we hope you have a great weekend. see you monday. laura ingraham will be back on monday as well. have a great weekend a. >> good evening. i'm pete. this is the ingraham angle. laura is going to be back on monday. it's a big news night. we got you covered from coast to coast. president trump today making a bold move against russia. but will the left ever give him credit? we'll have a h debate about tha. plus, michelle obama took a cheap shot at president trump. is a she planning her own white house run? the department of justice is accused of slow walking documents regarding the hillaryh clinton e-mail to the whitein house. what do they have to hide? first, democrats plotting tohi

defy our commander-in-chief. president trump sending up to 4,000 troops to the border. some democrat governors say they will refuse to allow their troops to take part. >> in the wake of president trump's decision to dispatch national guard troops, the pentagon is creating a cell of their own. the mission? backing up border patrol agents. >> wee are looking at how we can best provide the support to the department of homeland security. it will be consistent with law. no problem. >> but don't let that mission statement fool you. the new cell has a role to play. it will serve as a liaison making sure they are there 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

>> watching monitors and cameras. the backroom activities. we used them previously to repair roads and vehicles, intelligence and analysis for intelligence and aviation is a big part of what we hope they bring. >> the cell will conduct reconnaissance on the ground and in the air. but with the now new order signed for 4,000 national guardsmen at the border, things are getting sticky at the state level. some u.s. governors are supporting the move. arizona tweeted he will send 150 guard troops and texas is stepping untiles. they committed to deploying 250 troops within the next 72 hours. governor abbott said the plan,or quote, reinforces texas 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's been no planning, absolutely no collaboration with the states. just something that the president reeled off to distract from the problems he's having in washington d.c. >> in polarized times when it seems likely we are going to a political breakdown, i console myself with the words of abraham lincoln. america will never be destroyed from the outside. >> it'sta oregon, montana, nevaa have indicated they don't want to participate. any sense that any other democratic governors will join this new form of resistance, we are not sending troops down to the border wall? >> it's possible. california surprisingly seems to have remained teetering on the

edge. they haven't registered their discontent with the plan. if they went in president trump's direction, it's possible we see other democratic governors. >> if you go along with the trump a administration and you e a democratic governor you arey complicit. thank you. m joining me now for reaction is dan, a republican running for congress in a border district in texas, texas second district. it's a decorated former navy seal. and we have allen ore. commander, i will start with you. you have a situation where the president sees a national security threat based on the status of what's happening on the border. congress won't deliver on. funding a wall. we know there are limitations, but is this an important step and will it help stem the tide? >> he's holding his promise to

the american people. it will have to be enforced by national guard. we have a history of this in texas and we have been footing the bill. we realize this is a national security issue. we spend our own money to actually put department of public safety troops p on the ground to help enforce lawwe enforcement. we put national guardsman on the ground to help with drug operations. it's time for the federal government to help out. >> so dan just mentioned the department of public safety inn texas.s. based on their traffics from 2011 to 2012, over 245,000 criminal illegals have been arrest in texas alone. over 1,000 homicides, 77,000 arrests, assault arrests, 78,000 drug arrests, 70,000 sexual assault arrests.

yet, based on some of the commentary, there isn't a crisis at our border. would you acknowledge that we do not have our hand around the border and now is the time to a address it? >> there are ways to address the immigration crisis. an individual wall and human wall is not the best way to address it. it's been 12 months into his administration. after this last fall of congress which there is a daca deal, nowa we want to deploy people. it sounds that texas has it under control for the state of texas. federalism and what the national guard is in place to do. states have to drop what they do. why should the federal government step in? >> why not now? is immigration not a federal issue? texas may have stepped up to do its part. but this is something that affects all of us. what the federal government

