weekend. we will see you back on monday. don't forget laura i can gram will be back on monday as well. have a great weekend. >> pete: good evening from new york city i'm pete hegseth in for laura ingraham. this is the ingraham angle don't worry laura will be back on monday for sure. big news night and we have covered coast to coast. a bold move against russia. will the left ever give him credit? we will have a debate about that. plus, barac michelle obama tooka cheap shot at president trump last night. is she analyzing her own run. slow walking documents related to the hillary clinton email case to congress. what do they have to hide? a member of the house judiciary committee will be here to explain. but, first, democrats plotting to defy our commander-in-chief.

president trump sending up to 4,000 national guard troops to the border. that's about a brigade size. some democratic governors say they will refuse to allow troops from their states to partake in the plan. fox news correspondent gillian turn everywhere is here with more. >> hey, pete. in the wake of president trump's decision to dispatch national guard troops to secure the southern border, the pentagon has now announced they are creating a special border security cell of their own. the cell's official mission? backing up border patrol agents. aaccording to the secretary of defense. >> we are looking at how we can best provide support to the department of homeland security. we'll figure it out. it will be consistent with law and the spirit of congress. no problem. >> but don't let that mission statement fool you. serve as liaison between the pentagon and the department of homeland security, making sure 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. >> watching monitors, border

cameras and sensor feeds. those kinds of things. they will be helping us in the back room activities. we used them previously to help repair roads and vehicles. used them to do intelligence and analysis for intelligence. aviation is a big part of what we hope they bring. >> and perhaps even more importantly, the cell will conduct reson sans on the ground and in the air. but, with the now new order signed for 4,000 national guard at the border things are getting sticky at the local level. some are supporting the move. arizona's governor tweeting sending 150 guard troops to the u.s.-mexico border. and the state of texas stepping in also. they have committed already to deploying 250 troops. all within the next 72 hours. and governor abbott released a statement saying the plan, quote: reinforces texas' long standing commitment to secure our southern border and the rule of law. arkansas and mississippi also lent their support to the plan, but other

governors like kate brown of oregon haven't been as supportive. >> there has been absolutely no planning. there has been absolutely no collaboration with the states. this is just something that the president reeled off to distract from the problems that he is having in washington, d.c. >> polarized times like these, pete, when it seems likely we're creaning towards a total political breakdown i console myself with the words of abraham lincoln who said america will never be destroyed from the outside. if we falter and lose our freedom it, will probably be because we destroyed ourselves. pete? >> pete: important reminder. you mentioned oregon, montana and potentially nevada don't want to participate. any sense that other democratic governors will join in new form of resistance and say we are not sending troops down to the border wall? >> yeah, it's possible. for example, california surprisingly, seems to have remained teetering on the edge. they have not necessarily

registered their diss content with the plan. so if they went in president trump's direction, i think this is possible we see some other democratic governors. >> pete: very, very interesting. if you go along with the trump administration and democratic governor you are now complicit as some of the grassroots would see it gillian, thank you very much for your time. >> thanks, pete. >> pete: joining us is dan screen slaw a republican running for congress in border district in texas. is he a former decorated seal. alan moore immigration attorney here to debate. commanders, i will start with you. we have a situation here where the president sees an eminent national security threat. congress will not deliver on the funding for the border wall. send the troops. we know there are limitations what they can do at the border. is this an important step and will it help stem the tied? >> absolutely. is he making good on prom mist to the american people.

he withi ran on a border wall. that wall will have to be enforced by national guard. we have a long history of this in texas. frankly we have been footing the bill. we are on the front line. we realize this is a national security issue. we spend our own money to actually put department of public safety troops on the ground to help assist law enforcement. we also put national guardsmen on the field regularly. it's nothing new to us. it's frankly time for the federal government to help out. >> pete: dan crenshaw just mention you had the department of public safety in texas. based on their statistics from 2011 to 2012, 245,000 illegals have been arrested in texas alone. 1,000 -- over 1,000 homicides. 77,000 arrests, assault arrests. 78 drug crazies. these of illegal aliens in texas alone arrests between 2011 and 2018.

