Ingraham: When Trump wins on principle

close

Video

Ingraham: When Trump wins on principle

The president stuck to his guns on trade and is completely altering the dynamic for the better.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," March 26, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening from Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle," live from Washington, D.C., and this is our 100th show, 100 shows? Can you believe it? It's like it was last year that we started. We have an incredible show that you're not going to want to miss tonight hitting story from a lot of different angles. We have a stunning revelation out of Orlando today, the father of the terrorist that killed 49 people inside that Pulse Nightclub was known to the FBI, and so is his son. Unbelievable report ahead.

And Kim Jong Un is meeting with foreign leaders today, but not anyone from President Trump's team. We are going to tell you where he is and why. Plus, the left is targeting masculinity. Of course, they are. We are going to debate what is really motivating them. And what key fact did those gun-control marches not understand? We'll have some video that will shock you. But first, when Trump wins on principle, that is the focus of tonight's "Angle."

All right, given Friday's kick in the gut to the Trump base, you know, when the president decided to sign, not veto, that $1.3 trillion omnibus bill, well, the phrase 'Trump wins on principle' might seem a little odd to say the least, but bear with me. Amid the disappointment that a lot of you were rightly feeling, myself included, given the bait and switch on the border wall and the fact that Planned Parenthood gets full funding, I want to tell you tonight, there are victories on the horizon, especially involving one critical area that is woefully under covered by the American media in which the president, remember, relentlessly pressed on the campaign trail.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: On trade, we are going to end the international abuse. Our massive chronic trade deficits are destroying the middle class and shifting money away from workers to large corporations who have no borders.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: That's one of the big reasons why he got elected and I'll tell you, Trump's team, they have been busily renegotiating trade deals and knocking down market barriers that have been killing off American manufacturing and hurting our workers. And the good fruits of this work are now emerging. Remember that one serious TV network like CNN and CBS, well, our trade policy for them doesn't merit as much airtime as porn stars, but our trade relationship with the rest of the world has a lasting impact on the lives of most Americans and their families. Trump has been pretty widely on trade overall, and he has made provocative and bold moves. He has talked to tough. He has threatened tariffs, and at almost every turn, the globalists predicted total disaster.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MALE CORRESPONDENT, 'CNN MARKETS': The U.S. president said he is going to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. This is basically a byword for, well, I might start a trade war.

MALE CORRESPONDENT, 'ANDERSON COOPER 360': There are real consequences to these statements and actions that he doesn't seem to appreciate.

MSNBC FEMALE CORRESPONDENT, 'MORNING JOE': This is a toxic mix that we are in right now, and if the president pushes ahead with this, it is not too far a reach to say, could this be the thing that pushes the world into a period of very considerable instability.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: My God, how do these people still work in television? I still don't get it. Well, once again, the so-called experts -- I say that all the time, the so-called experts were wrong. Trump's tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum and last week's proposal to raise $60 billion worth of tariffs on other Chinese goods have brought Beijing to the negotiating table and are getting results. Today's Chinese economic minister announced that they are continuing talks with the Trump administration, but they have already committed to a lot, like this, easing U.S. access to the Chinese market, tweeting domestic and foreign firms equally, increasing U.S. semiconductor imports, that's big, and they will no longer require U.S. firms to hand over intellectual property to their Chinese partners in exchange for operating in the country.

