a lot of big things coming next weekend. jason chaffetz is sitting in for laura ingraham tonight. hope you have a great weekend. we'll see you back here on monday. >> good evening from washington welcome to the "the ingraham angle". i'm jason chaffetz in for laura tonight. we have a great show full of big stories an breaking news. democrats and republicans cooperated to end a government shutdown but many conservatives are not celebrating. we'll tell you why. and we have ambassador john bolton on the odd couple at the olympics. vice president mike pence sitting almost next to the sister of north korea's dictator. president trump has decided tonight he cannot release the democrat's fisa memo. he is inclined to release it but it needs changes because it contains classified material and a very sensitive passage. let's go to fox's ed henry now with more. >> this is a bit of a surprise.

just a few hours ago lawmakers close to the process were predicting that the democrats' memo would go public as early as tonight. president trump himself indicated to reporters in the middle of the day he was inclined to release this with at least some sensible redactions of national security information. but i think a clue of this hold-up came later in the afternoon when the president huddled with lawyers from the white house counsel's office and lawyers from the justice department and the f.b.i. director christopher wray. once you get the lawyers more deeply involved look out. the changes may be coming. sure enough mcgahn fired off a letter to nunes saying although the president is inclined to declassify the february 5th memo, because the memorandum contains numerous especially sensitive passages he sun able to do so at this time. however, given the public interest in the transparency in these unprecedented circumstances the president has directed the justice department personnel be available to give technical assistance to the

intel committee should the committee wish to revise the february 5th memo to mitigate the risks identified by the department. now allies of nunes have been saying they believe it was a bit of a setup. democrat adam schiff put classified information in there that he knew would trip it out and democrats would cry that the president is hiding something. chuck schumer tonight pounced. he said the president's double standard when it comes to transparency is appalling. the rational for releasing the nunes memo, transparency, vanishes when it can show information harmful to him. millions of americans are asking what is he hiding? the next step for house intel is to either except the president's decisions, make changes and send it back to the white house or they can try to override the president in a secret session of the house. there has been only six of those in history. very rare. regardless of how they do it the bottom line. we're told the democratic memo does not dispute the key point of nunes's memo. f.b.i. and d.o.j. personnel got the fisa warrant to spy on

carter page after not telling the judge the dossier was paid for by the dnc and clinton campaign. that will be a key issue moving forward. >> this was not expected at all. i think all of us thought it was going to be released. that basic underlying premise as you said nothing is out there, is there, that refutes what the nunes memo said? >> not yet. now democrat adam schiff and others are saying if this memo sees the light of day, they are claiming that nunes cherry picked information and intel and that parts of their memo will refute some of the nunes memo. we simply don't know because we haven't seen it yet. >> there was also some movement at the department of justice with the number three person leaving. what do you know about that? >> this seems strange. rachel brand had only been on the job for nine months seen as a star rising through the ranks. she has been at the forefront of domestic surveillance and

chasing down terrorists. maybe she simply wanted a more lucrative gig. she is moving to the top legal post at wal-mart. it is hard not to notice with rod rosenstein gets fired or stepped down she would have been overseeing robert mueller's probe and put her in the middle of political firestorm. hard for the president to find someone who wants to replace her, probably even harder to find someone the democrats in the senate will confirm and try to filibuster and a lot of people in the white house are frustrated with jeff sessions right nou. this means rosenstein, the deputy, may have even more influence. >> thank you very much. joining us for more reaction we have john solomon a reporter for the hill newspaper. former secret service agent dan bongino and talk radio host and attorney leo terrell. i want to start with you, leo. we all thought that -- i thought and i think a lot of people thought the president may have some redactions but

ultimately release the memo. it is not coming out tonight. how are you and the democrats going to react to that? >> well, it's a sha. i'll tell you why. last week, jason, despite a public announcement by the f.b.i. not to release the republican memo, president trump released the memo. shame on the president because it is very clear he did not want this memo released because it negates helps argument. there is nothing in the memo prevented its release it was pad p.r. for president trump. >> did you see anything in the nunes memo that was -- dealt with classified material about sources and methods? >> i will pull rank on everybody. i'm the lawyer in this group. i'll simply tell you this. the f.b.i. said don't release it. and they released it notwithstanding. >> there was no classified material about sources and methods in the nunes memo,