yet, basted on some of the committee tear i havcommentary . is it time to aaddress it. >> there are ways to address the immigration crisis. actually the border wall and actually an individual wall and a human wall is not the way to best address the issue. to to show this is a man made crisis. 12 months into the administration all of a sudden after the if a there was a daca deal ran away from. and deploy people. it sounds like to me texas has it under control for the state of texas. that's really what the concern is right now. look at federalism and what the national guard is in place to do. they put these individuals in place to do at the national level. why should the federal government sort of step in. >> why not now. is immigration not a federal issue? texas may have stepped up to do its part. ultimately 24 is something that effects all of us u what the know.

gudmundsson be doing why not now if. >> there is no way to put human nut way of standing at the border. when you think about national guard officers, they are part of community. they are firemen and police officers and teachers that are part of communities that keep them strong and keep them safe. you are removing people from communities and putting them at the border for a threat that doesn't exist. for what reason what? there is no numbers, no caravan. show me the that its it particulars. >> pete: a threat that doesn't exist. dan, i will go what yous what ys with well. >> 2011 to 2018 arrested in texas alone. we are talking homicides, assaults, drugs, sexual assault over 10,000 for weapons. >> if not humans then a wall how do we get our arms around this? and is it not a national security issue? have you an invasion problem. >> it's a national policy issue. >> he did say one thing that

was absolutely correct which is that we waited too long. we should have done this before. we should have done this a long time ago. frankly it has been done before. the left is losing their minds about this but it was done by obama in #bg 10, bush in 2006. is he right we have do wrong. also right it's a dangerous border. you can't simultaneously say the threat doesn't exist while saying it's a dangerous border and dangerous for the national guard. be the eyes and ears for law enforcement. that is the role they are going to play and use unfortunately role and role we need at the belt department of texas. knows we don't vitara manpower for everywhere single everyone of this bored. it is a centra federal issue. to say that the states have the resources to do it is wrong, it's not true. texas are on the front lines and we are tired of footing the bill. >> pete: as dan just said, if you don't have people

there you got to have a wall. if you don't believe the national guard function there, could be a legitimate argument if that's your true concern. wouldn't you then say well now it's time for a border wall? we have to do something. >> absolutely you would have to do something. and some of the ways without spending wasted money look at technology, if people are there to look and observe. that is something we do with iphones and cameras and trip wires. there is no need to have a human bern there to look and see what's going on. the concerns of what can happen the danger at the border. >> pete: whwait, iphones and trip wires is not not a wall interdict people tying come across your border. >> if you understand what they can do at point of entry and hear the plan doesn't exist ace a glerch

of oregon. they are only there to be in the background, which he said. >> we don't need them to be -- we need them to be the eyes and ears of lawsuit. >> you understand obstacle without. you have both layers necessary. >> that isn't wrong that we also need surveillance to bolster this effort. it's a combination of both, okay. with any operation to say this operation wasn't planning, there is no planning, of course there is. this is a very simple military operation. stop people from crossing a border. all right? so you need electronic surveillance. you need people on the ground and then you need law enforcement in conjunction with that to arrest and detain. >> secretary just said in your own. if there was a plan we would have seen that.

>> pete: of course the pentagon is going to present a plan and these things -- at least we can all agree we need a border wall, right, dan? >> no. we don't need a border wall. >> we can agree on that. there is a temporary solution until then. >> temporary solution because congress gant get out of the way. >> that's why i'm running for congress. >> 2018 mid terms several months away. protecting the border and keeping americans safe from illegal aliens. as for the democrats, well, several democratic candidates are actually calling for the abolition of ice. don't believe move? well, randy bryce challenging paul ryan wisconsin's first district recently just told the truth and told "newsweek," goat, i think that ice should bool issue willed and explore which agency could customs enforcement end quote. joining me now is david ward, a former ice agent who also worked on the border. david, thank you for your

time democrats clinging to the ideas getting rid of ice get rid of our problems. >> we live in a great country where people can run for a congressional seat and make a statement like he did to abolish ice, who does he expect to work in the interior of the united states to go after criminal aliens that have eluded other police department? boot pete maybe nobody, is this not indicative of we want border world. >> democrats will notten happy until immigration is depletely abolished. there is no wall, there is no ice, there is no fog nothing. people come and go as they wish in the united states. let me tell you something about bryce. arrested over 38,000 crawl aliens. you made a statement that we're out there arresting children amend the families and stuff, let me tell you

