we're grateful it was. the tip of the iceberg on the left which has gone crazy. we'll keep you pointed on. that's it for us. stay tuned every night 8:00. have a great weekend -- great evening. >> tucker, things the weekend for you? it's not for me. >> tucker: it's only monday! i know. [laughing] sorry. >> i have a show on the weekend. it's never the weekend for me. >> tucker: exactly. >> thank you so much. welcome to hannity, i'm janine in for sean. in less than one week from tonight, president trump will announce his pick to fill the supreme court vacancy left by justice anthony kennedy. early this morning, the president met with four potential candidates and plans to pete with at least two more later this week. meanwhile, during an interview with our own maria bartoromo, president trump weighed in on

how or if roe versus wade will play a role. >> are you going to ask your nominees before hand how they might vote on voe versus wade? >> president trump: that's a big one, probably not. they're all saying you don't do that, you shouldn't do. that i'm putting conservative people on. i'm very proud of neil gorsuch, he's been outstanding. his opinions are, you know, so well written, so brilliant. i'm fog to try to do something. but i don't think i will be specific in the questions i'm asking. i'm told i shouldn't be. >> on the campaign trail you said you would leave it to the states. >> maybe some day it will be to the states, you never know how that's going to turn out. that's a complex question, the roe v. wade, is probably the one that people are talking about in terms of having an effect. but we'll see what happens. but it could well end up with states at some point.

>> joining us with more from the white house on what will be an incredibly important decision is ed henry. ed? >> judge, good to see you. what the president is doing is moving very quickly to get through the interviews, potential nominees, to the high court. he wants to get the clock ticking so it gets harder and harder for democrats to justify any obstruction, any delay beyond the mid-term elections, what they say they want to do. they want to stall this. the president is likely to get his nominee in the end because of the precedent that has been set for just a simple majority. but in that interview with maria that you mentioned, he made it clear he would not ask any candidate about roe v. wade. that is in part aimed at trying to secure yes votes from those two women. pro-choice republicans, murkowski and collins. collins already indicating this weekend she'll oppose anyone who would vote to change existing law on abortion. they are expanding the list --

they are expanding the list because of susan collins' concerns. the president runs a chance of evangelical conservatives who love that list of names. the president has narrowed the list down to about six. appellate court judges from the right, amy coney barrett, brett cavanaugh, joan larsen, deathledge and hardy man. the list is getting smaller. >> president trump: i will be meeting with two or three more. we'll make a decision on the united states supreme court, the new justice, that will be made over the next few days, we will be announcing it on monday. >> given the possible republican no votes and that john mccain hasn't been voting because of health, majority leader mitch mcconnell may need to reel in the democrats who supported justice neil gorsuch, all of

whom have tough re-election battles where the president carried it big. as for the push by more liberal democratic senators like chuck schumer who want to push it beyond the mid terms, it's interesting, four of the last eight justices who have been confirmed have been confirmed in mid-term election years. that argument by democrats is going to be difficult. >> all right, ed, thank you. and while president trump weighs his supreme court options, america's left is already acting apocalyptic. look at this. >> we first have to find ways to stop that from happening. >> find ways, what does that mean? like what? >> i'll join a million other people surrounding the united states capitol. >> take the million people to maine and go to l.l. bean and tell them in maine, you need to leave maine unless susan collins votes the right way. that's how you play hard ball.

you do it smart. you go to alaska. say all of those alaskan cruises, we'll boycott alaskan cruises. >> to go back where there's plenty of historical precedence, increase the court, putting an additional justice on for every far right justice approved. >> again, the longic doesn't matter -- logic doesn't matter. what the court looks at is precedence a. dent and there is precedent. >> one woman said she was an activist in the '60s and hadn't been active since then. when she heard about kennedy stepping down she literally got physically ill. >> the people you just saw don't even know who president trump is going to nominate. joining us now with reaction is the author of the upcoming book "why we fight" we're covering america's will to min. fox news national security sfratgist satisfy bass tan gorka, fox news contributor arry fliescher.

