This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," March 1, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
LAURA INGRAHAM, "THE INGRAHAM ANGLE" HOST: And good evening from Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle." We have an unbelievable news tonight. It's huge and we have all the angles covered for you. Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is in the crosshairs of the inspector general at the Justice Department for possible illegal leaks that he made to the media. Or had directed made.
Plus, Vladimir Putin claims he has unstoppable super nukes and is warning the West, "You have failed to contain Russia."
Victor Davis Hanson will discuss that as well as bold tariffs. President Trump slapped on China, other countries today. And later in the angle, I'm going to look at whether an Obama era program to reduce school crime and statistics and involvement with police might have been helping keep that Florida shooting suspect under the radar.
But we begin with the number of fast moving developments in the Russia probe. House Intel committee member Tom Rouhani told Fox News today that the Russia investigation has become a dead end after testimony by White House aide Hope Hicks.
Well that's what President Trump has been insisting with no evidence of collusion having been emerged. And now, there are new charges from Devin Nunes that the FBI may have violated federal law in seeking that FISA warrant for Carter Page. And, there may be more indictments coming from the Mueller team of more Russians, this time for the hacking.
To get into it all, let's bring in former Deputy Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg, San Francisco Attorney and RNC Committee Woman from California Harmeet Dhillon and Washington Attorney and Chair of the D.C. Democratic Party, Scott Bolden.
It's great to see all of you. We have a lot of news to get through tonight. Tom Rooney, who's on the House Intel Committee, I don't think he has given one interview about the probe yet, but he said today on the House Intel side, he said, "This thing should wrap up," from what he has seen behind closed doors. There is no collusion. They have seen no evidence of that. And he said, "You know, this thing should -- we should end this thing."
On the Mueller thing, he said, "Well, that has to keep going. I'm not going to speak to that." But he was really adamant.
Sol, given what we know now, what the focus is of this investigation, what are the key points?
SOLOMON L. WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, the points are waiting for Bob Mueller and we just don't know what he is doing. He has kept a very tight, tight ship over there. I'm not at all surprised by the report of the committee member and also you have to remember, however, a lot of the people who have gone in to testify have refused to do so. But they don't have the power anywhere near the power that Bob Mueller has.
Now, having said that what we do know publicly right now, including what people have said about how they were questioned by Mueller is that we still don't have on the public record any evidence of collusion by Trump or people closely affiliated with Trump. That's just the way it is. You have-- you have a little bit of stuff about Papadopoulos but is he a very minor figure.
INGRAHAM: No, no, no, let's talk about.
WISENBERG: Again, this is only collusion question.
INGRAHAM: Let's get to Andrew McCabe. Scott, let's go to you on this. Andrew McCabe former Deputy Director of the FBI is now -- it looks like the I.G. is going to come down on him hard because he directed FBI staff to share information about the ongoing investigation October 2016 with the media.
SCOTT BOLDEN, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE FBI: Well, he may have shared it himself. I mean, they wanted to give some information out to the "New York Times" and they actually set it up, the PR people at the FBI. If you made a bad judgment call and used that information that was confidential when he shared it to kind of balance out the article, then certainly he is going to be disciplined but the reality is, Andrew McCabe is a Republican, one, and two, in that article, he was arguing for the FBI to continue to investigate HRC, and as a result.
INGRAHAM: There is a dispute about that. One, there are two different accounts.
BOLDEN: All the reports says that.
INGRAHAM: Well, there are two different accounts, I think the "New York Times" lays it out. Two different accounts, some say he actually wanted the Hillary investigation not to go forward. And then his having his champion say, "Oh, no, no." He said, "FBI, you can do whatever you want." But Senior Justice Department Officials disagree.
BOLDEN: Those are diametrically appointed positions. So facts don't lie and they don't go away. (CROSSTALK)
INGRAHAM: Scott, he's got Andrew.
BOLDEN: He's a Republicans.
INGRAHAM: I don't care what he is. Republicans screw things up all the time.
BOLDEN: Why are Republicans obsessed with Andrew McCabe?
NGRAHAM: Well, Harmeet I think you want to chime in on this Andrew McCabe is best buds with Jim Comey, okay.
