Should Trump listen to instincts or establishment on Syria?

This is a rush transcript from 'The Ingraham Angle,' April 10. 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, 'THE INGRAHAM ANGLE' HOST: All right. I am Laura Ingraham, and this is THE INGRAHAM ANGLE from Washington tonight. A powerful lineup to bring you, including the continuing battle against the censorship of conservative voices. So, what role exactly has Facebook played? Jeffrey Lord is here tonight to help us answer that. Speaking of Facebook, how much involvement do they actually have with Mueller's investigation?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SENATOR, FACEBOOK HEARING: Have you or anyone at Facebook been interviewed by the special counsel's office?

MARK ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK CEO: Yes.

SENATOR, FACEBOOK HEARING: Have you been interviewed?

MARK ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK CEO: I have not.

SENATOR, FACEBOOK HEARING: Others have?

MARK ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK CEO: I believe so. I want to be careful here. Our work with the special counsel is confidential.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The question we have tonight is to what end? We're going to examine it. And the air over Syria is eerily quiet. We are learning a potential strike on Assad loyalists could come at any moment after he reportedly used chemical weapons once again on his own people. Where will those missiles originate from? We're on watch tonight.

And we will get to tonight's ANGLE in just a moment which includes a message and some advice for the president. But first, the heavy-handed FBI raid of President Trump's personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, continues to reverberate at this hour.

Tonight, Cohen is speaking out saying this unprecedented act is upsetting to him and his family, but that he will cooperate, adding he still stands by the legality of what he did with that payment. So, is Cohen using the media to communicate now with President Trump?

Coming up tonight, we are going to talk with House Intel Chair Devin Nunes on what he thinks of the president's next steps with the Justice Department.

But first, let's analyze all of this with John Iannarelli. He is a former FBI national spokesperson, Democratic strategist and attorney, Scott Bolden, and Byron York, chief political correspondent for the 'Washington Examiner' and Fox News contributor.

All right, we have a lot to get to tonight. Byron, I want to start with you. Very interesting that Michael Cohen, who was kind of chased down the street I think today on that puffy down jacket of his, I don't know, men in puffy jackets. We don't like it.

Don't wear a puffy jacket. They catch up with him eventually, but he's on the phone with Don Lemon, and then with a reporter from ABC. Why is he going to media outlets that are fairly hostile to the president at this point? What do you think? It's curious.

BYRON YORK, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, it's a good question. To some degree, there are a lot of people in the White House who actually communicate with the president through the media. They are trying to send him a message to the media, through the media.

And one of the things about Cohen, if he talks about the hardship that this has been on him and his family come obviously one of the issues here is if he were charged with a crime, would he cooperate? And would he be a bigger part of the Mueller investigation? So, these are all messages that are flying around as he talks tonight.

INGRAHAM: This is part of what he said in one of his interviews. I think we have a full screen. He was talking about not only the hardship for his family. He was asked, was he worried? He said I would be lying if I told you that I'm not. Do I need this in my life? No. Do I want to be involved in this? No.

Scott Bolden, look, when the FBI knocks on the door and says hello, thanks for your phone, sit down, and put up your feet for a while. It is worrisome.

SCOTT BOLDEN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION PAC: Not just my office but my home and hotel. Let's remember one thing, Michael Cohen has been probably the most aggressive defender of Donald Trump. He is a very aggressive lawyer. He has a lot of swag, if you will, attitude.

This is a humbling experience. Remember one thing, before my Republican friends start blaming Mueller, this was delegated to the U.S. attorney, another Trump Republican appointee --

INGRAHAM: Who recused himself.

BOLDEN: -- who certainly had to review this along with a federal judge. Whatever they have on Michael Cohen, whether it's the women or bank fraud, wire fraud, they have a lot. You've got to presume.

INGRAHAM: Does it bother you, though? This started as presumably some type of Russian collusion investigation, which sounds pretty nefarious and disturbing. People who don't follow this like Russian collusion? Oh, my God, and now we are looking through lawyers, hotel rooms, daughters, his house, his office.

Looking for some porn star payment. The Democrats were complaining not too long ago, and the Republicans were not complaining when an investigation into whitewater, a land deal ends up in a blue dress. Now the Democrats seem to be salivating over an impropriety, a personal impropriety that
might've been paid off by some lawyer. It is an odd deal, is it not?

BOLDEN: A lot of Republicans who might be salivating also. But here's the deal, as a former prosecutor and white-collar criminal defense lawyer, the investigation goes where the facts take them. What we don't know is what they have. That's the bottom line.

INGRAHAM: Byron, we are going to get to the piece you wrote about, what about the collusion, in a second, but I want to go to John Iannarelli. Set the stage for us if you would, the FBI has a separate team that goes in to the office of Michael Cohen, to his residence, and to this temporary, I guess he is in a hotel room part of the time. They go in and they take what? How long does this typically take in a raid like this?