i want to reference that video that we saw where michael moore is calling for a million people to surround the u.s. capitol to prevent senate vote, that's what it's for, prevent the vote. now they talk about getting companies to move out of states, susan collins or lisa murkowski don't vote the way they want. the most interesting was tom rogers who talked about increasing the number of justices on the court for every conservative justice who is put on. is there, i'm going to start with you, ari, is there any kind of precedent to assume that if a conservative justice dies that only a conservative can replace him? or if a swing justice retires that we have to put a swing person in there. >> well, of course not. there isn't. here's the beauty of our system, judge, why i sleep toe well at night. the ron donald trump request put whoever he wants on the supreme court within reason, and the

senate will confirm it, the american people elected donald trump and the republican senate. if the american people had elected a democratic president and democratic senate, the democrat could have done that. these decisions are fundamentally made by the people. our system works. that's why donald trump is in this position. when the democrats talk about going to the extremes they are, million people around the capitol, michael moore said that, they're talking about subverting the system to save their version of the system. that is not democratic. that is as wrong as wrong gets. >> and dennis kucinich, democratic congressman, do you look at the democrat party today and say wait a minute, they're talking about abol jishing i.c.e., we have people actually out there opposing a nominee for the supreme court justice, when we don't even know who the person is. >> well, judge, we have to keep

in made row v. wade is a flash point, people aren't going to be silent if a new you a i pointee favors criminalizing abortion. the burger court declared a right to process under due process in the 14th amendment. anything that goes beyond that balancing and creates an imbalance will cause people to mobilize all over the country. >> so sebastian gorka, what do you say, the concept that, they're going to mobilize. it's not as though any supreme court nominee is going to get up there and say i support row v. wade, or i don't support row v. wade, i'm going to be an activist or i'm not. isn't it based on decisions that have already been written and interpretations of those? >> you're the judge, you know better than anybody. this is just scare tactics. they've been pulling this out since bourque's nomination in the 1980s. row v. wade, as you said, we

don't even know who the president is going to nominate. this is the left. they disagree with democracy when it doesn't go their way. they understand the stakes involved here, judge. if we have a cove justice and voted in by the senate we will inoculate the republic for at least a generation from the lunacy of the left. from the identity politics, the ideas that we don't need immigration policed on the border. the idea that you can give everything to everybody for free. the legislating from the bench that we've seen for years now. it will be defended in the supreme court by constitutionalists. >> -- ran for office, said he was going to put conservative justices on the supreme court bench, no one should be surprised. we're talking about heritage and the federalist society. i can't imagine that they aren't individuals who are pro-life.

i think the significant point, ari, is that when a lindsay graham gets on television yesterday and he says, i don't have a problem what your politics are, i just don't want roe v. wade to be overturned. that's interesting. >> but it is really what the senators think about their individual positions isn't at stake. the senate positions cancel each other out. it is the decisions made on the basis of facts presented in a court of law and the justices weigh in. that's the way our system should work. not a role call voement of the united states senate. it's not a role call vote. this is a litmus test in the democratic party. you heard it all the time, the democratic primaries, the democrats say i won't nominate anybody who isn't for gay marriage. isn't for abortion. it is an overt litmus test. republicans typically say they want somebody with a temperament

that is proper for the bench to hear the cases and hear them wisely. and donald trump said he'll name conservatives. so i understand the democrats have a fear that roe v. wade will be overturned and the states will decide and it will be allowed somewhere, others places won't. they act as if abortion is the only thing the supreme court does. it's the only issue democrats talk b it's broader than that. you want somebody who is a big thinker and i think that's frankly the list that donald trump has put together. >> dennis kucinich, there are two women on that list, and i know, as i said, it's almost as though this is apocalyptic right now for the left. but nominating a woman won't make a darned bit of difference will it for the left? >> well, whether it's man or woman, and i certainly would applaud president trump for considering a woman to be appointed to the court, but whatever the gender of the

person, one must be aware that we're at a time of great polarization and people are afraid that basic rights that have been constitutionally protected under the 14th amendment for example, the last 45 years, could be witt yated by a new -- vitiated by the new court. that is a concern. judge, in a larger country, we need to find ways of depot larizing this debate over abortion. and start to focus on things like prenatal care, post natal care, living wage, and shift the debate to really show that whatever your position we can appreciate it. >> dennis, wouldn't you agree that part of the problem is that the left is going crazy in the event that some one is pro-life and is appointed to the bench. i mean that's what it's about. they're making it an issue. you can say it's great, we should worry about childcare.

