Nunes: Documents about Flynn show Comey has been lying

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," May 4, 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." The NRA gives the president a rock star reception at its annual meeting.

And in tonight's "Angle," Sarah Sanders versus and out of control press.

And another college controversy, this one takes the cake, you want to stick around for Raymond Arroyo's Friday folly segment.

But first, a federal judge just unloads on Bob Mueller's legal team, suggesting that they're lying and only out to get Trump. Does that sound familiar? District Judge T.S. Ellis is hearing the case against for Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, in the Eastern District of Virginia.

And in court today, he blasted the special counsel's legal team, questioning their motives and even their honesty. Ellis told prosecutors, "You don't really care about Mr. Manafort. You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you to lead you to Mr. Trump and an impeachment or whatever."

The judge demanded to see the so-called scope memo outlining the range of Mueller's Russia probe, and when prosecutors objected it is unrelated material, Ellis retorted, "I'll be the judge of that."

And then he added, "We don't want anyone in this country with unfettered power. It's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special prosecutor has the power to do anything he or she wants. The American people feel pretty strongly that no one has unfettered power."

Well, a delighted President Trump broke news of the hearing to the NRA annual meeting in Dallas this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: A highly respected judge in Virginia made statements. It says, Wall Street Journal, "Judge questions Mueller's authority to prosecute Manafort." Judge T.S. Ellis, who is really something very special, I hear from many standpoints.

He's a respected person, suggested the charges before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia was just part of the Mueller team's design to pressure Mr. Manafort into giving up information on President Donald Trump. I've been saying that for a long time. It's a witch hunt.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, let's review these developments with House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. We have a lot to talk about with him. Chairman Nunes, it's good to see you. T.S. Ellis I know very well. He is a senior judge in the Eastern District of Virginia. I think a long time ago I interviewed with him.

Very well respected, appointed by President Reagan back in 1987, but he was brutal on the counsel who was arguing the case, Michael Drevin (ph), who is basically a deputy -- a general who's now in the Mueller office. What were your thoughts on his comments about how this is really outside the scope of the Mueller authority?

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: I was astonished by the comments the judge made today, although it's not surprising. Everything in this case, Laura, has just gone off the rails. There's not a day that goes by that something new and crazy doesn't break.

Finally, just today, we were able to get the two pages that we needed that we now know that Comey and McCabe did in fact say that General Flynn -- that agents didn't think he was lying. Now, we've listened to Mr. Comey over the last three weeks run around saying just the opposite.

So, you have to judge saying that they're lying, the Mueller team's lying. Now you have the case where we know that Mr. Comey has been lying out there publicly. This continues to just I think -- it's bewildering, quite frankly.

INGRAHAM: Now, Congressman, Jim Comey basically decided to override the agents including Peter Strzok. We focused on Strzok's text with Lisa Page and maybe as an animus against President Trump. But I believe, unless I'm wrong, I believe Peter Strzok, was one of the agents who interviewed Mike Flynn.

And we had heard this for some time now confirmed that Mike Flynn didn't lie, at least it was up to them, meaning poor Mike Flynn. They twisted the screws on him to plead guilty to a false statement in order to, like a lot of people do, save their family and whatever money they have left.

And meanwhile, Comey is going around saying he lied. It's wild. Why would he override the agents? That's my question.

NUNES: Well, look, this isn't new news to us on the Intelligence Committee. This has been the problem of all these issues that they keep classified from the American people. We knew this very shortly after the interview took place, the interview where the FBI agents went into the White House and interviewed Mr. Flynn.

Shortly after that, Mr. Comey comes in and briefs us. That's on the record. I know he also briefed other committees. So, on the record, we knew what Mr. Comey said. We had the transcripts. We had been fighting with the Department of Justice and the FBI for six weeks to release this information to the American people.

We finally have it tonight late on a Friday night. This is totally unacceptable. You have the judge from this morning. This is just continued ridiculous behavior. It's like they want to keep digging. And the American people are beginning to understand that the Department of Justice and the FBI have major problems.

I have no idea how they can investigate themselves, but evidently, they continue to believe they can. They have so many more documents they have to provide to us that we needed like yesterday. And I hate to have to continue to come out publicly and talk about this, that we are still missing documents important to our investigation.

INGRAHAM: Let's remind everyone. A few weeks ago, you were on the show. I believe it was a Friday night or a Thursday night. And you essentially threatened Rod Rosenstein with contempt of Congress or impeachment if the underlying documents, the computer document that authorized the probe of spying on Carter Page wasn't released.

He did finally then release that, Congressman Nunes. However, now you're getting slammed in response by CNN and now others that you asked for these documents and then you have a staffer read them. You don't read them. So, how serious are you? You just want to help the president. You're not even reading the documents. What about that CNN report that came out today?

