Dad of Parkland victim reacts to release of shooter's videos

close

Video

Dad of Parkland victim reacts to release of shooter's videos

Prosecutors release cell phone video of Parkland student detailing school shooting plans; Parkland father Andrew Pollack and former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman react on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," May 31, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST OF 'THE INGRAHAM ANGLE': Good evening from Washington I'm Laura Ingraham. This "The Ingraham Angle." We have a packed show for you tonight with news in every segment. My exclusive interview with Conservative film maker Dinesh D'Souza. His first comments after the President announced his full pardon. And in tonight's Angle I will examine what that pardon says about the left's purely political prosecutions. Plus the media leaks a disgraced FBI official's claim that the President obstructed justice by firing Comey. The President is firing back. Also the prosecutor's release chilling videos by the Florida school shooting suspect Nicholas Cruz, raising questions, why now and what good does it do? And house majority leader Kevin McCarthy is here to react to Google's description of the GOP's ideology, you will not believe what Google is saying. But first, fir the left it's suddenly open season on women Trump's family. What a series of vile and vulgar attacks the Trump women have endured in the last 24 hours alone. First up Samantha Bee's obscene assault on First Daughter Ivanka Trump on her TBS how last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAMANTHA BEE, TBS HOST: Let me just say one mother to another, do something about your Dad's immigration practices you feckless--He listens to you, put on something tight and low cut and get your father to-- stop it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: How about deport her? Well the so-called comedian called Ivanka Trump as you heard the c-word. She apologized today on Twitter for the insanity saying, "I crossed a line and I deeply regret it". But she did not apologize for the sexually suggestive remark. Her network TBS also apologized but did not indicate whether Bee or her show would suffer any consequences. In fact TBS is gloating that Bee is getting a big Hollywood award tonight from the group that hands out the Emmy's but guess what, they've closed the event tonight to the press. We'll talk about that later. The network wrote that on May 31st, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee will be recognized social change by the television academy. Social change? Is that what Hollywood called lewd and obscene character assassination? Nice.

And the lefties are not happy about Bee's apology. Look at the reaction from Oscar winner Sally Field who tweeted, "I like Samantha Bee a lot but she is flat wrong to call Ivanka a c-word. C-words are powerful, beautiful, nurturing and honest". Stay classy Sally. And Ivanka is not the only Trump woman under attack. Let's discuss with Fox News Contributor Rachel Campos- Duffy, author and Hill columnist Kristin Tate, and Erica Thomas, member of the Georgia State Legislature. Let's go to you first Ms Campos-Duffy and ask you about how we've gotten to this place where a comedian would say something like that about the first daughter after she posts a picture of herself and her son. It's like an endearing photo and that brings out such incredible bile.

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Right I wish I could be surprised but I'm not. There has always been abuse and Laura you know this as well as anybody knows for Conservative women and for Conservative minorities because the left views us as traitors so I am not surprised by the comment. But the hypocrisy I think Conservatives are finally getting sick and tired of. We know exactly what would have happened to Samantha Bee if she had said that about Sasha, Malia or Chelsea Clinton. And that's what's really I think getting the Conservatives fighting back and are calling it out for what it is. I think what it does is expose the left. I don't think they care about racism or sexism because if they did they wouldn't say those things or they would come out en masse and be outraged by it, instead they are celebrating Samantha Lee. Racism and sexism are tools for power and politics for them. They want to use it as a hammer to get us to agree or acquiesce to their political aims. And they want to make sure that they are the only ones holding that hammer which is about politics and powers alone.

INGRAHAM: We should say that there is a Hill staffer who criticized Sasha and Obama dressed I think on Thanksgiving booted.

CAMPS-DUFFY: Oh yeah.

INGRAHAM: I think Ivanka has a position of authority in the White House, she's an adult so she can take the heat but. Let's go to Erica here. Erica Keith Boykin on CNN said something interesting today. I want to play it for you. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEITH BOYKIN, CNN CONTRINUTOR: I think the point she was trying to make was about immigration. I think the point got lost in her comment. But I think that the larger point here that's missing is the culture that is being generated from the President and the top. Donald Trump exists to divide us, everything he does is divisive--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Representative Thomas do you believe that Donald Trump is responsible for Samantha Bee using the c-word to describe the first daughter. That's essentially what Keith Boykin is saying and that was said yesterday about the Roseanne comments as well.

ERICA THOMAS, GEORGIA STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Well I would say that Samantha Bee is the person responsible for comment. She is her own person and so she is responsible. But I want to go back to what the commentator just said that Democrats do not care about racism and sexism. That is just a blatant lie for her to say that. We care deeply about that. You know the same people that are saying the Samantha Bee show needs to be cancelled are the same people that stood behind a certain person that said the same derogatory comment and said that person would grab a woman by her private parts which is the same comment that the dictionary defines the c-word as. And they stand behind that person and that President's show and not been cancelled. That President's show has not been cancelled.