something ice is going after particular comments fugitives from justice, that came into the united states after reentry after deportation. that's who is being targeted and over 38,000 have been arrested. did you also know 2200 bounds you have fenton nail seized by ice. >> the problem very, very real. it's not just this one congressional candidate in wawsk e. wisconsin, beanged and new york. it seems to be in the blue-eyed stream. >> they don't want immigration enforcement. they want this combine country to be a sanctuary for the world's wobs you are citizens are in danger. look at whached on 9/11. it was immigrants that did that they brought down the towers, since threaten and foreign nationals have been killing u.s. citizens since that time even before then,.

>> he walk a lot our port elm brafts. these are a lot of people that come here legally and decide not to go back. and ultimately without ice. >> 50% of your illegal population are people who violate our visas that come into the united states. the visa waiver program is another big problem that we should take a real close look at and abolish that immigration is the achilles heel of this country. if we don't control it. if we don't control our borders. don't go after the illegal aliens that are within this country. we are going to have a real serious problem within a very short period of time. >> pete: they say well, ice has only been around 15 years. it's a short-term agency. i mean, this is the talking points of the left are abolish it because it's something new. explain to our audience the history there. >> okay, since 1933 immigration has been in effect. we have had special agents from 1933 to 2003 enforcing immigration law. the department of homeland security was created because

of 9/11 through the 9/11 commission and ice became immigration special agents. that's only difference was the name. they have all go to the same school. they all enforce title 8. i would like to know who this guy think thinks is going o enforce title 8. all our agents go through an economy to learn how to enforce it. >> he is planning on self-deportation. they mock out idea until entire premise is businessed upon it. >> you say deliver and targets. the bookie man make it look like they are running around locking people up. >> we only have 20,000 at most. that's half the size of the new york city police department. but we have 11 million people that we might be looking for. it's a small number. so we have to concentrate on the most effective use of our pan power and it's going after the criminal aliens causing harm in these neighborhoods. >> pete: thank you for your time and your service to this country. a state that has over

12 million illegal immigrants california. voiced opposition more than any other state. while next guest goes even a step further, he wants california to succeed from the union. the president of yes california. the group advocating independent for america. casual viewer tonight is going to say that sounds pretty radical. i may not like those sanctuary tase, i don't lipgs fact cope is wad for me. buy succeeding, does that make sense? >> do we have you? marcus, do you got me? we may have lost marcus. we will try to get him. it was on skype. it was a tough connection. interesting idea for those in california that are fed up with the fact the federal government seems to be ignored by officials there

who prefer to live in sanctuary states and sanctuary city with some municipalities fighting back. interesting idea for a clexit: we will tell you hillary clinton email case. we will tell you what that's we will tell you what that's all the ingle angle. the more you know the the commute is worth it.me, for all the work you pour into this place, you sure get a lot more out of it. you and that john deere tractor... so versatile, you can keep dreaming up projects all the way home. it's a longer drive. but just like a john deere, it's worth it. nothing runs like a deere. now you can own a 1e sub-compact tractor

for just $99 a month. learn more at your john deere dealer.

poet pete welcome back. even with trump in the white house. there is no love loss between the justice department and the house judiciary committee. our own ed henry is here to tell us all about the latest controversy. ed? >> pressure is building because failed to meet the deadline. 1.2 million documents related to three big cases involving the fbi and doj.

hillary clinton email probe. fisa abuse in terms of spying on the trump campaign and details of the fbi's interrible investigation to fire number two andrew mccabe. frustration continues to build about sessions amongst some of the president's supporters because, remember, this subpoena came in two his department from a fellow republican. the house judiciary chairman bob goodlatte who want a second special counsel to probe all of these matters. goodlatte says he was left with no but to subpoena because he had gotten only a fraction of the clinton probe documents he had requested and basically nothing. completely shut out of potential fisa abuses. goodlatte wrote to the deputy attorney general given the department's ongoing delays in producing thee documentation i'm let with no choice but to issue the enclosed subpoena to compel production of these documents. now, in his defense, the fbi director christopher wray has said he has more than two dozen fbi staffers trying to help the justice department provide these documents of what he calls a rolling basis about every 10 days to two weeks.

