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. let me repeat, 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. i'm old. look at my hair. 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 don't go to bed -- >> what up time do you get up? >> i go to bed at 4:00. 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 hour? i have to cancel three guests now. 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." a number of stories i have to update you on. you have special council bob mueller who 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 oligarchs close to 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. also we're receiving word that 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. and how it is flipping a couple of narratives on their head. the woman's name is nasim najafi 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. and you know what? authorities were tipped off she might be doing exactly that.

what about the motivation? could there have been stopped? youtube censoring her videos. is this in reason to take a gun and start shooting people randomly? trace gallagher has more details on what the police knew and what they couldn't do. trace? >> at 1:40 tuesday morning 11 hours before she opened fire outside of the youtube headquarters. 39-year-old nasim najafi aghdam spoke with police in mountainview. police say they spotted her car in a parking lot and proactively ran the plate. she had been reported missing three days earlier. aghdam was asleep when they woke her up to confirm her identity. 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 san bruno 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'm being discriminated and i'm not the only one. so recently, they also attacked my persian 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. despite reports yesterday saying she was found dead inside the building, youtube quoting says thanks to security protections in place, she never entered the building, itself. within two minutes of the 911 call, police arrived on the scene and the family of nasim najafi aghdam expressed concerns that police in mountainview never passed along the information they had provided. >> wow. so much more information. you look around and say could there have been stopped. mark fuhrman is with us. he knows as good as anybody how to break this stuff down. john, a retired fbi national spokesperson. let start with you, if i can, mark, you saw the situation. people like to look back that never worked a case before and 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's driving her vehicle. she knows what she is doing. she can leave any time 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. and just like mark said, to actually pick up the phone and

call the family on somebody who is clearly 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 was obviously not in a good mental state. she tried to commit multiple homicides and then killed herself. >> john, do you look into the family a little bit more after the pulse shooting and the san

bernardino shooting and say how do they get here? who are they related to? the family did come 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. we want to know, are there other people that maybe supplied the weapon, knew what her intentions were or even egged her on. all of that is to be determined. >> you know, at fox after 911, i used to be able to walk through 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. and the most successful. why is this person allowed to penetrate that deep? where is the security? did that occur to you at all?

i am telling you right now, we have layers of security here. 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 a front desk, a security officer. but then you need multilayers of security starting with outside of the parking structure, video surveillance, people outside, people inside. people inside the inner workings of the building. so most corporations have kind of a visible security. they do not 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 had the gun legally, clearly she's not mentally stable. she thought youtube was personally going after her. >> 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 been a common factor and we need to address that. we need to be able to make those records available when background checks are done so we can 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 mean, i actually don't know how you stop this. >> well, brian, you have hundreds of thousands of people that have tried to commit

suicide, that threaten suicide, and one of the ways that makes suicide so devastating is when they want to take multiple people with them and then commit suicide. so we already know and we have had for decades known through psychiatry and different programs that people are suicide-prone and have attempted. we can't do anything with them. we can't incarcerate them permanently. we lost that ability. not a lot you can do. >> we look into where the balls were dropped and where we go from here. i think this is a narrative buster. 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. and in ways that busts the usual narrative of the pro-gun-control crowd. she was a woman and vegan activist.

making it hard to blame it on men or extremist views. she loved animals. but this is the small sample of the reaction in the cable landscape in the immediate aftermath. >> we have an off the charts number and rate of shootings. >> the battle lines have been drawn. it still the idea of democrats pushing largely for gun control measures while a lot of republicans largely saying no. and nothing has changed. >> we want to have stricter gun laws and background checks. we want to keep the guns out of the hands of people who are a danger to themselves or someone else. >> had a gun, passed a background check and no signs of violence. let's look at this with dan, and chris hahn, dan, to you, this is a kick in the head, isn't it? >> yeah, brian.