sebastian gorka, at the end of the day you have manchin, heidi heitkamp, joe donnely. these guys are, and lady, are in a tough spot right now. let's assume that susan collins and lisa murkowski decide, she's not pro-choice or he's not pro-choice, i'm not interested. what do you think the harm is going to be if these dems, in the trump heavy states, vote for this justice. >> well if you look at what's happening, just the last few days and weeks, politically in america, it's as if a democrat party don't understand what happened on november 8, 2016. they're doubling down. the idea that you have somebody who wants to have no borders on the soth, bloefs that we have black sites run by i.c.e., these people want to boycott cruise liners in alaska? the dems are so out of touch with america it will be very, very good for the republicans and the president come november

and come 2020. >> no question, ari, in the end the president will surely get his way, it's not like there's going to be, you know, the left is going to be able to say we want this person. president is going to nominate some one he wants. to be realistic about it, if this second justice and when this second justice is appointed, we will have a supreme court that is conservative, or conservative leaning, without a doubt, for the next generation. >> i think conservative leaning. i don't think you can say conservative yet. it's a history of the supreme court shows they have their independent mooits minds that they use. justice roberts might turn out to be more moderate than people think. we don't know. i value intellect, i value temperament as opposed to positions taken. i want to see what kinds of minds our justices have. that's the most important thing. a lot of it from the right and the left, you go too far how far

change can go. and especially for an institution like the supreme court. we'll see. >> and, dennis, with respect to the hearing itself, what do you think some of these candidates, or nominees are going through right now, meeting with the president, four have met, two more as i understand it are going to be meeting with him. how do you think they communicate to him without him asking the question, how conservative and supportive they would be? >> i think we have to take the president at his word that he hasn't asked for a litmus test. i think there will be an honest exchange. and the president will make his decision based on the interaction i would think from reports that i have heard from other people. can you get those whose names are coming up are going to be carefully scrutinized. this nomination is going to go through.

we have to keep in mind, mr. obama's nomination of garland was held up for 293 days. and never saw the light of day. the politics. >> politics are rough. but in the end, i mean, we don't have the filibuster and it's majority vote. john mccain isn't voting, if we lose the two we might lose, three may come over. last words, sebastian? >> well, to quote a certain former senator from illinois, elections have consequences. and so does the fact that now the republicans have the house and the senate and these rules are now in place. after the president and his meetings, i know exactly what is happening. the president, you know, judge, has a preepter natural capacity to read individuals very, very rapidly. he's meeting them, gets a gut instinct for who they are.

do they look at the constitution as talking about eternal truths. if he thinks that, that person is going to the top of the list. >> originalist, texualist, constitutionalist, respect precedent. thanks for being with us this evening. >> thank you. >> all right. coming up, kellyanne conway on how some prominent democrats are calling for i.c.e. to be abolished. michelle malkin and pam bondi on the left continuing to verbally attack women in the trump administration. there's little rest for a single dad, and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am.

>> welcome back to hannity. in their continued push for open borders, many elected democrats

are joining the dpar left to attack i.c.e. with? even calling for it to be abolished. take a look. >> no question that we have got to critically reexamine i.c.e. and its role and the way it's being administered and the work it is doing. we need to probably think about starting from scratch. >> i.c.e. isn't doing what it was created to do. it's being used as its own personal police force. in those actiontion it's making us less safe. >> i don't think i.c.e. today is working as intended. >> you think you should get rifd agency? >> i believe it has become a deportation force. and i think you should separate the criminal justice from the immigration issues. i think you should reexamine i.c.e. >> too aggressive and over the top, and i think it's lost its course. we should replace it with something sensible, something practical. they still have to be law enforcement agency but one that's humane. >> we need to rebuild our immigration system from top to

bottom. starting by replacing i.c.e. with something that reflects our morality. >> during his interview with maria bartoromo president trump responded to calls to end i.c.e. and issued a warning for the democrats. >> president trump: you know, i.c.e., these are the guys that go in and take ms-13 and they take them out, because they're much tougher than ms-13. by a factor of 10. and these are the ones, you get rid of i.c.e., you will have a country you are afraid to walk out of your house. i love that they're going to do that. they're seriously talking about that? because you are going to have a country that is crime ridden, the border patrol, the border patrol agent, i.c.e., these people are incredible. between maxine waters and nancy pelosi and getting rid of i.c.e. and having open borders, the biggest thing, open borders, all it does is lead to massive, massive crime.

