already in progress. >> sean: they don't care. rush is right. 100%. we will never be the destroy-trump-media. let not your heart be troubled.. jason chaffetz in for laura ingraham. how are you, sir? >> jason: doing great, thanks, sean. i appreciate it. >> sean: have a great show. >> jason: thank you. welcome to "the ingraham angle." under busy news night. i am jason chaffetz in for laura ingraham from washington." coming up, what is the status oo congress' relationship with the intel agencies? florida congressman ron desantis is here to react to comments by dan coats and rod rosenstein earlier today. plus are the media and democratic party beating the war drums with russia? we'll dive into some questionable language from both sides. is it possible the fbi covered up a damaging foreign hack of hillary's server? "clinton cash" author peter schweizer is here to pull back the curtain.

we begin tonight with the oh, so curious timing of a damaging leak targeting president trump. and why it may have come from the unholy alliance of james comey, jim clapper, and john brennan. it was a headline that sent the media apparatus into apoplexy. "the new york times" blaring from the start, trump has muddied a clear message, putin interfered. notourse, this meeting was a secret. and the findings not exactly new. don't believe me? here's the headline from "the washington post" on january 6th of 2017. "declassified report says it putin ordered effort to undermine safe and u.s. elections and help trump."t so what can we glean from "the new york times" repackaging a report just days after the f president's much criticized meeting with vladimir putin? first, let's look at some of the key officials who were in that meeting. john brennan, the cia director

at the time. james clapper, the director of national intelligence at the time. and at the time, the fbi director, james comey. second, let's take a look at what these men have been saying since the trump-putin summit. >> what mr. trump did yesterday was to betray the women and ment of the fbi, cia, nsa, and others. he betrayed the american public. that is why i use thee term, this was nothing short of treasonous. because it is a betrayal of the nation.he >> this president and this presidency, who is insulting values and institutions, standards of this country, which collectively, we spent decades defending. >> jason: and here is what jim comey tweeted. "this republican congress has proven incapable of fulfilling the founders' design that ambition must counteract ambition. all who believe in this

country's values must vote for democrats this fall. policy differences don't matter right now. history has its eyes on us." so what might some reasonably -- someone reasonably deduce given that above information?eo wouldn't it be fair to believe that perhaps the president was the victim of a coordinated leak? one that was orchestrated to inflict maximum damage to him? to answer those questions, let's bring former cia officer jeff beatty, former cia chief of station, dan hoffman, as well as radio host and former aide to chuck schumer, chris hahn. gentlemen, thank you so much for being here. look, these three people at the head of our intelligence agencies at the time have now all exposed their political leanings to the left and the democrats. i'll start with you, daniel. you are sitting with me in studio. is that an unreasonable assumption?

is that a leap to suggest that maybe these gentlemen used their intelligence backgrounds to push the table in hillary's direction? >> i mean, it's possible you could speculate that. i would start with john brennan because he was my boss at cia, i served in moscow for fivean yea. i know him well. and i'll have to be truthful. he and i didn't always agree on everything. there were lots of times i told him things he needed to know and didn't want to hear and he didn't always react sodn favorably. i think his partisan and -- his partisan remarks might have been taken with -- a little bit more positively if he admitted some of the mistakes of the obama administration, like the very ill-fated and naive reset policy. those who are criticizing this administration for not being tough on russia might want to look in the mirror and talk about those lessons learned.ti >> jason: jeff, i believe it was director comey who said he doesn't do sneaky things. he said he doesn't leak, he says he doesn't do weaselly moves, but then we see in his own words

and own actions that he actually did do those things.wn how can he have any credibility and would he be up to doing such a thing as leaking this information? >> i would certainly say it's l possible. you know, my colleague from the agency will recognize this saying, there's an old saying, it's kind of a joke, it goes, "admit nothing, deny everything, make counter accusations." that is what we have been seeing play out on a grand scale. when you go back to this -- it all started timingwise with hillary and her email scandal. nothing was admitted initially. hillary denied everything,nd saying i have nothing that was classified, then i have nothing that was marked classified. it just was a series to make counter accusations. they realized they had to go on the attack because they were really hanging out there because hillary had to be getting emails on this unauthorized system by her peers.