NUNES: Yes, so, look, I enjoyed being attacked. The first thing I will tell you is whatever CNN and the New York Times write or talk about, I don't read their information. I will tell you that. We're not going to get into the specifics about how we conduct our investigation.

But I will tell you, Laura, and I've said this numerous times on your show and others, is that Mr. Gowdy, our lead investigator, Mr. Gowdy is the one who reviews all the initial documents with our investigators.

I'm not going to get into the processes that we use, but as the chairman of the committee, when they need documents, they come to me. We use the power that we have vested in us by the Constitution to try to force the Department of Justice and the FBI to comply --

INGRAHAM: I know, but you can see the criticism, Congressman. I'm trying to help our viewers understand this. When they come after you and say Nunes is getting these documents, then you don't read them, it opens you up to criticism.

So, I don't understand why it compromises the investigation for you to say, "I read the documents that are necessary to do this investigation and I consult with my staff on the primary documents." So, I don't know why you're reluctant to say whether you read them or don't read them. I don't get that.

NUNES: Well, look, this is first of all, what they're talking about there is it's a page and a half. What specifically what we're looking for is we're investigating the State Department. We are looking for any official intelligence that came across. That's what we're looking for. That was not in the document.

So, at this point, we have other lines on inquiry that we're going down. We have a subpoena out there. And this is why we can play process games all the time, but at the end of the day here, we continue to have our investigation blocked. We continue to have to deal with the disinformation campaigns.

INGRAHAM: And this is what the left always does. Everyone who watches this show understands because they've done it to me. They tried to. When you're effective and holding people accountable and if you're conservative or ever supported the president, you're a target. And that's why all the articles floating around about you and Paul Ryan should take you off the committee.

That was a couple of weeks ago. It's predictable. I want to read for you a comment by Eric Lichtblau about what's happened to the FBI. He said, "Many view Trump's attacks as self-serving. He's called the renowned agency an embarrassment to our country and its investigations of his business and political dealings as a witch hunt.

But as much as the bureau's roughly 14,000 special agents might like to tune out the news, internal and external reports have found lapses throughout the agency, see a troubling picture. Something really is wrong at the FBI." Now that's not Devin Nunes saying that. That is Lichtblau saying it.

NUNES: I've actually conveyed this to Director Wray. He has a tough, tough job to do. He needs to clean the place up. I've said this also publicly. We don't see a systemic problem out in the field with field agents or people overseas doing very difficult work trying to track down terrorists and other bad guys.

Where we do see a problem is in Washington, D.C. Now to Director Wray's credit, you have seen many of the Comey-era people have been excused. That's a good sign. It would even be better if he made sure we get this information we need in a timely manner.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, thank you so much for joining us tonight. We really appreciate it.

Here with reaction, our two esteemed attorneys, Scott Bolden joins from Las Vegas along with Alan Dershowitz in New York. He is the author of the new book "Trumped Up, How the Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy." Great to see both of you.

Professor Dershowitz, Judge Ellis, you know him well. I know him well from a long time ago when I was a litigator. He's an incredibly talented judge. He pretty much calls balls and strikes, 77 years old senior judge on the eastern district. He just laid into the special counsel's office.

He said, "I don't see what relationship this indictment has against Manafort with anything the special counsel is authorized to investigate. It's unlikely you're going to persuade me the special counsel has this unfettered power to do whatever he wants."

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR EMERITUS: Look, every criminal lawyer I know, every experienced lawyer has known from the beginning what's going on. They're going after people like Manafort and Flynn and Cohen not because they have any interests in any of them. They just want to flip them. They want to make them not only sing.

But as the judge put it in his statement, maybe even make them compose. I think I came up with that phrase composing instead of singing. The judge was just saying what we all have known right from the beginning.

The only difference between this judge and other judges is this judge is completely and totally honest. He calls it the way he sees it. He's absolutely right. This is what's been going on.

The amazing thing is that he called them on it. He said, "You can't do that if you're a special counsel. You have to go after directly the evidence that's within your mandate. You can't be finding people, creating or exaggerating or coming up with crimes, not in order to get those people but in order to squeeze them and get them to sing and compose."

It's about time a judge honestly looked at the situation and assessed it. You and I have been talking about this now for months. We shouldn't be surprised, but it's surprising and refreshing that a federal judge would say that.

It also vindicates one other point I made, why did Mueller take this case out of Virginia and try to put it in Washington, D.C.? Because he knows that he would get more positive judges and jurors in the District of Columbia than Virginia.

