evening. thank you for joining us. sean hannity is back tomorrow. jason is up next filling in for laura ingraham tonight. >> thank you, katie. great show. i'm jason in tonight for laura ingraham. april is already off to a manic start in washington. we'll examine why democrats are rushing to defend fired f.b.i. official andrew mccabe as a victim when he could be in serious legal trouble and after tearing down confederate statues, the p.c. police have a brand-new target. we'll tell you which slice of american history is next on their chopping block. n but we begin with the president's strong new push to secure the boredder and reform immigration. in a new round of tweets this evening, the president writing "as ridiculous as it sounds, the laws of our country don't easily allow us to send those crossing our southern border back where they came from.

a whole big wasted procedure must take place. mexico and canada have tough immigration laws,gr whereas ours are an obama joke. act congress." the president adding, honduras, mexico and many other countries that the u.s. is very generous to sends many of their people to our country through our weak immigration policies. here.ation policies. must pass tough laws and build the wall. democrats allow open borders, drugs and crime! let's get the inside story on why the president is changing tactics from fox news national correspondent ed henry at the white house for us tonight. >> jason, great to see you. breaking tonight, justice department official confirmed to fox news that in fact they're now within the trump administration instituting quotas for federal immigration judgeses to try speed up deportations of illegal immigrants out of this country. it comes after the union for these judges had a prohibition in place that didn't allow these quotas.ha the quotas have now been

lifted. a justice official says these performance metrics that were agreed to by the immigration judge union thatno is now condemning them are designed to increase productivity and efficiency in the system without compromising due process. this comes as you know with a caravan of 1,100 people fleeing central america is traveling through mexico right now. some seeking political asylum there while others are trying to make it to the u.s. border which we know is porous. that drew the president's ire on easter sunday as he walked in the church with the first lady amidst reports mexican immigration officers are simply monitoring this caravan from afar because it's so large rather than figuring out who has passports. check it out. >> mexico has to help us at the border. if they're not going to help us at the border, it's a very sad thing between the two countries. mexico has got to help us at the border. a lot of people are coming in because they want to take advantage of daca.

and we're going to have to really see. they had a great chance. the democrats blew it. they had a great, great chance. we'll have to take a look. but mexico has got to help us at the border. they flow right through mexico and send them into the united states. can't happen that way anymore. >> now, politifact noted it's misleading. only those who lived in the u.s. since 2007 are eligible for daca. illegal immigrants have found ways to get all kinds of other benefits in california and other states which is why the president sent awh series of tweets over the last 48 hours including a demand senate republicans kill a filibusterr o it can get the wall and other anti-immigration measures. dianneke feinstein didn't take kindly to the tweet m you showea moment ago that you just showed and comments from the president

saying that daca is dead. feinstein saying the president blaming democrats for a stalemate is not true. she insists she could support fundingg for a wall if the president would just compromise. feinstein saying,l president trump is absolutely wrong on daca and unilaterally rescinded daca for no reason and rejected every single bipartisan proposal that would protect dreamers from deportation. it's simply false to say democrats walked away from the table. the president won in part in 2016 on this issue of illegal immigration and he wants to fire up that base ahead of the midterm. it'll be an uphill battle for republicans, as you know, jason. the bottom line is breaking tonight buzzfeed says mexican authorities are vowing or at least claiming they're going to break up this caravan by wednesday. but as ronald reagan used to say, trust but verify. jason? >> thank you, ed. that would be a great development, because there are a lot of people concerned that really what the democrats are trying to do is they like the issue but they don't actually want to solve the problem. we have to understand what is

happening on the ground so let's examine where we go from here on border security and immigration reform. we have with us tonight border patrol agent hector garza, the vice president of the national border patrol council and francisco hernandez who is an immigration attorney. um, hector, i've been with you down on the border. i appreciate the great work the men and women do. it's an amazing, hard and difficult job. but tell us, what is happening right now on the border? are people able to get across? what if all of a sudden 1,100 people showed up in your sector? >> well, what is happening at the border is that catch and release is alive and well and unfortunatelyha the obama holdovers within our agency are still implementing those same policies which were in effect under the obama administration. unfortunately, if this caravan makes it to the southern boredder and crosses illegally into thef country, they'll be processed but then they'll be released t on a notice to appea. those will disappear into the american communities.

