0 how about this boy? he is only a toddler. look at his golf swing. is it perfection? >> bill: that's good. what do you think? 2 years old? >> dana: wearing a diaper. he is out there let me hit this for you, dad. you think dad is proud? real proud. all right. here is harris faulkner. >> harris: we beginning with breaking news. senate democrats are ready to move forward with their multi-trillion legislative agenda and your tax money, of course, is on the line. i'm harris faulkner. you are in "the faulkner focus". moments from this moment the senate will vote on a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill that appears to have enough republican votes to pass as well. once that wraps up schumer will open debate on a 3 1/2 trillion budget resolution. first on the docket is that infrastructure bill. we scroll because it's a doozy of cash. though it has some gop support, critics still have a lot to say about what is actually in the fine print. here are senators john kennedy, mike lee, marsha blackburn, and ted cruz. >> i realized pretty quickly that if you look up stupid stuff in the dictionary, there is a picture of this bill. >> 1.2 trillion inflation bomb being dropped on an already carpet bombed economy. >> wait a minute. i thought it was a infrastructure bill. >> the democrats want to give billions of dollars to unelected bureaucrats in the biden administration to spend as they please. as admiral ackbar said in star wa, it's a trap. >> a "new york post" op-ed sums it up this way. one awful bill. one terrible bill. hope the dems double dealing dooms them both. florida senator rick scott is in focus to weigh in. first let's get the latest on all of this from peter doocy live outside the white house. peter. >> more than a dozen republicans are expected to support this infrastructure bill later on today. once it leaves the senate and goes over to the house it is not really an infrastructure bill at all. speaker pelosi is planning to combine it with 3 1/2 trillion dollars worth of democratic priorities in her budget using the process called reconciliation. >> the budget reconciliation bill will do more to combat climate change than any legislation ever, ever in the history of the senate. that is a promise. >> zero republicans in the house or senate support the 3.5 trillion dollar reconciliation package. the only support the trial -- they only support the trillion for roads and bridges and lead pipe replacement. the president is spoke using on the thing today tweeting one in five miles of our highways and 45,000 bridges are in poor condition. it is dangerous. the bipartisan infrastructure deal will change that. republicans are warning of inflation ahead if democrats tack trillions onto this bill. today's vote doesn't signal the end of the process. >> the tragedy is that democrats want to inflict all this pain on middle class families. here is the comedy. they won't let republicans have any say in this monstrosity but they want our help raising their credit card to make it happen. >> president biden aboard marine one now expected to touchdown on the south lawn shortly before this vote that democrats in congress are hoping will give him the okay to spend a few trillion taxpayer dollars. harris. >> harris: peter doocy. thank you very much. rick scott republican senator from the great state of florida is in focus now. senator, always great to have you on the program. i will start here. i understand that republicans are against much of what joe biden is trying to do with his liberal agenda. why this bill? why is this one in particular getting republican votes? >> i don't believe it should. i believe in roads, bridges, airports and we spend $85 billion eight years on roads, bridges and sea ports. fiscally responsible. i paid down debt, cut taxes. this is not responsible. less than half of it is roads, bridges and airports. and it is not paid for. we were told that the thing was fully paid for, the congressional budget came out on thursday and said a quarter of a trillion of deficit spending in one bill, a quarter of a trillion dollars. we shouldn't run a quarter trillion budget deficit in a year ever. and in one bill we'll do that? and all we're doing is helping the democrats pass their bernie budget. it is a 5.5 trillion. it's 5.5 trillion and at the end of 10 years we'll have $45 trillion of debt. $45 trillion. who will pay for this? they will raise everybody's taxes, they'll cause more inflation. >> harris: when i look and see senator kevin cramer republican out of north dakota explaining it this weekend of the 1.2 trillion, there 450 billion is roads, bridges, specifically. i mean, the way you laid it out, is this just the only thing you guys will get together on? maybe you try to do something bipartisan and then you let biden try to do everything else? is that the strategy? >> i don't support wasting money, none. it is your money. somebody is going to pay for this. if there is a quarter that's wasted money i won't do it. let's do what we should do. do roads, bridges, airports and sea ports and do what we can pay for. that's what i did. you can do it. why don't we start by focus on how to improve the economy, cut people's taxes, make sure this is the best play to get a job in the world. revenues will grow. they aren't doing it here. they make it harder for families, poor families, this will make it harder on them. >> harris: senator rick scott of florida, breaking news now. i will ask you to stand by. andrew cuomo's attorney holding a virtual news conference amid calls for the new york governor to quit or they will impeach him. watch this. >> to present the other side. the report concluded on page 24 and on page 142 affirmatively concluded that the governor groped miss commisso in 2020. concluded it definitively. and that the attorney general's press conference on august 3, one of the investigators, ann clark said it definitively to the world that governor cuomo groped the breast of an executive assistant in the mansion during the workday. but what was so apparent when i read the report is that the investigators didn't bother to collect or review evidence about november 16th to determine if their conclusion was correct. and everyone has to ask themselves why didn't they do what? why didn't they get all of the emails from that day? why didn't they get the records about when ms. commisso entered and left the mansion? why didn't they speak to any of the witnesses, and there were many in the mansion that day. they didn't collect the documents that proved the most serious allegation was false. records from the mansion reflect that senior members