now who were her peers? the president perhaps, even others. there are a lot of people being protected. >> jason: chris, the context here is i think everybody thought that hillary clinton was going to get elected c on electn night. trump saw something that maybe the rest of us didn't see. they did get elected and then the media and the apparatus, the deep state, they just started going nuts. so when you hear these accusations, how do you respond to that?t? >> i'm listening to you guys. i'm like, we are talking about hillary's emails today? we want to know what happened in helsinki. i'm old enough to remember when there was a chairman of the house oversight committee named jason chaffetz who would have looked into this with a fine-tooth comb and had done his duty as a member of congress ane put a reasonable check on the president of united states. if hillary's emails are still the issue, hillary's emails is why hillary is not president

of the united states! the fbi's actions in investigating hillary and reopening the investigation ten days -- that proves that james comey was not going for hillary. >> jason: who was hillary emailing? she wasn't emailing herself. >> i let you talk -- >> jason: do you believe -- >> it doesn't matter at this point! >> jason: it does. >> it doesn't matter at this t point. we have a president of the united states who at the very best looked weak in front of putin on monday. at the worst, it is something we don't even want to talk about because it brings us down a rabbit hole. >> jason: chris, i will play a quote from president obama that happened before the election. i know you've heard it. but listen to this quote. >> there is no serious persont out there who would suggest somehow that you coulde even -- you could even rig america's elections in part because they

are so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. >> jason: so chris, these sameve three characters, brennan and clapper and comey, they were in charge when this type of hacking and attack happened. there are a lot of us that think maybe what they are trying to do now is deflect and distract because of the fact that all of a sudden they are being called out for this and they didn't do their jobs back when they were in charge. >> jason, jason, you are clearly not suggesting that the russians did not try to interfere with our elections. >> jason: i do think they did and i don't think that brennan and clapper and comey -- >> but the president doesn't think it! okay, a whatever. let's have a congressional hearing and bring them in along with the dni that is there now under other members that can answer this question. congress should be holding hearings, like the hearings youy held about benghazi, like the

hearings you held about her email server, we need to figure out what is going on the russians and how it was related to the election -- >> jason: devin nunes -- >> devin nunes -- >> jason: he'sun been talking about it for years. those gentlemen have testified multiple times. >> so have a hearing.it >> jason: they have had them. these three peopleng came to congress -- >> have a public hearing. >> jason: jeff, let me go to you. >> i don't believe that. >> jason: i do.ha i really do. jeff, you are experienced, cia. they didn'tle that know these things? and why would president obama go to great lengths to tell the world that there was nothing like this happening? >> i think of course they knew. they knew this was going on. but i think it was anotherth failure on brennan's part w primarily. he was the director of central intelligence. he underestimated the threat. and he failed. he failed to protect the system. okay, so we could have hearings about that.

the reason you asked the question earlier, jason, why don people go nuts after trump was elected, is because you heard the rhetoric during the election. "lock her up." there was so much wrongdoing going on that the opposition, the resistance, had to go on the offensive, to try to make the trump administration play defense. and that is what they tried to do. one other thing real quickly. this all goes back to really a stupid decision when hillary attacked, in 2011, putin, the legitimacy of of his election, and did she think that she could try to undermine his credibility, his election, his process, without having him fire back?er >> jason: let me bring in dan. >> do we stand for democracy around the world? t >> jason: the reality is, i think the russians and others try to hack into the republican

systems but they were pushed back because they actually have security on them. the reason the democrats don't want to give up their server or anything else is because they wouldn't let the fbi look at it. daniel, i want to get your take. who do you concur with here? how do you view this? >> first i have to say secretary clinton was right to call out russia for electionin violation, human rights violations. >> yes. >> russia considers the united states its main enemy. they have been running these sorts of operations for years against us. they ran a massive cyber attack against the estonians in georgia in 2008 and against ukraine. we knew they were doing it to others, we knew they were doing it to us, and we do not effectively counter russia and deter them. that is -- >> jason: chris, you will get the last word. that is why so many of us were frustrated with barack obama and hillary clinton and that silly little reset button because they tried to downplay all of that. they mocked mitt romney. you have these people that were in the professional intelligence agencies, telling us everything was all right, and it wasn't. and you only started saying it wasn't once donald trump became the president! >> and it turns out that mitt

romney was right and that is why the russians -- >> jason: chris, say that again. i didn't hear that. mitt romney was right. barack obama was flat out wrong. >> look, one of the things i like about you, jason, you are a former place kicker just like me and we know better. we want to know the truth, and i want to know what happened, and i'm sure you do, too, and i c hope congress does its job. >> jason: fair enough, gentlemen, thank you. i appreciate it. as the director of national intelligence, dan coats is president trump's top spy. but for how long? that's the big question tonight after director coats make these comments about the helsinki conference today that couldn't have made the president very happy. >> i wish he had made a different statement. but i think that now that has been clarified. i don't know what happened in that meeting. i think as time goes by, the president has mentioned some