they'll never return to court. >> francisco, what is the case? why not build this wall? the video we were just showing was video that i took when i was down on the border. you can see a wall and then it stops and then it just becomes barbed wire fence. so -- why not build a wall? what's the best case you've got? why not put one up? >> ok, first of all, public officials and law enforcement officials have to remove politics from doing their job. our sheriff, bill wayburn in fort worth does that right now. the problem is -- >> no. no. no. that t has nothing to do with te wall. i want to know what is your best case. >> i'm trying to tell you. i'm trying to j tell you. >> why not build an actual wall? >> ok, look, we can't do it, but if you want to build it -- >> wait. wait. wait. wait. you can't do it? what do you mean you can't do it? you saw the video i took. >> we saw in 2001 it didn't work. they get deeper tunnels and

higher ladders. we need immigration enforcement here. are you telling me that border control can't do their job without the cities and local governments helping? are you seeing you need mexico to control our borders? i don't think you can say that. >> give him a chance to answer. hector? would i wall help you or not help you? >> a wall would definitely help border patrol operations. >> that's all i want to know. francisco, go back, explain to me -- you just -- the guy works -- he spent decades serving on the border. it's easier, better for them to protect 2,000 miles of the border with a wall. so why not build a wall? >> look, look, i'm ok for wall.k, look, i'm ok for we have'm to legalize 100,000 mexicans to build it. that's a damn good start. the problem is we tried in 2001 and 2002 and it failed and we cancelled it because of budget overruns. guys, let's get on the immigration reform. but you know what? president trump is crawfishing because he doesn't have the votes on his own side. why do we need the democrats?

why do we need the democrats? oh, they're afraid they're filibustering. the sky is falling. call a filibuster. draw the line in the sand. it's stupid. >> let me answer that question. the reason you need democrats is because you need 60 votes in the senate. the authorization to build the wall is there, butut -- hold on. hold on -- it's a funding question. >> because both parties don't know how too remove the politics from doing their job just like sheriffs, you guys are all focused on yosemite sam in arizona. sheriff way borne is there following the law -- wayburn is following the law -- wayburn is we need the laws to be changed. daca has nothing to do with all of these folks. these are 800 or 900. >> wait a second! >> you call them dreamers. it's>> a nightmare. they've never been to any other country other than america. and they're talking about a caravan coming from this country? you're telling me border patrol can't stop them? why are we funding them if they

can't stop them? that's what they're for. >> hector, what's the reality? i went to the detention facility. i saw people from 150 different countries there. this isn't just a problem about just mexico. what'sxi the reality of what you're seeing with people coming across the border? >> jason, this is nothing more than a rampant abuse over immigration system. these people are coming to our border and making false asylum claims. most of these claims don't stand up to the judicial overview and they don't qualify for asylum claims. many of these peopler think they're fleeing their countries because there's so much gangs or crime. there's no difference here. you'll see all of these gangs and crimes over here. they don't have a good case. >> francisco -- deep breath. deep breadth breath. francisco! >> don't tell me you can't stop the trains from coming over here across the border! of course we can! we have a button on the trains! we control commerce in latin america. >> it's not the trains, i hate

to tell you. francisco. don't say false narratives. i've gone out with hector and have actually seen this. you can see the trains coming across. you have no case for not building the wall! >> border patrol can't do their job. i think they're wrong. border control isor fantastic. their troops do a great job. let them do their job and remove the politics from letting them do their job. >> here's the problem, francisco --'s here is the problem. francisco, you're an attorney. you get this. you understand this. >> i get this. >> help me here, when someone crosses the border, they don't run. i was shocked when i went down there. they don'tas run. they claim asylum. hector, then what happens? >> what we're asking for is for one strategic location that will save american lives but not only american lives but it's going to keep our agents from getting assaulted on a daily basis. only that, these people that are coming across, they're falling straight to the cartel. a lot of the people are going to

sexab labor. >> you're the leader of the border patrol union? listen, 20% of the border patrol agents belong to your union. speak for borderyour union. patrol! i know border patrol agents. >> he is a border patrol agent. he is a border patrol agent. >> you insult them by saying they can't do their job. >> francisco and hector, listen, i thank you both. it's a lively debate. there's a lot more to discuss on this. i got to tell you, i think the reason the democrats are fighting so hard against the border wall is that it works and they want people coming here. if you claim asylum -- hold on -- if you come here and claim asylum, you'll be assigned to a judge and it'll take you five or six years before that case will be adjudicated. we'll talk more about this. thank you, gentlemen, for being here. the border wall is once again taking center stage as we said.

