connell: would you go to mars? melissa: no. i hear there isn't a return trip. i'm not super excited about that. my son went to speed camp last week and loved it. very cool. yeah. connell: that's it. melissa: "evening edit" starts right now. it's part of my whole life. my whole life has been this way. nobody said geez, this is controversy. i don't know, i always had controversy in my life and i have always succeeded. i have always won. i have always won. it was controversial when i ran and i won. now the country's doing better than it's ever done. we have the best economy we have ever had in the history of our country, and more jobs today, literally today, we have more jobs, more people working in the united states, than ever before in the history of our country. black unemployment, asian unemployment, women unemployment, hispanic unemployment, historic lows.

it's been an amazing thing. unfortunately, the media never covers that. they don't like to cover that kind of thing. they like to cover nonsense. john: president trump says he's used to controversy as he touts the economy in an exclusive fox news interview. he says if he was impeached, the stock market would crash. then the trade tension between the u.s. and china racheting up as both sides impose new tariffs on each other. we bring you the latest on that. trade talks with mexico and how it affects your money. attorney general jeff sessions fires back after president trump slams his leadership at the justice department. one republican senator says sessions' days at the doj may be numbered. thank you for joining us. thank you for watching. money, politics, we have the debate behind tomorrow's headlines. "the evening edit" starts now.

john: major averages finishing the day lower on trade concerns. the dow falling 76 points to 25,656. more on your money in just a second. first, to trade negotiations with mexico. the representatives just went back into negotiations, showing that it's not a done deal yet. fox business has the latest. reporter: you are absolutely right. it's definitely not done. you had the economy minister of mexico actually walk back into the building. all the reporters swarmed him. i immediately asked him what's happening. i thought there were rumors a deal would be done today. he said no, they are still working on it, it's not going to happen overnight. he also said he's willing to work on this deal and negotiate throughout the weekend and next week. then i specifically asked about canada, if they're going to be joining the conversation. he said no, canada won't be joining until the two countries, u.s. and mexico, come to some type of agreement, then canada can rejoin the talks. if you look at the canadian

foreign affairs minister schedule, she's scheduled to be in a plant in b.c. tomorrow. they already knew she wasn't coming back to the table. that's the latest from what we are hearing now. no conclusions about this nafta deal. we will turn to more trade talks. let's bring up china, the fact there's a two-day meeting here in washington at the treasury between lower level delegates from china and the united states, and they, too, u.s. officials have told fox earlier today, nothing, no agreement, no deal coming through on that, despite the fact the united states has imposed tariffs on $50 billion worth of chinese goods entering the country. there are still talks about possibly adding another $200 billion to that so what does that mean for you, the consumer? is that going to affect the grocery bill? the answer is it could in the very near future. many companies have alluded to the fact they will pass on those tariffs which are considered a tax on goods to customers. for example, let's say the down jackets or down pillows, some of

the feathers come from china, we could see an increase in price. or fitbit. fitbit released a statement saying if tariffs did increase, you could see the price of wearable technology, a little more expensive. the same applies to certain appliances for your house like a coffee maker. the list goes on. in conclusion, what we know today, no deal here at nafta. they actually all went for a really long lunch which could be for mexican. nothing going on yet but possibly, maybe later this evening, i know i will be here. we may hear some news and with china, definitely no new news at the moment. back to you. john: joining me is forbes media chair and editor in chief, steve forbes, with his take. i want to ask you about a recent article in forbes. john brinkley wrote an exceptionally good article on tariffs and in his view, we are losing the trade war with china. he cited several anecdotal evidences. you think we're losing the trade

war? >> i think calling victory or defeat is too soon yet. the key thing is what kind of agreement they have reached. these negotiations are going and now it's critical we lay out here are the specific things we want. before they thought they had a deal with treasury secretary mnuchin. trump said he didn't like it, so lay out what it is exactly we want. these things are very hard to do, even with mexico, where we keep thinking we are just about to get it done and get canada in. these things are extremely difficult. i think that's why the market is wobbly. if you could wave a magic wand and get rid of these trade disputes you would see the market go up 5,000 points. john: we want them to stop stealing intellectual property but it's harder, how do we get there. what does that mean. how do we accomplish that and is tariffs the right way to do that? >> trouble with tariffs, it's another word for sales tax. sales tax means we are taxing

