tv The Ingraham Angle FOX News July 6, 2018 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
>> mark: motivated as ever. see you next time on life, liberty, and leave vin. levin".. . . . >> good evening from new york >> good evening, this is the "ingraham angle," i'm pete in for laura tonight. a lot of major news developments going on, including new details about intense, institutional intentional pressure. applied by the fbi at the highest level to investigate the trump campaign. new details, we'll bring it to you. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer are getting are scorched from the left over the trump maxine waters feud. what you aren't going to believe is why. and a big trade par between the u.s. and china is officially under way. at least the first shots have been lobbied. president trump may have won the first battle.
we'll sman that later in the program. the white house doubling down in its support of i.c.e. calls to abollish the agency are spreading like wildfire throughout the left. mike fence became the latest administration official when the number 2 comes to the defense you know they're bringing the big guns to draw a line in the sand against the onslaught. listen. >> i stand before you today at a time when some people are actually calling for the be a oi bal is of i.c.e. let me be clear. in this white house we are with you 100%. the american people have every right to engage in peaceful protests. but these threats against i.c.e. officers and their families must stop. and they must stop now. under president donald trump, we will never abollish i.c.e. >> with as strong as i've seen
mike pence in the last year and a half. abollish i.c.e. supporters want to make it a wedge issue as the mid terms approach. is it go towing blow up in their faces or might work? joining us with reaction is fox news contributor rachel campos duffy and immigration attorney hernandez and fox news contributor doug zone. you have the home court advantage, doug. not a set issue that abollish i.c.e. is good for democrats and not much consensus. >> i think it's bad issue, well outside the mainstream of what the american people want. they want border enforcement. many want a wall. the number who want open borders are to relax scrutiny of those coming in at a time of error and illegal immigrants coming from central america is very small. i think it's the far left and the democratic party, hijacking
effectively the mainstream narrative to the ultimate detriment i believe of the party that this carries on. >> there because a poll from reuters, rachel, that showed the most important issue for registered voters is immigration at 15%. not majority, just a flur at. -- plurality. this is a different poll. here's the poll we want1. 5%. however, for democrats, it's only 7% is the highest issue. it appears, for republicans, 26% of republicans believe that it's the most important issue. a lot of intensity on the republican side, less so on the democratic side. feels like the far extreme of the democrat party is driving this abollish i.c.e. narrative and potential, really bad direction for the party. >> absolutely, doug is right. this is well abollishing ice is well outside the mainstream. the democrat party is well outside the mainstream. i tell what you concerns people about the border and about
what's coming across the border, it's about drugs. pete, you're from the midwest, you know where these forgotten communities are that are finally coming back, thanks to the trump economy. but they're still suffering because of so much drugs that are devastating our communities, devastating the families. vast majority coming over the southern border. that's important to them. let me state 127,000 undocumented criminals were arrested by i.c.e. last year. almost 2,000 of those were homicides, 78,000 of those arrests were for drugs. axwolish i.c.e.? what happened to those 127,000 criminal illegal immigrants. >> great point. francisco, if you watch the so-called mainstream media this was going to be trump's katrina, zero tolerance policy, to tank his numbers. i'll put the poll up that we showed briefly, the wrong one at first but now we get it right.
trump's approval rating with hispanics has increased by 10%. counter intuitive to coastal elites. hispanics that came here legally it's offensive to think immigration is the only issue that matters to them. economy has improved, lives are improving and they think laws ought to matter. does that surprise you? >> well, the numbers don't matter anything. let's keep our eye on the ball. immigration, i mean, if the. and congress have done zero on immigration which was promised. it was sworn to. >> hold on, you're saying the president has done nothing. yet the entire left wing says the trump administration is doing too much. >> no, they haven't even gotten a single dollar to put the first brick on the border wall. >> not true. >> they've done zero. >> wasn't there an allocation in the bunl snept it wasn't as much
as trump supporters want, 1.6 billion. . it was for repairs to the stuff that fell when we tried to build it in 2001. okay, guys, we still can't buy the property for a wall. what happened with congress acting, what happened with the dreamers? what happened with the immigration reform? what happened, we're going to fix this. we're in a labor shortage in this country, the worst labor shortage we have had in 100 years for sure. we can't pass immigration reform? congress is sitting there. now we're blaming i.c.e. you realize how irresponsible it is to blame i.c.e.? >> that's a different issue. >> their lives are in danger. >> thanks for saying that, i.c.e. has become the catch-all for resistance to the administration. >> get off your butt -- >> i.c.e. is only doing what congress told to it do. >> doug, to your point, has the president has a willing partner on getting anything serious? >> no. [all speaking at once] >> can you let some one else
talk other than you? i'm all for immigration reform. i'm also for civility. to have civility requires negotiation. you can do the wall, you can do the dreamers, but you need compromise to do it. francisco is right to the extent that there is no, nothing going on in congress. but, really, your point is exactly right, pete. francisco, give peep am break. >> we'll get back to you. >> if i.c.e. becomes the proxy for immigration, the democrats hurt themselves, b, there's no immigration reform. and ultimately the party could be marginalized in the mid terms and going forward to 2020. >> rachel, can the democrats overcome identity politics to be serious on this issue? >> no, i mean, pete, you property this up at the beginning of the segment, the vice president speaking so strongly. there's a reason why the vice president is doubling down on what the president said earlier.
