we will see you here tomorrow at 7:00. "the o'reilly factor" is up nex next. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> dana: hi, i am dana perino, and for bill o'reilly, who is on vacation. thanks for watching us tonight. let's get to the top story, the alkylating crisis with north korea. vice president mike pence stood the meat tiller try zone to speak for the north korean border yesterday. he declared a new era and america's handling of the rogue state. during a visit to seoul, the vice president said this. >> strategic patience has been the approach of the last american administration and beyond. for more than two decades, the united states and our allies have worked peacefully to dismantle north korea's nuclear program and alleviate the

suffering of their people. but it every step of the way, north korea answered our overtures with willful deception. broken promises, and nuclear and missile tests. over the last 18 months, north korea has conducted two unlawful nuclear tests in an unprecedented number of ballistic muscle tests. even conducting a failed muscle launch, as i traveled here for this visit. the era of strategic patience is over. >> dana: during an interview with fox's ainsley earhardt today, president trump outlined a strategy to deal with the standoff. >> i don't want to telegraph what i am doing or what i am thinking. i am not like other administrations, where they say, we are going to do this in four weeks, it doesn't work that way. we'll see what happens. i hope things work out well, i hope there is going to be peace. they have been talking with a gentleman for a long time. you read clinton's book, he said we made such a great peace deal and it was a joke. you look at different things over the years of president obama, everybody who

has been outplayed. they have all been outplayed by this gentleman. we'll see what happens. i just don't telegraph my moves. >> dana: he also told a reporter that north korea has "got to behave." joining us now to analyze from washington, fox news contributor, charles krauthammer, who always behaves, of course. charles, but i knew you were going to be on tonight, the first thing i thought of, he wrote a column to kick off this year in 2017 on january 5th, you said the biggest issue is north korea. what is different tonight than it was on january 5th when that column posted? >> they were actually getting real resistance from the united states. for 30 years, we acquiesced, we kicked the can down the road, we entered into negotiations under the current administration, the bush administration, and obama, all of which we were played. i think president trump is absolutely right. we were played. people talk about the leader of north korea being a madman and insane. well, i have come to the view

that he is exceptionally clever and rational in his own way, which is these people, he and his father and grandfather, have been able to play off the world with a very weak hand to survive summit to control the regime, and up until now, to be on deterred in their quest to become a nuclear power. >> dana: if he is rational in his own way, as you describe it, when he hears the vice president say that the arab strategic patience is over, what do you think he understands that to mean? >> i think he begins to think that this may be the first administration that is serious when it says we will not allow something. now, allowing of nuclear weapons has already gone. that has happened. they have done five tests. they have nukes. but what they don't have yet is the capacity to deliver it with the push of a button to the united states. that is where they are rushing. that is where they are doing

test after test. that is where they show the world just this weekend, without amazing array of missiles, that this is their prime regime objective, to achieve the position where they can actually push a button, launch an icbm, that could destroy an american city. at which point, they become an intolerable threat. i think the trump administration is saying to the chinese as well, that may be the key to a peaceful resolution of this, we will not allow that, we can't live under the thumb and the threat of this regime. >> dana: do you think that last week's strike in afghanistan, when our military dropped the mother of all bombs in afghanistan, killing those ices fighters, do you think about sends a message both to china and to north korea? i feel like north korea stop listening in some ways. but china is paying attention. you think they took notice? >> i think it was a very important message because the

main threat from north korea now, they have not gone nuclear. this is not unlike what "the new york times" said, like the cuban missile crisis. the enemy is not a nuclear armed opponent who could destroy the world with us. and because armageddon. but what they can threaten, what does deter us, the fact that they have a vast army on the dmz 30 miles from seoul. 20 million people are today in south korea within range of north korean artillery. that is the threat. death and destruction of an untold scale. i think with the mother of all bombs demonstrated is, we might have the weaponry to either destroy or degrade that capacity without going nuclear. we used to have nuclear weapons and south korea. the one thing that the u.s. would do is the first thing to

use nuclear weapons even tactically. but i think with the moab demonstrated is, we may not have to use it nukes. any single one of these guys can distract a radius mile of destruction. we can write about these formations. if we can do that, then, the threat to seoul, to the destruction of the capital of an ally, is very much medicated and then we are very much in the trade. i think it was a very important and powerful message. >> dana: when you think of that region, the geopolitical problems that they have had, you see the chart by fenestration, who as a candidate, was sort of in chinese face, after that one-on-one meeting. we have seen that these one-on-one meetings are president trump mean a lot. he establishes relationships, he doesn't mind changing his opinion on something that he might have campaigned on if it means that his strategic goal in this case of deterring north korea from being able to fire a nuclear weapon that could hit the united states, how