JOHN IANNARELLI, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Let's keep this in perspective. First of all, this is unprecedented. Never before have we had an attorney for a sitting U.S. president be the subject of a search warrant and an investigation. The FBI goes in, they are looking for documents, electronic devices, computers, anything that might have information for the target of the investigation of what they are looking for.

All of that is taken, depending upon the size of the house, which I imagine, a large one, it's going to take hours. It will be a team of agents gathering everything and bringing it back to the FBI office for review.

INGRAHAM: What happens to the attorney-client privilege? People were laughing at this today, and look, I'm an attorney, you're an attorney, Scott, but the attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct. It does have exceptions, crime fraud exception. We all know very well.

But nevertheless, that is sacrosanct when you're talking about a personal attorney. You would imagine that they have information, significant information. They better have significant information that implicates this attorney in criminal wrongdoing.

BOLDEN: At least probable cause --

INGRAHAM: If they don't, this stinks to high heaven.

BOLDEN: if I was DOJ and I was looking at it, they would have to have a higher level which would scare me if I'm the Republicans. But let's not forget about the taint team because when they go into a lawyer's office, I can tell you it's a rare, but it is not unprecedented in general terms across the nation.

INGRAHAM: John is right. It never happened (inaudible). They did start with the Russian investigation, but they were in a porn star payment. So the team says these documents are privileged communications, but these documents are about the porn star payment. We'll put these over here. I
guess, those will remain secret.

YORK: Trusting them.

INGRAHAM: The two piles, three piles, four piles -- you are a former prosecutor. I was a former criminal defense attorney. I think prosecutors have way too much power in this country. If they want to indict you, they can indict you in most cases. Byron, you wrote about happened to the Russian collusion. We are not even talking about Russian collusion anymore. We are talking about Stormy Daniels and all the other networks spending all their time on it because you can mention porn star five times a minute and they can get ratings. What's going on with Russian collusion?

YORK: Collusion remains the heart of the investigation. It is the big question. These two things that have happened in the last 24 hours suggest that it's really not in the middle of the investigation anymore.

One, the fact that Robert Mueller found farmed out this investigation to the Southern District of New York suggests is not in his core area which is collusion. The other thing is we found out about the search warrant for that raid on Paul Manafort's house last summer, it included looking for information about the Trump Tower meeting.

That was in July. We are nine-plus months later. He has been charged with lots of other things but nothing involving collusion.

INGRAHAM: All right. Gentlemen, I wish we could do an hour. I wish we had a three-hour show. That's why I do radio. Thanks so much. We need to get to another issue, though, because Trump's instincts versus the swamp. Other issues actually matter out there. That's the focus of tonight ANGLE.

Despite the endless media chatter about FBI raids and porn star payments, there are actually far more important stories that are similar being ignored by the mainstream media. By the way, they are the ones that most affect the American people.

So, in spite of all of the sideshow drama, I have to tell you tonight President Trump is getting real results by largely following his instincts. Think about it. On the immigration front, when all the others were afraid, well, Trump called for serious border enforcement and he named the threat facing the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will end the sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths.

It's the policy of this administration to dismantle, decimate, and eradicate MS-13.

I told Mexico very strongly you're going to have to do something about these caravans that are coming up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: What became of that caravan? Well, that caravan was largely dispersed. Whatever stragglers make it to our border, well, they will be graded by our friendly members of the National Guard.

Then there was North Korea. Well, the pundit class attacked President Trump for daring to threaten 'Rocket Man' with fire and fury. If, in fact, Kim Jong-un persisted with his nuclear ambitions.

Well, now North Korea is at the negotiating table and willing to discuss denuclearization. Winning. Remember the chorus of naysayers that greeted Trump's announcement to slap tough new tariffs on China?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: China is hitting back after President Trump appeared to raise --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait a second.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is such a surprise. Who could have imagined that we will be put in this terrible position?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Simply saying jobs, jobs, jobs is as convincing as saying trade wars are easy to win.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How dangerous is it that the person who is negotiating this has his facts day in and day out wrong. The person I'm talking about, Mr. President, is you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Much more persuasive when you do that to the camera. Well, China is now blinking on trade. President Xi just announced that China is going to be lowering tariffs on auto imports, including those from the United States.

He also promised to protect the intellectual property of those doing business in China. Why would he be making such sweeping changes? I wonder. President Trump's political instincts, let's face it. They are really good.

But there are two major forces seeking to frustrate that instinct. First, Congress. Now, it was Congressional leaders who lashed the president over those proposed China tariffs. They also refused to fund his border wall. In fact, they misled him on the border wall. They are the same people who railroaded the president into that $1.3 trillion fiasco of omnibus spending bill. Remember, that last day, his instinct was to veto the bill. But under pressure from congressional leaders, the generals, and the military industrial complex, well, he signed it.

