sound off. whatever you want to say. we are always fair and balanced and never be the destroy trump media. the great one on tomorrow's night show. let not your heart be troubled. brian in for laura. laura will be back on monday. do you do every show on the network? >> no. it's an honor to be asked to fill in. your show is doing unbelievable and your eyebrows look wonderful. i am sorry i called in earlier. >> sean: i don't care what i look like. who cares? >> at fox we find you a very attractive man. >> sean: you got me up early in the morning. that's a tough act. >> i get up at 2:30. >> sean: i go to bed at 4. brian will have a great show.

he does "the five" and fox and friends. it's nonstop. 24 hours a day. >> do you get paid extra money if you go into this money? >> i have to cancel 3 guys. that's my show for tonight. [laughing]. i am lucky enough to fill in for the great laura ingraham. this is the "the ingraham angle." special robert mueller is not targeting the president as of now in a criminal investigation. why are others in the media not getting the message? news no one else is talking about. president trump punished putin. and a fox news exclusive. the epa chief scott pruitt

fighting back against people who want to take him down as another trump official. did he help himself when he sat down with ed henry. we will bring you the second half of that interview only this show. the president is sending troops at this hour to the border. national guard troops. they could be arriving as early as tomorrow. we will monitor all of those developments. many at the border say how can we stop this influx? disturbing new details about the shooting at youtube's headquarters in california. it happened yesterday. the woman's name is nasim aghdam. she is 39 years old. she is a woman and her own youtube channel. because it was taken down or screened, she shot three people at youtube. authorities were tipped off she might be doing that. what about the motivation? could there have been stopped?

youtube censoring her videos. any reason to shoot people? trace gallagher has more details on what the police knew and what they could not do. >> at 1:40 tuesday morning 11 hours before she opened fire outside of the youtube headquarters. nasim aghdam spoke with police in mountain view. 25 miles south of youtube. police spotted her car in a parking lot and decided to run the plate. revealing she was from the san diego area and was reported missing 3 days earlier. place say aghdam was asleep. they spoke for 20 minutes. she said she was living out of her car and looking for work. police say she was calm and cooperative and never mentioned youtube. they let her go and called her family. that neither her father nor brother said anything about a

grudge with youtube. an hour later the father called police back and mentioned that his daughter was upset with youtube because they stopped paying for the vegan and fitness videos she posted on her youtube channel. she may have been in the area because of that. mountain view police decided not to share the information with the police where youtube is located. they say communication is normally thorough and they don't want to jump to conclusions. here's one of the shooters anti-youtube rant she posted online. >> i must say it only once. recently they also attacked my [inaudible] channel. >> hours after talking with police. nasim aghdam went to a shooting range for practice and walked through the youtube parking

garage into a courtyard with a legally registered handgun and opened fire. youtube said thanks to the security protections in place she never entered the building itself. within 2 minutes of the 9-11 call police arrived on scene and the family of nasim aghdam expressed concerns that police in mountain view never passed along the information they had provided. >> wow. so much more information. you look around and say could there have been stopped. mark is with us a former detective of the land. lapd and we have an fbi national spokesperson. mark, people say how could they miss these signs? i don't think that's the case

here. do you? >> no, i don't. there are many times when somebody does drop the ball, but this is not one of them. in fact, i think they went way out of their way when they contacted her at 1:42 in the morning and contacted her father. 39-year-old females that are in control of their faculties are not missing. she knows where she is. she knows what she is doing. she can leave netime she wants. i don't believe they did anything wrong. >> john, as you see somebody, we don't usually see females. no history of violence. had a gun legally. found sleeping in her car. do you any signs they would miss? >> absolutely not. the police made an inquiry. to pick up the phone and call the family on somebody who is an adult to reassure them that she is okay, likewise, if the family

had any knowledge of the weapon, i have not heard a word about that yet. >> a couple of things. mark. my sense is watching these videos, hearing that she was protesting in february with youtube taking her stuff down. i sense the family knows a lot more about how unhinged this shooter was. do you get that sense? >> i do. i think the family knows a lot like maybe many families that have problems with somebody inside their family. they want to keep that close to the vest and not express their fears. that's exactly the problem. nobody knew what her mental state was. she tried to commit multiple homicides and then killed herself. >> after the pulse and other shootings, do you say how did

