julie: that's fox reports for this saturday. i'm julie banderas. our continuing coverage with >> north korea best not make any more threats to the united states. they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. >> welcome to the journal editorial report, i'm paul gigot, strong warning to north korea by president trump amid reports that regime of kim jong un has developed nuclear device small enough to fit on a missile that could reach the united states and a tweet friday the president said, quote, military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded should north korea act unwisely. hopefully kim jong un will find another path.

but as the president ramps up the rhetoric, pyongyang shows little sign of backing down calling the president trump's quote a load of nonsense and announcing a detailed plan to launch missiles towards the u.s. territory of guam. john bolton is the former u.s. embassador to the united nations. embassador, good to have you back with us again. >> good to be with you. paul: consensus in washington on the right -- well, on the left in particular, but even some on the right is that the president's rhetoric on north korea is -- has been reckless and even dangerous. do you agree? >> no, i don't agree. look, i think you have to consider the context in which the president spoke and that's following eight years of one of the weakest, most feckless american presidents we've had in history and following years of american politicians who always say all options are on the table to the point where foreigners think it's a verbal tick. i think what the president has

done and i think he's done plenty and need to do no more is make it clear to china and north korea, we are in a qualitatively situation and they need to understand that. your editorial in the journal at the end of last week i thought was right target. paul: i think there are people who think it's not a good idea going forward for the president of the united states, great global power to get into a tit for tat with kim jong un, north korean government, would you agree with that? >> i think we had ample sufficiency, i think what we need now is diplomacy from china. i think diplomacy with north korea is a waste of time. with china to make it clear, the seriousness of the military situation and also in my view to talk to the chinese about reunifying the peninsula which i think is the last diplomatic play open to us. paul: the message here is maybe more to china to demonstrate

that the u.s. is serious this time. we mean it when we say they cannot -- north korea cannot develop an icbm with a nuclear weapon. is that the main target? >> well, i hope, i hope that's the message. i mean, i think we've got two different scenarios, one let's say an attack on guam. let's be clear, guam is sovereign american territory. it's inhabitants are born citizens of the united states, attacking guim is the equivalent -- guam is the equivalent of attacking california. second question is to act preemptively towards nuclear program and the american people have a choice. i think the american people have to make this choice, are they prepared to live with a nuclear capable north korea into infinity threatening us and civilian population, if they're prepared to do that as many people like susan rice from the obama administration are, they are not going to favor military force. if you don't want to live under that terrorist threat, you to

look at it. paul: china said, i assume this was the regime speaking through editorial that if north korea strikes first, they would stay neutral but if the united states took preemptive military action, then they would defend north korea. what do you make of that comment? >> well, i think it's very interesting and i think the first point is extremely significant and i hope kim jong un reads it clear and clear statement that they would accept american retaliation and the second that they would regard preemptive attack that might induce them to come in is a major factor. it's not technically a statement by the regime but i think you need to take it seriously. so another reason to have a very high-level diplomat to talk act all of these things. paul: you raised the question susan rice, appeared in new york times saying, you know, we might just have to live with a nuclear

north korea and, you know what, that's something we can't do, look at what we did with russia, if they were going to attack us, they knew they would be destroyed and we can just send that message to kim and that's fine, what's wrong with that argument? >> everything. look, number one, these are the same people who assured us in the obama, bush and clinton administrations, we can talk north korea out of its nuclear weapon's program, carrots and sticks, we will figure it out. 25 years of failure. the notion that we would happily go back to cold war days of mutually ensured destruction, i just find dilutional at any event it will not be the same as i may say -- paul: why is that? is that because both of them are either more irrational actors than the old soviet leadership was or because they're simply --