In Virginia, he's going to get judges like this who are straight. In D.C., he's -- who are much, much more anti-Trump. So, clearly that was judge shopping and jury shopping. When I said that, I was called a racist and condemned. Congressmen condemned me. Professors condemned me, but I think this opinion vindicates what I've been saying for a long, long time.

INGRAHAM: Scott, we do have another aspect of the case that's still in D.C. I think we lost Scott. If we get him back, let me know. It's Amy Berman Jackson, Professor Dershowitz, who is an Obama appointee. She still hasn't ruled on the motion to dismiss.

But these banking transactions go back to 2004 and 2007. He said, "I'll be the judge of that. I don't think so. I'll be the judge of that." So, 2004, 2007, an investigation that began in 2014, Professor, was somehow just looped into the Mueller investigation. It is ridiculous. It's so patently obvious from the very beginning.

DERSHOWITZ: What they're doing to these people like Manafort and Flynn and Cohn could happen to any of us. If you know somebody who they're going after, they're going to find something on you and squeeze you. This is something that has plagued the American justice system for many decades.

If they do it to get the mafia and terrorists is maybe understandable. But to get the elected president of the United States -- somebody I voted against -- but who is the elected president of United States, to use that tactic of squeezing people and making them testify and sing and compose endangers the civil liberties of all Americans.

INGRAHAM: Let's look at what President Trump said today after he heard about the continuing conversation about whether he should speak to a grand jury or be interviewed by Mueller. He made these comments.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I would love to speak. I would love to go. Nothing I want to do more because we did nothing wrong. I have to find that we're going to be treated fairly because everybody sees it now and it is a pure witch-hunt. If I thought it was fair, I would override my lawyers.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DERSHOWITZ: It's so important. Everybody should read my article in today's USA Today because I give advice to the president. It would be a terrible mistake for him to voluntarily testify unless he has no choice. No prosecutor has ever tried to get anybody to speak to him to help that person.

It's to spring a perjury trap. I have never in 50 years of practice had one of my clients speak to a prosecutor or voluntarily appear before a grand injury. He may have to. They may subpoena him, but then he has legal resources.

He can fight the subpoena on the grounds that this judge has now apparently ruled saying that many of the questions are beyond the scope of the mandate of the special counsel. Others are within the privilege of a president not to have to answer why he pardoned, why he fired, why he did this and that.

Those are not appropriate questions. So, I think there are challenges the president can level at a subpoena. But the one thing you shouldn't do is volunteer to sit down and talk to a prosecutor. No good ever comes of that.

INGRAHAM: I don't care how people think they're so smart. And Alan, you and I have been around this with witnesses. The more prominent the witness, the more problems in a deposition because they don't want to hear your advice, they don't want to be coached. They want to do (inaudible). They want to go, and I can handle it.

DERSHOWITZ: Look at Bill Clinton. He got impeached because his lawyer gave him the advice to go and testify about his sex life at a deposition. He could have settled the case and not testified, but he didn't do that. He took the advice of the lawyer.

He didn't take the advice I gave him on this network not to testify, but he made the mistake. And I don't think that President Trump is going to make the mistake of testifying unless he can do it in a controlled setting a few hours with his lawyer present, limited questions about limited subjects, perhaps written answers.

If I were the president's lawyer, I would take advantage of these 40-something questions and I would respond to them in writing and say to the American public, "See, I'm not afraid to answer these questions. The only reason they want to now talk to me in person is they want to spring a perjury trap." And there's no justification for using the grand jury for that.

INGRAHAM: Scott Bolden, we promised it was not a conspiracy. Your reaction to what's happened today. We can go back to the district court judge in the Eastern District of Virginia or you can hit any of the issues we've been talking about.

SCOTT BOLDEN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION PAC: Well, I'm chomping at the bit. In regard to Judge Ellis, having appeared before him a handful of times in the last five or ten years, I'm not surprised. And he was equally hard on Mueller and Manafort's lawyer and his legal team in regard to their head shaking and what have you.

But he is a smart judge. I don't disagree with Professor Dershowitz in regard to how the process works. They shake down drug dealers and street criminals and what have you. But the judge didn't order, dismiss the indictment. He wants to see the whole memo because he does not trust Mueller and needs to render a decision.

So, a lot of judges will press both sides and then in the end, rule in favor of one that just based on the questioning, you may think he's leaning one way but go to other way. He did not issue an order.

Secondly, the hearing today in my opinion was really more about whether Mueller -- OK, does he have jurisdiction or not? But then the other thing to notice is he had local counsel there from the eastern district.

And I think if anything, Judge Ellis is going to rule, if he goes this far to say, "you can prosecute Manafort if you want, but you've got to do it out of the eastern district." Nobody wants to try a case in front of a D.C. juror because they tend to be more liberal.