they get here? who are they relateed to? the family here as refugees. do you want to know more about this case? do you sense this is just one woman who lost her mind and is now dead? >> regardless of where the family comes from, this is a case where police and law enforcement will look into everybody who is connected with this person. violent crimes were committed. are there other people that supplied the weapon and knew her intentions or even egged her on. >> after 9-11 i could walk into every door here. now i can't get in this building without a pass. that's the way it works. here's youtube one of the most popular companies in the country. why is this person allowed to penetrate that deep? where is the security? i am telling you right now, we

have layers of security mere. so does cnn and others. don't you think people need to wake up more? >> youtube had security personnel. but they did not have a way of stopping this person from getting through the garage. the reality is they need to secure that area for these times of events in the future. it could happen again. >> mark? >> sometimes security is just that visible security. it's one layer at the front door or desk. then you need multi-layers of security startingoud of the parking structure. video surveillance. people outside and inside. people inside the inner workings of the building. most corporations have a visible security. they don't have deep security. >> all right. and lastly, when i look at this woman, i understand the family tried to give everybody a head's up but it was too late.

how do you legislate mental health and gun ownership? she thought youtube was personally going after her. a paranoi here. john? >> you can make all of the gun laws you want but in this country we are ignoring the mental issues. in every one of these cases that's a common factor. we need to make those records available to prevent people who are mentally ill from having access to weapons. >> mark, i don't know there is way to stop that unless the family says take the gun away. i don't know how you stop this. >> well, you have hundred of thousands of people that have tried to commit suicide, that

threaten suicide. one of the ways that makes suicide so devastating is when they want to take multiple people with them. and then commit suicide. we already know and we have had for decades known through psychiatrists and different programs, the people that are suicide-prone and have attempted. we really can't do anything with them. we can't incarcerate them permitly. we lost that ability. not a lot you can do. >> we look into where the balls were dropped and where we go from here. guys, thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> let's go deeper. nasim aghdam didn't fit the profile of the typical mass shooter. that busts the narrative of the pro-gun control crowd. she was a woman and vegan

activist. she loved animals. but the type of reactions we heard against the cable landscape in the immediate aftermath. watch. >> we have a off the charts number and rate of shootings. it remind us we need to do something about the violence in america. >> battle lines have been drawn. it's the idea of democrats pushing for gun control and republicans saying no. nothing has really changed. >> we want to have stricter gun laws and background checks and keep guns out of the hand of people who are a danger to them or a danger to themselves. >> had legal guns and passed the background check. no sign of violence. let's debate this further with dan and chris. dan, this is a kick in the head? >> yes, the democrats who keep

calling for gun control can't point to a place where gun control has worked. they are pulling this out of their hats. what about australia? there are more guns now in australia than there were prior to the 1996 gun confiscation. even when liberals cite information, they back up the consecutive cause for gun rights. more guns in australia and violent crime went down. thanks for making our point. >> chris, if you were working for chuck schumer again, what advise would you give him on an issue like this when nra can't be blamed? background checks were not an issue. not a male shooter but female. >> there are less gun rules in australia thanks to new rules

there. it works there. i believe that we should have private insurance on every gun and every gun should be registered. a private company who puts their monothe table will make sure that a proper background check is done regularly. that private insurer will make sure that gun is taken away. that's what we need in this country. this gun was registered. that the place will take it away. >> we have had audio hits. don't blame chris, personally. pick up on what chris said? >> yes. chris i like chris personally a lot, but he is always wrong. >> [laughing]. >> he is proud to be wrong. i do like him. your numbers on australia are

wrong. the american medical association about a study on the effects of the gun ban in australia and found no evidence it led to a decrease in gun deaths. your second point about gun registration, you are not serious, an insurance policy for your guns? the same government that targeted conservative with the irs and spied on the trump team and lied about data, you want them to have a gun list so your liberal friends know where to go to confiscate the guns. you are crazy. >> i hope you can hear me now. your buddy in the nra could sell the insurance. put their money where their mouth is. they could stop whining about. put his money where his mouth is. insure it. the one good thing about

australia, they keep stats on their guns. >> what is your angle with insurance as opposed to just registering the gun? >> private insurers think about money differently. they will do proper background checks and make sure people who are a risk do not buy guns. let's see what happens. >> no, no. what chris is not telling you, he wants it to be mandatory. chris and his gun grabbing looney toon liberal friends know where to go? >> no, no. i want to know where to go >> [overlapping talking]. >> no, you want to take the guns. >> no. >> no, i don't want to take anybody's guns. >> dan you talked about this with the school shooting.