The Financial Times is reporting that the Trump team is also making headway in lowering Chinese tariffs on American cars and that they are going to gain access to the Chinese financial sector. Well, folks, since we have a $375 billion trade deficit with China, this is all really good news. On trade, let's remember, the president has stood on principle. He stuck to his guns and he completely altered the dynamic for the better, and it is not only in China. The White House says that a new NASA deal is in the offing. We should note that Jared Kushner is working hard on this behind the scenes. Then today, we learned that Trump's tariff talk has brought back to Korea to the bargaining table as well. Think about this, less than three months after he was elected, President Trump made it crystal clear what he thought of that Korean-U.S. free trade deal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: We have a horrible trade deal with Korea. But now even before we do something with that, because we are negotiating the trade deal with Korea, we will either negotiate a trade deal or we are going to terminate the deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, of course, that horrified the globe, but he got South Korea's attention big-league. For months now, Trump's team has been plugging away, you haven't heard a lot about it, at a total renegotiation of that agreement. Now the deal was approved in 2012 and it used NAFTA as its framework, so it's not really all that shocking that it turned out to be a complete nightmare. In the first five years since it went into effect, our trade deficit with Korea increased for all but one month, 59 out of 60 months. Our auto sector was hardest hit, but others were as well. Last year, Korea shipped more than $16 billion worth of passenger cars here, but we sent only $1.5 billion worth of vehicles over there. Yet today, Korea announced it had made significant concessions to benefit U.S. automakers. While also they are capping the amount of Korean steel that can flood into our markets, for that, they are going to get a partial exemption from Trump's tariffs.

This is terrific news for American industry. It is also great news for our national security as well because it's removing obstacles to cooperating and dealing with the North Korean threat. It also shows us how Trump uses leverage. You've got to use the leverage where you have it. Tariffs are not a four-letter word. Most presidents have used them. Selectively, but they've used them. But, of course, a fake news, they prefer to ignore the substantive issues, you know, the ones that really matter. And all the progress that Trump has made for millions of Americans on this issue. Citizens, by the way, who have seen the way of life, their standard of living, destroyed over the past two decades, during a period of what, unchecked trade abuses. You know, people who work for companies like Dusty Stevens.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DUSTY STEVENS, steel worker: My father worked as a smelter for 40 years. He retired early so another guy could keep his job. My brother, he was laid off and he didn't come back to work. So, this has directly affected our family, not only ours, but over 300 other families. The Trump administration has given it back to us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Speaking for steel companies, aluminum companies, representing a lot of people, those are the forgotten Americans. That is who turned out to vote for President Trump in 2016. They need him to keep challenging the Washington 'corrupt-ocrats' and changing policies that just do not work.
While the left-wing resistance is marinating on things like protests, propaganda, and porn stars, the Trump administration should stick to first principles. Now it's a shame they blew it on the omnibus, but they are killing it on trade. And so, we soldier on, and that's the "Angle."

All right. What I just laid out really does speak to the disconnect that I've talked about for, I don't know, 15 years in the media and books and so forth between the left and the rest of the country. While the media obsesses over Stormy Daniels and the March For Our Lives kids, tangible results are actually being achieved that directly benefit you and your family. After all of the talk about how motivated the Democrats are, I am telling you, this is true and key to the midterms. Trump and the GOP are about results. The left, today, at least, it is about demagoguery.

Most Americans aren't comfortable with what they saw over the weekend, the profanity, the crude posters, First Amendment out there, make your point, that's fine. But the profanity and the anger, the nastiness, I don't think so. But conservatives do need to counter this, and they have to counter it with substance, thought, and results. Joining me now to discuss all this in the studio, Dave Bossie, Fox News contributor, and a former deputy manager of the Trump campaign, and remotely, Austan Goolsbee, an economics professor at the University of Chicago and President Obama's former top economic advisor, and Kim Strassel, Wall Street Journal columnist and Fox News contributor. All right. Let's start with you, Austan, because I remember not so long ago, the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial about you. It was called Austan Goolsbee's Revenge, because you successfully, according to The Journal convinced Barack Obama to abandon his campaign pledge to renegotiate to NAFTA. And they credited you with bringing this unbridled enthusiasm for free trade back to the mindset of Barack Obama. That is while considering where we are today, Austan.

PROFESSOR AUSTAN GOOLSBEE, ECONOMICS AT UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Well, not exactly. First, congratulations, Laura, on the 100th show.

INGRAHAM: Thank you, we brought you want to celebrate, Austan.