you know, the democrats who are calling for gun control can't point to a place where gun control has actually worked. you know, they'll pull this out of their had sometimes say what about australia? there are more guns now in australia than there were prior to the 1996 gun confiscation. when liberals try to cite information that backs up their cause they back up the conservative cause for gun rights. more guns in australia and violent crime may have gone down a little bit. thanks for making our point. >> chris if you are working for chuck schumer again what advice do you give him if he has to comment. background checks are an issue and it's not a male shooter but a female shooter. >> let me correct something, there are les gs gun deaths in

australia. but i have given you guys on this show and other shows i believe we should have private insurance of every gun and every gun should be registered. a private company is going to make sure that a proper background check is done and done regularly. if there are changes, that private insurer is going to make sure that gun is taken away. this gun is registered. a registered gun -- every time the police have a suspicion of you they're going to take it away from you, that is disproven by this incident. >> don't adjust your set or back the side of your flat screen or blame chris personally. >> i'll go to you, dan. pick up on what chris said. >> you know, i like chris personally but he is always wrong and he is proud to be wrong on the air. he's a nice guy but he's wrong. the numbers on australia are

wrong. the american medical association, not a right-wing organization did a study on the effects of the gun ban in australia and found no evidence it led to a significant increase in gun deaths. and as for your second point about gun registration, i hope you're not serious, an insurance policy for your guns. the same government that targeted conservatives with the irs and the government that spied on the trump team and lied about the collection of metadata they want you to have a gun list so your liberal friends know where to go to confiscate the guns later? you know you are crazy if you think we're going with that. >> dan, i hope you can hear me now. your buddies in the nra could sell the insurance, put their money where their mouth is. >> they don't want that -- >> he could stop whining about it and say if i think everybody should have a gun, put his money where his mouth is, insure it.

by the way, australia keeps stats on their guns. their health department does that. we haven't let them do that here. >> what is your angle with the insurance as opposed to registering a gun. >> private insurers will think about risk definitely because money is involved. they will assess the risk and do proper background checks and make sure people who are a risk do not buy guns unless they are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on the insurance policies. >> brian, what chris is not telling you he wants it to be mandatory so chris and his looney tune liberal friends know where to go when they enact their gun confiscation plan. you want to know where to go to take the guns. let's be honest. >> i don't want to take anyone's guns. >> you were talking about this

with the school shooting. if a friend of yours is at youtube and the security is bad and the woman is able to penetrate on the inside. how do we stop that woman from using a gun? you don't want your friend shot. what do we do? >> yeah, of course. you stop confusing access control with security. it's not the same thing. i think a lot of these places mistake those terms. the ticket to a football game is an access control but it's not security. if there is not a tactical background measure to back that up, you're not going to stop these kinds of attacks. they'll get the weapons through the black market, they'll steal them. they will attack when they want. you have to be able to attack back with trained people willing to fire back and stop it. >> listen, you guys respect each other but don't agree at all. >> we don't agree. >> but you are nice people. i could see you splitting a beer

one of these days. >> we always do. >> thanks guys. up next, we'll tell you why many in the media should give up on their dream in many respects of president trump being convicted of colluding with russia. as of now, it just ain't there. mom you called?

oh hi sweetie, i just want to show you something. xfinity mobile: find my phone. [ phone rings ] look at you. this tech stuff is easy. [ whirring sound ] you want a cookie? it's a drone! i know. find your phone easily with the xfinity voice remote. one more way comcast is working to fit into your life, not the other way around. >> ♪ >> all right, even top even top democrats admit there is no concrete evidence that the trump campaign colluded with the russians in the 2016 election but it's the revelation that the president is a subject of the special council's investigation sent many in the media into glee predicting the demise of this administration. >> this confirmation that the

president is under criminal investigation. that is a profound thing. >> if someone said i was a subject of a multiyear criminal investigation led by former fbi director robert mueller, i would wet my pants. >> for a sitting president to be the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation is frightening. >> his conduct is under investigation. it's no mere criminal investigation it's the most significant national security investigation in our nation's history. >> really? cheerleading just a little bit? easy on the champagne, keep the top on special counsel bob mueller's memo said president trump is not a criminal target in the investigation. let's discuss what it will take for the media to drop their russia obsession with byron york. the word is not a target yet. how did you interpret that? >> well, first of all, it's hard