INGRAHAM: That was an election. Well I don't know what you mean representative by a President's show, that's actually not a phrase that makes sense to me but there was an election so that's a show.

THOMAS: It makes very much, it's a President's show. It's a show that watch episodes every single day where Africans are called Aids, patients are saying that they live in huts so true.

INGRAHAM: So you're saying representative that the President is responsible for the c-word and the President is responsible for the c-word being used by a Liberal because I guess they're just motivated by the President--

THOMAS: The President is not responsible but however he said the same type of words and he was elected into office so we are trying to argue the same thing--

KRISTIN TAIT, HILL COLUMIST: Erica, Erica--

INRAHAM: Yeah and the voter's voted him. In your state actually, well hold on, hold on.

THOMAS: It's hypocrisy.

INGRAHAM: And your state, and he won your state okay so I guess your state is filled with crazy racists.

THOMAS: But he didn't win my vote.

INGRAHAM: Well that's kind of obvious. Let's talk about Joy Reid Kristin, because there is a double standard that is so glaring, Joy Reid, we have a list of people whose apologies are accepted. People like of course Joy Behar who slams people of faith, Joy Reid, attacks on homosexuals and an old blogpost on what she said about Wolf Blitzer who said she was being too nice to Jews and the way that he discussing issues apparently in the Middle East referencing Zionism and so forth. And Alec Baldwin with his nasty comments over the years including using the N-word. But the double standard here is that they don't lose their platforms overwhelmingly but if someone who is friendly to Trump says something that they find objectionable and most us find objectionable, it doesn't matter ow many times you apologize, you are excommunicated from the public square forever. Kristin

TATE: Well most of the people that you mentioned Laura still have jobs because their targets are Conservatives. But back to Samantha Bee if she is isn't fired it is major slap in the face to Middle America, to Conservatives and to women. And this just proves that left wingers can make any vulgar comments with impunity but those same rights are not extended to Conservatives. And let's be very clear, Conservatives have acknowledged that what Roseanne Barr said was vile and hateful but what Samantha Bee said is despicable that we cannot eve repeat her words here on TV.

THOMAS: But have they would have acknowledge what President Trump said vile, had they acknowledged all the derogatory comments that he has said towards women-

TATE: Erica you clearly don't know the difference between a conversation happened it private and in public-

THOMAS: The difference is--

INGRAHAM: Whoa, whoa, whoa, guys, guys. Representative you were not interrupted by Erica, I mean by Kristin excuse me so please let her finish her point and we are trying to give everyone equal time, I know everyone a point of view.

THOMAS: Yeah I will, I respect you.

INGRAHAM: But guys--

TATE: I think there is a big difference between comments made in public on a TV show and some that were made in private. But I just want to know where the moral equivalency here is? If Liberals are--

INGRAHAM: But maybe everybody has to get off a moral high horse here. But ladies I want to get your reaction on something else. We got to get to this issue. A slam on another Trump supporter obviously First Lady Melania. After Melania tweeted that she was at the White House and feeling great after her surgery, a Huff Post writer names Ashley Sandberg wrote that the President is somehow keeping the First Lady under wraps. I wonder who wrote that Melania tweet the headline asks. This followed a series of digs like this one from CNN, "Melania Trump hasn't appeared in public for 20 days". And then there's this from the AP, "Where's Melania? First Lady not seen in public for three weeks". Well maybe it's because she is recovering from major surgery less than three weeks ago as all the news outlets reported. Ladies your reaction, let's go to Rachel Campos-Duffy. Do you find it curious that most of these attacks are all coming from women as well? Rachel

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Of course and again I know the Representative doesn't wat to admit it but there is a double standard. So they don't care that Melania is home recovering like any normal person would be after surgery. They're going to use it as a way to slam her but I think what's more important is the hypocrisy that we see on the Samantha Bee issue Laura. If Samantha Bee had said that about Chelsea Clinton she would not be at a Hollywood event right now being celebrated, being acclaimed as a hero. She would be a social and political pariah just like Roseann Barr is right now. That's the double standard and that's what Liberals are mad that we're pointing out and fighting back against.

INGRAHAM: Yeah Representative Thomas I think TBS should actually bring Roseanne on. Apparently they have a very high threshold for really outrageous commentary just like Roseanne's commentary was reprehensible, Samantha Bee's commentary is reprehensible or if you can apologize and get passed it. Then let everyone apologize and get passed it but that doesn't apply for someone who has never said anything positive.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: Well cancel her show the way they did with Roseanne.