have vision for what they are trying to do? >> i think both factor in. we were in the unique situation cold war, two super powers standing off with one another, as people like to say, the communist were atheist. they weren't too quick to throw that away whereas the threats from north korea and iran are asymmetrical and much greater threat to the united states because the cost to the regimes, although it may seem total to them is really something that given their aught or -- authoritarian nature, they might be willing to risk. it's not that one day kim jong un got up to launch missile in los angeles, he would use to threaten the united states in the future. you withdraw all american troops from korea, japan, i will unleash my nuclear capability. that's what we would have to

deal with. paul: also the danger, i assume, from my point of view of proliferation from other countries, south korea, does japan, do other countries say, look, we have to defend ourselves because as much you might like -- we might like to defend, rely on u.s. deterrent, we are not sure you will risk your own self-defense to come to our defense. >> and that's why to china it has to be said, if you don't stop north korea, if we don't find a way, japan will get nuclear weapon, we already have a nuclear's arm's race because of saudi arabia, egypt and turkey. paul: thank you, embassador, appreciate it. >> thank you, paul. paul: when we come back president trump's fury threat with backlash, is his tough talk over the top or just what kim jong un needs to hear, our panel weighs in next. >> the people that were questioning that was it too tough, maybe it wasn't tough enh

this lovely lady has a typical airline credit card. so she only earns double miles on purchases she makes from that airline. what'd you earn double miles on, please? ugh. that's unfortunate. there's a better option. the capital one venture card. with venture, you earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, everywhere, every day. not just airline purchases. seems like a no-brainer. what's in your wallet? trust #1 doctor recommended dulcolax. use dulcolax tablets for gentle dependable relief. suppositories for relief in minutes. and dulcoease for comfortable relief of hard stools. dulcolax. designed for dependable relief.

♪ ♪ >> as commander in chief i think he feels necessary to issue a very strong statement directly to north korea but i think what the president was just reaffirming is the united states has the capability to fully defend itself from any attack and defend our allies and we will do so. so the american people should sleep well tonight. paul: that was secretary of state rex tillerson wednesday reassuring american that is they can sleep well at night despite escalating tensions between the u.s. and north korea. democrats and even some republicans criticizing the president for ratcheting up the rhetoric but is his tough talk over the top, let's ask wall street journal dan henninger and columnist bill mcgurn. bill, you were speech writer for president george w. bush, you were intimately in crafting

rhetoric with the security people in a wartime situation. >> right. >> what do you make of donald trump's rhetoric? >> i don't find it that sensational. i was in asia when bill clinton came over and said if the north koreans pursued weapons it would be the end of their country. paul: this was in the 90's. >> '93. at the end of the day we had a big debate on iran and their nuclear ambitions and we had a big debate on whether the preferred wording should be iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons or must not be allowed. i would say at the end of the day what matters is the policy, mr. tillerson says the north koreans don't understand diplomatic language, they understand it very well, they have been hearing for years. richard pearl said -- was asked the question, i think we can negotiate and if we want diplomacy to succeed we have to have made decision that if it doesn't succeed we would take action. paul: defense official under the

cold war under ronald reagan. you had mattis follow up the president's comments with a firm statement that north korea better not risk its regime by some kind of reckless action but tillerson focused on diplomacy and opened even the idea of talking with north korea as long as its nuclear program is on the table, is there an inconsistency there? >> there is an inconsistency. what's not clear the strategy the united states is developing. you have the president issuing forceful rhetoric. secretary mattis reinforcing it. yet secretary tillerson suggesting that we want to negotiate with the north koreans is an entirely different message altogether. we will negotiate with the chinese, the russians, the iranians, what that means is that there's a leadership,

there's a group of people that they themselves will sit down and discuss it among themselves and come to a decision about their best interest. there is not the north koreans, there is kim jong un. all right, one person who is very unstable, who is dictating policy there and i think -- paul: reinforcing that? >> they are largely irrelevant. he has murdered most of them in the past. paul: including his uncle. >> including his uncle. i think donald trump is on the right track speaking a language that a bully like kim jong un might understand. paul: and so one thing, i think you have to say, trump inherited this mess. the foreign policy elites that are cite sizing him now basically are the people, same people who led us -- >> we've had 25 years of rhetoric that goes from harsh to soft and negotiations. again, when bill clinton used the language at the dnc, the