important is that in this relationship when you look at japan, south korea, and those alliances and blood we may be able to do to push china and order to help us? >> to make him the chinese option has until now, but mostly in the football. they keep promising, tantalizing, yes, we might do this. they turned on by a coal shipment from north korea this . everybody cheers. that is not going to make a difference. in the end, china can bring down the regime. i think what we need to do is china is to offer them a grand bargain. we know you don't want to see the regime collapse. you don't want a south korean expanding to be on her border. we understand that. why don't we offer you a solution where we -- north korea? in the end, he helped her bring down the regime, but you can decide who succeeds, nonnuclear north korea, not allied to the west, not an expansion of the west, up to your border, but

it would be finland dies, the way that finland and the cold war was committed to a pro-soviet foreign policy, but has its own internal political regime. that, i think, is the one solution that would be the least destructive. it would be a peaceful transition. i think it is, however, unlikely. that is the deal we are to make. in the end, we can't rely on the chinese. we are going to have to deter the north koreans ourselves. if we can get the chinese to do it, it would be a welcome miracle. but miracles are fairly scarce these days. >> dana: you can count on them, that is for sure. last question to you, going back to that column on january 5th. you wrote that the principal strategic challenge facing the united states is the rise of revisionist powers, russia, china, and iran." i wondered what you might think about and those capitals and iran, and russia today, what they might be thinking up as

they try to figure out what president trump's foreign policy is going to be about. >> i think the message will be more effective in iran than anywhere else. after all, they, like north korea, are on the threshold of going nuclear. the deal that we signed with them was a disaster. it will expire in any case, even if it is not being cheated upon, as we speak, within just a few years. then, they'll develop a nuclear arsenal. they have to worry and think about what the americans will do in the end. will we be in a position to say to a wrong, we are not going to allow you to go nuclear? a lot of the iranian perception will depend on whether we can enforce that with north korea. >> dana: excellent, as always, charles. thank you so much. >> my pleasure. >> dana: up next more on the u.s. warnings in north korea. what will that entail? plus, police in five states scrambling to capture the man who gunned down in the tent

grandfather come within posted video of the murder on facebook. we'll be right back.

>> dana: and this weekend a month segment tonight, contending with the top story, the short article north korea. yesterday, national security advisor h.r. mcmaster gave his blunt analysis of the crisis. >> this is a problem that has been passed down from multiple administrations. our president is the consensus

with the president, our key allies in the region, japan and south korea particularly. also, the chinese leadership, this problem is coming to a head. it is time for us to undertake all actions we can short of a military option, to try to resolve this peacefully. >> dana: joining us now to analyze from chicago, and bremmer, president and founder of eurasian group. ian, you were able to listen to charles krauthammer in the previous segment. i wonder if you largely agreed with what he had to say and what you think about president trump's move over the past two weeks? >> i think in terms of our trump has accomplished so far and the intentions to try to make the chinese pay attention to, since they are the ones that have the impact and influence over north korea, i agree with that. but i would say that his suggested outcome, the one peaceful plan, finlandization,

the idea that china will turn a country with ten nuclear weapons into a nonnuclear state, is ludicrous on its fate. it would be suicidal for kim jong nam to require active regime change. the reason why china has been so reluctant is not because they are happy with what north korea is doing, they used to be ten years ago, they are not any more, the reason they don't push, is because they fear that the north koreans, if they really threaten regime change, it is going to blow up, not only the regime, but also the region. that is something the chinese are very slow to loads to move towards. >> dana: their politics happening in the region. i was interesting to read this morning that when you set for a long time, when you go to the capitals in your visiting with people that you are advising, they didn't bring up north korea but that that has changed in the last few weeks. you say that japan is a little unhappy and we know that south korea has elections coming up on may 9th.