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

you don't want to be the subject of a federal grand jury investigation. jonathan turley said if they waited for a constitutional crisis there are a few objective signs it's going to come to pass. if anything the criminal case has weakened over time but they do say they still want to speak to the president to see his take on what could be obstruction. should he? >> well, that's the huge debate. and it has divided the president's legal team past and present. because there are some who believe the president will not have a reason to say why he should not talk to them. on the other hand 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 and then have the interview and then perhaps charge him with making false statements. by the way, that's the main charge that mueller has been making against people in this case.

he charged michael flynn with false statemented. he charged rick gates with false statements, all have been charged with making false statements in this investigation. >> so let's -- i want to move forward on this. in the "washington post" story yesterday where they talked about a month ago the trump team getting word he is not a target they also said in august, rod rosenstein was asked by the mueller group now that we looked at manafort's stuff we see problems with what he did in ukraine with a russian sympathetic leader and we want to know if we can investigate what manafort did as it relates to possible russian payments. why did rod rosenstein green light that? it has nothing to do with meddling in the election, did it? >> remember when mueller was appointed, rod rosenstein issued an appointment document.

it was very, very general. it said he was given the responsibility of investigating contact between the russians and the trump campaign. that was then. ten or twelve weeks later he writes a memo to mueller explaining what specific authority mueller has and you think why didn't he do that in the beginning? and as you're saying it was after that no-knock, guns drawn raid on paul manafort it seemed like an ex post facto. president trump is sanctioning four oligarchs close to president putin. that is something that hits home with the russian leader and the president continues to amp up the pressure. i don't know how this relates to a summit at the white house this

spring. look for more details tomorrow morning. byron york, thanks so much. an important aspect that was overlooked yesterday after the details of the secret memo from deputy attorney rod rosenstein. he reportedly authorized the investigation of paul manafort a week after the federaling ats raided manafort's house. someone who did not overlook that is former whitewater deputy saul wisenberg. does the timing bother you? >> no, it doesn't bother me. it's understandable. first of all, in the order, in the original order from may of 2017, rod rosenstein said, among other things, you can look at anything that comey was already looking at. there's an ongoing, there's a current investigation. you are allowed to look at anything that comey was looking

at when he testified about the investigation in march. and in august, rosenstein luded two that comey's things about manafort. number one, did he collude with russians to throw the election in violation of the law? two, the money he got from the former ukrainian dictator. he did not do it after the fact, as some people are saying, he clarified a week after the manafort raid. now the question is -- a good question from byron, why didn't he do that -- why didn't he issue the clarification in may when he did the original order. i do think they were worried. 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 you to make it clear. that is what i would guess happened but it's it wasn't an

after the fact authorization. >> he needed clarification. that's clear. >> he wanted it in writing. that's right. >> why? >> that's absolutely right. >> why? so you say it's black and white but it's he clearly didn't think it was black and white. he had to get reauthorization. and you are the expert and you've been through this. but as the layman on the outside i want to get to the bottom of the russian meddling, what does it have to do with paul manafort's days in the ukraine. i don't care what he was doing. >> i don't think it has anything directly to do with it or may not have anything indirectly to do with it. mueller has the authority to look at anything he discovered or arises during the investigation if he gets authorization. but here's the key thing that people are overlooking, i think is that comey is the person that was already looking at this. if we believe and i don't think rod rosenstein is going to lie.

if we believe his august 2nd letter, comey was already looking at this. jim comey, you are being very aggressive back here in looking at an old investigation involving money from a ukrainian dictator. you are sure aggressive in this investigation. why weren't you so aggressive in the e-mail investigation. but let me make something clear. if -- if mueller had gone to rosenstein and said, you know what? i don't know if i have the authority to look at manafort, rosenstein would have been completely within his rights to say, i give you permission to go do that. that's not what rosenstein is saying has happened. what i think happened is mueller anticipated the very motion he ultimately got, a motion to dismiss based on a faulty -- >> gotcha -- >> and anticipating that, he said, you know what, mr. rosenstein, just make it clear

