Mukasey: Comey's memos were classified when he wrote them

close

Video

Mukasey: Comey's memos were classified when he wrote them

What do Comey's memos reveal about the Russia investigation? Former attorney general Michael Mukasey weighs in on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," April 20, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening from Washington I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle."

A fantastic Friday full of great stories for you. Of course, news always breaks throughout the day when it's in Trumpland and a Comey memo may have let a big cat out of the bag. Did he use a meeting with Trump as a set-up to tarnish him with that dirty dossier? And also, it's official. The Democrats have hit rock bottom by filing a lawsuit claiming that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia and WikiLeaks to sway election.

My angle later on in the show; you don't want to miss that. And, get this, Democrats first tried to expand their voter base with illegal immigrants, then with children, and now with felons. That's a motley crew.

And another huge diplomatic win for Trump. Rocket Man might be becoming pocket man, pledging to pocket all of his missiles, hey, and the guys haven't even met yet. Maybe it was Pompeo; maybe he does have the magic touch.

But, first, Jim Comey might want to pull the plug on that book tour now that the former investigator himself is under investigation. Fox News has confirmed that the Justice Department's Inspector General is investigating Comey's handling of his memos describing his meetings with President Trump; a source saying that the DOJ's watchdog is looking into whether the former FBI Director leaked any classified information.

Let's get into the details with Attorney Tom Dupree who served as deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration plus Republican Ron Desantis who joins us from Florida tonight and Steven Mulroy, a former federal prosecutor. Gentlemen, it's great to see all of you.

Steven, let's start with you here. Jim Comey as former FBI Director, perhaps thought that, look, I'm the FBI Director. I can declare what's classified and declare what's not classified and so if I shoot these memos over to pal of mine at Columbia Law School, no big deal. He will give them to the press and it will cause a big stir and maybe my reputation will be bolstered, maybe even start a special counsel. But, doesn't this mean that you know, Comey could be in hot water now with this new investigation?

STEVEN MULROY, ATTORNEY AND PROFESSOR: I'm not sure that's really the case, Laura. It's important to remember exactly what we know here. We won't know for sure until the Inspector General has concluded his investigation about what all the facts are for sure, but the Wall Street Journal has reported that there are only two memos that Comey gave to his friend that had any classified information. In one of them, he went through and redacted out the classified information and the other one wasn't classified at the time. It was only classified later on. So it seems like his course of conduct here was fairly anodyne; fairly inoffensive. You can't very well blame him if a document wasn't classified until a later point in time. That kind of retroactive liability, I think he could argue is unfair.

INGRAHAM: Well Tom Dupree is self-redaction legit here? He can then redact, like look, I'm sending it my pal who's going to give it to the press. I'm going to get my big Sharpie, I have a Sharpie here. I'm going to get my big Sharpie and black out some foreign intel names.

TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, Laura, even Jim Comey's defenders would admit he is walking a very fine line here. The difference between criminal jeopardy and innocence is where you draw the line with the Sharpie. I mean my goodness. I wouldn't want to be in Jim Comey's shoes as the IG is digging into these memos line by line trying to see whether or not he might have left something in that should have gone out the door.

INGRAHAM: Well the Inspector General had no patience for Andy McCabe, clearly. With the lies from Andrew McCabe, he's in real trouble here. We will see if he has any criminal jeopardy there. Congressman Desantis, let's remember what Jim Comey said back in June of last year when he was testifying on Capitol Hill about why he decided to transmit those memos to his friend, and I think we have the spot. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE FBI: And my judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square so I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel.

(END VIDEO)

INGRAHAM: For a variety of reasons, Congressman. For a variety of reasons he also self-redacted at least one of the two memos.

REP. RON DESANTIS, R-FLORIDA: It's important to point out that that was malicious leaking of government documents. I asked Christopher Wray under oath is it appropriate for FBI agents to leak their work product to the press and he said absolutely not. I do think he is facing exposure because some of that stuff very well may have been classified. But, at the end of the day, this is a guy who took those documents, he wanted to generate a special counsel, and it's interesting you look at those memos, he actually writes down in the memos, I told the President I don't leak. The fact that he is writing that in the memo that he doesn't leak tells me probably was a habitual leaker.

INGRAHAM: Actually, you bring up a great point, Congressman and Steve we'll go to you on this, this is from the Comey memo. This is from January 6th, right after his first meeting at Trump Tower with the president. He said and he wrote, "I said I was eager to find leakers and would like to nail one to the door as a message." That's very dramatic. I said something about it being difficult he relied that we replied we need to create a narrative that we were investigating him because of course we are not and I worried such a thing would be misconstrued.

He kept, as Ron said -- Congressman Desantis said, he went out of his way a number of times to say to the President, he said, he claims in this memo to the file, that I'm not a leaker. You can trust Andrew McCabe, he is a stand-up guy and I don't leak and McCabe is in your corner. Memos to the file are written by people to do what, Steve? To do what?

MULROY: I think probably to memorialize the conversation so that there can be no doubt later on if it comes up what exactly was said and what wasn't said. I think this course of conduct shows that Comey was a bit concerned about a potential obstruction of justice. He knew there was a big controversy about it. He knew it might become important later on to know exactly what was said and wasn't said. He want to contemporaneously document it so there would be no doubt.

