barack obama's running mate. in 2019 he's hoping for better against a field where the number one declared candidate right now is bernie sanders. who does not seem concerned that primary opponents or maybe even donald trump could possibly use his defense of the boston bomber's right to vote against him. >> my follow-up question goes to
this, you'd like you are opposition at against you by san bomber should do it. not after he pays his debt to society, but while he's in jail. are you sure about that? >> i think i have written many 30-second opposition ads throughout my life. >> kamala harris later said about death or inmates would encumber that she supports having that conversation. the california senator made a bigger splash about executive action on gun control within the first 100 days of taking office, if she does, and congress doesn't act. >> i will require that for any gun dealer that breaks the law, the etf take their license. by the way, atf -- alcohol, tobacco, and firearms -- they've been doing a lot of e and t but not much of f. we need to fix that. >> elizabeth warren to try to sew a different policy. canceling student loan debt for 40 million people come up to
$50,000 a pop, plus making public college tuition free. which she says would be funded by a tax on ultra millionaires who she has got a message for. >> you are protected in your factories with firefighters and police officers that all of us helped to pay. we say, "good for you, that you have now gotten this great fortune. but, two sent toes -- pay back so everybody else gets a chance." >> warren and tara said last night they support efforts in the house to try and impeach president trump. melissa custom xp one for more on all the splits bring about qsar, editor and chief editor in chief of the hill. let's talk about joe biden doing the video announced on wednesday. going in making that appearance. licking the parents personally. what you think of that?
>> direction of mine is, "finally." he has been hemming and hawing. i ran into a monoplane last fall and he said he would make a decision. he has continually postponed it. no doubt about it, the last couple months he's been running. he assembled a team. melissa, i think will be fascinating to see where he stands on medicare for all, on the green new deal, on a free tuition. abolish ice. all these things of the left wants. where do you stand? >> melissa: there is some room in their to be the person who is not lunging to the left. if you saw the catalog of sound bites he played ahead of time, it seems like as they scoot further and further, there is this open field on the other so he can walk into. the question becomes if you don't embrace those things, do you get out of the primary on top? >> that's a fascinating thing i'm looking for. will he say, "we can't do all
this. we can't afford it, we can do bold things, but we have to pick a spot." remember, medicare for all doesn't have the votes in the congress, never does the green new deal paid with a backlash be severe from the left? without a doubt, the party has moved left. bernie sanders wrote the platform in 2016 and now, as he says, they are more mainstream. bernie sanders of course is to the left of most of the party. >> melissa: he is, and he seems to authentically stick wherever it is that he puts down his marker as opposed to those who will be questioned about, "you used to believe this and i saved you believe this. how sincere do we think you more?" even when pressed replace the sound bite about the bus and there is a bummer. has the he says he has written a lot of opposition ads in his time in the senate. someone asked him about their family who left soviet russia
and their experience with socialism and communism. he was the question and answer. >> my family left soviet russia in 1979 fleeing from some of the very same socialist policies you seem eager to implement in this country. my question is how you rectify your notion of democratic socialism with the failures of socialism in nearly every country that has tried it. >> is it your assumption that i supported or believe in a fair train communism that existed in soviet union? i don't. i opposed it. i believe in a vigorous democracy. >> melissa: what did you think of that answer? >> bernie sanders is good. he has been in congress and the house in the senate. in other answer questions from reporters. in that situation him a question at a town hall. i think the town halls have helped them. it's going to be fascinating to see the dynamic between him and bernie sanders. they are two elder statement in the party. they overlapped in the senate for two years. but they have been diametrically
opposed on a number of issues, whether it was the bailout, the iraq war. bernie could go after him on a number of fronts. mostly positive, as he did in 2016. i think that dynamic between the two men is going to be one to watch in the coming months. >> melissa: in the meantime, pouring a lot of cold water on the whole entire thing, mitch mcconnell talking about how he would welcome this socialism. look at this. >> the majority of the senate next year, none of those things are going to pass the sentence. they won't even be voted on. so think of me as the grim reaper. [laughter] because i am going to make sure that socialism doesn't land on the president's desk. >> melissa: i mean, is that good for republicans? grim reaper -- do sound like you are old and old-fashioned in the old party?