fisher standing gravel company is one of four companies selected to build the cement proto-type. tommy fisher, the ceo, joining us now with more. tommy, you designed a big, big wall. i've seen some pictures of it. it's one of four prototypes. the lack of funding is there from congress. give us a sense, how big is that wall we're looking at a picture of right now? >> ours is a wall, not a see-through fence. it's an actual wall.ug it's 30 feet tall and 30 inches thick of concrete and it will work. and one of the thing jason listening to the last viewer, we put a proposal on the department of homeland security's desk to build 700 miles in roughly five years through california, new mexico and arizona, complete with high-speed roads for the agents that willds actually work for 10.77 billion backed by a bond. there's no cost overruns. we're here to do exactly what we came to is deliver border

security for every single american and we can prove it works. >> now, the terrain is not all flat. you have places with riverbeds andiv mountainous areas, particularly new mexico. what do do you in those portions of o it? is the wall the entire span or what do you do about those mountainous areas? >> absolutely no exceptions for mountains. with e our patented system we ue step footings on the bottom and keep a consistent top. we can go up 7% grades and build the roads. i included a smaller proposal to build 15 miles in one year so that current fence they're building right now calexico, the government has given 300 days to buildys 200 miles. with one crew, we can build 15 miles. the difference is we're building a wall, not a fence. president trump had it right. congress did not do him justice by basically limiting the only thing they could spend is on a fence, not a wall. imagine if general matusz got io

the military budget $700 million. there's a caveat you can only build old military options. doesn't work. basically the fence wears out in 30 years, best-case scenario. i've got places where it rusted in basically 10 years. our point is, i believe -- >> what about the point that some people said that if you build a wall, we'll build a tunnel. there's intelligence to be able to detect a tunnel. what do we do then? how far down into the ground does the wall go? >> it goes six feet. we have ways where you cover up with the spread footing where our footings work, you can track tunnels to two or three feet of variability. when i put two high-speed access roads on both sides of the wall, you have views both ways so if they did build a tunnel, we can pull right up on aul road like you'd fill an old coal pit or anything else, you can basically auger down and fill up. >> have you had people try to go up and overr it? are people able to go up and over it? >> no, because we're going to -- think about this, jason, you'll

have an access road for the border patrol agents sitting 40 feet off the borderha right w thatt they're on a paved road that the agents can't be detected so you want to put up a ladder where an agent could drive up on you? it's like you asking to put up a ladder on the highway and the agents are coming every couple minutes? when we we build what we can bu, literally those agents could travel 6-10 times as fast because they have access in end, you have to build a barrier. our barrier lasts 150 years, but then we have to give access to these agents so they can protect every one of our lives. >> well, listen, it's interesting proto-type. i know there are three others that have also gotten an approved proto-type in place. i do personally think the president's right. you do need a wall because it works. anything we can do to help our border patrol agents do their job because of the influx is the right thing. thank you again, sir, for being here. next upga, andrew mccabe left te f.b.i. as a disgraced official, fired for allegedly lying. but to the left, he's a hero.

how's that work? we'll look into what is really going on next.

so you're looking for male customers, ages 25-54, who live within five miles of your business? like these two... and that guy. or maybe you want to reach women, ages 18 to 34, who are interested in fitness... namaste. whichever audience you're looking for, we'll find them we're the finders. we work here at comcast spotlight, and we have the best tools for getting your advertising message out there. anywhere, any way your audience watches. consider them found. and you, watchingots, bad this commercial! the biggest week in tv is back: xfinity watchathon week. so tap out of your daily life and get to your living room, castle or cave to enjoy free access to tv's hottest shows from netflix, hbo, showtime, starz and more.

we're gonna give 'em a show. i mean who doesn't want to wear sweats and eat take-out for 7 days straight? i will be there waiting. get ready to binge with xfinity on demand or the xfinity stream app. xfinity watchathon week starts april 16th. >> jason: here's a puzzle. why is the media on the left treating andrew mccabe a both's hero and a victim? mccabe was fired on the recommendation of the bureau's office of professional responsibility, unprecedented move particularly at that level. lawmakers jim jordan and mark meadows told the angle last week that mccabe was fired because he lied to investigators four times. let's discuss what is going on here with republican congressman john radcliffe ofit texas and jn garamendi of california. i served with both. i think highly of both of them. i appreciate gentlemen for coming here and wearing your

duly-noted blue ties. very appropriate. thank you very much. >> good to be with both of you. >> you got yourself a good gig here. we miss you in congress. >> if i don't screw up this interview. thank you. i wantst to play a video from director comey in his own words. i want for you to react to it. >> i think reasonable people could disagree on whether i should have announceder it and whether i should have done it. what's unclear is how the bureau acted in any way other than independently and confidently here. that's not true. i knew this would be controversial. i knew there'd be all kind of rocks thrown but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people. we do not carry water for one side or the other. that's hard for people to see because so much of our country, you see things through sides. we're not on anyone's side. this was done the way you would want it to be done. >> jason: john, was this the way it should have been done? >> well, i think that's whybe so

many of us are asking for jim comey eventually to come back and clarify some of thatla testimony that he gave under oath to you and me, jason, where he talked about these things. very clearly when he made those statements, we need to know whether or not he was aware that andrew mccabe had allegedly lied multiple times under oath to f.b.i. investigators. we need to know whether he knew ifif peter struck and lisa page weren't acting independently but exercising extraordinary bias toward president trump in connection with their official activities. these are the reasons we have congressional investigations and elicit testimony from folks like jim comey. i look forward to the day when he comes back and we have the opportunity to clarify with him under oath those types of statement. >> congressman garamendi, you're a democrat from california. do you think john radcliffe and the republicansns have a point here? this investigation really gone exactly the way it was supposed to be done by the book?

