that's all the time we have left. follow low on twitter, i'll right back here tomorrow night, filling in for sean, hope you join us. have a great night. ♪ ♪ >> eric bowling in for bill o'reilly who's on vacation. thanks for watching us. our top story, president trump with the benefit of 84 case in office has recently modified his positions on nato, china, russia, and syria. you'll never believe, this but the mainstream media painting this as a negative. >> from president plump a flurry of flip-flops. >> here's the problem with nato. it's obsolete. >> i said it was obsolete. it's no longer obsolete. >> that rhetorical reversal, just one of several in the past 24 hours. >> from president trump, a very

different tone about the country he previously called an enemy. >> president xi wants to do the right thing. >> what a change from candidate trump who repeatedly used china as a punching bag. >> we can't continue to allow china to rape our country. that's what they're doing. right now we're not getting along with russia at all. we may be at an all-time low in terms of relationship were russia. >> that was not what candidate trump thought was meant to be. >> we're going to have a great relationship with putin and russia. >> joining us for reaction, dr. sebastian gorka, dpep ty assistant to president trump. we saw, yes we see donald trump evolving on the issues. but isn't that what he promised, to make deals, the art of the deal, to make america great again? >> eric, there is no one better, i really recommend people read his book. it is the art of the deal.

what we have seen is eight years of deviciveness, of obama dividing the nation against itself and dividing us against our allies and friends. in 84 days, president trump has relaced divisiveness with decisiveness. when whether it's to do with the border, whether its tee do with mfing, whether it's to do with nato or our enemies and isis or in this case the chemical weapons attack last week, we have changed the geopolitical reality, in the world, just a matter of weeks. >> how did they do that? is today's big 21,000 pound bomb dropped on afghanistan, has that affected the geopolitical balance or at least the way the rest of the world sees donald trump? >> absolutely. it means that people now understand just how much the president means what he says. when he says unequivocally, in front of the joint session of congress, at cpac, i am going to

obliterate isis, literally, when he says i'm going to wipe the islamic state off the face of the earth, it's not empty rhetoric. if you read the memoirs of secretary gates, of secretary pa net arc it's stunning. obama's own prims, secretaries, talk about nsc meetings that last for three to four hours with nobody taking a decision. that was the last eight years. that was the reality of the red line. along comes president trump, that's gone. we have a threat, we promised to deal with it, and we're dealing with it right now. >> dr. , talk about the moab, this big bomb that they dropped today, was that on isis? i understand it was on isis, was it directed towards isis or directed towards north korea or directed towards, how about this one, iran? >> let's look at last week. the cruise missile attack on the air base in syria, wasn't just about sending a message about

weapons of mass destruction in syria. it was a message about weapons of mass destruction anywhere. it's also a message about nations that sponsor mass murdering regimes. eric, you're absolutely right, this president understands that diplomacy without force behind it, is nothing, it's words, pieces of paper. state craft and leadership are when you use these things together. >> but, sorry to cut you off, but assad has said this is all fabrication, the videos are made up by the u.s. government to find a member reason to bomb assad. trump says we're not going into syria. if assad uses chemicals again will he bomb syria? >> we don't give out our playbook away. are you a friend of mine, eric, but we don't do it. that's the last eight years. we don't telegraph in advance to the threats what we're going to do. that's how you looked, that's astrategic. do you think assad is going to use tell cal weapons again? >> i think assad is crazy and i

also think kim jong un is crazy. will donald trump do preemptive strike? not preemptive, but a strike from the uss vinson in north carolina and at waters off north korea? >> we aren't going to give the playbook away. but assad regime is a client state of other nations other nations keep it alive and prop it up. those sponsoring nations are sitting down, i guarantee that, and going through a very simple calculus in their minds. asking themselves, where's my red line for how long i'm going support somebody like this, that uses chemical weapons on innocent women and children. that's geopolitics. that's state craft. the president has set that message. not just about syria, it's about those nations that have kept syria alive. >> you mention these nations. when president trump decided to launch the 59 tomahawks he did

it while president xi was having dinner with him. hold on, we'll get to the dessert in a second. i have to drop 59 missiles into syria. did president xi direct his nato security council to vote no contest or no vote as far as sanctioning syria, because of that meeting, with donald trump, at mar-a-lago? >> you have to ask the communist party of china. >> what do you think? [ chuckling ] >> i think those things are not unrelated to each other. look at the decision with regards to coal purchases. china isn't an irrational actor. the chinese government, is not illogical. they are, perhaps, one of the most strategic nations out there. as a result, they know cost-benefit analyses and know what national interest means. they understand, sometimes supporting somebody to the extent at which they undermine my interests, is not a good