They sold this bill of goods to the president with the promise that it was going to bolster the military which it does and protects the country, but now the president has buyer's remorse.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I say to Congress I will never sign another bill like this to prevent the omnibus situation from ever happening again. I'm calling on Congress to give me a line item veto for all government spending bills.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I have a question here. How does mounting debt and rising deficits make us stronger? How does that make America great again? It doesn't. And now, even the GOP leaders who created this funding nightmare are looking to pass a few, I don't know, show votes to demonstrate how fiscally responsible they are before the midterms.

That's going to work. Well, the other force, the second force is frustrating the president's instinct is the war lobby. He is now being dragged into a conflict in Syria which is a dangerous, complex international situation fraught with trouble. Assad is certainly a vicious, horrible dictator.

The civil war there has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, but he also helped wipe out ISIS, and he is protecting the Christian minority in Syria. No doubt about that. Assad is aided and protected also by Iran and Russia, further complicating matters.

So, any military action, even targeted, limited air strikes, they can lead to unintended consequences and international conflict that we cannot predict from this point. Dragging us into another desert war? It is not with the president campaigned on. In fact, he ran against military adventurism in the Middle East.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT TRUMP: In my opinion, we have spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that frankly, if they were there and what if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all the other problems, our airports and all the of the problems we have, we would've been a lot better off.

I can tell you that right now. We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East. We've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away, and for what? It's not like we had victory.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The president's most successful when he sticks to his conservative, populist instincts. Even when he was assaulted by the Bush, Graham, McCain establishment, he did the right thing and why? Because the people were with him, part of the reason why he won this election, it's a major reason why he won this election.

He is also best when he follows his political instincts, those raw political instincts that he has. He's not talked into things by card-carrying members of the swamp who despise his agenda. Every time he lets the swamp lead, disaster follows.

So, my advice tonight to the president, stick to your agenda. Do not let investigations or Congress derail it or distract you. At a time when your numbers are up near 50 percent and Congress' they are cratering. You should be giving them advice, not the other way around. That is THE ANGLE.

Joining me now for reaction is historian, Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. All right, usually heavy on the morning on the radio. We have you now. Your reaction to THE ANGLE and we will get to some of these other topics.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, SENIOR FELLOW, HOOVER INSTITUTION: Well, I think you are right. The inverse of what the so-called deep state establishment says. They say the post (inaudible) and stable and this guy came in without prior political office or military service and disrupted it. But
what if it was the other way around. It was chaotic and didn't make sense, and somebody without exposure to their protocols (inaudible) skill set, sort of like John Wayne (ph) in 'The
Searchers' or Bill Holden in the 'Wild Bunch,' and he came in and said this is ridiculous. That's what he's doing.

All of these instances that you pointed out, whether it was the crazy open border or the knot with missiles pointed at us here in the west coast or whether it was NATO members not paying their contributions and on and on.

In Syria, to reply in particular, he's got a lot of dilemmas. He didn't create this situation. Russia was brought in after 40 years by Susan Rice and John Kerry, and then they assured us there were no WMDs. Susan Rice said that in January of last year.

So, Trump comes in and there is WMD and we've lost all sense of deterrence because of this leaving behind recession. Yet, he doesn't want and can't get involve the way we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is in between those two poles.

Everybody who was suspicious of going in there were the people who supported Trump for just the reasons you said. They are going to get angry about it that because they are going to see it as a betrayal. On the other hand, all the people pushing him forward are never going to vote for him. They despise him. He's got a no-win situation.

INGRAHAM: He is in a box.

HANSON: He's got to find a way to restore deterrence without getting involved and that's hard to do.

INGRAHAM: Adam Kinzinger, a congressman, we invited him on the show tonight. He was asked today about whether Congress should give its (inaudible) to military action in Syria. This is how it went.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPRESENTATIVE ADAM KINZINGER (R), ILLINOIS: I think what the president did a year ago in destroying one fifth of Assad's air force was good. It was right. I think we have to do that again. People are going to say that any use of military force is going to be World War III or it's going to mean 300,000 troops in Syria. It isn't.

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: Does that president need to come to Congress to get authorization to do whatever that next military act is?

KINZINGER: I don't think so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, that's convenient for Congress. They are not on the hook if stuff goes awry or suddenly --

HANSON: That's exactly what Congress does. When they are against something and they say you have to come. They are for something and you don't, and if it goes well, they join in on the take credit, and if it doesn't go well, it's orphanage or fall. So, what Trump has to do, and he has some really good advisors. I sleep soundly tonight because of Pompeo, Mattis and Bolton.