a lot of turmoil there that president trump is having to deal with. >> it is. let's be clear, this issue is coming to a head but if obama had had a third term or hillary clinton were elected, it wouldn't be coming to and had. even though the north koreans continue to develop a north korean north nuclear capability, their icbm capabilities, their cyber effects, the administrations haven't said we have to handle that. trumper comes in and says that he does. the japanese emma south koreans last week, everyone i talked to, this was issue number one. the question is, is trumper really going to engage in military strikes? if he does, the countries that are at risk are not the united states, but the allies and south korea and japan. i think what is really interesting here, this is truly trumps america first policy. it is his most america first policy. it is about the united states. he wants to stop america from potentially being frightened

down the road by north korea and if that potentially putting the japanese and south koreans at risk. that is less of a concern to him than it would have been other presidents. that is exactly what the americans voted for without foreign policy. >> dana: i thought that was interesting. i read what you what this morning, there is some criticism from people in trauma space who say this was not what we signed up for. this is interventionist. i agree with you. i think that what he is saying is, i will a protect america first, and ordered to do so, i need to show diplomatic strength. >> it's a unilateral policy. trumper never said he was going to be an isolationist. he doesn't want to be the world's policeman. he doesn't want to support other countries with american military costs. when he wanted to syria, that wasn't isolationism. he didn't ask allies in advance, he didn't ask congress in advance. he just did that and he did it while xi jinping was having chocolate cake at mar-a-lago. that is a presidents that acts himself and the japanese, south koreans, and chinese are all paying attention.

i will say, he is moving these countries politically. the japanese decided to send a destroyer and other ships along with the american strike group, right after north korean coast. the south korean election coming up in a few weeks, it may well be that this north korean crisis initiated by trump, is going to make a south korean president to be much closer to the u.s. and farther from china. it could actually swing the outcome of that election. china is now saying they are more prepared to give a harder line on things like cutting off air travel, may be cutting up oil exports to the north koreans if they continue to escalate. there is no question of the political impacts here. >> dana: it certainly hard to enforce more sanctions when kim jong-un is willing to let his people starve. if we could zoom out, my last question to you, like idem to charles krauthammer, from a geopolitical stanford, when you look around the world, what does this look like now for

russia, iran, anyone else who might be wondering what trumps foreign policy is going to turn out to be? >> i think that you do have to recognize that the united states has a president that is much more willing to use military force, precisely because that is the area where the united states is most uncontested by other countries around the world, with the exception of russia. russia, of course, is overwhelmingly not an economic power, not a diplomatic power, but in military and cyber power. they were interested, one of the few governments that preferred trump hillary clinton. that feels like a long time ago. now, of course, they have a very different perspective. that relationship has gotten only worse over the course of the last few weeks. >> dana: and bremmer, thank you so much. >> my pleasure. >> dana: coming up next, angry protest turned dangerously violent as demonstrators ask that president trump releases tax returns. we'll have details moments away.

>> dana: in the "hume zone" segment tonight, violent protests against president trump. on saturday, they were demonstrations all across the country demanding that the president to release his tax returns. the didn't take long for some of the protests to erupt into violence. >> help this guy! help this guy! help this guy! >> hey, hey! >> give it up! >> let's go! >> [bleep]! >> back up. >> dana: while some anti-trump critics refused to let go of the tax return issue, even some democrats are saying it might be time to address more pressing issues. >> is much as much as i want to see the tax returns or at least i hope that after it has gone

through the investigatory committees in a house in in the senate, it seems smaller as we are talking about matters that we are talking about the beginning of the show, what seems to dominate, seemingly dominating washington pollock today and world politics today. there is no doubt, one of the things they will do is draw a republican to pass some sort of amendment that says anyone that is a nominee of a party should have to release their returns. it's not clear to me the effectiveness of these rallies at this point. again, we are talking about such weighty matters on the world stage. >> dana: joining us now with reaction, fox news senior political analyst, brit hume. brit, i don't think it is worth getting arrested and having that on your permanent record to ask about donald trump's tax returns. what about you? >> i don't think there is much wallop left in that issue politically. it came up during the campaign. i don't think it was helpful to donald trump that he refused to release his tax returns. o suspicions that in some misgivings that people had about him but he got elected anyway.

i -- i think he feels that -- what people will be judging him on is how well he is handling this international crises that he is facing and how well come of course, he delivers on his promises at home that have to do with tax reform and repeal obamacare, most important of all, of course, getting the economy booming again, which was a central issue that elected him. >> dana: most of the protests across the country, they were peaceful. obviously, they were planned well in advance come around tax day. it did seem discordant, as harold ford, jr., was talking about, we have all these crises happening around the world, foreign policy hot spots, the democrats are clinging to this issue. do you think, has become one of those think the democrats continue to push on and he ignores? >> i think a lot of the democrats will try to distance themselves from these protests. they have to be careful for this reason, dana, while most democrats want to get in the streets and turn over cars and get into fist fights, the