INGRAHAM: On January 6th he was worried about obstruction of justice?

MULROY: Well I think quite possibly.

INGRAHAM: What? Why are you working for the president --

MULROY: If you take a look at his whole course of conduct.

INGRAHAM: Why do you --

MULROY: He went out of his way to - he went out of his way to redact --

INGRAHAM: If you think he is obstructing justice and you like sitting there and he's oh I'm looking forward to staying on with you and I'm looking forward to. He said what are your plans? I enjoy my job; I'd like to stay on. So that's why Molly Hemmingway today and others wrote that this whole thing smells like a big set up; the whole meeting, the talking about the dossier, to rattle Trump or try to rattle him as well but there's a saying and looks like they are saying this. Tom, your reaction?

DUPREE: Yes, you know it is puzzling. The administration is just getting started and already the FBI Director is memorializing for whatever his purposes were.

INGRAHAM: You don't memorialize to make yourself look bad. You memorialize to make yourself look good.

DUPREE: I think that's fair. This is exceedingly unusual. I can't imagine any other Administration where a few days in you have someone feeling the need to create this sort of record. There is unusual things going on here.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Desantis, there is a Comey point in these memos that talked about CNN. I want to read it. He says, "I said media like CNN had them, the memos, and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write that the FBI has the material or that's redacted, and that we were keeping it very close hold." He said he couldn't believe they hadn't gone with it, and I said it was inflammatory stuff and they would get killed for reporting straight up from source reports and then, bingo, just a few days later, Congressman Desantis, CNN runs with it and then it gets published elsewhere. This is why people were saying, again, the way this is written, this memo to the file, I said CNN would be crazy to put -- I don't know. If you are writing a novel here, yeah, there is the CNN headline Intel Chief Presented Trump with Claims; Russian Efforts to Compromise Them. Where did they get that from? Where do they get that headline from?

DESANTIS: Just think about it. Jim Comey this is a guy who never memorialized any conversation with Barack Obama. He never did with Loretta Lynch, even though he now says Loretta Lynch was conflicted. It was only from day one with Donald Trump. That meeting to me is very fishy. Jim Clapper, I and most of my Republican colleagues believe is the one that actually leaked the existence of the meeting to CNN. But, why would Comey have.

INGRAHAM: Why do you think that?

DESANTIS: Based off the Intelligence Committee what they were able to come up with and they allude to it in their report. But, that's just out inference I make. I think he was the guy. Now, here's the deal, Comey acknowledges that it's not news worthy at the time they need a hook. What does he do? He gives them the hook. So either him and Clapper knew this together or maybe he was acting at Clapper's suggestion, but he provided the hook for that to go out and when is he briefing Donald Trump on it I only talks about the one salacious allegation.

He didn't discuss other aspects of the dossier. Don't you think that's something the President-Elect should have been entitled to know about and, yet, Comey hid that from him. This thing smells very badly and I think he is going to have to answer more questions about that.

INGRAHAM: Right and he has to come back to Capitol Hill, does he not, Steve? I think the point that Congressman Desantis is making is that when you go out of your way to bring up the dossier and you bring only basically one of the most inflammatory elements of the dossier up, that's rocket fuel. There is a lot of other stuff in the dossier. You bring up that one point and we know now in hindsight that he was using that professor at Columbia to then get information out to the press. So he had it in his mind couple months later to disseminate stuff to the press. He wanted it to get out there. He wanted a special counsel appointed. Why wouldn't it be logical now to think huh, maybe he and Clapper chatted about this that you know, we got to get this out. I mean, Trump is rattled about this.

DUPREEE: You know one person's set up artist is another person's, you know, whistle blower. He is a lifelong Republican who was promoted by Republican presidents and who's handling of the Clinton email investigation, at least his public handling of it, arguably was very much to Clinton's detriment and Trump's benefit.

INGRAHAM: Like clearing her?

DUPREE: He's got a motive to -- I'm not sure that he has got the motive to do this set-up job that we're speculating about.

INGRAHAM: Hillary Clinton got off scot-free in this email investigation. The Clinton Foundation investigation was totally scotched ultimately. The idea that he like helped Hillary, I never bought that argument. Hillary Clinton if she were anyone else, she would be in jail right now. If she were anyone else, she would be in jail.

DUPREE: What I'm suggesting is that if a prosecutor would just simply announce we are not bringing charges, he wouldn't go on to say but she was extremely reckless. And then a week before the election --

INGRAHAM: Because she was, yes.

DUPREE: -- he brought it back up again. Well, I'm not sure. I think you can make an argument that --

INGRAHAM: Hammers to blackberries conduct, yes?

DUPREE: It doesn't show a pro-Clinton bias. If anything it shows he was not pro-Clinton.