times described it it. it hasn't stopped them from doing what they want to do which is get a nubbing weapon, again, i think the answer is that the words have to be backed up by something. paul: and on that point, i think the part of this -- this message is they have to persuade china that we are serious this time. >> right. paul: this isn't like the other times. crosses the line that threatens american homeland and american troops and citizens. the missiles won't be aimed at you, they will be aimed at us. you need to understand that we are serious. here is the issue, bill, if -- if they don't do anything, if the status quo develops and they get a bomb and icmb like that, then trump has to do something. >> well, john bolton made an important point which is that from what we have heard, i think

secretary of state tillerson has the right negotiating partner in mind in north korea. we should be talking to china. we need to negotiate with china because it involves the rest of the region, japan, even vietnam, there is the danger that nuclear weapons can proliferate in the area if this isn't resolved. i think the united states should be talking directly to china now and let the north koreans wait until the end of the negotiation. >> hope that if china moved to action could stay cool and -- >> the biggest thing that they could do is have military contacts in pyongyang is let them know if you take this guy out and you abandon your nukes, we will leave you alone. this is donald trump's red line. whole world is watching and if we fail and get the capacity to strike america, that would be a big message to the rest of the world's bad guys. paul: still ahead republican

health care failure, party leaders pointing fingers what president trump and mitch mcconnell means for the republican agenda. >> i said mitch, get to work and let's get it done. they should have had the last one. they lost by one vote. for a thing like that t t t t

we check our phones 85 times a day. so it only made sense to create a network that keeps up. introducing xfinity mobile. it combines america's largest, most reliable 4g lte with the most wifi hotspots nationwide. saving you money wherever you check your phone. yeah, even there. see how much you can save when you choose by the gig or unlimited. call, or go to xfinitymobile.com. xfinity mobile. it's a new kind of network designed to save you money. >> our new president has, of course, not been in this line of work before and i think had excessive expectations of how quickly things happen in the democratic process. paul: senate majority leader mitch mcconnell setting off a war of words with president trump after suggesting that the

president had excessive expectations about what he could expect from a republican congress. the president fired back in a series of tweets blaming mcconnell for the gop's health care failure and he had this to say when asked thursday if the majority leader should consider stepping down. >> well, i will tell you what, if he doesn't get repeal and replace done and if he doesn't get taxes done, meaning cuts and reform, and if he doesn't get a very easy one to get done in infrastructure, if he doesn't get them done, then you can ask me that question. paul: we are back with dan henninger and bill mcgurn. >> the unseries level is somebody said something very critical about him that somebody happened to be mitch mcconnell, guess what is coming back?

donald trump. [laughter] >> law of nature. >> the republican party is disunited, the health care experience has real consequences and implications or the ability of this party to govern and we are going towards big tax bill, the debt budget. so i think it is not helpful for president trump to be leaning on the republicans at this point because they don't need anymore division than they already have. mitch mcconnell probably learned a few things from the health care scrugle. it is not the moment to start changing horses in the middle of this wild herd that's running in four different directions. paul: yeah, mcconnell would say, look, i have 52 votes, i can only lose 3 and it's very tough to get that. on the other hand, they did promise, kate, for seven years and the president has a point, you can't deliver on something that you've been promising for seven years. >> right, there's plenty of blame to go around whether to conservatives and the moderates

who were both pulling the health care repeal in different directions but to the extent trump had any expectations i'm not sure excessive expectations is to blame given that the senate did spend several months on this project to know improvement. on the other hand, i think the net beneficiary of this fight is chuck schumer who will enjoy the infighting. paul: is repeal and replace on the agenda at all or are we moving in another direction? >> it's hard to come back, one can hope. what is coming next is the discussion of whether to essentially bail out the insurers on subsidies that they haven't received, that they want to continue to receive but hasn't been appropriated by congress. so in theory, republicans should try to get policy victories for either repealing the medical device tax -- paul: in exchange for schumer -- right, there's a