level of passion and the democratic electorate against donald trump really does virgin kind of a derangement syndrome, which explains to a great extent, i think, the way that bleeding members of congress are acting, about how to deal with him. they are opposing him on everything. they stalled his cabinet nominations. they eventually lay down in front of trains to let people kw that they are resisting him. it hasn't been very effective. neil gorsuch is on the supreme court. they ended up blowing up the filibuster as a result of it. the next time president trump dominated supreme court nomination, that option will not be available to them. as a matter of strategy and tactics, it isn't working. but they are responding to their base, which seems to be located right now and the fever swamps of the american left. >> dana: not all smooth sailing from the trump administration on tax reform. in particular, health care. you have been writing and tweeting about this. he followed closely because you have seen at how these fights go.

just today, you had the secretary of treasury announced the tax reform plan that they have would not be done by august. i think that is reasonable. probably shooting for the moon to say august was going to be at. what do you think of that in terms as these things get going again, as they comes back -- they come back from a recess, will they be able to overcome the problems of the domestic agenda to get some parts on the board? >> that really is the key question, dana. you put your finger on it. tax reform is always going to be hard. it always has been. it was very difficult back in 1987. in fact, a lot of people think -- who say that ronald reagan got a past. ronald reagan got it passed eventually. it bubbled up out of congress. it was hard to do and has been talked about for years. very skillfully managed in congress. the president got behind it. it's not going to be easy. it would be easier if they could get obamacare past because of various technical requirements h getting around the filibusters

and the son is on both tax reform and obamacare. it is useful for them to do that, which is why you see the president keeps coming back to that because he knows how important it is for practical and political reasons, budgetary reasons, to get that out of the way. the thing to watch, i think, whether they can get a deal together and get something passed out of the house on obamacare repeal first and then come and see where they go on tax reform. this likely to be dragged out for quite some time. >> dana: do you think that any of the democrats would be willing to maybe come to the table and help on those two issues? do you think the democrats need to show some wings back home at home, as well, tax or more might be the one? do you think that there is any appetite on side to say any leadership that would say, let's at least get to the table and have a conversation? it feels to me that right now they are sitting back with her arms crossed saying "no." >> they are dug in. because of the atmosphere in the democratic base is resist, resist, resist. you hear the subject of

obamacare, but they say, we would like to help fix that, that would mean leave it in place and trim around its edges and give it some more money or whatever to try to make it survive. it is not doing well, as we all know. do you hear the word, when it comes to repeal, they are dead set against it. they want get enough democratic votes for that, any more than a tiny handful of that money. a kind of tax reform they want, democrats want to raise taxes for that will be tough. there were a broken party has to unite on these issues. it will be a considerable challenge. >> dana: we will watch, the special election in georgia to replace the health and human services health and human services secretary tom price. that's down to the wire. thank you, brit, we always appreciate your analysis. next on "the rundown," more details on how far the trump administration is taking his crackdown on illegal immigration. later, a multistate manhunt on the way for a killer who gunned down a 70-year-old man and posted on facebook care close

our authority to making a rest? we will have the latest when "the factor" comes right back.

>> dana: in the "factor followup" segment tonight, the crackdown on illegal immigration by the department of homeland security reports that in the last two months illegal crossings dropped by about 70% along parts of the southern border. in the opening weeks of the trump administration, immigration arrests were up by nearly one-third compared to the same period last year. yesterday, homeland security john kelly detailed how the trump administration is beefing up enforcement. >> it is fair to say that the definition of criminal has not changed, but where on the spectrum of criminality we operate has changed. >> can you give me an example of somebody that wasn't departed before that you are departing now? >> someone with multiple duis as an example. even a single dui depending on other aspects. that would get you into the system.

remember -- speak of this wouldn't have been the case under the previous administration? >> you have to remember that there is a system, a legal justice system in place. the law to parts people. secretary kelly doesn't, i.c.e. doesn't, it's united states criminal justice system, our justice system that departs people. >> dana: joining a staff or miami, democratic strategists mary anne marsh, and with me in new york, carrie sheffield, founder of a digital new site. mary anne, if i could start with you. when secretary kelly talks about deporting illegal aliens and having a felony of a dui, that seems reasonable to me. i think that most democrats would agree. is that right? >> i think it is reasonable. his job is to enforce the law and that is the law. however, he noted that you have to have a criminal record to be on their radar screen. if you are an undocumented immigrant. the fact is, while arrests are up, what is also down is the number of criminal undocumented