that's going to be their mat form. open borders, which equals crime. i think they'll never win another election. >> yesterday the president tweeted, the plib ral left also known as the democrats, want to get rid of i.c.e. who do a fantastic job and want open borders. crime would be rampant and uncontrollable. make america great again. joining me now to discuss this issue, kellyanne conway. good evening, kellyanne. i have to tell you something. i just wrote it down again. when they say i.c.e. isn't doing what it was created to do, what do you thi they think i.c.e. was created to do, serve coffee and tea? >> well, that's an excellent question nobody is asking them. i think it's time to tamp down the emotion and go for the information. if you quiz most of those people including elected officials, as to why i.c.e. is created in the first place and response to 9/11, and what it is supposed to be doing. by the way, what it does do. at the white house, we're

working on that exact document, people get information. i.c.e. provides so many services that are critical to everyone's security in this country. you know when kirsten gillibrand jumping on the eye bollish i.c.e. train where she's united states senator in new york, i.c.e. has removed 40 criminal aliens in recent weeks. she's going against the security of her own peep when she calls for this nonsense. cynthia nixon, who happens to be running for governor against andrew cuomo, is saying they're a terrorist organization. no, you have it backwards, they stop terrorists, seize thousands of pounds of narcotics, department rid of child muglers, they get gang members. you are for open borders and the crime that comes with that, or for a sovereign nation that has physical borders and less crime.

let me tell you one more thing, you see this argument, now, with the democrats. you have the older senior democrats saying i don't think abollishing i.c.e. is good. you have democrats disingenuously talking about immigration reform. president trump brought them to the table for one solid hour january they wanted to talk about the dreamers and daca. they didn't want to talk about immigration reform. the president boiled this down to four points, up for vote in congress, they're being disingenerous when they say they want to do this. >> clearly, the president was willing with go with daca and they weren't. when obama was president and he had the ability and the house and the senate he didn't do anything. you know, they want to make it an issue, or so it seems, and never resolve it. so they can say republicans are against it. what i don't understand, kellyanne, it's like saying to people we don't want this police

force and immigrants should be able to come, in we don't want to know who they are, what their records are, we just, you know, don't care. do people not understand the impact -- >> you know what, janine -- >> -- on the finances. >> i think the average american does. i think americans do understand the impact on their financial security, on their everyday security. but also, you've seen hillary clinton's strategist, came out with the harvard harris poll, asked the question about abollishing i.c.e. do you know not abollishing i.c.e., keeping it as it is, gottry partisan support, public grants, democrats, and independents all agreed that abollishing i.c.e. isn't a good idea. democrats trying to outleft each other for 2020 having done nothing in 2017 or 2018 that i can point to, they're thinking about 2020. do something in 2018 that's meaningful. so they're going to, saying

abollish i.c.e. basically, instead of advise and consent they're doing obstruction and -- obstruct and distract. instead of abollish i.c.e. they should be thinking about how to protect the borders. there are a lot of democrats getting nervous about where the party is truly going. and let's see who's following them off the cliff. >> i think that, you know, when the president said in that recent interview, he said you know what, it's a great issue f they want to go forward with that, you and i know the president has great instincts, really gets it. he's an outsider president, he made it, of one said he wouldn't make it. he gets it. about the americans, in addition to the economy they want safety and security. by say being want open borders, abollish i.c.e., we want something, who said they wanted something kinder and they don't want deportation force. >> let's reimagine i.c.e., whatever that means. janine, they say they're for

open borders but none of them has the guts to go and foot the bill. they go to the protest. not in the well of the senate, in the house, introduce bills that say we're going to reimagine borders. we imagine the fact that congress made it a crime to enter the country illegally. none of them have the guts to do. that where's the piece of legislation? it's chief and easy to wave a sign and go scream into a megaphone. ifts oh harder work to come back to washington and actually do your job. and you know what, this president, he's on task every single day and he ran successfully on issues like illegal immigration, like having borders and security. and he always talks about the drugs that are pouring in also. he's on top of that as well. of all people, president obama this past weekend, president obama told the democrats, you got to do more than mope. they've gone from hope to mope.

why isn't he speaking out? other than the $400,000 speeches. we're not paying attention, we'll get borders, sovereign nation with borders. >> i want to ask you about the supreme court nominees, i'm curious, two women in the group. the group is a very small group, maybe, five, maybe seven. what do you think? >> well, don't forget the list is 25. and that's really the key. this president has been transparent from the beginning. for to years. >> we have amy barrett and joan larsen. what do you think of them? >> well, i'm not going to comment on individual jurists. everyone that the president is considering checks all of the boxes for brilliant and capable, judicial temperament, not putting their personal feelings where the constitution belongs. the law, the jou dishry interprets the laws. it does not make the laws. you have too many judges making things up as they go along.