for me. could you put in the writing so there's no question? and of course, mueller used it in his response to manafort's motion. >> saul -- here's what i worry about. i want to know did the candidate who become president if you want to know about meddling or collusion, let's hear it. if you don't like the way he bought his scottish golf course or new jersey casino, you have big problems in this country from supporters and detractors. >> i think you're totally right. on the other hand, let's just say that something was discovered that's a little closer. let's say relationships with the russians that we didn't know about, serious relations related to money laundering, not saying it happened, that might be something that people say if mueller discovers something that serious maybe somebody should look at it but i agree with you and agree with byron about

something important. it doesn't look like they have anything on president trump. i don't think there's going to be an obstruction indictment and i don't think there's going to be a criminal collusion indictment. and by the way, i don't believe i would ever advise any client in president trump's position to go in for that interview. if you are a subject, you are still in serious danger. >> saul wisenberg thanks so much for your expertise where everything is so secret and innuendo and secret sources. president trump's epa administrator scott pruitt says democrats are trying to take him out because of how well he is pushing the president's policies with environmental issues. we will show you clips of the interview with ed henry that you have not seen anywhere else.

glad you're up, hope you're dressed. epa chief administrator scott pruitt is fighting back over pay raises for aids under a little known provision in the safe drinking water act as well as a $50 a day condo rental from the wife of a lobbyist. is this a big deal? ed henry got the exclusive

interview with pruitt this afternoon. and we got a lot of it. it's explosive and intense. >> we have new clips to show you right now. cnn is saying that an ethics watchdog is revising the guidance they gave on whether or not it was appropriate for the epa administrator to move forward with that as you say, that arrangement of $50 a night at the renting an apartment at the wife of a lobbyist's apartment. that has raised questions. the pay raise issue is intense as well. because, one staffer was going to get a raise of $50,000, not the salary but the raise. but the white house said this is not a smart use of taxpayer money, allegedly scott pruitt and his aides went around the president and something that pruitt pushed back on. and the left has been going

after pruitt. they have a website bootpruitt.com. pruitt says the left is trying to take him out. the problem is the white house is mad at him now because he has been giving the left fodder by spending a lot of money, first class travel, private jets and expensive trips. watch. >> didn't president trump say he's going to drain the swamp? >> is a billion dollars in savings draining the swamp? >> you saved a lot of money but saved a l spent a lot of money. >> how much did that cost? >> there is a memorandum of understanding with morocco. >> how much -- how much did it cost. >> total? a little bit over $100,000. i think when the previous administration went to rome they spent roughly 40,000 to $50,000,

we were in that range. >> if an obama cabinet official rented an apartment from the wife of a washington lobbiest -- >> they won't look at those issues back then. >> they're look at them now. >> there are members of congress who have rented rooms on capitol hill just -- the -- >> the swamp. you have said -- but you're not changing it. you're doing the same thing they did. it's okay for them, it's okay for you. if it happened before why aren't you changing? >> here's the point i'm trying to make, you are asking whether there has been criticism with respect to previous cabinet officials. no one asked the questions back then. because they weren't getting things done like this administration. i do believe that as we do our work, they are transformational. any time you do transformational

things there are critics and people that will come against you in that regard. this has been a place for years that has been used by the environmental left to advance an agenda of picking winners and losers -- >> but you are in trouble. >> there are critics. >> when previous cabinet chiefs have been in trouble, sarah sanders she says the president has confidence in them. today she said about scott pruitt, the president is concerned and digging for information about these trips and the pay raises and all that and sarah sanders said they are doing a deep dive and when they have more information they'll have an evaluation. >> a great interview. man, were you prepared and laid the ground work there. you gave him a chance to give his side of the story. thanks, man. let's bring in two people to weigh in. they have been through this

before with many people on both sides of the aisle. rich goodstein is here. and molly hemmingway who knows a lot about a lot of stuff. we have seen a lot of people go at this administration. but my sense is that scott pruitt was doing the job that the president wanted him to do and he has tripped himself up. can he survive? >> after donald trump there is nobody in this administration with as big a target as scott pruitt. you have the problems of the swamp, waste, and inefficiency and overregulation. and scott pruitt is an effective person at his agency. he has rolled back regulations and worked to improve the environment whether in flint or with clean water and whatnot. but understanding there is a balance between regulation and jobs. no one has been under as much attack as scott pruitt. and last week an organized

campaign was started to really oust him, and they did this cascade of stories. and i think if there was substance to the stories and if they mattered and if there was anything going on he might be in trouble. these are not things serious people are talking about. people don't care he rented a room for $50 a night. they care he is an effective administrator and this is the way they are going the get rid of him but it's he has been so key to the trump agenda i don't think that trump will kowtow to the left to oust someone so key to his administration. >> thank you, molly. not only is your point valuable but you know the epa. tell me is this stuff a big deal or soap opera stuff getting in the way of a guy doing a tough job? >> it's not just democrats or the liberal left, with you have chris christie saying i don't know how he survives this. and republican house members calling for his ouster.