INGRAHAM: I actually don't like people's shows being cancelled. Go ahead Representative.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: I don't like it either but what I am saying is there has to be fairness.

THOMAS: Well she addressed me so I'd like to address her. Just like she said I would like to answer what she said that I won't admit that it's a hypocrisy and she mentioned Chelsea Clinton. Let's talk about Chelsea Clinton, let's talk about how Ted Nugent said the same derogatory statement about Hillary Clinton. He called her the c-word, and where did he end up? At the White House with Trump taking picture with Sarah Palin, greeted at the White House, so when we talk about double standards, we are talking about the same exact double standards. So let's not talk about saying that's it's a hypocrisy, you're welcome at the White House for saying the c-word but you want to cancel her show.

INGRAHAM: Oh come on, Ted Nugent because he appears, he plays at clubs. So this is where I think that the left sadly who again want to champion women, champion women's choice and so forth, that's all fine. But then when you want to stand on this moral high ground and one of your own, not a Conservative, not a Republican, not at all a right person but one of your own says something that's just gross, so juvenile and stupid and gross. And she said anti-Catholic things that are horrific. We can go through all the anti-religious things that she said, bigoted statements about people of faith that are so foul I don't even want to repeat. This is a history and pattern with her and you said Roseanne has a history Kristin? Well boy Samantha Bee has a wild history of biased comments about people of faith, not just Catholics but people across the board of faith, Kristin

TATE: You know what's really sad though Laura is that Samantha Bee is not an outlier. Conservatives have been the target of this kind of rhetoric for a long time. Look at Bill Maher, he called Sarah Palin a messy word and even referred to her so as retarded. He has made horrible comments about Conservative women, the hosts of the view I mean these men made so many comments I can't even count them. But here's another very important point. The media would point women to the Trump administration as shining examples for young girls if those women were not Conservatives. Look at Ivanka Trump, Melania Trump, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, these are strong, independent women. But because they work for the most hated Republican in America, they are regularly slandered and smeared and the media gives those people who are hurling those slanders a total pass.

INGRAHAM: I want to read a comment from Stephanie Grisham who's the First Lady's press person who just released a statement today, "The double standard is truly astounding," about Ivanka's attacks on her, "Time and again the Trump family and members of its administration are subjected to false reporting, hateful rhetoric and outrageous lies, all in the name of freedom of speech or comedy yet he mainstream media stays silent". Representative you can close it out.

THOMAS: You know I just want to say that at the end of the day, we definitely condemned anyone that says derogatory statements. But we have to make sure at the end of the day, this is not a partisan issue. When you speak about women and you speak racial slurs you should be condemned. But at the end of the day the same people that are condemning Samantha Bee and Roseanne and everyone else should also be condemning the President of the United States that the same exact derogatory racial and bigot words that he does every single day.

INGRAHAM: No, he didn't say the same exact things. Rachel Campos-Duffy one more time.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: What the left is angry about Laura is that Republicans and Conservatives are finally speaking their minds en masse, together. The left wants to be the only one that has that.

THOMAS: We are angry because everyone that says derogatory statements should be demeaned and condemned. Everybody, no matter what party.

INGRAHAM: What I am glad about is that we all agree on cultural matters because for a long time we thought that culture didn't matter. Culture matters, words matter, we all can do better, I included. I love this panel, thank you so much, all of you strong women with really important points of view. And by the way, you will not want miss my exclusive interview with film maker Dinesh D'Souza, his very first comments since getting word of his pardoned by President Trump. Stay right there.

Runaway prosecutors and politicised law enforcement. That's the focus of tonight's Angle. A lot of us grew up to have a romanticised view of federal prosecutors and law enforcement. They were all like Eliot Ness and the Untouchables. Truth, justice and the American way. It was about locking up bad guys and protecting the rest of us. And there are many dedicated men and women across the country serving as Assistant US Attorneys who are doing just that. But sadly we've also seen egregious examples in recent years of prosecutions of prominent figures that seem to have been politically motivated. Prosecutions that resulted in huge miscarriages of justice. One such case was that of Conservative film maker, author and old college friend Dinesh D'Souza who was pardoned today by President Trump for a conviction stemming from a $20,000 bundled campaign contribution to 2012 senate campaign of friend Wendy Long. Obama's US Attorney Preet Bhahara went for broke against D'Souza in a case that could have easily been disposed of in a fine and should have been. This is D'Souza whom I spoke with exclusively on radio today.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