INGRAHAM: All right Tom, I see this as Comey has shown us if he wants to get information to the press he will figure out a way to do it. Now, that was a couple months later. He hated Donald Trump. Today he said on an interview or yesterday oh, no, I don't hate him. I didn't even dislike him. Oh, please he walked into that Trump Tower meeting, everything about Trump he despises; the way he dress, the why he speaks. He probably doesn't think he is as educated as he is. He has utter distain for Trump. He's a push Republican; I know you're a Bush Republican, but not like a lot of Bush Republicans I know. He's condescending, supercilious and priggish and he can't stand Trump because Trump's a different guy. Frankly the kind of guy people vote for.

DUPREE: Well, here's the thing. I mean one of the many tragedies I think here, Laura, historically, the reasonable why the FBI has been held in such esteem by the American public is they have widely been viewed as a nonpartisan independent law enforcement agency. What Jim Comey is doing now undercuts that because what it is its portraying a former FBI Director as a partisan actor, as someone who has a political ax to grind. He is going to be the talk shows, he's taking personal jabs at the President, and it may be satisfying to him and people who don't like the President, but for purposes of the American people's perception of the FBI, I think it disserves the institution frankly.

INGRAHAM: Gentlemen, fantastic panel. We have a lot more to get to here.

A related development Rudy Giuliani now has confirmed that he has joined Trump's legal team to negotiate the end of Special Counsel Bob Mueller's probe. Good luck. Rudy apparently is looking to use his personal relationship to Mueller to smooth things over. Okay. Joining us now is someone who also knows Bob Mueller Former Attorney General Mike Mukasey who held that position which Mueller was FBI Director. General Mukasey, Judge Mukasey, you were on radio with me this morning and now you're on TV tonight. It's like we are playing the whole day today, I love it?

MICHAEL MUKASEY, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: That's fine, me too.

INGRAHAM: That's great. Judge, let's talk about this wild day. Now we have an investigation going on at the IG, a criminal referral of Andrew McCabe who is, of course, Comey's deputy. Now the Inspector General is investigating whether Comey knew that some of this information was classified when he transmitted it to his pal at Columbia.

MUKASEY: Yeah, I think we ought to put to rest something that one of your guests said in the last segment about how the memos weren't marked classified at the time. They were classified as soon as he wrote them. I had an experience when I started as AG on taking notes at a meeting on a top secret procedure, and when I got up to leave the meeting, my then chief of staff leaned over and wrote in big block letters at the top, TS/SCI, meaning Top Secret/Secure Compartmentalized Information. In other words, those weren't my notes those were the government's notes and the information in them, if it was classified, was classified as soon as he put it down on paper.

INGRAHAM: Well Judge, he said they were personal reflections and they were personal thoughts and reflections on the meeting that he had with the president.

MUKASEY: Personal thoughts and reflections are fine but if they are personal thoughts and reflections about classified information then they are classified personal thoughts and reflections and you can't simply take them out and leak them.

INGRAHAM: Judge Mukasey, you were Attorney General when Bob Mueller was FBI Director and tell us a little bit about him. I know you had daily briefs with him. You've met at the White House with others with him on a weekly basis at least. What was he like?

MUKASEY: That's an excellent question. The trouble is I'm not in much of a position to answer it because although there were many people that I met with less frequently than I met with him, I really have very little in the way of insight into what he is like as a person. I didn't get to see that. You'll notice that he always wears button down white shirts. Well, he is very buttoned down and buttoned up. It's very hard to get a take on him as a person if he doesn't want to give it to you and he apparently didn't want to give it to me.

INGRAHAM: Now when you one-on-one conversations with him, did he seem like a straight up kind of guy, because you were his boss. People forget the attorney general is the boss of the FBI Director. We think of the FBI Director as autonomous person but you were his boss and then, of course, President Bush was, you know, his ultimate boss.

MUKASEY: Nominally I was his boss. There were situations in which he performed superbly in helping to try to convert the FBI from simply a crime-solving organization into an intelligence gathering organization. That was a tough sell to a lot of people and we had to put in place guidelines that, I along with others at the department drafted and gave to him and he helped put them in place and did a superb job at it.

However, when there were questions some policy questions where I questioned him about things the FBI was doing, he pushed back and he was somebody who was very devoted to defending the interests of the bureau. There was a saying at the FBI, never embarrass the bureau, and bureaucratic saying and they call it the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a good reason. It's a bureaucracy and he defended it.

INGRAHAM: So what are these disputes about the way he was handling certain types of investigations?

MUKASEY: I'm not going to get into what it was about. But there was push back in the interest of defending what the FBI was doing.

INGRAHAM: Who was his deputy back then? I can't remember who it was? Who was it? You can't remember?

MUKASEY: Right.

INGRAHAM: I can't remember his deputy. It obviously not - it wasn't Andrew McCabe.

MULKASEY: No it was not Andrew McCabe, that, I can tell you.

INGRAHAM: And Judge, as we close this out at the end of this week James Comey been on this book tour that seems like it's been going on for months but only really been going on a few days. Do you agree that the damage to the Bureau is somewhat significant given the fact that he led this agency and now he is, clearly strafing the President and everyone close to him?

MUKASEY: Regrettably I think the damage is enormous because the head of the organization becomes the figure head that everybody looks to judge how the organization performs. His handling in particular, everybody has their own favorite issue, mine is with his handling of the Clinton email investigation was an outrageous performance.