GOOLSBEE: Now, the thing that is happening with Donald Trump, they had a record-setting day on the stock market today, precisely because Donald Trump is not going to do the things that he has been promising to do. Last week when they thought he was going to enact these trade war-starting tariffs, the stock market had its worst week in the years. Steel tariffs are not a good idea. They destroyed hundreds of thousands –

INGRAHAM: Let me jump in here. You are fine -- I just want to get this on the record. You are fine with every American steel manufacturer, aluminum manufacturer, going out of business? You're fine with that, correct?

GOOLSBEE: No.

INGRAHAM: What do you mean? We had 19 of the top 23 steelmakers in the world 20 years ago, we now have three.

GOOLSBEE: I said putting in blanket steel tariffs destroys more manufacturing jobs than it saves. If Donald Trump goes after Chinese intellectual property, I'm all for that.

INGRAHAM: How do we get China to the table? We got them to the table with the only leverage we have.

DAVE BOSSIE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Austan, that's how we got them to the table for this great day on the market. That's a fact. Look, the last 25 years of a president's failed policies, whether it is NAFTA, any of these bad deals with South Korea, these have cost American jobs, cost American companies, and that is what this president said. I made a promise during the campaign and I'm going to keep it. Promise made, promise kept. He is bringing all of them to the table with strong words.

INGRAHAM: Let's go Strassel here, though, we've got Kimberly, The Wall Street Journal the word 'tariff,' I'm sorry to The Wall Street Journal, but you might as well be burning crosses, the 'Journal' hates tariffs of any type, temporary tariffs -- they think tariffs should never be, frankly, as far as I can tell, never be instituted. I submit that the 'Journal' has been wrong on this issue for 25 years. These tariffs are what got Europe paying attention. They're working with Japan and us to put pressure on China, Korea was brought to the table, our manufacturers are going to benefit, and the world is taking notice, maybe we pulled him back. If that's OK, but we had leverage and used it.

KIMBERLY STRASSEL, REPORTER, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Laura, what is the definition of trade? It's one country doing something with a competitive advantage over the other. You trade because one can do with cheaply than the other. They both benefit in the end. That's the idea. Now when you talk about some of these steel manufacturers going under, part of it was because we weren't doing as good a job, and partly because of liberal policies imposing vast amounts of regulation and taxes on our companies. So, one of the most important things that Donald Trump has done since he came into office was deal with our domestic agenda and begin to make it easier for manufacturers from an energy perspective, from a deregulatory perspective, from a tax perspective, to begin competing in the world. You also want the rest of the world to play by a fair set of rules.

INGRAHAM: Well, here's the problem. I understand though, trade in one country, make something cheaper. The problem with, though, China, the market influence and market domination that they have been able to develop because of allowing permanent trade relations status. They were able to manipulate the market. This was not an efficient marketplace. I would submit the marketplace was horrifically distorted by state subsidies, by trade, by currency devaluation, but most importantly, by cheating, dumping globally, not just dumping in the United States -- cheaters.

GOOLSBEE: Let's say you are right, and you probably are right, then we ought to be for a policy that would reduce those other countries' barriers more than the U.S., but that is exactly what the TPP was going to do that Trump abandoned.

INGRAHAM: Austan, this is what gets me going more than the issue, I'm sorry.

(CROSSTALK)

BOSSIE: This president ran on fair trade. This president ran unfair trade. He ran on being president of the united states and representing his country to the best of his ability and tough talk, talking about tariffs, talk about ending these bad trade deals is what is getting us, getting American workers back.

INGRAHAM: More importantly, how many people remember when Hillary argued about how much in favor she was of the TPP? Nobody. How many remember when Barack Obama argued in favor of extending NAFTA indefinitely. Nobody. How many of you remember when Democrats were getting up and saying, boy, in 2020, we are going to be running for more trade deals. We are going to be in favor of more trade deals? They all know this is a winner electorally. That's why Obama was against NAFTA without renegotiation. Hillary was not arguing for the TPP. This is all a big shell game for the Democrats. They claim to be for the little guy. They argue they are going to be, and when they get into office, they nix their trade, their little guy trade policy. That happened. You are the one that worked with Obama. You convince them, didn't you, Austan, to nix the NAFTA --

STRASSEL: This is why Republicans have always led on trade policy, which is a good thing, because Democrats aren't going to do it. They will always cave into unions and special interest.