should doing now, i ask why not now if we haven't stemmed the tide? >> there is no way to put humans in the way of standing in danger. when you think about them, they are part of the community,ch firemen, police officers and teachers, they keep them safe. you are removing people from communities and putting them at the border for a threat that doesn't exist for one reason. there is no caravan. > again, the threat that doesn't exist. dan, i will go to you as well. i rattled off the statistics, 245,000 criminal illegals from 2011 to 2018 arrested in texas alone. over 10,000 for weapons. he says, allen says no threat here. humans can't do it. if not humans and not a wall, how do we get our hand around this? is it not a security issue? >> he did say one thing that was

correct, we waited too long. we should have done this before. we should have done this a long time ago. it has been done by obama in 2010 and bush in 2006. he's right, we waited to long. it's a dangerous border. you can't say that the threat doesn't exist and saying it's dangerous. what the national guard is going to do is be the eyes and ears for the law enforcement. it's a role we need in texas. the department of public safety here in texas knows very well o that we don't have the manpower to man every single inch of this border. this is extremely helpful and wn welcome the help. it is a federal issue. this is an international border. to say that the states have the resources to do is wrong, it's not true. texans are tired of footing the bill. >> as dan said, if you don't have people there, then you got

to have a wall. if you don't want to send the people there, allen, you don't believe the national guard serves a function there, which could be a legitimate argument, wouldn't you say it's time for a border wall? we have to do something. >> absolutely touch do something. and the ways to stem the problem is to look at technology. if people are just there to look and observe, that's something we do with iphones, cameras, something we can do with trip wires. there is no n need to have a hun person to look and watch what happens. >> iphones and trip wires are not a wall. they are not a beautiful 30-foot border wall that is an obstacle that keeps people from coming across the border. >> if you understand what the national guard can do, you hear the plan that doesn't exist as the governor of oregon said,

these individuals are not allowed to detain people so, o therefore, they are only there to be in the background. >> we need them to be the eyes and ears for law enforcement. >> obstacle without oversight is not effective. you have both layers. >> it isn't wrong we also need electronic surveillance to bolster this effort. it's a combination of both. with any operation, to say this operation wasn't planned or there is no planning, no talk about it, of course there is. we want to stop people from crossing a a border. you need electronic surveillance, people on the ground and law enforcement in conjunction with that to arrest and detain. >> secretary basically said they were coming up with a plan that would be inenforcement that would comply, so there can't be a plan. if there was a plan, we would have seen that. >> ofee course, the pentagon is

going to present a plan for this. at least we can agree we need ar border wall, right? >> no, we don't need a border wall. >> we can agree on that. there's aha temporary solution. >>lu because congress cannot get out of their own way. i'm running for congress. >> you got it. we need more navy seals in congress. the midterms are seven months away. we can expectt people to campain about the border. as for the democrats, several candidates are calling for the abolition of i.c.e. don't believe me? randy bryce who is challenging paul ryan just told the truth and told news week, quote, i think i.c.e. should be abolished and which agency could house immigration and customs enforcement, end quote. joining me is david ward, a former i.c.e. agent who worked on the border.

thank you for your time. democrats are clinging to the idea that getting rid of i.c.e. is going to get rid of this problem for us. what do you say to that? >> w we win in a great country where people can run for a seat and made a statement like he did to abolish i.c.e., who does he expect to work in the interior of the united states to go after criminal aliens who have alluded police departments? >> maybe no one. isn't this indicative of we want a borderless world? >> the democrats will not be happy until immigration is completely abolished, there is no border, people come and go as they wish in the united states. let me tell you something about this mr. bryce, if you are listening. i.c.e. agents arrested over 38,000 criminall aliens. you made a statement that we are out there arresting children and

families. i.c.e. is going specifically for particular targets that arear criminal aliens, have warrants for arrest, came into the united states after reentry after deportation. that's who has been targeted. over 2200-pound of fentanyl has been seized by i.c.e. >> the drug problem, gang problem, violence problem all very real. it's not just this one congressional candidate. you have one in wisconsin, indiana, new york. this is in the bloodstream of the democratic party. >> the progressive talking points that arem. doing this. they want this entire country to be a sanctuary for the world's problems. look at what happened on 9/11. it was immigrants that did that. they brought down the towers. since then they haveit been