So, they do reach out to Virginia if they can make the case. In regard to the rest of the issues, the subpoenas and what the House investigators are doing, they really ought though just let the Mueller investigation go forward, this whole corruption piece and picking and choosing these documents are real problems.

INGRAHAM: Heaven forbid we have Congress hold the executive branch accountable. They're supposed to keep each other honest.

BOLDEN: But it's an ongoing investigation though --

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Well, if the ongoing investigation is a travesty of justice, yes, we do want them to have an ongoing oversight responsibility and that's --

BOLDEN: They'll be time enough for that at the conclusion of the investigation. You don't want to do it now?

INGRAHAM: All right. Guys, we're out of time. Thank you so much.

By the way, the press versus Sarah Sanders, don't want to miss it. Tonight's "Angle" next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: The press versus Sarah Sanders. That's the focus of tonight's "Angle." Yesterday, the White House press briefing turned into a total feeding frenzy on spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

The White House press corps is up in arms over the discrepancy of what she told the press previously that the president had no knowledge of the payments made to Stormy Daniels, and what Giuliani revealed this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why can't you just answer yes or no whether you were in the dark? I think it's a fairly simple question.

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think it's a fairly simple answer. I gave you the best information that I had, and I'll continue to do that every single day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Familiar Trump enemies join the anti-Sanders mob.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Have we ever gotten any truth out of them? Have they become to the point that they've become null and void?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But she's lying to the American public and I think she needs to own that. Being ignorant or lying about it is just not an excuse.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is no comment a better option?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you're just going to lie, why bother?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is how democracy die slowly right in front of us. Every single day, deception and lies become normal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: How dramatic, Mike Barnacle (ph). "This is how democracy dies." Please. Then under the headline "Why Sarah Sanders Should Quit." Chris Cilizza writes on cnn.com, "To the extent Sanders retained credibility among the White House press corps, she lost it with that answer. Admitting that you misled the press because the president misled you is tantamount to taking your credibility, pouring gasoline on it, and then setting it on fire."

Well, these people are going to lecture us about credibility, the press? Consider the sources as Brian Stelter might say or actually, yes, Howie Kurtz is the one who first said that. Are these reliable sources? For the most part, the White House press pool has become a pack of lupine, look-it-up commentators and they are activists masquerading as journalists. Just listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: She can be mad at what I say right now. Tough. I'm a reporter who's going to continue to ask questions and there was nothing wrong with that question.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I wish I could install a BS meter inside the White House briefing room. Unfortunately, I think it would be going off all the time and it would be hard to hear the press secretary attempt to tell the truth on a daily basis.

MICHELLE WOLF, COMEDIAN: I actually really like Sarah. I think she's very resourceful. She burns facts and uses that ash to create a smoky eye.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I literally had to turn the volume down. The effort to demean and drive out Sanders and send her packing from her job is part of the politics of personal destruction in this town, Washington, D.C. Anyone who works for the president is a target because the resistance wants to thin the ranks of those in the administration and advance a narrative of internal division and chaos.

And at the same time, Sarah Sanders is in a very difficult position and has to look out for her own credibility as well. She was given scant information and repeated what she was told in good faith. Frankly, all questions about this information should have been referred to the president's legal team, period.

Trump needs a legal spokesperson, which he doesn't have at this point. Issues pertaining to an ongoing investigation should not be addressed by the White House press spokesperson.

And despite the chiving by Jim Acosta, Sanders can't be brought on these legal discussions without becoming a witness herself. She doesn't want that. So, it is right for the legal team to have kept Sarah Sanders in the dark on these sensitive topics for her own protection.

And this is why I've always warned against arguing your case in the press. It's tempting. I know you want to respond to everything. But it is too fraught with complications and very easy to make a misstep. But do not presume that these journalists are trying to keep it real.

They have proudly, many of them, become hostile adversaries in the vanguard of the resistance. It's gotten so bad that reporters are now engaging in full-out intimidation of the White House press folks, even threats of physical violence. Again, here's April Ryan from yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why didn't he talk to the White House press office about his impacting statements about what was happening?

SANDERS: The White House press office wouldn't coordinate with the president's outside legal team on legal strategies.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You said you were blindsided.

SANDERS: I actually didn't use that term.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I said it. But you were blindsided by what you said.

