tv The Ingraham Angle FOX News May 4, 2018 7:00pm-8:00pm PDT
we will always be fair and balanced. we will have a lot more on the huge breaking development on monday. have a great weekend. let not your heart be troubled. >> good evening from washington. the nra gives the president a rockstar reception at its annual meeting. and in tonight's angle, sara sanders versus and out of control press. you want to stick around for the friday folly segment. but first, a federal judge just unloads on the mueller team, suggesting they're lying and only out to get trump. ellis is hearing the case against manafort in the eastern district of virginia. he blasted the team, questioning their motives and honesty.
ellis told prosecutors, "you don't care about mr. manafort. you care about what information manafort can give you to lead you to mr. trump or an impeachment or whatever." ellis retorted, "i'll be the judge of that." and then he added, "we don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power. it's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor has the power to do anything he or she wants. the american people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power. a delighted federal trump broke news in dallas this afternoon. >> a highly respected judge in
virginia made statements. it says, "judge questions mueller's authority to prosecute manafort." judge t.s. ellis, who is really something very special, i hear from many standpoints, suggested the charges before the u.s. district court for the eastern district of virginia was just part of the mueller team's design to pressure mr. manafort to give up information on president trump. i've been saying that for a long time. it's a witch-hunt. >> well, let's review these developments with house intel committee with nunez. we have a lot to talk about with him. it's good to see you. t.s. ellis i know very well. he is a senior judge in the eastern district of virginia. i think a long time ago i interviewed with him. very well respected, appointed
by president reagan because in '87. but he was brutal on the counsel who was arguing the case, who is basically a deputy -- a general who's now in the mueller office. what were your thoughts on his comments about how this is really outside the scope of the mueller authority? >> i was astonished by the comments the judge made today, although it's not surprising. everything in this case has just gone off the rails. there's not a day that goes by that something new and crazy doesn't break. finally just today we were able to get the two pages that we needed that we now know that comey and mccabe did in fact say that general flynn -- that agents didn't think he was lying. so you have to judge saying that they're lying, the mueller team's lying. now you have the case where we
know that mr. comey has been lying out there publicly. this continues to just i think -- it's bewildering, quite frankly. >> comey basically decided to override the agents. we focus on the text with lisa page. but i believe, unless i'm wrong, i believe peter was one of the agents who interviewed a mike flynn. and we heard this for some time now confirmed that flynn didn't lie, meaning poor mike flynn. they twisted the screws on him to plead guilty to a false statement in order to, like a lot of people do, save their family and whatever money they have left. and meanwhile comey is going around saying he lied. it's wild. why would he override the agents? that's my question.
>> this isn't new news to us on the intelligence committee. this has been the problem of all these issues that they keep classified from the american people. we knew this very shortly after the interview took place, the interview where the fbi agents went into the white house and interviewed mr. flynn. shortly after that, mr. comey comes in and briefs us. that's on the record. i know he also briefed other committees. so on the record, we knew what mr. comey said. we had the transcripts. we had been fighting with the department of justice and the fbi for six weeks to release this. we finally have it tonight late on a friday night. this is total unacceptable. you have the judge from this morning. this is continued ridiculous behavior. it's like they want to keep digging. and the american people are beginning to understand that the department of justice and the fbi have major problems. i have no idea how they can
investigate themselves, but they believe they can. they have so many more documents they have to provide to us that we needed like yesterday. and i hate to have to continue to come out publicly and talk about this, that we are still missing documents important to our investigation. >> let's remind everyone. a few weeks ago you were on the show. i believe it was a friday night or a thursday night. and you essentially threatened rod rosenstein with contempt of congress or impeachment if the underlying documents, the computer document that authorized the probe of spying on carter page wasn't released. he did finally then release that. however, now you're getting slammed in response by cnn and now others that you asked for these documents and then you have a staffer read them.