>> first of all, the investigation about mccabe isn't over. we don't have all of the information from the inspector general. that's forthcoming when that comes out, we'll see more about what happened. mccabe has a completely different version than does the -- in this case, the attorney general who did the firing. in this case, what we need to do is carefully study what is going on here. at what point what gets lost in all of this is that the f.b.i. actually in its investigations of the clinton e-mails and in the last 10 days of the campaign did extraordinary damage to the clinton campaign, and it's really, i think, impossible to say that the f.b.i. somehow was helping trump when in fact the f.b.i.'s investigations into the e-mails, into the clinton statement 10 daysclinton

before the election was extraordinarily harmful however you want to look at it. >> jason: congressman garamendi, you make a good point.t. both side -- that's why it's mystifying to a lot of us -- the democrats are creating mccabe as a victim here. do you support the republicans' do you support the republicans' they're under subpoena by bob. i'vepo issued a subpoena. they've never given it. it's a close case. why not give all the paperwork so congressional investigators on both sides of the aisle could look at this investigation? >> that would be appropriate. certainly congress has an oversight role. certainly youd did a lot of tht in your tenure as oversight chairman. with regard to mccabe and his defense fund, defense funds are common. many members of congress -- >> don't blame him from going out and raising money. what's interesting here is republicans are calling for a full investigation on all thehe paperwork and democrats are seeming to resist that. now, i want t to play another cp

of congressman radcliffe actually questioning director comey. >> did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges relating to classified information before or after hal hillary clinton was interviewed by the f.b.i. after july 2nd? >> after. >> to me the only way an interview takes place with the two central witnesses and the subject of the investigation is if the decision has already been made all three people in that room are not going to be charged. >> jason: congressman garamendi, i'm going to go back to you again. what are your thoughts? john radcliffe was making a pretty good point, wasn't he? >> he also has a lot more information than i do.ot i wasn't in that hearing and i certainly don't know how the f.b.i. would conduct its investigations or make a decision to either charge or not to charge. that is subject of investigation going forward. certainly the subject of the inspectorr general's report whih as i said earlier hasn't been

fully released. it's supposed to be coming out very soon. and the hearings were conducted. if there's additional information that needs to or somebody made available, fine. continue -- or should be made available, fine, continue. oversights are very important. i want to make one comment about oversights. it should never be a partisan operation. it should be a bipartisan operation. go to the facts and try at every point to avoid partisanship. unfortunately, that's not been the case -- >> jason:rt let me go to john radcliffe here and get your take on it. it's been a long time since you questioned director comey. what -- you've learned and looked at and been able to read the underlying documents. what in your mind has changed since then? >> the time he gave that testimony -- and you were in the room, jason -- you and i were not aware he'd actually written exoneration statements for hillary clinton two months before her interview. so we need to get answers to

thato we need get answers for other cases he gave under oath where he testified to congress the steel dossier was unverified but he verified it and attested to that in the fisa court. wemc need to know if andrew mcce was lying under oath. all p of these are specific questions that we need clarification from that we didn't have at the time that he gave that original testimony. >> jason: congressman radcliffe, do you agree with the appointment of mr. huber, u.s. attorney for the state of -- in utah? did he do that right or was this the wrong move as well? >> well, i've heard -- you know, people give a lot of opinions on this. that's not the decision that i would have made.

i would have frankly done it the other way around. i think the u.s. attorney would have been appropriate to investigate whether or not there was coordination or collusion between the trump campaign and the russians. but i think with respect to an investigation into the actions of es the f.b.i. and the department of justice, that's essentially an internall investigation. so i don't think the u.s. attorney is the appropriate person to be investigating that. this is the extraordinary circumstance that would justify a special council. i think eventually therest needo be one. >> jason: i need to quickly get both of your action. ther president tweets tonight about his actions on daca. congressman garamendi, what are your thoughts? >> i'm not sure about tweets tonight. i do know about the tweets that occurred sunday morning coming out of church on easter morning, and basically trashing maybe 1,500,000 young men and women who came here as children, not of their own volition but