american people and businesses. perhaps the better approach, i thought, was work with our allies in europe who have the same concern with trade with china as we do, abuses, unite, pick out a few specific companies, maybe even a large bank and say if these things aren't resolved we will take laser-like action against those entities. i think that would have gotten the attention of beijing without hurting our consumers and businesses. john: president xi jinping of china is a proud person. we have to give him an excuse. this isn't a zero sum game. what's his off-ramp? how does he get out of this and save face with his people? he needs to save face to get that initiative passed. >> i think what you do is take off with what mnuchin did last summer. they will buy more products, we agree to lower certain barriers and tariffs and agree that companies should not have to give up intellectual property. you can thwart these things. that's what you pay diplomats

for. work these things in a way that say we don't do it but we promise not to do it. john: exactly. politicians are good at that. do you agree with what's going on with nafta? ross perot warned that sucking sound you hear would be jobs leaving the country. is it the right thing to do to negotiate a bilevel agreement with mexico and bring canada in later? is nafta that bad? >> no, it's actually been good for us in terms of supply chains and in terms of a developing mexico, we want a good mexican economy. we don't want troubles with that country. canada benefited from them, we benefited from them. certain areas need updating. certain abuses need to be dealt with. that's what you negotiate. it's not either/or. it's how you tweak these things. half the auto parts, for example, in the original nafta agreement, we don't make them anymore. they're not made anymore. so cleaning that stuff up is good. in terms of the way to do it, cut a deal with mexico and cut one with canada. i think canada feels mexico has

a lot more pride, as you alluded to, in terms of this thing. if we can get a deal with mexico, that makes it easier the glide path with canada, which is why canada pulled back and say get this done, we think it will be quick after they do it. john: sounds like you are saying we need more of a surgical tool than a mallet. is that right? >> laser-like approach gets quicker results without hurting the american consumer and businesses with sales taxes. these things -- it's not just the taxes themselves. the uncertainty. what are the rules of the game? that's what we don't know yet. john: the one thing people are talking about as far as hurting the economy going forward is potential impeachment which i don't think is in the realm of probable outcomes. it doesn't seem like. but what is in the realm of probable outcomes, 92% of the time since the civil war, the president's party has lost seats in the house. it looks certain that the president is going to lose seats. whether he loses the house completely to the democrats, that's what is up for debate. what happens to this economy if

the more likely scenario happens, not impeachment, but democrats take control of the house? >> democrats take control of the house, they may impeach. it's not going to move the president. it's just an exercise for them. but it's going to hurt the economy. why? it means we aren't going to get another tax cut. they will hold endless hearings which will hobble deregulation. it will make it more difficult to conclude trade agreements if you have a hugely divided and president tied down doing this nonsense. so it will hurt. with the house, one seat is going to make all the difference. 218, good. 217, bad. john: the president was talking about his impeachment or the potential, the democrats trying to get to that on fox news recently. listen to what the president had to say. >> you know, i guess it's something like high crimes and all. i don't know how you can impeach somebody who has done a great job. i'll tell you what, if i ever got impeached i think the market would crash. i think everybody would be very

poor because without this thinking, you would see -- you would see numbers that you wouldn't believe. john: the president is not very modest, is he? >> no lack of self-esteem there. john: the president does deserve, in my opinion, a large view for what's going on -- >> he didn't have this real thrust in deregulation, a tax bill that actually did far more good than harm, you would not see the economic growth we have here today. so he's right about that. if he hadn't been -- if she had been in the oval office instead of donald trump, the economy would be growing at best half the pace that it is today. john: the market was essentially flat from november 2014 to november 2016. the one thing that changed, the president took over and the perception of -- >> anticipating the future. with deregulation, good judges, tax cuts and the like, markets saw a better future. it's already unfolding, not just because of tax cuts, increasing profits and people's incomes but also the prospect that incomes

are actually going to grow again. john: the democrats learn, one of the worst things the republican did was impeach president clinton. it backfired on them. i don't think they have a chance. they can impeach but i don't think they can convict. they could impeach if they got control of the house. do you think the democrats have learned from the lesson of the republicans in the '90s? not even try? >> no. john: you aren't giving them much credit. >> lessons don't mean anything. they are angry. they are foaming at the mouth. they are like rabies. their far left base of the party which is getting stronger and stronger, they want blood. so if they don't try to impeach, they are going to primary everyone who doesn't go along with their crazy radical agenda. it's just going to also mean, even if they don't impeach, they will hold hearings. it's just going to be a mess. we're not going to get that extra tax cut. john: it seems to me that republicans and democrats, as far as fiscal responsibility, are the same.