other house republicans mark meadows and jim jordan are raising questions about whether the fbi and the justin department are really serious about cooperating. noting this exchange that they have uncovered between fbi employees about what gets redacted before the records are even sent to capitol hill. one fbi employee says in this exchange, quote, are you sure you want me to keep you redacted for the congressional production in the second fbi employee responds is that an option? the first one adds with a smiley face emogi quote you will be redacted that kind of slow walking may help explain why kim strossel today wrote in the "wall street journal" that house intel chairman devin nunes issued a subpoena way back in august 2017 for justice and the fbi to turn over documents that might show how central that an anti-trump dossier was to the trump russia collusion investigation how it all started. guess what, nunes, months later is still waiting. pete? >> pete: ed, thanks. a lot there. let's bring in a member of the house judiciary committee ron desantis, a republican from florida who joins us from naples tonight

who is also running for governor in the fine state of florida. thank you for being here. i appreciate it? >> thanks, pete. your chairman is not satisfied with the speed or volume that the doj produce you had. as a member of this any tonight where are we on weather they need to produce documents. >> they are dragging their feats. they have been doing this for a long time. devin nunes on the intel committee. here's the thing, pete if you were the subject of civil enforcement and they were subpoenaing documents to you, you would not be able to get away with these excuses if you were a private business. you would have to produce the stuff doesn't work the forecast has a different set of rules. the question is are we going to put the might of our institution behind these subpoenas and enforce them. you remember, when the irs was dragging its feet we

held lois learner contempt but didn't physical through with it we have certain tools at our disposal. we can use the power of the purse and hold officials in contempt. if they're still incals trant we can impeach civiles officers. we have to be willing to do that. otherwise any will run out the clock on this stuff. >> pete: have you representatives, political appointees in these departments appointed by president trump. i actually had the opportunity about an hour ago to speak to a senior doj official involved in these matters they point out a couple i will of things, this is the first week since they have doubled the amount of agents. they are trying to put the pedal to the meddle. they also note thood thousand pages will be your committee on monday. just sent a letter to devin nunes saying they are going to acome indicate his request for other members outside the committee to review the fisa application. if more people can see those fisa applications and more documents are being produced, do you feel like you could get to a place where doj is acting in good

faith. they're just haven't had the resources to do it? >> here is why i'm skeptical of that i hope that's right and the american people get what they are entitled to. remember what nunes has been trying to get. he has been trying to get those initial documents about how this whole russia co-collusion with trump campaign narrative started from the fbi. they won't give that to him. that's not a million documents. that's the something there is probably one piece of paper that officially opened this investigation. he has been asking for months. the last six to eight months has been one of continually frustrating congress' prerogative to get these answers to the american people. >> pete: get us under the hood we hear last minute from the doj we are not going to meet the deadline that day that moment. are you at least hearing days weeks before, hey,

guys, this is not a deadline we are going to meet. we want to produce these documents. is that communication happening or is it truly mostly quiet and then you find out not going to happen yet, we need more time? >> i think think it's mostly quiet, there are instances where nunes has engaged with rosenstein or wray or goodlatte. it's important to point out sessions may be it wanting to do the right thing. the people actually on the ground there are part of the permanent bureaucracy. and they talked about that kind of cute exchange where they are just like we are going to redact, this almost joking about it. that type of attitude i think makes it very difficult to get this stuff done in a timely fashion. >> pete: your concern is nowft the rank and file necessarily at the fbi or doj. the attorney general or wray or others who may be. it's that middle layer that has the ability to slow walk it or throw a wrench in the gears and top the process.