parents brought them herebr andn serious jeopardy if the president has his way. >> jason: the president is blaming democrats. you're a democrat. is that fault on you? >> let's take a look at the facts. the democrats, i know, senator schumer offered $25 billion for a border security including fences and walls where appropriate and also in exchange for the full daca program going into effect. >> jason: let me get john radcliffe. ii got to go. we're running out of time. >> unfortunately the republicans added to that some programs that were simply not acceptable and it didn't pass. >> jason: john radcliffe? >> well, jason, as you know, the politics of the daca program was dishonest from day one. democrats took the position it was appropriate and constitutional for president obama to take that executive action because they said if congress failed to act, the

president is authorized to do so, but when president trump took the exact same executive action to undo the daca program, many democrats have cried foul. so whether the democrats killed it or whether president trump kills it, the daca program needs to end. i that's a distinction from daca recipients. republicans, donald trump has offered a solution for daca recipients. senator grassley offered an amendment to provide status for daca recipients in exchange for reasonable border security measures back in february. and 46 of 49 democrats voted against that. >> o jason: i just don't know that the democrats know how to say yes to this. gentlemen, it was an honor and privilege to serve with you in the congress. i thank you both for taking time on this beautiful monday night to join us.ht thank you. >> jason, wish you well in your new work. >> jason: thank you, thank you very much. hillary clinton is in danger of sinking the democrats' hopes again this year.

how's that possible? we'll explain next.

>> jason: hillary clinton just can't stop talking. it's driving democrats crazy, because it givesli republican candidates so much explosive ammo for campaign ads. democrats are crying foul claiming she'sng not -- how coud republicans resist. "i won the places that are optimistic, diverse,st dynamic d movingng forward.

his whole campaign make america great again was looking backwards." that quote was for a candidate running in a state in west virginia. him?nia. in a state where clinton beat him by 40 points in 2016 is it attacking smart politics or looking back to the last election? author kristen tate writes a weekly column for the hill. richard, i want to go to you first. everyy time hillary clinton speaks, she takes all the oxygen in the room. what she says is so outrageous to most americans -- in my opinion -- why not keep doing it? why not? >> she didn't say anything in that speech, jason, she didn't say in her book. since she wrote her book which was published last year, um, doug jones won in alabama and ralph norton won by a

record-setting margin as a democratic candidate in virginia . conner lamb won in a district where trump won by 20 points in western pennsylvania. >> jason: are you suggesting she needs to talk more? she should keep going out there? >> i'm saying this notion somehow or another she's tainting other democrats is fantasy. it's fantasy. maybe she might run again in 2020? she's not. she's old news. emptiness of the agenda republicans are running on they have to run ads against her. sorry? >> what do you think? do they keep doing aer this or t keep doing this? >> yes, republicans are running against hillary clinton because she's the face of today's democratic party. the democratic party of jfk is gone. today, it's the party of high taxes, i amnesty for illegal immigrants and disarming law-abiding citizens. it's the party of san francisco, baltimore and chicago where crime has exploded, and illegal immigration is basically just accepted and make no mistake,

jason, all democrats today are exactly the same. that includes so-called moderates like joe mansion. they all vote lock step and not a single democrat supported tax cuts for working americans. not a single democrat supported the wall. not a single democrat supported the repeal of obamacare. these are the values that hillary clinton represents. she's the most well-known democrat in america today. so, yes, she's the defacto face of richard's party which has become completely out of touch with working-class americans and frankly has gone off the deep end. >> richard, does that make your blood boil? or do you agree with all of that? o >> i'm saying bring it on, kristen. again, we have a president at historically low popularity ratings. >> that's not true. richard come on. >> richard, it's higher than obama's was. >> hold on a second. you both know at this point in his presidency, there hasn't been a president this unpopular as donald trump. sorry. >> richard is lying on national tv. that is just not true!

>> i won't go that far, i think he sincerely believes that, but any way, regardless of a couple percentage points here or there -- >> and all i'm saying is that in every election, the enthusiasm that we saw starting the day after donald trump was inaugurated with the women's march has carried through. everybody thought, well, it might dissipate, but every election, democrats up 15 or 20 points over whatever the prior election had been, and if anyone thinks that something -- look, you know, jason, better than anyone that all the retirements, committee chairs in record numbers aren't happening again a backdrop of the republicans feeling soub gosh darn good abot their prospects in 2018, dozens ofof republican incumbents are being outraised by democratic challengers. that doesn't happen when things are so rosy as kristen is painting? >> there's a lot of enthusiasm on the left,re that's in spite f hillary clinton, not because of her and hillary clinton made it very clear what democrats think