all the kids like the newfangled stuff. >> this is the first time i've heard her tell mike a politician referred to himself as the grim reaper, but it works with the base. he has faced primary challenges before. i think he is going to endorse mitch mcconnell, and that will prevent a scare of a primary challenge. then he laughed and were about the general and the majority in the senate. this is his page. listen, if you reelect republicans in the senate, we'll stop these ideas which he says are crazy. it's just a few people -- a lot of people in the democratic party support them. >> melissa: bob cues act, thank you so much. >> thanks, melissa >> my police department and my clients all deserve to have their reputations restored. that's why today we are taking action. in federal court, let me make one thing perfectly clear. the chicago brothers told the
truth. >> melissa: the brothers accused of attacking jussie smollett in january have announced they are suing the empire actors attorneys for defamation. his legal team has said the brothers carried out a violent homophobic attack against their clients. with the brothers allege that smollett paid them to hate crime. and now they want to restore their reputations. mike tobin is live on chicago with more in this one. it's a new wrinkle every day. >> it gets copulated. the attack was hoaxed, conceived as melissa mentioned, it does not mention the empire actor as a defendant. rather, the suit is directed at the high-profile legal team. attorney mark errico's did the rounds on news programs and podcasts the suit claims the lawyers said things that were false, blaming the attacks on
the osundairo brothers pray that they had executed hate crime. they were white face. he claims the statements were damaging to the reputations and business of the brothers and cause them emotional distress. they are seeking punitive damages as well as court costs. their attorney gloria schmidt says the suit is about clearing the rotation of the brothers as well as the city of chicago. she read a prepared statement from the brothers. >> we have sat back and watched lie after lie being fabricated about us in the meted. only so one big lie can continue to have life. these lies are destroying our character and our reputation and our personal and professional life. >> on april 16th, on the podcast "unreasonable doubt," one lawyer said that one of the brothers engaged in homosexual acts with smollett. he said it's false. background
a theory for why the brothers would have attacked the actor if it was not at his direction. and the story floated by the source from the smollett team is that one brother was worried the other was gay, and the attack was to prove he was not gay. >> melissa: was bringing the former district attorney. first of all, do you think this case has a chance? he is suing the lawyers. what is the significance of that? they are suing the lawyers, i should say. >> any responsible prosecutor who is going to dismiss charges against someone like jussie smollett really should have made him pay full restitution but also admit responsibility. whether he has to played guilty or not is not the point. thereafter admit responsibility and we wouldn't be there. the lawyers or nobody else would be able to go out in the media. as this lawsuit has alleged, to say things like these guys
committed a criminal homophobic attack. they are saying that those words were false and that they you damaged the reputation. now that this defamation case has been brought, melissa, they can go into court and prove that what they said was actually true. if they can. if they can, it would be an absolute defense. whether or not their reputation has been harmed. if you think about it, these guys who are alleged to have been -- let's just call it the sham, alleged by the prosecutors. excuse me, by the police department in chicago. if they were part of some kind of a sham, how much more could you realistically damage the reputation? >> melissa: well, they say they are not guilty of a hate crime. they are guilty of a sham crime. so i guess that would be -- that is the difference that they are trying to make. we have -- to us, there's not a big difference. to them, there obviously is. is there a chance that through
this process somehow smollett is forced to take responsibility, as you said, if that's really what happened? because he still maintains that it's not how things went down. that he was the victim in all this. >> i think clearly if this case ever makes its way into the courtroom or even into depositions, jussie smollett may have to testify under oath as a witness in this civil case. let's keep in mind, the city of chicago is also going after smollett civilly. so it's possible that his version of the events could be locked down in sworn testimony. in either one of these types of avenues. even though the prosecutor, in my opinion, dropped the ball by not making him accept responsibility in a criminal court room, he may very well have to answer to this in a civil court room. even if it is as a witness for either the plaintiffs or the defendants in this defamation lawsuit. >> melissa: that would be the game changer. if he was brought into a