the debt doubled under president bush, under president obama, and we are back now to trillion dollar deficits. it doesn't seem that fiscal responsibility is anywhere on the radar. do you see the same thing, and why in the world does somebody not bring up a balanced budget? >> well, with both president bush and president obama, for very different reasons, we had a slow economy. average growth rates, very low. we are now starting to get above average growth rates and we have seen, whether it's john kennedy in the '60s, ronald reagan in the 1980s, even bill clinton did some tax cutting in the 1990s, hard as it is to believe when you look at his wife today, but the economy responded and revenues went up. in the late '90s we were actually reducing the debt because of a surplus. you have to get first growth. get the economy growing, then other things are possible. john: steve, an honor to have you on. thank you for coming on. let's check your money. all three major market indices closing the day if the red on trade concerns. the dow down 76 points.

nicole petallides is on the floor of the new york stock exchange with the latest. nicole: stocks sold off. the dow jones industrial average down about 76 points, s&p 500 down almost two-tenths of 1%. concerns about trade once again were front and center as tariffs went into place, with china, so taking a look at the major averages, you saw the down arrows. movers included visa and home depot but we saw industrials under pressure. caterpillar and 3m. exxon also to the downside. microsoft, actually developing breaking news, being investigated over potential bribery and corruption related to software sales in hungary. we will watch microsoft in friday morning's trade. it's earnings season. we had a great earnings season. here are some of the movers from today. tomorrow, the gap will be a mover.

it was old navy that helped it along. the big picture is it's immediately trading to the down side. back to you. john: secretary of state mike pompeo heading back to north korea next week for his fourth visit this year. is that a good sign? that's coming up. first, to the historic bull market run. how long can it last? we will debate, next.

john: we're now officially in the longest bull market run in history, but a lot of investors are asking how long will it last. joining me is gary b. smith and jonas, known as the bulls and bears gang. we have you in studio. >> good to be with you. john: it's like a loch ness

sighting. >> for us to be together is a big deal. john: this market has been on fire. seems like a lot of the tax cuts have certainly helped, especially if retail. you recently had target, macy's and kohl's come out with fantastic earnings. is retail back? we thought it was dead. >> i'm still a little suspicious. here's why. i like walmart. i guess if there was a target near me, i would like target, but i go to walmart, to sam's and t.j. maxx. i'm one of those people, if i'm going there and spending money, i think it's there. i haven't been to one other department store, macy's, sears, whatever, in years. i like the ones that have the barrier to entry. t.j. maxx i like because i can buy good stuff very cheaply. john: if you are old, you remember the johnny weismuller "tarzan." is sears that elephant right now? >> i thought they already failed. we are here to celebrate this historic run in the stock

market. i was very optimistic about the retailers. i was concerned everything was too tech-oriented and it was tech leading the market and the economy and that would run out of steam. you want to see the rest of the world, the rest of america, with good earnings, too, benefiting from tax cuts. a lot of it was online, obviously, but it's good to see walmart, who was doing very bad for a long time, now target, showing everybody is spending money. john: what retailer do you go to? >> i'm in miami beach. there's no -- john: see? all online. >> that's why i'm skeptical. john: i want to ask about the nfl. when rupert murdoch bought the nfl rights in the '90s they said he overpaid. it made fox sports. tonight you have the nfl debuting a former super bowl champion, philadelphia eagles taking on the heisman trophy led cleveland browns without baker mayfield. six of the top ten shows last year were nfl shows. the demise of the nfl seems way overdone. is live tv the one thing that

because of streaming that is still key out there? >> i think it has a long-term what i call health insurance problem. people are subsidizing these long packages. it's a long death. not like tomorrow it will be out but fewer people subscribe to cable and are essentially subsidizing the package because you pay money whether you watch these things or not. it will be harder and harder to finance that. will netflix and all start paying the nfl? i'm concerned about the long-term future and viability. they will figure out a new way to stream and maybe some people will pay but i don't know, will it go to an hbo app type of model? to me it seems like a slow dying. it will take 40 years but they will be gone at some point. john: it's on fox sports tonight. thanks for promoting that. i can't wait to see it. i'm a huge nfl fan. gary b., you have something in common with tiger and phil. you are a scratch golfer and filthy rich. >> maybe a little on the left side.