we've seen this before, brian. in the reagan administration, the same kind of talk early on about deregulating and getting government off its back and you had anne gorsuch who lost the confidence of the public and congress and had to be replaced who had a totally different policy which was a fish bowl policy which is everything was transparent. bring in the press. put my schedule out there so everybody knows who i'm meeting with. that's the opposite of what scott pruitt is doing. and there is a level of paranoia between wanting to go first class to not deal with the common person in coach -- having the soundproof booth. he feels the need to separate himself to do that. >> the issue with security for

travel is he was facing death threats. so there is an understanding -- >> they can buy a first class ticket. >> and that's exactly -- but the idea you would care about security when radical leftists have shot up republican leaders it's not unreasonable for a security team to care about that. again, this is really just about scott pruitt being really good at his job. >> will he survive this? was it right, would he do it again? i'm just wondering if anyone in the obama administration ever buy furniture that was a little bit expensive? did anyone ever go in first class or always in coach, knee to knee -- >> there was something false that was said, which is that this is somehow much more travel and security cost than the obama administration. that is not true for either of the epa administrators, they spent the same or more on their

travel. >> i can attest once i was on a flight with the administrator of epa under bill clinton. i was in a frequent flier thing and she refused my upgrade on principle because there was an image she wanted to put out. >> they got the policies right and he's not the only one. but they have the semantics wrong. jonathan swan of the axios says the word in the white house is there is nothing else there and he probably survives this. we'll see if he helped himself tonight. molly and mr. goodstein, thanks so much. coming up straight ahead, president trump signed a proclamation directing national guardsmen to be deployed on the u.s./mexico border and the first wave could be arriving as early

as tonight. details, next.

all right, here we go, president trump tonight signed a proclamati proclamation deploying the national guard to the border with mexico to stem the flow of immigration. the last two presidents did the same thing. the move is essential until funding is approved for the border wall. >> the threat is real. we continue to see unacceptable levels of illegal drugs, dangerous gang activity, transnational criminal organizations across the border. the president directed that the department of defense and the department of homeland security work together with the governors to deploy the national guard to assist the border patrol. the president will be signing a proclamation to that effect today. >> fast moving, the president is determined especially because of that big caravan that is coming our direction at a soccer

stadium in mexico. 1500 looking for refugee status, perhaps. talking about that is jose -- and lawrence jones who is editor in chief of campus reform. jose, do you think this is a good move by both countries? >> look, former presidents have done this before, barack obama did it, george w. bush did it as well. any directive for the national guard to go to the border, they can't do much. it's truly a waste of money and not going to do anything. if we want to find a solution we have to pass comprehensive immigration reform. >> you have 1,000 people a day trying to cross. and 3,000 people a year trying to get across but it's down from the previous year of 2017 down from 2016. necessary in your mind? >> yes, it's very necessary. we got to realize that these

troops aren't just going there to arrest people. they legally can't. but what we need is their technology. they need to relieve the border agents who support this -- if you listen to any of the members that represent the union of 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 necessarily have to do with touching illegals. >> i had a chance to go down to the border. when president trump took over there was an immediate dropoff of people trying to get across. and they hear about the president trying to reinforce the border. when it became clear that congress wasn't going to act the numbers picked up again. i went to the border patrol meetings and listened to what they said urging the president to act. this is patrick healy who thinks it is a manufactured crisis.

he's with "the new york times." >> it's a manufactured crisis at the border. he is knowingly manufacturing a crisis to create a big political message to solve his problem with fox news and the republican base were so upset he got -- >> like -- >> funny, 300,000 people crossing illegally a year, minimum and the problem is fox news? >> i don't know if the problem is fox news or not. it is a crisis and we have to fix it. let's take it back to 2013, when the senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill and the gop said no. >> you're right. >> i invite my republican friends to -- >> so the democrats should be on board with the president granting 1.8 million -- >> that's not enough. >> the president proposed it -- >> that's not true. >> it was totally against the president offering -- >> he took away daca.