is this a deep state or something to really hide it? >> well, i just think at the end of the day bureaucracies tend to protect themselves. just justity instinct of it. you have a lot of people there who are dealing with this. they were not appointed by donald trump. they are kind of career folk, so i think that's the instincts to protect the agency and with hole hand exot not hurting as much. that's the instinct we see time and time again. we have uncovered so much already with so many questions and i just think this posture that they have taken doesn't suit the interest of the american people at all. we need a full accounting of how all of this stuff happened. >> pete: absolutely. part of that full account something you what the inspector general is doing at doj. any updates on when we might get a report michael horowitz his investigation which a lot of people think is going to expose a great

deal of things behind the scenes. >> he started in january of 2017 we thought by the end of the year. that didn't happen. then we set february that didn't happen. mash, now april. i think we need to get it here is what is important. there will be some interesting, important stuff in there. the fate of people like peter strzok, the notoriously anti-trump eight that talked about preventing donald trump from being elected with an insurance policy. lisa page, his lover. i think their fates are tied to that ig report and i don't think that the fbi or justice is going to move to fire them until that report comes in. because they want that to be the junction. a lot of my constituents say why are these people still there? i would like to he so them move out too. once the report mits that could be out factor that leads to them being. >> pete: thank you for your time we appreciate it? >> thank you. >> pete: we will circle back to previous segment. hopefully you stuck with us about whether california

should succeed from the union. joining us now via skype. we hope the connection is solid is marcus louise evans the president of yes california. the group advocating for the golden state. i will posit out last thing i did unhappy with standard of state and standard of living u whatever it is, conservatives and i wants from us strafted with the poem of california. is the at this point we want out? >> yeah. i think it is for californians and for americans u reuters did a poll in january of 2017. it showed 47.5. 47.5% in california were not, quote, not opposed to having a discussion about the session. 32% were for it, larger percent said let's do it. let's talk about this. then when you look at rasmussen did a pal a poll in

february 2017. 41% of republicans said go ahead and take off, won't bother us nut slightest. 32% of americans said they, again, don't let the door hit you on the way out. those apostles were taken before the sanctuary battle. they were tea party before sessions you can't succeed. we had half of the californians open to the idea of talking about succession. 41% of the control the government and one third in general are saying i'm open to this. this is the four difficulties that we have been in now. do that poll again now. >> is this a reflection that you believe california have irreconcilable a divorce is necessary at this point? >> yes. i mean, obviously, whrve you whr you talk to anybody, they will say it's very clear that california and america are in war, a battle, there

is this constant legislative balloting. i agree with jeff sessions on this pun point. very specifically. this is not a stable way to govern. constant battling, lawsuits, challengechallenges in court yoe the noobility to actually policies saying anything do you i'm going to do the opposite. that is highly unstable for any government. >> pete: you can't run a united states of america, a republic when an entire state is flaunting federal law law. we're not going to follow testimony. at some appointment that all brakes down. what's the paste to something like, this beeskly, path to something like this actually hang? >> it's very simple. a lot of people think crazy simply because they don't know the laws. here in california we can file a issu initiative on wide variety of things. we filed saying we want you had tout a put no front of californians. approved by multiple

california attorneys'. we can have them take a vote do the majority. nument thing you have to be given to lead. equity success rears sts white house. after the a civil war u that set if you get consent of the state, you can leave. full-time live we think that america will let us go. i mean, watch fox news. watch tv. see how conservatives are talking about it. >> pete: at the same time, it's the sixth largest economy in the world as well and while there might be massive differences, that would be one heck of a ballot show down. i know there is likely a ballot show down in 2020 as well about california taking it to another state. this would be the whole another level. wheelingth case for collect. appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you. >> pete: you gout it well, president trump thought backing down when it comes to china. we'll tell you how he is

helping american workers on this show down coming up next.

this is being done in the name of growing the american economy. at a much faster rate than in previous decades. it's hart par part of the whole package of taxation and regulations. trade world, have you got to play by the rules. if you change this, if china comes on board and joins the rest of the world, right? if they do that, everyone will benefit. >> pete: joining us now for reaction to that and the entire debate is gordon cheng, expert on china and author of nuclear show down, north korea takes on the world. and tori witting, a trade economist at the heritage foundation. thank you both for joining us tonight. tori, you join us from washington. gordon, you join us in studio. thank you for your time. start with you, gordon, they make the argument you can't have free trade while china benefits from unfair trade practices. if you don't take this moment north show down. are they taking the right stance in the trump administration right now. >> i think they absolutely are because we now do have, as you point out, pete, a trade outlaw at the center