BOLDEN: That's not a crime.
INGRAHAM: I didn't say it was a crime Scott -- but he was the lead in the Hillary email investigation and took a lead in the Trump investigation. That's the problem, and if you are pushing stories to the "Wall Street Journal" in October 2016, in addition to the concerns about his wife and everything else, you can't blame Donald Trump thinking this guy should never have been touching my case.
Even just given his wife's connection to Terry Mcauliff, Harmeet?
HARMEET DHILLON, RNC COMMITTEE WOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA: Yes absolutely, Laura. What we are seeing here is one more brush stroke in a painting and all of these strokes are coming together to show there was an entire culture at the FBI and even, you know, some of the actions that they have taken with regard to the FISA court that show a complete lack of regard for the normal conflict of interest rules, for the normal ethics that would apply. These are people making false representations to a court. And so, nothing that is coming out here with regard to McCabe or any of these other players is surprising to me. It's just surprising that they are being allowed to you get away with it and distract all of us from what should be going on and the President should be focusing on in the country moving forward. They have been successful in bogging him down so that's disappointing part of this.
INGRAHAM: Ken Starr, Sol, today made an interesting comment about the scope of this investigation. We are hearing stuff about Jared Kushner. We're hearing things about Ivanka Trump now. This is what he said.
KEN STARR, AMERICAN LAWYER, FORMER UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE: I think it's beyond his mandate. The mandate is what happened during the 2016 election in terms of collusion. That's the key idea. So, here's what I think is happening I think Bob Mueller is findings out information leading him back to the Deputy Attorney General.
INGRAHAM: Sol, your comments on that?
WISENBERG: Well, there is no question that it's outside the mandate in terms of the specific items covered. But, remember, the mandate says if there's anything -- any crime that directly arises from the investigation, he can look at it we know from Rod Rosenstein's testimony that he has got to go to Rod Rosenstein if any of those things occur and he has got to get the Agreement of Rosenstein. So the real story here. I don't think there is any doubt he would have gotten authorization. The story is, we know from the Manafort indictment and the Gates indictment all you have to do is look at it. Then he got authorization long ago to go beyond the four corners, at least the specific things he is supposed to be looking at. I'm surprised it hadn't been commented on that much earlier.
If I can go back to for one minute to McCabe, to me, the two main things about McCabe that we have keep going back to, one, the gross conflict of interest. He should not have been involved in either the email or the Clinton Foundation investigation, which, if you believe news reports, he kept agencies from looking at things and number two, he is responsible for that FISA warrant. And that FISA warrant he has admitted and the shift memo did not contradict this. That if they had not had the Steele Dossier, they would not be even not have even submitted that. That's a shocking thing for that FISA warrant.
INGRAHAM: And the Devin Nunez letter today, Scott, where he -- we went into chapter and verse about the DOJ guidelines. In part, the accuracy of information contained within FISA applications is of utmost importance. Only documented and verified information may be used to you support FBI applications, FISA, to the FISA court. They did not verify the outrageous allegations in this Dossier and they couldn't. There was no way for them to, yet that was at the core of this application. Was a federal statute violated in their submission of this FISA application?
BOLDEN: We'll certainly never know that, but it seems to me the fundamental difference between the Democrats and Republicans, obviously is the Republicans think it was the heart of that FISA warrant and the Democrats think it was part of it.
We know back in September of 2016 that the intel agencies were picking up these communications and were doing their own investigation, you if you didn't verify everything in the FISA warrant, if you didn't document everything, that means there were other things in that FISA warrant that you told you that the Trump Administration or the campaign needed to be investigated. And by the way, there is a term called corroboration that Sal knows very well.
If everything in that FISA warrant was corroborated, then what are we talking about then. I mean, you make a big deal out of this FISA warrant, but they went back to the FISA judges three or four times.
INGRAHAM: You're spying on Americans.
BOLDEN: Well, of course they are and what does he have to do with Donald Trump?
INGRAHAM: And it says, it has a very high threshold.
WISENBERG: Why did four judges do it over and over again?
INGRAHAM: Well, because they weren't told that Hillary Clinton paid for the dossier.