his speech this week, he said the democrat party wants anarchy. that is absolutely true. this is where the democrat party are, they are the party of social interests, anarchy. we have never had a president, a leader of the republican party, with the, i don't want to use the word, but you know what i'm talking about, the gumption to say the truth. and it's resonating. people love law enforcement. people want rule of law including hispanics, why that poll that you mentioned earlier, up by 10%, if you live in central america you know exactly what happens when there is no rule of law. you know exactly what happens when you have a government that can't control its borders. and can't control corruption. so, yes, this is a winning issue for the president. that is why he's doubling down on it, why that vice president is doubling down on it. and the democrats are fools to go with this abollish i.c.e. message. >> francisco, you've been champing at the bit.
>> i've been champ chomping at the bit, we need the president to lead the republican majority in congress to pass immigration reform. did we forget the republicans have majority in the house and the senate and they're both afraid of the democratic fill buster? let 'em filibuster, let them show the other side of the coin. >> what is the other side of the coin they're going to show, open borders? is it am necessary city prout without the wall? . single employment permits, row knewable year-to-year. make them share the pain of the taxes, they're not committing crimes, they're fully employed, paying taxes. year-to-year renewable cards. >> i'm for that. immigration reform. i'm a democrat, i'm not an anarchist. there is a civil wing of the democratic party that's rational. >> where are you other than -- >> i'm right here, i'm with you.
>> where is the majority, where is the leadership on this. with that approach. >> we don't have vocal leadership. connor lamb won a congressional race, doug jones in alabama, there are sentists. but it's sadly the case. we don't have leadership to compromise, do what francisco wants to do, to get comprehensive immigration reform, get the border done, get guest workers and pathway to citizenship. for the dreamers. >> you don't compromise, you have the republican, the republicans have a majority. >> we're one nation. >> you know you need to beat a fill buster in the senate, something that democrats would never vote for. rachel, last word on this? >> i would just say thanks to the very radical turn, and the freedom that they have now to expose themselves as the radicals they are on the democrat side. i think we may finally get the majority we need in the senate during the mid-term i don't think it'll be a blue wave.
these positions that the democrats are taking are going to get us majority we need to pass the four pillars that donald trump wants. >> i think you're right, in a common common sense america, if the issue is immigration, the economy is going will well and the other immigration, i stand with i.c.e. versus abollish i.c.e., i want bor ders versus open borders, i team like that cuts in the president's direction. all of you, thank you. >> republicans are behind by about nine points in recent polls. democrats have a chance, if and only if it's a big if. >> they were behind with president trump. >> all of the doug zone centrists. >> join me. >> a lot are becoming republicans, yes, you're right, rachel. fiery debate. up next, fewly released memos shall raising new questions about major fbi pressure, institutional pressure, intentional pressure to investigate the trump campaign. the new details you aren't going to want to miss. to want to miss coming up next.