correct? >> the information about the procedure and manner in which a warrant is obtained. that information should not have been released to the american public but it was beneficial to donald trump and he released it notwithstanding a public statement from the f.b.i. and the department of justice not to release it. >> john, let's go to this. there is also word about a second dossier that is out there. tell us what you know about that? >> in the summer of 2016 there was another pipeline of clinton-related information coming into the state department and to christopher steele and to the f.b.i. it comes through two guys that we've heard from the past in the old clinton years in the 90s. tony sheer, a private eye, sidney blumenthal. their eye spy inside the campaign. they put the information in and tracks close to what steele had. all this information coming in. i predict all four sources of the information the f.b.i. used

the launch the investigation against donald trump every one will have a connection to the clinton campaign. >> one of the concerns that's out there politico is reporting tonight that steve bannon may have been picked up on some of these surveillances. how does that strike you? right in the heart of the campaign and they've also got now steve bannon according to politico that they were spying on as well? >> jason, we know two things right now despite that interesting little opening by leo there. we know that the obama team spied on the trump team. that's not in dispute. how it happened may be in dispute. we know that happened. what we also know is we know because there are court transcripts, okay? there is an actual record of this that no democrat can run from and no democrat will have plausible denyability on. the bulk of the material that went in front of the fisa court judges was provided by, in fact, the dossier, a dossier that came from two sources, russians who passed it through

christopher steele, and clinton campaign associates. all the democrat memos in the world aren't going to change those two simple facts. full stop. >> that's classic talking points, dan. f.b.i. gets their information from all different sources. bottom line is this. >> no, no, no that's not right. >> come on now. let me get a page out of jason's book. trey gowdy, you know him, he said there is a need to proceed with the russian probe. you don't disagree with trey gowdy, do you dan? >> we're talking about the credibility -- surveilling people that now has expanded to include potentially at least we're looking at a report that's put out by politico tonight that includes steve bannon. that does beg the question who else -- let me go to john for a second. john, where do you see this going in the next week or two? >> i think the last piece of the evidence that came in that

substantiateed the fisa warrant came from the australian ambassador who hears papadopoulos in the bar drunk and having conversation with him. i think we'll learn about that ambassador and his loyalties. i think you'll find out four out of four things the f.b.i. used to start listening on the trump campaign comes back to the clinton family. >> leo, does any of this -- does any of this concern you? and i have to ask you give -- look right in the cam rand tell us, if donald trump had done this against a democrat, you can't tell me that you would just be sitting idly by saying the f.b.i. just acted perfectly in this instance. >> i'm looking you and the american public now and leaning forward. donald trump is basically attacking every institution in the american government that he controls. the cia, f.b.i., department of justice. you want me to drink that kool-aid and believe the entire governmental security agencies are against donald trump? you want me to drink that

kool-aid today on national today? do you believe the entire secret service and the f.b.i. and department of justice, everyone? come on. >> leo, it's amazing. you do this -- liberals do this all the time. they never address what you say. they go on to something else. he never addressed at all the substance of what i said. we know for a fact the obama team spied on the trump team. we know the information was provided by steele through the russians and know the information was provided through clinton -- i know because one of them wrote an op-ed in the "washington post" admitting to it and another one went on a weekend news show and admitted to it, too. go on about the russians again. that's what they do. >> i'll play your game. therefore, what? what are you making conclusion? tell us your conclusion. therefore what? who can -- >> therefore the obama team -- you may be hard of hearing but i already said it.