BOLDEN: Let's say they were and even -- they did.
INGRAHAM: There is no way, Sal. Sal, do you think.
BOLDEN: You don't know that.
INGRAHAM: Let's just give Dan a breath.
INGRAHAM: Do you think that a Federal judge on the FISA Court, if he knew what happened to this dossier and who paid for it that they would have not at least gone back to the lawyer and said, "Is this all you have? Do you have anything else? Because this seems like." it's a direct conflict of interest. I mean, go ahead, Sal.
WISENBERG: They would have absolutely asked further questions. Now, Scott makes one fair point when they go back. When they go back three times.
BOLDEN: Not just fair point, not a good point, just give it to me.
Sal: It's a good point, I'll be fair, if you let me compliment you, when they go back three times, they have to have some kind of new information about Page, but it doesn't change, and we don't know what that is. But it doesn't change the fact, and this is what people aren't picking up on with the exception of a couple of writers like Andrew McCarthy. Steele himself could have been the most credible person in the world, but almost all of his information was completely -- I mean completely unverified. That's shocking and actually that's something the FISA judges should have to answer for some day or explain. I would like to hear about that. I don't care whether they are Republicans or voted for Harold Stassen or what?
INGRAHAM: Yes, I don't care what their political affiliation is, Harmeet, last word?
DHILLON: Yes, I know, I was going to agree that the misrepresentations for the FISA court cannot be minimized here. They are critical and central to the issuance of this warrant every single time and that leads to questions about the FISA whole situation and whether it is open to abuses like this.
But the other thing I think is important is what Devin Nunes has said in his letter today, it not just the lying to the FISA court, but it is obstruction of justice. It is conspiracy to violate the civil rights of American citizens.
BOLDEN: I don't agree with that, that's silly.
DHILLON: And criminal civil rights violation.
WISENBERG: But not it if it is proven.
INGRAHAM: Okay. There is a bullet. There is a bulleted series of violations that he says are potential. I think the one that is pretty obvious are the guidelines. I think they didn't verify the claims in that dossier. Phenomenal panel and I can't believe Sal complimented Scott. That's never happened before.
WISENBERG: Once a month. Once a month, you know.
BOLDEN: Well, at least he's right once a day.
INGRAHAM: Okay, and Sal smiled at least three times in this segment and Harmeet as well. So it's all good. All right, guys, we told you last night how leftists like Barbara Streisand, Scott is good friends with her are trying to blame the Florida school shooting on Trump. Yes, that's true.
But now there is new information that an Obama era school policy might have set the groundwork for allowing violent kids to stay in these schools. In the angle next.
INGRAHAM: Broward's broken PROMISE program and its deadly effects. That's the focus of tonight's angle.
The more we learn about the school shooting in Florida, the more it appears that a Broward County invention may have played a role in what happened. And what am I talking about?
In 2013, Broward County and their new school superintendent, Robert Runcie had a novel idea. Lower school expulsions and arrests by reducing police involvement. Sounds simple. They called it the PROMISE Program -- Preventing Recidivism through Opportunities, Mentoring, Intervention, Support, and Education. It's quite an acronym.
You see, in 2011 into 2012 school year, Broward had the highest public school related arrest record in the state. More than 1,000 kids in that year alone were arrested. The Obama Administration Education Secretary Arne Duncan and Attorney General Eric Holder were so impressed by the PROMISE Plan that it inspired their own new national guidelines.
ERIC HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL: As it stands, far too many students, far too many students across this country are diverted from the path to success by unnecessarily harsh discipline policies and practices that exclude them from school for really minor infractions. Too often, so-called zero tolerance policies, however well-intentioned they might be, make students feel unwelcomed in their own schools. They disrupt the learning process, and they can have significant and lasting negative effects on the long-term wellbeing of our young people.
INGRAHAM: Well, I'd say a violent kid whose outbursts are tolerated week after week leading years later to a school shooting also has lasting negative effects on young people and disrupts the learning process, Eric.
But I digress. The Obama bureaucrats incentivized Broward to go even further, awarding the district nearly $54 million in grants to improve the lives of students in poverty and students of color. The standard to show that their lives are actually improving? Fewer arrests at schools, less police involvement, fewer disciplinary problems, at least on paper. So, school administrators were basically paid to deal with student crime in-house and keep the cops off the premises.