of staff were present there on november 16th and the investigators did not ask -- they did not ask any of those people about what they saw, what they heard, what miss commisso was doing that day. her version of events, which conveyed to the times union in an april 7th anonymous interview about the time she was in the mansion and what she was in the mansion for, they don't match it up with the documentary evidence. in the investigators didn't get that. and now we are in a situation where, as of yesterday, i read the albany times union and it says the governor groped her around november 25th is what she is saying. as i've said before, my team has looked through the records for november and we're aware of no record indicating that brittany commisso was at the mansion in november on any other day than november 16th and miss commisso has consistently said this occurred in november. why did the investigators not get the records and why did they not include them in the report? what else is so bothersome and hard for me to take as a lawyer for the governor is that the report suggests that the governor testified falsely about that day. it suggests that when the governor said others were present, including maybe up to 10 staff members in the mansion, the report just discredited him. but i now know that they did not bother to get -- >> harris: if you've been following the story of new york's governor and with all the sex scandals and nursing home allegations of people dying here in new york city and throughout the state because of the decision that he made at the top of the covid pandemic to put covid positive patients into those facilities, if you've been following the trail on all of this and you are wondering what would the governor do now that he could be facing impeachment based on that sex scandal that's breaking out with allegedly 11 victims coming fought for inappropriate behavior now you know the part of the story is he will try to defend himself. we do know reports from just this morning splashed all over papers here in the region that he is trying to cut a deal to not be impeached. i don't remember that ever being given to other people who have been impeached, right? the democrats want to cut a deal with him, not to mix apples and oranges but was president trump given an opportunity to cut a deal? this is a deal-making situation. so the attorney comes out and she lays out the case where she is poking holes in the state's case. the attorney general, when she came out and said they have a case against this governor, there were receipts with that, right? these women didn't just come out and say stuff. they have receipts and evidence. and so now you are looking at a situation where they are going to try to defend, they will try to poke holes. if you are trying to make a deal, that builds more leverage on your side. i don't know. we haven't all seen the evidence. let's keep watching. his attorney defend him. >> and the attorney general has stated that miss commisso's claim of a sexual assault on november 16th or november 25th or another day in november was independently corroborated. that's not true. the only corroborated fact is that she first made her claim in march after the investigation began. the independent corroboration corroborates the governor. the simultaneous emails and documents corroborates governor cuomo. there was also testimony by several witnesses about potential motives and what was going on with miss commisso in late 2020 and early 2021 and concerns she had about her job, that she had been turned down for a raise, and concerns that there was a possibility that because her work hours might change she could be transferred. that was not reflected in the attorney general's report. another aspect to the attorney general's report deals with a referral to the albany police department about miss commisso's claims. now i'm sure a lot of you have seen over the last several days that miss commisso made a complaint to sheriff, the albany county sheriff. well, what no one is talking about is that it was actually the executive chamber that referred miss commisso's complaint when she first made it when she was out with friends for drinks on march 6th and then a lawyer called the executive chamber on monday, march 8th. and when that lawyer called to make the allegation, the lawyer indicated that he did not want to pursue this criminally. but it was the executive chamber that referred the allegation to the albany police department. and as further evidence of the bias of this report, look at page 147 buried in footnote 1,239. the report won't even credit the executive chamber for this. it said, quote, we understand certain criminal authorities including albany police department had been alerted to the most egregious allegations of touching including executive assistant one. i ask you why couldn't the report say the executive chamber promptly reported it to the albany police department? and it's because every inference was going to be drawn against the executive chamber and governor cuomo. the report got key facts wrong. it omitted key evidence. and it failed to include witnesses whose testimony did not support the narrative that was clear that this investigation was going to weave from day one. and i want to talk about that. this began in december of 2020 with lindsey boylen. lindsey boylen made some tweets december 5th and december 13th that talked about her departure from the mansion and accused the governor of sexual harassment. one of the things that she said in an article she published on media in february a couple months later that she was on a plane with the governor and he made a comment about let's play strip poker. there were several other staff members on the flights with ms. boylen and every single one of them said that didn't happen. and after that came out that they said that didn't happen, one of the people on the flight was howard zem ski. he testified he received a disparaging message from ms. boylen that he found jarring and threatening and the report mentions this but they in the don't include it as an exhibit. why not? that is the equivalent of witness tampering. and if any member of the chamber or the governor himself had engaged in that conduct, that would be another 10 pages of the report and i'm sure i would have received another subpoena from the assembly. they also did not deliberately choose to investigate communications that occurred between lindsey boylen's campaign in december 2020. she first made these allegations about two weeks after she announced she was running for manhattan borough president. in that time period