of trump supporters, that they're backwards, deplorables, and here is the thing, democrats who were up for reelection in states like west virginia where trump won by 40 points, they're going to need some of these deplorables to vote for them. so the more vocal and visible hillary clinton is the better it is for republicans and luckily for them,he she doesn't know how to keep her mouth shut. >> jason: let's put up a quote here. this is a quote from the hill, marchgreen wrote this 28th it says while clinton frustrations are understandable, she should get off the stage along with her dismal poll numbers. forta democrats, banishing clinn allows for them to avoid -- break the turbulence that marked the clinton years. who is the leader of the democratic party? who is leading? and what policy -- name one leading policy they'll run on in 2018? >> well, let me -- first of all, here is your answer to the question.

who is the leader of the republican party at this point four years ago? paul t -- it wasn't anyone who ultimately ran for president. >> i understand newer point. who is the leader -- i understand your point. who is the leader? when hillary clinton speaks, is she not the leader of the democratic party? >> no, she's not. it's a combination of chuck shummer and nanci pelosi and younger democrats who are coming on the scene and speaking on a platform to help people -- >> jason: name one thing the democratski are going to try to drive forward. >> remember donald trump said to the black community, support me, what do you have to lose? the answer, they could lose health care. l theyth could lose medicare. they could lose social security. there's ways in which -- >> you're going toth run the deficit pot? >> here is the platform the democrats are going to run on, ok? open borders, higher taxes and not repealing obamacare which has been an epic failure. there's their platform and who is the face of that platform? hillary clinton whether they

like it or not. >> somehow or another, the public is not quite where you are, kristen. if the president's popularity numbers, are any indication, and all of these incumbent house republicans getting out of the house -- look, jason had a colleague who said to me recently, i got out undefeated and unindicted, ok? >> jason: hey, there you go! >> i think a lot of the republicans are getting out while they can with their dignity intact. >> jason: richard and kristen, thank you both for being here. up next, president trump could soon hold a summit with vladimir putin. vl it hurt or only damage his administration? stay tuned.

♪ >> jason: washington is suddenly abuzz with the prospects of president trump meeting with russian president putin just as relations between the two countries hit a new low. united states and russiae recently expelled 60 of each other's diplomats.

today, a kremlin foreign policy adviser said that trump invited putin to the white house during a phone call two weeks ago. let's get the inside scoop go once again fox news chief national correspondent ed henry. ed? >> this may turn out to be more hyperventilating by president trump's critics more than anything else. it's not even clear tonight this expected meeting or summit between president trump and putin will even happen at the white house, even though that's what the speculation is. president trump's critics are jumping on this claim because it fits a narrative the white house is too cozy with putin suggesting the president will host him at the white house though ironically, the president's critics are issuing a statement that was made. the president ignored his adviser's advice to not congratulate putin about his reelection victory even though then president barack obama congratulated putin under similar circumstances a few years ago. the kremlin claimed today the

summit may happen at the white house adding "a meeting would be rather important a and beneficil for both countries as well as for the entire global community." sarah sanders be white house press secretary quickly responded that this wasn't really new. "as the president himself confirmed on march 20th, hours after the last call with president putin, two discussed bilateral meeting in the not too distant future in a number of venues including the white house. we have nothing furthercl to add at this time, in fact, this wasn't really new, because last week, this is what the president said. >> it was a very good call. i suspect we probably will be meeting in the not too distant future to discuss the arms race. i think probably we'll be seeing president putin in the not too accident future. >> this was already hinted at by the president as you see there. no location has been confirmed. that didn't stop the president's critics today.

president obama met with putin many times while i was in office as well as meeting with the president dimitry medodev when he was in office. >> jason: thanks, ed. it was a huge diplomatic triumph for trump a to arrange a future meeting with kim jong-un. similarly, meeting with putin could help mend relations but not n without risk. let's look into the prospects and perils with jim hanson, president of the security studies group and former state department official and obama campaign adviser david. david, i want to start with you. do you think the president is making a mistake here or should he meet with president putin? >> this was pretty stunning news because of thehe timing of how t happened. it happened in a phone call with putin where president trump's aides urged himhi not to congratulate putin on his election win. he did that any way.