Had Nicolas Cruz been arrested or charged by police for bringing knives or bullets to school or for other various infractions, threats and so forth, he might not have been able to buy that gun he used to kill 17 people. When CNN's Jake Tapper pressed Sheriff Scott Israel about his office's approach to student crime, he said this.
SCOTT ISRAEL, SHERIFF, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA: What you are referring to is the PROMISE Program and it's giving the school -- the school has the ability under certain circumstances not to call the police, not to get the police involved on misdemeanor offenses and take care of it within the school. It's an excellent program.
INGRAHAM: Now, what did we expect he was going to say? Until it helps a mass killer maintain a clean record up to the time of his shooting, that is. Broward County Sheriff Union President Jeff Bell revealed this to me last week.
JEFF BELL, BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF UNION PRESIDENT: They don't want the police officers making arrests on campus and they don't want the drugs to be found on campus and they don't want the warrants to be served on campus because it looks like there is bad stats at the school. So, I place a lot of blame on the school board with that and some of the programs that they have initiated with the state attorney and the sheriff's office in the years past, for example the PROMISE Program.
The problem is, when that program started, we took all discretion away from the law enforcement officers to affect an arrest if we choose to.
INGRAHAM: That was stunning. Now, Broward School Superintendent Robert Runcie, Sheriff Israel, and the Obama bureaucrats that created this perverse incentive to hide student criminality or down play it have a lot of explaining to do.
By turning Broward Schools and those across the nation into these social justice petri dishes, they may have facilitated a lunatic. And their soft policies have turned our schools into soft targets. And that's the Angle.
Joining me now for reaction from New York City is Shavar Jeffrey, President of Democrats for Education Reform and a supporter of the PROMISE Program, and also in New York is Michael Faulkner. He is a PROMISE critic, a former teacher at King's College and Liberty University, and pastor of New Horizon Church in New York City. It's great to see both of you gentlemen.
I want to go through a list of incidents that occur in schools down in Broward County that qualify for the PROMISE Program, meaning law enforcement won't be involved. Here's the list: Alcohol-related incidents, assault, threat, bullying, disruption on campus, drug use, possession, under the influence, drug paraphernalia, possession, false accusation against school staff, fighting, mutual combat, harassment, thefts, trespassing, vandalism and damage to property.
We'll start with you, Michael. What about this? I mean, it led to a big drop in arrests. I could tell you they had 1,056 arrests from 2011 to 2012. Skip forward 2015 to 2016, I think we have the full screen. That number goes down to 392. Kids started really behaving well, I guess.
MICHAEL FAULKNER. PROMISE CRITIC: Well, yes, obviously they didn't start behaving well, but we started seeing less arrests and therefore the numbers go down. It's a numbers game that we are playing, and unfortunately, when you play the numbers' game, ultimately you lose because those 17 lives that were lost can be directly attributed to the lower standards that were created and setting of the tone that actually lowered the standards on what law enforcement should be involved with.
Now, I was a juvenile detention chaplain in New York City. I understand. I have worked with children who have had troubles and troubled background and so forth. I understand. I get it. Every kid doesn't need to be thrown in jail, for their first infraction or second infraction. But when I set a tone and begin to allow school officials to deal with all of those specific issues, you are setting us up -- all of us up for a catastrophic problem which we saw.
SHAVAR JEFFREY, PRESIDENT OF DEMOCRATS FOR EDUCATION REFORM: I'm going to call BS on this. This is frankly absurd. The President Obama guidance was designed to deal with minor infractions at the school level. So, the kind of activities that are the everyday sort of activities we see from kids, maybe it is a low level after school fight, low-level vandalism. These are issues that are not law enforcement issues. These are issues where a school personnel or teach should work with young people to keep them on the right path.
That's very different with what we had in the shooter in Florida who trafficked assault weapons, who was found on school grounds with weapons, who on multiple reports went to the FBI and did go to law enforcement about this young person's inclination towards violence, and the real fundamental problem we have here is that we have a culture of readily access to assault weapons where this young man could go and purchase the assault weapon as if he bought a bag of potato chips.