there were communications between the attorney general's chief of staff and ms. boylen's top campaign consultant. there were a number of conversations about what ms. boylen was saying and what was going on in the campaign. one of ms. boylen's top media consultants resigned when she made these allegations. did the attorney general's investigators talk to all of those people, subpoena the records from the campaign in the same way they have subpoenaed the executive chamber and my client for anything and everything having to do with sexual harassment with lindsey boylen? the complainants needed to be -- scrutinized as much as the governor in the chamber and that didn't happen here. the investigators credited lindsey boylen, despite the fact that they knew she had threatened a witness to get him to change his story, and he did. and one thing that has been missing through this is that there was a signal about seven or eight months before ms. boylen made her tweets in december, a signal that she was out for some type of revenge against the governor's office. you see, ms. boylen had ran in a primary against congressman jerry nadler. in march of 2020 when covid started, the governor issued an executive order which narrowed the time frame for people to get petitions so they could get on the ballot. ms. boylen was very unhappy about this and felt that that had been directed at her. and she sent two threatening messages to members of the governor's staff. one of them said quote, absolutely not helpful. please relay that while we're okay. you see what the point is here. i'll find ways to respond. life is long and so is my memory and so are my resources. her second message, absolutely not helpful. specific response to a tragedy but please relay while we're okay, i see what the point is here and i will try to find ways to respond to the message. the future is coming after. i will leave the expletive out. ms. boylen was unhappy that the governor wouldn't support her and her campaign. she blamed the governor's office and sent these threatening texts promising retribution and sure enough come december two ekes after announcing her campaign she did a series of tweets and talked about why she left the chamber. she was not honest about the circumstances of her departure and so three memos were released because a public figure running a political campaign was making statements misleading the public about what had happened and why she left. and the chamber felt a duty to correct that record. there were also witnesses that the attorney general's investigators interviewed that told them that lindsey boylen was not to be trusted and that they did not find her credible. not just based on what had happened in the tweets, but based on their professional interactions with her when she worked in the chamber. investigators didn't include that in the report and they credited ms. boylen wholesale. what perhaps i think was most bothersome, and there was a lot, but out of interviewing 179 witnesses, the investigators made a choice not to include what a lot of people had to say. and buried at the end at the page 121 is a sentence that should scare everybody. scare everybody if you are being accused of something, and this is all you get about what people have to say that's good about you. here is what it said. it said a number of former and current executive chamber staff, particularly the senior staff, as well as state troopers with the protection detail denied having witnessed or experienced any conduct by the governor that could be characterized as sexual or otherwise inappropriate. that sentence is buried at the end and of the over 1,000 footnotes, why didn't they cite the transcripts? why didn't they quote from those people? did what those people have to say bear upon any of the allegations that they included? the governor deserved to have a full and balanced report that laid it all out. but the report doesn't identify who the witnesses were, what they said, and what they were asked. i want to talk also about trooper number one. the report does corroborate that the governor supported trooper one's transfer to his detail to increase diversity among the detail members. please read that portion of the report at page 35 because when you read the narrative of the report, it makes it sound as though he wanted this trooper on his detail to sexually harass her and that just was not true. there is another member of the state police that corroborated the governor was very interested out of a detail of 60 troopers who were mostly white male to have diversity. the governor has great respect for trooper one. and he didn't touch her in a sexual manner. none of his contact with trooper one or for that matter any of the troopers was meant in any way to be inappropriate. he does greet them. he will pat them on the back. he will pat them on the side when they are opening the doors for him coming in and out of cars, on the elevator the trooper stands in front of him. the governor will tap the trooper on the back and say hello as he is walking out of the elevator. he has read what trooper one had to say and he feels very badly and he apologizes for anything that he did that caused her to feel that way. he is sorry. with respect to charlotte bennett, the governor addressed in detail in his video statement on august 3rd is important to know that any claim that he was grooming this young woman, who is a sexual assault victim, or had a romantic interest in her could not be further from the truth. his experience with a very, very close family member who is about the same age as charlotte bennett, that provided crucial context to the conversations that he had with ms. bennett. the governor testified in detail about this to the attorney general's investigators but they did not include his detailed testimony in the report. he has and he continues to apologize to ms. bennett for anything that he said in the conversations that he had with her that made her feel the way that she did. he certainly did not mean that and because of her experience and what he went through with someone very close to him, he in no way, shape or form wanted to hurt her. there are now other series of allegations that were in the report and the media keeps saying 11 women, 11 women. and i watched cbs this morning yesterday and i thought it was actually a good interview of ms. commisso. i thought the interviewer was fair. but what was bothersome to me afterwards is they then had a round table discussion about two of the men sitting there and they just kept pointing to 11 women and it was quite clear to me that they didn't know what th