you don't read them. so how serious are you? you just want to help the president. you're not reading the documents. what about that report that came out today? >> yeah, i enjoyed being attacked. the first thing i will tell you is whatever cnn and the new york times write or talk about, i don't read their information. i will tell you that. we're not going to get into the specifics about how we conduct our investigation. but i will tell you, and i've said this numerous times on your show and other, is that our lead investigator reviews the initial documents with our investigator. as the chairman of the committee, when they need documents, they come to me. we use the power that we have vested in us by the constitution to try to force the department of justice and the fbi. >> i'm trying to help our viewers understand this. when they come after you and say
nunez is getting these documents, then you don't read them, it opens you up to criticism. so i don't understand why it compromises the investigation for you to say, "i read the documents that are necessary to do this investigation and i consult with my staff on the primary documents." so i don't know why you're reluctant to say whether you read them or don't read them. i don't get that. >> first of all, what they're talking about there is it's a page and a half. what specifically what we're looking for is we're investigating the state department. we are looking for any official intelligence that came across. that's what we're looking for. that was not in the document. at this point, we have other lines on inquiry that we're going down. we have a subpoena out there. and this is why we can play process games all the time, but
at the end of the day here, we continue to have our investigation blocked. we continue to have to deal with the disinformation campaign. >> and this is what the left always does. everyone who watches this show understands because they've done it to me. they tried to. when you're effective and holding people accountable and if you're conservative or ever supported the president, you're a target. and that's why all the articles floating around about you. it's predictable. i want to read for you a comment about what's happened to the fbi. he said, "many view trump's attacks as self-serving." but as much as the roughly 14,000 special agents might like to tune out the news, internal and external reports have found
lapses throughout the agency, see a troubling picture. something really is wrong at the fbi." now that's not devin nunez saying that. that is lichtblau saying it. >> he has a tough, tough job to do. he needs to clean the place up. i've said this also publicly. we don't see a systemic problem out in the field with field agents or people overseas doing very difficult work. where we do see a problem is in washington, d.c.. now to director ray's credit, you have seen many of the comey-era people excused. that's a good sign. it would be better if he made sure we get this information we need in a timely manner. >> congressman, thank you for joining us tonight. here with reaction, our two
esteemed attorney. an author of the new book "trumped up." great to see both of you. judge ellis, you know him well. i know him well from a long time ago when i was a litigator. he's an incredibly talented judge. senior judge on the eastern district. he just laid into the special counsel's office. he said, "i don't see what relationship this indictment has against manafort with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate. it's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special counsel has this unfettered power to do whatever you want." >>they're going after people
like manafort and flynn and cohn because they want to flip them. they want to make them sing. as the judge put it in their statement, maybe even make them compose. i think i came up with that phrase. composing instead of singing. the only difference between this judge and other judges is this judge is completely and totally honest. he calls it the way he sees it. the amazing thing is he called him on it. he said, "you can't do that if you're a special counsel. you have to go after directly the evidence that's within your mandate. you can't be finding people, creating or exaggerating or coming up with crimes, not in order to get those people but in order to squeeze them and get them to sing and compose." it's about time a judge honestly looked at the situation and assessed it. you and i have been talking about this now for months. we shouldn't be surprised. but it's surprising and
refreshing that a federal judge would say that. why did mueller take this case out of virginia and try to put it in washington, d.c.? because he knows that he would get more positive judges and jurors in the district of columbia than virginia. in virginia he's going to get judges like this who are straight. and so clearly that was judge shopping and jury shopping. when i said that, i was called a racist and condemn. congressman condemned me. but i think this opinion vindicates what i've been saying for a long time. >> we do have another aspect of the case that's still in d.c. i think we lost him. if we get him back, let me know. it's an obama appointee. she still hasn't rule on the
motion to dismiss. but these banking transactions go back to 2004 and 2007. he said, "i'll be the judge of that. i don't think so. i'll be the judge of that." so 2004, 2007, an investigation that began in 2014, professor, was somehow just looped into the mueller investigation. it is ridiculous. it's so patently obvious from the very beginning. >> what they're doing to these people like manafort and flynn and cohn could happen to any of us. if you know somebody who they're going after, they're going to find something on you and squeeze you. this is something that has plagued the american justice system for many decades. if they do it to get the mafia and terrorists is maybe understandable. but to get the elected president
of the united states -- somebody i voted against -- but to use that tactic of squeezing people and making them testify and sing and compose endangers the civil liberties of all americans. >> let's look at what president trump said today after he heard about the continuing conversation about whether he should speak to a grand jury or be interviewed by mueller. he made these comments. >> i would love to speak. i would love to go. nothing i want to do more because we did nothing wrong. i have to find that we're going to be treated fairly because everybody sees it now and it is a pure witch-hunt. if i thought it was fair, i would override my lawyers. >> it's so important. everybody should read my article in today's usa today because i give advice to the president. it would be a terrible mistake for him to voluntarily testify