immigrants they have arrested. in fact, twice as many undocumented immigrants without criminal records have been arrested and those with criminal records. deportations are down. the folks with criminal records are not being arrested. in fact, to add insult to injury, emigrants across the board are not reporting crimes now. you hear from law enforcement, they are doing it because they are afraid of being picked up. the folks who are being picked up under this law are not ones with criminal records. they are the ones without criminal records. that is the problem. >> dana: carrie, the trump administration would dispute that and they would say their focus is on the legals. but if they do come across somebody who is in the country illegal, that is also unacceptable and they are going to have to leave. >> sure. just because you shut door lock your door at night does not mean you hate the outside world. you love and you want to protect what is on the inside. every day, mary anne, if you are defending drunk drivers, you have to wake up in the morning and say, i am defending drunk drivers instead of innocent victims. that is what you have to tell

yourself. >> dana: mary anne is not defending drunk drivers. >> that is what secretary kelly is saying. secretary kelly is saying if you are a drunk driver and illegal immigrant, you don't belong in this country. there are millions of honest legal immigrants in this country. what secretary kelly is saying that if you are in this country illegally, and you are also committing crimes on top of that, you do not belong here because you are not part of the american fabric. >> dana: let me ask you mary anne. you said that what got lost in that entry was secretary kelly, he was making a point that he is trying to follow the law, these are the laws that congress has passed, he is saying that if you don't like this, then, pass different laws and we won't have to do what you say you don't like. >> if you watch that interview, what you heard him say, i did almost get lost. he is appealing to congress to say, my job was to enforce the law but it would help me if you could change some of these laws. we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in this country and a lot of complicated

circumstances. you have families for the kids were born here in the parents rent and they are undocumented. people don't want to see family split up. or you have families who were brought here as children they are not documented. he is looking for resources. change a lot and i can do my job better or give me more resources than i can do the job better still. something has to be done here. i think really, the real answer is, folks who are here, let's figure out a way to help them stay here if they don't have a criminal record. the rest of the money should go to improving visa tracking are going after undocumented immigrants with criminal records, doing things that would actually fix the immigration system. >> mary anne, if you are here illegally, that is a criminal record. the fact of the matter, the congressional budget office found that immigrants are not drains on taxpayers. we need to be much more thoughtful, we need to be methodical, mindful of who we are leading into this country. that is the message of the trump motors. bernie sanders loves to talk about how great europe is.

the countries he loves to point to two, norway, has a very restriction is policy based on value and merit and the type of -- if you are contributed to their societies. >> mary anne, from your standpoint, you would say there is lots of different perspectives on that. let me ask you this, given what you were saying, secretary kelly is saying, congress, change it, do you think that there are democrats willing to meet donald trump at the table to talk about possible immigration reform? i do think that he has been reasonable when it comes to the dreamers. you haven't seen a big push on that. it seems that there might be a way to get some democrats to have that discussion. what do you think? >> i think there is. if you can do something with the dreamers and use that money, instead of a wall, to build a true immigration system, that is based on technology, tracking visas, making the system better so people who apply here can do it and less than 11 or 12 years. make those kind of changes. everything that has been talked

about so far, everything that everybody wait wants done is not doing anything to fix the immigration system. to add insult to injury, you're not getting the criminals out of country that are here illegally. >> the way you fix the system is to get the people who are committing crimes out. that is how you fix the system. he got to make sure that you are based on merit and may not contribute to the society and not a drain. >> dana: we could talk about this all night. we got to go. thank you so much. directly ahead, president trump slamming barack obama's foreign policy legacy as a failure. how much is it to blame for all the problems the u.s. is facing right now? we'll take a hard look at that right after this. ♪

>> announcer: "the o'reilly factor," the number one cable news show for 16 years and counting. >> dana: thanks for staying with us. i am dana perino and for bill o'reilly. in the "personal story" segment tonight, president trump, and the aftermath of barack obama's foreign policy. amidst -- president trump ripped his predecessor on twitter today, writing "the first 90 days has exposed the total failure of the last eight years of foreign policy!" so true. "joining us from austin to analyze, karl rove. you'll remember in the days come and the years, actually, after the bush administration and that, president obama use to blame president bush for everything. if it rained, that was president bush's fault. i got a little bit tiresome. is it fair, i think, in the