it's a difference you can see, touch, and feel. that's proudly particular. century. only at select local paint and hardware stores. >> >> welcome back. we're just getting warmed up, stick with us. new light cast on the fbi's efforts to investigate the trump campaign. john solomon's latest piece if the "the hill" newspaper talkses
about internal memos with pressure putting on them to get a warrant on former trump advisor carter pain. e-mail exchange between fbi agent peter strzok and his lover lisa page from october 14 of 2016, a few weeks before the election, shows their desire to create talking points for then fbi deputy director andy mccabe to secure that warrant. one e-mail reads, in part, at minimum that keeps the hurry the f up pressure on mccabe. believe it or not that is just the tip of the iceberg. joining us now with reaction is tom fitten, the president of judicial watch. thanks for joining us this morning. we buried the l.e.d.e. on this one -- buried the lede, this is from september 26 of 2016. he said, as a pretext, he said this, and i quote, at minimum, the letter, the letter that
carter page wrote, provides us a pretext to interview him, protect is code for an excuse, to interview carter page. how explosive is this? . it's further confirmation that the trump-russia investigation was affected by the hyper political bias against president trump where they're looking for excuses to target his team. you had page write a letter complaining about an improper fbi leak and the response from one of the top fbi officials, let's use as an excuse to bring him in and interview him. and then they follow that up with the infamous fisa warrants which were supported, would never have been approved but for the reliance on the clinton dnc dossier. then another aspect of this, which is also in solomon's piece, that right after the election, they are talking about, the day after the election, president trump is elected, focus on well we have
to get all of the people tied to paul manafort and figure out what we're going to do. paul manafort is being tar getted not because of what he did wrong but the trigger is president trump's election. paul manafort right now is in solitary confinement. president trump should think about ordering his justice department to at least shut this mueller investigation down or pause it, given all of the corruption in its formation. in the fbi in 20 -- >> the e-mail that says we need all of their names to scrub and should give them ours. scrubbing at the election never a good look. carter page was on this network on a couple of hours ago speaking for himself. listen. >> tucker: could you expect you're going to be channelled with anything after all of this? >> tucker, i couldn't even imagine anything that i could owe potentially be channelled with.
after seeing john solomon's article, it becomes, the whole, using the term from that quote that you had, pretext. the pretext was absolutely outrageous. ridiculous. >> they found a protect. then they surveilled the guy for a year. sounds like a guy that seems pretty confident they didn't find anything. was this the witch hunt the president accuses? >> carter page was a cooperating informant with the fbi. and strzok knew that. that's why they used the phrase pretext. the spying on carter page was a convenient vehicle to get at the trump operation. who knows what other applications were corruptly sent over to the court as well. carter pam isn't going to be prosecuted. there is no russia collusion. and the only collusion that we're aware of with respect to russia is hillary clinton, using gps to gather russian intelligence to smear donald trump. mueller ought to be investigating how his investigation started if he's
looking for russian could lugs. -- collusion. >> mueller's operation is ramping up we hear. what does that say to you? >> well, there are no controls over mueller, practically speaking. not only does he have the other lawyers he's hired, all of which are registered democrats, no registered republicans, he's actually going into the justice department and as needed, using other resources informally. that budget is just a pretend number. the justice department that mueller beck and call, out of control investigation. really abusive in its targeting and not only president trump but people around him. >> i love pretend numbers, my favorite. tom faten, appreciate your time. >> you're welcome. >> joining with us reaction from the other side is julian epstein, democratic strategist. thank you for joining us. you have been on these
committees that seek this. >> yes, both of them. >> let's say this was a democratic now president who is a candidate spied on by an agency controlled by bias toward republicans. wouldn't you want committees fighting for every document they can get and no the committees are showing us the bias we saw on the text messages, could have been fun but now they've been institutionized into pretext. into pressure. into hurry the f up. does this not take private exchanges and turn them into institutional bias i've been the staff director and chief counsel for both committees. what i would tell the committee chair if i were serving there, let's look at the big picture. allow me to give context. the republic an chaired senate intelligence committee came out and said yes the russians interfered in the 2016 election to help donald trump. the evidence is overwhelming. the idea that this is a biased investigation -- >> that's not collusion. >> you didn't interfere with tom, let me finish.