john: tiger's emergence in the last couple majors, golf needs tiger. the question i have, tiger and phil are now in this pay per view match for $10 million. i don't get who's going to pay for this. you think this works? >> i don't. here's the interesting thing. the match will be over thanksgiving. that was historically, back way when you and i were this high, was when they had the skins game. everyone tuned in. it was kind of appointment viewing. it was a new, novel thing. if they did it like that on network tv, i think it would be big. this kind of deal where you are paying whatever it is, $20 to watch them play for somebody else's money, it would be like watching a practice round for the two guys. i don't think it's going to be successful. maybe they don't even care. they get their money one way or the other. a lot goes to charity. i tend to think it will be a bust but good luck to them. you are talking about my team.

john: sorry about that. i will skip off that. jonas, i want to ask about tesla. just reported by charlie gasparino that tesla's ceo elon musk has hired morgan stanley to take tesla private. is this the right thing to do and does he make it? >> i think he needed to get wall street because of the bonehead comment. he kind of needed to get them back on his side. i don't know how you go $80 billion private without wall street's help. now the negative reports will stop because they want to get in on any kind of offer, taking it private, doing more convertible bonds. whatever it is, they want a piece of it so they need to bridge that gap. i was a little concerned he was running out of ways to finance it except selling flamethrowers, advanced purchases of cars and converting bonds and maybe a cryptocoin offering down the road. >> looks like a simple 10b-5 violation, s.e.c. rule for fraud, you have a verbal agreement, that's not enough. you have to have at least a term sheet. it looks like musk has violated

it. what happens to him? >> i don't think anything happens to him, to be honest with you. he's a big player in the finance community, in the tech community. maybe he gets slapped with a fine. that would probably be appropriate. then he moves on, because there's so many people that will benefit from the upside or the downside of tesla. i don't see any big legal ramifications. john: you think the s.e.c. will take that into account? >> they won't say they will take it into account. john: of course they won't. >> but yes, it will be kind of the unspoken word. you know how things work on wall street. yeah. i don't think anything's going to happen. >> i don't think they want another mark cuban event, where they went after him for insider trading and he fought with way tons of money and won and they looked weak and it was sort of a weak case. he's very popular. john: that's my point. yeah. >> he's a power player. i think it was unintentionally or intentionally fishy.

he's not bernie madoff. everyone knows that. they won't go full force. they don't want to look bad. john: some people do argue tesla is a pyramid scheme. the combination between p.t. barnum and -- >> and edison. >> you're now going to go after this guy for obvious market manipulation? john: one thing that's not fishy is you two guys. great to see you in person, as always. thank you both. the outcomes of the cohen and manafort cases have some people hoping for president trump's impeachment. is it just wishful thinking? first, secretary of state mike pompeo heading back to north korea to work on the denuclearization deal. that's next.

alice is living with metastatic breast cancer, which is breast cancer that has spread to other parts of her body. she's also taking prescription ibrance with an aromatase inhibitor, which is for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive her2- metastatic breast cancer

as the first hormonal based therapy. ibrance plus letrozole was significantly more effective at delaying disease progression versus letrozole. patients taking ibrance can develop low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infections that can lead to death. before taking ibrance, tell your doctor if you have fever, chills, or other signs of infection, liver or kidney problems, are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include low red blood cell and low platelet counts, infections, tiredness, nausea, sore mouth, abnormalities in liver blood tests, diarrhea, hair thinning or loss, vomiting, rash, and loss of appetite. alice calls it her new normal because a lot has changed, but a lot hasn't. ask your doctor about ibrance. the #1 prescribed fda-approved oral combination treatment for hr+/her2- mbc.