idea. >> has china become a better friend of the united states than, say, putin and russia? >> i think china understands you can't undermine and subvert america the way you could in the last eight years. there may be things we can cooperate on, and there may be lines that we draw in terms of how far we can cooperate. but that's fine. you know, we don't have to be our best buddies. but the question is -- >> it seems, doctor, that the trump administration has gotten a little bit tougher with russia because of our relationship being a little bit stronger with >> and isn't that interesting. what happened to all of the stories about russia, yeah? this is when you realize just how fake the fake news is. it's about american interests. i can assure you one thing, president trump is a patriot and a practicing matist at the same time. that's why you see the decisiveness you're seeing today. >> we'll leaf it right there, thank you.

let's turn to nancy sotterberg, deputy national security advisor for president clinton. thank you for joining us. your thoughts, anything jump out at you, especially the relationship between putin and trump, and xi from china and trump? >> first, thanks for having me, nice to see you. sebastian is right the president is a patriot, trying to do the right thing. but this pivot on all of these things, i would disagree, is the world, jeet owe political world moving to donald trump. it's donald trump moving toward reality and away from some of the campaign rhetoric that got him elected but is not related to fact and is frankly not realistic. i think it's good thing that he's pivoting, it's a good thing he's recognizing some of his statements were wrong. >> you're saying so donald trump pivoting to reality, comes on

the heels of 59 tomahawks into syria, and a 21,000 pound bomb into afghanistan. >> well, and changing his position on nato, china, getting away from china, you know dierks molish obamacare healthcare thing. >> some would say that's the problem with president obama, that he didn't do things like this. so are you agreeing with president trump on the actions he's taken over the last couple of weeks? >> yes, the action he took on syria was exactly right. it was a measured response to a second chemical weapons attack. and i think that he's broadly been supported for that. and i'm -- applaud that effort. but it's a bigger question than one bomb. yes, i think that was the right thing. does that mean he has a strategy for syria? what does it mean russia, is he still thinking that russia is run by some one who can be our friend? what does it mean in terms of trying to lead in the middle

east and have an american plan? you have to have a plan in you're going to use military force. i agree with sebastian, diplomacy doesn't work if you don't back it up with military force. you need the two. >> they call the uss vinson the aircraft carrier, 100,000 tons of diplomacy headed toward north could re-a iran, no one is talking about iran, iran has to see these ma sooufers and say we're not dealing with obama any more. >> the iran deal is working. the nuclear weapons program is halted. that seems to be working. the trump administration has agreed to keep it going. the tougher problem, what are

you going on do with north korea? it's a difficult thorny problem that presidents from the first president bush have tried to deal with. it's crazy regime that's figured out that its nuclear program is it only currency in the world and it's a difficult problem. the president is right to try and get china to be the linchpin there to moffett forward. but you -- to move it forward. you need diplomacy and backed up by force. presidents have figured that out. i think the president needs some strategies that go along with this. he has to listen to his advisors and come up with how are we going to do this. >> how do you do that, you are an ambassador, in north korea you have three generations, the founder of north korea was king jong un's grandfather. what would it take to change page joins us now. why did you go to moscow. >> i was invited to give the graduation speech at new economic school. and i've spoken at universities in moscow for many, many years. most of the times i've spoken on many occasions. . when you were there, were you representing the trump administration? >> i made that clear in every statement -- >> it did overlap with your tenure with the trump campaign. >> yes, but this was, you know, you talk about state narrative, that was really something that was completely -- >> you go over there, you make some speeches, as a professor, you end up meeting some of these russian people, operatives, yes?