INGRAHAM: Shavar, I understand that argument, and I understand it well, however, had he been arrested, he would not have been able to purchase a weapon or multiple weapons.
JEFFRY: Then you should ask the Trump FBI why they didn't arrest him when they got multiple reports that this young man was making violent threats.
INGRAHAM: Right, and what we are saying.
JEFFREY: Which was after he was expelled at school, so it wasn't even a school-based issue.
INGRAHAM: And what parents have told me about from Broward is that the push here is minimize at all cost, involvement with the police. Because if you show a disparate impact on minority kids versus non-minority kids with disciplinary matters, guess what Eric Holder said? Remember that big peach he gave and what everyone took from that was, you could be subject to a Federal Civil Rights investigation.
If they see there is a disparate impact in discipline, that's what's on the mind of these school administrators.
JEFFREY: Well, that's because we have a.
INGRAHAM: They were very afraid of that.
JEFFREY: But that's because we have a history for nonviolent offenses of African-Americans and Latino kids being disproportionately suspended and expelled for low-level offenses that white kids receive other types of interventions for, that's what that was about. That is very different from when there is credible reason to believe that a young person may engage in deadly violence. That is fundamentally different. A low-level after school fight or vandalism.
INGRAHAM: Superintendent work with Arne Duncan, Shavar, and Michael, you can get up -- Arne Duncan, the Education Secretary for Obama, he and Runcie were like totally on the same page. And in fact, the PROMISE Program was the inspiration for what Eric Holder announced in January of 2014. This was focusing on school discipline and a racial disparity. And the goal was reduce the involvement of police because you had been seeing these disparate impacts.
JEFFREY: That is correct for low level offenses, yes. We shouldn't.
INGRAHAM: This is considered low-level. This stuff is considered low level.
JEFFREY: But this kid was expelled before for these very reasons.
FAULKNER: And clearly, clearly, this incidence with the Cruz case falls outside of that. There were a lot of balls dropped. There were a lot of people that dropped a lot of balls, and there's a lot of "blame" to go around. But we have to get back on track now. Where do we go from here? I think we have to talk about what we are going to do going forward to prevents this from ever happening. We have got to make schools safer. We have got to do everything that we can do to make those environments as safe as they can be by.
INGRAHAM: Yes, well, how about this? I have an idea, how about -- real simple, if you are threatening people, and if you bring bullets in a backpack, and.
JEFFREY: Hello, and he was expelled for those reasons.
INGRAHAM: Like you are going to shoot up a school, you should be off campus and you should be.
JEFFREY: And the young man was expelled. So, if you want to start expelling fourth grade kids because they get in a little basic fight, there is nothing if the Obama (inaudible) that precluded.
INGRAHAM: Old trick, but it's not what we are talking about.
JEFFREY: There is nothing in the Obama guidance that precluded a school official from making referrals to a cop if they thought this young man was going to kill people. That is very basic.
INGRAHAM: But the atmosphere.
JEFFREY: But (inaudible).
JEFFREY: Violence, they could have made a referral to the police officer, there is nothing Obama guidance that preclude that.
INGRAHAM: Shavar, the atmosphere that was created, this is what I am trying to say, it's really simple, the atmosphere at that school was keep it on the low down. Keep this stuff under wraps because we don't want to go back to the reputation we had before with 1,000 arrests. This kid is a problem. Shuttle him off somewhere else.
JEFFREY: If this kid is the problem is.
INGRAHAM: That's what is going on here, in a.
JEFFREY: I am calling BS on this attempt to divert from the real problem, which is this young man could buy an assault weapon like is he buying a bag of potato chips and murder young people in school in a matter of minutes. That is the real problem.
INGRAHAM: Okay, all right. Well, do you think that -- Michael, do you think that the schools across the country generally have racist disciplinary policies? Do you believe that?
FAULKNER: I think there is a history of racist discipline policies in schools, yes. And the criminal justice system. I absolutely do.
INGRAHAM: So, it's all racist.