when i took over, president obama thought we would have to

go to war with north korea. i asked him, did you ever speak to kim jong-un. no. i said wouldn't it be maybe a good thing to give it a shot? obama couldn't get a meeting. clinton couldn't get a meeting. bush couldn't get a meeting. you know, with the family. bush couldn't get a meeting. nobody could get a meeting. this one's tougher than the father. i say that with respect but he's tougher than the father and tougher than the grandfather. they couldn't even get a meeting. i got a meeting. john: secretary of state mike pompeo announcing today he's heading to north korea next week, making it his fourth trip this year. joining me, former navy pilot and former intelligence operative, fox news correspondent lee gabriel. we talked about north korea for years. they have lied about everything. everything. without exception. how in the world can we trust this guy now? >> i think that we won't trust him. i think that we will look for verifiable steps that are taken by the north korean regime to show whether or not they are

actually sincere in willingness to denuclearize. that's the question right now. so when president trump met with kim jong-un, they came to a very loose agreement on moving toward denuclearization. now secretary pompeo and his officials at the state department, including the newly assigned officials who will be dealing with this, are going to be focusing on those details. they will be trying to get down to the bottom of what is verifiable. in the meantime, kim jong-un will try to get us not doing our war game exercises with south korea, which we have halted and he will try to get us ultimately off the korean peninsula which we should never do. john: you worry about somebody like kim jong-un who is born into this dynasty. they wake up on third and think they hit a triple. you don't know the intelligence of this guy. is this a smart guy we are dealing with, or just somebody who happened to be in the right lucky club and born into the right family? >> i'm so glad you asked that because i think in the press, he

has sort of been, you know, seen as the kid who just like you said, born on third, hit a home run, but i have heard directly from a top state department official, directly involved in these negotiations, that he is an intelligent man and that -- john: really. >> -- there's little respect for his level of intellect. yes. john: right now, this is the fourth trip by mike pompeo. is this a good sign as far as negotiations? >> i think it's great. what secretary pompeo is doing is he's now brought stephen into the picture here, who was the v.p. for international government affairs at ford but has an extensive foreign policy background. 14 years advising on the hill, also served in the bush white house under condoleezza rice. so he has an extensive international security background. so what they are doing now, the devil's in the details. now they will start trying to work out the details of

verifying steps. we have seen reports from the iaea that say there's no indications that north korea's really making steps towards denuclearization and we look at the satellite imagery, commercial imagery that's available, it looks like work to break apart research facilities, et cetera, has halted. in fact, they are expanding facilities that build solid fuel. so it's a matter at this point of making those steps verifiable and really getting some details on paper. john: i can understand the motivation behind denuclearization. his economy is in absolute tatters. i don't think they have the gasoline to make south korea but he does have missiles. what is the deterrent? why is he not like gadhafi or saddam hussein? is the usa going to have to guarantee his safety? >> that's what he really wants. that's what we are really trying to play towards. if you look at the video that was shown to kim jong-un during the singapore summit, it was hey, look how wonderful your

country can be, but if you don't want to work with us, look how bad it's going to look. but if you do work with us, look how good it's going to look. basically, showing kim jong-un what can be had by his country and how he can be seen as a leader if he grows closer to the united states and other western allies, brings him into the economic fold that's been so wonderful for our country and others, that's what we are trying to show them right now. we are trying to show him don't operate out of fear of us attacking you or of you losing your power. operate out of the opportunity that your country can have by working with us as the western country and other western allies of ours bringing you into the economic fold. john: we were talking about your service in afghanistan. i want to say thank you very much for your service. means a lot to all of us here. >> thank you. you mentioned you went overseas with the uso. we appreciate you doing that. john: thank you very much. president trump gave himself an

a-plus on the economy and more but says the media isn't giving him the coverage he deserves. some are saying the cohen and manafort convictions have a chance to get president trump impeached but democrat nancy pelosi is saying impeachment is not a priority. that's next.

john: some progressive liberals now calling for president trump's impeachment after his former lawyer, michael cohen,

pled guilty to federal fraud charges and his former campaign chief, paul manafort, was convicted on eight counts of bank and tax fraud. house minority leader nancy pelosi, senator elizabeth warren and other top dems are saying impeachment is not a priority for the party. joining me, al, i would like to start with you. i would like to talk about this impeachment. it seems the media is pushing this narrative, but the democrats are backing away from it. is that because of what's happening with the republicans in the late '90s with president clinton and impeachment? >> i think that's part of it. i also think they would rather let the mueller probe reach its regular conclusion and not jump ahead. there's to reason to be rhetorical with a flourish or say something that's not true. let the investigation run its course and go from there. john: i want to ask about the mueller probe, which was brought up. this seems to me has gone