I think they are advising him that we have to stop this idea that you can hijack a U.S. boat or send a missile at a U.S. carrier or point nuclear weapons, but we can't go in and try to nation-building and make them like Carmel California.

Between those two poles, we've got to do something. I think there is no way to shock the Russians and the Syrians so that we don't have to get in there on the ground and get bogged down, but it's not easy.

First of all, we've got to ascertain whether there was WMD. Remember, the Obama administration said chlorine doesn't count. That was the first poison gas ever used in World War I. It's not really WMD so we were right, so we've had nothing but misinformation about the status of WMD going back
to the Iraq war.

We have to ascertain, did they use WMD and did they kill innocent children? Did they break their word to the Russians and the Syrians? If it does, we have to send a message and we have to do it in such a way that we don't destroy the fragile political matrix that Donald Trump --

INGRAHAM: Very complicated situation. Professor, we appreciate your analysis.

Up next, House Intel Chair Devin Nunes' first interview since the FBI raid on Michael Cohen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: We have the FBI has been raiding the president's lawyer's office to find Stormy Daniels documents. Our next guest is spearheading the effort to find out why the Department of Justice opened the Russian inclusion probe in the first place. Surprise, surprise. The DOJ won't give us straight answers.

Joining me now exclusively, House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, a Republican from California. Congressman Nunes, thanks for coming on. You've been trying to get documents for as long as I've been doing the show. That's all you do is try to get documents.

People have been asking why is it that you haven't yet held anyone in contempt of Congress. That's a big deal to do that. Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress, as I recall, over the 'fast and furious'
documents. What gives here?

REPRESENTATIVE DEVIN NUNES (R-CA), CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: It's trickle-down documents. So, we issued the subpoena in August. We go through piece by piece, every time we get a little bit more. As you know, we had to get out the major information, which was the information on the warrant against Carter Page who was a Trump associate. So, since that time, we've been investigating the State Department and we have an interest in this electronic communication.

INGRAHAM: EC which is the document that establishes the justification for ultimately naming the special counsel. This whole thing ended up in the --

NUNES: Opened the counterintelligence investigation.

INGRAHAM: Initially that ultimately led to the special counsel.

NUNES: Yes. So, it's a two-page document. I sent Chairman Gowdy to see it originally. It was fully redacted, so they couldn't read anything. I called back several times, had conversations with Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Wray.

Mr. Gowdy and the investigators went over there again and there was only a few more things that were unredacted. Most of it was still redacted. Now we are at this point again where the boiling point where we need this. What's only a two-page document.

It's only two pages. It's less than two pages, from what I understand. If the record wasn't that every time they hide something from us, that that when we find out it was really bad, and they hid it from us for a long time
--

INGRAHAM: Like the Judge Contrera issue.

NUNES: Like the texts -- the warrants, (inaudible) Carter Page.

INGRAHAM: The trickle-down information, unredacted, oh, no, that's why you redacted.

NUNES: Just the fact that they are not giving this to us, it tells me there something wrong here.

INGRAHAM: Robert Costa from 'The Washington Post' is speculating tonight on Twitter that you are on the verge of moving to hold Christopher Wray and Rod Rosenstein in contempt of Congress. We have a deadline of tomorrow apparently to get this information. Is this a real possibility?

NUNES: I can tell you this, we are going to get the documents. We are going to get the two pages. They can either cough them up now or it will get really complicated starting tomorrow night and we will have to take all the steps necessary in order to get the documents.

INGRAHAM: What are you thinking might be in this document? I mean, are you going to intent from the beginning --

NUNES: Here's our challenge with this. If you believe what's in 'The New York Times' and 'Washington Post,' sometimes they actually do get leaked information. In that leaked information that came out in December 30th was the information on an Australian diplomat talking to Mr. Papadopoulos.

That's what they say is in the EC. We haven't been able to see the EC to confirm it. Somehow the 'New York Times' has it. The American people have read it, but the U.S. Congress does not have that information, and we have the full right to that information.

INGRAHAM: Are you disturbed by some of these leaks that seemed to be emanating from that special counsel's office or from the U.S. Attorney's Office Southern District of New York about the intent of what the raid on the Cohen office was, what they were really looking for, what they are speculating? There's a lot of information that came out yesterday.

NUNES: The bigger problem I have about the leaks, the special counsel I would've thought would've gotten to the felony leaks of General Flynn's name being leaked to the press with very, very high-level information. It seems like the special counsel is good at leaking, but not so good it actually finding major felony leakers.

INGRAHAM: What are the chances you are going to hold them in contempt of
Congress right now?

NUNES: We are not going to just hold them in contempt. We have a plan to hold in contempt and impeach.

INGRAHAM: To impeach Christopher Wray?