JEFFREY: Obviously, Ms. Ingraham you know very little of American history around race if you don't think there's a long history of discriminatory discipline in our public education system. Are you familiar with Brown versus Education? Are you familiar with the kids of (inaudible).
INGRAHAM: Thank you, yes, I am very familiar with it. I appreciate, I don't need a lecture.
JEFFREY: You must not be, if you are unclear about the long legacy of racial discrimination, (inaudible).
FAULKER: I will say this.
JEFFREY: That's what the Obama guidelines was (inaudible).
INGRAHAM: Guys, we've got to wrap. I am sorry, I could go no for an hour and that would be fun, but what I was trying to focus on for like the 10th time, public schools today are having to be sadly for kids, mothers, fathers, they have to provide lunch, breakfast and dinner to a lot of kids. Kids speak in 17 languages in northern Virginia schools. The teachers are managing a lot. And my point is, if someone is a disrupter, we should worry less about what our reputation will look like if the police get involved and less about disparate impact and more about how to keep the kids in the school, white, black, Asian, whatever they are --
SHAVAR JEFFRIES, DEMOCRATS FOR EDUCATION REFORM: Agreed, but the question here is when you bring in the cops. If you are a classroom disruption, that doesn't make you a law enforcement issue. That may mean you need to be suspended, expelled, or dealt with in some other way.
INGRAHAM: All right, guys, we're out of time. We'll have you back on radio. Great segment, as always.
By the way, we have a textbook example of how the media can get any answer they want depending on how they frame the question. We will show you how the A.P. and The Washington Post are doing that in an attempt to brand the president, speaking of, a racist, next.
INGRAHAM: You've heard of a push poll, right? Well, it's used to get the answers you want by the way you frame the questions. An absurd new push poll from the Associated Press purports to find 57 percent of Americans think President Trump is a racist. That includes more than eight out of ten African-Americans, nearly three quarters of Hispanics, and nearly 50 percent of whites.
Let's bring in someone who knows a little bit about media manipulation, former Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain and radio talk show host Garland Nixon. I haven't seen both of you in way too long. Let's get to this. Garland, let's start with you.
GARLAND NIXON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: OK.
INGRAHAM: First of all, I think if the poll is true, it's highly depressing to me. OK, so that's number one. But given the fact that the economy really is doing better, we have the lowest black unemployment in 17 years. Lots of good indicators, slightly higher graduation rate from high school which is good, but he has been in office for 13 months. People's wages will start going up and we can bring these jobs back and so forth. What else not to love?
NIXON: That doesn't address the issue here at hand in this poll, is Donald Trump a racist? And personally I would say that term is far too restrictive for a guy who has exhibited the level of bigotry as Donald Trump. I think we have to use a broader term. I think bigotry works. Here's a guy, we all remember the insults to the handicap with the "New York Times" guy. He said that a Mexican judge was unable to dispense their duties.
INGRAHAM: He thought it was a conflict. I know it came out that way, but I have known him for 13 years. I don't tolerate racism, don't like racism, wouldn't be friends with someone who is a racist. I actually know him. He is not a racist. I'm just telling you it is factually untrue to say is he a racist because I know him.
NIXON: That's the only excuse, you can say I know him.
INGRAHAM: Because I actually have personal knowledge.
NIXON: I looked into his soul or something like that.
INGRAHAM: No, no. I just know him.
NIXON: But if you go by what he says, as the tune of the famous coach says you are what your record says you are.
INGRAHAM: Herman, you heard Garland says he is a racist.
INGRAHAM: Oh, bigot. It's not all encompassing enough. Go ahead.
HERMAN CAIN, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Now, Mr. Nixon, please don't try to talk over me which is what liberals do. He is not a racist, and you and others are concluding that he is a racist based upon your speculation from some statements that were made. You have no evidence, no results that suggest that he's a racist.
Secondly, I, like Laura, I know Mr. Trump. I can spot racism 3,000 miles away and he doesn't have a racist bone in his body based upon my own personal experience. But in that particular study that you have been referencing, every incident identified is based upon speculating that he must have been saying something racist when, in fact, he was not saying anything racist.