unless he has no choice. no prosecutor has ever tried to get anybody to speak to him to help that person. it's to spring a perjury trap. i have never had one of my clients speak to a prosecutor or voluntarily appear before a grand injury. he can fight the subpoena on the grounds that this judge has now apparently ruled saying that many of the questions are beyond the scope of the mandate of the special counsel. others are within the privilege of a president not to have to answer why he pardoned, why he fired, why he did this and that. those are not appropriate questions. the one thing you shouldn't do is volunteer to sit down and talk to a prosecutor. no good comes of that. >> people think they're so smart. and we've been around this with witnesses. the more prominent the witness, the more problems in a deposition because they don't
want to hear your advice, they don't want to be coached. they want to go and i can handle it. >> look at bill clinton. he got impeached because his lawyer gave him the advice to go and testify about his sex life at a deposition. he could have settled the case and not testified, but he didn't do that. he took the advice of the lawyer. he didn't take the advice i gave him on the network not to testify. but he made the mistake. and i don't think that president trump is going to make the mistake of testifying unless he can do it in a controlled setting a few hours with his lawyer present, limited questions about limited subjects, perhaps written answers. if i were the president's lawyer, i would take advantage of these 40-something questions and i would respond to them in writing and say to the american public, "see, i'm not afraid to answer these questions. the only reason they want to now talk to me in person is they
want to spring a perjury trap." and there's no justification for using the grand jury for that. >> we promised it was not a conspiracy. you're reaction to what's happened today. we can go back to the district court judge or you can hit any of the issues we've been talking about. >> well, i'm chomping at the bit. in regard to judge ellis, having appeared before him a handful of times in the last five or ten years, i'm not surprised. and he was equally hard on mueller and manafort's lawyer and his legal team in regard to their head shaking and what have you. but he is a smart judge. i don't disagree in regard to how the process works. they shake down drug dealers and street criminals and what have
you. but the judge wants to see the memo because he does not trust mueller and needs to render a decision. just based on the questioning, you may think he's leaning one way but go to other way. he did not issue an order. secondly, the hearing today in my opinion was really more about whether mueller -- okay, does he have jurisdiction or not? but then the other thing to notice is he had local counsel there from the eastern district. and i think if anything, the judge will say, "you can prosecute manafort if you want, but you've got to do it out of the eastern district." nobody wants to try a case in front of a d.c. juror because they tend to be more liberal. so they do reach out to virginia if they can make the case. in regard to the rest of the issues, the subpoenas and what
the house investigators are doing, they really ought though just let the mueller investigation go forward. this whole corruption piece and picking and choosing these documents are real problems >> heaven forbid we have congress hold the executive branch accountable. they're supposed to keep each other honest. >> if the ongoing investigation is a travesty of justice, yes, we do want it. all right: . the press versus sara sanders. don't want to miss it.
sandse sandsers. that's the focus of tonight's angle. yesterday the white house press briefing turned into a total frenzy. the white house press corps is up in arms over the discrepancy of what she told the press previously and what giuliani revealed this week. >> why can't you just answer yes or no whether you were in the dark? i think it's a fairly simple question. >> i think it's a fairly simple answer. i gave you the best answer i had and i'll continue to do that every single day. >> have we ever gotten any truth out of them? have they become to the point that they've become null and void? >> but she's lying to the american public and i think she needs to own that.
being ignorant and lying about it is just not an excuse. >> is no comment a better option? >> if you're just going to lie, why bother? >> this is how democracy die slowly right in front of us. every single day, deception and lies become normal. >> how dramatic, mike. "this is how democracy dies." oh, please. then under the headline "why sara sanders should quit." she lost it with that answer. admitting that you misled the press because the president misled you is tantamount to taking your credibility, pouring gasoline on it, and then setting it on fire. well, these people are going to lecture us about credibility? the press? consider the sources. or actually, yeah.
are these reliable sources? for the most part, the white house press pool has become a -- just listen to this. >> she can be mad at what i say right now. tough. i'm a reporter who's going to continue to ask questions and there was nothing wrong with that question. >> i wish i could install a bs meter. unfortunately, i think it would be going off all the time. >> i actually really like sara. i think she's very resourceful. she burns facts and uses that ash to create a smoky eye. >> the effort to demean and drive out sanders and send her packing from her job is part of the politics of personal destruction in this town,
washington, d.c. anyone who works for the president is a target because the resistance wants to thin the ranks of those in the administration and advance a narrative of internal division and chaos. and at the same time, sarah sanders is in a very difficult position and has to look out for her own credibility as well. she was given scant information and repeated what she was told in good faith. all questions about this information should have been referred to the president's legal team, period. trump needs a legal spokesperson, which he doesn't have at this point. issues pertaining to an ongoing investigation should not be address eed by the white house press opinion. sanders can't be brought on on these legal discussions without becoming a witness herself. she doesn't want that.