killing americans. >> we talk about the border, that's where so much of the problem emanates from. but as far as i.c.e.eo goes, the people could here legally and decide not to go back. >> 50% of your illegal alien upon location are people that violatehe the visa. immigration is the achilles heel of this country. if we don't go after the illegal aliens, we are going to have a serious problem within a short period of time. >> they say, well, i.c.e. has only been around for 15 years. it's's a short-term agency. the talking points of the left are saying it's something new. >> 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 i.c.e. became immigration special agents. that's the only difference was d the name. they go through the same school, they enforce title 8. i like to know who he thinks will enforce title 8. all the agents learn how to enforce it. >> he's counting on self-deportation. they mock the idea until their premise is built on it. you say focus targets is what i.c.e. is about. >> look, we only have 20,000, at most, i.c.e. agents throughout the united states. we have 11 million people we might be looking for. that's a small number. we have to concentrate on the most effective use of our manpower, going after the criminal aliens that are causing harm in the neighborhoods. >> thank you for your time and service to the country.

the state that has over 2 million immigrants is california. it has voiced its opposition more than any other state. our next guest wants california to secede from the united states. he's advocating for the independence from america. a casual viewer is going to say that sounds pretty radical. i may not like those sanctuary states, i don't like them telling me coffee is bad for me. but seceding, does that make sense? do we have you? you got me? we may have lost marcus. we'll try to get him. he was on skype. an interesting idea for those in california that are fed up with the fact that the federal government seems to be ignored

by official there is who prefer to live in sanctuary states and cities. an interesting idea for a cal exit. we'll try to get marcus back. the justice department missed a deadline to hand over documents to congress about the hillary clinton e-mail case. we'll tell you what that's all about directly ahead on the ingraham angle.

>> welcome back. even with trump in the white house, there is no love lost between the justice department and house judiciary committee. ed is here to tell us about the latest controversy. >> pressure is building on jeff sessions. the justice department failed to meet a deadline giving them

1.2 million documents. in terms of spying on the trump campaign and details of the internal recommendation. frustration continues to build about sessions. the subpoena came in to his department from a fellow republican. he wants a second special counsel to probe these matters. he was left with no choice but to issue that march 22 subpoena because he had gotten only a fraction of the e-mail probe documents he requested and nothing, completely shut out. so the deputy attorney general, given the department's ongoing delays in producing the documents, i'm left with noct choice but to issue the subpoena. in hisse department, the fbi director said he has more than two dozen fbi staffers try to provide the documents.

but other house republicans are raising questions about whether the fbi and justice department are serious about cooperating,pe noting this exchange that they have uncovered between fbi employees about what gets redacted before the records are sent to capitol hill. one employee says are you sure you want me to keep you redacted forr the congressional record? you will be redacted. it might supply why kim wrote in the wall street journal that house chairman deven nunes asked for the documents. guess what, nunes is still waiting. >> thanks. a lot there. let's bring in a member of the house judiciary committee. he's unfor governor in the fine

state of florida. thanks for being here. i know your chairman is not satisfied with the volume or speed d.o.j. has produced. where are we on their ability to produce documents that you need to see? >> they are dragging their feet. not only with the judiciary committee, but with deven nunes on the intel committee. if you were the subject of a justice department civil enforcement action and they were subpoenaing documents from you, you would not be able to get away with these excuses. you have to produce the stuff. it doesn't work that the government has a different set of rules. the question is, are we going to actually put the might of our institution behind these subpoenas and enforce them. you remember when the i.r.s. was dragging its feet, we held them in contempt. guys like me tried to impeach the i.r.s. commissioner for

stone walling, it didn't get through congress. so we have certain tools at our disposal, we can use the power of the purse, hold officials in contempt and we can impeach these civil officers. we have to be willing to do that, otherwise they will try to run out the clock on a lot of this stuff. >> you have civil officers and representatives appointed by president trump. i had the opportunity about an hour ago to speak to a senior d.o.j. official, they point out a couple of things. this is the first week since d they doubled the amount of agents. they are trying to produce them. another thousand pages will be delivered for your committee byp monday. and that they just sent a letter to deven nunes saying they are going to accommodate the request for other members outside the committee to review the application. if more people can set application and more documents are being produced, you feel like you can get to a place