chasing rabbits all over the place. similar to what whitewater did with president clinton, where you find out about an affair and intern, you put a person under oath and he lies. this is supposed to do with the 2016 election. you are talking about 2005 bank fraud and violations between 2012 and 2016. you think mueller will announce the findings of this before the midterm? >> i think all americans sure hope so. americans were promised some sort of russian collusion and it seems like the worst we have gotten thus far is some sort of campaign finance violation. they are two very different things. i think on the question of impeachment, it says a lot when nancy pelosi, the leader of the democratic party, says that impeaching president donald trump is not a winning strategy. she's completely correct in saying that, because not only will it drive away independent voters ain swing districts whic she really needs to win, it will also drive trump supporters to

the polls in numbers beyond what we already will probably see. john: president trump's record of endorsement wins it 28-2 for 2018. he's endorsed over 50 candidates so far. given the president's record, do you think democrats will take the majority? they certainly according to history will gain seats but i think more importantly, what is the democrats' strategy here? you can't really argue the economy. the economy is doing quite well. it seems you don't want to argue impeachment. what is the main issue democrats will bring forth to try to win the midterms? >> well, they have to maintain the anger and excitement in the base, so issues like immigration, issues like the president's unpopularity among many democrats and some independents. those things they have to keep a focus on but also return to the roots of the democratic party which is the dignity of work, helping people get ahead and giving everyone an opportunity to be successful. that's when democrats succeed. john: it seems to me the democrats are a bit -- they don't know what their identity

is. you have a very socialist wing of the party, admittedly very far left, probably not representative of the entire democratic party, pushing towards socialism and pushing toward minimum wage and other things that some americans will not. do you think this message resonates with the american people? >> i think al is exactly right that democrats do need to figure out what their message is, and get united in some way on that, because there are two different messages coming from the democratic party. one is all anti-trump, impeach the president, and the others are those democrats who are really trying to reach the swing districts and get away from impeachment messages, which they actually think are harmful to their chances to taking back the house. john: thank you both very much. you will both be back in just a minute. don't go anywhere. tensions heating up between attorney general jeff sessions and president trump. we will show you what they are both saying now. president trump says he deserves an a-plus for his presidency so far and says the media isn't giving him the coverage he deserves. that's next.

how do you win at business? stay at laquinta. where we're changing with contemporary make-overs. then, use the ultimate power handshake, the upper hander with a double palm grab. who has the upper hand now? start winning today. book now at lq.com.

♪ as moms, we send our kids out into the world, full of hope. and we don't want something like meningitis b getting in their way. meningococcal group b disease, or meningitis b, is real. bexsero is a vaccine to help prevent meningitis b in 10-25 year olds. even if meningitis b is uncommon, that's not a chance we're willing to take. meningitis b is different from the meningitis most teens were probably vaccinated against when younger. we're getting the word out against meningitis b. our teens are getting bexsero. bexsero should not be given if you had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose. most common side effects are pain, redness or hardness at the injection site; muscle pain; fatigue; headache; nausea; and joint pain. bexsero may not protect all individuals. tell your healthcare professional if you're pregnant or if you have received any other meningitis b vaccines. ask your healthcare professional about the risks and benefits of bexsero and if vaccination with bexsero is right for your teen. moms, we can't wait. ♪

your society was dearled by a woman, who governed thousands... commanded armies... yielded to no one. when i found you in my dna, i learned where my strength comes from. my name is courtney mckinney, and this is my ancestrydna story. now with 2 times more geographic detail than other dna tests. order your kit at ancestrydna.com

so i give myself an a-plus. i don't think any president has ever done what i've done in this short -- we haven't even been two years. biggest tax cuts in history. soon to be two unbelievable supreme court justices. i'm sure that justice kavanaugh will be approved. justice gorsuch has been a star. you look at all of the things we've done with regulations, the economy is the best it's ever been in history. the only thing i'm doing badly on is the press doesn't cover me fairly. i thought after i won, they killed me during the campaign, just killed me, i said well, one good thing about winning, i've showed them so now i'm going to get fair press. guess what? it got worse. john: during an exclusive "fox & friends" interview, president trump giving himself an a-plus, but says the media is still not covering the administration fairly.