now we find out today not from the white house but from the kremlin president trump alsoru invited putin to come to the white house. the question is why is he doing these things sending positive signals to putin when everyone else including our allies are pushing back against russia? when we just expelled russian diplomats, we're trying to send a message that russia has to back up but president trump quietly and secretly is sending the opposite message. >> jason: are you really arguing the two leader shouldn't meet and shouldn't talk? you think that's bad? >> no, i n actually think it's good to meet with foreign leaders, even our adversaries but you have to do it in a correct way and can't have a mixed message. >> what's wrong with saying we should meet in the future. >> he didn't say let's meet in the future. >> when the president is diplomatic, you give him a hard time and say oh, well he should have listened to his aides. if he was, stiff-armed and said never ever, you would say he is

not being diplomatic. >> i saw you on fox news sunday this weekend, jason. you said you were surprised that president trump wants to pull out of syria. you disagreed with that view. you were polite about it. i agree with you. why is president trump now pull out of syria. >> jason: you're kind of off topic here. i'm trying to see if the two should talk together in a meeting. >> it's the best thing in the world for putin. that's what putin wants. he wants us to pull out of syria. >> jason: you're off on syria. i'm just asking if they meet. >> a couple weeks later, trump is pulling out. >> jason: jim, you have a perspective on this. should the president and president vladimir putin? should they get together? is that a good, healthy thing for the country and for the world? >> of course they should. the idea that somehow when trump is talking to putin, he is talking to putin, he ridiculous. what else is he going to do it? -- when else is he going to do it? they're the two top leaders and the two that have the most to deal with right now including syria which david just mentioned. president trump needs to get in

front of putin and tell him not to get into syria. the idea that some are saying this is trump graveling like the hysterical jen reuben column in today's "washington post" said is ridiculous. he's trying to get putin in front of him so they can sit down and talk about things like syria, like north korea, like the major issues that are facing our two countries. that's president trump's job. >> so, david, do you worry it's at the white house? or do you think there'son anothr venue that he should be there? what's yours worry about the two world leaders talking about? >> my worry is about the message we're sending to russia when you're trying tous create deterrents toward russian conduct including the conduct when it used nerve agents on our allies in syria. we should be deterring that type of conduct from russia. russia is an adversary to the u.s. russia is against democracy.

it's against rule of law. and we're allowing russia to -- >> jason: president trump did more to punish russia than the obama administration ever did. >> that'ss absolutely incorrect. >> mercenaries -- when the mercenaries came in and attacked us in syria, we didn't talk about it. we killed hundreds of them. allal right? the idea trump is somehow soft on russia when he's done that, he expelled the diplomats and if you don't want to have that region turn into war in the middleth east, maybe should you talk to the other major power that's playing proxy warfare in there and try to deescalate it. the idea that somehow we go to war with russia because they put a few facebook ads up hillary calling hillary clinton satan? that's hardly the worst they've done. >> you make a good point, jim. the fact is mercenaries went and attacked our forces. while our forces were in cager and fought back against these

russian mercenaries, president trump is making nice with putin. it doesn't make sense. >> it's not appropriate conduct for our commander-in-chief. breaking news that's really troubling is now we learn today that the -- that we were expelling russian diplomats but actually trump has said it's ok for them to come back. he's expelling these 60 but 60 more could come back. it's not even a punishment. he's done nothing to push back. that's the news today, jason. >> jason: the ambassador, u.s. ambassador to russia is john. [ indiscernible ] i served as his chief of staff and i do think we're in good hands there i think both sides would agree they picked the right ambassador there in russia. i thank you both for the vigorous debate. i'm sure there'll be a lot more to discuss about it thank you, again, for joining us. the p.c. police have a brand-new target. we'll-n tell you which part of r history they're now seeking to erase coming up next. coming up g here?

we're voya. we stay with you to and through retirement. so you'll still be here to help me make smart choices? well, with your finances that is. we had nothing to do with that tie. voya. helping you to and through retirement. thisat red lobsterest. with exciting new dishes like dueling lobster tails and lobster truffle mac & cheese. classics like lobster lover's dream are here too. so enjoy these 10 lobsterlicious dishes while you can because lobsterfest won't last.

>> jason: american history is on the chopping block again. first the pc police pulled down confederate statues acrosss the country. now the california town of arcadia is preparing to take down a nearly nine-foot-tall statue of president mckinnley because of the federal government's treatment of native americans. more towns across america are poised to pull down statues deemed similarly offensive. where's it stop? let's discuss this with urban gameme changer ceo shirley and talk show host ethan. thank youhe for being here. i want to ask you first, why's this so important? why do you think they're trying to do this? why now on president mckinney? he doesn't have a whole lot of statues. why take this one down?