DINESH D'SOUZA, CONSERVATIVE FILM MAKER: With regards to Preet Bhahara I see him along with Eric Holder as sort of part of this Obama team of goons that was unleashed to get me in retaliation for the movie I made about Obama. And I think Bhahara's ambition was to prove that by getting a fellow Indian he would endear himself to the Obama Team. It was a move of ambition as I understand it but would have to be filed into the `Karma is a --- department'. Preet Bhahara got fired by Trump and I got pardoned.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well D'Souza was sentenced to eight months in a community centre and five years of probation and community service, a $30,000 fine and counselling. He called it a failed attempt at re-education. When Republican members of Congress who suspected political motivations push for the release of D'Souza's FBI files, the department balked. When they finally turned over the file, or at least made access to the file, they found out that his political affiliation and work critical of Obama had indeed been referenced. From the FBI reports seen by a Republican member of Congress, it said the following, "D'Souza is likely an ultra- conservative right wing author and creator of a documentary critical of the Obama administration. Because of D'Souza's purported political beliefs it is likely that D'Souza orchestrated the excess contribution". The agent's name who wrote this contribution was redacted. The expenditure then authorized for a case concerning $20,000 worth of campaign contributions? $100,000.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

D'SPOUZA: What my case shows in miniature is the way that Obama, and Hillary too, have gansterized the US Politics. There's a new turn that's come in American politics and Trump is I think very well aware of it and some way he's a product of it.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: It's not just D'Souza who the Former Obama justice department targeted. Remember what happened to Virginia's Republican Governor Bob McDonnell? Who many thought could have been a future Presidential candidate. He was prosecuted on corruption charges by US Attorney Dana Boente who was appointed by the Obama administration. McDonnell's conviction was unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court. It's worth noting that Boente was also colleagues with Jim Comey and has been interviewed by the special counsel Bob Mueller on what Comey related to him about is meeting with Trump. Boente is now serving as the general counsel of the FBI. And then there's former Democrat Governor from Illinois Rob Blagojevich who sentenced to 14 years in prison on federal bribery charges despite the fact that he never took a bribe. The prosecutor in the case? Another Jim Comey friend, Patrick Fitzgerald. Blago's wife Patty recently appeared here on the Angle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATTY BLAGOJEVICH, WIFE OF ROB BLAGOJEVICH: Ten years ago, these same people call me Fitzgerald, Mueller used these out of control prosecutors and FBI agents who came after my husband with their unchecked power to undo an election by the people. These are politically motivated opportunists who use their offices for their own personal enrichment. To further theircareers--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And remember the decision to investigation the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame's name in 2003? Bush White House official Scooter Libby was convicted in that case. Not for leaking but for lying to investigators. Trump recently pardoned him. Something George W. Bush should have done long before leaving office. Do you remember who decided to appoint the special council in the Plame Libby case?

Then Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey. Whom did Comey choose as special council? His old chum, Patrick Fitzgerald. It's all so incestuous. Now Fitzgerald is a wealthy partner at my old Law Firm Scadden Arps and is representing whom? Jim Comey in his dealings with special counsel Bob Mueller.
That brings us to today where many of these same figures who have celebrated by media elites are back at work using their position and their pedigree in an ongoing effort to purge the country of President Donald J. Trump. What started as concerns about Russian collusion had morphed into an ever changing obstruction of justice narrative, all because Trump fired someone who he was constitutionally permitted to fire for any reason. In federal investigations, the government has limitless budgets, subpoena power and an army of prosecutors on its side, let's not forget. So targets should not be chosen or eliminated on the basis of their political views. Nor because they are considered big fish whose prosecutions could pay big time and big career dividends down the road. This is neither just nor enforcement of the law. What it is, it it's big game hunting with a political preference. And that's the Angle. Joining us now for reaction Civil Rights Attorney and California RNC Committee Woman Harmeet Dhillon and former Clinton Advisor Richard Goodstein. Richard

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, FORMER CLINTON ADVISOR: Yes Mam. So a couple of things, first your Dinesh D'Souza was shunned even by CPAC for mocking the Parkland students. Ad he doesn't have entirely clean hands, in fact if you go back and look at the--

INGRAHAM: That's neither here nor there. That's not what we are talking about. Keep it focussed, we have limited time. Focus on the prosecution, what we found in that FBI file which they did not want to release, references to his political viewpoint, why? Why are they referencing his body of work? Why are they referencing his political viewpoints if was someone who just, oh we have to throw the book at him for $20,000 in a campaign that was down 25 points?

GOODSTEIN: Okay. It was a knowing violation. That was why it was criminal.
When Trump says why wasn't he dealt with a fine? No actually, you don't deal with criminal campaign finance violations by just a fine you actually, again it was knowingly and it was intentional.

INGRAHAM: At whose discretion? The prosecutor general's discretion?

GOODTSEIN: He plead to the fact that he knew exactly what he was doing. He even deceived a candidate about it right? And in fact he goaded the a trial judge who was a former staff member to a Republican Senator and he could have gotten two years but he got five months of probation.