President Obama was sending messages and receiving messages on Hillary Clinton's private email server. Jim Comey knew that and when President Obama went on television and said there is no issue here, she doesn't really intend to cause harm. What he was saying in essence is you better let her off if you wind up accusing her, you accuse me and Comey followed that lead. The notion this somehow was something he had to do for the welfare of the country is a lot of disingenuous claptrap.

INGRAHAM: Judge Mukasey, I love that word claptrap. It's an underused words and it's one of my favorites. Of course you use it. Judge, thank you very much.

You have to wonder if the Democrats drank their own Kool-Aid here. Their latest stunt may be proof that their obsession with Russian collusion is making them totally lose their mind. I'm going to diagnose this latest insanity in "The Angle". Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: The Democrats long march into irrelevance. That's the focus of tonight's "Angle". We have not seen one scrap of evidence demonstrating that President Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians. Well, that's a big letdown for Democrats who expected to have Trump either convicted or impeached by this point so now what do they do? Well, if you can't beat them, sue them. Believe it or not the Democratic National Committee filed a lawsuit today against the Russian Government, the Trump campaign, and the Wiki Leaks organization. That's all?

They allege this, a far-reaching conspiracy to throw the 2016 election to Donald Trump, yes I'm serious. Well, I'm surprised at this point they didn't fire CNBC for airing "Apprentice" reruns, that's not fair. But look, should we really be surprised by any of this?

The rage and the fury on the leftover Trump election, in their frantic search for something, anything to explain why Hillary Clinton lost has become a total obsession. They thought collusion would invalidate the election.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is, however, extensive press reporting on the relationships between the Russians and the individuals associated with both the Trump campaign and the incoming Administration.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know the Russians played a very significant role in the campaign.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you have seen direct evidence of collusion?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't want to go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial.

REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIFORNIA: I've always said that I believe there was collusion.

(END VIDEO)

INGRAHAM: Poor Auntie Maxine after all these months and after a special counsel and congressional investigation too numerous to count. What have they actually found? A multi-million-dollar pile of nothing. Well, good luck to the DNC in trying to make a case in court with these star witnesses.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you seen any evidence that this dirt, these emails were ever given to the Trump campaign?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not so far.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians, there was no evidence of that, included in our report.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I understand that, but does it exist?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: not to my knowledge.

REP. TREY GOWDY, R-SOUTH CAROLINA: When you learned of Russian efforts, did you have evidence of connection between the Trump campaign and Russian state actors?

JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCY AGENCY: As I said, Gowdy, I don't do evidence.

(END VIDEO)

INGRAHAM: There is a lot apparently that John Brennan doesn't do. That is just a joke. Now, just imagine the discovery process, that this foolishness ever made it to trial? Like what if the defense demands to see the DNC servers that they claim WikiLeaks hacked? You know, the servers, the Democrats refused to let the FBI examine? And that the FBI for some strange reason neglected to subpoena what's on those servers, the DNC is so desperate to keep hidden?

Also, how about this scene on the witness stand? Does the name Christopher Steele ring a bell, Mrs. Clinton? How about his dossier? Does the DNC really want to go down this road? For a media apparatus that has been predicting huge wins for months.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: With some evidence for Democrats to be optimistic as their chances for a big blue wave.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The big blue wave is now looking so big, so overwhelming.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And we fell short but next year, watch out. Next year is gonna be a blue wave.

(END VIDEO)

INGRAHAM: Well, this absurd lawsuit which reads like it was written by a first year law student shows that Democrats aren't sure the wave may not just flatten out before it hits the shore. At this point, when you really look at the totality of all of this, rather than looking like a party that has the wind at its back this year, the Democrats increasingly look like a party desperately trying to find its own identity and relevance. And Trump, meanwhile, chalks up win after win on things like trade, North Korea, and, yes, the economy.

Now, my personal advice to Democrats is this: keep doing what you're doing because American people are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. I actually look forward to their final ruling on this latest complaint of the Democrats and all those that preceded it come this November. And that's "The Angle."

Joining me now for reaction is Sean Duffy, a Republican Congressman from Wisconsin, and with me here in the studio is Philippe Reines advisor to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Gentlemen, great to see both of you this Friday night.

REP. SEAN DUFFY, R-WISCONSIN: Hey Laura.

INGRAHAM: Let's start with you Philippe, this lawsuit, I read it. I read all 64 pages. I believe it's 64 pages. And it's goofy. I'm sorry. It's just a goofy law. I mean are they going to serve like Vladimir Putin with papers? This to me looks like they are not getting what they want with the Special Counsel; the Russia collusion thing is going anywhere. Maybe something will happen with Cohen. They have to desperately keep this thing going, breathing more air on the fire until the midterms. Is this the real deal or what?

PHILIPPE REINES, 2016 CLINTON CAMPAIGN ADVISOR: Well, I'm not a lawyer but I understand your point. You know, I don't know Congressman Duffy, bear with me while I make a point. He was elected in 2010.

INGRAHAM: You always do little research on the guests.

REINES: I was hoping he would be here.

INGRAHAM: You pull this every time. You come out with a tidbit.