of global commerce. they have been gamennin gaming e system and threatening the entire world trade organization global architecture. the problem is the chinese have been stealing intellectual property from the united states somewhere between 225 to $600 billion a year. they are leaving the trump administration no choice. yes, no one likes tariffs. no one likes trade friction. no one likes industrial policy. but in an innovation economy, if you can't protect innovation, you don't have an economy. >> pete: absolutely. tori, you know, if state run companies are benefiting from intellectual theft. and selective -- and world trade organization. china a developing nation and as a result gets preferential treatment, is america supposed to you play on playing field. >> listen, i honestly do not think that tariffs are the right way to go. you know, gordon makes an interesting point there that you know, the trump administration or that china is the one that's possibly

going to be ruining the world trade system. the united states is going against the world trade organization and doing unilateral. instead of using the organization we have in place to enforce the rules. there is history that actually backs this um. in every case that has been litigate i had between the united states and china, at the wto, the united states has won. and nine of those 10 cases china has actually changed its behavior and usdr has validated the fact that china has changed behavior. >> pete: gordon shaking his head is that true? should we afeet wto. >> facts are true. but the story is if we have this perfect record at the wto against china, and china is becoming more mercantileless which they have been for the last seven or eight years. the wto is not the answer. the real problem here, pete, the dispute mechanic

michelle at the wto actually encourages trade violations because there is no penalty until there is adverse decision. what china has done is done violative acts. wait five or six years or whatever and then when there is adverse decision against them, they take it off but then they start something else, which is actually vialive and they have been gaming the system. >> pete: i'm being told if president trump takes these actions, massive industries in the midwest and elsewhere are going to be undercut. this trade war is going to hurt american workers ultimately. what's your take on that? >> that's completely overblown. you hear this for instance so i bonsoybean farmers are not going to be able to sell their products. that's not true. if they weren't able to buy from u.s. they would have to buy from brazil. brazil has only so many soybeans which means they can't sell to their traditional customers. american soybean customers

will sell to purdue's customers. the same thing with regard to boeing craft. people say walmart will not have anything to sell. we will buy from bangladesh, mexico, divawt, whatever, they will be the subdecision. china will be hurt if we put tariffs on them. these arguments about tariffs don't really work when you think about the way the global system operates u. >> pete: tori, gordon is arguing that the frequent finds way and without this brinksmanship and show down and threat of terrorists they will never back down and play on slanted field as i said before state-run companies are able to game the system against companies here that have to play by the rules. >> listen, here's the thing. i'm not arguing that china is thought a problem. they absolutely are violating the international trading system and it is up to the united states as well as our international allies to are obeying the rules to hold china accountable.

i'm saying not the way. >> trade deficit. they have been completely ineffect actual. don't you like at least the fact that this president has made changing that dynamic a priority? >> listen, the trade deficit is a really poor measure for evaluating the health of an economy. the united states is doing great. the administration has really done a great job at lowering taxes and lowering regulations to make this a great place to do business. tariffs are going to increase costs. and we have seen this in the past. in 2002, president bush imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum products and the united states lost 200,000 jobs in one year because of higher steel prices. >> pete: china wants to throw its weight around militarily, economically, dolls a show down like this change the mind set of a permanent present now in china seeking to be a

dictator who wants more power regionally and globally. is this the kind of show down we need to have to check the power of china. >> we absolutely do. we have had succession of american presidents who have warned china on various dangerous conduct on the part of beijing. we never carry through. we have taught the chinese to ignore our warnings. now we have a president who means what he says. he shows flashes of political will. i hope he carries through. this exceedingly dangerous not only for the united states but for the world as well. we need the chinese to act responsibly. our peal policies up to now have completely failed to do that. we have emboldened the worst aspects in beijing by allowing them to do what they want. >> brian: xi jinping has a dream. thank you for informative discussion on a friday night. appreciate it. all right. coming up next. michelle obama resorts to a parenting met for to compare the trumps and obama

president. think candy and carrots. except she gets everything upside down. we'll explain a little bit more next.