INGRAHAM: Tab Turner, Arkinsaw Trial Lawyer he reimbursed donors $8,000 to John Edwards 2004 campaign. He had a $9,500 civil fine. Pierce O'Donnell, Harry Whitmore, we have a whole list of people, similar situations where there were straw downers. Again $20,000 is a very small amount to me, shouldn't have done it but to me Harmeet this looks and looked at the time.
He'd come out with that movie about Hillary Clinton, Obama. This was someone who was highly effective in a world dominated by the left, namely filmmaking.

HARMEET DHILLON, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Right absolutely Laura if there is any other conclusion you lay it out in your Angle about how information was hidden and was treated very differently based on his political viewpoint. There's also the additional factor that Dinesh has mentioned that the prosecutor in question Preet Bhahara has been known and was known at the time for going after high profile Indian American targets. He's prominent in the Indian community himself. And it's important to remember that it's not the department of convict whoever you can to help your friends, it's the department of justice. Prosecutors are supposed to exercise their discretion and that discretion is exercised every day in not bringing convictions like this. And one of the key facts here is the reason he has to plead guilty was he was being threaten by the prosecutor with an additional five-year sentence for obstruction of justice on top of the two years, which is the penalty for the fairly puny offense of less than
$25,000--

INGRAHAM: They turn the screws on people all the time and I am speaking as a former criminal defence attorney, that's kind of in my blood. We need prosecutors and they serve an incredibly important purpose and there are lots of dedicated people out there. This case was ridiculous from the beginning it should not have been handle this way. I want to play a montage here from media figures today and Richard I want you to react to this. What they said Donald Trump could be signalling with this pardon. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER SHAUN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Pardoning him now is sort of a brazen act that sends a message that he is going to intervene and issue pardons based on his own whim.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: President Trump seemingly passing out pardons to heroes of the far right, almost as eagerly as Oprah once gifted Pontiacs to
suburban moms

CLINT WATTS, FORMER SPECIAL AGENT: We are one step closer to being a third world power. This is destroying the whole idea of independent justice. It is hard to think of someone more undeserving of a pardon than Dinesh D'Souza.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DHILLON: I could think of some.

INGRAHAM: Richard

GOODSTEIN: You talked about Blagojevich who rightly ended up in jail, because if he had the appointment power, he could have appointed anybody to the senate, but he did it corruptly.

INGRAHAM: That was dismissed, that was overturned.

GOODSTEIN: But I'm just saying he used his power in a way, we all heard the tapes right about how he was doing it like a mafia figure right. The fact of the matter is Donald Trump has unfettered pardon power but he can't use it corruptly. You may disagree with these characterizations about what people say about sending signals to Roger Stone and Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, but all the crimes, obstruction, lying, et cetera, campaign finance, it goes list by list, that's exactly what that cast of characters looks like they're going to be charged with.

INGRAHAM: You agree that Article two, section two, clause one, is an
absolute --

GOODSTEIN: He can fire Comey but he can't do it for corrupt reasons. He can use the pardon power, but he can't do use it for corrupt reasons.

INGRAHAM: But you are saying the pardoning of Dinesh D'Souza could be tantamount to obstruction of justice? Wow.

GOODSTEIN: I'm saying if you look at all the people he pardoned and the people he talked about pardoning today, every single one of those crimes --

INGRAHAM: How about Mark Rich? How about your old guy, Clinton with Mark Rich, fugitive from justice.

GOODSTEIN: There was no pardon in the Clinton, Bush, or Obama administration in the first two years.

INGRAHAM: Who care? It is an absolute power.

GOODSTEIN: It is an absolute power, but --

INGRAHAM: Mark Rich, he traded illegally with Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran,53 Americans were hostage there in 1979. He did deals with Gadhafi's Libya against U.S. law, the list goes on and on. That was a hideous, hideous pardon with political ties as well. His wife was a big campaign donor.

GOODSTEIN: I think it was a big mistake.

INGRAHAM: And you had the Puerto Rican terrorist group pardon on the part of Obama. So look, I criticize these things, but the idea, Harmeet, that this is a big signal to people, I think Donald Trump sees this as an injustice. I think Martha Stewart is a big liberal. The idea that pardoning Martha Stewart would send a message. Martha Stewart was, again, Jim Comey was the southern district of New York U.S. attorney at the time. She was a big fish get for Comey. That was a huge feather in his cap. That was another ridiculous prosecution. Harmeet?