courtroom or deposition typesetting and he had to say under oath what happened. he would have to make the choice if you lies under oath or continues with his star if, in fact, it is falsehood. at that point he would face the consequences, if he continues to lie customer gourd you have to go back and prove it's a lie and it still keeps going? >> right. in my opinion, these lawyers on his behalf should have taken their sweetheart dismissal and just got home and been thankful for it. instead they went out according to this lawsuit and made various media appearances where they said these things alleged to be false and defamatory. by getting jussie smollett in court as a witness, he is not going to be able to hide behind paid spokespersons. because after the cases are over, that is essentially what the lawyers are. they are a p.r. team for jussie smollett. they will be able to hide behind that. if he has to go into court under oath and testify, he's got to tell the truth. if he doesn't come he could
theoretically open himself up to additional prosecution. >> melissa: that could be the basis for this, trying to get him out from behind what is now his p.r. team. very interesting. thank you for joining us, we appreciate it. >> happy to be here any time. >> melissa: the term in the administration and the highest court in the land as justices consider whether to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. a live report on the battle brewing in the supreme court. plus, house judiciary committee chair jerry nadler subpoenas former white house counsel don began to testify before congress. legitimate oversight, or are democrats buying politics customer congressman darrell issa on that next. ♪ eteransfor a va loan y for up to 100% of your home's value. thank you, admiral. so if you need money for your family, call newday usa. need cash? at newday, veteran homeowners can get $54,000 dollars or more
to consolidate high rate credit card debt and lower their payments by $600 every month. 0g$ç)fmnndv-b0.h#ú$dp;n.úun&>xqi when you start with a better that's no way to treat a dog... ...you can do no wrong. where did you learn that? the internet... yeah? mmm! with no artificial preservatives or added nitrates or nitrites, it's all for the love of hot dogs. the pain and swelling.. the psoriasis. cosentyx treats more than just the joint pain of active psoriatic arthritis. it even helps stop further joint damage. don't use if you're allergic to cosentyx. before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor about an infection or symptoms, if your inflammatory bowel disease symptoms develop or worsen, or if you've had a vaccine or plan to. serious allergic reactions may occur. get real relief, with cosentyx.
i can customize each line for each family member? yup. and since it comes with your internet, you can switch wireless carriers, and save hundreds of dollars a year. are you pullin' my leg? nope. you sure you're not pullin' my leg? i think it's your dog. oh it's him. good call. get the data options you need and still save hundreds of dollars... do you guys sell other dogs? now that's simple, easy, awesome. customize each line by paying for data by the gig or get unlimited. and now get $100 back when you buy a new lg. click, call, or visit a store today.
>> melissa: >> melissa: a summit between north korean leader kim jong un and russian president vladimir putin this at the take place on thursday. this is according to a kremlin official. the two are expected to meet in eastern russia along its pacific coast. russian news agencies report that the talks will center on north korea's nuclear program. and a fox news alert, house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler has subpoenaed former white house counsel don mcgahn, calling on him to testify publicly next month on potential obstruction of justice related incidents outlined in the mueller report. hogan gidley says that democrats are getting desperate. >> democrats like jerry nadler continue to try and attack this president and attack members of this administration repeatedly. he is not going to learn anything else about don mcgahn or this administration that bob mueller didn't find in two years of wasted time and energy.
the only thing he's going to again, quite frankly, our may be some political allies of the far left who are conspiracy theorists and think that somehow this was a sham. >> melissa: chief white house correspondent john roberts has more on all of this. john? >> melissa, good afternoon too. the question is how much more a congressional committee could learn and the special counsel, which had all of its investigatory powers and spent two years investigating this. we will get to that in the second. first of all, some news made a little while ago. jared kushner weighing in for the first time on the mueller investigation at that time 100 form. bob mueller's interest in jared kushner was that june 9th 2016 meeting with the woman on the left. a russian attorney. in the report, he said that investigators considered whether that may have constituted an illegal foreign campaign contribution but ultimately decided they could not determine whether she was offering anything of value.