GOOLSBEE: Laura is endorsing that Democratic position.

INGRAHAM: I actually think Democrats and Republicans can work together on a lot of issues. I actually think --

STRASSEL: No, but here's -- what you have to do is call out the truly rogue -- the good news here --

INGRAHAM: We have to move, so much is happening, I'm sorry, to end that part of the discussion. I'm going to play for you a sound bite from the March For Our Lives over the weekend when two of the most well-known activists, pro-gun-control activists spoke. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EMMA GONZALEZ, SCHOOL SHOOTING SURVIVOR: I want an incredibly large voter registration turn out to happen here.

DAVID HOGG, SCHOOL SHOOTING SURVIVOR: We are going to make this a voting issue. To those politicians supported by the NRA that allowed the continued slaughter of our children and our future, I say, get your resumes ready.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Who wrote that line? Let's go to Kimberly on that. This was supposedly about guns, but I said a couple of weeks ago, this was really about voter registration, this was about getting your power back, so gun issue for now then they'll move on to another issue. Your reaction to the weekend?

STRASSEL: Yes. I think what happened here is that this is an issue that many on the left have seized upon as a way of further motivating their base to come out. I think the problem, though, is that while it does motivate some on the Democratic base, there are vast numbers of Americans out there, Laura, who appreciate not just the First Amendment, but the Second Amendment too. And understand that we apply our Bill of Rights equally and that some of these solutions or the arguments that are being espoused by a lot of those who showed up are not going to be the answer to gun violence or broader violence in our community.

BOSSIE: We need to protect our students. I have four kids in three different schools. We want our kids to be protected, but it is a good guy with a gun. We need better background checks. We need mental health checks. Those are important things that we can actually affect immediately. The legislative process is going to take a long time.

INGRAHAM: Austan, I think it was genius what they did in organizing this. I think Republicans aren't all that good with the protest culture. I think they are not all that good at these voter registration drives, but I actually was impressed by the organization, the money that flowed in.

BOSSIE: Who paid for it?

INGRAHAM: Not David Hogg. Go ahead.

GOOLSBEE: In my view, the battleground suburban districts issues like, should there be universal background checks and more attention paid to mental health and whether people can get access to guns, that is an issue that favors Democrats and favors a kind of centrist approach.

INGRAHAM: We haven't a lot of time. They always hang their hat on -- got to go. That's all in your house, Bossie. Up next, new info about what the FBI knew before that deadly Pulse Nightclub terror attacks. Just another blackeye for the bureau. Details and a lot more. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Welcome back. Bombshell news out of Orlando tonight in what looks like another black eye for the FBI. The father of Omar Mateen, remember him? The terrorist that gunned down 49 people in the Pulse Nightclub attack back in 2016. It was just revealed as an FBI informant. That is according to court documents and testimony in the trial of Noor Salman, Omar Mateen's widow. Authorities killed Mateen on the night of the attack, but his widow is facing federal charges for obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting her husband when she dropped him off that night.
At the trial today, an FBI special agent testified that Omar's father, Saddique Mateen, was an FBI informant for more than a decade prior to the Pulse Nightclub attack, and according to reporters in the courtroom, the agent also revealed the FBI was considering making Omar himself and informant. Nice.
This despite the fact that the agency knew Omar had previously spoken out to friends and associates about having ties to terrorist organizations. It was all a joke, I'm sure. For more on this incredible story, let's go to former LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman, and Terry Turchee, who formerly worked in FBI counterterror. Describing both of you, Gentlemen, in those bland terms don't really capture it, but I've got to say, when I saw this cross, I thought of both of you, saying we got to get both on tonight. Terry, let's start with you, how is it that we are just learning now about Omar Mateen -- we have kind of not heard much about him in the aftermath of the attack, but now we learn his father was an informant, and then they thought about actually recruiting Omar himself, but then they also found out about his connection to the terrorist organizations.