HARMEET DHILLON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Absolutely, Laura. And what he is looking at right now is pardoning a couple of Democrats. You mentioned Blagojevich, there's no crime proven there. And Martha Stewart, when you can't get them on a substantive offense, which is what happened in the Martha Stewart case, you try to get them on this process crime. And it would absolutely be just for him to pardon her and others who have been unjustly which hunted for the purposes of their own careers. Nobody today can doubt that James Comey and also Patrick Fitzgerald, who was a two-timer there with the Scooter Libby situation as well, acted in their own self-interest and not in the interest of the country or certainly in the interest of justice. They should not be allowed to abuse their positions to do this, and I and other democratic and other Americans would applaud the president for righting those wrongs. And I hope he does that.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, thanks so much. Conrad Black, also, another outrageous prosecution by Patrick Fitzgerald. Have you noticed how the media are suddenly pushing Jim Comey's version of events in the Russia probe. We may have found the reason for this suspicious onslaught, and we're going to discuss it next with Ari Fleischer and Sol Wisenberg.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: President Trump is firing back after "The New York Times" leaked a supposedly secret memo by Andrew McCabe suggesting that the president obstructed justice by firing Jim Comey. Trump tweeting "I never fired Comey because of Russia. The corrupt mainstream media loves to keep pushing that narrative, but they know it is not true." The DOJ's inspector general report on the FBI and DOJ's handling of the Clinton email probe will be released imminently. So could that be why we are suddenly seeing these leaked stories, leaked stories favorable to Comey and McCabe? Let's put that to former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and former Whitewater deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg. A lot to unpack, guys, but you get the sense that this is all swirling around the obstructionist issue, Sol, and the fact that the McCabe memo suddenly is out there. It seems like McCabe is getting ready for himself perhaps to be prosecuted. But why do you think that is out there now?

SOLOMON WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, the Times has a history we know of leaking things in a certain way before an unfavorable news story is going to come out. I don't think this is any exception. But also keep in mind any story that is really sourced by McCabe or that has to do with a memo written by McCabe, you are not talking about a very credible source according to the latest I.G. report. So I wouldn't worry about it too much. The big thing to keep in mind is that the president has the constitutional authority to fire Comey as he had to fire McCabe. Absent something extra like paying hush money to somebody or lying to a government investigator it just simply is not obstruction. I would ask everybody who comments on the other networks and acts like it is obstruction to read the Arthur Andersen case where the Supreme Court in a nine to nothing vote talked about what was needed for something to be corrupt.

INGRAHAM: Ari Fleischer this seems to be very conveniently timed. We have the new I.G. report which we keep hearing is going to be released any minute now, and watch them release it tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. I hope that's not the case. But this is what "The New York Times" reporter on this issue of McCabe and this memo, what they said. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MATT APUZZO, "NEW YORK TIMES" REPORTER: McCabe goes into this meeting of the Justice Department. It's a crowded meeting, and Rosenstein is telling his version of the story, and he says, as a matter of fact the president originally asked me to mention Russia in the memo. But I didn't think that was a good idea and I didn't do that. So to McCabe, as we understand it, the memo was there to write down like, hey, this may not have actually been about Hillary Clinton. There may have been some Russia interests going on here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: It's a game of telephone tag, Ari, but I don't see how even if that's the case, Rudy Giuliani kind of hinted at this, it's not obstruction of justice. He can fire them for whatever reason he wants unless there is a, I guess, and Sol will get into this more, a corrupt intent. Your reaction to this, again, wild swirl right before this new I.G. report comes out and before they decide whether they are going to charge McCabe.

ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Laura, I spent 21 years in Washington, and one of the things I noticed about the bureaucrats and the people who make it to the top of the agencies, they are superb at maneuvering through the Washington system, and that includes how they handle the media. And so any time there would be something bad looming, coming out in the press, the inspector general's report, for example, that's about to come out from the FBI, that's the time you go into overdrive to get your story out ahead of time to preempt the bad stories that you know are coming. So I will view all of this in that same context.

Here's the thing about the word "Russia." We have gotten to the point where people are no longer being precise, everything is so vague. The word "Russia" to a Democrat equals automatic guilt for Donald Trump, automatic collusion, and now potentially automatic obstruction. The word "Russia"
can also mean that President Trump was frustrated with James Comey because James Comey would never say in public what he said in private, that Trump is not under investigation in the Russia investigation. And I think that is a very understandable sentiment for the president to have. If you are innocent and you're told you are not under investigation and you are a public figure, of course you want that out. It's not an unreasonable request to a subordinate, and Comey wouldn't do it. I think that's why Trump fired Comey.

INGRAHAM: I think it's similar to why he didn't want Jeff Sessions to recuse himself. He wanted a fair investigation of this. He did not want this taken over by someone else and maybe even a Special Counsel. He wanted this done fairly because he knew he didn't have anything to hide on the Russia issue. Sol, on the point you made about obstruction, a "Bloomberg" reporter addressed it. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHANNON PETTYPIECE, BLOOMBERG NEWS REPORTER: There is a lot of concern right now along this obstruction investigation, based on our reporting on what we are hearing from people close to the president, that there could really be a risk of obstruction here. Obstruction in an impeachment sense, because you get into interpretation, you get into intent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I'm not sure whether she is a lawyer or not, Sol, but, again, this is this rank speculation before this I.G. report drops, which we are led to believe is going to be quite damaging to the DOJ during that entire2016 period of investigating Hillary's emails.