here is what kushner said about his participation with the office and special counsel. listen here. >> when the whole notion of the russia collusion narrative came up, i was the first person to say i'm happy to participate with any investigations. at this point i've done three house interviews, about nine hours with the special counsel. if you look at my statement from july, i put out about 12 pages of statement explaining these different things. i think everything i said is proven to be true and it's been very thoroughly investigated. the one thing the mueller report was conclusive on his there's no coordination or conclusion of the trump campaign. >> at that form, he believes all the investigation into possible russia collusion have generic dell might damage the american democracy for more than russia taking out a few facebook ads. at the same time at that going on, the liberation from the white house on how they will respond to the subpoena issued yesterday by jerrold nadler to get don mcgahn, the former white house counsel, up in front
of his committee. in a statement, jerrold nadler's income "don mccann is a critical witness to many of the alleged incidences of obstruction of justice and other misconduct described in the mueller report." central issue is whether the president can assert executive privilege and prevent done mcgann from testifying. the president did not exert a negative privilege over releases of part of the mueller report that included testimony from don mcgahn, there was no attorney-client privilege and am talking to me would. to go back and make that change now would be problematic in court. there is a history of senior white house aides refusing to testify before congress. first and foremost among them is carl klein who was the former director of the white house office of personnel security. he was supposed to give a deposition today on capitol hill. he was told by the white house to ignore the subpoena and now elijah cummings, the chairman of the house oversight committee, is threatening to hold them in contempt. michael flynn also did not testify, neither did karl rove during the bush administration. going overly back to henry
kissinger. there's also a rich history of aids, even presidents, testifying before congress. including gerald ford, who back in 1974 appeared before congress to talk about his pardon of nixon. pat buchanan and al haig testified about watergate, national security advisors, special counsel to president clinton, a number of clinton-era staff members who testified, all the way up to steve bannon from the trump administration who testified after he was delivered a subpoena to appear before congress. back in 2,080 federal judge ruled that then-bush white house counsel harriet miers and the chief of staff, josh bolden, were not immune from congressional subpoenas, either. they got to come up, melissa, with something very creative here at the white house in order for a judge to say, "you are right, mcgahn should not comply with that subpoena." his testify is scheduled. we'll see what happens.
>> melissa: need a fantastic job setting the table for us and we appreciate it. let's get the discussion that he set up. former covers material ice is with us. he's a republican from california who of course served on the house judiciary and oversight committees. sarah, thank you for joining us. first of all, do you think that mcgahn should appear or refuse? what do you think? >> clearly he will appear. when i think is important -- because you set up a number of these, the bates decision which occurred under president bush and then amy berman jackson in the fast and furious case that he cured under obama, those make it clear to the white house can't feel the sense of buddy. what's being argued right now -- and you've mentioned the no -show today, is that elijah cummings -- and it's tradition, but it's a bad tradition -- he wants to get somebody in a deposition who is a current representative of the executive branch, lawyers from
executive branch. many people who can assert why something shouldn't be answered. in the last days of the last congress, democrats had no problem insisting that the people from the obama administration and others have that representation, including james comey win again. including peter strzok. it's interesting how elijah cummings wants it one way when he wants a witness not to have counsel, and the other way bottom line, don is a very smart lawyer. he's already testified. the president has been open and transparent in the way those two previous presidents were not. so i expect them to come but i expected to insist on having people behind him that can advise him as to when to answer question and when a privilege might be appropriate. >> melissa: how big of a risk do you think it is? we know exactly what the questioners would be going after. they are trying to pursue
obstruction. they are trying to set up the possibility, the grounds, for impeachment. don mcgahn has already been through 30 hours of questioning in front of me would. he has answered the way he has answered. is there much risk at him going, or could he just come out and ostensibly repeat basically what he said before? >> you said it very well. he will repeat, because he was thoughtful and what he said and how he said it. he will repeat what he said. this is an example of everything having been said but not everybody has said it. in the case of jerry nadler and elijah cummings, the two chairman, they want to have a political show. they want to have that live theater. that may be politically fine but it won't change a legal decision that was not just made by mueller but codified by the attorney general of the department of justice. >> melissa: but that's the legal decision. what they are trying to do is to set the table for impeachment. >> >> exactly.
>> melissa: so he does come, he sits down, and he says was expected and doesn't go further. then he just reiterates the points that were made by mueller and those ten points of possible obstruction. is that enough in and of itself? for them the house to go ahead and move forward on impeachment? >> in the case of many people in the house, afc, jerry nadler, and a few others who have made statements that can be repeated on the air, this political decision has already been made. they are ready to impeach the president. it's a political statement. but there's a big difference between a political statement in a legal statement. the former president, bill clinton, lost his bar license for perjury. for lying under oath. that did not change the fact that at the end of the date the political decision was not to remove him from office. they could have this discussion in a purely political fashion but the legal decision that he did nothing legally wrong has been made. i think that the important thing. this is purely political now.