>> pete: welcome back. leave to to michelle obama masters course in con dessending remarks. former first lady spoke at a conference in boston where she compared the trump's presidency to her husband's listen. >> the eight years that barack was president, it was sort of like having the the good parent at home. the one that told to you eat your carrots and go to bed on time. and now perhaps we have the other parent. maybe it feels fun to some for now because we can eat candy all day and stay up late. and not follow the rules. >> pete: well, excuse me, but the only person who is actually forcing america and the world to eat their carrots is president trump. and he is doing that while

cleaning up the absolute mess left behind at home and abroad by the obama administration. joining us now with reaction, fox news political analyst janel caldwell along with ethan. gentleman, thanks to both of you us for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> pete: johtalk to me about this analogy. break it down for me here. >> you know what? michelle obama is a very educated and intellectual woman and to remind her and our audience of comments that she has made in the past when they go low, we go high. and with that positive reinforcement that she has mentioned before. she should also recognize the fact that there is many people throughout this country who felt angst throughout the obama administration because of their own conditions. when we think about president trump, you may not agree with his approach to things, but he is looking to accomplish the commitment that he made during the

campaign. certainly there are things that have happened. deregulation has happened which has cause dollars the economy to grow. we will probably see 3% or 4% growth this year there is a lot of benefits to what president trump is doing. again, you may not agree with his approach. you may not like what he say, but there are some things going on. that's something we have to keep in consideration. lastly, michelle obama, president obama, they worked very hard for hillary clinton. so we also have to keep in mind that there may be some hurt feelings there. >> pete: maybe just a little bit. ethan i will acknowledge would ail parent differently. some are the quiet disciplinarians, others are the yellers. some let the kids free range parent. there is a lot of different approaches here. this particular analogy to assume it was the obamas that were the responsible ones providing carrots and trumps out of control reckless letting everybody to stay up at night. tell that to north korea who is at the table or iran in fear of deal being scrapped. they are taking a different

approach. can't that be acknowledged. >> we can go kicking off the campaign included calling mexicans rapist among other things and starting a muslim ban. let's go to the white house where we have had massive turnover, people last 10 or 11 days in the white house. we have scott pruitt embroiled in yet another massive scandal related to travel and security along with tom price and some others. that would be the bad parent side of things here. >> pete: but this president was sent to washington to sheikh it up, to take a different approach. maybe to do what he said he was going to do. when parents parent we want your word to mean something. >> previous presidents have said time and time again. for example we are going to move the tel aviv to jerusalem. is that seems too difficult. president trump secretary of defense no i'm going to do it. like i said i would crush identifies and i'm going to do it. like you shouldn't be on your parent's health insurance forever. that seems to me something a

responsible parent wouldn't do. can't give him an inch and acknowledge that maybe he has brought adult perspective from a world that was unhinged after the obama presidency? >> very little. what i have to add about that. if you are talking about parents and kids being on heck. talking about cutting a trillion dollars from medicaid and medicare now and abandoning people so they can't get healthcare. that's not a good parents that's a bad parent that dots that doesn't ensure that irving has full access to healthcare and repeal and key components i have obamacare without having a replacement in place. that's not a good parent that's a bat parent for me. >> you brought up, i didn't. >> you are saying he wants to get rid of medicare and medicaid. >> that's coming out because of the tax cuts. >> what we have to keep in mind president trump was elected to do a number of different things u what you

consider -- the american people completely until we displee with you, ethan, they posed for him to do that. what can i conceit is everything that president trump does or says. that's something we can agree on. when it comes to using his parent analogy, i think this was inappropriate use of the first lady's time. can you debate on policy. you can debate on his words and tweets. i think that's all appropriate and fair game. when we are talking about the president of the united states, i think that we should live by the george bush standard which is he didn't criticize his predecessor. so he didn't criticize president obama. let's allow politics to be as they are and allow us pundits to get on television and debate this issue and keep the energy high. >> when you are impugning the motives you may have policy differences. by saying good parent, bad

parent. you are asylvesterring like did you at the dipping of your answer, can we not just disagree and acknowledge that president trump has pursued a policy platform he thinks is better for america? >> i think that's part of it, pete. but you can't refute the idea that by bringing out these bad parts in people focusing on the other mexicans, muslim ban, 57% increase in anti-jewish crimes in the united states last year. i have been the -- many of those attacks. brought out in people. >> you are accusing president trump of antisemitism. >> it happened under his watch when he is making accusations pointing out all out differences in these dinner minority groups and saying negative things about them and then saying they were good people on both sides in charlottesville, protest? yes. negative things about israel? i'm misting something here. >> now you are equating

