>>ne it's my pleasure. you're motivated as ever. see you next time on "life, liberty, and levin." >> good evening from new york city. this is the "ingram angle." a lot of major news developments going on right now, including new details about intent, institutional intentional pressure, applied by the fbi at the highest level to investigate the trump campaign. plus, getting smoked over the trump-max water feud. you won't believe why. a big trade war between the u.s. and china is officially underway, or at least the first shots. they've been lobbied. president trump may have already

won the first battle. we'll explain that later in the program. but first the white house doubling down in its support of i.c.e., calls to abolish the agency are spreading like wildfire, as you know, throughout the left. earlier today vice president mike pence became the latest administration official, when the number two comes in, you know they're bringing the big guns to draw a line in the sand. listen. >> i stand before you today at a time when some people are actually calling for the abolition of i.c.e. in this white house, let me be clear, we are with you 100%. the american people have every right to engage in peaceful protests, but these threats against i.c.e. officers and their families must stop, and they must stop now. under president donald trump we will never abolish i.c.e. >> that's about as strong as

i've seen mike pence in the last year and a half, starting a #istandwithice abolish i.c.e. protesters are hoping to make this a wedge issue as the midterm elections approach. will it blow up in their face or will it work? joining is is rachel campo duffy along with doug shone. doug, we'll get to you first. you said it's not a set issue that abolish i.c.e. is good for democrats. >> i think it's a bad issue, well outside the mainstream of what the american people want. they want border enforcement. many want a wall. the number who want open borders are to relax scrutiny of those coming in at a time of terror and illegal immigrants coming from central america is very small. i think it's the far left in the

democratic party hijacking effectively the mainstream narrative to the ultimate detriment, i believe, of the party, if this carries on. >> interesting. rachel, to you, there was a poll that came out from reuters, that showed that the most important issue currently for registered voters is immigration at 15%. not a majority, just a plurality. that's a different poll. we'll roll with this. here we go, the poll we want. 15%. however, for democrats, it's only 7%, it's their highest issue. it apartments appears, 27% of rs believe it's the most important issue. less so on the democratic side. many feels like the far extreme of the democratic party is driving this abolish i.c.e. >> the democratic party is well outside the mainstream. i live in middle america. i'll tell you what concerns people about the border and about what's coming across the

border. it's about drugs. i mean, pete, you're from the midwest. >> yeah. >> you know where these forgotten communities are that are finally coming back, thanks to the trump economy, but they're still suffering because of so much drugs that are devastating our communities, devastating families. that's the majority that's coming over the southern border. that's important to them. let me just say 127,000 undocumented criminals were arrested by i.c.e. last year. almost 2,000 of those were homicides. 78,000 of those arrests for drugs. abolish i.c.e? what happened to those 127,000 undocumented criminal immigrants? >> this was going be trump's katrina, the zero tolerance at the border was going to tank his numbers. i'll put the poll up that we showed briefly earlier. it was the wrong one at first, but we'll get it right. president trump's approval

rating among hispanics, since that policy has been in place, has increased by 10%, counterintuitive to coastal it elites, but to hispanics who came here legally, it's offensive to think that immigration is the only matter that prove matters to them. >> let's keep our eye on the ball. the president and congress have done zero on immigration, which was promised. it was sworn to in blood that it would be -- >> hold on a second. you're saying the president has done nothing. >> nothing. >> the entire left wing has premised its existence on the president trump administration doing too much at the border. >> they haven't gotten a single dollar to put the first brick on the wall. >> that's not true. come on now. >> francisco, there was an

allocation in the budget, not as much as republicans wanted, but -- >> it was for repairs. >> thank goodness. >> we tried to build it in 2001. okay, guys, we can't still even buy the property for a wall. what happened with congress acting? what happened with the dreamers? what happened with the immigration reform? what happened to we're going to fix it? we're in a labor shortage in this country, the worst labor shortage we've had in the last 100 years for sure, and we can't pass immigration reform? congress is sitting there. now we're blaming i.c.e. do you realize how irresponsible it is to blame i.c.e.? lives are in danger, and we're talking about -- >> thank you for saying that, because i.c.e. has become a catchall -- >> only doing what congress told it to do. >> doug, to your point, has the president ever had a willing partner on getting anything serious done on immigration? >> can you let someone talk