TERRY TURCHEE (RETIRED), FBI COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION: I think what surprised me most about this, Laura, usually, when you are in the lead up to a trial, you have to disclose everything you have that might be relevant to the defense. In this instance, they waited a long time. I can tell you this that literally within minutes after the shooting at the nightclub and after Omar Mateen's name was known, the FBI knew that Omar Mateen was connected to Saddique, they would have been an index check and they would have known immediately. The FBI had prior interest with these people. That is not at all unusual. What I am surprised about is that they would have decided during the lead up to this trial to not say anything about that until now because you could take big chances in waiting this long.

As it turns out, it appears that the judge said, this is not relevant, and continues on. But there are a lot of questions here. One glaring thing that comes to mind, if Saddique was, in fact, in FBI informant during that time, I think the market was at various points between 2005 and 2016. It is very possible that he could be providing information on something else, and they decided they need to keep that part of this client for as long as we can. But ultimately, it was the prosecution team that had to make a decision, and the DOJ, of if and when they were going to reveal this.And today it was revealed. It really it makes you feel uneasy, and it is a little hard to explain it, the average person would say, that doesn't make any sense. It is going to feed a lot of conspiracy theories regardless of how it goes from here on out.

INGRAHAM: Fuhrman, what effect might this have on local and law enforcement, kind of a big footed by the FBI here on this?

MARK FUHRMAN, FORMER LAPD DETECTIVE: Laura, it is my experience, and I don't know if Terry will agree, but the FBI is rather rigid with their investigative techniques, and they do not like to share information. Information is power, and they prefer to keep all of it in-house. It is very difficult.
Boston bombing was a perfect example of that. They don't want to share information with Metropolitan Police Departments, no matter if it is a specialized unit or not. But I look at this situation, and the first question I have, he was an informant for what? And they are trying to recruit Omar for what reason?
So, it is obvious that the FBI felt that Omar did have a connection to terrorism and that he could possibly, if they could flip them, give information that they could otherwise not obtain. So not revealing this would be obvious because they don't know if they made a mistake or not, but they would rather play it safe.

INGRAHAM: I want to play for you, Terry, a sound bite from Director Comey, of course, June 13th, 2016, about this matter. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: We are also going to look hard at our own to see whether there is something we should have done differently. So far, the honest answer is, I don't think so. So far, we see no indication that this was a plot directed from outside the United States and received no indication that he was part of any kind of network. It is also not entirely clear at this point just went terrorist group he aspired to support.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: When that have been the time for the director, Director Comey -- by the way, this was a presidential election year. Let's not forget that, 2016. They were fudging a lot of stuff in 2012 when Romney was running against Obama with Benghazi. The Benghazi thing sticks in my mind. It wasn't a terror attack, now this. Like, we don't say, we thought it was an informant. You can see how that would have -- imagine what Trump would have done that against Hillary? Go ahead, Terry.

TURCHEE: Laura, there was a day I would have said, you are absolutely right. This is just absurd. It's hard to believe in this day and age, listening to Comey there -- he knew at that point in time when he gave that press conference, as did Sally Yates, who was standing next to him, that Saddique Mateen was a bureau informant or had been a puerile informant. I don't know why they chose not to say anything about it then. But I believe that they had already made a judgment that, for some reason, that we can't bring this up. We can't front this yet. We are going to wait and let the prosecutors figure it all out when we get close to trial. I fronted one of those possible reasons, maybe he was reporting on something else. To go back to something Mark said, and I do agree with him. In national security cases and especially since 9/11, but really this goes all the way back to the days after Watergate and the hearings, and then FISA, which, of course, we're talking about all the time now, the FBI changed. It changed dramatically in dealing with national security issues and domestic terrorism. And we are still now, I think, in my opinion, paying a price for guidelines that aren't keeping up keeping up with what we are now facing.