WISENBERG: I think it is going to be embarrassing both to the DOJ and to the FBI, which, as you know, is a part of the DOJ. But again, if you want to talk about obstruction, and I'm not talking about-- you can impeach somebody for anything. If you want to talk about obstruction as a matter of criminal law, I'd say let's say for the purposes of argument, let's assume the worst about President Trump. Let's assume that he was guilty of some underlying crime and that he fired Comey because he didn't want a Comey to get to the bottom of it. If that's all they have, that's not criminal obstruction of justice. I don't know of one Supreme Court case that would support that interpretation. There are a handful, as you know, and I mean just a handful of appellate courts cases over the last 20 or 30 years.

INGRAHAM: They can't hang it on that. I know exactly what you're talking about. They cannot hang it on that. That's ridiculous. Fantastic conversation, guys, thank you so much. Up next, we will divulge a twisted revelation on the Florida school shooting case. Mark Fuhrman has some serious questions about the prosecutions motives. Stay right here for that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Prosecutors have released three harrowing videos made by Parkland, Florida, shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz. In one video the accused killer calmly states he's going to be the next school shooter of 2018. Prosecutors shouldn't have much difficulty making their case against him and these videos don't really provide any new information or answers. But do they raise some questions? Why release them? Media wanted them. Media were making all sorts of Freedom of Information Act requests. And let's get some answers from retired LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman and Andrew Pollack, whose 18-year-old daughter Meadow was killed in the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in February. And Andrew, you are on radio today and it was so moving. You've done so much already to bring sanity to this conversation about school safety and so forth, and our viewers -- our heart goes out to you, and thank you for being with us tonight. You had very poignant and pointed words, Andrew, about these videos being released.

ANDREW POLLACK, PARENT OF PARKLAND STUDENT: Laura, I didn't watch it. I read the transcripts. And reading those transcripts made me sick to my stomach just reading it. So I'm glad that I didn't really look at the videos. But what bothered me was the fame aspect of it, how he knew he was going to be glorified in the news. And I think that is a big problem in this country with the media using their names and showing their pictures on the media throughout the country. So I think that we could learn a lot from this in this country and not really show their names or their faces in the media. I think it would make a difference.

INGRAHAM: That's what you want, and you are right, he referenced that, you're going to know who I am. Mark Fuhrman, premeditated murder in Florida. This really kind of explodes that. There is no way I think they couldn't charge him now with premeditated murder, and that would mean the possibility of the death penalty. But you're very against the release of these videos. And tell us why.

MARK FUHRMAN, FORMER LAPD DETECTIVE: The release of the videos has no evidentiary or information value whatsoever. He has confessed and he wants a life sentence in exchange for no death penalty. The media at large request because of Florida law of discovery, once discovery is made they can ask pretty much anything that the defense attorney and the prosecutor have. So they do that, but they obviously showed no responsibility by releasing this because this information now in front of every juror in the country, not just Florida, is seeing something that makes a death penalty case very difficult for the prosecutors because now when you go into that courtroom, the jurors have all seen this. Not only does he show premeditation but he really kind of argues against a mental defect. He seems completely in control of his planning, completely in control of the motive, and this is his manifesto.

INGRAHAM: Andrew, you made this point on radio, the guy is like, oh, he is insane, he has autism, he doesn't have control of his faculties. He's crazy. Maybe he has mental problems, but he knew what he was doing.

POLLACK: And you know Laura it even gets worse. There's other videos. My daughter happened to get murdered in the hallway, so that is going to be the next videos the media is going to be looking at. And they're going to look to put that in the media also. On the third floor she was shot nine times, and that's on the camera, to. So they'll be looking for those videos, next. And that's going to be heart-wrenching.

INGRAHAM: What they are trying to do is keep school shooting video games going for the longest time. And thank goodness that's been shut down. Andrew has been lobbying against that. Mark, I know you have strong feelings about that as well. Parents are worried about copycat killers who want fame. They are not focused on what Andrew is focused on, how to make the schools safe. Metal detectors or whatever they have to do to make these schools safe. They are practical things that Texas is doing, thank goodness, and other places. Mark, final word?

POLLACK: Laura, we have legislation on my website that people could look at, because now is the time for these governors to act. They need to look at what Florida did, what Governor Scott helped get past, and look at what we are doing in Florida with Senate bill 7026. And they should be proactive. Why should they be waiting for another shooting, because there is some other sociopath out there planning another shooting? So they should be proactive.