the big question is, will the new majority in the house violate people's right to have counsel? >> melissa: congressman, thank you for your time. a major supreme court case as justices weighed the trump admissions plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. the fire from reaching implications this could have on immigration and more. when we hear from the former chief of citizenship. that's next. ♪ ok everyone! our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy! whoo-hoo! great-tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein and twenty-six vitamins and minerals. ensure, for strength and energy.
but allstate actually helps you drive safely... with drivewise. it lets you know when you go too fast... ...and brake too hard. with feedback to help you drive safer. giving you the power to actually lower your cost. unfortunately, it can't do anything about that. now that you know the truth... are you in good hands?
i have very sensitive skin, and i get ingrowing hairs. so it's a daunting task. oh i love it. it's a great razor. it has that 'fence' in the middle. it gives a nice smooth shave. just stopping that irritation... that burn that i get is really life changing. this is the family who booked the flight, ♪ who saved by adding a hotel, which led to new adventures, ♪ that captured their imaginations ♪ and turned moments into memories. with flights, hotels, activities and more for your florida vacation, expedia has everything you need to go.
>> melissa: fox news alert, partisan lines drawn as the supreme court justices hear arguments over plans to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census and protesters are voicing their opposition on the steps outside the supreme court. doug mckelway is there with more. doug? >> melissa, occurring as this does admits the heated debate over immigration in the united states today, this oral argument since this morning has
taken on added significance. it centers around one simple little question that the trumpet mensuration wants to include in the 2020 census, and that question is, "is this person a citizen of the united states?" it's not like it's an unusual question. it had been included in the census for well over a century. almost two centuries, from 1820 to 1950. the trumpet wants to include it again because it believes it's necessary to enforce the voting rights acts. while they maintained that it would frighten off noncitizens for participating in the census, they reject the law that has printed on the census website would says, and i quote, "it's illegal for the census bureau to publish any private information that identifies any individuals or businesses." >> well, you don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be concerned that if that data is out there, he could pose a risk to you. we've seen administrations that
is sticking people up in sensitive places like courthouses, schools, going to the doctor's office. >> even united states government acknowledges that as many as 6.5 million people might not participate in the 2020 census if that question were to be included. by the way, it is illegal not to fill out a census. census, i should say. it's punishable by a $150 fine. the ramifications of another account are huge. the census determines for the next ten years how many electoral votes the state has. how many representatives the state has, and no federal resources are divvied out to the states. partisan lines develop quickly here in oral arguments before left-leaning justices press the lawyer for the justice department to explain the reasoning behind the citizenship question. they cited the potential for a 6.5 million person undercount. conservative justices asked whether the citizenship question alone would cause inaccurate census. chief justice john roberts noting that a range of questions is asked in the census anyway,
including a person's age and se sex. they will have to rule before the end of do not only to at traditional deadline but to meet the deadline of the printing office paid thereafter be printed out by that date in order to meet the census, which gets underway in april of 2020. back to you, melissa. >> melissa: doug, thank you for that. for more, let's bring it up once i get there. he is former chief of the u.s. office of citizenship under president george w. bush. thank you for joining us. let me ask a basic question to start. do you think you get a more accurate picture of what is going on and who is here exactly, and with the demographics are with the question there? or without it? >> it's hard to say. initially i thought it wasn't a good idea to include the question. based on what experts are saying that it could dissuade undocumented immigrants from participating in the census.