so, it is right for the legal team to have kept sarah sanders in the dark on these sensitive topics for her own protection. and this is why i've always warned against arguing your case in the press. it's tempting. i know you want to respond to everything. but it is too fraught with complications and very easy to make a misstep. but do not presume that these journalists are trying to keep it real. they have proudly, many of them, become hostile adversaries in the vanguard of the resistance. it's gotten so bad that reporters are now engaging in full-out intimidation of the white house press folks, even threats of physical violence. again, here's april ryan from yesterday. >> why didn't he talk to the white house press office about his impacting statements about what was happening?
>> the white house press office wouldn't coordinate with the president's outside legal team on legal strategies. >> you said you were blindsided. >> i actually didn't use that term. >> well, i said it. but you were blindsided by what you said. >> with all due respect, you don't know much about me in terms of what i feel and what i don't. >> the presidential spokesperson, the mouthpiece of the president of the united states to say, "you don't know me," in certain quarters in this nation. that starts a physical fight. i was very shocked. it was street. i will even go beyond that. it was gutter. >> do you know what gutter is? this twitter exchange between april ryan, a white house correspondent, and the former democratic mayor of baltimore. blake writes, "april ryan unsolicited comeback suggestions for press secretary. i may not know you, but i damn
sure know a lie and you were wearing it, sis, all over your face." "lol, stop. i know you have my back. that you don't know me stuff begins fist fights. she needs to know what she is saying. i am not the one." blake then tweets back, "i already took my earrings off and vaseline in my purse." then april ryan tweets back again, "that's what i'm talking about. take off that pretty ring to the -- whatever she says, street fight, lol. this is gutter. and a gutter in need of a little editing, apparently. but it's twitter. can you imagine if someone on this network started taking off their earrings and said, "take off your pretty ring and let's have a street fight with our
political opponents"? it would be instant armageddon. they would say we were inciting violence. they said it the other night about ben shapiro. he was inciting violence because he tweeted something. but these journalists feel protected and free to threaten and slander members of the trump administration with abandon. their shared hatred of president and those he represents unites them in what they do and say. and they think think do it with impunity. remember, she was the journalist who hazed sanders last thanksgiving, suggesting that she didn't really bake that pecan pie that she tweeted a picture of. >> i appreciate your agenda here, but the reality is -- oh, no, no. hold on. no, at some point, report the
facts. the facts are that every single person briefed on the subject has come away -- i'm sorry that that disgusts you. you're shaking your head. it seems like you're hellbent on trying to make sure whatever image your trying to tell about this white house stays. >> april ryan's been tough on democrat spokesmen as well. but here is the reality. journalists are representatives in the halls of power. their job is to ask substantive questions and get answers. they're not there to be partisan bullies. if you want to raise your profile by staging viral confrontation of public figures, do it on your own time. get a podcast or be a regular pundit on msnbc. why don't you start by trying to
restore your own? and keep those rings in your purse and the vaseline. put that away. that's the angle. coming up, our friday folly segment, the fired house chaplain is now reinstated by paul ryan, stoking a political firestorm and university students petitioning to change their school's nickname because, guess what, the snowflakes find it offensive.
>>the former president spent the last 13 days at houston methodist hospital fighting an infection that spread to his blood. doctors report the 41st president is doing well and happy to be returning home. south korean president will visit the white house towards the end of the month. this will be the third time he and president trump have met. u.s. navy is bringing back its second fleet seven years after it was shut down. john richardson said the decision to bring back the fleet was due to great power competition, but he didn't name any nations in particular. however, the pentagon's new national defense strategy identifies russia and china as the biggest threats. we're just getting word that two top advisors for comey have
resigned, including lisa page. i'm ed henry. now back to "the ingraham angle." >>it's time for our friday follies segment. and we can start with the case of the reinstated house chaplain pat now he's back to discuss the political fallout with new information, new reportings. we're joined by raymond arroyo. this has my head spinning.