first 90 days, six months, to compare and look to the previous administration? >> it was tiresome, as you say, when barack obama did it. frankly, i think president trump would be well advised to stay away from it because it will quickly become tiresome if he doesn't come as he did today. he is right, a lot of what we are facing today is a direct result of failed policies in policies under barack obama, whether it was a reset with russia that failed, allowing russia to play a bigger role today than it should. the iranian nuclear deal, the withdrawal of troops from iraq that allowed isis to spread, the attempt the zero option about afghanistan, we could go on and spend a whole hour talking about that. having said that, though, i doesn't make president trump look strong. but her for him to focus what time he has with the american people through twitter or television appearances or in speeches are looking at what he is doing and carrying it

forward. then, the american people are fully capable, particularly with the help of pundits like you would me, of understanding the contrast between president obama and president trump. most of them get it. a lot of people remember what president obama said, a redline if they do this in syria, when they crossed the red line time and time again, they did nothing. this president said it will cross a lot of lines and within a matter of hours, he struck at the place from which those attacks were made. it looks weak when he does this. he looked strong by focusing on the future and what he is doing, not on the past. >> dana: his actions are spoken louder than his words. i would agree without it. he did get a pump in his general approval, after the foreign policy actions that he is taken. is that sustainable and can he turn that into any sort of capability when congress gets back next week to get them back to the table and working to try to advance his domestic agenda? >> success it does beget suspects. the more success he has a

foreign policy front, we had the good meeting with china, the attack on syria, the engagement with north korea, where our allies are being responsive to -- emma chinese are being responsive to what he has had to say. yes, he can use that a little bit. he would be better if he would be spending the time not bashing obama. that is easy to do. if he would use those tweets to help advance his cause when it comes to these kind of foreign policies, pointing out how america is in better shape or helping american people understand where he is going. if he does that, that he does get more political credit. simply bashing president obama, that works with the people who are with him already. it doesn't help expanded by drawing to his side people who either sat out the election or who were mildly disposed to be for hillary clinton over him. >> dana: there's another issue that has popped up in the past few days. last friday, on good friday, the white house announced it it was no longer going to continue the practice that president obama

had undertaken, which was to release the white house visitor logs, with some exceptions. let's take a listen to what sean spicer said today. a speaker why does the present object to people knowing he was coming into the white house? >> it is not a question of objecting. it's about following the law. we are following the law as both the presidential ruptured acts and the federal record acts are prescribing. it's the same policy that every administration had up until the obama administration. frankly, the photo attempt of the obama administration put out come over they would scrub who they didn't want to put out, didn't serve anyone well. >> dana: karl, 2011, a federal court told the obama administration, you don't have to do this. he continued to practice anyway. with president trump deciding not to continue that, i guess he is on pretty solid legal ground, but is it another distraction that he will have to deal with when it comes to his critics? >> he is solid -- on solid legal ground. you may remember during our years in the white house, this became an issue.

sean spicer was right. every previous president, president bush, 43, president clinton, president bush 41, reagan, ad nauseam, did not lease the names of visitors to the white house. we did have lawsuits in the bush years about this. having said that, it's a close call. on the one hand, he is on good solid legal ground. on the other hand, it is an unnecessary p.r. battle right now. he is already under fire for not releasing his tax returns this previous presidents have done. now, he has this where he looks like he is trying to constrict people's information, people's access to what is going on. it is a needless controversy. it will dog him for a couple of days. i wish they hadn't done it but now that they have dinner, tough it out and hopefully the media will talk about something else. i think it adds a -- they got something to hide. >> dana: happy national haiku day. a little inside joke.

>> i wish i had a ready haiku for you. >> dana: i'll check with you tomorrow. thank you. a quick reminder, bill's new book, "old school life in the scaling" is currently number one on "the new york times" bestseller list. you can get it for free. sign up to become a bill o'reilly.com premium member and you can get "old-school" or any of the vessel and gives us a free gift. next on "the rundown," the hunt for the so-called facebook killer who murdered an elderly man now expanding to five states. we all have the latest moments away. ♪

♪ >> dana: in the "unresolved problems" segment tonight, the manhunt for the so-called facebook killer. authorities across five states are scrambling to capture steve stephens, who is believed to have gone down a 74-year-old man and a random attack

yesterday in cleveland. he then posted a video of the murder to facebook. today, cleveland police announced a $50,000 reward for information leading to his arrest. joining us now from chicago with the latest is fox news senior correspondent mike tobin. what is the latest? it's been a few hours since the last update. >> it has been a few hours. as you mentioned, the reward is not up to $50,000. he also mentored the searchers in the neighboring five states. it is concentrated but one of the things that the chief made clear, this guy has had 24 hours. if he has been driving that whole 24 hours, he could really be anywhere. this urges nationwide. this search involves local law enforcement, involves the county sheriff, involves state troopers, it also involves the fbi and the u.s. marshals, as he could be anywhere. the vehicle they are looking for is a 2016 ford fusion. that is the car he was driving at the time of the attack. police say there is no indication that he dumped that vehicle or he stole another one. that that is a car they are looking for right now, dana.