if you are a friend of yours is at youtube. the security is bad and this woman is able to penetrate. how do we stop that woman from using the gun you? are pro-gun but don't want your friend stop. >> of course. you stop confusing access control with security. a ticket to a football game is an access control device, but it's not security. if there is not a counter-measure to back that up -- in other words a trained good guy with a gun to stop the sick people in society, you won't stop these attacks. they will get the weapons whether it's through the black markets or steal them. >> wow! you guys respect each other but don't agree at all. that makes it a good show. >> i could see you splitting a beer and dan would buy.

>> [laughing]. >> thanks, guys. i have to let you guy now. up next, we will tell you why many in the media should give up on their dream of president trump being convicted of cluding with russia. it just can't there. -- not a there.

>> ♪ >> ♪ >> all right, even top democrats admit so far there is no concrete evidence that the trump campaign colluded with the russians. saying the president is part of the investigation. >> this confirmation that the president is under criminal

investigation. that's a profound thing. >> if someone walked in my office and said i was the subject of a multi--year criminal investigation led by the form fbi director robert mueller, i would wet my pants. >> i talked to a veteran washington lawyer who told me for a sitting president to be the subject of an on-going criminal investigation is frightening. >> it's the most significant national security investigation in our nation's history. >> really? cheerleading just a little bit. hold down the cheering and easy on the champagne. keep the top on. special robert mueller's memo said that president trump is not a criminal target in the investigation. let's discuss this now with a washington reporter and fox news contributor byron york, the word is not a target yet. >> it's hard to imagine that trump was not the subject of

this investigation. i mean the white house has been handing over zillions of documents. the special counsel has been interviewing everybody. he indicted people close to the president in the campaign. it's hard to imagine that he wasn't a subject of this investigation. but, what it does say is that mueller has been investigating since last may. the fbi before that since july of 2016. with all of that investigation, they are saying they do not have enough evidence to make the president a target of the investigation. >> what jonathan turley said. he said guys you have to calm down. this is what he said on fox today. >> in all of my years as a federal prosecutor i never told a defense attorney that his her or client was a subject and had them thank me. it's not a good thing.

you don't want to wake up and find out you are the target of this investigation. >> he doesn't think it's a good thing. jonathan turley said: the criminal case against the president weak oened over time t they want to speak to the president. >> that's the huge debate and divided the president's legal team past and present. some believe the president won't have a reason to say why he should not talk to them. there are others who look at news like this today and think the mueller team is trying to get the president to relax and think everybody will be all right. then the interview and perhaps charge him with making false statements. that's the main charge that mueller has been making in this

case. he charged michael flynn and george papadopoulos and all have been charged with making false statements in this investigation. >> i want to move forward on this. in the "washington post" story yesterday when they talked about a month ago the trump team getting word he is not a target. they also said, by the way, in august rod rosenstein was asked, we see problems with the ukraine with a russian sympathetic leader. we would like to know if we can investigate what manafort did with this ukranian leader in regards to russian payments. why did rod rosenstein green light that? that has nothing to do with meddling in the election. did it? >> this raises a lot of questions. remember when mueller was appointed. rod rosenstein should an

appointpt document. it was very, very general and said he was given the responsibility of investigating contacts between the russian and trump campaign. that was then. 10 or 12 weeks later, he writes a memo to mueller explaining what specific authority mueller has. you think why didn't he do that in the beginning. it was after the no-knock, gun strong fbi raid on paul manafort. it seemed like a search for justification for having done that. >> we are getting word on this. the president is hammering the russian again. slamming them with sanctions close to vladimir putin. making them pay a financial price really hits home with the run defense leader. -- russian leader. look for more details tomorrow

morning. thank you very much. coming up straight ahead. an aspect overlooked yesterday. the secret memo from rod rosenstein. he authorized a criminal investigation of paul manafort a week after the federal agents raided manafort's house. someone who did not over look that is the former whitewater counsel saul. does the timing brother you? >> no tdoesn't bother me. i think it's understandable. first of all, in the original order from may of 2017, rod rosenstein said you can look at anything that comey was already looking at. there is a current investigation. you are allowed to look at anything that comey was looking at when he testified about the