REINES: I work for someone who likes to be prepared. I have to stay on -- he won decency and you won handily your last two, and with all due respect, I hope you lose in November because I'm a Democrat and I would like to flip the House. But I want to you lose fair and square or win fair and square. I don't want anyone meddling. I know no one likes to admit that the problem we are in now is that it is such a Hillary Clinton blames Russia thing that no one is talking about Russians or Chinese or North Koreans or whoever it may be screwing around with our election. And the point trying to make about the court is because it's a Republican congress, there are no bills to protect the election. This is something the lawsuit can't be fired.

INGRAHAM: Go ahead, Sean.

DUFFY: Laura, it's outrageous. First of all it's rich that the DNC is trying to file a lawsuit about Russia collusion. The very DNC that hired and funded a dossier with information that came from Russian informants.
They are of the ones that colluded with the Russians. Beyond that I don't know why they don't name Barack Obama who didn't do anything in the election of '16 to stop the Russian involvement in the election or James Comey who came out and did press releases on his investigation.

But, frankly I think the DNC should have included Garmin and Google Maps because Hillary Clinton couldn't find Wisconsin on the map to campaign. To come and make up excuses why the Democrats lost I think is pathetic. They had a bad message; they had a bad candidate. Donald Trump understood he had to go out and win the electorate with a set of ideas they bought into. That's why we won. I agree with your point. I hope the Democrats keep talking about Russia. I hope they keep Nancy Pelosi in the leadership position because we're focusing on ideas that grow the economy, that make people's lives better and their families, and Democrats can't get beyond why they lost the last elections and Russia, Russia, Russia.

INGRAHAM: Gloria Borger was on CNN today. She is no great fan of the president's, and Philippe, maybe you'll respond to this. This is what he she'd about the lawsuit.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Honestly, it's just a way to raise money. And that's what they are trying to do is they're trying to raise money off of it. But I think this is just one more way to get into the act here and continue what they have been doing all along.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILIPPE REINES, FORMER ADVISER TO HILLARY CLINTON: Look, I would make two points. One is President Trump's own intelligence community has said the Russians are going to meddle in 2018. So unless the congressman doesn't agree with that, I do think there has to be steps to protect. On the lawsuit thing, I will be honest with you, without being a lawyer, I'm glad the Democrats are doing this because the Republican Party has very effective live used outlets like Judicial Watch and others.

INGRAHAM: Media Matters, Moveon.org, Think Progress. Let me count the ways.

REINES: But they don't sue. Judicial Watch is very effective.

INGRAHAM: It's FOIA requests.

REINES: We don't do that.

INGRAHAM: Then file a FOIA request. I want to talk about something that's kind of fun. This is fun.

REINES: For you.

INGRAHAM: No. It's fun. This is the new book out by Amy Chozick of the New York Times. And we have a couple of fun experts.

REINES: I bet.

INGRAHAM: She covered Hillary Clinton for 10 years. And the book is called "Chasing Hillary, 10 Years, Two Presidential Campaigns, and One Intact Glass Ceiling." She lost because she is a woman, don't you know. This is one quote. This is what Hillary says on election night. I knew it. I knew this would happen to me. Should I you do it in her voice? I knew this would happen to me. They were never going to let me be president. Really?

REINES: By the way, this was not fun. I hope the next part is fun. She was disappointed. I was in the room with here when things were going badly. That hurt. I think it was hard to take. And she knew immediately that a series of things --

INGRAHAM: Why didn't she come out and do a concession speech? That was lame.

REINES: Because both campaigns had agreed to wait until A.P. called it. Honestly. I was in the room when she called Donald Trump.

INGRAHAM: Sean, real quick.

DUFFY: This is a great quote. They, what the deplorables, wouldn't let me win. Is she entitled to be the president of the United States of America? You earn the presidency. You go out and earn the vote and she thinks she is entitled, they won't let me be the president. This quote encompasses everything that's wrong with Hillary Clinton. She felt like she could just say I'm a Clinton, Bill was my husband, and I'm entitled to win this election without working, without giving a vision and a direction for the country. It's frankly shameful, but she will never go away. She is used to being in the press.

REINES: You are not letting her go away.

DUFFY: What's that?

INGRAHAM: This is Amy's book.

DUFFY: FOX don't let her go away. You'd think she was president.

INGRAHAM: We didn't even get into the mention of you. We have a hard break on a Friday night. Guys, we let you off the hook.

Nancy Pelosi trying to rally the troops against tax cuts. What happens to that chant when we get back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Welcome back. Now it's time for our Friday Follies segment. We've got some hot cultural topics starting with the growing problems posed by people pretending that their pets are service animals. In New York tonight we welcome Fox News contributor Raymond Arroyo. You're not here, Arroyo, so it's not the same mojo.

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: We brought the follies to Broadway.

INGRAHAM: First of all, I have to say, you're not an animal person. So you should be opted out of this segment. You don't like animals, not even your own dog.

ARROYO: I had an emotional support animal next to me on a Southwest flight. It literally, I'm not lying, it was chewing on my shoe. I have a little grievance against these animals.

INGRAHAM: Oh, fine.