the executive xeg expection, the legislative branch should be making them. the interpretive function is so important here. this president has said he wants academic and professional pro denshlles. i think anyone you see -- professional credentials. people of great intellect, honorable men and women. the president put out his list then he added to the list. he's so transparent and accountable, such an important decisions. i want to tell you as some one who spent time with him, he understands the gravity. nominating the supreme court is one of the most important things that any president does. >> of course, of course it is. >> all of the nominees, all of the justices on the supreme court, outlast anyone's presidency. of eight years. but in many ways some of these jurists outlast the president who nominated them. he understands you're talking about 30, 40 years of

jurisprudence. he takes this with great gravity and responsibility. other people are advising, but it's his decision to make and he's respectful to the senators on the right and the left who are advising and consenting as well. >> i have a feeling that the president will probably, as with gorsuch, get the person on the supreme court that he wants. kellyanne conway, good to have you on the show, thank you. coming up, michelle malkin and florida attorney general cam bonn di. boy the way, don't forget to buy a copy of my book on amazon or barnes and noble, "liars, leakers and liberals, the case against the anti-trump conspiracy." i have it, but it's not of the yet. the question is, is this real or just a cover. e-mail me. go on facebook, twitter, insta grachl the is it a real book or not? more hannity after the break. we came here for the friends.

and we got to know the friends of our friends. then our old friends from middle school, our mom, our ex and our boss joined forces to wish us happy birthday. then we discovered our uncle use to play in a band. and realized he was young once too. and we found others just like us. and just like that we felt a little less alone. but then something happened. we had to deal with spam, clickbait, fake news, and data misuse. that's going to change. from now on, facebook will do more to keep you safe and protect your privacy. so we can all get back to what made facebook good in the first place. friends. because when this place does what it was built for, we all get a little closer.

>> welcome back. members of america's left are continuing their ongoing assault on the women associated with the trump administration. the "washington post" michelle ruben encouraged the left to continue harassing sarah sanders. >> we're not going to let them go through life unscathed. sara huckabee has no life to live no fuss no muss after lying to the press, inciting against the press. piece these people should be made uncomfortable, that's a life sentence. >> that's not all. over the weekend, michelle wolf, best known for botching the white sox correspondence dinner with attacks again sara sanders, called ivanka trump a selection of names some of which are too photographic to air. here's an example.

>> is your nickname her piece you're not necessarily the most dangerous person in the administration you're very unpleasant, totally uncurable and show up when we're about to get (bleep). ivanka is the prettiest in the swiftly moving cancer. >> joining me with reaction is the host of michelle malkin investigates on cr tv, syndicated columnist michelle malkin, and pam bondi. jennifer ruben with "washington post." all right, i thought it was over. i really did. after my show on saturday night, i said, you know what, they probably just vented. over the weekend it got worse. we're not going to let it go unscathed, needs to be a life sentence. and, pam, we know what happened to you, and michelle, both of you have been harassed. now it's continuing. pam, what's your take on this? >> well, my take on this is

michelle wolf does not know i vank kashgs i do. she's a loving wife, remarkable mother, great human being. she's not going to break down. they couldn't get to the president so they think they can get to people around him. i advantageca isn't going to be broken down by this. but none of us are going to be -- ivanka isn't going to be broken down. they know this, like you, michelle and i know this, there are people who exist who will be emboldened to do harm to some one. something bad is going to happen. everyone just needs to say stop it, unequivocally, stop. stop doing this now. >> michelle, i had some one on my show, they said well you know it's on both sides. i said do my a favor. tell me where conservative women have taken on a democrat female whether she's elected or not elected, spokesperson, give me one example. oh, it's the same on both sides. i don't know that to be the case, do you?