other than you? look, i'm all for immigration reform. i'm also for civility. to have civility requires negotiation. you can do the wall, the dreamers, but you need compromise to do it. francisco is right that to the extent that there is no -- nothing going on in congress, but really your point is exactly right, pete. if i.c.e -- >> cisco, you got to give people a break. >> we'll get back to you. let doug speak. >> i.c.e. becomes the proxy for immigration. a, the democrats hurt themselves. b, there's no immigration reform. ultimately the party could be marginalized in the midterms going forward to 2020. >> rachel, can the democrats overcome identity politics to be serious on this issue? >> no. i mean, pete, you brought this up at the beginning of the segment, saying, you know, the vice president speaking so strongly. there's a reason why the vice president is doubling down on what the president said earlier.

his speech this week, he said the democratic party pants anarchy. that's absolutely true. the democratic party is the party of socialists, the party of anarchy. we've never had a president, a leader of the republican party, with the -- i don't want to use the word, but you know what i'm talking about, the gumption to say the truth. it's resonating. people love law enforcement. people want rule of law, including hispanics, which is why that poll that you mentioned earlier is up by 10%. if you live in central america you know exactly what happens when there's no rule of law, when you have a government that can't control its borders and can't control corruption. so yes, this is a winning issue for the president. that's why he's doubling down on it, why the vice president is doubling down with it, and the democrats are fools to go with abolish i.c.e message. >> francisco, where do you want

to start? >> we need the president to lead the republican majority in congress to pass some immigration reform. did we forget that republicans have the majority in both the house and senate, and they're both afraid of the democratic filibuster. let them filibuster, show the other side the coin, to -- >> what's the other side of the coin they're going to show? is it open borders? is it amnesty without reciprocation of a wall? they don't wall a wall, they don't -- >> go for it. single employment permits, renewable to year to year, they're paying taxes, they're not committing crimes, fully employed, paying taxes, off of welfare. year-to-year renewable cards. >> i'm for that. i'm for immigration reform. i'm a democrat. i'm not an anarchist. there's a single wing of the democratic wing that is rational and -- >> where are you? >> i'm right here.

>> where is the leadership on this? >> well, that's a problem. we don't have vocal leadership. connor lamb won a congressional race. doug jones won in alabama. there are centrists, but it's sadly the case we don't have leadership to compromise, to do what francisco wants to do, which is to get comprehensive immigration reform, get the border done, get guest workers, and get a pathway to citizenship for the dreamers. >> you have a majority, the republicans have a majority, you don't need compromise. >> we're one nation. >> that's a strong man argument. you know you need something that the democrats would vote for, and they're not going to. rachel, you have the last word on this. >> thanks to the very radical turn and the freedom they have now to expose themselves as the radicals they are on the democratic side. i think we may finally get the majority we need in the senate during this midterm. i don't think this is going to be a blue wave at all. i think these kinds of positions

that the democrats are taking are going to lead us to get the majority we need to pass the four pillars that donald trump wants to solve immigration and -- >> in a common sense america, where there's still common-sense amongst the electorate -- if the economy is going well, the other issue is immigration, you've got i.c.e. stand with i.c.e. versus abolish i.c.e, i want borders versus open borders. i feel that cuts in the president's direction. all of you, thank you very much. >> republicans are behind by about nine points in recent polls. the democrats have a chance if and only if -- under the circumstances a big if -- centrists like me emerge. >> all those like you, centrists. >> absolutely. come join me. >> a lot of them are becoming republicans. >> yes, they are. fiery debate. coming up next, newly-released memos that raise new questions about major fbi pressure, institutional pressure, intentional pressure, to investigate the trump campaign. the new details you're not going to want to miss coming up next.