ARROYO: The numbers of these emotional support animals have gone through the roof, Laura, from 481,000 two years ago to 751,000 animals. Now, the reason people try to pass them off as emotional support animals is because they fly free, OK? All you have to do --

INGRAHAM: Free?

ARROYO: -- is alert the airline and present a paper from a medical professional showing that you need your emotional support animal. Now, the airlines are reacting because they have been mauling people on the planes. They leave droppings here and there, which contaminate the plane.

INGRAHAM: So do the passengers. I have seen some of these passengers lately show up in pajamas for flights.

ARROYO: They have to fly, but not so for the animals. Read that statement for the airlines.

INGRAHAM: Here is the American -- Airlines for America lobby group. "Airlines have experienced a surge in passengers bringing animals on board that haven't been appropriately trained as service animals. This has resulted in our crew members and passengers being bitten and subject to other offensive and injurious behavior." Oh, they need to lighten up. I would rather be sitting next to most dogs than some of the other people.

ARROYO: Laura, this woman tried to get a peacock on a Southwest Airline and she was denied.

INGRAHAM: Peacocks need to fly. That's anti-NBC bias.

ARROYO: Oh, really. I have got one to top you. My friend Walter today said look up old Wall Street Journal article. We did. I'm just going to read this, and then I have some video for you. This man brought a miniature horse onto the plane. This was the article. Pzx was traveling with a miniature service horse in Seat 3A. The horse had a bowel movement on the carpet of the bulkhead. Cabin service had to do excessive cleaning in order for the aircraft to leave for the next flight. We found video, Laura, of a woman who actually had a miniature horse emotional service animal in her home. Look, it's opening the refrigerator for her. I mean, come on.

INGRAHAM: They are making your point. It can do pretty much anything.

ARROYO: But it can't be on a plane with me, Laura. There is barely enough space for me at this point.

INGRAHAM: I want more support animals. One woman let me hold her dog as she went to the bathroom. She came back, this is on a Delta flight. She came back and I said can I hold the dog for the rest of the flight. She said sure. I held the dog for the rest of the flight. It was all the way to California.

ARROYO: You are the dog's support animal. You. You've become the dog's support.

INGRAHAM: I help the dogs.

ARROYO: You're going to have wear one of those things that say do not, support animal, emotional support.

INGRAHAM: I want to go there.

When a chant is not a chant.

ARROYO: When a chant is not a chant.

INGRAHAM: Democrats seem to have a little trouble, so do Republicans, in
coming up with new chants. You pointed this out because Nancy Pelosi was
at a tax rally this past week and it was saying that Democrats are going to
raise taxes on the rich. Republicans are letting the rich get off scot-
free. Let's hear some of this blame chant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIFORNIA, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: We cannot let it stand. We won't let it stand. We won't let it stand. We won't let it stand. We won't let it stand.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Repeal the tax Trump, replace the ones that passed it. Repeal the Trump tax, replace the ones that passed it. Repeal the tax Trump, replace the ones that passed it. Repeal the tax Trump, replace the ones that passed it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Boy, is that bad.

INGRAHAM: There's no rhyming.

ARROYO: These are not chants, Laura. These are not great chants.

INGRAHAM: I lost my train of thought.

ARROYO: You can't even remember it. It's so long. They could try to sing it in a meter. A chant has to have rhyme. It should have a certain musicality. It should be memorable. And I will add, passionately delivered. None of which you could accuse those chants.

INGRAHAM: It should rhyme, what is it from the chant handbook?

ARROYO: No, this is the Arroyo book of chant. I'm sharing this with you for the first time.

INGRAHAM: Hell no, we won't go. That actually rhymes. Give peace a chance was kind of lyrical and it had a song to it.

ARROYO: I want to be bipartisan here. This is Mitt Romney. Listen to this supposed chant.

INGRAHAM: Oh come on. That's mean.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MITT ROMNEY, R-UTAH SENATE CANDIDATE: Wait a second. Romney-Ryan. Romney-Ryan. Romney-Ryan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: An unmemorable chant if there ever was one.

INGRAHAM: Poor Mitt. I like him, but poor guy.

Vape nation, now we're all vaping. Vape shops everywhere. I was down in Florida over vacation and vape shops everywhere because everyone is getting ready for the big up for national legalized marijuana.

ARROYO: I agree with you.

INGRAHAM: So vape shops are ready, you can put the pot in the vape, whatever you call it, pipe? I don't know what you call it.

ARROYO: The chamber, the chamber of the vape has a liquid component. Now, these 63 percent of young people, Laura, teens and those in high school believe that the vape, 63 percent, that e-cigarettes and vapes do not contain nicotine and that they are good for your health. In actuality, the liquid cylinder contains as much as a pack of cigarettes, the nicotine in the pack of cigarettes. So they are very addictive, and I think you are right. This is a precursor, getting them ready to put other substances into that vape.

By the way, they're not supposed to be selling this to people under 18. Some manufacturers require they be 21 before they use the vape.

INGRAHAM: Raymond, don't you like how John Boehner used to be against even medical marijuana. Now suddenly he is in this #AlternativeAcre, some pot lobbying group, or pot advocacy group. He is on the advisory board.