investigation in march. in august, rosenstein clarified that comey's investigation included 2 things about manafort. number 1, did he collude with russians to throw the election in violation of the law? 2, the money he got from the former ukranian dictator. he did do not it after the fact as some people are saying. he clarifyed in august a week after the manafort raid. now, the question is: why didn't he issue the clarification back in may when he did the original order? i think they were worried. probably mueller was worried and maybe mueller went to rod and said we want you to make it clear in writing what our authority is. we think this is our authority. we want to you make it clear. that's what i would guess happened. but it wasn't an after the fact authorization. >> well, he needed

clarification. that's clear. >> he wanted it in writing. >> why? >> you say it was black-and-white. he didn't think it was black-and-white. he went back to get re-authorization. you are the expert but as the lay man on the outside, i want to get to the bottom of the russian meddling what does that have to do with paul manafort's days in the ukraine? >> i don't think it has directly to do with it. it may not have anything indirectly to do with it. mueller has the authority to look at anything that he discovers or arises during the investigation if he gets authorization. the key thing people are overlooking is comey is the person already looking at this. i don't think rod rosenstein will lie, if we believe his

august 2nd letter, comey was already looking at this. comey you are being aggressive at looking an old investigation involving money from a ukranian dictator. why not you so aggressive in the email investigation? let me make something clear. if mueller had gone to rosenstein and said i don't know if i have the authority to look at manafort, rosenstein would have been within his rights to say, i give you permission to go do that. that's not what rosenstein is saying happened. what i think happened is mueller anticipated the motion he got, the motion to dismiss based on a faulty appointment order from rod rosenstein. i think anticipating that, he said mr. rosenstein, just make it clear for me. we understand this is already

within our purview. could you put it in writing? and mueller used it in response to manafort's motion. >> i want to know about the candidate who became president. if you want to know about meddling or collusion, let's hear. it if you don't like the way he brought his new jersey casino, you have really problems in in country. >> you're absolutely right. let's say something that was discovered that is a little closer. let's say relationships with the russians that we didn't know about. serious relations relateing to money laundering. people might say if mueller discovers something that serious, maybe should look at. it i totally agree with you. i agree with byron about

something important. it doesn't look like they have anything on the president trump. i don't think there will be an obstruction indictment and i don't think there will be a criminal collusion indictment. i would never advice any client in president trump's position to go in for that interview. you for serious danger. >> maybe he is listening. saul, appreciate your expertise where everything is in secret and innuendo. 29 minutes before the top of the hour. straight ahead. president trump epa administrator scott pruitt says democrats are trying to take him out because of how well he is pushing the president's policies on environment issues. we will show you exclusive clips of ed henry's interview that you have not seen anywhere else.

>> the latest trump administration member targeted by the left and the mainstream media is the epa chief administrator scott pruitt. he is fighting back over pay raises for aides under a little known provision in the safe drinking water act. and a $50 day condo rental from the wife of a lobbyist. fox news ed henry got the

exclusive presentation interview with scott pruitt. we haven't seen it all >> right. cnn is saying that an ethices watch dog at the epa is now revising the guidance they gave on whether or not it was appropriate for the epa administrator to move forward with that arrangement of $50 a night renting an apartment from the wife of a lobbyist. that raised questions. the pay raise issue is intense. one was going to get a pay raise of over $50,000. not their salary but the pay raise. the white house said this is not a smart use of taxpayer money. scott pruitt went around the president. something pruitt pushed back on

today. pruitt said the left is trying to take him out. the problem is the white house is mad at him. he has been giving the left fodder spending money on first-class travel and private jet and expensive trips. >> didn't president trump say he was going to drain the swamp. >> is a billion dollars in savings draining the swamp? >> you saved a lot of money but spent a lot of money. >> we had an understanding with moracco. >> you are not answering. >> i will answer it. the trips total were over $100,000. when the previous administration went to rome they spent $50,000

and we were in that range. >> if you think an obama cabinent official rented an apartment from the wife of a washington lobbiest -- >> there are members of congress that for years rented rooms on capitol hill. >> you are doing the same thing they did. that's okay for you? >> i didn't say that. congressmen have been doing it. you said the obama people did it but the media would not cover it. why don't you change it? >> you asked me would there be criticism from previous officials and obama? they were not getting things done like this administration. as we focus on these kinds ever things, they are transformational and there are critics that are against you.