>> welcome back. we're just getting warmed up. stick with us. new light is being cast on the fbi's efforts to investigate the trump campaign. the latest piece in "the hill" newspaper details internal

bureau memos about the pressure applied to justice department investigators, and theirest to get a warrant on former trump campaign advisor carter page. an email exchange with peter struck and his lover lisa page from october 14th of 2016, just a few weeks before the election, shows their desire to create talking points for then fbi director andrew andy mccabe to help secure that warrant. one email reads, at minimum, that keeps the hurry f-up pressure on mccabe. that's just the tip of the iceberg. peter strzok said at a minimum,

the letter that carter page wrote, provides us a pretext to -- pretext is code for excusr page. how explosive is all this? >> oh, it's further confirmation that the russian investigation was affected by this hyperpolitical bias against president trump where they're looking for excuses to target his team. you had page write a letter, complaining about an improper fbi leak, and the response from one of the top fbi officials, well, let's use it as an excuse to bring it in and interview him. then they follow that up with the infamous warrants supported -- which would have never been approved but for their reliance on the clinton dnc documents. then another aspect of this, which is also in solomon's piece, is that right after the election they are talking about -- the day after the election, president trump's elected -- they focus on, well,

we have to get all the people tied to paul manafort, compare notes, figure out what we're going to do. pall manafort is being targeted. he's right now in solitary confinement. president trump should think about ordering his justice department to at least shut this investigation down or pause it, given all the corruption in its formation in the fbi in 2016. >> you're referring to an email from strzok to page, where they refer to scrubbing after the election never a good look. carter page on was this network, on tucker's program, speaking for himself. listen to what carter page said. >> do you expect you'll be charged with anything after all of this? >> i can't imagine anything that i could be potentially charged with. it's just -- you know, particularly after seeing john

solomon's article today, using the term, the pretext, the pretext was outrageous, ridiculous. >> they found a pretext, then surveilled for a year, that sounds like a guy that sounds confident they didn't find anything. was the witch hunt the presiden- >> carter page was an cooperating informant with the fbi. strzok knew. that's why they used the word "pretext" and it was a convenient vehicle to get at the trump administration, and who knows what other corruptions were sent over to the court as well. carter page will not be prosecuted. there's no russia collusion. the only collusion we're aware of with respect to russia is hillary clinton to gather intelligence to smear donald trump. mueller ought to be investigating how his investigation started, if he's looking for russia collusion. >> tom, help us for a second,

though, according to the most recent statement of expenditures, mueller's operation is ramping up. what does that say to you? >> well, there's no controls over mueller practically speaking. not only does he have other lawyers he's hired, all of which are registered democrats, no registered republicans, he's going into the justice department and as-needed using other resources informally. so that budget is just a pretend number, because the justice department is at mueller's beck and call, an out-of-control investigation that's abusive in its targeting of not only president trump but people around him. >> wow. i don't know about you, but i love pretend numbers. they're my favorite. tom, thank you very much. appreciate your time. >> you got it. >> joining us is julian epstein, a democratic strategist and former counsel on the house judiciary committee. julian, thank you for joining us. you've been on these committees

that seek documents. >> yeah. both of them. >> let's say this was the inverse, a democratic now president, who was a candidate, spied on by an agency controlled by bias toward republicans. wouldn't you want committees fighting for every document that they can get? now these committees are showing us that the bias we saw in the text messages, which would have been just fun, but now they've been institutionalized into pretext, into pressure, into hurry the f up, does not this take private exchanges and turn them into institutional bias? >> i've been a staff director and chief counsel for both of these committees, and that i would tell the committee chair, if i was serving there, let's look at the big picture here. allow me to give you context. the committee came out and said the russians interfered in the 2016 election to help donald trump. the evidence is overwhelming. the idea that this is a biased investigation -- >> that's not collusion. >> you didn't interfere with tom. let me finish.