>> he changed his rhetoric from being just a border wall to a border wall system. the democrats need to come to the table. >> give me a break. the reality here is it's the president who took away daca and now he wants to give it back? >> and you shut down the government over illegal aliens. >> just to get into the legislative part of it, mike brown had a bill that got 54 votes in the senate. if the president didn't back it, it didn't stop the lottery or chain migration. but he was going to save 1.8 million for 25 billion for the border wall. but the president wasn't going the give in on those two issues. >> the president won the election come doing the escalator talking about immigration and the issue of supporting our border agents. and at the end of the day, this president has a duty. this is a national security

issue. democrats can get on board or run the next election on shutting down the government. >> they asked the border patrol agents do you need a barrier and 89% said yes, they did. it's the ones who are crossing illegal compared to the ones hoping to get access. appreciate the debate. i wish we would get something done in washington. meanwhile, let's change gears, did you know christian privilege is now a thing. and at george washington university they are saying we are going to offer a seminar to learn about it all. back in a second. seminar. as a control enthusiast, i'm all-business when i travel... even when i travel... 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.

>> ♪ >> ♪ >> all right. in his farewell address president george washington emphasized the importance of religion and morality in the survival of the republic. that's us. imagine you attend george washington university in washington, d.c. and you are attending a seminar called christian privilege in america. a student of the class of 2019 is upset about it and wants to share her experience. they are offering this. how to identify it and deal with christian privilege in america. what are your thoughts on this?

>> the multicultural student services center has held a lot of trainings throughout the year. they are holding one on reproductive justice and white privilege and male privilege. but this one i found particularly shocking because is it a university-endorsed seminar held by a diversity professional, not a student faith leader telling christians how to live out their relationship with god. >> christian privilege. did you tell that to the coptic christians in syria as they were kicked out of iraq en masse or killed? christian privilege in libya and nigeria. where does this christian privilege come from and why do they need a course to identify it? what's the objective? >> that's what is so shocking to me. with this seminar, they are demonstrating a complete lack of

understanding for christianity in the global community. they are not taking into account the christians today in modern times who are beheaded or persecuted for exercising their faith and they're certainly demonstrating a lack of understanding what it is like to be a christian in america or on college campuses. >> so they want to work a strategy to combat this christian privilege that we are all wallowing in? they offer a court inable body bridge. how dare the able bodied act so cocky. >> they are not meant to foster an open dialogue. if you have a different view than any other person teaching the sessions you are demonized or shamed. that's the problem with the training. >> do you expect backlash from your appearance tonight? >> i wouldn't be surprised. >> for $76,000 you should be able to say whatever you want. >> exactly. >> it's one of the most

expensive colleges in the country. thanks for having the courage to stand up and good luck when you graduate in 2019. >> thanks for having me on. there's one thing you have to turn your tv on for this weekend. and it's not tiger woods at the masters. the details to my dazzling tease, in just a moment.

it's almost the end of the show and time for self promotion. unbelievable series i've had a privilege to be a part of. catch the latest episode of "legends and lies" it's hosted by me and features the story of confederate general robert e. lee. here's a sneak peek.

>> fall back. >> you, the army of northern virginia, have saved our state and our confederacy from destruction. soon, we will achieve our independence. >> spoiler alert, it doesn't utrk >> spoiler alert well done movi, 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, gohuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhuhucka. 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. good to see you. shannon: i should turn off my cell phone. because my mom will call. a great show. thank you so much. this is fox news @night. the president wants to send the national guard to take the border but now california comes in once again in a battle with the white house. we are learning the california governor is ignoring the border but he is not yet committed. he has resisted moves like this in the past even under the obama administration. we have team coverage over yet another california city looking to buck immigrati