SANDERS: With all due respect, you actually don't know much about me in terms of what I feel and what I don't.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the presidential spokesperson, the mouthpiece of the president of the United States to say, "you don't know me," in certain quarters in this nation. That starts a physical fight. I was very shocked. It was street. I will even go beyond that. It was gutter.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Do you know what gutter is? This Twitter exchange between April Ryan, a White House correspondent, and the former Democratic mayor of Baltimore. Blake writes, "April Ryan unsolicited comeback suggestions for press secretary. I may not know you, but I damn sure know a lie and you were wearing it, sis, all over your face."

Ryan then responds on Twitter, "Lol, stop. Bmore in the house, I know you have my back. That you don't know me stuff begins fist fights. She needs to know what she is saying. I am not the one."

Blake then tweets back, "I already took my earrings off and Vaseline in my purse." Then April Ryan tweets back again, "That's what I'm talking about. Take off that pretty ring to the -- whatever she says, street fight -- this is gutter (ph).

And a gutter in need of a little editing, apparently but it's Twitter. Can you imagine if someone on this network started taking off their earrings and said, "take off your pretty ring and let's have a street fight with our political opponents?"

It would be instant Armageddon. You know what they would do. They would say we were, what, inciting violence. It's what they said the other night about Ben Shapiro. He was inciting violence because he tweeted something. But these journalists feel protected and free to threaten and slander members of the Trump administration with abandon.

Their shared hatred of the president and those he represents unites them no matter what they do or say, and they think do it with impunity. Ms. Ryan has a history of these aggressive tactics. Remember, she was the journalist who hazed Sanders last Thanksgiving, suggesting that she didn't really bake that pecan pie that she tweeted a picture of. And she also regularly engaged in inflammatory encounters with the former press spokesman Sean Spicer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN SPICER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I appreciate your agenda here, but the reality is -- no, no. Hold on. No, at some point, report the facts. The facts are that every single person who has briefed on this subject has come away with the same conclusion. Republican, Democrat, so I'm sorry that that disgusts you. You're shaking your head. It seems like you're hell-bent on trying to make sure whatever image you want to tell about this White House stays.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Truth be told April Ryan's been tough on a Democrat press spokesmen over the years as well. But here is the reality. Journalists are representatives in the halls of power. And their job is to ask substantive questions and get answers. They're not there to be perpetual critics or naysayers with a recurring role or partisan bullies.

If you want to raise your profile by staging viral confrontations of public figures, do it on your own time. Get a podcast or be a regular pundit on MSNBC. But if you want to be a journalist and prattle on about credibility, why don't you start by trying to restore your own? And keep those rings in your purse, and the Vaseline, put that away.

That's "The Angle."

Coming up, our Friday Follies segment. The fired House chaplain is now reinstated by Paul Ryan, stoking a political firestorm. And university students petitioning to change their school's nickname because, guess what, the snowflakes find it offensive. Raymond Arroyo, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Live from America's news headquarters, I'm Ed Henry.

President George H. W. Bush was released from the hospital today. The former president spent the last 13 days at Houston Methodist hospital fighting an infection that had spread to his blood. Family spokesperson Jim McGrath said on Twitter, Doctors report the 41st president is doing well and happy to be returning home.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in will visit the White House towards the end of the month. This will be the third time he and President Trump have met. The two will of course discuss the recent historic meeting to President Moon and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un as well as the upcoming meeting between Kim and Mr. Trump.

U.S. Navy is bringing back its second fleet seven years after it was shut down. The new fleet will keep watch over the east coast and north Atlantic. Admiral John Richardson, chief of naval operations, said the decision to bring back the fleet was due to, quote, great power competition, but he didn't name any nations in particular. However, the Pentagon's new national defense strategy identifies Russia and China as the biggest threats.

We're just getting word in fact that two top advisors to former FBI director James Comey have resigned, including Lisa Page. I'll have more coming up next with Shannon Bream when we go live for "Fox News @ Night". I'm Ed Henry. Now back to "The Ingraham Angle."

INGRAHAM: It's time for our Friday Follies segment. And we can start with the case of the reinstated House chaplain Pat Conroy. He was fired last week and now he's back to discuss the political fallout with some new information, new reporting. We're joined by Fox News contributor and New York Times bestselling author Raymond Arroyo. This has my head spinning. Most people don't think about the House chaplain. How offensive can a House chaplain be? But he was kind of pushed to the side. He was retiring. And now he's back.

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Paul Ryan asked him to retire. He submitted his resignation. Paul then said this on the floor. Listen to this. It was at a press conference, rather.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PAUL RYAN, R-SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Father Conroy is a good man and I'm grateful for his many years of service to the House. This is not about politics or prayers. It was about pastoral services. And a number of our members felt like the pastoral services were not being adequately served or offered. And so I made a decision on behalf of the House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Now, I spoke to members, Laura. It started with four last week. I spoke to another five or six this week, the people who actually went and complained to Paul Ryan. They said they liked the pastor but he was a little distant. In one-on-one counseling, he was wanting. He didn't really give them that pastoral touch they wanted.