larger bill, bill, donald trump and the republican party. one of the dangers that i thought with the failure of health care that trump would conclude, i need to blame the guys, i need to separate with these guys, it's a shotgun marriage to use another metaphor and there are factions within the white house, the bannon faction which would just love to be able to take down mitch mcconnell, take down paul ryan because they want to remake the democratic party in their message on immigration, trade, and foreign policy, is trump -- is his suggestion that he's beginning the divorce? >> i think he made statements that if the republicans don't work with him rerecent statement that is he will look for democrats to work with. paul: you would love to get -- >> their goals -- paul: that's a different story. [laughter] >> first thing every president learns is that the people of your own party in congress do not work for you.

john mccain said it the other day we are coequal branch of government. the second thing you learn is almost every congressman specially the senate, because they can hold nominations, no one has the power to just get something through that you want but everyone has the power to stop you dead in your track somewhere along the line. so you have to sell your agenda. i think one of the failures, not the only failure of the health care bill that it was unpopular, people didn't know about it and that's something the president could do. i think -- paul: make the case. >> i think he's starting to make the case against obamacare and say it's failing but no one knew what was in this thing and that's something the president could do. so my guess is, look, for his own interest, what does he need, he needs a tax bill. i think that donald trump is in a unique place. i thought that he didn't give an oval address on health care and that was a mistake. he needs to get tax policy and explain as ronald reagan famously did what it is and sell

it to the american people which is a way of selling to congress. >> but you know, bill, the white house has a point. they have to wonder after health care whether the

♪imagine no possessions ♪i wonder if you can ♪no need for greed or hunger

♪a brotherhood of man ♪imagine all the people ♪sharing all the world...you, ♪you may say i'm a dreamer ♪but i'm not the only one ♪i hope some day you'll join us♪ ♪and the world will live as one♪ reporter: conservative groups are turning up the heat on republicans in congress urging them to get to work when they

return from august break. this week -- >> i was proud of my job as middle class and better life for my daughter. america's tax code is so complicated. thousands of jobs like mine are being sent to china. when i see congress working to bring jobs back, i know how that matters. i guess the question i hear from a lot of people why is tax we form going to be different than the failure of healthcare. >> everything is different on this. the white house, the house and senate made a deliberate effort to work together toward a

unified single tax reform plan. paul require's going to have -- paul: it's going to have details? kevin: the ways and means committee will begin with the processed tax plan. i can't emphasize how important and unusual it is to have the white house and senate working together in tax reform. even in the reagan process that didn't happen. there are americans who defend obamacare and the affordable care act. you start with a whole different base there. paul: there are a lot of people who defend their particular tax acts. the border adjustment tax, you had to throw that out because of

hostility from the retailers and others. where are you going to get that trillion dollarsback? kevin: what you saw in healthcare was the national effort to make the case for reform. big changes require big discussions in america. having august and september do this is critical. to your point, how do we continue to lower the rates? in the 31 years since president reagan, he would not recognize the code today. since then it is littered with special provisions because our rates are so high. our work right now and the work with the senate tax writers is to scrub all those provisions and make the trade-offs with lower rates. to make sure we can lower those rates and do the expensing.

paul: you are saying this is a reform thatdoes take away tax loopholes and benefits for some people. it's not a mere tax cut? kevin: it has to. a tax cut will help temporarily, but that's like putting super charged fuel in an old clunker of a car. right now worldwide we are -- we are being left in the dust. so that's why a redesign -- those provisions are there because our rates are sohigh. industries have sought special provisions to make them competitive. those things don't have the punch. they are not needed. paul: how low do you think that has to go. you have britain going to 17. to make sure that money from

overseas, $2.5 trillion comes back here. how low does it need to go? kevin: you need to be median or lower. around the 23, 22 rate. i don't want -- we are still working to lower it as far as we can go. paul: you have 12.5% in ireland and you are not down to 20, i'm not sure you are getting enough bang for your buck to get pfizer and other companies to move their operations and cash back here. kevin: a zero tax rate on new investment, software technology, incredibly pro growth, keeping things that rewardinnovation and bring profits back.