>> it's a great idea to take it down. we're bringing attention to the issue that native americans were abused and near genocide was committed against them. we established treatise with in 18 and a 1869 andse with immediately reneged, stole land and stole natural resources from one of them. william mckinnley was up with of the last presidents to openly steal land on the five tribes. he was on the mining side stealing from the jibway from my home state of minnesota. >> there have been a lot of wrongdoings against native americans throughout their history. i would agree with that part of it. but tearing down this statue. shirley, is this the right thing to do? >> no it's not the right thing to do. if you look at american history today, the killings that took place back in 1843 to 1873 was

very tragic. and yet 1 we know thatcolonists came and changed the history. we in this administration are making major changes. native americans today sat down with the current president, the living president, president donald j. trump and made changes in w the summer time. what's tragic i'm hearing on the other side is that they're saying that's relevant today. that's not. we have slaughtering that just took place, killings that took place in sacramento with stephon clark. why aren't you talking about the black people thatto are being slaughtered today? a tribe of peopleea still at war after 400 years? why don't you talk about the 20 shots that shot and killed this man? want to talk about the native americans? ifme you're not even native american -- if you were -- i have native american in me as well. i'll tell you, we focus on the side of where we are. we need history to be shown and to remember. you can't erase or eradicate

what happened back then. what you can do is look at this pain and move through it. >> ethan, where's this stop? i don't know it's going to right all the wrongs by tearing down a statue. i think you're missing the point of understanding history, the good, the bad of it. and by tearing down this statue, what is that actually going to do for native americans? where's this stop? >> there are two things, first off, statues being removed after e.i.r.r. and sequa getting addressed. it could still be used for teaching history. no one is trying to erase history. what we're trying to do is bring attention to the fact that, look in myg lifetime, i was getting trained to be a foster parent in minnesota. that's when i learned about the indian child welfare act of 1978 because we were still stealing indian children in 1978. 2016, we're still addressing that issue. if this brings attention to the wrongs that are still happening to this day against native

americans, i'ml all for it. and by the way, to the other point there, i talk about stephon clark on my radio show, too, and the wrongs being committed today to the african-american community. >>to jason: shirley, will this do anything to help the native american population by tearing down this statue? >> no, it's not. the native americans in this country are thriving under this administration. like i said, previously, they've created treatise and oil deals with their land with american people. they have other things going on in their lives. stephon clark and people liker him, these p.c. people want to pivot away from the real pain that's current and relevant in 2018, we have the slaughtering of african-american family and children on the street this young man, stephon clark was in his packard and short 20 times. he was slaughtered. that's the person -- those are the people you need to be focusing on and pivoting away from native americans who aren't even complaining. black people are complaining for -- >> they're not? >> for being stepped on and leapt over. >> i have the honor -- >> you listen. you're not understanding that black people in california are

at war. are we not in war in northern california right now? tell me. are we not in war in this state right now? the sanctuary cities right now in huntington park are meeting and voting against it. >> jason: thank you, listen. plight of the native americans is a serious one. go to some of the tribal areas and some of these reservation expulses see poverty unlike any other place in this country. i do hope we do address it but i don't think we're going to solve it by tearing down this statue. thank you, both, for being here. how do you play baseball with just one arm? piece of cake if you're as tough as it kid. you don't want to miss this amazing story this kid -- story. this kid will inspire you. when. for leisure. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges.

what can i say? control suits me. go national. go like a pro. ♪ ♪ it is the most amazing gift that you can give someone. you're seeing individuals have an opportunity in their lives that they would never have again. ♪

>> jason: the healing power of baseball is impressive. new season is underway with all of its promise but a special dream has already been realized on the field in a middle school in tennessee. 14-year-old catcher luke terry hasn't let the loss of an arm keep him from playing baseball. not only baseball but playing catcher. look at how easily he catches thee ball, flips his glove into the air, grabs the ball and then tosses it back to the pitcher. luke's arm wasos amputated whene was just 19 months old due to an e. coli infection. talks about a fighter. his mom says luke flatlined on the operating table three times at 19 months old. no wonder he's overcome the odds on the field becoming one of the team's top players. he certainly has the biggest heart. luke's story is a one-armed star. it's gone viral. the real story is his heart. thank you so much for joining us. i've had a lot of fun doing this. in s fact, they've invited me bk tomorrow. i'm honored to do that. i'd love to hear what your

thoughts are about tonight's show. be sure to tweet me. shannon breen, one of my favorite people on the , and the fox news team at night are up next. shannon, it's all yours. >> i'm going to skip the tweet and tell you i love your show. we'll see you tomorrow night at 10:00 p.m. eastern time. thank you. thanks, jason. i am shannon bream. this is "fox news @ night." here's what's new tonight. the caravan president trump has been tweeting critically about is taking a break. in a field in oaxaca mexico. the group was about 1100, mostly honduran migrants. waiting for new information about where to go next. a group of about 200 were told broke off yesterday and hop a freight train probably bound for the u.s. a mexican government officials of the caravans are tolerated because migrants have a right under mexican law to travel to the u.s. border to seek asylum in the united states. tonight, the