but he was kind of pushed to the side. he was retiring. and now he's back. >> i asked him to retire. he submitted his resignation. >> he's a good man and i'm grateful for his many years of service to the house. this is not about politics or prayers. this is about pastoral services. and a number of our members felt like the pastoral services were not being adequately served or offered. and so i made a decision on behalf of the house. >> now, i spoke to members, laura. it started with four last week. i spoke to another five or six this week. the people who actually went and complained to paul ryan. they said they liked the pastor but he was a little distant. in one-on-one counseling, he didn't really give them the pastoral touch they wanted. >> can you give specifics? >> there was one woman who had a difficult family situation.
she went to him. he was very cold. >> didn't he say something like, "go to your home pastor." >>he also didn't organize many events. anyway, they complained to paul ryan. that is why he asked for the man's resignation. >> why is he back? >> he's back because he complained. he went to the media and complained that paul ryan's chief of staff said, "maybe it's time that we had a chaplain that wasn't catholic." turns out what he really said was, "we're going to have an open process where we look at all denominations." >>it's about time. apparently, this guy was not all that popular. he just wasn't. and let me backtrack. if you're going to make a decision, make a decision. >> well, he's reluctant.
>> the left is all happy about this. they feel like they got their guy back in. he's more of a liberal priest. but that wasn't wise. >> in the democratic caucus, they were willing to have a huge fight. >> okay. so you're always rescuing people. >> i am trying to give you the honest goods here. you just want me to take a hard -- >>basically, they ushered him out. he had great years of service. and now he's back. okay, fine. let's go to the extremely offensive george washington university mascot or motto or -- >>their mascot and their nicknames are the colonials. students wrote a petition. >> they have nothing better to do than complain about a mascot. >> the use of the colonials, no
matter how innocent, is extremely offensive. they say the historically negatively charge of colonials has a deep connection. it glorifies the -- could you quiet? it glorifies the act of systemic oppression. here's my problem with this. it's named after george washington. of course you have colonials. it's representing the continental congress. those are the people who fought for the rights of kids to file sil silly petitions like this. >> they renamed my college the big green. what the heck is a big green? i don't even know what that is. >> it's like the move to remove the leprechaun from notre dame.
>> all right, kanye west. >> every time i'm in detroit, i listen to 105 the bomb. listen. >> do you think as a show, we should ban together and not play any of kanye west's throwback strongs? >> i don't want to hear it. and this is probably going to get some people upset because they like kanye. they're a fan of kanye. and i get that. >> so you want us to stop playing them all? >> i'm okay with the small platform that we do have, to not continue to give him a platform that is spewing things that are reckless. >> a lot of anger out there. and this is all about the comments he made about the 400
years of slavery. then he said, it's like we're mentally in prison. that was the point of what he meant. and he's being sidelined. his music is being boycotted. we'll see where this end. free thought not allowed. >> kanye will be bigger than ever. >> mm, the next roseanne? >> he will be bigger than ever, because he thinks for himself. up next, trump brings down the house at the nra's annual meeting and makes some news. we'll discuss it next. as a control enthusiast, i'm all-business when i travel... even when i travel... for leisure. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges. what can i say? control suits me.
president. democrats and liberals in congress want to disarm law-abiding americans at the same time they're releasing dangerous criminal aliens and savage gang members onto our streets. we believe that our liberty is a gift there our creator and that no government can ever take it away. we strongly believe in allowing highly trained teachers to carry concealed weapons. there's no sign more inviting to a mass killer than a sign that declares, "this school is a g - gun-free zone. come in and take us." we will never give up our freedom. americans are born free, we will live free and we will die free. >> well, despite the warm welcome, nra members became nervous when trump seemed open
to some gun control measures. the administration hasn't pushed gun rights bills such as that concealed carry reciprocity legislation. let's get reaction. great to see both of you. all right, matt, you were in the room as this was going down today. and it was a rockstar welcome. they love president trump. and he made a little news today. tell us about it. >> yeah, well, that's right. the one thing about president trump is he doesn't have a long standing voting record and he's willing to look at these issues afresh. which sometimes makes people nervous. he talks about the idea that we have to confront these ideas and look at our laws. he's talked about the background check.
and it makes some people in the room uneven. but overall, the people who are members the of the nra are just so thankful to have a president standing up for the second amendment. i would say overall a rousing reaction. >> congressman unloaded on guns and gun control and he said something about conification -- confiscation, which made people concerned. "we should buy back such weapons by all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons." people always jump to, "you just want to take our guns away." and democrats say they just want smart laws. but he goes to confiscation here. what do you think about that? >> well, i understand, watching
president trump, where he conflates all sorts of different things, where it conflates immigration and the second amendment. but the truth of the matter is the second amendment is not under siege. the supreme court is safely conservative. the thing he's been most successful about has been conservatives in the court, on the court. the second amendment is not going anywhere. and polling of gun owners on the whole actually show that people are open to regulations, whether it's in terms of people stalking and domestic violence. >> people are talking australian-style gun confiscati confiscation. people say this is ridiculous. we don't need these guns.