NUNES: Absolutely. We are not messing around here. They are going to give these two --

INGRAHAM: They are going to say that you are Trump's lackey. The Democrats have been demonizing you from the beginning. I've been the subject of demonization myself, so I know how goes. They are going to demonize you.

NUNES: Well, as I said before, whenever I see evidence of Russian collusion, I'll be the first person standing out there on the steps of the capital that I found the Russian collision with the Trump campaign. I haven't found it yet, but I have found a whole lot of other stuff that puts DOJ and FBI in a bad light.

INGRAHAM: Other media channels are salivating tonight in a frothy frenzy over once again, Trump is going to fire Robert Mueller. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked about this today. This is what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Rod Rosenstein oversees special counsel and only he has the power to fire the special counsel. Again, we've been advised that the president has the power to make that decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I don't think there's any sign that Trump is really going to fire Mueller, but Republicans are freaking out about that as well.

NUNES: They said this before.

INGRAHAM: He has the authority.

NUNES: They said he was firing all kinds of people and none of that ever
came to fruition.

INGRAHAM: Preet Bharara, the former U.S. attorney at Southern District of
New York --

NUNES: He did get fired.

INGRAHAM: He did get fired by President Trump, still very angry about
this, this is what he said today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The regulation is very clear. It says special counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the attorney general. He may remove the special counsel for number of enumerated reasons including misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, and some other things, and has to provide those reasons in writing.

So, it's very clear that if the president of the United States call under the current circumstances and as long as these regulations are in effect, called up Bob Mueller and said I'm firing you, Bob Mueller, I would expect would not heed that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Apparently, the regulations Trump the constitution. We have an executive branch, judicial branch, legislative branch. In which branch does Bob Mueller reside? The executive branch. Again, I think it would not be smart at all for the president to fire Bob Mueller. I do not think it makes sense. As tempting as it may be, I don't think it makes sense. But the idea that he doesn't have the constitutional authority to do that, whether it's politically smart, and Preet Bharara was U.S. was U.S. attorney. You have any reaction to that?

REP. DEVIN NUNES, (R) CALIFORNIA: It shows this is how far we've gone down in the last eight or nine years where courts have become activist courts, activist judges. The fact that DOJ and FBI think that they are above the law. So Congress, the legislative branch, we created these agencies. And
they have a responsibility to give us documents when we ask for them. We have the appropriate clearances. That's why the House Intelligence Committee exists. So at the end of the day, we are going to win on this. And it's just a matter of how tough they are going to make it for Congress to actually do our job, under the constitution and the priorities that we are given.

INGRAHAM: To hold someone in contempt of Congress, I don't know the process. You are the head of the intel committee. Do you need to have signoff from others in the intel committee?

NUNES: There's a lot of different ways you could do it.

INGRAHAM: Really quick.

NUNES: What we're doing now is ultimately the member have to vote on it.

INGRAHAM: You think what's the chances of that?

NUNES: I don't think we are going to have to get there because I think
they are going to give us the documents.

INGRAHAM: We are going to follow this and we are going to check up on it tomorrow. April 11th is the deadline, so tomorrow. Thank you so much, congressman.

NUNES: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: And we are doing a little something different tonight. We are holding a caption contest. Alabama won the college football national championship last season. And head coach Nick Saban and the team were honored at the White House today. Yes, I was there. Do you have a caption idea for this? Tweet me @IngrahamAngle and we are going to read some of the best at the end of the show. And I took the photo.

Up next, our 'Defending their First' series. You do not want to miss this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Welcome back. It's time for our inaugural 'Defending the First' segment where we expose the enemies of the First Amendment, free expression, and free thought.

Check this out. Last month, Rocklin High School in California placed history teacher Julianne Benzel on paid administrative leave after she had the gall to question whether the school would let its students walk out to do what? Well, to protest abortion in the same way it did to promote gun control. Now one of Benzel's students is putting her question to the test by organizing a pro-life walkout set for 10:00 a.m. local time tomorrow.

Joining us now for more, is Julianne Benzel herself. All right, Julianne, this is good, because this is like you are a hero of the First Amendment in my view because the students in all of the organizations who organize, and they did it really well, the March for Our Lives and the various walkouts that have occurred over the last month or so, they got huge participation. They got huge media coverage. And most of it was overwhelmingly positive and glowing. What have you found with your effort at your school?

JULIANNE BENZEL, ROCKLIN HIGH SCHOOL HISTORY TEACHER: Well, basically, the only large entity that I know of that has taken up this pro-life walkout cause is Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. I was thinking, and to your point there, that perhaps there would be other, maybe a Clint Eastwood or a brave movie star from Hollywood because they had George Clooney funding the gun protest walk on. I was hoping maybe for a few other people to join. But you know what, it's all about grassroots and what we are feeling, the pulse of the nation right now, particularly among young people, is extremely exciting.