things that happened in that meeting, i think we will learn more. but that is thell president's prerogative. he asked me how that ought to be conducted, i would have suggested a different way. but that is not my role. that's not my job. so it is what it is. >> jason: joining me now for reaction is republican congressman ron desantis, who is running for governor in florida. i had the pleasure of serving with ron in the congress on the oversight committee and also on the judiciary committee. congressman, thank you for joining us. what is your reaction to what director coats was saying and if you started the countdown clock on how long he might have his job? >> good to see you, jason.n. i have a lot of respect for dan coats, i think he served the country honorably, i have confidence in him in terms of his capability. i just wonder whether that aspen festival is the right place to be talking about that.

if you had concerns, just bring it to the president. but to do it in front of that crowd, i didn't think that was the right way to go. >> jason: congressman, you and jim jordan, mark meadows, john ratcliffe, trey gowdy, i mean, the list is long. you have been trying to extract documents from these people and yet we see them all in aspen, i guess, they didn't take a delta flight or southwest to get there. how is it that -- how does that make you feel when you see them hanging out in aspen but you can not get them to come b to capitol hill? >> it's frustrating. jason, you know why this is happening. you and i tried to bring accountability to the irso commissioner when he was pulling a lot of the same stuff. we tried to actually impeach him. we didn't get the support we needed throughout the entireea house of representatives. i think the same thing here is, we have not yet imposed a sanction on rosenstein. if we say we want these documents, which we definitely are entitled to, set a date to hold him in contempt if w he

doesn't produce it. instead, it is kind of d back ad forth and i think he is running out the clock on this stuff. i don't think he wants to comply with what we are asking for. c >> jason: i am no longer in congress. you are. why haven't you dropped that? the clock is ticking. you literally have days before the next election. you are in a handful ofcl days. is there anything that is going to happen? >> we should do it. i have been arguing for months. let's set that contempt date, if we don't have the documents,le e proceed to do it. if we do have the documents, then we cancel the hearing. that is what we should do. will we do it? i just don't know the answer to that because as you know, you need to get a certain amount of members to get on board for doing that. but if we can get that information, i think that would shed a lot of light on a lot of the problems that we have seen and really just scratch the surface of identifying with people like peter strzok and his anti-trump bias as really the mover and shaker behind this whole collusion narrative. >> jason: now before the

president showed up in helsinki for the summit with mr. putin, there were some indictments that were dropped. a, do you think those do anything, and what did you make of the timing of those indictments? >> i don't think they'll end up doing anything because i don't think anyone's going to actually be there to stand trial for them. so i think if you are going to deal with -- first of all, we have dealt, we've responded to russia's cyber activity, you and i supported sanctions at the beginning of the congress. i would be willing to do more. responsehe political is more effective, to just do an indictment and never try the case, i think it was more for show, and i don't think it will amount to very much. most of the information in that indictment was exactly what devin nunes' committee had identified several months ago. we didn't really learn very much new in the indictment. >> jason: one of the things that nobody in the media seems to be talking about is upon the return, president trump really walked out of there with tens of billions of dollars in commitments from our nato

partners to beef up the forces on those that are pro-usa and maybe not so pro-russia. and that doesn't get talked about. is there anything else that you and congress is going to be able to do to fortify the president and continue to push nato? >> i am a supporter of nato but at the same time, nato's status quo, there's problems with nato. trump obviously has been very forceful in identifying the failure of some of our european allies to maintain appropriate defense levels. i have concerns about turkey's role in nato. if you look at what erdogan is doing with being an islamist and recently with the controversy, so i think it's healthy to push it in a different direction but we are all committed to nato and i think the president is committed to nato as well. >> jason: congressman, thank you. ron desantis in florida tonight. thank you very much. president trump says the media wants a war with russia. we'll tell you why coming up next. ♪

when heartburn hits... fight back fast with tums smoothies. it neutralizes stomach acid at the source. tum tum tum tum tums... smoothies... ...and introducing new tums sugar-free. okay. your all you can eat ribenjoy. thanks. ♪ ♪ when i touch you like this ♪ and i hold you like that. ♪ it's so hard to believe ♪ but it's all coming back me. ♪ baby, baby, baby. ♪ if you touch me like this ♪ and when you hold me like that. ♪ all you can eat is back, baby. applebee's. eatin' good in the neighborhood.