>> go ahead. >> there may or may not be collusion. we know there was interference. the idea we shouldn't be investigating this, that's false. that's one. two, in terms of the collusion question, we know that donald trump jr., paul manafort, others, kushner, met with people they believed to be representatives of the russian government giving dirt on the clintons. so whether there was a violation of criminal law we don't know, but there certainly is smoke there. >> julian, there's -- >> let me finish. there's been 19 indictments of individuals. three by trump, three indictments of trump campaign officials. five guilty pleas. the idea that this is a bogus investigation is ridiculous. the ig said on the peter strzok to get to your question, he may have been a bad actor, but he did not influence the major decisions at the fbi. >> you did a masterful job of rattling off every left wing talking point as it relates to the investigation.

then you said peter strzok is a small guy. no. he was in charge of the hillary clinton email investigation. peter strzok was in charge of the -- he was an agent in charg- >> he was the lead investigator. let's get the facts straight. >> i'm sorry. lead investigator. i'm happy to use whatever term you'd like to use. he was dismissed from the mueller probe for his anti-trump bias. we learn he wanted to stop trump, wanted to find a pretext. how can you sit there, who wanted to get the facts from the committees before, and say this isn't relevant? by the way, we wouldn't know this information if not for committees and the ig unearthing it. beyond why you can't admit it one moment that sometimes this looks really bad for the institutional of the fbi, what they were doing politically. >> i think peter strzok was a bad actor, and shouldn't have been there to begin with.

the inspector general said he was a bad actor, but he did not influence the final decisions of the fbi which was not to charge -- [laughter] >> let me put it to you this way. nobody in their right mind, no republican consultant, thinks the fbi helped hillary clinton and hurt donald trump. on the contrary. the fbi hurt hillary clinton by putting information out -- > -->> they said they believed e would be the next president of the united states. >> you don't interrupt tom, you don't interrupt tom. you don't want to hear the facts? >> i want your information for this segment, and you said a lot of it was -- >> excuse me, excuse me. >> the ig covered the hillary clinton server issue. this information covers the trump administration. the ig hasn't exonerated peter strzok on the trump submission. >> let's roll back the tape. you just said inadvertently. you're factually wrong about that. james comey said he was reopening --

>> to try to hurt hillary? he didn't want to look discredited on election night. >> there's no question that didn't hurt hillary. >> that wasn't the intent. >> the fbi did not talk about the donald trump investigation before the election. if there was any bias, it was hillary bias before the election. >> because they didn't think he was going to win. >> whatever you may think. your thesis -- >> thesis? it's fact. >> your thesis is the that the fbi was trying to help donald trump and hurt hillary clinton. >> let's find a pretext and -- >> try to stick to the facts here. >> hurry the f up to put pressure on him. if that isn't in plain english isn't bias, i don't know what it is. you should be applauding the hill for pressing the institutions for getting information the public would otherwise not know. >> we can be repetitive as much as you want to be. let me say it again, peter strzok had no business being inside the fbi, but the

inspector general said -- there were probably 200 investigators working on this investigation. >> only one guy in charge, though,. >> of which he was one, right. he organized a conspiracy with 200 other fbi investigators. that's same a lame brain theory. >> of course i'm not indicting all the investigators. >> this was an investigation headed by a republican head of the fbi. the actions that he took -- >> you're right. >> -- before the election hurt hillary clinton and helped donald trump. >> wow. this is great spin, that james comey wanted to take down hillary clinton and support donald trump. that's a doozy. i appreciate that. >> find me a republican consultant that will say that james comey's actions before the election helped hillary clinton and helped donald trump. >> i'm not talking about whether it helped or hurt. >> i said the fbi hurt hillary

clinton and helped donald trump before the election. >.the fact that you have 19 indictments, including indictments of trump -- >> if this was the other way around, you'd be saying peter strzok was in charge of the investigation. oh, just one guy. one little guy down here in hq. >> let me repeat it to you again. james comey, republican, was in charge of the fbi. >> i don't think he would have known that label. >> mueller's indictments, the fact that cohen now seems to be ready to flip on trump. >> okay, yeah. >> everything seems to be validating the seriousness of the investigation. >> at this point it would have leaked to the -- >> look, read the republican intelligence committee report. >> oh, we have. julian, thank you for your time. we have to move on. the left mounts a jaw-dropping new defense of maxine waters in her feud with president trump. you won't believe who they're throwing under the bus. back with that in a moment.