this place -- look, it's been a place for years that has been used by the left to advance an agenda of picking winners and losers. >> you said you for trouble -- >> i didn't say i was in trouble. >> interesting. sarah sanders was asked about the this and she said the president is concerned and digging for information about the trips and pay raises. sarah sanders they are doing a deep dive. when they have more information, they will have an evaluation. >> wow! great interview. man, were you prepared and laid the ground work. you got his side of the story. we will see if it saves his job. ed henry, always great. let's bring in two people to weigh in.

they have been through this before on both sides of the aisles. molly, we have seen a lot of people go at this administration. scott pruitt was doing the job the president wanted him to do and was effective and tripped himself up. has he tripped himself out of a job or can he survive? >> after donald trump nobody has as big of a target on his back as scott pruitt. the reason is he is an effective administrator. you have problems of waste and over-regulation. scott pruitt is a very effective person at this aejs. -- agency. he's worked to improve the environment. and understanding there is a balance between regulations and jobs. last week there was an organized campaign started by a radical

environmental group to get him out. they did this cascade of stories. i think if there was substance to these stories, he might be in trouble. these are not things serious people are talking about. people don't care that he rented a room for $50 a night. they care he is anective administrator. he's been so good for the trump agenda, i don't think that trump would see it in his best interest to cow tow to the left. >> you know the epa, you were a liaison there. is this a soap opera? >> it's not just democrats and the left. chris christie said i don't know how he survives this. we have seen this before.

in the reagan administration the same kind of talk about dereguling and you had gorsuch who lost the confidence of the public and congress when to be replaced by bill whom i worked if. he had a totally different policy it was a fish bowl policy. everything was transparent. put my schedule out there so everybody knows who i am meeting with. that's the opposite of what scott pruitt is doing. there is a level of paranoia going first place and dealing with the common person in coach. $43,000 for a sound brief booth. -- proof booth. he feels the need to separate himself. >> the issue with security with

travel he was facing death threats. the idea that he would care about security when radical leftists have shot up people. >> a couple of things to get to the reality. will he survive this? would he do it again? probably not. i wonder this: did anyone in the obama administration over 8 years buy furniture that was expensive? did anyone in the obama years go in first-class or always in coach? >> [overlapping talking]. >> something false was said. that this is much more travel and security costs than the obama administration. that's not true. they spent the same or more.

>> [overlapping talking]. >> i was employed with the administrator of the epa under bill clinton. i the opportunity to upgrade her to first-class. she refused on principle. that's what scott pruitt hasn't come to grips with. >> they made mistakes and hurt the president when they didn't have to. they got the policies right but the semantics wrong. jonathan swan said in the word in the white house if nothing else is there he will probably survive this. molly and mr. goodstein, thank you very much. coming up, president trump just signed a proclomation for troops to go to the mexican board. the first wave could arrive tonight. details next.

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.

>> president trump signed a proclamation deploying the national guard to the border of mexico to stem the flow of illeg immigration. the last two presidents did the same thing. the home depot secretary explained why the move is essential until congress approves funding for the board wall. >> the threat is well. we see unacceptable levels of illegal drugs, and dangerous gang activities and illegal immigration across the board. the president directed that the department of homeland security deplay the national guard to the southwest border to assist the border patrol. the president will sign a proclamation to that effect. >> fast moving. with congress not in session. the president is determined because of that big caravan in mexico coming our way.

joining us now is the former dnc press secretary and do you think this is a good move for both countries? >> former presidents did this. barack obama did and george bush did it. any directive by the federal government for the national guard to go to the border. they can't do much. they can't arrest people. it's a waste of people. to find a solution we have to have comprehensive immigration reform >> 300,000 a year violating our sovereignty trying to get across. that's a lot. it's down, lawrence, from the previous year. necessary in your mind? >> yes, very necessary. we have to realize these troops

are not just going there to arrest people. they legally can't. we need their technology. we need them to relieve the border agents. they say they need the help on the border. they will be able to relieve the agents to give them the technology and resources they need that doesn't have to do with touching illegals. >> jose, i went to the border. when president trump took over there was an immediate drop off of people trying to get across. when it became clear that congress was not going to act the numbers picked up again. i went to the border control meetings and they were urging congress to act. that was in texas. patrick heely from the "new york