>> it's not the case. i have documented the war on conservative women for upwards of 20 years now. it is not, and never has been, judge janine, the case that conservative women, who very vigorously oppose ideas on the other side go and target the children of people with which we disagree. we're not the ones that have forced the other side to have to hire a private security guard to speak on college campuses as i have over the years. so many other female conservatives who are outspoken. what this is about is the fact that the c word, the real offensive c word to the left, is conservative. this is about criminalizing and ostracizing female conservatives for being female and conservative. the left considers it an i deon logical felony to be a woman and conservative. even more than that, they think it's a capital offense to be a minority and female and conservative.

that's what this is really about. >> and, pam, what she says is so true, i mean you were at the movie theater, and i've gone to universities, had to have security, most of my life anyway. but going forward, it doesn't sound like they're doing anything to tamp it down. what should republican conservative women do? >> well, first of all, you won't be believed, michelle won't be believed, i won't be bullied. but the other side has got to stop it. you have got to just unequivocally, all of our democrat friends who we all know need to come out and say stop it. stop it, this isn't right. some one is going to get hurt. and i told you, there was a state rep with her children, children, being screamed at and harassed by the same people that came after me. so this, women attacking women, got to stop. >> you know, michelle, she's right. but this isn't about civility

any more f we say stop it, don't on, this is that going to stop them? no. should charges -- >> they need to say it. >> there needs to be -- yes, i think there needs to be legal consequences for people who are inciting violence. the best thing that we can do is what we're doing. sunlight is the best disinfectant, put the mirror on people who are nothing of the type of self-appointed civility police. these are the worst, most vile offenders against civility. and when you have people who think that it is part of proper public discourse to call for giving a quote unquote life sentence as this loan, jennifer rubin, has done against sarah sanders for doing her job, that has crossted the line of the beyond the pale. the "washington post" and the owners of the post should be shamed that this woman is employed by them as a co-called conservative columnist. that's the biggest joke. >> pam, are the attorney general, you're very powerful

woman in a state with your own security detail in our own guards. they have no fear going in your face within an inch of your face. >> they don't. and that's where people need on realize some one is going to get hurt. and like michelle said, the ultimate billying, michelle wolf woman saying go after their deepest insecurities, really, to say. that it's horrible. see we're not going to get in the gutter with them, that's the difference. democrats, there are plenty of democrats who do not free with what's happening and they need to unequivocally say stop. stop this. do not do this. some one is going to be harmed. >> good to have you both on tonight. thanks so much. and still to come, president trump keeps racking up the accomplishments. and members of the mainstream media are even finding it hard to ignore them. that and more after the break.

touch shows how we really feel. but does psoriasis ever get in the way? embrace the chance of 100% clear skin with taltz. up to 90% of those with moderate to severe psoriasis had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. most people were still clearer after one year. with taltz, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. don't use if you're allergic to taltz. before starting, you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you have an infection, symptoms, or received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz, including worsening of symptoms. serious allergic reactions can occur. ready for a chance at 100% clear skin? ask your doctor about taltz.

♪ he eats a bowl of hammers at every meal ♪ ♪ he holds your house in the palm of his hand ♪ ♪ he's your home and auto man ♪ big jim, he's got you covered ♪ ♪ great big jim, there ain't no other ♪ -so, this is covered, right? -yes, ma'am. take care of it for you right now. giddyup! hi! this is jamie. we need some help.

>> president trump: the rollback has been the biggest ever in the history of our country. no president, even during full terms, have cut back anywhere near what i've done. we will have regulation, we will have clean water, we will have clean air, we will have the cleanest water, cleanest air. but we are, we have more regulation cutting to do. i think i may have had a bigger impact to this point. ultimately, the tax cuts as they kick in and kick in, you see the kind of hundreds of billions of dollars brought back into the country already, i think ultimately, is going to be something really special. you see the result right now. look at what happened to steel and aluminum, probably built a new industry. in that period of four or five

months. it's incredible. the thing them i'm focused on, is trade deals. remake it reciprocal, we'll make it fair. and i will tell you don't know about this, but every country is calling, every day, saying let's make a deal, let's make a deal. it'll all work out. >> welcome back to hannity. that was president trump this weekend, in an interview with maria bartoromo, highlighting his exceptional record of accomplishments. even members of the mainstream media can't downplay his success any more. >> the announced retirement of supreme court justice anthony kennedy this week helped bake one political reality scleer. despite overall unpopularity, president trump is winning. the democrats are reeling. >> joining me with reaction, salem radio talk show host larry elder, charlie hurt, and go back chairman david avella. did you think you would hear chuck todd say that trump is

winning and democrats are reeling? i mean, i couldn't believe it. i'll start with you, larry elder, i mean this is, it really is amazing what the president has been able to accomplish, i don't know, how many weeks, some one said 75 weeks, maybe. go ahead, larry. >> well, it is amazing, judge. despite his overall unpopularity? he's more popular than obama was at this point. i don't think anyone said obama was, quote, up popular. they still can't figure out why they won let alone why he's succeeding. the answer is, americans broadly like his policies. the economy is doing well. more americans believe the economy is doing great. the stock market is doing well. the regulations he's cut have been more severe than he said. he's cut almost four regulations for everyone regulation that we have added. the american people broadly believe that the borders need to be secured.