whereoo d.o.j. is acting in good faith, they just haven't had the resources to do it? >> here's why i'm skeptical. i hope that's right. i hope the american people get what they are entitled to. nunes has been trying to get those initial documents about how this whole russia collusion with trump's campaign started from the fbi. they wouldn't give them to him. that's not a million documents. there is one piece of paper that opened thiss investigation. he's been asking for that for months. i hope they are turning over a new leaf. the last six to eight months has been o one of continually frustrating congress' prerogative to get these answers to the american people. > take us under the hood a little bit. it seems like we hear at the last minute from the d.o.j. we are not going to meet the deadline. are you hearing this is not a

deadline we are going to meet, we are working as hard as we can, we want to produce these documents. is this something you hear or is it mostly quiet? >> it's mostly quiet. there are instances where nunes is engaged with rosenstein, but it's important to point out, sessions may be wanting to do the right thing. some of these guys may be. the people are on the ground are a part of the permanent bureaucracy. they talked about that cute exchange, we are going to redact this. and that type of attitude makes it difficult to get this stuff done in a timely fashion. >> your concern is not the rank and file necessarily at the fbi or d.o.j. or the attorney general or ray or others who may be trying, it's that middle layer that has the ability to slow walk it or to throw a wrench into gears and stop the process. it's a deep state accusation or

bureau accurate? or is it something they are really hiding? >> i think at the end of the day bureaucracies tend to protect themselves. that's the instinct. you have a lot of people there p who are dealing with this. they were not appointed by donald trump. they are career folks. that's the instinct to protect the agency to withhold and not produce as much. i'm not even says it's for nefarious reasons. that's the instinct we see time and time again. we have uncovered so much already with so many questions. i just think this posture they have taken doesn't suit the interests of the american people as all. we need a full accounting of how all of this stuff happened. >> absolutely. a part of that full accounting is what the inspector general is doing at d.o.j. any updates on when we might get aic report on michael horowitz, his investigation, which a lot of people think might expose a

lot of things behind the scene? >> we thought january of '17, then february, march, april. i don't know. we need to get it. it's important. i think there will be some interesting stuff in there, important stuff. but i think the fate of people like peter struck, the anti-trump aagain that talked about preventing trump from being elected, their fates are tied to that ig report. i don't think the fbi or department of justice is going to move to fire them. why are these people still there, i would like to see them moved out, too. once that report hits, that could probably be the factor that leads for them to be terminated. >> very interesting moment. thanks for your time this evening, we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> now we are going to circle back to our previous segment. hopefully you stick with us whether california should secede

from the union. joining us is marcus, the same question to you. unhappy with sanctuary state, unhappy with standard of living, even unhappy telling us coffee is bad with us. is the option at this point to say we want out? >> yeah, i think it is for california and for americans. reuters did a poll in january 2017. it showed 47.5, 47.5% of californians were, quote, not opposed to having a discussion about seceding. and then when you look at rasmussen did a poll in februarf

republicans said go ahead and take off, won't bother us in the slightest. 32% of americans said don't let the door hit you on the way out. those polls were taken before the sanctuary battle, before sessions flew to california and said you can't secede before all of this hoopla. we have half of californians open to the idea, 41% of republicans and one-third of americans saying i'm open to this. that's before the difficulties we have been inn now. we did that poll again. >> is this a reflection you believe america and california have irreconcilable differences, the priorities are so different that a divorce is necessary at this point? >> yes. i mean, obviously, whenever you talk to anybody, they are going to say it's clear that california and america are in a war, a battle, there's this

constant battling with each other. ila agree with jeff sessions on unthis one point very specifically. this is not a stable way to government constant battling, lawsuits, challenges in court. the inability to execute policies saying anything you do, i'm going to do the opposite. that is highly unstable for any government. >> you can't run a united states of america when an entire state is flaunting federal law and saying we are not going to follow it. at f some point that breaks dow. i understand the argument you are making. what is the path to something like this actually happening? >> it's very simple. a lot of people think that california is crazy because they don't know the laws. here we can file an initiative on a wide variety of things. we want to put a vote in front of californians ask if they want to leave california multiple times.