INGRAHAM: Mark, really quickly, close it out.

MARK FUHRMAN, FORMER DETECTIVE, LAPD: Well, you know what, I listened to Terry talking, and he is an FBI agent, the thing that FBI Director Comey was commenting on, it is interesting that he is sure that they did not, were not involved in a network. But the network lives inside the brains of these terrorists. And it has been 17 years since 9/11. I think they've figured out how to not get on the radar a very large percentage of the time to actually still have contacts and still be part of a terrorist network.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, fantastic segment as always with both of you. And directly ahead, North Korea's Kim Jong Un leaving his country for the first time since becoming leader, but where did he go reportedly? And what might this move mean for his potential meeting with President Trump? Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: So much has happened. Earlier this month President Trump announced he would personally meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to try to put an end to this standoff over the country's nuclear weapons. But according to reports, President Trump will not be the first foreign leader to take a meeting with Rocket Man. Bloomberg News is reporting that Kim is currently in China in his first foreign trip since taking power in 2011. Trying to make sense of all this. Is this really happening? Let's bring in Gordon Chang who is the author of Nuclear Showdown, North Korea Takes on the World, and with me here in Washington is Harry Kazianis, Director of Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest, two experts in China, North Korea. Gordon, let's start with you. I read this today, and I almost fell out of my chair. An armored car procession going from North Korea to China. Are we all being punked here? What's going on?

GORDON CHANG, AUTHOR OF NUCLEAR SHOWDOWN: First of all, there is no confirmation that Kim Jong Un is in Beijing, but I believe that he is. And what's going on is that Xi Jinping is trying to pull the string on the North Koreans. Kim Jong Un, the first foreign leader he wanted to meet was South Korea's Moon Jae-in. The second one was President Trump. Xi Jinping says, no, the optics look really bad. I'm going to force the North Koreans to come to Beijing because Kim Jong Un in Xi Jinping's mind is a vassal. And so this sort of shows that China does control North Korea. When China really wants something, they get it. And I think that really right now what we are seeing is the Chinese telling the North Koreans, you've got to do what we, the Chinese, say.

INGRAHAM: Hey, buddy, I'm going to be president for life. You come to me. Harry, let's go to you on this. This is such a wild story. We are still wondering if this meeting with President Trump will really happen. Everybody freaked out when that was announced. But this could be significant because it might involve the U.S. putting pressure on China to help either smooth this out, pave the way, perhaps, to a meeting. What are your thoughts?

HARRY KAZIANIS, DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE STUDIES, CENTER FOR THE NATIONAL

INTEREST: I think it's clear the Chinese do have a huge role to play here. But I think there is actually a big
bigger question you need to ask. Is Kim Jong Un actually panicking? But we have to remember, what do the North Koreans actually get out of a negotiation with the United States? Nothing. Because now the Trump administration is demanding that they give up their nuclear weapons. We had John Bolton make a lot of statements who is going to be the national security adviser to say they only negotiation is how are we going to pack up your nuclear weapons and bring them back to the United States? So what do the North Koreans get here? I have a feeling the North Koreans could actually be in Beijing to figure out how to get out of this and hopefully the Chinese can help them do this.

INGRAHAM: Get out of the meeting. You do the meeting.

KAZIANIS: Exactly. It's possible.

INGRAHAM: Let's talk, Gordon, about the thinking of both the Chinese and North Koreans separately on Bolton as national security advisor, because these staff shake-ups might bore people across the country, but they are watched very closely in the Middle East, watched very closely in Asia as well. Bolton, neoconservative hawk on the Iraq war and other things. What does North Korea think?