the obama team spied on the trump team. there is still no probable cause that anyone on the trump team was a foreign agent in violation of us law. no one produced any evidence of rugs collusion and are you sticking by it was all done because you're a police state supporter, end of story. >> hold on. let me go to john here. there are still a mountain of text messages that we have not seen. >> true. >> is there any fallout you're seeing? the f.b.i. put out there they couldn't find the missing text messages. >> >> they showed up. >> the inspector general found them. i think his report will help to resolve how much politics was involved and how much legitimate law enforcement. when we see what the independent i.g. finds and the

debate will take a different tact. >> he is making this prediction about the inspector general report. please have me on when this report comes out? i hope according to dan there will be all the indictments against the obama administration. it is doom. a great way to deflect from donald trump and the russian probe. great move, dan. very smart. >> leo, we have 15 seconds. what is your single best piece of evidence that donald trump colluded with russians. >> the trey gowdy approach. a couple russians were meeting at trump tower. i will use the same one. trump meeting with the russians at trump tower, pretty solid evidence there. >> you get the last word, dan. where do you see this going? >> genius case there. maybe mark warner should be under arrest for trying to set up a meeting with the russians. the democrat senator from

virginia. unbelievable. he has nothing. >> the one thing i think we can all agree about we'll talk about this next week. we've got to move on. thank you all. have a wonderful weekend and appreciate you being here with us. while all of this is going on key players at the white house are talking about a cover-up. it is being used to oh, manatees. aka "the sea cow"" oh! there's one. manatees in novelty ts? surprising. what's "come at me bro?" it's something you say to a friend. what's not surprising? how much money matt saved by switching to geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more.

>> jason: the trump administration is under a fierce new attack by the left and media following the resignation of staff secretary rob porter of wednesday. he was accused of domestic violence by two ex-wives. some are calling for the resignation for chief of staff john kelly claiming he has known about the allegations for months. today the president urged everyone to withhold judgment until all the facts are known. >> i found out about it recently and i was surprised by it. but we certainly wish him well. it is a tough time for him. he did a very good job when he was in the white house. and we hope he has a wonderful career and hopefully he will have a great career ahead of him. he says he is innocent. you have to remember that.

he said very strongly yesterday that he is innocent. >> jason: the porter allegations are creating a feeding frenzy with the president. they protected and promoted porter. >> there were several other ways the white house could have gone. the choices made by john kelly and others are inexcusable. >> they project abuser, no way of getting around it. people will say you can still be a good president and do your job, no, any other white house as soon as you would hear that you would get rid of the person. >> the reaction to this fully in character is utterly repulsive. >> jason: also developing tonight a second white house staffer resigned. speech writer david sorenson after his ex-wife claimed he was violent during their marriage, a charge that sorenson is denying.

let's explore it with conservative television host alley stuckey and leslie marshall. thank you for being here. leslie, i want to start with you. how do you think the president and the white house dealt with this situation? >> you know, jason. sometimes it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. that's the problem here. it was who knew what and when and why or in this case why wasn't something done about it? we do know that kelly knew about this in the fall. we do know that this information was out there in the white house to the president's attorney back a year ago. and yet there was still not a thorough investigation, nothing was done and they were still going forward-looking into possible high-level security clearance for porter for this individual. that's very troubling. further troubling for me, jason, as a woman is that the president today wished an alleged accused abuser of women well and said nothing about the alleged victims. that's very troublesome for me.

>> jason: what was your reaction to it when you saw this story and how the white house dealt with it? >> first of all think issues of domestic violence are serious. we can agree on that. simply because i voted for donald trump. i think we can all also all agree that this was simply a bad situation that the white house has already admitted they mishandled and it was a bad situation that people who work for the president should be held accountable for. however, i also think that it is completely dishonest and a little hypocritical of the liberal media to issue an indictment on the entire administration and presidency for mishandling the situation in the same way it was an indictment on the entirety of the clinton campaign when she covered up for the sexually harassing advisor in 2008. it is not an indictment on trump's entire presidency. i find the hypocrisy from some

members of the liberal media to be a little tired and very dishonest. >> jason: even hillary clinton after the fact came back and said even though she had a report from her campaign manager there was sexual harassment problems she would not have fired that person. did you speak out against that or are you just speaking out against donald trump? >> i'm glad you asked me, jason. you can google it. yes, i did here on fox on television on my radio show, on my column, on twitter and all other social media. i as a woman, a feminist and woman first before my party, i have to say i was appalled by this, absolutely appalled by this. i was very open and verbal about that and i wasn't the only person on the left. >> jason: good for you. >> not the only democrat that is just a woman that felt that way. the problem that i have when we talk about hypocrisy. >> i'm glad you did that. i want to speak out on this, too. if the white house knew about this they have a problem and i think they have to also have an