there may or may not be collusion. there was interference, the idea we shouldn't be investigating this or that is false. that's one. two, in terms of the collusion question, we know donald trump jr., we know that paul manafort, we noel that others, kushner, met with people who they believed to be representatives of the russian government giving dirt on the clintons. so whether there was a violation of criminal law we don't know. there is smoke there. there have been 19, let me finish, there have been 19 indictments of individuals. three by trump, three indictments of trump campaign officials. five guilty pleas. the idea that this is a bogus investigation is ridiculous. the i.g. said on peter strzok to get to your question, now, peter strzok may have been a bad actor but he did not influence any of the decision of the fbi. >> you did a great, masterful job of rattling off every left wing walking point. >> no, no. >> you did a nice job. then you said peter strzok is
just a small guy over here. no, peter strzok was in charge of the hillary clinton e-mail investigation. he was in charge --. no, he wasn't. . in channel of the trump investigation. >> no, he wasn't. >> the agent in charge -- >> he was the lead investigator. >> okay. >> get the facts straight. >> lead investigator, i'm happy to use whatever term you want to use. dismissed from the mueller probe for anti-trump bias. he wanted to stop trump, wanted to find a pretext, how can you sit there as some one who has wait a minuted to get the facts from these committees before and say this isn't relevant. by the way, we wouldn't know this information if not for committees and the i.g. unearthing it. hillary clinton won we would never know. i don't understand why you can't admit that sometimes this looks really bad for the institution of the fbi and what they were doing politically. >> peter strzok was a bad actor and shouldn't have been there. but i refer you back to the i.q. the network has touted. the inspector general said he
was a bad actor but he did not influence the final decisions of the fbi. let me put it this way. the fwib, nobody in their -- fbi, nobody in their right mind, no republican consultant thinks the fbi helped hillary clinton and hurt donald trump. the fbi hurt hillary clinton by putting this information out. james comey put it out -- >> they believed she would be the next president of the united states. >> you don't interrupt tom. you don't interrupt tom. >> tom makes sense. >> you don't want to hear the facts? you said ined a ver tently. inadvertently. >> you said the i.g. -- >> excuse me. >> he covered the hillary clinton server. this covers the trump issue. the i.g. hasn't exonerated strzok on that. >> roll back the time, you're fakually wrong. james comey came out the wing will have before the election --
tomplts hurt hillary? it didn't hurt her. >> whoa, whoa, there's no question that that hurt hillary. the fbi did not -- >> that's wasn't his intent. >> the fbi did not talk about the donald trump investigation. if there was any bias it was against hillary. >> because they didn't think he would win. >> whatever you may think. but to your thesis -- >> they're facts. >> your thesis that the fbi is trying to hurt donald trup and help hillary clinton. >> i don't know how you read stop trump in text messages, find a pretext. >> let's stick to the facts here. >> to put the pressure on him, i don't understand, if those aren't plain english in front of you that there was bias i don't know is what. you should be applauding "the hill" for pressing these institutions to get information the republic would not know. >> let's just, we can be resettive as much as you want to be. peter strzok had no business being inside the fbi and was the wrong guy to be inside the fbi.
the inspector general said, and there are probably 200 investigators working on this investigation. >> only one guy in charge. >> of which he was one. peter strzok went around and organized the conspiracy with 200 other fbi investigators? that is such a silicon spir si lame brain theory. >> you know this, but -- i'm not indicting all of the investigators. >> this is an investigation that was handled, headed by a republican head of the fbi. and the actions that he took before the election hurt hillary clinton and helped donald trump. >> wow. but this is strzok spin. james comey wanted to take down hillary clinton and s port donald trump? that's crazy. you came out starting to talk about it. appreciate that. >> find me a republican consultant that will say james comey's aks before the election helped hillary clinton. >> you talk about intent, i'm not talking about whether or not it helped. we'll have to leave it there. >> you put words in my mouth. i said it and the fbi hurt
hillary clinton and helped donald trump before it lex. and i pointed out strzok may have been wrong about the you have 19 indictments, including indictments of trump -- fferblts this was the other way around you would say peter strzok was in charge of the investigation. one the guy in request, wasn't doing much. >> let me repeat it, i have experience with the fbi. james comey, republican, was in charge of the fbi. >> i don't think he would own that label. . mueller's indictments, fact cohen seems to be ready to flip on trump. everything else is validating. >> i feel like if they hadn't, it would have leaked -- >> read the republican intelligence statement. >> thank you very much. no, i appreciate it, julian, thanks for your time. we have to move on. the left mounts a jaw dropping new defense of maxine waters in her feud with president trump. you won't believe whoo who they're throwing under the bus. . ♪
a hotel can make or break a trip. and at expedia, we don't think you should be rushed into booking one. that's why we created expedia's add-on advantage. now after booking your flight, you unlock discounts on select hotels right until the day you leave. ♪ add-on advantage. discounted hotel rates when you add on to your trip. only when you book with expedia.