broadly believe that we need to do something about chain migration, catch and release, about visa lottery. donald trump policies are #winning. >> so charlie hurt, i mean, there's an article here in "the hill" says trump just keeps on confounding his hapless detractors. >> i think it's probably safe to say that a lot of people like chuck todd are tired of winning by this point. i think we did, i think we sort of crossed over a rubicon over the last couple of weeks, donald trump really isn't going to get strung up on these bogus russia charges. stormy daniels isn't going to bring down the president. and the most alarming thing of all is the fact that the economy is booming, donald trump is right the removal of the

regulations, that are setting the economy on fire. despite all of the haranguing by the media, they have agreed that the border should be closed and to have democrats now arguing to abollish i.c.e. playing into the president's hands. >> david, okay, we have economy, regulations, we have the stock market and the left is going ballistic. i can't imagine that normal thinking people are buying it. >> now that abollishing i.c.e. is the litmus test, donald trump is well on his way to being re-elected and finishing what he started, eliminating or reversing every policy president obama .in place. jobs are being created, folks have more money, working toward securing the border, the military is getting the funding it needs to protect the country. agenda and a set of

accomplishments serve this country well. ultimately, serve president trump well for wanting to be re-elected. >> larry elder, i mean, it is actually stunning where we are right now. the president hasn't had the republicans supporting him. paul ryan, healthcare, obamacare, the president realized what he had to do to get around those establishment republicans who are trying to stob him. >> can you imagine where he would be if he didn't have the media against him? there's a book written by a friend of mine, he said if the media were fair and balanced the average people would vote the way texas does, 8 to 10 in favor of republicans. democrats are countering free tuition, guaranteed jobs, $s 5

minimum wage, getting rid of i.c.e. i don't think that's a winning percentage. >> charlie hurt, calling for the, what they don't like is broken, immigration is broken, i.c.e. is broken. it is not something that is going to bring them any success. >> no, absolutely not. the immigration system has been a disaster for many years. donald trump is the first person who actively wants to do something to fix it. the democrats want to campaign against it. they will campaign on abollishing i.c.e., i think will be their doom. >> crazy. david? >> one area the president and senate republicans worked well at is getting judges confirmed. not only the supreme court judge and gorsuch, but at the district level.

we're going to continue to see that success with whoever president trump ultimately nominates being on the supreme court before the end of the year. >> is anyone tired of winning yet? >> not me. >> wait until you hear what the fbi director james comey is saying these days about how people view him. don't go anywhere.

♪ >> judge jeanine: welcome back to "hannity" by a disgraced former fbi director james comeya question-and-answer session over the weekend. in a rare moment of truth, acknowledged that he is not logged by either side. take a listen. >> your republican colleagues with whom you have these conversations, are they outraged? >> most republicans don't talk to me anymore. so i have succeeded in making everyone mad a. >> judge jeanine: that will do it for us tonight. don't forget to buy a copy of my book on amazon or barnes &

noble, "liars, leakers, and liberals: a case against the anti-trappist area." thanks for being with those. it's not out yet. is it real or just a cover? i will be back tomorrow night filling in for sean. have a great night for a ingraham is live next. >> laura: hey, judge jeanine. i have a question. did you do an audiobook? >> judge jeanine: yes, i did an audiobook, laura. >> laura: how long? >> judge jeanine: two and half days. >> laura: it's a nightmare, isn't it? you should have had guest voices, like, raymond could have done obama. it would have been great. i want to be a guest voice on your book. >> judge jeanine: you when i could do an audiobook together. we could go high, low. [laughs] >> laura: great show tonight. good evening from washington. i am laura ingraham. this is the "the ingraham angle." a big show tonight to kick off this holiday week. house and told her devin nunes as we were toppling his efforts to find