INGRAHAM: I think it's interesting that we are talking about saving lives, which we all want to do. We all want to have sensible regulations that don't run afoul of the Constitution. And in this case the dominant culture does not promote the cause of life. In fact, they call the cause of life antiabortion rights advocates. They don't refer to pro-life on CBS or MSNBC. I know because I used to work at both places. They say you are anti-something.

But I am finding students across the United States, and you see this at the March for Life every year, Julianne, are much more open to the idea of, wow, this really is a human being. Why are we doing this to a new generation of Americans? We are snuffing them out a million at a time. Every year, another million, whether by chemical abortion or by surgical abortions. Yet the media, they act like this doesn't even, this pro-life viewpoint doesn't even exist.

BENZEL: Correct. And that's precisely why my very brave student, Brandon Gillespie, chose to stage this as a pro-life walkout, not antiabortion. We are for all life. We are for all students who have lost their lives by guns on school campuses. But this is a pro-life, every life matters.

And you are precisely right. I forgot her name right now, but the outgoing president of Planned Parenthood who said her goal was to --

INGRAHAM: Cecile Richards.

BENZEL: Yes, her book, her goal was to destigmatize abortion in the United States. And I'm sorry, but that has not taken place. Two recent articles that I read gave very specific statistics that the majority of Americans and the majority of women are pro-life, not for abortion.

INGRAHAM: Julianne, thanks so much. We will be following what happens to this brave push to advance life in a different type of walkout.

And now Facebook versus conservatives. It's a theme we discussed last night with Internet stars Diamond and Silk who did get some good press today. And it came up on Capitol Hill during Senator Ted Cruz's questioning of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: Gizmodo reported that Facebook had purposely and routinely suppressed conservative stories from trending news, has blocked the posts of a FOX News reporter, has blocked over two dozen Catholic pages, and most recently blocked Trump supporters Diamond and Silk's page
with 1.2 million Facebook followers after determining their content and brand were, quote, 'unsafe to the community.' Are you aware of any ad or page that's been taken down from Planned Parenthood?

MARK ZUCKERBERG: Senator, I am not. But let me say --

CRUZ: How about Moveon.org?

ZUCKERBERG: Sorry?

CRUZ: How about Moveon.org?

ZUCKERBERG: I'm not specifically aware of those.

CRUZ: How about any Democratic candidate for office?

ZUCKERBERG: I'm not specifically aware. I'm not sure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Joining me for reaction is the 'America Spectator's' Jeffrey Lord. Continuing our 'Defending our First' segment. Jeffrey, I thought that was a great exchange. He actually went on to say that he is concerned because Silicon Valley is very left. He said it's a left of center place, and that's just what it is. So he said we are very concerned about protecting and allowing all voices on the Facebook forum. But he didn't really have a good answer to Cruz. He kind of met his match in Ted Cruz
about all of these voices that are having trouble being heard. What was your reaction to that exchange?

JEFFREY LORD, 'THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR': This is what concerns me. Someone else on that panel asked him whether or not he could discuss the political leanings of his employees, and he said something to the effect that well, he doesn't check them. The point is, Laura, he doesn't have to check them. He is getting his employees from a pool of people that he himself says are extremely left-leaning. That's what's going to happen here. And Laura, I have to laugh. It's the same argument I was hearing when I was a teenager from people like Spiro Agnew except it was about the technology of the day which was CBS, ABC, and NBC. It's the same precise argument today except we are dealing with Facebook or Google or Twitter or what have you. It doesn't change. What we're dealing with here are people who have a liberal bias and -- Diamond and Silk. I could not believe that. I know Diamond and Silk. They are fabulous people. The notion that they are unsafe for the community, this is crazy. But that's the way the liberal mind works and that's what you get.

INGRAHAM: When they say community --

LORD: The question is how do we deal with it.

INGRAHAM: Exactly. We're going to get to that in a second, but when they say community, they mean the liberal community. They are offensive and unsafe to the leftwing mindset that dominates in Silicon Valley and through most of California. And they are very concerned about that, and they are very concerned about it catching on through perhaps increasing popularity of President Trump.

And again, Zuckerberg, obviously he's a really smart guy, but he did not have good answers when it came to those questions of why are these examples of conservative organizations -- Ted Cruz rattled them all off -- not getting adequate response on Facebook when their followers are not getting their notices. Why is that happening? Facebook always gives some mumbo-jumbo answer. You don't get a good response.

LORD: Right. We need to be candid here in the case of Diamond and Silk. If they were African-American women who were liberal, no one at Facebook would have blinked when they posted something. The fact that they are African-American women who love Donald Trump, that's not supposed to happen. So therefore they have to be curbed. That's the real problem here.