>> dana: with a announced they were later today, did that bring forward any additional calls for more information? >> they have been getting a lot in the way of tips. the police say that they are chasing down tips all the time. of course, since this thing went out on facebook, it appalled at so many people, so terribly shocking to see this individual go out and seemingly select the 74-year-old robert goodwin at random and gone him down and cold blood like that. there has been a lot of traffic on my letter of tips coming into police. unfortunately, although he is a big guy, he does look like a lot of people. that car is fairly common. you'll get a lot of tips going into police, dana. >> dana: regarding facebook, earlier today on "the five," i was able to report that facebook says that it disabled the subjects account within 24 minutes of her serving the first account. it also said that it has to take another look at the policy. what more do you think facebook would have done in this case? >> what they could have done, it

will always be iffy. when you start filtering speech and controlling speech and run a suppose to be a free flow format, clearly, you see space book being used for nefarious purposes. the other question you have to ask, are people doing more bad things because they can put it on facebook or are we just seeing more bad things because they put it on facebook? we do have a statement from the vice president of global operations of media partnerships, from facebook, who says that facebook is reviewing the process of handling violent or objectionable videos. the quote is "we report ties reports of serious safety applications for our community and working on making that review process go even faster." dana. >> dana: thank you so much. let's bring in dr. keith ablow, a forensic psychiatrist and a fox news contributor. he joins us from boston. doctor, let me ask you. i think -- you think the internet is quite impersonal. i was thinking of social media that is quite personal, you are sharing information. but you are saying it elicits

behavior that you normally what into if you didn't have social media. can you explain? >> dana, here's the thing. we know about people who sext, t is a very monday and example. among those most, very few of them would be willing to walk up to another individual and had a photograph to that person of themselves unclothed. it is this inhibiting anti-personalizing, this medium, or as marshall mcluhan said in "understanding media," "the media is the message." this is dragon people and him and having people do that they otherwise not -- would never do. >> dana: when it comes to an individual like steven, was this about fame? >> i haven't spoken to him obviously. but what we know is, look, he used this particular route to share an unspeakable act. to presume that it had nothing to do with it, it is not a

variable, i think it stretches credulity. i think that what we need to understand is, would he have acted in this fashion if facebook didn't allow him instant access to a worldwide audience? or is it simply that he would have acted this way anyhow but he happened to posted. my concern is, there are copycats everywhere, and every watershed moment like this makes me a little bit concerned that others will say, wow, this is a handy way to become very well-known. it is a terrifying concept, obviously. >> dana: what can you tell us about the anonymous nature of his victims? i thought that was an interesting point you made earlier today. >> thanks, dana. when you try to understand someone story, a lot of it can be protection. you essentially projecting on others your own story. this is someone who took a man's life without any explanation. it may well mean that he feels

that no one understands him, that events in his life have unfolded in ways that he has no internal way to understand, so, he projects this and an incredibly dramatic way, ending someone's life, who has no role in his drama at all. he may have just little understanding about ways in which he was "annihilated," whether psychologically or otherwise. this guy has a mental illness of some variety network. there is a story about somebody who feels absolutely no effective way to understand himself, perhaps to understand others. >> dana: what would you say what i suspect like this, what kind of end is he looking for here? does he want to be captured, suicide by cop, just trying to out run? what would your say? >> i would advise police that when someone writes a story that

includes the sudden end of life and basically says, no one has ever understood me and i have had nowhere to go with my feelings, he is basically a dead man walking. they have to consider him to be the most lethal kind of fellow to himself and others. sadly. >> dana: last question to you, what would you say to families who may be have somebody that come to them, apparently stevens went to his mother and said that nobody understands me, i need help, where do you send them? >> it is so important because none of us monster think we are in the middle of a psychological thriller. yet, if somebody says that they are thinking of hurting themselves or someone else, you either call ner, call 911, call the local community mental health, say i need a crisis team. there are things you can do. what you shouldn't do is just try to bury it, try to say that things will be okay. if somebody brings up that kind of dramatic information, it has taken them a long time to bring it up.

take it extraordinarily seriously. >> dana: a tragic story. we feel for the victims family so much. dr. ablow, thank you so much. straight ahead, the unmatched power of presidential chiefs of staff. an amazing new bug, -- an amazing new book chronicles how they have made the fortunes of some presidents. the author is here next. are upgrading their watere filter to zerowater. start with water that has a lot of dissolved solids... pour it through brita's two-stage filter...

dissolved solids remain! what if we filter it over and over? oh dear. thank goodness zerowater's five-stage filter gets to all zeroes the first time. so maybe it's time to upgrade. get more out of your water. get zerowater.