CHANG: I think North Korea is very concerned that the United States is going to strike them, a bloody nose or whatever. Also I think that they understand that Bolton with this big proliferation security initiative is going to cut off North Korea's sales of weapons to, for instance, Iran. This has been going on for decades and American administrations have not stopped it. I think Bolton as national security advisor is going to put an end to that. And I'm sure North Koreans are very concerned.
Also the Chinese because the Chinese have been aiding in this deadly trade, and they are not going to like to see Bolton in 1600 Pennsylvania really putting an end to their support for North Korea.

INGRAHAM: Harry?

KAZIANIS: Yes, I think that is 100 percent accurate. I would actually go even further. I think John Bolton is North Korea and China's worst nightmare. He is going to drive hard times when it comes to negotiations. He is also going to drive hard terms in terms of trade as we have been talking on for the last few segments. I think it is a fact that the Chinese have been really doing a lot of damage to our economy, and now that you're going to have maximum pressure North Korea, but you are also going to have maximum pressure on China.

INGRAHAM: I had a friend text me, dear friend, done very well, let's just put it this way, in New York, and he's a big global trade, he is petrified of John Bolton. I don't think this guy is afraid of anything, but he clearly thinks John Bolton himself is going to blow up the world, Gordon, and I have heard this from Wall Streeter after Wall Streeter, because they're looking at the markets, oh, my God, John Bolton, that's the last person. Do you hear the same thing that I hear and you see it on TV, they're just in a total frothy meltdown over John Bolton. It's just ludicrous.

CHANG: It is ludicrous. This is the way people in the markets work. They don't want any disruption to the way the world is currently at. But Bolton I think is important because what he is saying is look, we have got a China and Russia problem, and we've got to deal with it because if we want to have a future, we've got to make sure that the Chinese and Russians are not attacking our society, which they have been doing by trying to undermine our democracy. They have been trying to close off the global commons, trying to take territory from their neighbors, some of which are our treaty allies. And it's important for, I think, the world the world see Beijing and Moscow as it is, and Bolton does that. He understands it that that's the problems in the world today.

INGRAHAM: Harry and Gordon, great segment, fantastic both of you, phenomenal writers as well.
And the left's assault, ready, on masculinity, you're not going to want to
miss the debate coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: If you look carefully, you'll notice that political and media leaders on the left are slowly chipping away at this idea of masculinity, in other words, what it means to be a man. Don't believe me? Check out this discussion of school shooters on MSNBC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You've been told to 'man up.' What does that mean?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No clue.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not showing emotion.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is the hardest part about growing up for boys?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hiding the pain.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. Not being able to express yourself.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh, my word. So the problem is masculinity. And targeting it isn't reserved for leftwing cable shows. Here is former President Obama.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: A lot of our problems are caused by old men. No offense, men who are old.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: He is not exactly a spring chicken. Come on. Let's discuss this, bring in liberal analyst -- I'll not call you a liberal analyst, Julie. You're an analyst who happens to be a little liberal.
JULIE ALVIN, LIBERAL ANALYST: You could call me left-leaning, I would say.

INGRAHAM: How are you? Let's talk about this. When I hear these attacks on masculinity, I hear the left equating masculine, what it means to be masculine, with abusive or criminality. We are all against abuse, we are all against criminality, at least we should be. If you're not, you're weird. So for me, when you say someone is masculine, it doesn't -- I don't see that. I don't want that, no one I no wants that, but it's OK for a man too, as a friend of mine says, protect, provide, and defend. And I'm sorry, most women I happen to know like men who like to do that, that they carry themselves that way and that's what they think their role is. Today in schools and discussions like we saw on MSNBC, that is considered kind of icky, that whole construct is oppressive. Why is that?

ALVIN: I think there is nothing necessarily wrong with a man who wants to protect and defend. I think that what that specific NBC segment was talking about is the fact that rigid gender roles, specifically in boys, are tied to higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, violence. So it's basically saying that these gender roles are creating an environment in which men and boys feel like they can't express themselves.