we want a leap frog into that top three most of competitive places on the planet for the next few jobs. all those elements are critical to us. paul: subchapter ss pay at the personal rate. a lot of small business owners say it has to be parity with the corporate rate. does it have to be in your view parity? kevin: i don't believe so. but i think we need to deliver an equal tax cut for our local businesses. whether you are a mom and pop or corporation worldwide, we need to lower those taxes equally because so much of our growth is included in both side of that ledger. i think drive those rates down as low as we can regardless of the type of business you are structured at.

paul: if it's 25, you could live with that? >> i could. that is an equal 43% tax cut for both. but it's really important for our non-c corporations that have so much growth. and we are not going to do that this time. paul: state and local tax deduction is on the table. is it going to stay there? >> i'm hopeful and here is why. under the current taxcode, washington tax codes have a higher rate. some can use that deduction. we are proposing the lower rates for everybody so everyone gets helped. getting your kids in college, putting your mom in a nursing home. give people the ability to do what they need to do. paul: google's diversity problems.

problems. what the tech

you won't see these folks at the post office. problems. what the tech they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.

paul: google dismissed software engineer james demore following a memo he wrote about the tech giant's hiring policy. he wrote and distributed a memo that criticized the company's effort to attract pore women engineers. he said liberal biasamong employees and executives at google made it difficult to openly discuss the company's approach to diversity. here is my murdererrer's row of editorial writers.

what do you make of his message and did he deserve to be fired? >> he goes out of his way to say discrimination does exist. however, that does not explain for all the gender disparents. if you actually look at the number of women getting degrees, only 20% of engineering degrees go to women. 80% go to men. you can argue women are overrepresented at google relative to the percentage of getting science degrees. paul: that's different from the biological sciences. >> when we get into psychology. women are about 80%. in computer sciences that flips down to 20%. anyone who works at a company like google with those skills is a freak of nature.

if we are looking at the google diversity officer, her approach was shut down discussion not based on the merits and not engage. for a company that's supposed to be about openness, transparency and debate -- paul: there is no doubt google had a right to fire people. they said it was because it violated the code of conduct. and they said if he raised these issues about gender. >> we don't have to comment on the underlying veracity of the claim to see this is a problem. i do think -- we don't have to pass judgment on that. it should be discussible. he says men tend to overestimate their own intelligence and abilities. but what's really troubling is for whatever reason, a

subversiveness to cultural norms drivers innovation. if you read any biography of steve jobs, you don't get the sense he was going around giving his employeesreinforcement. paul: there is an irony that google is facing an investigation itself from the labor department. >> the labor secretary initiated this investigation on the practice on pay, gender based. in april labor department officials said there is systemic discrimination in regards to pay. google says any discrimination that does exist is probably related to other factors. any disparities is related to other factors beyond discrimination.

paul: it sounds like the argument demore has made. >> how many private resources to going tostopping them. girls who code is a huge non-profit. it has 10,000 alumnae. if this is a problem that society would like to solve, there are a tremendous amount of dollars flying into it. >> what does this dispurity tell us about the cultureof political conformi inside corporate america. we know it exists on campus. >> we are seeing an export of these crazy college p.c. standards. that's something that's directly out of collegecampuses. but within that you are seeing the same contradictions. they are supposed to be all

about diversity and inclusion. you have a company excluding viewpoints. >> this memo said google had a problem with diversity of viewpoint. it's probably not popular to express conservative viewpoints at google. >> to what extent is google being harmed by prioritizing diversity of intellectual diversity. paul: our colleague did a video on free speech on craiger u which was downgrade on youtube because it may have been objectionable on free speech. >> we are allowing google to act as an arbiter of content. should we trust google to do this? paul:another setback in the

south for big labor as nissan who are these people?

the energy conscious people among us say small actions can add up to something... humongous. a little thing here. a little thing there. starts to feel like a badge maybe millions can wear.

who are all these caretakers, advocates too? turns out, it's californians it's me and it's you. don't stop now, it's easy to add to the routine. join energy upgrade california and do your thing.