>> welcome back. nancy >> nap si pelosi and chuck schumer are under fire from the left over the handling of president trump's feud with maxine waters a letter signed by about 200 black female leaders and allies, men, blasts pelosi and 1450 upper from distancing themselves from the congress woman after shed on ad voe kated her. failing to support congress woman waters is an affront to her and black women and tell graphs a message that the democratic party can ill afford that it does not respect black women's leadership and political power and discounts the impact of black women and my lennial voters. not sure, clear what my lennial voters have-to-do with this. have they not had a single thing
congresswoman waters has said? joining with us reaction, talk radio host and fox news contribute or kevin
jackson and erica thomas, democratic state representative for the state of georgia. thank you for joining us. kevin, maxine waters has said in piece 45, harassing trump supporters, shoot straight, the wounded animal. we can't criticize her? these looid leaders say she hasn't been defended sufficiently. what do you make? . what a great time to be a conservative in america to watch the democrats eat their own. and it's in public view. maxine waters has been one of the most insinldry people on the democratic side, firmly representative of the left. i see why schumer and pelosi distance themselves from her. she is strong beyond definition. look, she's getting, reaping what she sewed over the years. her wanting to impreach president trump, who has done an amazing job for blacks, while
watching those numbers drop, they've watched the black population slowly shift toward the republicans, they have watched this
walk-highway movement from the democrats take form, they've watched his panics, the latest polls on them, for trump. the millenials are for trump. women for trump. the reason is simple, trump has performed. looking at his record in comparison to barack obama and maxine waters is living on the muscle memory of that are you're seeing the outcome. >> erica, president trump has taken on maxine waters. maxine waters has said very incendiary things about him and trump supporters. why does a letter like this have to focus on discounting the impact of black women, that this is an affront on black women, whether she was black or white or hispanic, the things she says about this report worthy of fair critique. why does this letter go straight to identity politics? >> thank you for that. first i want to go back to what
kevin jackson said, there's polls out there saying that hispanics are more for republicans and black women are now more for republicans. i'd like to see that poll. >> i didn't say that. >> i don't know any his panics that i talk to that are for trump and shifting toward republicans. i would love you to tell me what the facts are. >> support for the president, among hispanics that's a fact from a harvard harris poll. i asked you, why is this about gender and race as opposed to the call out harassment of trump supporters which has nothing to do with race. >> i want to say i am not saying that inciting harassment to any person is what we need to be doing. not at all. we need to be denouncing harassment. every time i'm on fox news, so many people don't like my difference in opinion, always on
my facebook, stain dpram saying things that are threatening me. but i let them have their free speech. that is the number one thing, i let them have their free speech. they are entitled to that. i will never say at any point, you can't have your free speech. i don't agree with what you're saying. and at the end of the day we have to make sure that we let people have their free speech. >> answer the question. i'm happy to answer the question, pete, she won't. the reason they played the race card is because that's all they've got. maxine waters and the congressional black, i call them congressional black circus clowns are driving blacks and other democrats from the party because of the things they're doing. maxine waters, essentially put a target on all of the trump a administration employees and said it's okay to go after these people. their opinions differ. that's the whole crux of this whole thing.
maxine waters and the left don't want our opinions to be heard. the only way they can get in -- >> you calling black people clowns? i heard you say black people are clowns. >> it's not a racial issue. >> he's talking about the caucus interaction. >> i would love to know who is a clown in this. >> my question, erica, do you think maxine waters, do you think maxine waters is a good representative for the modern democratic party, does she help your side? >> what i would like to say is that congresswoman maxine waters has her opinion and she has her freedom of speech. i to the believe that chuck schumer, senator chuck schumer, what his name is, he should not be on the senate floor denouncing his own party member. >> he called her out, he said what she said was unamerican. >> it's free speech. >> you're okay with him saying that.