so we can have californians take a vote and do a majority want to leave america. then you have to go to congress and ask for permission to leave. a lot of people think you can't secede, that's ignorant. the state of texas, after the civil war, if you get consent, you can leave. we think america will let us know. watch fox news, see how conservatives are talking. >> it's the sixth largest economy in the world as well. while there might be massive differences, that would be a ballot showdown. there is a likely ballot showdown about california being a sanctuary state. this would take it to another level. marcus, making the case for cal exit. we'll followw how america and or relationship with california continues. appreciate your time tonight. >> thank you. >> president trump not backing town when it comes to china. we'll tell you how he's helping

american workers on this showdown, coming unnext. up next.

>> the united states and china are threatening to issue multibillion dollars tariffs and causing the dow jones industrial average to finish down over 500 points today. president trump's economic adviser, larry kudlow, says it

will make it better. >> it's part of the whole package of lower taxation and regulations. trade world, you got to play by the rules. and if you change this, if china comes on board and joins the rest of the world, right, if they do that, everyone will benefit. >> joining us for reaction to that is gordon chang, an expert on china and author of nuclear showdown, north korea takes on the world. thank you for joining us. appreciate yourr time. gordon, they are making the argument you can't have free trade while china benefits from unfair trade practices. if you don't take this moment, it's not going to work. are they taking the right stance in the trumpon administration? >> i think they absolutely are. we have a trade outlaw at the

center of commerce. they have been gaming the system and they are threatening the global architecture. the problem is the chinese have been stealing intellectual property fromta the united stat, 225 to $600 billion a year. no one like tariffs, no one likes industrial policy. but in an innovation economy, if you can't protect it, we don't have an economy. >> if state run companies areg benefiting from intellectual theft and selective tariffs, china conceded a developing nation and gets previous reference treatment,me how is america supposed to play on a level playing field? >> listen, i do not think that tariffs are the right way to go. gordon makes an interesting point there that the trump administration or china is the

one that's possibly going to be ruiningg the world trade system. the united states is going against the world trade organization and doing unilateral measures instead of using the international organizations we have in place to enforce the rules. and there is history that actually backs this up.as in every case that has been litigated between thehe united states and china, the wto, the united states has won. in nine of those ten cases, china has changed its behavior. and they have validated that. >> gordon is here shaking his head. is that true? >> the facts are true, but the story is if t we have this perft record at the wto against china and china is becoming more mercantilist, the wto is not the answer. the real problem here is that the dispute resolution mechanism

at the wto encourages trade violations because there is no penalty until there is an adverse decision. what china has done, it's done violative acts and they wait five or six years. when there is an adverse decision, they take it off, but then they start something else and they have been gaming the system. >> i'm being told if president trump takes thesese actions, massive industries in the midwest are going to be undercut. this is going to hurt american workers ultimately. what's your take on that? >> that's completely overblown. youe hear soybean farmers aren't going to be able to sell flair r products. that's not true. they have to buy from brazil. now brazil has only so many soybeans which means they can't sell to their traditional customers. american soybean customers will

sell to brazil. also, people say, well, wal-mart is not going to have anything to z we'll just buy from bangladesh, guatemala. china will be hurt if we put tariffs on them. these arguments about tariffs don't work when you think about the way the global system operates. >> gordon is arguing the global market finds a way. without the threats of tariffs, you never get them to back down. state run companies are able to gain the system against companies here that have to play by the rules. >> listen, here's the thing. i'm nott arguing that china is not a problem. they absolutely are violatingvi the international trading system and it is up to the united states as well as our international allies who are obeying the rules to hold china accountable.