>> welcome back. nancy pelosi and chuck schumer are under fire from the left over their handling of president trump's feud with maxine waters. a letter signed by about 200 black female leaders and allies, meaning men, blast pelosi and schumer for distancing themselves from the congresswoman after she devoted the harassment of trump officials. their letter reads in part, and i quote, disparaging or failing to support congresswoman waters is an affront to her and black women across the country and telegraphs a message that the democratic party can ill-afford that it does not respect black women's leadership and political power and discounts the impact of black women, millennial voters. not sure what millennial voters have to do with this. we'll get to that.

have they not heard a single thing congresswoman waters has said? thank you for joining us. kevin, i'll start with you. maxine waters said shoot straight, wound the animal. what do you make this? >> what a great time to be a conservative in america to watch the democrats eat their own, in public view. look, maxine waters has been one of the most incendiary people on the democrats' side. she's firmly representative of the left. i can see why schumer and pelosi would distance themselves from her because she's strange beyond definition. and, you know, look, she's reaping what she sewed over the years. her wanting to impeach president trump, who's done an amazing job for blacks, while watching those

numbers drop -- that's what pelosi and schumer watched. they've watched the black population slowly shift toward the republicans. they've watched this walkaway movement from the democrats take form. they've watched hispanics -- we've seen the latest polls on them. they're for trump. the millennials are for president trump. women are for president trump. reason is simple. trump has performed. looking at his record compared to barack obama, and maxine waters living on the muscle memory of that, you're seeing the outcome. >> obviously president trump has taken on maxine waters. maxine waters has also said incendiary things about him and trump supporters. why does a letter like this have to focus on discounting the impact of black women. whether she was black, white, hispanic, the things she says of this president are worthy of fair critique. why does this letter go straight to identity politics? >> you know, thank you for that, but first i want to go back to

what kevin jackson said, how there's polls out there saying hispanics are more for republicans and black women are more for black republicans. >> that's what i said. >> i don't know any hispanics that are more for trump. >> they're shifting toward trump. >> i would love for you to tell me where the facts are. >> support for the president among hispanics has increased 10% over the last month. that's from a harris poll. i asked you a question about identity politics. why is this about her gender and race as opposed to calling out harassment of trump supporters which has nothing to do with race? >> i'm not saying that inciting harassment to any person is what we need to be doing. not at all. we need to be renouncing harassment. every time i'm on fox news, i

have them on my fox news, instagram, saying things that are threatening me. i let them have their free speech, because that's the number one amendment. i let them have their free speech, because they're entitled to that. i will never say, at any point you can't have your free speech because i don't agree with what you're saying. at the end of the day we have to make sure that we let people have their free speech. >> i'm happy to answer the question, pete, because she won't. the reason they played the race card, that's all they've got. maxine waters and congressional black -- i call them the congressional black circus clowns -- are driving democrats and blacks from the party because of what they're doing. maxine waters essentially put a target on the trump administration employees and said it's okay to go after these people because their opinions

differ. that's the crux of this whole thing. maxine waters and the left don't want our opinions to be heard. >> are you calling black people clowns? i just heard you say black people are clowns. that's what i heard you say. >> he's talking about the caucu- >> i would love to know who is a clown in this. >> do you think maxine waters is a good representative for the modern democratic party? does she help your side? >> what i would like to say is that congresswoman maxine waters has her opinion, around she has her freedom of speech. >> of course. >> i do not believe that chuck schumer -- senator chuck schumer, he should not be on the senate floor denouncing his own party member. >> he said what she said was un-american. >> that was not right, just like

i don't think kevin jackson should be calling people clowns. >> chuck schumer said what many americans in this country think, and he said his opinion as well. chuck schumer has no obligation to take up for maxine waters when she's -- when she essentially puts a target on the backs of the trump administration and any other conservative in this country. i repeat, maxine waters, and the congressional black caucus, are nothing but a bunch of circus clowns, and it's time people start calling them out, and blacks in america -- >> kevin jackson, you're a black man. tell me who's representing you in congress that's black. >> i don't need people representing me in congress about being black. >> kim scott is a black man from south carolina, who represents my interests very well. why is that the definitive characteristic of the left?