times,"000 thinks this is a manufactured crisis. >> he is manufacturing a crisis just to create a big political message to solve his problem with fox news and the republican base were so upset. >> the problem is fox news? >> it's a crisis. we have to fix it. democrats have been on the table since day one. going back to 2013 when the senate passed an immigration bill and the republicans said no. >> wait, wait. >> i invite my republican friends. >> so the democrats should be on board with the president. >> no, no, no. >> [overlapping talking]. >> that's not true. >> he took away daca.

>> he changed the rhetoric from being a border wall to a border wall system. the democrats need to come to the table. >> give me a break. he was the president who took away daca and now he wants to give it back. >> and you shutdown the government. >> the legislative part. a bill got 54 votes in the senate. it did not stop the lottery and it didn't stop chain migration. the president was not going to give in on those two issues. lawrence? >> that's right and the president should not give in on this. the president won the election talking about immigration and the issue of our border agency. this is a national security issue. democrats can choose to get on

board or run the next election on shutting down the government. i don't think that's one that the american people will accept. >> 89% of the border patrol said they need a wall. it's about the people crossing illegally. there is right and wrong. thank you very much. appreciate the debate. let's change gears. did you know that christian privilege is now a thing? they are teaching students how to fight it. at george washington university they will offer a 90 minute seminar. back in a second.

>> ♪ >> ♪ >> all right. in his fair farewell address president george washington emphasized the importance of religion in the survival of the republic. in the university of washington and you are hosting a seminar called christian privedge. one student is upset and wants to share her experience. how to identify and deal with

christian privilege. they held a lot of trainings. holding one on reproductive justice and white male privilege. this i found shocking because it's a university endorsed seminar held by a diversity professional and not a student faith leader telling christians how to live out their relationship with god. >> did you tell christian privilege to the christians were beheaded or in libya and nigeria? where does christian privilege come from. what is the objective? >> that's what is shocking. george washington university prides itself with preparing

students for the goebel community. -- global community. they are not taking account of the christians are beheaded for exercising their father. -- faith. they are showing a lack of what it's like to be a christian. >> they want to combat this christian privilege? they also a course in able body privilege. how dare the able body act so cocky? >> the problem is these are not meant to foster an open dialogue. if you attend and have a different view, you are demonized or shamed. >> do you expect back lash from your appearance tonight? >> i would not be surprised. >> for $76,000 you should be allowed to say whatever you want. one of the most expensive

schools in the country. i find this disturbing. good luck. >> thanks for having me on. >> wrapping up this hour, one thing you have to turn your tv on for this weekend. no it's not tiger woods at the masters. the details to my dazzling tease in a moment.

>> if my watch is right, almost the end of the show. it's time for a little shameless self-promotion. also something great on fox. an unbelievable series. the third installment of "legends and lives." the civil war. features the story this week of confederate general robert e. lee. his command of the army of northern virginia. here is a sneak peek. >> retreat. fall back.

>> the army of northern virginia have saved our state and confederacy from destruction. soon we will achieve our independence. >> spoiler alert. it doesn't work out. meanwhile, the episode aired sunday at 8:00, an important lesson and very well done movie, series that's been put together. i've had a great time filling in for laura ingraham. katie pavlich will be here tomorrow night, and i will be on "fox & friends." be sure to join me from 6:00 to 9:00. also listen to my radio show the brian kilmeade show. amongst our guest tomorrow, chris wallace, governor mike huckabee. according to the rundown, the schedule i saw, shannon bream's

live in her studio in washington, d.c., which is a palace. >> shannon: i should turn off my cell phone. good to see you. i turned it off. because my mom will call. i will get your message after the show, mom. brian, great show. i'm shannon bream. this is "fox news @ night." it could end up being president trump's late-breaking order to send the national guard to the border. the governors of border states retain control over the guard in their regions and that's where california comes in once again in its battle with this white house. tonight we are learning california governor jerry brown is reviewing the president's order and unlike the other border governors, he has not yet committed to it. brown has resistant moves like this one in the past, even under the obama administration. we have team coverage. griff jenkins. we begin with