♪ ♪ >> jason: it's been more thann three days since trump's meeting with putin in helsinki. but the media are still in a frenzy over the whole ordeal. frustrated with the negative coverage, president trump said this morning that the media wants a war with russia and from

some of the hysterics seen in the last 24 hours, he may not be wrong. >> president trump is not taking the interest of the country first. he's taking his personal interest or some other interest first. >> it made me wonder if people are suspicious that he revealed sensitive, classified intelligence, including human source information to the president of the russian federation. that's a realon concern. >> meddling is an inadequate word to describe what russia did here. meddling is somethingg your mother-in-law might do in your marriage. this was an attack. this was an attack upon american democracy. >> the word he used earlier this week, you are absolutely correct sir, attack u.s. democracy. >> jason: joining me now for analysis is howard kurtz, host of "media buzz," which airs sundays at 11:00 a.m. eastern right here on the fox news channel. thank you so much for being here.00 i appreciate it. what is your take? i see a lot of hysteria but i'm a partisan republican, i get that. come on, they've lost their

marbles, haven't they? >> let's start. with this, president trump made a serious mistake in helsinki. he tried the next day to clarify it. the immediate reaction was, not happening, no do over for you. they have tried to minimize and mock what he has said. it's a hostage tape. he wasn't sitting here. sincere. it was done with a wink and a nod, does he think we americans are stupid? when we hear all of that, the bottom line is -- it's fine to be skeptical -- but the bottom line is that they don't want to -- they want to keep it going, they want to keep their moral condemnation going. >> jason: they seem to be so coordinated. when i look at it, and i look across the spectrum, it is not just one or two but they seem to be coordinated and there seems to be buzzwords that suddenly catch on. does anybody have any idea how that happened so simultaneously? >> it is no secret that much of

the media does not like this u president, doesn't agree with his policies, his styles, some of the buzzwords is where it goes over the top. for example, he's being accused of treason. he's being called a traitor. for messing up a press conference, suddenly he's benedict arnold. i think that when that kind of hysterical overreaction happens -- again, i think the criticism was legitimate in the beginning, many conservatives were critical of the presidentnt including some of your former republican colleagues on the hill, including some people at fox. but that kind of hysterical overreaction convinces half the country there is no way the media can be fair to this guy and it just raises basic questions about fairness. >> jason: it really does play into the president's hand, doesn't it? there are times i think that some of the things that the president will do and tweet about are done to poke the media because it does expose them for who they really are, and what the biases that they really have.. >> oh, he loves to poke the media. all too often, the media fall into the trap. if he makes a mistake, a

misstatement, sometimes is it a 10, the media can go to 11, 15. >> jason: what happened to journalism in this country? i want to play a clip that president trump said but i didn't see much, if any, coverage on this. >> getting along with president putin, getting along with russia is a positive, not a negative. with that being said, if that doesn't work out, i will be the worst enemy he's ever had. the worst he's ever had. >> jason: that was a live broadcast and i think the president's right to do that because he can go out unfiltered, much like when he went out on the north lawn and he talked to mr. doocy there from "fox & friends."o >> unscripted. >> jason: i think the president at his best. but does the media have any semblance of any responsibility to play a clip that puts into balance how he says, i'll be trump -- i'll be putin's worst nightmare. >> you could comment on it, absolutely.

i don't agree with president trump when heou says e media want war with russia. we like fistfights, somebody ends up with a bloody nose. i do think that clips like the ones that you play, what is happening now, that media narrative, everyone in thet prs feels vindicated, we are even being asked what used to be on the fringes, it is now being asked in mainstream publications and mainstream segments. what does putin have on trump? why won't he be tougher? when you have that attitude -- the president said he will be the worst enemy if it doesn't work out, it tends to be minimized, dismissed.er this is where the constant hostility toward this president -- not everybody, some of these people are opinion folks, some of them are former obama folks who have contracts now at msnbc and cnn. that is where the narrative is going. the criticism justified in my view in the beginning but now you see an effort to whip it up, to go to 15, to turn -- usesm words like treason and i think that goes too far. >> jason: it does. howard, i am honored that youn

would come and be here and don't tell anybody, i am faking it as a newscaster. >> it will be our secret. >> jason: i appreciate it. "media buzz," sundays, 11:00 a.m. speaking of russia, it may notsi just be the media who want a war. the democrats are suggesting the president jeopardized national security and his closed-door meeting with trump and are suddenly starting to sound like neoconservatives. >> did the president make concessions to putin? did the president share classified information with putin? did the president take other steps beyond those that he took so publicly to undermine the security of the united states? this is what prompted this discussion of montenegro recently, that's a high priority of vladimir putin's. to have the president of theor united states say, why should we risk people over montenegro, that is exactly with the kremlin wants to hear. >> jason: here to react is congressman andy biggs, a republican from mesa, arizona. and congressman john garamendi,s