INGRAHAM: Mark?

FUHRMAN: I think we should just leave this with what Mr. Pollock said and hear his outrageous and his anger and his self-righteous purpose to actually stop these school shootings. It could probably done if everybody really wanted it to be.

INGRAHAM: God bless you both. Thank you so much, much needed tonight. And by the way, Google is making a mistake and they're making one that is really bad, suggesting extreme left-wing bias. We report, you decide up next with Kevin McCarthy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: An unbelievable story, Google has a lot of explaining to do. If you Google the California Republican Party lately, the information block would inform you about the party's ideology. What it said is jaw-dropping. Let's examine it with House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Republican from California. It's great to see you, Majority Leader McCarthy. What is going on? Google said this was a mistake, but you got wind of this. And when you typed in California Republican Party, what showed up?

REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY, R--CALIFORNIA: It said our ideology was a Nazism. It wasn't the party of Lincoln, it wasn't the party of Reagan, it said we were Nazis. Remember, Google is the largest search engine in the world. Ninety percent of all Internet searcher goes through Google. And this is what they said the California Republican Party was. Now, I got wind of this, so I went to see are they pulling it from Wikipedia. And I went over to Wikipedia for the California Republicans, it did not say Nazism. And so it concerns me greatly, because this isn't the only situation. The bias that is happening here, if you searched on Instagram for Donald Trump Jr. this weekend, you know what it told you? They warned you that his site could cause you harm or even death. Then Amazon kicked off the alliance for defending freedom to give their charity program, Amazon Smile where if you are conservative and you're purchasing something there you could send some charity money to a nonprofit. They removed them because the Southern Poverty Law decided they weren't good, even people who defend religious freedom before the Supreme Court.

INGRAHAM: That Southern Poverty Law Center has turned into a eft wing rabid radical group that tries to malign people, myself included, because we stand up against Christians being persecuted in the Middle East and now we are anti-Islam. OK, it's ridiculous. So what can be done? Google, they blame Wikipedia in their statement that they released. They said they usually catch vandalism, Congressman, before it impacts search results. But occasionally errors get through, and that's what happened here.

MCCARTHY: They gave that explanation after we went forward in public with it. But I had already searched Wikipedia. It wasn't on the Wikipedia page. So this is why we need transparency. This bias against conservatives has to stop. And they always explain it away with something small. No. I want to know, did an employee in their go forward and put the idea that the party of Lincoln, that brought us Ronald Reagan, that decided we were Nazis? That's unacceptable.

INGRAHAM: It's a liberal culture there in Silicon Valley, certainly at Google. I want to move on to other topics. A lot of conversation on Capitol Hill about who is going to be the next speaker. Your name is always at the top of the list, but your friends over there at the "L.A. Times" yesterday said why California's Kevin McCarthy is having a hard time locking down the speaker's job again. What's happening? I hear a Congressman from North Carolina's name mentioned, who I don't even know. What's his name? I don't even know his name. But we have other people's names mentioned, but what's going on?

MCCARTHY: Well one, there is no speaker race right now. Paul Ryan decided that he is not going to run for reelection, so after the election we will have one. But what's most important here is we have to focus to make sure we can have a Republican to be a speaker. I feel very confident that race going forward that I can win that vote inside conference, but my whole focus right now is making sure we're winning the majority. And that's why I'm traveling the country, defending the individuals, and making sure we have the resources to win, because remember what we've been able to accomplish here -- unemployment at an 18 low. We just reformed the V.A. Look at what we did last week alone, right to try for those sick individuals being able to have a new medication that hasn't been approved yet. Dodd-Frank. Then we just did prison reform. And we also did the NDA, national defense, that was just that week.

INGRAHAM: Are you going to do an amnesty, Congressman? Are you guys going to do an amnesty?

MCCARTHY: No, we're not going to do an amnesty. No, we are going to protect our borders, because we know and you know so well this idea of the current system right now is broken. You have got to be able to, one, build a wall. You've got to end catch and release. We have to have a system that is based upon merit if we really want this country to grow. And that is very simple.

INGRAHAM: The Goodlatte bill is the best bill. But does John Cox have a chance in California? Does the GOP have a reason to hope in California?

MCCARTHY: Yes. We have a lot of hope. Remember this is a state that brought us Ronald Reagan. John Cox will come through. We have this crazy system which I do not like. This idea is crazy. John Cox will come through. But there is another reason for California to be hopeful. The Democrats when they took the majority, they raise the gasoline tax 12 cents. They have initiative on the ballot, but you can repeal that.

INGRAHAM: Got it, got it. We have got to bring hope back to the people California, especially Republicans. Congressman, thank you so much for joining us. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

<Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>