>> we haven't. they have gotten worse. our trade deficit have increased. don't you like the fact that at least that this president made changing that dynamic a priority? >> listen, the trade deficit is a poor measure for evaluating the health of an economy. the united states is doing great. the administration lowered taxes and regulations. tariffs are going to increase costs. we have seen this in the past. in 2002 president bushte imposea tariff on steel and the united states lost 200,000 jobs in one year. there are consequences for tariffs. >> we see the larger macro aspect. it's a rising china that wants to throw its weight aroundmi militarily, economically. does a showdown like this change the mindset of a permanent s president now in china seeking to be a dictator who wants more

power regionally and globally. isis this the showdown we need o have? >> we do. we have. had a succession of american president whose warned china on various dangerous conduct on the part of beijing, but we never carry through. we taught the chinese to ignore our warnings. now we have a president who mean what is he a says. he shows flashes of political will. i hope he carries through. it's dangerous for the united states and world as well. we need the chinese to act reresponsibly. our policies have failed to do that. we have emboldened the worst aspects in beijing by allowing them to do what they want. >> he has a chinese dream that looks different than the american dream. thank you very much for this informative discussion on a friday night.n appreciate it. all right. coming uppr next, michelle obama resorts to a parenting metaphor to compare the trumps and obama

presidency. she gets everything upside down. we'll explain more, next.

>> welcome back. leave it to michelle obama to give a masters course in patronizing remarks. she spoke at a conference in boston where she compared the trump presidency to her husbandation. >> the eight years that barack was president, it's like having the good parent at home, eat your carrots and go to bed on time. now we have the other parent. now we can eat candy all day and stay up late and not follow the rules. >> well, excuse me. but the only person who is actually forcing america and the world w to eat their carrots is president trump. and he's doing that while

cleaning up the absolute mess left behind at home and abroad by the obama administration. joining us is jena caldwell. if candy is crushing isis, tax cuts, give me more candy. talk to me about this. break it down for me here. >> you know, michelle obama is a very educated and intellectual woman. to remind her and our audienceme of comments she's made in the past when they go low, we go high. and with that positive reinforcement she mentioned before, she should recognize there is people throughout the country who felt anxst because of their own conditions. we think about president trump, you may not agree with his approach, but he is looking to accomplish the commitments that

he made during the campaign. certainly there is some things that have happened, deregulation has happened which caused the guy grow. we'll see 3, 4% growth this year. there is a lot of benefits to what president trump is doing. you may not agree with his approach, but there are things going on them that's something that we have to keep in consideration. lastly, michelle obama, president obama, they worked hard for hillary clinton. there may be hurt feelings. >> maybe a little bit. we all parent differently. some are quiet, some are yellers. free range parent. this particular analogy to assume it was the obamas are the responsible ones providing the carrots, tell that to north korea or tell that to iran. they are taking a different

approach, can't that be acknowledged? >> we can acknowledge that kicking offis the campaign calld mexican rapists. we have turnover, people last ten, 11 days in the white house, scott in another massive scandal related to travel and security. >> the president -- that would be the bad parent side of thing. >> so but this president was sent to washington to shake it up toei take a different approa. maybe even to do what he said he was going to do. when parents parent, you want your word to mean something. previousnd presidents said we ae going to move the embassy in israel. president trump said i'm going to doo it. i don't think you should be on your parents' health insurance forever. you can't even five him an inch

and acknowledge that maybe he's brought some adult perspective to a world that was unhinged after obama presidency? >> very little.y? what i also have to add to that, if you talk about parents and kids being on healthcare, talking about cutting a trillion dollars from medicaid and medicare and abandoning people. that's not a good parent. that's a bad parent that does that, that doesn't ensure that everybody has full access to healthcare and repealing key components of obamacare. that's not a good parent. that's a bad parent. >> that's a straw man. >> you brought up healthcare, i didn't. >> you are saying he wants to get rid of medicare and medicaid. >> that's already coming up because of the tax cuts. >> so what we got to keep in mindnd is president trump was elected to do a number of different things, repeal and replace obamacare was one of