a democrat from california. gentlemen, thank you for being here. i had the honor and privilege of serving with both of you in this congress and i appreciate you joining us tonight to give us a bipartisan perspective. congressman garamendi, i will give you the first word here. for a president to go and meet with a russian president is a good thing, isn't it? do you think that the democrats are taking it way, way too far when they start talking about treason and those types of things? >> there is no doubt, your previous guest, howard, said it very, very well, the president really did mess up in the press conference. there is no doubt about that. but what really actually happened in the two hours is extremely important. right now we are in the process of writing the final version of the annual national defense authorization act. we do know that the president just four months ago said russia was our principal -- russia and china -- were our principal adversaries.

what happened in that four hour meeting that we need to know, as we finish it up? do we have to changech the directions that we are setting? do we have to provide different money for different armaments or less money for some armaments?rm we don't know. so that secret meeting is of serious concern going forward for the policies that congress has to enact on the money that we have to appropriate. some of it we have not yet heard from confidential, classified briefing on singapore, or the nato conference itself. so there is things of this administration needs to share with congress. as to the ongoing controversy, well, the president just continues to cause it. >> jason: let me bring in andy biggs. congressman biggs, when i hear the democrats suddenly getting tough on russia and they sound like warmongers. they've morphed into a totallye different party than i have evel

heard or seen in the past. you had president obamar saying, there is no threat, they just need more time, they can negotiate. you had hillary clinton with a reset button. how do you view it on the floor of the house? >> i think it is true that they have changed their philosophical bent and i don't think it is permanent because i always thought of them as neoliberal institutionalists. what i mean by that is they view themselves as finding some great allegiance -- i'm not classifying everybody, but most of them, they view themselves as having allegiance to these multilateral institutions like the united nations, nato, what have you. and now what they are spinning out is, wait a second, russia is this tremendous enemy, and now we need to make sure that we are protecting nations like m montenegro and there is this mystery going on here. i think that they have t spun themselves up so much because they don't like president trump. they have actually changed their fundamental understanding of who they are from a philosophical

point of view. >> jason: congressman garamendi, how do you feel about that? a lot of people have said those types of things. >> a lot of people have said that -- if i change my fundamental understanding of where i am, the reality is the democrats have said forever that we need a strong and wiseea military. wise in the sense of how wee use that military. i voted for continuing on the armed services committee for national defense authorization act. i do have questions about where the money is spent and whether it is spent wisely and that is my job. the president himself, if i might just a moment, the president himself has said russia is our principal adversary. that was the national defense policy that was emanated by him just a couple of months ago. on the montenegro thing --f

>> jason: wait a minute. congressman. i have the greatest respect for you. you are one of the nicest gentleman i have ever interacted with on either side of the aisle.er but i got to tell you, the democrats under barack obama, every single time we turned around, the only thing they were willing to cut was the defense budget. it's only been president trump and the republicans that have pushed that budget up and they went to great lengths to mock mitt romney and others for even suggesting what devin nunes is which is that our geopolitical foe was russia. >> the facts, yes, we want to have a wise expenditure of the taxpayers' money. let's face it, there are many things that the military does that one should appropriately question whether that is the appropriate expenditure of the taxpayer money. on the other hand, this montenegro thing speaks to the heart of nato. nato is extraordinarily important to america because it brings together europeanan countries and the -- >> jason: congressman, we are going to have to another montenegro segment. i want to get congressman biggs to have the last word. how do you see this goingg forward?

>> i see the philosophical bent has changed. it truly has. the idea that we are going to now ratchet up the rhetoric and potentially cause a firestorm, that is really not where the democrats have been. they have actually emasculated the military under the previous administration. maybe not john, he is a great guy. his party did. and the administration did. we've had to build that back up. and i think president trump is saying, russia is a foe but we are better off if we are going to have these negotiations and we can find points of commonality. that is what i think is so important and that is why i find it very interesting that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are spinning this out of control and moreover, the media is casting the strange narrative of treason. it's absolutely wild. >> jason: congressman, thank you both. i truly do appreciate it. we do have to go. the story the left does not want to hear you about. hillary clinton's emails.

that is up next.