INGRAHAM: Can you give specifics here?

ARROYO: There was one woman who had a difficult family situation. She went to him. He was very cold.

INGRAHAM: Didn't he say something like, go to your home pastor.

ARROYO: He referred her to her home pastor. And she ended up going to the Senate chaplain. But he also didn't organize any real big events. Like after the shooting in the ballfield, there were no events for members. Speakers didn't appear with regularity to talk about the spiritual life. Anyway, they complained to Paul Ryan. That is why he asked for the man's resignation.

INGRAHAM: Why is he back?

ARROYO: He's back because he complained. He went to the media and he claimed that Paul Ryan's chief of staff Jonathan Burks said, maybe it's time that we had a chaplain that wasn't Catholic. I've spoken to a number of members, people in leadership. Turns out what he really said was, we're going to have an open process where we look at all denominations. So this is not a case of anti-Catholic bias.

INGRAHAM: Paul Ryan actually does something that a lot of us were saying it's about time. Apparently this guy was not all that popular. He just wasn't. And then he backtracks. If you're going to make a decision, make a decision.

ARROYO: Well, he's reluctant.

INGRAHAM: But the left is all happy about this. They feel like they got their guy back in. He's more of a liberal priest. But that wasn't wise.

ARROYO: In the Democratic caucus, they were willing to have a huge floor fight.

INGRAHAM: So Paul Ryan backs down from a fight. God bless him. He's on his way out. OK, so you're always rescuing people.

ARROYO: I am trying to give you the honest goods here. You just want me to take a hard --

INGRAHAM: Because Paul Ryan basically ushered him out. He had great years of service. And now he's back. So everybody can complain they're fired and complain to come back. OK, fine.

Let's go to the extremely offensive George Washington University mascot or motto or --

ARROYO: Their mascot and their nicknames are the Colonials.

INGRAHAM: Oh, Colonials.

ARROYO: Two-hundred students have filed a petition. They write, "We as student, faculty and staff of George Washington --

INGRAHAM: Have nothing better to do than complain about a mascot.

ARROYO: That's right.

INGRAHAM: Look at the cute mascot. It's adorable.

ARROYO: The use of the Colonials, no matter how innocent the intention, is received as extremely offensive to the nation and world at large. They say the historically negatively charge of colonials has a deep connection to colonialization.

INGRAHAM: Look at that one. I love when he's pointing.

ARROYO: It glorifies the -- could you quiet? Let me read this thing. It glorifies the act of systemic oppression, they say. Here's my problem with this. The Colonials, it's named after George Washington. Of course you have colonials. It's representing the Continental Congress. Those are the people who fought for the rights of kids to file silly petitions like this. They need a sensitivity course on colonialism and what it meant in the American context. It means liberty and freedom.

INGRAHAM: I'm still back to Dartmouth College being the Indians. They renamed my college the big green. What the heck is the big green? I don't even know what that is.

ARROYO: It's like them wanting to remove the leprechaun from Notre Dame. They say it's a racial, inappropriate mascot.

INGRAHAM: By the way, I petitioned all the living Indian chiefs and 83 percent in the whole country wanted the Indian symbol back, college didn't care. I did that as a student journalist, causing trouble back then.

All right, Kanye West, real quick, Kanye West is not being played on a hip hop station. I know you listen to him next to Sinatra and oldies.

ARROYO: Every time I'm in Detroit I listen to 105 the bomb.

INGRAHAM: Oh, please.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: They hate Kanye now.

ARROYO: This is D.J. Biggs and Shay Shay. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you think as a show we should band together and not play any of Kanye West's throwback songs?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I don't want to hear it. I don't want to hear it. And this is probably going to get some people upset because they like Kanye. They're a fan of Kanye. And I get that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you want us to stop playing them all?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But I'm OK with the small platform that we do have to not continue to give him a platform that is spewing things that are reckless.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: A lot of anger out there. And this is all about the comments he made about the 400 years of slavery. But remember he went on to say, it sounds like a choice. But then he said it's like we're mentally in prison. That was the point of what he meant. And he's being sidelined. His music is being boycotted. We'll see where this end. But free thought not allowed.

INGRAHAM: Kanye will be bigger than ever.

ARROYO: The next Roseanne, the Roseanne of rap?

INGRAHAM: Kanye will be bigger than ever. And it's only because he dares to think for himself. Raymond Arroyo, fantastic, as always.