but when i look and delve into the issue, look at the data, it's based on focus groups, target groups that are not representative of the general population. so there is no hard evidence to determine that undocumented immigrants would not participat participate. i think that if the sense censs assets stay on the form, but it's not going to be shared with law enforcement. and that is informed, there's a good educational campaign to the public about that. i don't see why immigrants and undocumented immigrants would not want to participate. i think this is just another opportunity by democrats to totally politicize an issue and attack donald trump. the fact of the matter is we've asked -- we have had a citizenship question during the
obama years in the long form of the senses. did you hear and think the democrats? no. since 2005, in the american community survey -- which is a complement to the census, just a tool that is done -- an instrument that is done every single year -- there is a question about citizenship. >> melissa: was there less participation on that one? >> yes. >> melissa: in essence, that is proof that few people would respond if the question was there. i wonder if you are here illegally if you respond to the census at all, with the question is there or not. being worried that you are just being watched from somewhere and you are not here legally. i want to bring you to some breaking news right now that we are seeing. there is some new video we have in, showing armed smugglers that are escorting a migrant family over the border in arizona. this video came from u.s. border patrol surveillance cameras and it is from saturday night. it's near the town of lucasville
in the southwestern corner of arizona you're looking at for to five men in tactical gear and masks carrying long guns and ak-47 assault rifles. they are escorting a goal guatemalan woman and her child under a barrier. this video was ostensibly put up because border patrol wants people to know what they are seeing. they are saying this shows an escalation in the way that people are crossing the border. that they apprehended almost 400 guatemalan immigrants on several buses just a hundred yards from where this was, right near this area. they also add that diseases smugglers in general charge basically $7,000, in their experience, to transport guatemalans over the border here. so they can apply for asylum. what is your reaction to this video? is this new, something different? >> it's pretty scary. i think that, yes, coyotes,
smugglers, they are arming up. if there is any question that there's a crisis of the border, i figure this video illustrates that there is a crisis. that smugglers are willing to escort this individual trying to enter irregularly, illegally come into the country. with weapons. this is scary. the amount of people that are trying to enter illegally through the border has gone up dramatically. >> melissa: but this is an escalation? >> absolutely. but remember, democrats were saying couple months ago there was no crisis of the border. >> melissa: absolutely. thank you for going with us on the news that came in. we appreciate your time and we have to cut it short now. any warning from a top official in sri lanka following the easter bombing that left more than 300 people dead, including several americans. we have a live report next. ♪ does this map show the
i'll take you there. take this left. if you listen real hard you can hear the whales. oop. you hear that? (vo) our subaru outback lets us see the world. sometimes in ways we never imagined. what do all these people have in common, limu? [ guttural grunt ] exactly. nothing! they're completely different people. that's why they make customized car insurance from liberty mutual. they'll only pay for what they need. yes, and they could save a ton. you've done it again, limu. [ limu grunts ] only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty ♪
>> melissa: fox news alert, sri lanka's prime minister warning there are more explosives and militants out there after the easter suicide bombings killed more than 300 people. this comes as sri lankan authorities say they now believe the corrugated bombing was in retaliation for the mosque shootings. in the meantime, this is new video for one of the suspects walking in and around a church moments before an explosion. benjamin hall's live in london but more. benjamin? >> hi, melissa. also today, isis taking responsibility for these attacks. they did so via their official news agency, and while they often take responsibility and claim certain attacks in the past, it is believed there is a link in this case. first of all, the small terror group in sri lanka, the national was never thought to be able to carry out such in a coordinated
and sophisticate attacks such as this. on top of this, over 40 sri lankans went to fight in iraq and syria, the link become ever. the death toll now has risen to 321 in the eight blasts, with 500 injured. today the prime minister warning, as you pointed out, that there were more militants, more bombs out there. we are also learning the identity of the mastermind by the plot. he is seen here among the other suicide bombers before the attack, pledging allegiance to isis leaders. this is a still from a video that has just been released. as you pointed out, as he showed earlier, that chilling surveillance video -- are poorly one of the seven suicide bombers -- calmly walking in the square wearing that heavy backpack, entering saint sebastian's church, walking into the center of the catholic church before then blowing himself up. today in sri lanka, funerals began as the company, country observed a day of mourning.
they are under a state of emergency in the military is operating under enhance wartime powers. so far police have arrested up to 40 people in connection with the bombing. that we are learning more about the dead, specifically the americans. the four americans, among them an 11-year-old, a 40-year-old from denver, not pictured here, siblings, 15 and 19 years old. others are believed also to be entered. we are hearing there will be a security shake-up in sri lanka after it emerged that officials did not heed warnings from india ten days ago. there will be suicide attacks on churches and hotels and the fbi now sending agents to sri lanka to help in the ongoing investigation. melissa? >> melissa: benjamin hall, thank you. nancy pelosi putting the brakes on impeachment, singh investigations are good enough for now. by that may not be enough for many in our caucus. the power panel weighs in next. ♪ ly, call newday usa. a newday va home loan lets you refinance
your home and take out 54,000 dollars or more to pay credit card debt, or just put money in the bank. it even lowers your payments by over 600 dollars a month. as a veteran, you've earned the powerful va home loan benefit that lets you refinance up to 100 percent of your home's value. and with home values rising, that can mean a lot more money for you and your family. and because newday usa has been granted automatic authority by the va, they can say yes when banks say no. and they'll do all the va paperwork for you. we all know some of life's most important financial decisions are made right here at the kitchen table. so, if you're a veteran and need cash, calling newday usa could be one of the best decisions you'll ever make. go to newdayusa.com, or call 1-877-423-5734.