>> you don't call black people clowns. >> chuck schumer said what many americans in this country think, and he said his opinion as well, chuck schumer has no obligation to take up for maxine waters when she essentially put the target on the back of the trump administration and any other conservative in the country. i repeat maxine waters and the congressional black caucus are nothing but a bunch of circus clowns, time people call them out. blacks in america, democrats are leaving the party for that reason. >> you're a black man. tell me who is representing you in congress. that's black. >> i don't need people representing me in congress. >> my question, erica, what does skin color have to do with representation. tim scott is a black man from south carolina, i think represents my interests very well. just like white men and black women. why is that the definitive kashg advertise trick. >> that's all they have. >> i'm asking you, want us to
call people out, say that black people are clowns i would love to know how you are being represented in congress. >> we're going to have to -- >> i'm well represented. >> maxine waters will continue to be -- >> don't call black people clowns. >> we have to leave it there. thank you for your time. it's being called the biggest trade war in economic history, not sure who said that but they must know what they're talking about. it's between the u.s. and china. is president trump, although, already winning it? we'll explain coming up. it? we'll explain that coming up
>> welcome back. well, the trade war >>. trade war between the u.s. and china has officially begun at least the first shots fired of the today the trump administration slapped $34 billion in tariffs on chinese goods and china retaliating with tariffs of its own, targeting the u.s. and area where trump got the most support. president trump actually winning
this war already? there are signs of increasingly weak chinese economy. the u.s. labor department reported another strong month for american jobs and the economy in june. joining us with more is torey when itting of the heritage foundation. along with eric beach, co-chair of the pro trump great america pac. thanks for joining thus evening. torey, let me start with you, you're not a farr fan of the tariff strategy. the administration says we're fair traders and free traders and the path to fair trade and free trade is staring down china and and others who have a slanted playing field. if you don't follow through, at the beginning, you aren't going on get anything to change. >> well, thanks for having me on tonight, pete. i think one of the biggest things that we need to talk about is the great policies in -- policies in the trump administration that are developing and leading you us, we have great jobs numbers coming out. on top of that, good economic growth for two quarters last year. we saw growth above 3% for two
quarters last year. these are coming from policies like tax reform and regulatory preform that are straight out of the heritage foundation economic growth playbook. >> trade isn't out of the playbook. >> what is in the playbook, pete, are all of these great trade policies the heritage foundation has been promoting for several years. we have found that our economic policies work for growth. we've seen it already. we want to see them do more with our policies. >> torey -- eric, she laid out why the economic policies domestically are successful. but you say the slanted playing field is going hurt us. against china who wants to expand and overtake america. . not just you china, but $800 billion goods trade deficit between the u.s. and the entire world. at some point we have to level the playing field. what president trump represents when what he did in the campaign and following through with as president, he represents the american worker.
the idea that we have this tax deficit that goes over this tax money comes from the workers and goes over and the big deficit with the other uncountries, $400 mill billion with china is irresponsible. the president is speaking right to middle america. >> torey, would you acknowledge if it's not fair trade it's truly not tree? if we're living -- free? our stuff is getting taxed on the way in and their stuff isn't getting taxed on the way into our country. that's not something we should to have put up. >> well, first of all, it's actually fundamentally untrou that the united states does not tax imports. >> we have some. . we have plenty of import tax, we have several. we have very high subsidies for a lot of agricultural products. now, what i do want to correct is on the issue of the trade deficit. the trade deficit doesn't matter. it is not a budget deficit like we have over in congress that they can't do anything about. >> american workers.
it matters. >> it matters to the american workers. i travel all around the country talking about the benefits of trade, i was in minnesota a couple of weeks ago, farmers in minnesota are so worried over the president's trade policies. guess who who is getting atacked by china? our farmers. >> the president takes the point to you, eric, eve we have been attacked, industry after industry countries taking advantage of intellectual property, open markets. yes, now they're counter-attackingous agriculture. but we need to follow through and stair them down for the standoff to work. >> the president said it clear, the reason why we don't have a fair level trade is because no one has ever asked. and the president is asking. he's asking the other countries to say, let's level the playing field. reminds me of the paris accord. let's not burden -- >> the president isn't asking for this to happen. the president is saying i i'm going to tax the american people -- >> what's the response?