And up next, Trump brings down the house at the NRA's annual meeting and makes some news. Did you know it? We'll discuss it next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: President Trump addressed the NRA for the fourth year in a row at its annual meeting today in Dallas. Needless to say, he was not subtle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Your Second Amendment rights are under siege. But they will never ever be under siege as long as I'm your president.

Democrats and liberals in Congress want to disarm law-abiding Americans at the same time they're releasing dangerous criminal aliens and savage gang members onto our streets.

We believe that our liberty is a gift there our creator and that no government can ever take it away.

We strongly believe in allowing highly trained teachers to carry concealed weapons.

There's no sign more inviting to a mass killer than a sign that declares, this school is a gun gun-free zone. Come in and take us.

We will never give up our freedom. Americans are born free, we will live free, and we will die free.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, despite the warm welcome, NRA members became a little nervous when Trump seemed open to some gun control measures after Parkland, Florida, the horrible shooting there in February. And some are upset that the administration hasn't pushed gun rights bills such as that concealed carry reciprocity legislation.

Let's get reaction from Matt Schlapp, chairman of the America Conservative Union who attended President Trump's speech today, along with Philippe Reines is a former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton. Great to see both of you. All right, Matt, you were in the room as this was going down today. And it was a rock star welcome. That's such a tedious phrase, overused, but they love President Trump. And he made a little news today. Tell us about it.

MATT SCHLAPP, CONTRIBUTOR, THE HILL: Yes, well, that's right. The one thing about President Trump is he doesn't have a longstanding voting record and he's willing to look at these issues afresh, which sometimes makes people nervous. And in the room today he talked about the idea that we have to confront these problems of violence in our society and we have to look at our laws. And that's what he said on bump stocks. And on other questions he's talked about the background check. And look, it makes some people in the room uneven. But I think you're right, Laura. Overall, the people who are members the of the NRA are just so thankful to have a president who is standing up for the Second Amendment. So I would say overall a rousing reaction.

INGRAHAM: The House Intel Committee Congressman Eric Swalwell unloaded on guns and gun control, and he said something about confiscation, which made people concerned. We should ban possession of military style semi-automatic assault weapons. We should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. So Philippe, it seems like people always will jump to, you just want to take our guns away. And Democrats say, no we want smarter laws. We want gun control legislation that's smart and commonsense. But he goes to confiscation here. What do you think about that?

PHILIPPE REINES, FORMER HILLARY CLINTON ADVISER: Well, I understand, watching President Trump, where he conflates all sorts of different things, where it conflates immigration and the Second Amendment. But the truth of the matter is that the Second Amendment is not under siege. The Supreme Court is safely conservative. The thing he's been most successful about has been putting conservatives in the court, on the court. The Second Amendment is not going anywhere. And while he is speaking to the NRA, polling of gun owners on the whole actually show that people are, even in the light of Parkland, they are open to regulations, whether it's in terms of Eric Swalwell --

INGRAHAM: Bump stock.

REINES: Bump stock and people stalking and domestic violence.

INGRAHAM: He's talking about Australian-style gun confiscation, though. And I think a lot of people on the left --

REINES: I understand.

INGRAHAM: You read the comments, let's get rid of all guns. A lot of the people who are rightfully outraged after Parkland said this is ridiculous. We don't need these guns.

REINES: I think the frustration is among people like Eric Swalwell and people like me, not that I'm agreeing with that particular suggestion, is that the Second Amendment is not going anywhere. We're not trying to take everyone's guns, but we don't want Parkland to happen again. And there's got to be something in between those two things.

INGRAHAM: Parkland, we know all the things that happened leading up to that.

REINES: But also everything he did was legal. He bought a legal weapon.

INGRAHAM: Yes, he did. But we had multiple warnings to the FBI. And Matt, you can comment on this. Multiple warnings to the FBI. The sheriff obviously himself under siege for his handling of all this as it was happening when people were sitting outside instead of rushing into the building.

But I think when you looked at what happened today, President Trump was talking about the NRA being under siege. It has blood on its hands. We even had Jim Comey on Wednesday in Miami. He was doing a book event. And he said, the NRA sells fear to gun owners. He said he didn't like to get into politics, but he was adamant that the NRA is part of the problem.

SCHLAPP: Well, they can't have it both ways. The congressman can't put out a tweet saying he wants to do semi-auto confiscation of guns and then on the other hand say like Philippe is saying, well, it's not under attack. I think what Philippe is trying to say, yes, the Second Amendment is in the Constitution, but Democrats want to take their ability to regulate our ability to own guns to the max.