the second amendment's not going anywhere. we're not trying to take anyone's guns, but we don't want parkland to happen again. and there's got to be something in between those two things. >> we know all the things that led up to that. >> but everything was legal. he bought a legal weapon. >> yeah, he did. but we had multiple warnings to the fbi. the sheriff obviously himself under siege for his handling of all this as it was happening when people were sitting outside instead of rushing into the building. but i think when you looked at what happened today, president trump was talking about the nra being under siege. it has blood on its hands. we even had jim comey on wednesday in miami. he was doing a book event. and he said, "the nra sells fear to gun owners." he said he didn't like to get
into politics, but he was adamant that the nra is part of the problem. >> well, they can't have it both ways. the congressman can't put out a tweet saying he wants to do confiscation of guns and on the other hand say it's not under attack. the second amendment is the constitution, but democrats want to take their ability to regulate our ability to own guns to the max. i was in the white house when the last semiauto ban expired. they realized the politics of gun confiscation are terrible. so they jump on these issues when there's these terrible tragedies, but when it really comes down to the legislation, like when barack obama had a majority in the senate and house, he didn't get it done. >> thanks for being here tonight. and the weekends on a fantastic
april. that's the lowest in 18 years. and we added 24,000 manufacturing jobs last month. that's an amazing increase. now, the rallying trump economy, i guess it's news to a media obsessed with all things stormy. but the reality is, trump is proving himself to be the jobs president. and the jobs he's helping create are diverse jobs, and they're having a major impact on the economy. the president is bringing back blue-collar jobs. yeah, america is making actual products again. and remember when the experts said none of this would ever happen? >> a lot of these manufacturing jobs, a lot of what we're talking about over time, those industries are not coming back. >> pennsylvania, ohio,
michigan, they've lost jobs that are never coming back. >> how exactly are you going to do that? what are you going to do? there's no answer to it. >> yeah, here's the answer. obama was dead wrong. trump was right. and by the way, now obama's top advisor is trying to suggest that the former president obama deserves credit for what trump has accomplishes. >> the new job numbers are the lowest in anybody's memory, 3.9% unemployment rate. do you give him credit for that? >> i think we have to look at it over a longer horizon than that. >> oh, of course, it's all obama's doing. it's all because of things he did. let's analyze the trump economy with the former ceo of the parent company of hardee's and carl's jr.
i love the fact that the old obama folks are trying to say, "well, look, look at what obama was handed. he was handed an economy that had had been through hell and it was coming back, and he added all these jobs. and trump waltzes in. and it was going well, but it was going well over obama. >> everything bad was bush's fault and everything good under trump's presidency is due to obama. this is one of the reasons i wrote the book so people would have the ammunition to defend president trump's economic accomplishments but explain how his capitalist policies have brought back the economic resurgence. this is the elizabeth warren,
bernie sanders economy and they can't let it appear that donald trump is being successful because it puts the lies to the notion that obama's policies were in the country's best interest. they were not. >> hillary admitted that the other night when she said the whole capitalist thing might have hurt her campaign. obama said back in 2016, "how does he expect to bring these jobs back? it's not going to happen." he's bringing them back because he's incentivizing companies with lower taxes. dropping the tax rate and not penalizing them. >> you look at every report on gdp by quarter during the obama
administration. businesses were investing. you look what's happened since president trump's been in office. we went from an economy where workers couldn't find good-paying jobs, to an economy where the biggest problem businesses are facing are they can't find enough employees to fill the jobs. >> and i love that in the blue-collar jobs, you're seeing a $25,000 signing bonus for employees. wages need to start rising. andy, love the book. thank you so much for joining us. >> thanks for having me on. >> absolutely, we'll have you back for sure. we're going to close this out when we come back.
shannon bream and the fox news at night team are coming up next. good night from washington. >>nobody has unfettered power. a federal judge's stunning admonition to mueller's special counsel team. plus breaking news tonight. ed henry's tracking the latest development. and they're not trying to ban guns at the a federal level, but what about the state level? and when night court convenes, a high school baseball player suing his coach for telling him to slide. we'll lay out the facts for you. new tonight, a friday