ARROYO: He was a big smoker as well as a merlot drinker. Maybe he is vaping the merlot now. That might be a good way to go for him.

INGRAHAM: It's Friday. It's 11:00 somewhere. Raymond Arroyo, thanks so much.

(LAUGHTER)

ARROYO: Bye, have a great weekend.

INGRAHAM: And it sounds like a bad parody of a deterrent ad. The new and improved Democratic Party now featuring felons. But it's no joke and we're going to tell you why next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Now, we all know many Democrats embrace illegal immigration to expand their voter base with Hispanic-Americans. Republicans like the cheap labor. But this week we told you how the Democrats in Washington, D.C. may actually now start letting 16-year-olds vote both in local and in national elections. And we now are ready to add felons? Oh, felons on parole to the base of the Democrat party, I kid you not.

Well, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has recently issued an executive order giving 35,000 paroled felons the right to vote. Joining us now, someone who supports this proposal, I'm delighted he is with us, Corey Johnson, who is the speaker of the New York City Council and he represents like the coolest part of New York. Sorry, Greenwich Village and Hell's Kitchen, that's like the coolest place to represent. I mean, come on. I'm hanging out with you in New York next time I come. How are you doing, councilman? Good to see you.

COREY JOHNSON, SPEAKER OF THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Very good. Thanks for having me tonight.

INGRAHAM: Absolutely. So give us the sense behind the felons. These aren't felons that have finished their parole. These are felons that are still within the penal system having to demonstrate good faith and lawfulness and so forth.

JOHNSON: Yes, these are folks that have been paroled. The parole board has made a decision that they are not a risk and they are not incarcerated anymore. And this isn't anything new. Fourteen states in the country allow this in the same exact way. Deep red states like Utah and North Dakota allow the same thing. So, deep blue states, Hawaii and Massachusetts, deep red states, North Dakota and Utah. This is about re-enfranchising people, reintegrating people into civic life. And studies show that civic engagement lessens recidivism. Less people recommit hopefully if they're integrated into society --

INGRAHAM: So voting -- I don't mean to interrupt. But we have 76 percent, I believe, recidivism rate in New York state and similar across the country in the first five years of being released. So 76 percent go on to commit another crime, are back in the penal system. But your argument tonight is by voting, they're going to be drawn into this system.

JOHNSON: It's not one thing. There are multiple things. Probably the most important thing is getting people jobs. It's getting people who are let out of prison actually reintegrated, having an income to support themselves.

INGRAHAM: That's for sure. I agree with you on that. Let's go through the other ways that felons forfeit various rights that are important to people like you and me and others. Holding many government jobs, they can't hold a lot of them as felons on parole. Certain welfare benefits they are not able to get. Second Amendment rights, no can do. And they are broadly excluded from running for office, Mr. Speaker. So would any of those rights, would you submit, should also be given back to felons that are on parole, Second Amendment rights? Could they run for your position, for instance, as speaker or as councilmember?

JOHNSON: Sadly, in certain places, they actually can. In New York, if you are a convicted felon, you can run for office, which I'm not sure that's a good idea and there are probably some constitutional issues involved. But right now if you are a parolee, there could be curfew requirements. There could be drug treatment program requirements, things that have to do with public safety. Allowing someone to vote does not endanger the public safety in any way. Own a gun, as you just mentioned, public safety issue.

INGRAHAM: Isn't this just a way to get votes you? You're so well-spoken and you're such an interesting person on so many levels. You are hilarious. I watched -- where were you going when you were dancing in a taxi recently in that video.

JOHNSON: I'm always happy to sing Lady Gaga with you.

INGRAHAM: First of all, that was hilarious.

JOHNSON: You can put on mature if you want.

INGRAHAM: No, no, Friday I'm in love, you've got to listen to that acoustic, my friend. That's the best version of that song.

But I digress, because right now a lot of the people think Governor Cuomo is just trying to -- it's whether it's the illegal immigrants or I am woman. He said today I'm a woman. What was that? Let's watch that for our viewers who missed that, let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO, D-NEW YORK: I'm undocumented. You want to deport an undocumented person? Start with me, because I'm an undocumented person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, we don't have the part where he said I'm a woman. I guess we cut that off. He said I'm a woman. What was that? That was a curious -- I like to be all things to all people, but you literally cannot be. Mr. Speaker, your reaction to that?

JOHNSON: I think this is about in many ways the point he was probably trying to make, though I'm not sure, I'm guessing, has to do with intersectionality. It has to do with identifying with folks who have been disenfranchised. Governor Cuomo helped pass same sex marriage in New York City. He's worked to protect the rights of women.

But I want to make one point before we go, which is George Will, a conservative commentator who you know quite well spoke recently in favor of ensuring that people who have been let out of prison in Florida, there is going to be ballot initiative there, get the right to vote. You've seen --

INGRAHAM: But after parole. I think after parole, correct? That's his point, I believe?

JOHNSON: You've seen Jared Kushner speak out in favor of it, Susan Collins, Republican senator.

INGRAHAM: Prison reform.