>> kisliak i said hello to briefly in cleveland. that was nothing. >> everything over in russia was incidental? >> less than incidental. >> okay. what about this banker, the russian banker, that you knew in new york? >> i didn't rulely know him. -- i didn't actually know him. there was a case against a few operatives here. and i happen to know one of the diplomats that was fwased here. -- based here. i deal with diplomats at the u.n. all the time, et cetera. >> let's expand on. that the russian diplomats in what capacity? >> in this example, one of my business partners from asia, was speaking at ashian owe site on park avenue, i said hello to him, and restruck up a dialogue, and met him once for coffee, offered him some ideas. that was about it. >> what time frame is this? >> this was 2013. >> 2013, okay. let's fast forward to when the

trump administration became relevant. was there any meetings with any of the russians? >> listen, there's always, for example, like with the ambassador kislyak, i may have said hello to a few people, but certainly never any negotiations. >> no discussions of lifting sanctions, easing sanctions? >> never, never. >> none of that discussion. >> no. >> tell us, why do you think you were unmasked? why were you surveilled and why were you unmasked? >> well, it's interesting. this big "washington post" report this week. i mean, it goes back to just creating a false narrative. and i was laughing when nancy soderberg said to you, well, the president needs to get in touch with reality. well, the reality which the last administration created was just such a complete disaster that

they needed to kind of find some new possibilities. >> susan rice, who do you think went to the fisa court to get permission to sur veil you? >> i have learned with the false accusations that have come out against me, that i'm not going to speculate. again, i'm very encouraged by all of this new information that's coming out about some of these unethical practices, and potentially illegal practices. >> like? >> such as false evidence, director comey on his march 20 testimony, said politicians lie all the time -- not in so many words, but peep km lie to the media and there's no law against that. however, when you introduce false evidence in a court of law, including the fesa court, that is illegal. let's see what happens. >> you think there was false evidence about you introduced to weapon, both in the executive branch and legislative branch of government. this was information that is a political weapon. >> carter page, thank you. >> next on "the run down" the dictator denying he used chemical weapons. the facts about the butcher of damascus when we return.

>> eric: a stunning denial from

syrian dictator bashar al-assad. last week we were sickened by the appalling images of children in syria gasping in air after the chemical attack. assad says he couldn't have gassed his own people, syria has no chemical weapons. >> definitely, 100%. we don't have arsenal, we're not going to use it. and there are many indications, if you don't have proof, no one has information or evidence. but you have indications. >> eric: joining us for reaction in washington, david tafore, former state department official. and defense of democracy. bazaar al-assad says he doesn't have chemical weapons, all of the images that we saw, donald trump said inspired his tomahawk missile attack, is all false. >> this is ho assad operates. he's in denial.

he's a liar. he's a war criminal. he has had many opportunities to leave syria. and he probably never will let go and he'll end up in a ditch like saddam hussein or qaddafi. missile strikes are important. they send a signal that the dwls is no longer to going to look the other way when he engages in mass atrocities against civilians. this will not be an easy effort, one missile -- set of missile strikes isn't going to change the dynamic completely. it sends a message, it puts military options back on the table which is what was missing from the negotiation. we now need to get back to the negotiation table, with the military option, as a leverage to get syria and assad -- >> corey, where have you been all these years? i remember having arguments when barack obama was president, taking that side of the story. >> no, i've always -- in 2013, i

thought barack obama should have done missile strikes against assad. >> eric: might have saved us a lot of time, money, and -- >> iully agree. >> eric: and deaths. cliff, did donald trump do the right thing sending the tomahawk missiles into syria? >> absolutely. he began, i would say, began to re-establish strategic denernts the world. very important, not just assad, iran, the north koreans understand that america has power but it has the determination and the will to use it in its best interests at various times. also, president trump was enforcing international law a lot of time it's hard to say what international law is. this is not one of those cases of the use of chemical weapons by assad violates the convention which assad subscribed to. >> eric: but, let me play devil's advocate. so is bombing schools and hospitals with conventional weapons as well. i mean, i'm just playing devil's

advocate, people who say if you use in a red line why not use all of the red lines that are preestablished? >> one reason is because this red line, the use of certain weapons that have been banned and syria agreed would be banned, agreed they wouldn't use, claim they had given up. this is such a clear red line, if you don't even force it you are saying it's just the law of the jungle. which is what we've seen in syria and a lot of middle east over recent years. no laws whatsoever or no rules. either the u.s. even forces some rules or there are no rules. there's no international community to do it, the u.s. does it or no one does it. >> eric: where the heck, you bring up a good point. david, where the heck is the u.n. in all of this? >> well, i wrote an article about in this week. you can justify this missile attack based on the u.n. dom trin, responsibility to protect. the u.n. was missing on this. the u.n. had not been able to pass a resolution through the security council authorizing the use of force. the reason is because russia has

blocked every single security council resolution related to syria. that's why unfortunately the u.s. had to act on its own. which is controversial under international law but in my view it is justified. no one else would take action, and we as a country, and all countries, have a responsibility to protect innocent civilians when mass atrocities have been happening as they have been for the last six-plus years resulting 500,000 deaths. >> eric: david, two strikes in two weeks, who is the recipient of the message, the strongest recipient of that message, david? >> assad number one, russia number two. >> eric: what do you say, cliff? >> i would say north korea and iran most importantly. although it's a message to all adversaries, all of our enemies and allies as well we're back in the game, the world is not what it's been for the past eight years. >> you left out, both of you, russia and china.