accounting. i think the chief of staff should get a list of everybody that is working in the white house who has passed a security background check who has question marks and who has failed. i saw this as a oversight chairman when i was the oversight chairman. i saw part of this in the obama administrations. allegations. i'm trying to say their equal but security clearances with the people in close proximity to the president is problematic. i want to ask you and come over to you, alley. leslie, when you have somebody who denies it and there is an accusation, what is the right thing to do? do you let them keep their job, have proximity to the president? what should happen? >> well, first of all you read my mind because that's what i was about to say. to talk about. i have a problem here with the hypocrisy. let me use as an example senator al franken. although we had a photo, there were other allegations by not only the woman in the photos

but others against the senator. he said i didn't do this. these claims are false. yet he stepped down and there was pressure among his own party and the president said negative things. he didn't say he denies it. roy moore, the president says he denies it. porter the president says he denies it. i feel that the president, jason, made it worse with his remarks again today not mentioning the women. what should be done? in this climate where we have so many allegations of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, the me too movement, i think it would be wise for any administration left or right to have to remove these individuals because it will be a stain on their administration. >> ali, what's the right thing to do. he said/she said, there is a disagreement. what's the right thing to do? >> we can only run on hypotheticals and all this is. like leslie said, we don't know

who knew what when. we know what the white house is telling us. what the white house is telling us is that mike pence and president trump only found out about these allegations this week. apparently general kelly knew the full extent of the allegations last week and porter submitted his rest ignition and it was accepted. mike pence has even said you know what? i think we could have handled this a little more appropriately, which i took as taking responsibility. so at the end of the day i think the right thing happened. porter resigned, he is no longer in the white house where i personally think that he belongs. is not in the white house. >> jason: thank you both. my personal take on it is if there is any question about the people closest to the president of the united states, liberty mutual stood with me

when this guy got a flat tire in the middle of the night, so he got home safe. yeah, my dad says our insurance doesn't have that. what?! you can leave worry behind when liberty stands with you™. liberty mutual insurance.

>> jason: president trump signed a bipartisan budget deal into law this morning that ended another brief government shutdown. not everybody is thrilled. many conservatives oppose the budget which will put the nation back on track for annual deficits of more than $1 trillion. for the first time since obama's first term. it also increases spending caps by $300 billion and suspends debt limits until march of 2019. in a series of tweets today the president said the new budget will make the military stronger than ever and adds more jobs but also acknowledged without more republicans if congress we were forced to increase spending on things we do not like or want in order to finally after many years of depletion take care of our

military. sadly we needed some dem votes for passage. must elect more republicans in 2018 election. senator rand paul failed to block the bill imploring republicans to stick to the principles of fiscal conservatives have preached for live but blasted by critics on the life and even some republicans. >> this shutdown was brought to you by rand paul. the kentucky republican senator who wanted the make a stand. >> self-indulgent. he disrupted life for federal workers for new purpose. >> senator rand paul of kentucky. get us up to date. >> yeah, very unpopular among the folks here. >> you have rand paul talking about the obama deficits. that's rich. the reason for the last-minute drama was republican senator rafnd paul. >> he was very unpopular with his senate colleagues. >> this did not go over particularly well for senator paul. it was a promotional tactic on

this issue. some would say on rand paul himself. >> he made everybody feel uncomfortable because they were exhausted. >> jason: i liked what rand paul had to say. here to discuss the issue is sean duffy of wisconsin who voted for the bill and radio talk show host garland nixon. congressman duffy, i was able to serve with you, an honor and privilege to do so and thank you for joining us tonight. you voted for the bill. there is a compelling reason you did that. why did you vote for the bill? >> license, we're in a situation where we have a dilapidated military. planes that can't fly. we give our military a mission to accomplish but not the resources to accomplish the mission. the sequester has crushed our ability to defend ourselves. we have threats of china, north korea, iran. we passed a bill out of the house that was conservative. i supported the bill.