JOHNSON: A bill there. You have seen Rand Paul talk about getting rid of mass incarceration rates. You have seen the Koch brothers, these are all people I don't really agree with, talk about the cost of prisons.

INGRAHAM: When you're citing the Koch brothers, I'm worried. The Koch brothers are like the boogieman except when you're agreeing to something like this.

JOHNSON: You look at states like Utah and North Dakota.

INGRAHAM: how many felons do they have in Utah? There's probably 35,000 in a state. I can't imagine it's even 35,000. But look, I think the issue is expanding voter rolls. Why do it by executive order? Why not go to the legislature and actually make the case for this to the people of New York. Maybe the people in New York will be fine with this.

JOHNSON: We should have a segment on why the Trump administration do everything by executive order? Why are cabinet secretary changing the rules by executive order or by fiat?

INGRAHAM: OK, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Councilman, Mr. Speaker, it's great to have you on tonight. Thanks so much. I'm coming to do Lady Gaga in the cab with you. We're doing that, 100 percent.

JOHNSON: Thank you for having me. I'm really grateful.

INGRAHAM: You take care. We're at a hard break. We'll come right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: There was another national student walkout today from school to protest gun violence. This one was timed to coinside with the 19th anniversary, it's hard to believe, the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado.

Joining us now to discuss how to really make schools safer is Darrell Scott. Darrell is the father of Rachel Scott who was the first victim of the Columbine High School shooters in Littleton, Colorado. Darrell, it's so great to talk to you. We have so many friends in common, and I'm so bowled over by everything have you done in these last 19 years. I'm sure to you it seems like yesterday. And you run this foundation called Rachel's Challenge. Tell us how you think it's the best way to proceed to actually stop these school shootings.

DARRELL SCOTT, FOUNDER, RACHEL'S CHALLENGE: Well, thank you, Laura. It's great to be here with you.

I really want to applaud young people as far as wanting to make a difference and for marching for what they believe in. I want to just gently challenge them to focus on more than just gun control, because Eric and Dylan, the shooters at Columbine 19 years ago said in the camera you are going to change the gun laws, you're going to add more gun laws, and it's not going to stop people like us from doing what we do.

And I'm as passionate about change as these young people are. In fact, when the cameras go away, when the passion dies down, my challenge to all the young people is to maintain their desire to end the violence. And our family has chosen to do that over the last 19 years. We created a program for schools. We reach about 1 million to 2 million students each year, over 25 million over the last 19 years. And we have seen seven school shootings prevented and we've seen an average of about three suicides prevented every week. There's far more suicides than there are school victims of school shootings.

INGRAHAM: Right.

SCOTT: And we have done that through a message of kindness, compassion, and helping connect people to one another because when there's violence or when there is reaction to these kind of situations, we can do one of three things. We can hate and we can retaliate. Dr. King told us that hate will not remove hate. Only love can do that. So we can hate and retaliate. We can debate and demonstrate. Or we can relate and communicate. And relating and communicating is what our message has been. And we see the fruit of that.

INGRAHAM: I want to play for our viewers a description of Rachel's writing, your daughter's writing. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She understood the power that a simple act of kindness can have. I have this theory that if one person can go out of their way to show compassion, that it will start a chain reaction of the same.

You know at a time when most kids in high school are just trying to fit in, she just wanted to be herself and encouraged others to do the same.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, I imagine, although it's hard to imagine, there probably isn't a 15-minute period, a five-minute period over the last 19 years where you didn't think about your daughter.

SCOTT: That's right. And, you know, there is a lot of attention being poured -- a lot of money is being poured into the gun issue. And I'm not here to debate that. There is money from both sides being poured into that as a solution. But we need to look beyond the instrument and look at how we can prevent these things from happening, starting with the hearts of our kids. And I want to challenge people to pour as much money into programs like Sandy Hook Promise, like Kick Start for Kids, like Why Try, like Rachel's Challenge. We have a friend, Fosters Freeze, who has put up $2.5 million from now through the end of July. And every one of you who donate $5, $10, it's going to be doubled to Rachel's challenge.

INGRAHAM: That's awesome.

SCOTT: You can go to RachelScott.org or RachelScott.com, and it's going to help us reach a lot more kids.

INGRAHAM: Darrell, this is a perfect way to end this week, something incredibly positive, incredibly compassionate, and real. Person touching person.

SCOTT: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: Not through a screen. It's people helping people, one-on-one. You've got to reach out to people who are in trouble. And you've done that for the past 19 years. You've turned tragedy into triumph. We pray for you and for all the victims of gun violence and tragedy across this country. Thank you for what you are doing. We need a spiritual reawakening in this country, and you are helping, along with Fosters Freeze and so many others. And you have a donation coming from me, my friend.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Before we go, let's take a look at a couple of the zingy tweets that came my way about tonight's show. Remember to tweet me @IngrahamAngle. Southern Beach Girl, she says "Oh, let felons run for office. They couldn't be any worse than the politicians we have now @IngrahamAngle." And Dave tweeted, "I've seen many people walking their dogs in grocery stores with homemade service dog outfits. This is a sign of how dishonest our society has become."

Up next, Shannon Bream.

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.