i mean -- >> russia and china, two. >> eric: the two biggest threats? >> okay, you said assad. >> eric: one quick final thought. what is the u.s. relationship with russia going forward? >> it will be a complex one. look, putin has very big ambitions. putin sees you either as a panther or a poodle. he sees you as slide slave or a master. it's possible that now that he sees, hopefully sees that trump is not going to roll over for him, he will be more willing to have realistic discussions. he wants to have a war port in syria, no question about it. can he keep it, i don't know. but his support for iran, whose rallying cry is death to america, support for assad, part of the iranian empire. he needs to change on that. i think that trump is going to be touch with him. >> eric: david, as cliff points out, putin has he turned from poodle to panther regarding donald trump. we don't know what putin is

going to do. i can assure he didn't like the missile strikes and probably worried about what the u.s. is going on do in syria. he's strong in syria, military forces on the ground, significant impact, and pushing back the moderate rebels that we support. we don't know what his next chess move is going to be. it's essential that we get him to stand down and get assad to step down. >> eric: a lot of people said under barack obama this country had become a paper tiger, would i say that's no longer the case. plenty more ahead. a lawyer for the man dragged off the united airlines flight says his injuries are horrendous. we'll tell you all about that. and later, possible nuclear activity in north korea? that's not good. we'll analyze the situation. yoe

>> eric: in followup segment,

united airlines under fire for forcibly removing dr. david dao on sunday. today his dpauter spoke out for the first time. >> what happened to my dad should never have happened to any human being regardless of the circumstance. we were horrified and shocked and sickened to learn what happened to him and to see what had happened to him. we hope that in the future nothing like this happens again. >> eric: dao's attorney said legal action against the airline is likely. >> if you're going to eject a passenger, under no circumstances can it be done with unreasonable force or violence. that's the law. if unreasonable force and violence is used under a set of

circumstances, the common carrier, united airlines in this case, is responsible. >> eric: joining us with reaction from fort lauderdale, attorney mark aguilar and from los angeles, arag, also a lawyer, you say united did nothing wrong. we did find that one guy. >> i didn't say they did nothing wrong. aim plaintiff's attorney. i exclusively represent victims of corporate conduct where they engage in unsafe behavior and hurt people all the time, that's all do i. as plaintiff's attorney you have to look at these cases and vet them and be very careful about the cases you take. there are a lot of alarms about this case. when i first saw it on the news, and i started reading about it, and you read the transcript of the second dialogue between dr. dao and the officer shall it's unusual. first question is, who refuses to get off a plane when an officer asks you to get off a plane? had dr. dao refused to -- had he

agreed to get off the plane, i think most citizens would do and have the dispute as to whether the airline was desire treating him or not treating him properly or whether they owe him money or don't, handled after he's off the plane, after the plane can leave, then we wouldn't be here. when you read about -- >> eric: let me bring mark in. mark, listen, i got to think, i'll let him speak for himself, would take this case given the opportunity. >> i think he would literally knock over his secretary to get to the phone to take this case if this guy called. i don't know how intellectually honest he's being. the question is how big is this check going to be. united airlines, all of the airlines do legally have the right to bump passengers. they don't, however, have the right to bump their teeth, their noses, and their heads. >> eric: and this is a very big distinction, he ended up missing a few teeth and a broken nose, arage.

>> absolutely. i am intellectually very honest and i would not personally take this case. >> eric: oh, i don't believe that. >> i have the luxury of denying the majority of cases. dr. dao, unfortunately, has a checkered past. >> eric: he has felony conviction. >> he has a felony conviction. >> eric: you're muddying the victim, counselor. >> no, unfortunately, you have to realize, if this case goes to trial, i mean 99% of the cases are resolved, united is probably going to make the common sense decision to settle the question. if dr. dao and his attorneys are unreasonable and ask for millions or billions of dollars, united can take to it trial. at trial a jury will more likely hear of his checkered past, of the fact that he has a felony for prescribing controlled substances for sexual services. >> objection! >> coming in.