INGRAHAM: But Julie, how is that connected? We have had gender roles for, I don't know, millennia. So gender roles are causing boys to commit suicide. Maybe there are a lot of societal factors involved in drug abuse, in promiscuity, in shaming, in substance abuse of other types, addictions, violent video games, isolation because of social media, family dissolution. Men have been tending to be masculine for a long time, but they feminists are like, it's masculinity causing them to do all that.

ALVIN: I think that in the feminist community, we talk a lot about how gender roles tend to hold women back, but there is also something that needs to be discussed about how gender roles tend to hold men back. So men are taught from a young age, from a very, very young age, preschool age, that they are supposed to be unemotional, that's they're supposed to be macho, that they're supposed to be aggressive. And because of that, they don't really have that healthy balance for an outlet of their anger, frustration, things they are feeling sensitive about, rage, things they are experiencing in schools. And because of that, it expresses itself often, and yes, there are certainly other factors at play here, but it often expresses itself through violence and through turning inward, through depression, through self-harm, through substance abuse. And I'm not saying it's the only cause, but --

INGRAHAM: Maybe it is society making them feel like they're all predators. I know a lot of guys who work in a workplace, maybe it's lawyers or businessmen, and they feel like it is open season on them. I mean, these are good people. They feel like, we can't complement anyone, we have to be careful what we say. And they feel like, literally, if they are 25 and single, they can't ask out a gal down the hallway for a drink because if they do, that is going to be considered somehow overly aggressive or abusive. I'm telling you, it's not easy to be a man in the current work environment or in the current societal environment.

ALVIN: I would argue it's a lot harder to be a woman in the current work environment --

INGRAHAM: Well, that's for sure. That's a given.
ALVIN: Right. So I think that perhaps these men are experiencing additional pressure, they're having to watch what they say, watch how they behave. I think that's a welcome change after the way women have long been treated in the workplace. I wouldn't say that's one of the root causes of this increased self-harming behaviors in men. I think gender roles play a part in that and all the things that come with it. These gender roles create isolation, they create anger and a lot of pressure.

INGRAHAM: We've got to go. I'm sorry, we're in the black, but great segment.
I have a question, over the weekend, why did they really march? Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: This past weekend thousands took to the streets allegedly to march against gun violence. But when you press them, as an intrepid reporter from Campus Reform did, the marchers confessed why they had really come.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I there needs to be a complete ban on assault weapons.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think they definitely needs to be a ban on assault weapons.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Assault weapons are not necessary for home defense.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So there was a consensus among marcher that assault weapons should be banned. But how many of them actually knew what an assault weapon was?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you know what an assault weapon is?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, it's -- an assault weapon. It's, like -- I kind of do but kind of don't.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, I guess. But, an assault weapon --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The same amount of people die by assault weapons as due by car crashes in a given year.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As what?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Car crashes. It's a similar number.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not, actually.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Isn't it similar?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, it's not. Assault weapons account for about three percent of guns deaths, and car crash are the leading cause.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I thought that was -- a lot of people die by gun deaths.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think the constitution in and of itself is something that's outdated. Times have changed, and I don't necessarily agree with the Second Amendment to begin with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, that's the truth, totally. This is the problem with political theater lacking substance. Lots of people show up and they applause for Lin-Manuel and Amy Schumer, but what are they marching for? To repeal the Second Amendment, to ban weapons they can't even define. The truth is they don't really know. One thing is clear, after watching the maniacal wall-to-wall coverage over the weekend, they are marching to save lives, the political lives of these people. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: OK, this champagne bottle cork just blew up before the segment began. It's our 100th show tonight, so they got some champagne. We're going to pour it for the staff. Very hard working in New York, I want to see the control room.

(APPLAUSE)

INGRAHAM: Hey, Robert, happy 100. Shannon Bream, I'm going to bring you your champagne, Shannon, 100 shows, I'm going to bring you yours.

END

<Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>