as you know all too well and your listeners hear this quite a bit. when our bill went to the senate. you can't pass it with just republican votes. schumer extracted additional spending. we had a choice in the house. do we take the deal that chuck schumer threw more spending into which gets our military back on track to address the needs that we have in the world, or do we say no and keep these really horrible budget caps on the military that don't let them accomplish their mission. for me i don't like the spending in the bill but i also want to make sure our military men and women can defend us and accomplish the mission we give them. >> jason: garland, if you were in congress how would you you have voted? would you have voted against it? >> i would have been pushing to hold out for daca from the left side. but my feeling is this, i think that -- my opinion i think there are some reductions we could do in the military and we could have done that by bringing troops home from

afghanistan. but additionally i think it's disingenuous to say you came up with the bill and shocked to find out there was another party in congress that you were going to have to go through. i don't remember in my lifetime when one party had super majorities in both houses and the white house and didn't have to bargain for something. >> jason: think back in 2009 and 2010 in obamacare. a super majority in the senate and shoved dodd-frank and obamacare down our throats. >> jason: why didn't the democrats unanimously vote for this? nothing was cut of any substance and it supported our military, something i thought democrats were supportive of. and i understand the need to do daca. i don't think you go any further than what president trump, speaker ryan and mitch mcconnell have done saying we fled to address it. by the way, barack obama was president for eight years and never addressed the immigration issue. >> i wish they would have

addressed it when they had the majorities of the house and they didn't. we are where we are now. now the people that didn't go for it, the democrats don't have leverage or daca. they threw that out and may not get anything. i think the democrats that held out wasn't because of the budget. it was for other reasons. >> we can't fall into the trap of thinking the democrats are supporting the military. they've been using the military as leverage to get other spending. we could have addressed this issue months ago and given the military the resources they need to accomplish the mission. to come on here and say they actually are supporters of the military, they haven't been. there was -- they want to see military spending depleted and they want us to pull out of very rough regions of the world iraq or afghanistan. we saw how well it worked. it was the rise of isis when barack obama pulled out and

left a vacuum and you had people burning their enemies and beheading people. we have to be smart about our pollz. cutting the military is not smart policy with the rising threats in the world. >> jason: how do you answer the question that rand paul was out there saying look, republicans were opposed to these deficits when president obama was in place. now that they're donald trump we seem to be okay with a trillion dollar deficit next year. >> first of all you use growth numbers that are obama growth numbers and you use trump growth numbers those deficits won't be that big. again, that's the problem when chuck schumer is a big spender and leveraging the military for additional spending in non-military discretionary spending. that's the deal that had to be made. again, for me this is a tough vote but i side i had with the military. that's the most immediate threat. one last point. if we want to deal with that you have to deal with entitlements. they're the key to reducing the

massive outflow in the government. until you get to that you won't address the massive deficit and debts. >> jason: thank you, i'll give you the last word, paul ryan the speaker said he wants to address the entitlement reform. is that something that you or the democrats think could get behind and support? >> i hope not. i feel as though -- >> jason: there is the problem ladies and gentlemen, that's the problem, i hope not. to suggest we'll address entitlements. that will be the problem. >> work requirements. >> jason: i have to go. >> for medicaid, simple. >> jason: coming up next we leave it to clint eastwood to throw all film making norms out the window. the real life heroes who stopped an isis terror attack stopped an isis terror attack is coming up next and you'llllll do you like big, juicy steak? do you like freshly steamed lobster? do you like the word and? then you'll love outback's steak and lobster. back by popular demand, only $15.99. so hurry in now.

outback steakhouse. aussie rules. so hurry in now. fthere's flonase sensimist.tchy and watery near pollen. it relieves all your worst symptoms including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist.

it can detect a threat using ai, and respond 60 times faster. it lets you know where your data lives, down to the very server. it keeps your insights from prying eyes, so they're used by no one else but you. it is... the cloud. the ibm cloud. the cloud that's designed for your data. ai ready. secure to the core. the ibm cloud is the cloud for smarter business.