>> that's all they have. i'm represented as a human being. you don't need maxine waters representing me. >> this will obviously continue to be -- we'll have to leave it right there. thank you for your time tonight. >> it's being called the biggest trade war in economic history. not sure who said that, but they must know who they're talking about. it's now underway between the u.s. and china. is president trump winning it? we'll explain that coming up next.

>> welcome back. well, the trade war between the u.s. and china has officially begun, at least the first shots fired. today the trump administration slapped $34 billion in tariffs on chinese goods, with china immediately retaliating with tariffs of its own, targeting not just the u.s. but areas where trump got the most support. but is president trump actually

winning this war already? there are signs of an increasingly weak chinese economy. meanwhile the u.s. labor department reported another strong month for american jobs in the economy in june. thank you for joining us this evening. you're not a fan of this tariff strategy, but the administration would say, listen, we're fair traders and free traders, and the path to fair trade and free trade is staring down china and others who have had a slanted playing field. if you don't follow-through at the beginning you won't get anything to change. >> thank you very much for having me on tonight, pete. i think one of the biggest things we need to talk about is the great policies in the trump administration that are actually developing and leading with great job numbers coming out this week. on top of that, good economic growth for two quarter last year. we saw growth above 3% for two

quarters last year. i think these are coming from policies like tax reform and regulatory reform that are actually straight out of the heritage foundation's economic growth playbook. >> sure, but -- >> now, what's in our playbook, pete, are these great trade policies the heritage foundation has been promoting for several years. we've found that our economic policies work for growth. we've seen that already. we want to see them do even more. >> eric, she laid out why the economic policies domestically have been successful, but i feel you and others would argue it will hurt us especially against china who says intewants to expand, and overtake america. >> there's a $800 billion trade deficit between the u.s. and the entire world. at some point we have to level the playing field. i think what president trump represents, what he did in the campaign, following through with as president, he represents the america worker.

i mean, the idea that we have this tax deficit that goes over, this tax money that comes from the workers, that goes over, this big deficit with these other countries, $400 billion with china, is irresponsible. the president knows what he's doing, and he's speaking to middle america. >> tori, if we live in a world where our stuff is getting taxed on the way in, and their stuff isn't getting taxed on the way into our country, ultimately that's something we shouldn't have to put up with. >> first of all, it's fundamentally untrue that the united states does not tax imports. >> well, we have some, but -- >> we very high subsidies for a lot of agricultural products. what i want to correct, the trade deficit does not matter. it's not like a budget deficit like in congress they can't do anything about. >> it affects american workers.

>> it does not. i travel all around this country talking about the benefits of trade. itseli was just in minnesota a e weeks ago. farmers in minnesota are worried about the president's trade policies, because guess who's getting attacked as a result of these policies. >> the president would make the point we've already been attacked, industry by industry, by countries taking advantage of our intellectual property, our open markets. yes, now they're counterattacking us on agriculture, but we need to stand them down for this standoff to work. >> pete, the president said it clear, the reason we don't have a fair level of trade is because no one has asked. the president is asking. he's asking, let's level the playing field. >> the president is not asking for this to happen. the president is saying, i'm going to tax the american people to -- >> tori, what's the response?

we hear from republicans, many democrats, that the response will be catastrophic. the dow is up 100 points today. >> listen, we're not talking about the impact on the market. yes, watching the market is important, but traveling around middle america i see this is hurting people. >> you travel around middle america, you see industries offshored, tori, entire towns that are gone because industries have gone overseas. >> we'll see more of that with these bad trade policies. >> i guess, if we continue with what's been going on, we'll get the some results. >> we're having great pro-growth coming from this fantastic playbook. i'm not here to say the president is doing a bad job on economic growth. regulatory policy, a-plus, but when you need the entire playbook -- >> tori, what president trump is talking about is the whole

entire playbook. it's let cut taxes, cut regulation, and stare down our geopolitical opponents taking advantage of us for a generation. eric, last word. >> pete, this is something that -- >> it's your playbook. doesn't mean it has to be your playbook. >> as donald trump said 20 years ago, you know, this is part of his political core. he's been talking about tariffs for a long time. don't forget, we've had tariffs between 1747 and 1914. >> before the federal income tax. >> donald trump has to make sure that we let our allies and everybody know around the world we're not going to be taken advantage of. we're for the american worker. that's what these tariffs will do, and we've seen response in the short term. >> job numbers up 213,000. previous month revised up.