>> eric: let me get mark in here. >> it's coming in. i litigate these cases, i know how judges rule. >> eric: okay, mark, does this -- does the defense get this in, and should they? >> they absolutely should not when you hear it, you go, oh, that looks bad. that has nothing to do with whether they used excessive force in this situation. and they did. their stock is down over a billion dollars because the court of public opinion knows that this was handled improperly. this is the only attorney who somehow wouldn't take this case. >> i find that unbelievable. i agree they mishandled it but it would come into evidence. if dr. dao made a claim that he suffered a psychological injury, if he made a claim that he would, a psychiatric injury, the defense will hire a forensic psychologist or psychiatrist that will go through every single stress or in this do doctor's life -- >> eric: it won't get to that point. >> they'll write a big fat

check. >> that's true. i think united will, and should settle this case. i'm saying legal commentary of what would happen if this case went to trial and why it's not necessarily an open and shut case for dr. dao entitled to millions of dollars. i think dr. dao should have complied, gotten off the mane, and we wouldn't be here. personally, i told my family and friends when i heard this, i would not -- >> they shouldn't have treated him like a pinata. >> eric: we need to leave it right there. >> true, two wrongs don't make a right. >> eric: if united doubled or tripled their offer from 800 to whatever this would have been solved. mark, arage, thank you. directly ahead escalating tensions over north korea's military program. will the u.s. take action? expert analysis moments away.

>> eric: i'm eric bowl income for bill o'reilly. in the unresolved problem segment, satellite imagely suggests north korea may be preparing for another nuclear test on saturday, a major national holiday there. amid the rising tensions, fox news senior affairs correspondent traveled to the state. >> looking at thousands of citizens coming out. very well organized, orchestrated event opening up a new neighborhood here in the tap

cal. the idea, by the regime, is to get the semblance of order. it could be a semblance of a functioning city. despite the sanctions, despite the problems over the nuclear and missile crisis. they say they are moving forward. they say they're functioning. this is what we're seeing. a few hundred yards from where we were, the north korean leader, kim jong un, cutting a ribbon on the project. officials calling it a sign of defiance against the united states and the sanctions that it backed. this in advance of saturday's anniversary of the birthday of the founder of this country, kim il sun, he is the grandfather of the current leader. there are new reports of possible preparations for yet another detonation of a nuclear device by north korea to mark the date and missiles in the past have been launched to mark the date as well. >> eric: now for reaction is gordon chang, foreign policy analyst, and author of "nuclear

showdown, north korea takes on the world." from brunswick maine, hilltry analyst colonel david hunt, author of the new novel "without mercy." how worried should we be, take us inside the mentality of kim jong un. >> within about four years north korea will be able to make its longest range launchers. they have three miss thals can hit the lower 48, they can't put a nuke on them. they can put a nuke on the intermediate missile. that can hit japan. chemical weapons, we talk about chemical weapons in syria, since the mid 1990s north korea has been helping syria on chemical weapons. >> eric: that's the capability, talk about the mentality of actually pressing the button. >> kim jong un has basically a throw threshold of risk. since the end of january -- since the end of january there is been instances of instability, there's been the assassination of his elder half-brother but also the demotion of the minister of state security, one of the most important officials.

the killing of five of his sub ordinance. all sorts of things indicating problems with the top of the north korean military. this means that this guy has a low threshold of risk, a different risk calculus than he should have. >> eric: a twitchy trigger finger so to speak. what are our military options, colonel? >> they're limited. on the 137 wide demill tarized zone, the pieces in north korea, pointing 30 miles south of them, to a 10 million populated city, seoul, korea. every war game we've done, i spent six years in korea, infantry company, i was on the doing the terrorism for the olympics. every war game, always ends up with a nuclear option. because the artillery and the preparations for 50 years in north korea are massively extensive. the last five nukes that have gone off there, will have very limited options.