♪ ♪ >> jason: welcome back. the media can't stop talking about trump and russia hacking. but what about hillary? a quick history lesson. back in 2015, the intelligence community issued a security referral, not a criminal referral, regarding the i classified emails on hillary's server. a letter from the inspectors general of the intelligence community and the state department at the time wrote, "these emails were not retroactively classified by the state department. rather, these emails contained classified information when they were generated and according to ic classification officials, that information remains classified today. this classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system." fast forward to last month when

the doj released its inspector general report on the investigation, which published the fbi's own internal file review. it said, "the fbi's inspection division successfully determined" -- remember that part -- "successfully determined classified information was improperly stored and transmitted on clinton's email- server and classified information was compromised by unauthorized individuals to include foreign governments or intelligence services." adding that, "treatment of the investigation, as a traditional espionage matter, rather than a criminal investigation, significantly hindered the ability of the investigative team to obtain full and accurate and timely information." as if things couldn't get worse, yesterday, "the new york times" reported the same russian group who hacked the dnc during the

2016 election also were involved in cyber attacks on the state department while hillary clinton was secretary of state.le joining me now for reaction is peter schweizer, president of the government accountability institute and harmeet dhillon, the rnc committee woman fromom california. thank you both for being here. peter, one of the things that i am so concerned about here, is why -- now that we have had exposure, time to digest it, and the media's bringing it up again, "the new york times," about this hacking, and why is it that this started, not as a criminal investigation, but a counterintelligence operation? >> that is a great question, jason. here's the problem. you look at every step of this investigation of the clinton email scandal, you have sloppiness on the part of the fbi but the problem is, the sloppiness always rebounds to the benefit of the clintons, which leads one to only conclude

that there was an effort to essentially want this story to go away or not hold the clintons accountable. keep in mind additionally to what you just reported, hillary clinton destroyed, deleted, 30,000 emails, and as you pointed out in the introduction, when these emails were created, they are by nature classified. you have a situation when she was probably also deleting large amounts of classified information, yet, there is no accountability whatsoever. this is the deep rot of the fbi. it requires closer investigation and this is what drives people crazy about criminal justice in america. t there is a different set of standards for people in power, particularly those politically connected by the clintons, and, the same rules do not apply to ordinary americans. >> jason: harmeet, as youme look at this and see this, i had worked on this for a long, long time, and you worry that justice doesn't have a blindfold, it is

looking two different directions. but when president trump goes out and says -- admits -- that, yes, russians were working to, in a very negative way, very aggressive way, against the united states' interests, they were hacking, but also mentions that it perhaps was others and you can go back and refer to the reports which confirm that, and the media is nowhere on this. they don't report it. they didn't report it then and they don't report it now. >> absolutely, jason. in addition to everything that peter said, which i agree withm and a couple other facts, we also know that hillary clintonpl was warned and was aware that t her blackberry was not secure, was not allowed to be used in her state department office and yet she used it and that may be tied to some of these leaks. we also know from recent testimony and facts that have come out that apparently out of those 30,000 emails, all but four of them were actually auto-forwarded to some foreign

power that we don't knowor about and louie gohmert has been very insistent on fox news and elsewhere saying that elsewhere was not russia. so it was some other foreign power for these emails ended up. michael flynn has been saying this since 2015 as well, that multiple sources have attempted to and perhaps have had access. with all of this morass that all of this building up of facts, you have james comey with peter strzok's assistance, concluding that this was carlessness as opposed to gross negligence or criminal in nature. clearly, it's a different set of facts for you and me. one more thing that i want to add is that there's been a lot of hullabaloo in the media about the president being told right before his inauguration that the russians had been attempting to target the united states and hacking.ss remember that the same time frame, two weeks before his inauguration, james comey is telling the president-elect that the russians have this kompromat

on him that involves the pee tape and all the stuff that is not true. you have to remember the context. >> jason: you also had president obama going before the world and said no one could do this even if they tried. don't even worry about it. peter, tucker carlson is reporting tonight, and the "washington examiner," reading a headline, following up on tucker carlson's report, "robert mueller offers tony podesta immunity to testify against paul manafort." that is the report coming out tonight. why -- i mean, we are looking at this -- i am springing this onki you, we are just seeing it here at fox, all of a sudden tony podesta is suddenly getting immunity. but is that typical? it always seems like the clintons and people associated with the democrats get immunity before they go through the investigation. >> if this reporting is accurate, and have no reason to believe it's not, it's a little bit like granting immunity to