>> dana: hi, everyone. i'm dana perino. new reports that joe biden will jump in thursday. all this back and forth and waiting, does it hurt his image with the voters question on our own bret baier will weigh in on biden as well as the citizenship question on the senate stomach census. and kevin mcaleenan joins me to talk about the crisis of the board of trade only on "the daily briefing" ."
>> i believe we need to get out of this president. that's why i'm running to become president of the united states. but i believe we are very good reason to believe that there is an investigation that has been conducted, which has produced evidence that tells us this president and his administration engaged in obstruction of justice. i believe congress should take the steps toward impeachment. >> melissa: kamala harris among the growing number of 2020 democrats advocating for impeachment. this, despite speaker pelosi's attempt to tamp down that talk in a conference call with her caucus yesterday. let's bring in our power panel, dan henninger, deputy editor for "the wall street journal" editorial page. and judy miller, pulitzer prize-winning author. >> i think she's establishing herself along with elizabeth warren in terms of the candidates that most want to hold the president accountable. that may very well be good politics for them. i'm not sure it's good politics
for the democratic party. in fact, it's probably counterproductive if it goes forward. right now i think nancy pelosi has it right. let these hearings play out, and let the american people be educated about what's in the mueller report. let's face it, most people are not going to be 440 pages. and now only 6 out of 10 democrats want to move forward with impeachment. you have an education process that has to take place before -- >> melissa: so they can understand they should impeach him? is that what you're saying? >> understand of the things he was accused of and part 22 of the mueller report -- there was -- >> melissa: you think they qualify for impeachment? >> i think that's a the party will have to make but it's certainly very serious, and i think it's something that, by the way, mueller through to the congress. >> judy, let me say, with respect -- the quickness with which this story has pivoted from the russian collusion narrative of two years about
which there was nothing in the mueller report come much now we are on the impeach trumps narrative over the obstruction issue. the collision narrative has evaporated like a soap bubble and the obstruction is for obstructing acts that never occurred. trumpet knew at the time that he had done nothing, right? by definition. since mueller concluded there is nothing to the collusion accusations. that we are in this kind of conversation about impeaching trump for bad behavior inside the warehouse. >> melissa: he was being falsely accused. what you think about that? >> look at, if you are instructing your people to select the congress and instructing them to lie to the american people, that is very serious. trying to a system of justice by getting people fired in your administration, bad for the country. >> why the hearings? go straight to impeachment. >> melissa: then why is he trying to or prevent justice if he didn't do it? you see how it kind of undermines the obstruction
argument? is not trying to get them to not admit what they had done, because they hadn't done anything. >> that's different than saying, "go out there and tell my story." that's different from saying, "go out there and lied to the american people. i want to fire mueller. the only reason really wasn't fired is that don begin with do it. i think people have a right to know that and then they can make their own decisions about whether or not that rises to the level of -- del mike -- >> melissa: went to have wanted to fire mueller because he knew he was pursuing something that didn't happen? that's how i deal with the russian collision wasn't real, so he was like, "why are we doing this?" >> certainly the reason he was doing these things is because he's donald trump. he knew he hadn't done anything and now he's reaching around and striking out at people. >> melissa: we've got to go. more "outnumbered overtime" in just a minute. ♪ drivers just wont put their phones down. we need a solution.
>> thank you so much for watching "outnumbered overtime"" i'm in for harris faulkner. "the daily briefing" starts right now. >> dana: yes, "the daily briefing" starts now. three big stories to start finally, the waiting game is over. up new details about joe biden's much-anticipated and talked about. while in syria zero one, a newg to terrorists. welcome everyone, i'm dana perino and this is "the daily briefing." first, a fight over immigration playing out during oral arguments. some justices seem to show support for including exists, citizenship question and the 2,020 ns.