i mean, we keep hearing from, well, some republicans and many democrats that the response is going to be catastrophic. the markets, the dow is up 100 points today. >> we're not talking about the impacts in the market. watching the market is important. when i travel around to middle america, i see that this is hurting people. when i hear them talk about dying manufacturing in the state of michigan, laying off their workers right now. >> entire industries have been -- >> high steel prices. >> entire towns are gone because industries go overseas. >> we'll see more of that with these bad trade policies. >> i guess if you continue with what's been going on we'll get the same result. >> we're all pro growth, we have great pro growth, i'm note here to say the administering is doing a bad job. tax policy, regulatory policy, fan tasting, a-plus. when you have to have the whole entire playbook to have sustainable 3% or higher growth. >> what president trump is talking about is the whole
entire playbook. it's cut taxes, cut regulations. >> half the american people are not the even pier play black. >> tearing down the dpop opponents who have been there. >> pete, this is something that -- >> it's yo your playbook. doesn't mean it has to be the playbook rngt donald trump said 20 years ago, this is part of his political core. he has been talking about tariffs for a long time. we have had tariffs between 1787 and 1914. it was the way -- >> that's before we had income tax. >> understand. we segued to a federal income tax. let's get rid of the income tax. >> donald trump has, to make sure that we let our allies and everybody know around the world that we're not going to be taken advantage of. we are for the american worker. that's what the tariffs do. we've seen the response in the short term. >> we'll end where you started, tory, job numbers up 213,000, previous month revised up, wages
are up, these are all good signs. something is being done that's working. thank you for your time this evening. >> appreciate it. >> will secretary of state mike pompeo hold kim jong-un's feet to the fire? new details on the make or break, these negotiations under way, coming up next. y right now coming up next.
>> our secretary of state mike pompeo >> secretary of state mike pompeo push informing ar break thru in denuclearization talks, meeting with top officials in the hermit kingdom, north korea. fresh questions are raised about its commitment to actually ditch their nuclear weapons. there are new reports today, that the hermit kingdom is working on a submarine capable of firing nuclear armed missiles. not a great sign. joining to us analyze is gordon chang author of nuclear showdown, north korea takes on the world, along with david a former department official during the obama administration. thank you for being here. gordon, i'll start with you. they have one shot, which the president has said. what has to happen on this trip for the sengtry of state? >> i think the secretary of state needs to come back with a written commitment from kim saying giving up nukes, giving
up missiles, dismaptle the weapons infrastructure and free to the most introolsive inspections on earth. we've seen all of the reports, the ones about the submarines and the increased production of this material, working on their plutonium row actor no, peaceful purposes, the rest of it. we need to know where kim stands. >> david, the last deal we struck, the raup deal, left a bad taste in a lot of our mouths. what can be done here to avoid the pitfalls of the iran deal? >> well, pete, i agree with gordon, pompeo has the hard work to denuclearize. he has to have a list of things north korea is going to do. they have to be things we can prove are happening. otherwise president trump and pompeo can't say this is a success. i'm hopeful, i'm optimistic. it means getting kim jong-un to lock down on certain things he's
going to do and having him do those things. >> yes. gordon, david raises a good point, they have to do it. what happens, have you seen the reports in the news media, they're still developing this, they're still doing. that what if we sign a great deal, pompeo leaves, and then it's clear they're cheating. what do we do next. we go back to the maximum pressure campaign. the way kim got to the bargaining table in the first place. tightening sanctions on north korea, going after north korea's major power sponsors. >> is china being helpful? >> no. and president trump intimated that when he said after that second summit between kim and the chinese ruler that the north korean attitude became much more difficult. china has been busting sanctions, very open about it. chinese banks continue to launder money for the north koreans. we have not imposed the clause on them. >> david, from the view some of one who worked for the obama
administration do you feel like having folks that north korea is worried about, whether it's john bolton or mike pompeo, does that help to realize if they don't do it they might see more than maximum pressure? >> i worked on the obama campaign. i'm not sure if that helps or not. that may have got even us to this point especially the rhetoric by trump. pom poe owe's shuttled diplomacy has been effective. the only thing that's going to result in actual progress is having north korea actually demonstrate that it's pull out of certain things. we heard news this week that their satellite imagery shows that north korea is using some of the nuclear sites, actively using them. that's a bad sign. like the submarine example you gave as well. this is the hard work that pompeo has to do. >> absolutely. one of the things david referred to, is south korean lawmakers said it looks like they're developing a new submarine capable of launching nuclear armed ballistic missiles.
is that a hedge in case this doesn't work or a thumbing of the nose? >> i think it's thumbing of the nose. the north kree aprils have fwn -- koreans have been working on missiles from submarines for a long time. they launched a missile from under the surface of sea of japan august 24, 2016. they have the russian technology to do this. this has been a long term project of theirs. now they're just accelerating what they have done before. >> appreciate your fair mindedness, david, someone who had to be defensive of a lot of things. as you look at the prospects of the deal, we all want to it work, is it over 50% it happens or are you pessimistic? >> i think it's 50% chance that this is going to move forward in a productive way. but i think it's real high stakes for the trump administration. this is their number one foreign policy objective. they don't have much else to show on the foreign policy front other than north korea. which could be fantastic. if north korea really takes legitimate, identifiable steps to denuclearize.