INGRAHAM: Well, Republicans, it's 21 percent of Republicans think he's racist according to this poll, shocking. Democrats, 85 percent Herman. Do you believe 21 percent of Republicans think Donald Trump is a racist? I don't know who these Republicans are, but I don't know if they belong in the Republican Party. To me, it's crazy. They can disagree with his policies, that's fine, or say he shouldn't tweet that's fine.
CAIN: Exactly, disagree with his policies, yes. But you can't disagree with the results.
Here's why you have such a high number of Democrats believing that he is racist and you have a few Republicans. They are being told this. The liberal media and many Democrats have been using false racist narrative ever since this president became president and even before. And as a result, many of them are simply repeating what they have been told. This president is not racist.
INGRAHAM: Garland, one of the things that I think has perhaps stalled the advancement of African-Americans in this new study that we don't have time to get into, but an Economic Institute report about wages and unemployment from 1968 to 2017, is that we have tolerated millions of people coming into America who take jobs that working poor, middle class people coming into the workplace for the first time used to have. And a lot of those jobs are gone now. Those entry level jobs hurt, like a lot of people that I came from and a lot of minorities. And they are not there anymore. And Trump is standing against that.
NIXON: So here is I would say most. I would say most of the black people in the community would disagree with you for this reason, and that is black people are not looking for jobs picking grapes. They are not looking for jobs working in hotels. They want to be lawyers and doctors and policemen.
INGRAHAM: Of course they do. I picked fruit and I did paper routes and worked in restaurants. You never did those jobs? Those jobs taught me a lot.
NIXON: So black Americans want the same jobs as everyone else. The black community is not blaming the guy at the bottom. They are blaming the people who make the decisions --
INGRAHAM: We are not blaming them either. We are blaming globalists who want to keep wages low. I'm blaming the people who want to keep the wages down.
NIXON: My point is that if anyone who is convinced by someone who has more money than they do that the people that have less money than they do are the problem are being manipulated.
INGRAHAM: Herman, last word, real quick.
CAIN: The manipulation is going on by liberals and Democrats. I see it every day. I hear see it every day on my radio show. And by the way, Mr. Nixon, I'm part of the black community. I'm a radio talk show host. I like that job. I never dreamed I would be able to achieve that job. But do you know how I got it? I worked hard at it. I got it the old-fashioned way, probably the way you got yours. So these blanket statements about people not making a lot of money being told something about somebody that makes a lot of money, those are irrelevant comparisons.
INGRAHAM: All right, guys, great segment.
Vladimir Putin, by the way, another hot topic, makes what may be his most threatening statement to western nations yet, and President Trump brings down the hammer to make China and other countries play by the trade rules.
The one and only Victor Davis Hanson joins us next.
INGRAHAM: Russian President Vladimir Putin caused a sensation and some alarm by claiming today that his country has developed nuclear weapons that can't be stopped by missile defense systems. U.S. officials tell Fox News that the weapons are actually still in development, though, and some have actually crashed.
So many questions to get to our guest, of course Stanford professor, National Review Institute fellow Victor Davis Hanson. All right, VDH, let's first do Putin because the neoconservatives want us to have a terrible relationship with Russia no matter what. So they must be happy today. What should we make of this?
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE FELLOW: I think it's mostly for an election coming up in three weeks, quote-unquote, election. And they had a bruising in Syria, some Russian mercenaries did, so he wants to reassure the world he thinks that Russia is a still a world power.
But I think the real reason is that the eight years of appeasement are over with, the reset has failed. During that Obama administration they increased their nuclear arsenal by 24 percent. We decreased by 17 percent. And he knows that's over with. And whether there is not going to be another Ukraine or Crimea. If he goes into Baltic nations or something like that, or another cyberattack, it's not going to be cut it out. But people like Jim Mattis and H.R. McMaster and Trump himself are just a different sort than the last administration and he's worried about it.
There is kind of a tragedy about the whole thing because Russia has got less than half the population of the United States. It has got an economy smaller than where I am in California. And in past years we would use them diplomatically, but we are not allowed to do that given the hysteria in Washington.