bonnie to get at clyde. the root of the problem with paul manafort -- and there are many and they need to be investigated and he needs to be held to account -- a lot of it involves the foreign agents registration act, fara, and the fact that he was doing a lot of work for foreign clients, lobbying work, and he was not revealing that, or registering with the department of justice. well, guess what? tony podesta was also doing very similar things. and in fact, when the investigation really picked up steam on paul manafort, what did tony podesta do? he went and filed a lot of fara reports with the department of justice going back to previous years because he had failed to register before. this question of justice, why is it that the fara violations of paul manafort should be prosecuted -- by the way, i believe they should be if they are real, but why in the case of

tony podesta are they not, it ia mystifying and it will only further confuse americans why they think they have further standards. >> jason: you have to look at mark elias, hillary clinton, general counsel, dnc, involved in the podesta group. it is quite a web. who gets the immunity? oh, those that are the democrats. harmeet, i wish we had more time. peter, thank you so much for joining us. they are back. governor mike huckabee joins us next to discuss why the obamas all of a sudden are getting back into the political fray.

do these moves look familiar? then you might have a condition called dry mouth. biotène is clinically proven to soothe and moisturize a dry mouth. plus, it freshens breath. biotène. immediate and long lasting dry mouth symptom relief. ♪ keep it comin' love. if you keep on eating, we'll keep it comin'. all you can eat riblets and tenders at applebee's. now that's eatin' good in the neighborhood. ♪ >> jason: welcome back. are the obamas plotting a political comeback? it sure seems like it. the former president taking thinly veiled shots at president trump while in south africa this week. >> look around. strongman politics are ascendant suddenly.

whereby elections and some pretense of democracy are maintained, the form of it, but those in power seek to undermine every institution of it or a norm that gives democracy meaning. >> jason: and michelle obama is back in the public spotlight starring in a so-called nonpartisan psa with other celebrities that encourages voting registration. joining me now to explain what's going on here is mike huckabee, a fox news contributor and former governor of arkansas. governor, thank you so much for being here. we are about 80 days before the midterm, the first ballots in t the midterm will be cast, and suddenly the obamas are entering the political stage. what do you see goingsu on here? >> it makes a lot of sense because they are a lot more popular than virtually any other democrat and putting them on the stage gives the mainstream democrats kind of a little taste of nostalgia. if you got a choice between

listening to barack obama, michelle obama, or hillary clinton, it gets to be pretty easy as to who you want in the spotlight. you know, i listen to the formes president's speech, i didn't think it was that outrageous, he didn't call out president trump by name.mp it was pretty mild, especially by president obama's standards when he was in office, when he often called our people by name. so more power to him. i think that if republicans have some people we want to trot out, that's great. frankly, this makes sense. you don't want to put maxine waters, you don't want to put elizabeth warren, you don't want to put hillary out there, and right now that is all they have got talking. >> jason: the democrats have come up with a new slogan. they dumped the one they had. they tried to unveil a new one, i believe it is "for the people." i see a party without a leader, begging, hoping for barack obama, but then i also don't see a message in terms of

policy. what do you see? >> their message is, vote for us, we'll reverse the tax cuts and take the money back from you and put it in the government's hands, we'll open up the borders, and you really won't be safe and a lot of cities, and we want to reverse the economic gains we are making and takehe those bonuses back. that is the message. the democrats' campaign moniker this year really ought to be something like, we are so cool that we can get rid of i.c.e. because that is their whole message. they got nothing. other than impeach 45, as maxine waters likes to scream at the top of her lungs. that is not a message. >> jason: have you ever seen a party or even a candidate who just wants to dismantle law enforcement, that hates law enforcement? there are tens of thousands of i.c.e. agents out there protecting us everyfo day. how do you win at the national level by just trying to disparage federal employees?

i never thought i would see democrats doing it. >> it doesn't seem to be a very smart strategy. i think overwhelmingly, american people respect law enforcement. we know that the police are underpaid, overworked, overstressed, they do a job that most of us don't do for ten times the money and we are grateful for what they do and the risk they take every single day. for democrats to have the attitude that we don't want to law enforcement, we want open borders, we want a government that is not held to beth accountable for the things they do, that is not where i think the american people are. so they will either have to come up with a message. right now they are just looking for messengers and that is where barack and michelle obama come in.. i think that is a smart move on their part if they can get them to be active. they still have to have a message and it has to be bigger, other than donald trump. >> jason: let me play you a quick bite of joe biden because he seems to be making some rumblings.