joining me, american and majority founder ceo vince colonas. i want to ask you about what the president says. he's definitely not modest, to say the least. but this economy is doing well. this economy by some measure is doing great. but take an example say a few weeks ago, great numbers came out and the president tweets about lebron james. he just seems like he bears some responsibility here, too, at self-sabotage. you want him to get off twitter. is the media being unfair here or does the president also have some role in this? >> i think the president does afford them a ton of distractions to focus on, but the effect is actually kind of a weird one. while it does seem like the president might be working against his own interests by focusing on things like lebron james that aren't the excellent economy, what happens? the media goes running in that direction and they get very distracted by this. the press in its entirety, mainstream press, has become very tabloid coverage driven. they like covering the drama rather than the policy. what that's done is given the

president of the united states a tremendous amount of runway to actually pursue his policy agenda without them nitpicking over it. they are too focused on his personality, on his declarations about his coverage being a-plus. meanwhile he's moving ahead on the economy, we are on an incredible bull run in the stock market, you have low unemployment among minorities, you have the economy buzzing along and you have a supreme court nominee who is this close to getting confirmed, and the news coverage in a vanilla presidency, one that's rather boring, would be focusing on destroying that guy. instead they are totally running off in other directions. john: interesting point. you are saying this actually benefits the president, this tabloid coverage. i want to ask you about that tabloid phrase. do you think this is tabloid coverage, because it certainly is, you think it's more tabloid than it is media bias? >> i think it's a combination of both, actually, because i think what you see here is a media that truly despises this president. there's bias in that. and the bias is demonstrated by the stories they choose to report on. you may not look to an

individual story or see an individual news package and think that was biased, but you will see, though, press outlets will ignore stories that are inconvenient to their politics. give you a perfect example. two days ago you get a couple stories breaking at the same time related to paul manafort, michael cohen and mollie tibbetts. msnbc, cable news competitor, refuse to cover the mollie tibbetts case until a commentator brings it up as a way to attack fox news and this network. by doing that, i think they demonstrated they are the ones engaging in propaganda. fox, meanwhile, covered all three of those stories robustly because that's now a news organization is supposed to lanl these things and it's not about playing politics. john: in fairness, the media may despise the president but he despises them right back. i want to ask you about judge kavanaugh. is he going to get confirmed? is he going -- the democrats will block even the vote on this guy. >> there's a lot of

caterwauling. they are trying to do everything they can to throw speed bumps in front of the president. truth is, they won't be able to stop this. you have a couple red state democrats who seem kind of likely to even vote yes on it. joe manchin comes to mind as an obvious one. republicans are set to vote for this guy. he's clean as a whistle and he's set for the supreme court. it's a big deal. the president can definitely chalk this up as a win. john: that was terrific. thank you very much for joining us. the president slamming jeff sessions but the attorney general fired back. we will tell you what they both said, next. year, i am sorry about that. [music playing] (vo) progress is in the pursuit. audi will cover your first month's lease payment on select models during summer

of audi sales event. retail. under pressure like never before. and it's connected technology that's moving companies forward fast. e-commerce. real time inventory. virtual changing rooms. that's why retailers rely on comcast business to deliver consistent network speed

across multiple locations. every corporate office, warehouse and store near or far covered. leaving every competitor, threat and challenge outmaneuvered. comcast business outmaneuver. this is moving day with the best in-home wifi experience and millions of wifi hotspots to help you stay connected. and this is moving day with reliable service appointments in a two-hour window so you're up and running in no time. show me decorating shows. this is staying connected with xfinity to make moving... simple. easy. awesome. stay connected while you move with the best wifi experience and two-hour appointment windows. click, call or visit a store today. it's a revolution in sleep. the new sleep number 360 smart bed is on sale now, from $899, during sleep number's 'biggest sale of the year'. it senses your movement, and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. it even helps with this.

so you wake up ready to put your pedal to the metal. and now, all beds are on sale. save 50% on the new sleep number 360 limited edition smart bed. plus, 24-month financing and free home delivery. ends saturday. sleep number. proven, quality sleep. the dems are very strong at the justice department. i put an attorney general that never took control of the justice department, jeff sessions. never took control of the justice department.