them. what you consider to be a bad parent, the american people 'tis disagree. they voted for him to do that. everything president trump does or says isn't correct. that's something we can agree on. but when i it comes to using ths parent analogy, that was an inappropriate use. you can debate on policy, his words, his tweets. but when we are talking about the president of the united states, we should live by the george bush standard, he didn't criticize his predecessor, let us debate the issues and keep the energy high. >> that's important. when you are impugning the motives of the current administration, you may have policy differences. but good parent, bad parent,

they are asserting his previous campaign statements make him a bad person. can't we disagree and acknowledge that president trump pursued a policy platform he thinks is better for america? >> i think that's part of it.'t you can't refute the idea that by bringing out these bad parts in people focusing on the other mexicans rapists, muslim ban. 50% increase in anti-jewish crimes. >> wait a minute. so the guy, you are accusing president trump oft stoking anti-seanti-semetism? >> it happened on his watch. saying they are good people on both sides? >> he said negative things about israel? i'm missing something here. >> well, now you are equating

israel and judisim. i support him that israel has a right to defend itself. but what the effect has been and what has happened to jews across the media, a number of mexicans, daca recipients. >> i think that you are equating something that could happen under the administration with president trump. that's an unfair criticism. >> we have to leave it there. thanks. you still have an evening in front of you, i'm jealous. in california. president trump takes direct aim at vladimir putin's inner circle. will the left give him credit b for being tougher on russia than obama ever was. that's next.

>> just a few weeks ago in the aftermath of a nerve agent attack, the targeted russian spy in the u.k., this is all we heard from democrats. >> why does donald trump not callous thcall out the russians?

>> while the president did this instead. administration is expelling 60 russian democrats in response to the poisoning of a former russian double agent and his daughter. >> democrats have been relentless in making this demand. >> putin will cooperate for two reasons, it's because it's in his interest or you are taking tough actions against him. >> someone was listening. what did president trump do today? >>e we do have breaking news to bring you. the trump administration is imposing new sanctions on russian ologarcs and russian officials. >> don't expect to stop hearing this from the president's critics. >> there is a question why president trump n has not takena more aggressive public stance against putin.

>> there are always still questions. president trump ever get credit for cracking down harder on russia than president obama ever did? joining us is steven cohn. thank you foror being here. appreciate it. that question, will this president ever get credit for cracking down on russia? >> t they keep telling him to gt tougher and keep moving the goal post and the z end zone is war. >> the critics. they say get tougher, and if you neat tough it, leads usth somewhere. >> if you want to ask me if trump has beenia tougher than obama, the answer is yes. expelled more diplomats, leveled more sanctions. >> he would like to expel democrats if he could. >>em here's the problem. you and i, we have a family, we are in danger. the gravest danger in regard to

russia since the cuban missile crisis. we are in a new cold war. not a joke. we are eyeball to eyeball military confrontation. >> sure. he sent weapons to ukraine. >> stop and think. i remember this. throughout my lifetime every american president, at that, de, republican, has been empowered. >> maintain a relationship. >> the three presidents who did that the most were republicans, eisenhower, nixon and reagan. trump says we are in great danger. he wants to talk about international terrorism and a new nuclear arms race. if he picks up the phone and calls and says let's talk. his critics say it's treason. it's not fun y we are in danger

and we look to the president. i didn't vote for trump, i oppose something of his policies. but his statement that it's essential to cooperate with russia is the truth. he's our safety wall. >> you are saying it's a smart move to be professionally tougherll but personally friendlier. in these moments you need wisdom. that's what we need. thank you for your time. appreciate it. we got more for you. we'll be right back.

>> test. >> test.

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. shannon bream is back. shannon: fox news @night i am shannon bream in washington. wall street is telling the trump administration to just to tough or reckless with china many of the same critics say he is being tough enough with pressure even after sanctions after the inner circle. we have team coverage and the chief national correspondent is