trump -- i'm sorry, it's trump talking about biden. >> who do you think your w democratic opponent will be? joe biden said he will make a decision by january. >> i dream about biden. that's a dream. joe biden ran three times, he never got more than 1%. president obama took him out of the garbage heap and everyone was shocked that he did. i would love to have it be biden. >> jason: biden or holder? which one do you think? which one will be here? >> either one of them. it's especially -- think about this.. we are really looking at a new democratic movie called "back to the future" and joe biden rolls in in the delorean and talks about the good old days. this would be a dream team for the republicans. you have biden, elizabeth warren, hillary still making noise, please, god, let it be.ti >> jason: no new fresh blood there. governor huckabee, thank you very much. i appreciate you joining me. what do republican candidates around the country really think

about president trump? a candidate for senate in michigan will tell us next. ♪ are you ready to take your wifi to the next level?

then you need xfinity xfi. a more powerful way to stay connected. it gives you super fast speeds for all your devices, provides the most wifi coverage for your home, and lets you control your network with the xfi app. it's the ultimate wifi experience. xfinity xfi, simple, easy, awesome. ♪ >> jason: president trump is getting a lot of flak from thent media and the left for his meeting with vladimir putin

earlier this week. but how do republican candidates soon facing the voters feel about the president? let's ask one. john james, republican candidate for united states senate in michigan joins us now. sir, i want to thank you first for your service to your country, you were a captain in the united states army and i thank you for that service and thank you for joining us here today. you have an upcoming primary. you are looking at potentially running against debbie stabenow, who is the senator in michigan. when people ask you about trump or maybe the most recent meeting with vladimir putin, what do you tell people? do you support the president? how do you react to them? >> it's not about what i tell them, it is about what they tell me. i said before i got on this journey, to listen andnd learn before i lead. what i actually heard when i wao out walking in detroit about a week or so ago, and i quote yout african-american male who is now working, just got a bonus from his employer because of the

trump tax cuts, said -- and i quote -- "i don't mind trump. he helps me and my babies eat good." what people really care about ib michigan is jobs. what people really care about in michigan is taking care of their families. they see someone in the white house who will protect america's interest, who will put someone like neil gorsuch in the supreme court, will secure our borders, and our entry points, defund sanctuary cities, and help protect i.c.e. against liberal progressives who would tear down our law enforcement. these are things that people truly care about in michigan. >> jason: do they care about the president's tweets? do they care what msnbc or cnn says? does that come up in those discussions when you are walking around michigan? >> the thing is, when i goic around the state of michigan, places like flint and saginaw people don't care about with the

pundits and talking heads say on the coasts. right now senator stabenow has failed to effectively lead and bring things back. there are areas, like flint, saginaw, detroit, the reasons i came back, that are still suffering, that don't look any better after 50 years. the people i'm talking about in these cities have been neglected by democrats and after marching from selma to detroit and rebelling from baltimore, people here haven't seen anything change in 5050 years. now it's different. i am the only conservative in this race.ar i've been endorsed by right to life michigan, national right to life, susan b. anthony list, american conservatives union, i am the only one who can beat debbie stabenow, i have a military experience, being a west point grad, and i have grown my family business. >> jason: captain, you have convinced me. you are not running from the trump agenda, you are not running from the right. i do think it will be a winning message. i have got just ten seconds left. when people say -- the democrats

say, let's abolish i.c.e., what do you say? >> i say we have to secure the borders, defund sanctuary cities, and protect i.c.e. in our law enforcement officials. we need to actually defund sanctuary cities and use that money to fund i.c.e. go to johnjamesforsenate.com to learn more. >> jason: nice pitch at the end. well played, sir. i appreciate your service to this country and all the veterans out there who have actually served their country and worn the colors of the flag on their sleeve. thank you for joining us tonight. absolutely earth shattering announcement from chick-fil-a. one of my favorites! we'll tell you what it is next. one of my favorites!

..e of my favorites! >> before we go i have some very important news to report. chick-fil-a is getting rid of their beloved cow calendars. i am a huge fan of chick-fil-a.

nobody more nuggets to prove it. for them to retire that calendar with their coupon is utterly ridiculous. i didn't write that line. somebody on the staff wrote it. i tried to pull it off. they are supposed to be looking for the cow appreciation day but how can you tell when cow appreciation day is happening if you don't have a calendar? shannon bream will sort that out with mike pompeo. i'm sure it is one of the questions she will ask him. shannon: had i known i would have asked him of that. i challenge you to a nugget eating contest. thank you. we begin