>> well, >> well, as it turns out, extreme bow haifior against trump officials temporarily proving to be great for business. virginia is now infamous red hen restaurant which booted sara huckabee sanders reopened its doors last night. fully booked, with full reservations. if discriminating against trump officials or his supporters proves a boon for the bottom line, are more places going to follow suit? joining us kathy, republic risher of -- publisher of
catalina magazine and arianna coleman. i see a bunch of left wingers who want to stand in solidarity with the row sis tans movements, got reservations tonight, probably won't eat this tomorrow night. >> why not. >> they can't eat there every night. >> i heard it's a great restaurant, the locals support it. >> you think resistance is good for business? >> it's making a statement, the american way. apparently it is good for business. i didn't think it was good move kicking her out, i thought as an owner we should support our customers. seems to be working. it's good for business. >> adriana what does it say about the left they stand in solidarity with a business that kicks out a paying customer just because of their political position. >> i mean, it's really, really destructive and disgraceful. first of all it's textbook discrimination which is wrong. it's a violation of sarah sanders' free speech and other americans who have been harassed
and accosted in public. it's unamerican. we're a democracy that has a flur plurality of political parties whachls dogs the left want, to be a one party state? do they want to sense, abolish the first amendment? all americans have a right to vote for whoever the heck they want. they're allowed to use their free speechle it's aviolation of all americans' rights when you can't eat in a restaurant for easing your constitutionally protected free speech every election cycle. it is a disgrace. i don't know how this is going to be a winning tactic for democrats come november. >> good point, i don't feel like it is a winning tactic. help me into the liberal mind. i couldn't even fathom confronting a democratic member of an administration that way. and saying well i'm going to that restaurant and stand with the person that con fronted them. why is the thinking going in that direction? >> i think they're actually learning it from president trump.
they're actually learning it from --. not maxine waters? >> this came after the tweeter in chief. his behavior has been awful. he called latinos horrible names. >> you go back to that? >> he started a long time ago. he's been saying horrible things on twitter for years, at least five years. seems like the left is tired of maybe being the nice guy and they're following their leader. their leader is saying awful things. so they're just learning it from the top. >> so the left has been nice guys for so long, now it's time to be tough? we've gotten upped neath it. -- umd neath it. the left has been such hip on krits, they preach diversity and tolerance but none of the above. the liberals if they were tolerant they could handle on they are people with different viewpoints. our country has a plur at of different opinions, they should respect. that funny, but the left can't
handle nonpolitically correct comments from president trump. but they make it very upset, when a gay couple isn't, cake isn't baked for them. when sarah sanders, a working professional mom, gets kicked out of a restaurant, how many lawmakers, liberal lawmakers care about it. >> gays are less important than sarah sanders? >> we didn't saying who is more important. why box check, female, why should she be athleted this way. >> she shouldn't. but also she came out against the restaurant. she tweeted, used her power and tweeted against the restaurant against an owner. it was just as ugly on both sides. >> exposure is fair play. we have to leave it right there. we're running out of the clock, appreciate your time. as i just said, that's all the time we do, indeed, have. i'm pete in for laura ingraham, who will thankfully be back on monday. catch me on fox and friends
weekend, ed henry about to host, he's weekend. ed henry will host with me at 6:00 a.m. eastern, filling in for shannon bream. that's up next. good night fty. >>s in a third base alert. jobs, jobs, jobs. the president touting a strong june jobs report on twitter today, more than 200,000 >> this is the fox news alert, jobs jobs jobs, the president out of a strong jobs report, 200,000 new jobs is pretty robust but democrats found bad news the dnc lashing out at policies that sparked massive economic growth by calling them rutledge policies, and nancy pelosi, a booming trade war with china could spell trouble but are democrats talking down the economy to score points before the midterms. the short list is getting