And here's the thing of the politics of this. I was in the White House when the last semi-auto ban expired. The Democrats talked about wanting to have a semi-auto ban, but there were no bills when it expired because they realized the politics of gun confiscation are terrible. So they jump on these issues when there's these terrible tragedies, but when it really comes down to the legislation, like when Barack Obama had a supermajority in the Senate and a big majority in the House, he didn't get it done.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, thanks to you both for being here tonight. And the week ends on a fantastic high note for the president and the economy. Details on how he's defying all the naysayers on this issue next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Here's a great way to wrap up the week, some fantastic news on the economy. Unemployment dropped to 3.9 percent in April. That's the lowest in 18 years. And we added 24,000 manufacturing jobs last month. That's an amazing increase. Now it's up to 304,000 manufacturing jobs since December, 2016, right before Trump took office.

Now, the rallying Trump economy, I guess that's news to a media obsessed with all things Stormy. But the reality is Trump is proving himself to be the jobs president. And the jobs he's helping create are diverse jobs, and they're having a major impact on the economy. Defying conventional wisdom, the president is bringing back blue-collar jobs. Yes, America is making actual products again. And remember when the experts said none of this would ever happen?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A lot of these manufacturing jobs, a lot of what we're talking about over time, those industries are not coming back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, they've lost millions of manufacturing jobs that frankly are never coming back.

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: When somebody says he's going to bring all these jobs back. How exactly are you going to do that? What are you going to do? There's no answer to it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Yes, here's the answer. Obama was dead wrong. Trump was right. And by the way, now Obama's top advisor to get out of this pickle they're in, is trying to suggest that former president Obama deserves credit for what Trump has accomplished.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN ANCHOR: The breaking news that we just had moments ago were the new job numbers, the lowest in anybody's memory, 3.9 percent unemployment rate. It's been 15 months of Donald Trump's presidency. Do you give him credit for that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think we have to look at it over a longer horizon than that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh, of course, it's all Obama's doing. It's all because of things he did.

Let's analyze the Trump economy with Andy Puzder. He's the former CEO of the parent company of Hardee's and Carl's Jr., and he's the author of a new book "The Capitalist Comeback." All right, Andy, I love the fact that the old Obama folks are trying to say, well, look, look at what Obama was handed. He was handed an economy that had had been through hell and it was coming back, and he added all these jobs. And Trump waltzes in. And it's going well, but it was going well over Obama.

ANDY PUZDER, FORMER CEO OF CKE RESTAURANTS: Everything bad that happened in the Obama administration was George W. Bush's fault and everything good apparently that happens after his presidency is due Obama's credit. There's never been a president of the United States who was subjected to a more concerted effort by the left and the media to discredit his economic accomplishments, which is one of the reasons I wrote the book, was so people would have the ammunition not only to defend President Trump's economic accomplishments but to explain how really his capitalist policies have brought back this great economic resurgence. This isn't the Democratic Party of John Kennedy or even a Bill Clinton. This is the Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders party. It's been taken over by socialists and progressives. And they can't let it appear that Donald Trump is being successful because it puts the lie to the notion that Obama's progressive policies were in the country's best interest. They were not.

INGRAHAM: Hillary basically admitted that the other night when she said the whole capitalist thing might have hurt her campaign. The party has moved so far to the left that it's left America. Andy, we only have limited time, but when Obama said back in 2016, how does he expect to bring these jobs back? It's not going to happen. He's bringing them back because he's incentivizing companies to repatriate their capital with lower taxes, what Obama never wanted to do, dropping the corporate tax rate and not penalizing corporations for hauling all that cash back home. Apple is going to bring back manufacturing, all these big companies. It happens by actually not treating business as the enemy.

PUZDER: You look at every report on GDP by quarter during the Obama administration. And the problem was the reason GDP growth was so slow was because businesses weren't investing. You look what's happened since President Trump's been in office 15 months, businesses are investing. We went from an economy where workers couldn't find good-paying jobs to an economy where the biggest problem businesses are facing is they can't find enough employees to fill the good-paying jobs. That's the capitalist comeback.

INGRAHAM: And you know what I love also is that in the blue-collar jobs, like the railroad jobs, you're seeing a $25,000 signing bonus for employees. Wages are beginning to tick up, up like two percent. We needed that to happen for the American workers. Wages need to start rising. Andy, love the book. Thank you so much for joining us.

PUZDER: Thanks for having me on.

INGRAHAM: Absolutely, we'll have you back for sure.

And we're going to close this out when we come back. Don't go away. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: That's all the time we have this evening. How sad. It's been such a quiet, boring week, hasn't it? And of course we want to hear what you have to say about tonight's show. Be sure to tweet me @IngrahamAngle. We'll be reading them all weekend long. Back here on Monday. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team are coming up next. Have a great weekend everyone.

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.