it's sort of an incredible thing. john: president trump blasting attorney general jeff sessions as the long-feuding civil war heats up as midterms approach. sessions did not stay silent for long. sessions reacting, saying quote, i took control of the department of justice the day i was sworn in, which is why we have had unprecedented success at effectuating the president's agenda. while i am attorney general, the actions of the department of justice will not be improperly influenced by political considerations. my political power panel is back. kelsey, i want to ask you, because it seems like there's been more turnover in president trump's administration by a factor of two than any other administration. is this a sign of either chaos or disarray? is this a good idea to fire mr. sessions, if indeed it happens? >> well, this is really business as usual under the trump administration. everything is a bit chaotic and that's just how president trump

functions. but look, we have heard this criticism from president trump for months now about sessions' decision to recuse himself from the special counsel's investigation. what's different about this time is that sessions decided to fight back and release his own statement, and i think our friends across the aisle, the democrats, could actually learn something from this, in sessions saying he will refuse to put politics over the rule of law, because this is the exact same attacks we are seeing when it comes to brett kavanaugh at the supreme court, the same types of attacks by jeff sessions' base during his confirmation hearing and it really just goes to show you can't buy into that fear mongering. john: al, lindsey graham has said mr. sessions might be fired. that's what brought up all this speculation. senate judiciary committee member ben sasse saying it's a bad idea for trump to fire sessions. listen to this tape. >> the idea that jeff sessions might be fired because he's not a political hack is a very, very bad idea.

it's a bad idea for the constitution, it's a bad idea for public trust, it's a bad idea for the department of justice and frankly, a really bad idea for the president of the united states. i have communicated that message to my colleagues today and i have communicated that message to the president. john: does he have a point, al? >> of course he does. look, the president is angry because jeff sessions did the right thing and recused himself and didn't tell the president. now here he is saying let's get rid of jeff sessions. jeff sessions is very popular among the republicans in the senate and all of a sudden, he's become popular among democrats which is quite astounding. so i think it would not be in the president's interest to fire him although it wouldn't surprise me at all if he did. john: kelsey, you are a terrific reporter. you obviously have a lot of knowledge around washington, d.c. who you think would be a likely candidate if mr. sessions was fired? >> i think he will be looking to other members of the senate, but you know, i think that's actually a question that you will have to ask the trump

administration, because trump tends to take us for some interesting courses. john: you are saying the president is unorthodox? i'm not sure that's a news flash. >> he's unpredictable. john: he is certainly unpredictable. you're right. al, some would say that's being kind, you're right. al, i want to ask about kavanaugh being approved. some are saying, including chuck schumer, that he should not approve this guy because of trump's associations with michael cohen. michael cohen is a better call saul attorney. i don't think it's any surprise a new york real estate tycoon have guys like cohen who work for him or with him. does chuck schumer make a valid case that you should block this nominee because of president trump's associations? >> first of all, that's a great visual. better call saul, great tv show. the point here is look, when gorsuch was nominated, a bunch of democratic senators said we can't move on him because trump

is under investigation. that argument is really more of a talking point than an effective, credible argument, unfortunately for democrats. i believe the same thing will prevail here. some will say they shouldn't act on kavanaugh because of the cohen plea, the guilty plea, but ultimately, kavanaugh's likely to be confirmed in the next couple months. john: i want to ask you, kelsey, only about 20 seconds left, do you think kavanaugh gets confirmed before the midterms? >> i think kavanaugh is going to sail through his confirmation hearings. i think democrats are doing all they can to require a bunch of paperwork beforehand, but things are looking good for kavanaugh. john: kelsey and al, it's been terrific having you guys both on. thank you very much. >> great to be with you. john: fox kicking off its debut of nfl thursday night football. more on that after this.

john: 25 year of nfl on fox, kicking off tonight, thursdays

night football, making its debut on network, 8:00 p.m. eastern on fox sports, that is assault for us, thank you for watching, charles payne, my friend is here now with maine. charles: coming up on "making money," attorney general in hot seat, president trump and jeff sessions everybody exchanging words today. >> linda mcmahon is joining us. but first, since president trump was elected the markets are up, unemployment down more, let's say economic good times feel like they are just starting, president trump would say our economy would tumble if he were impeached. >> i don't know how you can beat someone who has done a great job. i tell you if i got impeached, i think that