INGRAHAM: So what do conservatives do, Jeffrey? Again, we are concerned about defending free expression, freedom of conscience, the First Amendment. These corporations are so big they are like many governments. They can control, they can keep out. So what do conservatives do? Do they just stop using Facebook? Just de-list on Facebook?

LORD: I hate to go that route here. I just instinctively don't like this kind of thing, the boycotts and all of this. I spoke to advertiser who was boycotted several years ago by people who didn't like Rush Limbaugh. He said to me this was not a boycott. This was an organized terror campaign. His life was threatened. His business was threatened. His employees were harassed.

INGRAHAM: But if conservatives want to be part of the social media, they want to be part of the social media which is important for connecting with friends or advancing your product lines or whatever, then Facebook is still really important. So is Instagram. So is Snapchat and all the other means of communication. And they're dominated by liberals. So what do you do?

LORD: He got a question today about who was his competition. And of course effectively the answer was he doesn't have any. I would certainly hope that there are conservatives out there who are young and enterprising and entrepreneurial minded to challenge this. That certainly can be done over time. But other than that at the moment, I think you are series here on 'Defending the First' is excellent. We have got to publicize it, get the word out whether it's on television or the Internet or print and let people know how this game is working because it's not a good one.

INGRAHAM: I think that's right. Let's take Zuckerberg at his word. He wants all voices to be heard. He wants the community, their information to be, OK, take you at your word. Now let's see the proof. Jeffrey, thanks so much.

And despite the constant hysterics, there is no trade were to report on tonight, but we will tell you about Trump's trade victory with China and what it means for you, your pocketbook, and our security, when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: A favorite scare tactic used by the establishment of both political parties is to claim that President Trump is about to start a trade war with China. You heard some of that at the top of the show. Rather than a war, Chinese President Xi Jinping promised yesterday to cut auto tariffs and pledged to open China's finance industries to foreign investors.

Joining us now for reaction is East Asia expert and author of 'Nuclear Showdown' Gordon Chang. Gordon, I have got to say, people think I'm really weird, but the China issue in my mind is literally the most important issue facing the United States today for so many reasons. This was astounding news yesterday. President Trump has gotten literally zero credit except from a few senators. Tell us how significant this is.

GORDON CHANG, AUTHOR OF 'NUCLEAR SHOWDOWN': This is really important because over the last week we have heard from China's ministry of commerce and we've also heard from the Chinese ambassador in the U.S. how everything is on the table, really vicious language, how they won't negotiate.

INGRAHAM: The market was up and down, down mostly.

CHANG: What has happened is Xi Jinping blinked. What he did was he backed down on a very important issue, China tariffs. Also on intellectual property. Of course it's going to take some time for implementation, but the important thing here is that President Trump has pushed him off the center, and I think that Trump is going to continue to push them so we are going to get to a place where we need to be.

INGRAHAM: Why Trump took on China, is taking on China, just so people understand how important it is, Chinese theft of American intellectual property or trade secrets and so forth currently cost between $225 billion and $600 billion annually, and the U.S. trade deficit in goods and services rose to $566 billion last year, the biggest since 2008. Imagine what we could do with the $566 billion. Marco Rubio actually has been very good on this issue. Today he tweeted this offer of opening China market is a total farce. It's unbelievable to read how Xi said that openness leads to progress while seclusion leaves one behind while his government has dramatically increased control of the Internet. That was commenting on why we still have to be very skeptical of what China is doing. This is just the beginning. Do we need to be cautiously optimistic here?

CHANG: This is just the beginning. But for the first time since Eisenhower, you have an American president who understands the Chinese threat, understands America's leverage, and is willing to use it.

We look at these China tariffs that are so on un-reciprocal and that we are basically negotiating. We agreed to those in the Clinton administration when China acceded the WTO, the global trading body. That's our fault. We've had a series of presidents who thought that supporting China's Communist Party was more important than supporting American interests.

INGRAHAM: The establishment turns out to be wrong again, Trump right on this tariff thing. It's the only thing they got China's attention. Gordon Chang, I'm going to have you on the radio this week.

And next, despite the wrath of MS-13 crime in the state, Virginia's Democrat governor goes soft on sanctuary cities. What's going on with that? A debate next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Virginia's Democratic Governor Ralph Northam campaigned as a moderate but he moved far to the left yesterday after he vetoed a bill that would've banned sanctuary cities in the state. That's quite a bold move for a state that is no stranger to violence from the notorious MS-13 gang.