wages are up. these are all good signs that what's being done is working. will secretary of state mike pompeo hold kim jong-un's feet to fire and get them to make new deals? negotiations underway right now coming up next.

>> our secretary of state mike pompeo pushing for a breakthrough in denuclearization talks with north korea. the secretary of state is meeting with top officials in the hermit kingdom, but fresh questions are now being raised about its commitment to actually ditch their nuclear weapons. there are new reports today that the hermit kingdom is working on a submarine capable of firing nuclear-armed missiles. not a great sign. joining us now to analyze is gordon chang, author of "nuclear showdown:north korea takes on the world," along with a former department official with the obama administration. david, you said they have one shot. what has to happen on this trip for secretary of state? >> i think the secretary of state needs to come back with a written commitment from kim saying, look, giving up nukes,

giving up missiles, and agree to the most intrusive inspection regime on earth. we need this now, because we've seen all the reports, not only the ones about submarines, but working on plutonium reactor, which has no peaceful purpose. we need to know where kim stands. >> david, the iran deal left a bad taste in a lot of our mouths. what can be done here to avoid the pitfalls, in my opinion, of that opinion? >> pete, i agree with gordon. pompeo has the hard work ironing out of the details in the agreement at the summit to denuclearize. he has to have a list of things that north korea is going to do, things we can proo prove are happening, otherwise the president and pompeo can't say it's a success. i'm hopefully, optimistic, but

it means locking down kim jong-un on what he's going to do. >> we've seen reports in the news media, they're still developing this, still doing that. what if we sign a great deal, for leaves, and north korea two to three weeks from now, it's clear they're cheating, what do we do next? >> maximum pressure campaign, how kim got to the bargaining table in the first place. that means tightening sanctions on north korea, but more important going after north korea's major power sponsors, the russians and chinese. >> is china being helpful? >> no. president trump said after the second summit between kim and the chinese ruler that the north korea attitude became more difficult. chinese banks have continued to launder money for north koreans. we have not imposed the costs on beijing. we've got to do that. >> absolutely. david, from the view of someone who worked for the obama administration, do you feel like

having folks that north korea is worried about, whether it's john bolton or mike abou pompeo, doet help at the table to help them realize if they don't do it they'll see maximum pressure? >> you know, i worked on the obama campaign. i'm not sure that helps or not. that may have gotten us to this point, especially the rhetoric by trump. pompeo's diplomacy has been effective, but right now the only thing that's going to result in actual progress is having north korea actually demonstrate that it's pulling out of certain things. now, we heard news this week that there's satellite imagery showing that north korea is still using some of the nuclear sites, still actively using them. that's a bad sign, like the submarine example you gave as well. this is the hard work that pompeo has to do. >> absolutely. david just referred to south korean lawmaker said that it looks like they're developing a new submarine capable of launching nuclear-armed ballistic missiles. is that a hedge in case this

doesn't work, gordon, or a thumb of the nose? >> i think it's a thumbing of the nose. they've been working on missiles launched from submarines for a very long time. they actually launched a missile from under the sea of the japan august 24th, 2016. they have russian technology to do this. this has been a long-term project of theirs. i think they're accelerating what they've done before. >> david, i appreciate your fair-mindedness on this. as you look at the prospects of this deal, because we all want it to work, is it an over 50% chance that it happens or are you pessimistic? >> i think it's 50% this is going to move forward in a productive way, but i think it's high stakes for the trump administration, because this is now their number one foreign policy objective, and they don't have much else to show on the foreign policy front other than north korea, which could be fantastic if north korea really does take legitimate identifiable steps to denuclearize.