INGRAHAM: Yes, there is a lot we could do with our North Korean problem with Russia, but that seems perhaps out the window. I have to get to this trade deal, Victor, because the president surprised everybody with the process of announcing the tariffs today. But the globalists went berserk. They were freaking out. This is what they were saying on television today. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What he wants to do is straight out of the 80's. And that is why you see the market going down in fears that a president who has this America first agenda is going to end up putting America last.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have got a potential new trade war being launched today by the White House.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't want to make America 1930 again, and forgotten men and women of America don't want to be drafted into a trade war. It doesn't work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Victor, your reaction?
HANSON: Well, I mean, the same thing, Obama did the same thing with steel, so did George W. Bush. Obama slapped a 35 percent tariff on tires. I think what's different about Trump, though, is as he has made minimum wage controversies irrelevant because there is a shortage of jobs and the market is rebounding and people need workers. And the same thing I think will happen with trade as we have cheaper energy. We're going to have a more favorable business climate. We have got better deregulation than Europe and we have a better and more conducive tax code. I think what's going to happen, capital is going to come into the United States and this entire hysteria over one or two tariffs is going to fade.
INGRAHAM: It's Armageddon, as Nancy would say. By the way, Victor, I loved how Trump said today, he said if you are a country and you don't make steel or aluminum but especially if you don't make steel, are you really a country? That's a genius way of putting it because for national defense and all the reasons we need heavy steel, he made that point. Like no one can say anything. Do we really want to live in a world where China is the predominant power making material like steel with overcapacity, overcapacity, overcapacity? That's a disaster for us. He pointed that out. Victor, great segment, as always.
HANSON: I think, so, too. Thank you.
INGRAHAM: Thanks so much.
And there is ominous new evidence that the so-called experts were dead wrong about Chinese communists, not Victor Davis Hanson or myself, but others were. I have a message for them next.
INGRAHAM: Remember when they told us that U.S. trade with China was going to promote democracy, with wealth would come freedom? Let's see how that is all turning out. China's now enormous economy was boosted in 2000 when President Bill Clinton signed a law normalizing trade relationship with the communist nation. This led to China's membership in the World Trade Organization.
Clinton said it would inevitably lead to Chinese liberty. In that same year, presidential candidate George W. Bush flat out claimed, quote, trade with China will promote freedom. Bush also claimed in a GOP debate that there was a huge difference between trade with Cuba and trade with China. But conservatives weren't convinced.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tell the people rotting in the prisons of China that there is any difference between Castro's Cuba and communist China.
GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: If we turn our back on those that have gotten a whiff of freedom as a result of marketplace taking hold, we are making a big mistake.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: It was Bush who made the big mistake with all due respect. China is actually moving away from freedom. The Communist Party is about to abolish term limits, paving the way for President Xi Jinping to rule for life. Anyone remember Mao? But wait, how can that be? Because that's not what Bush promised.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Imagine if the Internet took hold in China. Imagine how freedom would spread. I told -- my earlier answer I said our greatest export to the world has been, is, and always will be the incredible freedom we understand in America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: That's funny to watch. Now that Xi has solidified his power, he has become even more brazen cracking down on free speech including on the Internet the president just mentioned. American companies are also willingly giving Chinese authorities control over their previously independent operations. And now Chinese censors just announced that they have banned certain words and phrases from posts on popular microblogging sites. Here are the words, "disagree, my emperor, lifelong control, any references to George Orwell's novels "Animal Farm" and "1984," shocker.
The website Vox found searches for terms "immortality," "incapable ruler," and "I oppose" were also blocked so you can't say "I oppose." We haven't fostered a democracy in China. We have created a monster. We have created enormously rich communists and given them control over language, including ours when you go over there. Here's one word, by the way, that has not been banned by the Chinese yet. And I have been saying it for all of you free trade people for a long time. Free trade will lead to Chinese freedom. Here is my one word -- wrong.
We'll be right back.
INGRAHAM: OK, unbelievable basketball game tonight. I'm glad you're watching and not watching the game. UVA, my alma mater for law school, versus Louisville. In the last 0.9 seconds of the game UVA was down 66-62. They somehow came back in 0.9 seconds. They won 67-66. All I can say is we'll see you at the Final Four.
Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. 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 CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.