none conventional. >> eric: colonel -- >> the problem is it's nuclear. >> eric: even if kim jong un on this saturday celebration of the grandfather's birth or whatever it is, even if he does test provocatively test the missile that, shouldn't be enough for us to strike north korea, it's been said. >> i just said that, no, we can't -- the options are, massively limited. every war game we have shows staggering amount of casualties. only way to get at this is with nukes. and as we just heard, and we know, north koreans have nukes and the ability to reach seoul, korea, within three to six minutes of our launching any attack. >> eric: literally, gordon, the colonel is saying we have to wait for a nuclear strike on seoul korea or tokyo? i think we would react if we saw a missile fueled, ready to go, thought a nuke was on top of it,

we would take it out. we're not going to ae into the . he's right, there's 25 million people in seoul. and north korea has the fourth largest military, forward deployed, 30 miles away. this is going to be a tragedy of unprecedented proportions. there's going to be a couple hundred thousand casualties in the first two hours. >> eric: colonel, do you think the 20,000 pound bomb dropped on afghanistan had any effect on kim jong un? >> no. that'sted biggest weapon, nuclear weapon. he's paying attention to a lot of things. but this is a crazy man. the issue, it's a dark, black community. we can't see in it. the intelligence community is very blind here. my point is, military option is limited. i don't want -- i don't think we have to wait to get anything else nuked, that's the end result of our going to war with north korea. we have to use nukes to get at the stuff that's buried in these mountains.

difficult target. >> eric: gordon, do you think this had any effect on the mentality of kim jong un? >> absolutely. we used it on an underground network of facilities. no country has more military facilities than north korea. his father spent six weeks in the bunker during the 2003 iraq war, he was afraid of george w. bush. i think kim jong un will stay out of public. he understands that trump has a low threshold for the use of force and is willing to actually exert american power for good. >> eric: colonel, you know, one of the things that we say we're not allowed to do, legally we're not allowed to talk about doing it as an administration. how do you get rid of kim john il? -- kim jong un, do you kill him, quietly have some, you know, operation to take him out? >> the issue of killing an individual, decapitating a government, is not that difficult.

the issue is having somebody in place that's in your favor. that we've been terrible at that, in my lifetime. we can kill leaders, we have. libya is a great example. i'm just saying we can take him out if that's what you want to do. what comes after him is the issue, and normally we don't have a control over that. it's a risky proposition. >> eric: gordon what comes after kim jong un? >> you have the chinese military moving south to try to get the nukes. also, the archives. the chinese don't want us to see the relationship between beijing and pyong yang. it's extremely dangerous. we'll meet in north korea. i hope they workled it out, the chinese don't want to talk about it. >> eric: this is a scary proposition. gordon, thank you, colonel, both. quick reminder, two of bill's books are currently on the "new york times" best seller list, old school, life in the sane lane, number one. and killing the rising sun is

number three. you can get either one for free if you sign up or become a billoreilly.com premiere member. tickets available to see bill, dennis miller and jesse watters on tour. details on billoreilly.com. secret backroom deals, pay to play shenanigans when the factor comes back. actor comes right

>> eric: in our second personal story segment, an eye opening insider's ngt of the massive corruption in the halls of congress. joining us, republican congressman ken buck, automatic authorize of "drain the swamp" how washington corruption is worse than you think. thank you, congressman. how bad is it? >> it's bad.

we don't get to the right answer because we have so many incentives to go the right way. we need to send better people to washington d.c. to represent us. and we need to change the incentive structure. >> eric: for what, give us an idea of what kind of crime, corruption and cronyism that's going on. >> one example is that in order to be on a committee, a committee, energy and commerce, ways and means, appropriations you need to pay dues. you need to pay dues to your republican or democratic campaign committee. and those dues determine who gets on. that's corrupt to put that kind of pressure on people to pay $450,000 to be on a committee or $1.2 million to be a chair of a committee, is the wrong thing. it sends the wrong message to the american people. >> eric: you know, i'm putting together a book, a little bit along the same lines, what i find is that lobbying seems to be ground zero for a lot of crime, corruption and cronyism going on in d.c. talk about how profitable it is

to be a lobbyist in d.c. >> i don't know, i've never been a lobbyist. but i'm sure they make a lot of money. >> eric: congressman, come, on you know how profitable it is to be a lobbyist, come on. >> yeah, yeah. lobbyists make a lot of money and they dispense a lot of money to members of congress to their campaigns, to the national republican campaign committee or the dccc. and they have a lot of influence in washington, d.c. >> eric: should we be closing that money flow, that pipeline of funds from corporate and special interest right into the pockets of people like yourself? >> well, there's two different kinds of donations. there are ideological donations that are made on some one being a conservative or a liberal. and then there are transactional donations that are made based on some one voting for a certain bill. we should absolutely close the linkage between voting a certain way on a particular piece of legislation and receiving campaign contributions. >> eric: that's a big, big deal