50%. >> if the flip side is war, or the threat of war, you don't want that side either. appreciate you both. great insight this evening. the infamous red hen restaurant changing gears a bit. they tossed out sarah huckabee sanders, well, it reopened, and sounding a loud signal to anyone who may discriminate against trump supporters. we'll explain next.

>> well, as it turns out, extreme behavior against trump officials temporarily proving to be great for business. virginia's now infamous red hen restaurant reopened its doors last night, fully booked with full reservations. if discriminating against trump officials, or his supporters proves such a boon for the bottom line, are more places going to follow suit? joining us the publisher of "catalina" magazine along with

"boston globe" columnist kathy cohen. when i look at this, i see a bunch of left wingers, who got reservations tonight, but probably won't eat there tomorrow night. >> maybe they will. >> why not? >> they can't eat there every night. is resistance good for business? >> it's making a statement, the american way. apparently it is good for business. i didn't think it was a good move kicking her out. i thought that was un-american. as an owner, we should support our customers. seems to be working. it's good for business here. >> adriana, what does it say about the left that they stand in solidarity with a business that kicks out a paying customer just because of their political position? >> i mean, it's really, really destructive. it's disgraceful. first of all, it's textbook discrimination, which is wrong. it's a violation of sarah sanders' free speech and other americans harassed and accosted

in public. it's un-american. we're, a democracy that has a plurality of political parties. what does the left want exactly? do they want to be a one-party state? do they want to abolish the first amendment? all americans have a right to vote for whoever the heck they want, and allowed to use their free speech. it's a violation of all americans' rights when you can't eat in a restaurant for simply using your constitutionally free speech every election cycle. it's a disgrace. i don't know how this is going to be a winning tactic for democrats come november. >> that's the point, i don't think it's a winning point. help me into the liberal mind. i couldn't fathom confronting a member of a democratic institution. why does the thinking go in that direction on the left? >> i think they're learning it

from president trump. >> not from maxine waters? >> maxine waters came after the tweeter in chief. i mean, his behavior has been awful. he called latinos horrible names. he started a long time ago. he's been saying horrible things on twitter for years. at least five years. so it seems like the left is tired of maybe being the nice guy, and they're following their leader. their leader is saying awful things. so they're learning and taking it from the top. >> the left have been the nice guys for so long, now it's time to be tough. we've gotten underneath it. >> oh, it's so ridiculous. i mean, the left has been such hypocrites. they preach diversity, tolerance, but they're none of the behalf. if the liberals were truly tolerant they could handle other people with different viewpoints. yes, our country is -- you know, has a plurality of different opinions and political parties. they should respect that. it's funny that the left can't handle some nonpolitically

correct comments from president trump, but -- they get very upset when, you know, a gay couple -- you know, a cake isn't baked for them, but when sarah sanders, a working professional mom, gets kicked out of a restaurant, how many liberal lawmakers stood silent? >> wedding cakes are less important than sarah sanders? >> why should she be treated this way? >> she tweeted, used her power, and tweeted against the restaurant, against an owner. it was ugly on both sides, i believe. >> exposure is fair play. we've got to leave it there. appreciate your time this evening. as i just said, that's all the time we do indeed have. lauer ingraham will be back on monday. catch me on "fox and friends" on

the weekend. ed henry will host with me at 6:00 a.m. eastern, filling in for shannon bream. that's up next. good night from new york city. >>s in a third base alert. jobs, jobs, jobs. the president touting a strong june jobs report on twitter today, more than 200,000 new jobs is pretty ro robust, but te nbc news lashing out at. 's policies, sparking economic growth, calling them reckless policies, while nancy pelosi commented on a, quote, unquote, brewing storm. are democrats talking down the economy to score points before the midterms? we'll dig deep in a moment. plus the short list is getting shorter by the hour. the white house has prepared four rollout packages for the president's nominee to be the next supreme court justice. the announcement coming monday in primetime. we'll tell you everything y