GINGRICH: I'm just reporting I think there's -- and remember, their defense of ObamaCare was that it was tax policy. So it's a little tricky for them to say to the Supreme Court, This is really tax policy, but it's not going to be in the IRS. Part of their defense was that it was in the IRS, and that was part of Chief Justice Roberts's decision that it was constitutional, was that it was tax policy.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right, what should -- what should Chairman Issa do? Should he recall Lois Lerner back?
GINGRICH: I would recall her and I would make her sit there and I would ask her every question and I would allow her to say 600 times.
VAN SUSTEREN: Why?
GINGRICH: Because the country needs to watch a senior civil servant arrogantly say to us, I believe I may be so criminally vulnerable that I'm not going to tell you a thing.
VAN SUSTEREN: And then bring the other ones in from Cincinnati and...
GINGRICH: And do the same. And bring in the woman who's currently at the ObamaCare section who's really part of the original gang and bring in the people who apparently in Washington are coordinating.
Again, this all keeps coming out. The more you learn, the bigger it's going to get, the more people there are that ought to be called. I would also bring in every group that was cheated and have every single group testify. I'd go through days of people saying, We did this, and this is what happened to us.
VAN SUSTEREN: And then what's at the end of that?
GINGRICH: Oh, I think -- I think they should strip ObamaCare out of the IRS. I think they should dramatically shrink the IRS. And I think we need to, frankly, fundamentally repeal the civil service laws and go to a manageable government where when somebody is as bad as these people, you can fire them.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask you about Benghazi. Is that a problem for the president? Beyond the fact that it's a distraction, is it a more serious problem?
GINGRICH: It's a serious problem on a couple of levels. One is, what did -- what was the conversation at 10:00 o'clock at night between he and Secretary Clinton. What did they discuss? What did he know? Get back to Howard Baker's old question, what did he know and when did he know it?
VAN SUSTEREN: Deliberative process is the -- is -- he doesn't have to tell you.
GINGRICH: Yes. The second thing is when the spokesperson for the State Department says in one of the conversations, The leadership of my building is very unhappy with this analysis, it leads you to two great Clintonian questions. What did the term "my building" mean? I think it meant State Department. And what did leadership mean? I think that meant Secretary Clinton.
So Secretary Clinton needs to be called back in to say, You got -- we are told by your own person that you were unhappy with this. What is it you were unhappy with? And why did you not tell us that, in fact, you put pressure on the intelligence community to change what they're doing?
VAN SUSTEREN: And so the end point of this?
GINGRICH: Well, first of all, the end point is, I think, as David Ignatius said in his column last week, to realize how really badly bureaucratic and incompetent our national security apparatus now is. And again overhaul it. I mean, cut through all this stuff. It's not about chasing this week's stupidity. It's about trying to learn what do we have to do to get to a smaller, leaner, more effective, more accountable government?
VAN SUSTEREN: That's not going to happen.
GINGRICH: See, I'm much more of an optimist than you are.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I -- no, I mean...
GINGRICH: Americans have enormous capacity to change things.
VAN SUSTEREN: I mean -- I mean, you look at Washington, I mean, it's, like, you know -- you know, you sort of blend into all the huge waste and everything else going on...
VAN SUSTEREN: It's just a nightmare!
GINGRICH: I look at guys like Scott Walker and John Kasich and Bobby Jindal and Rick Perry. There are lot of state capitals where you're seeing real reform and real change, and that gives me hope that some day, we could do it here in Washington.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Let me turn to something a little bit closer to home. Our James Rosen had his emails -- you shake your head.
GINGRICH: Well, look, every once in a while, Roger Ailes gets lucky on a grand scale. I mean, Ailes had the president of the United States target FOX, attack FOX, design a system to discredit FOX, not allow people to show up -- all these different things because he had decided that this was a conservative channel and he was going to make sure it didn't matter.
And now you find out, at a level that is grotesque, that the Justice Department was targeting a reporter at FOX. I mean, when even The New York Times writes an editorial defending FOX News, you know that you're in one of those amazing moments in history. And I think that everybody who's involved ought to feel that FOX has been pretty solidly vindicated. I mean, these guys apparently were wiretapping his mother and father? Now, how do you justify this?
VAN SUSTEREN: Phone records, I think, just the call records.
GINGRICH: (INAUDIBLE) call records. It was mother and father. Now, my only point is, first of all, going after reporters -- even the president today said, Gee, we don't want to make it criminal for reporters to do their job. Well, he then ought to fire the attorney general because the attorney general sure as heck has been consistently going after reporters.
And I think that here what you have is a remarkable vindication of FOX News because you had somebody doing their job, apparently doing it well enough to rattle the national security apparatus, and somebody who was literally doing exactly what a good reporter should do on a nonpartisan basis.
This was not a political story. This was a national security story. And I think that Mr. Rosen ought to take some real comfort in the fact that he becomes a symbol of what American journalism's all about.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, it's interesting. I pulled a couple -- I went back to October of 2009, CNN Howard Kurtz, October 11th. And Anita Dunn was on and she was talking about FOX and she said, The reality is that FOX News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party, which -- you know, look, if you go back, you find the Obama administration has constantly been unhappy with FOX News, and you know, even excluding us from a State Department conference call on Benghazi, excluding us from a CIA briefing on Benghazi. So this is -- this is not something...
GINGRICH: No, I mean...
VAN SUSTEREN: Not a huge surprise.
GINGRICH: And I think, frankly, everybody at FOX ought to feel pretty vindicated that you've now seen the level a hostility which is unconstitutional and I suspect illegal, and that there should be a certain pride in having Rosen as one of the team here because he did exactly what he should have done. And he will become a symbol of freedom of the press in this process.
VAN SUSTEREN: It's fascinating to see the other news organizations, you know -- you know, coming out on this, I mean, talking about...
GINGRICH: Well, I think everybody across the system on every single network and in every major newspaper realizes that when you start having criminal potential proceedings and you start having secret gathering-up of information against reporters, you have really crossed the line of the 1st Amendment, and you threaten every single news-gathering organization in America.
And I'm frankly delighted that people who may be deep ideological opponents of FOX have come to their defense and I would hope that the entire team from Ailes on down would feel a real sense of pride that this became a 1st Amendment fight and that nobody allowed FOX to become isolated.