Joining us now for reaction and debate, Corey Stewart, a Republican running for Senate in Virginia, Mark H. Levine, who is a Democratic delegate to the Virginia House of Delegates. Gentlemen, it's great to have you both on. Let's start with the state delegate here. I live in Virginia, love Virginia, went to school at the University of Virginia, but I am appalled by this decision by the governor. I remember back I think it was Valentine's Day of last year and that recorded confession of an MS-13 gang member and what she did in this murder. Let's watch it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You need to tell me what you did to her.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I killed her.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How did you kill her?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: With a knife.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are going to remember me until the day we see each other in hell. Don't forget my name.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: A vicious, brutal murder. This isn't the first time this happened in Virginia. Why would Virginia want to welcome illegal immigrants to live in the state when you do not know on their desires are, what their aims are, what their goals are, or whether or not they are criminals beyond just entering the country illegally?

MARK LEVINE, DELEGATE, 45TH DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA: I'm really glad that Governor Northam vetoes this bill. If this bill became law, no one would celebrate more than MS-13 because the bill doesn't actually do anything. It's already preempted by the Constitution. Federal law already preempts state law. What the bill would do is it would encourage victims not to talk to the police. It would make law enforcement really hard because someone who was beaten up or tortured by MS-13, they wouldn't go to the police. They would be afraid they might be deported. So if you want to stop crime, let the local authorities stop crime by letting witnesses --

INGRAHAM: If you want to stop crime, allow more people into your state that are illegal border crosses who have already committed an offense and oftentimes commit more offenses through document fraud, taking government services, et cetera. How is that making this state safe or the commonwealth safer for the average person? We've got to get Corey in and we'll get back to you. That is the argument, and it's made by the Hispanic community, others who are in the state, the commonwealth illegally. They say we are already here, we're working. Let us stay. Don't inflict this on us. We will actually report crimes.

COREY STEWART, CANDIDATE FOR SENATE IN VIRGINIA: That's what the left always does. They pull it out of the air. There's no basis in truth. We've been doing this in Prince William County, the toughest crackdown in the country on illegal immigration in Prince William County right next to Fairfax. So far, 10 years later we have apprehended 8,121 illegal aliens, handed them over to ICE. The crime rate dropped in half, and not a single case of racial profiling.

What the delegate here has said that would happen in Prince William County, they said that 10 years ago. It hasn't happened. Let law enforcement do its job apprehending criminals whether they are illegal or not. But if they are here illegally, we have an extra weapon that we can use to remove them from our community so they can't commit brutal rapes and murders like that one.

LEVINE: So studies consistently show that native born America citizens commit crime at a far greater rate than undocumented immigrants. Let's put -- let's put all criminals in jail. And let's not have crimes reported less. If your crimes are reported in Prince William County because victims are afraid and they take the domestic violence, the take the rape, and they don't report it.

INGRAHAM: I know a lot of my fellow Virginians who are afraid.

LEVINE: The law does nothing.

INGRAHAM: They are living in places like Sterling, which used to be kind of a rural community. They are living in Manassas. They're living in Alexandria which you represent. And they don't even recognize the communities in which they live because there is more criminality. There's less of a feeling of cohesiveness in the community. I disagree. I have probably lived in there just as long as you if not longer, and I find the attitude -- they don't commit as much crime? I don't care if one American dies in Virginia by the hands of an illegal immigrant who shouldn't be here, are we going to say oh, but all the other people are good? One person is dead.

LEVINE: Why do you consider one murder worse than another?

INGRAHAM: Because we don't need any more murders.

LEVINE: The answer is we should let law enforcement be unhampered and enforce the law and go after everybody, whether they be citizens or undocumented.

INGRAHAM: Why do you want more problems in your community.

LEVINE: Undocumented immigrants bring fewer problems.

STEWART: Here's the problem with the left.

LEVINE: If you want to stop MS-13, then you allow people to talk to the police, and you don't say if you talk to the police we're going to deport you. That causes more crime.

INGRAHAM: No, we're going to say -- sorry, Corey, make your argument.

STEWART: What the sanctuary cities are trying to do, what these left-wingers are doing in Richmond and Charlottesville and now in Fairfax County.

LEVINE: There are no sanctuary cities in Virginia. You know that, Corey.

STEWART: That's not true. They are not going to allow ICE to pick up these dangerous criminal illegal aliens. And here, let me tell you something. What you are talking about is letting law enforcement do their jobs. The problem with you liberals is you are telling them not to do their jobs.

STEWART: No, their job is not immigration enforcement. It's enforcing local --

INGRAHAM: We are out of time, but I could do an hour with you guys.

And we are going to be right back with the winner of the caption contest from today's event at the White House with Alabama football.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: All right, as promised, here are the results of our caption contest of this photo that I took of the 2018 National Collegiate Football champions, that Alabama Crimson Tide with President Trump today at the White House. Dr. Joseph V. Mullen tweets, 'The Trump Tide!' Leon Yates writes 'The A Team.' 'A' on the helmet. And finally Linda Stone says 'Nick, if I put this helmet on it will mess up my hair.' That's all the time we have tonight.


END

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.