>> jason: clint eastwood's newest film is defying all conventional movie making norms by using real-life heroes to play themselves. two americans who stopped an isis attack in france in 2015. we spoke with the stars of 15:17 to paris. >> i want to talk about this experience. it made international headlines. it threw you all into the world's consciousness. you and your friends are on this train. they are sleeping. but you are awake. what did you hear and what made

you take action and wake them up? >> i was hanging out texting friends back home and two hours, three hours into the trip a heard a gunshot and breaking glass. i kind of put my head up. i wasn't sure if that's what i heard or not. i couldn't exactly define it at the time. and while i was thinking about that the train ran kind of past us, away from the noise and so that woke them up and we looked back to see what he was running from. a shirtless man with an ak47. we got behind the seats. spencer, get him and he took off. spencer, you take off down the middle of this train. what made you run at him? >> it was just -- we just wanted the live and pure survival. i caught a moment down the aisle where i saw him maybe either jam the gun or maybe the

safety was on. all i knew he hadn't started shooting yet. i just saw it as a window of opportunity. it is either now or never. we are going to die either way. >> my motivator was them being life long friends of mine that it shut down my brain process and it was like once they jump into action i had to go help at that point. it was all in or nothing type situation. >> spencer, you grabbed this guy, a member of an isis cell with an ik47. that is not all he had. what happened when you tackled him? >> i was trying to grab the ak from him a little bit and practicing jujitsu at the time. we both stood up and put him in a choke and slammed myself against a window. he is on top of me at this

point and pulled out a pistol. he tries to shoot me with that. there was no ammunition knit. alec runs up. gets the pistol. as soon as that pistol gets out of his hand he grabs a box cutter and starts cutting the back of my neck trying to slit my throat and comes across and slices my left thumb to the bone and servers my tendon and nerve. i saw the knife and him flailing around. i screamed he has a knife and kicked him off me and we all punched and kicked him and the fight went on. >> do you believe, alec, there was a divine hand in all of this in the way the events transpired? >> if you add up the odds of us being in the time and place and the circumstances that put us there and went towards us surviving it, that will be in the movie, too. but it is just to me too astronomical to be coincidence. >> if all this wasn't

terrifying enough, anthony, you all decide we are going to approach clint eastwood with our book and story. he decides to do this film and casts you all as yourselves. this had to be a little intimidating having never acted before. you didn't do theater. >> never a school play or nothing. if he picked up the picture he wants to do our story, we thought that was great. three weeks before we start shooting we thought we were meeting the actors playing us and he is like do you mind reenacting things for us on camera. he says it again and he said what do you mean? you sound like you are asking us to be in the movie. sure, why not. why don't you just do it? >> you spent a lot of time with him on the set. >> we spent a lot of time with him on set. he worked longer days than we did and we spent time with him hanging out getting food, getting drinks. we even would work out with him from time to time. that's one of my favorite

memories of him. spencer and i were talking smack to each other about how many dips we do could do and clint comes in that's nothing. when i was 75 i could do 25 dips. we're like all right. let's see what you have now. he is 87. he hops up on the dip bar and knocks out 10 body weight dips like nothing. he still has it. he is a tough guy. he gave us a lot more jams and showed us a lot more about the industry and process than he had to to make the picture. we all want to continue to pursue acting for sure. >> you will continue this? >> absolutely. he blessed us with a great opportunity and like anthony was saying kind of raised us up in this world a little bit and we want to see what else we can do with it. >> what do you want people to take away from this experience given that isis has proven itself that this is the kind of

attacks they plan on enacting on the public from now on. >> even those these two were off duty servicemen at the time. we were three ordinary guys in that ordinary people will watch the film. we don't have anything special. us three it's -- we were put in an extraordinary situation and hope people take that theme from the movie. if they find themselves in a situation with a terrorist or maybe any obstacle they're facing in their life that they have the ability to do something extraordinary themselves. >> if they do it together. >> most definitely. >> thanks for being here. pleasure. >> that's an amazing story. i love it when ordinary americans do extraordinary things. 15:17 to paris opens nationwide today. up next strange encounters at the olympic opening ceremonies. vice president pence comes awkwardly close to the sister of north korea's kim jong-un. ambassador john bolton joins us ambassador john bolton joins us (whispering) with the capital one venture card,

you'll earn unlimited double miles on every purchase, every day. not just airline purchases. think about all the double miles you could be earning. (yelling) holy moly, that's a lot of miles! shh-h-h-h! ( ♪ ) shh! what's in your wallet? man: shh-h-h!