what you just recommended right there. your colleagues on both sides of the aisle might not like hearing. >> that i'm sure they don't. there are some of my colleagues in the freedom caucus and other conservatives that like to hear that. we're here to do the right thing for the american people. and everyone in congress should be doing that. >> eric: you said you're part of the freedom caucus. i did notice, though, i believe in your point of view you said you're pro healthcare, looking at the paul ryan bill, and you are in favor of that, right? >> at the end of that right before the bill was pulled i visited with the speaker and told him that i would be voting in favor of that piece of legislation, correct. >> eric: why is that, sir, the freedom caucus -- i understood was going to vote as a block. what about the bill did you think was pen firm to the american people? >> i thought the president made some moves that made the bill more conservative along with the speaker i felt it was the first step in the right direction. i thought that the president should, we should acknowledge the fact that he made a great

nomination for the supreme court. he has picked a great cabinet. he has issued executive orders that have been really positive. >> eric: no doubt, sir, i'm trying to stay on the healthcare issue. trying to figure out what -- how did the bill become more conservative. it didn't seem like it was becoming more economical to the person people. >> there was a work required for medicaid, that was a benefit and great first step in what needs to be done. we addressed an issue concerning existing health benefits that would have empowered the states to make changes and drive down the cost of premiums to americans. >> eric: are we getting close for the freedom caucus to be okay with the new healthcare bill? >> you know, i would say about one-third of them were okay before and i think we'll find another third in favor of it as we continue down the road. >> eric: got you. congressman, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> eric: if you want to hear more, check out the interview on the contributing factor podcast

on billoreilly.com and itunes. keeping with the congressman's theme, preordinary by book, the swamp, how trump can drain it, details available at eric bolling. after voting a sanctuary city a michigan town reverses itself one week later. we will that have strange story in a minute. minute.

>> eric: in the back o >> eric: in the back of the book segment tonight, an incredible story in lansing, michigan. last night, that same city council voted to rescind its decision to make it a sanctuary city. they voted last night, to keep it that way. absent for last night's vote after also voting to make lansing a sanctuary city. ladies, thank you for joining

us. you are in favor of the vote that went down a week ago. how did that switch to let's rescind that vote? a >> i wish i could tell you. there were to go council members that called a special meeting. they had their reasons and everyone came to the table again. i voted to keep the sanctuary city clause in the resolution. and i voted to remove it. >> eric: on why it was rescinded, your thoughts? >> i see this as an unnecessary controversy that was created over a specific word for political reasons in a local election year. >> eric: what are you talking about? >> this is a mayoral election year, we have a sitting council member member who is running for mayor and what disturbs me the most is all of us, regardless of our views on political issues,

we need to be concerned about our first amendment rights right now.we which is our freedom of expression. why does our government in d.c. trying to dictate words that we can use in lansing,oe michigan? >> eric: what is the word that she is talking about? >> the word "sanctuary." >> eric: it represents a policy. it's a policy, a political, law enforcement policy. >> it's a policy that depends on which communities adopt them. the word is completely undefined as a political definition. he has suspended his list of sanctuary cities -- >> the meeting was called overhe the word "sanctuary."

when we surrender our first amendment rights that the first step towards fascism. >> this is about allowing illegals to find sanctuary -- i only have a few seconds. this is how the democratic process works. you are elected by the people to speak for them and if the people overwhelmingly say no sanctuary city, guess what? no sanctuary city. >> the voters in lansing did not overwhelmingly say that. the majority of people that spoke -- >> eric: the vote went the other way last night. >> i voted with the people of lansing. >> as did i. >> eric: the -- >> if you are referring to the chamber of commerce, the majority of them do not live in the city. >> eric: this is the end of the show, ladies, thank you very much. n i am eric bolling, in for bill o'reilly. please remember the spin stops

here, because we are looking out for you. >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." forget the explosion of a single tomahawk missile today. the u.s. dropped the mother of all bombs, that is literally its name. the most powerful explosion ever, the weapons used -- there are a lot, in contrast to the previous one. watch. >> everyone knows exactly what happened. what i do is i authorize my military. we have the greatest military in the world. we have done its job as usual.l. we've given them total authorization. and that's what they are doing. that's why they've been so successful lately.