israel and judaism. that's a false comparison. take your pick. >> you said israel. i saturday minimum when it comes t to theys israel has a right to defend itself. the at right in the imlat and jews across the media. what has happened to a number of mexicans that i know and people like dhaka recipients. what's not good. >> i think you are equating something that could happen under any administration with president trump. i think that's unfair criticism. >> pete: i think we are going to have to leave it right there. thanks a lot. you guys still have an evening in front of you. i'm jealous on a friday night from california. [laughter] president trump takes direct aim ought vladimir putin want inner circle. will the left finally give him credit for being tougher on russia that obama ever was.

>> pete: just a few weeks ago in the aftermath of a nerve agent attack, the target of a former russian spy in the u.k. this is practically all we heard from democrats and critics of president trump. listen. >> why on earth does donald trump not call out the russians, they are attacking our allies. they are attacking our allies and he is looking the other way. that is a disgrace.

>> max boot, one of the president's fiercest critics. the president did this instead. >> the trump administration is expelling 60 russian diplomats in response to the poisoning of a former russian double agent and his daughter in england. >> pete: that wasn't enough. democrats have also been relentless in making this demand. >> putin will cooperate for two reasons. one is it's because it's in his interest or because you are taking tough actions against him like going after the oligarchs on whom he is so reliant which trump won't do. >> pete: someone was listening. so what did president trump do today? >> we do have some breaking news to bring you right now. the trump administration is imposing new sanctions on russian oligarchs and government officials. >> pete: oh, cnn. don't expect to stop hearing this from the president's critics. >> there is still the question why president trump has not taken a more aggressive public stance against vladimir putin. the president has not publicly said anything.

>> pete: there are always still questions. will president trump ever get credit for cracking down harder on russia than president obama ever did? joining us now with reaction to steven cohen professor of russian studies at new york university. mr. professor, thank you for being here, i appreciate it i will ask you that question. will this president ever get credit for cracking down on russia? >> well, they keep telling him to get tougher and they keep moving the goal post and the end zone is war. >> pete: his critics are saying get tougher. when he does get tough they say that's not enough and ultimately you are saying if you went that tough it leads us somewhere? >> well, i mean, if you want to ask me whether trump has been tougher than obama on russia, if we quantity phi it, the answer is probably yes, he has expelled more diplomats. he has leveled more sanctions. >> pete: he would like to expel democrats if he could. >> here's the problem. you and i, have you got a family i'm guessing. >> pete: um-huh. >> we are in danger. i would say the gravest danger in regard to russia

since the missile crisis. we are in a new cold war. it's not a joke. it's much more dangerous than the last. we're in eyeball to eyeball military confrontation, ukraine, baltics and syria. >> pete: sure. sent weapons to ukraine as well. >> stop and think, i'm older than you so i remember this vividly. throughout my lifetime, every american president, democrat or republican, has been empowered to deal with the leader in the kremlin to keep us out of war and prevent nuclear war. >> pete: maintain a relationship? >> right. >> righby the way the three presidents who did that the most republicans eisenhower, nixon and reagan. trump senses we're in grave danger with russia. there is no question about it he wants to talk to putin with international terrorism and nuclear arms race. if he picks up the phone and calls and says let's talk, his critics will say it's treason. so, well, it's not funny. >> no we are in danger and we have always looked to the

president. i didn't vote for trump. i opposed some of his policies. but his statement that it's essential to cooperate with russia is the truth. and every american should support that and not attack him for trying to do it because he is our safety wall between disaster. >> pete: you are saying it's a smart move personally tougher. we have to leave it right there unfortunately. in these moments you need wisdom and that's exactly what we need to navigate this tough course. professor, thank you very much for your time. we have got more for you. we'll be righwe'll be right bac.

you can follow me on twitter as well. it's been a pleasure filling in

for laura who will be back monday night. shannon bream is back. good night from new york. >> shannon: hello. i'm shannon bream in washington. wall street in many in d.c. are telling the trump administration that they're being reckless with china. many of the same critics saying the president isn't being tough enough with russia even after a new round of sanctions directed at vladimir putin's inner circle. we're taking a look at the president's policies on both fronts. julian turner looking at the