[♪] paul: big labor suffered another setback in the south when workers in canton, mississippi voted overwhelmingly to reject unionization it was a blow to the united auto workers union who invested in the effort. we are back with dan henninger, alicia finley and gillian mel

melchoir. why did it fail? >> the auto workers weren't sold on the benefit of the union. the union came in and tried to make this a racial issue. this plant is 80% black. they are trying to wed the auto movement to the civil rates movement. a lot of the employees have a high school graduation and were working at mcdonalds for minimum wage. now they can earn $16 to $26 plus benefits. uaw raised its dues and i don't think they made the case we are going to benefit you this much effort. paul: they made an effort to organize the south. but they had a problem this time.

there was a corruption accusation indictment in michigan. >> this was beautifully juicy. it came out just before the vote it was alleging uaw's vice president teamed up with his collective bargaining oh point at fiat and ended up raiding the funds that was suppose to be training auto workers and spending it on ferraris and gold pens and spending money on his wife's business. paul: dues they claim they are innocent, but the dues question becomes you ask workers to turn over a chunk of your paycheck in the expectation it will go for collective bargaining. and when it goes for other things you lose credibility. >> is the collective bargaining even worth it? the workers at nissan are

earning more than most of of the big three working around detroit. and so it's worth questioning. i'm sure nissan raised this with its employees. what are you going to get from your $1,000 to $2,000 you are pay together union. paul: some of these workers got bonuses which is no small thing. dan, what does it tell us about the larger appeal of private sector organizing. if unions can go in and make it case they can makeworkers better off, they have the perfect right to do that and workers have the right to sign up. but they are not doing that. >> you see no creative thinking and their side. most of come any and workers know what comes along with it

will be a lot of rules, it will suppress the company and make it difficult to operate. in a global economy, most of workers understand they are competing in a global economy. and the unions themselves have not adjusted to that reality. >> the uaw has been pretty creative. they are teaching this at colleges. academia is not real economy. it found its niche. >> what about the lesson of the detroit failures of 2008 and 2009? is that still resonating politically for workers? >> absolutely. this is something nissan was quite outspoken about. it was accused of threats and intimidation. but it was honest with its workers.

this is something that can hurt our global competitiveness. if you push up wages beyond market value. paul: when we come back, hits and mimimimimi

[♪] paul: time for our hits and misses of the week. >> a hit to a federal judge in d.c. who ordered the state department to search its own server for more emails related to hillary clinton and benghazi. judge pointed out they searched a lot of personal emails but not the government server. judicial watch has provedmore effective than congress to in getting information out of the administration. >> progressive governance is

driving people to drinking pptd tax foundation shot per-ounce soda tax in philadelphia is 24 times the state tax on beer. so perhaps a cold pdr is cheaper than a diet coke. not the intended results and hopefully other cities learn. >> a microsoft researcher estimated humanity spends the equivalent of 316 years typing inpasswords. i have all of those things and they drive me crazy. but the bureaucrats and national institutes of standard announced that was a mistake. he was working with the best information he had and those password forms are basically wrong. the newones will be fairly

simple, long strings of words like paul gigot at the "wall street journal." starts right now. judge jeanine: breaking tonight, three people including two law enforcement officers killed during violent clashes at a white nationalist rally in virginia. hello and welcome to a special two-hour edition of "justice." i'm jeanine pirro. one driver under arrest after his car plowed into a crowd of people protesting the white nationalist rally in charlottesville today. one was killed and 20 others injured. then a few hours later a helicopter crash near the rally killing two law enforcement officers on board.