>> dana: in the back of the book spend it tonight, the toughest job in washington. the men will as much power as presidential chiefs of staff and their impact is influence some of the most pivotal movements in history, often helping to determine the success or failure of a presidency. a fascinating new book is revealing never before reported details about the men who held this indispensable job in writing is now the author, chris whipple. he's the author of the gatekeepers. how the white house chief of staff define every presidency. what started the beginning. what is the chief of staff do? >> with the critically important

job. he's not only the president's closest confidant or should be in, is famously the gatekeeper, meaning that he creates time and space for the president to thin think. he is also the honest broker. he's the person who's in charge of the information flow to the president, making sure that only the tough decisions get into the oval office. he's the guy who executes the president's agenda. lots of people have fancy titles. at nice under reagan had fancy titles but jim baker had everything that mattered. all of those duties plus possibly the most important duty which is to tell the president what he doesn't want to hear. >> dana: the bad news. what i didn't know is that jimmy carter as president didn't really understand the importance of the chief of staff job and that hurt him. what did you learn from that? >> think about jimmy carter and ronald reagan for a moment. jimmy carter was arguably the most intelligent president on paper elected in the 20th century. a nuclear scientist.

he could talk about nuclear warheads. ronald reagan was described unfairly has an amiable dunce. but reagan intuited something that carter did not understand and by the way, the current president does not understand either. which is an outsider president needs a consummate insider to get things done. and he found one, reagan did in james a baker the third. carter thought he could run the white house by himself. it was a real disaster and two and a half years into his first term, he finally appointed a chief of staff. >> dana: i was thinking about my experience at the white house. i love the chief of staff i had, because not only did they have to manage the president, they also have to manage the cabinet in the cabinet, their successful people. they don't want to have to go through the line, wait in line in order to see the president but also really important to the staff because you're managing a lot of younger people who are working their tails off and they

have to be overly strong personality. with the most important leadership quality of the chief of staff? >> i think interestingly, temperament is a big part of the job. andy card certainly, judge bolton, both popular, both good at motivating the troops. jim baker under ronald reagan and leon panetta under bill clinton i would say were made with the two chiefs of the 20th century because they were grounded. they were grown-ups. they've been around the block. they knew how to go to the president and give him a tough message. that has a lot to do with successful in the job. >> dana: i think that ronald emanuel, his temperament outside, he is too much but for president obama who was so cool that it might've been a good mi mix. >> no drama obama and all drama ron.

but that was a time, remember that we're on the verge of a great depression. the auto industry was about to go belly up, had two wars in progress. barack obama needed somebody who could get stuff done on capitol hill. nobody knew the hill better than ron. nobody knew how to take the hill. >> dana: and the press. >> managing the message is also as you well know, it's critical. the white house chief's job to make sure that everyone's on the same page. >> dana: driving the agenda. any advice you would offer to president trump or even to the current chief of staff who they're nearing the end of their first hundred days? >> back in december, 10x white house chiefs went to the white house to give him advice as he was about to start and they had one piece of advice in common and that was you have to be first among equals in the white house. otherwise this cannot work. he dutifully took notes. when the chiefs left, none of them were confident that he didn't have mission impossible on his hands because donald trump doesn't understand that he needs it.

>> dana: were going to have to go. get the book. thank you for watching us. i'm dana perino and for the vacationing bill o'reilly and remember, the spin stops here because were looking out for yo you. ♪ >> good evening and welcomed due to a tucker carlson tonight for the questions this evening, we headed toward war. another intervention in the middle east, but a big war. what nuclear weapons on both sides and tens of millions of lives at stake. despite a failed missile test over the weekend, north korea is not cracking under international pressure. ambassador to united nations warns that quote normal playback nuclear war may break out at any minute. still strong words. both president trump and vice president pence spoke today about all of the saying leave administration plans to adopt new posture towards that country, one is more assertive