>> jason: tensions are high in the korean peninsula. that fact is making for some interesting odd images at the debut of the winter olympics in south korea.

mike pence watched the opening ceremonies from the sister of kim jong-un. that comes shortly after pence delivered a tough new warning for the hermit kingdom. >> our military, japanese self-defense forces and allies in south korea, all of our allies across the region are fully prepared. to defend our nations and take what action is necessary to defend our homeland. >> jason: let's get an assessment of the current situation from former u.n. ambassador john bolton. thank you for joining us. what did you make of the proximity of these two people, and what about vice president pence's comments? what does that really mean and what is he trying to signal to north korea? >> well, the geography is the south korea's president box at the opening ceremony arranged by the south koreans. they wanted to highlight the fact that north korea was

participating with them. i think this whole thing has been a propaganda charade by north korea but that's not the view of the south korean president. in the first row he was sitting next to vice president pence and on pence's left with abe of japan. you the south korea, united states and japan. i think the vice president was correct not to shake the hand of the dictator's representatives from north korea. they didn't seem to want to press the point. so much the better. it is awkward and happens a lot at the u.n. i think the vice president handled it correctly. on his comments about doing what's necessary to protect the united states and our allies, i think that's extremely important. it leaves open the possibility of preemptive military force against the north's nuclear weapons program. we aren't looking to do that. i wish we didn't even have to consider it as an option. 25 years of failure to stop north korea has brought us to the point where it has to be

looked at very seriously. >> jason: what is the significance of kim jong-un's sister. what is her role and the significance of her presence in south korea? >> well, she and the president of north korea, nominally the highest official in the government, constitute a pretty high-level delegation and the fact that she is related to kim jong-un, i think is intended to show the seriousness of north korea's effort to accommodate the south. this is all blue smoke and mirrors. and i think it is something that the north koreans have done before in prior olympics. not in south korea itself. but while all this is going on, their nuclear program, their ballistic missile program are continuing. it is a misdirection play to get people to focus on how nice it is that the north and south korean's women hockey team are playing as one team. nothing to do to stop north

korea's efforts to bring reconciliation between the two koreas. i think the vice president -- this is a very delicate, difficult diplomatic assignment he has. to show solidarity with south korea and japan. not to give the north koreans an untrammeled propaganda field at the pyeongchang olympics and i think he carried it out well. there is a report this evening while the opening ceremony was going on, what you've just showed on the screen there, somebody was hacking the servers of the south korean organizers of the pyeongchang games. who do you think that might have been? this is the kind of fooling around the north korea does all the time. it may seem sort of silly and childish but when you are talking about a country ruled by this bizarre regime striving

to get nuclear weapons that strange behavior is worth worrying about. >> jason: thank you, ambassador. we appreciate it. bret baier made a huge splash at one of the biggest golf tournaments of the year.

>> before we go, a big shout out to bret baier who was red hot at the links at the pro-am golf tournament at pebble beach. he is paired with pro russell henry and lighting up the course. amazing shots from bret. he hits a shot. ends up on the deck and he takes it. he doesn't take the penalty, he takes the shot. puts it in the bunker. he is up, down, he actually makes it unbelievable shot right out of something like the movie of tin cup. they are tidy think it's for fifth place at this point. bret who played college golf is really good. his team is in contention and

we wish him nothing but the best. it's been an honor and privilege to host this show. i thank laura ingraham fohost t. we have shannon bream up next. >> shannon: breaking tonight a second white house aide resigns over domestic abuse allegations as mixed messages from the president and his chief of staff are raising new questions about general kelly's future in the white house. >> i was appalled when i learned of the allegations. >> we wish him well. he worked very hard. >> shannon: we break down a rocky week for the west wing. while you were sleeping the government shut down and reopened. congress working through the night to pass a two-year budget deal keeping the lights on and giving a big boost to the military. a student claims spirit airlines told her to flush her emotional support pet down a toilet.