Christopher Steele's communications with DOJ raise questions

Published August 10, 2018

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

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Welcome to Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle."

A fantastic Friday lineup for you this evening, of course. The culture wars are back on and ahead we are going to discuss rapper Kanye West's late night defense of his pro-Trump views.

And the kneeling debate once again, rolling the NFL, of course.

Plus, how the left purposefully manipulates the words of our 40th president, Ronald Reagan. Cabinet member Bill Bennett and Reagan biographer, Craig Shirley will explain.

And a can't-miss interview coming up later in the hour. The Philadelphia U.S. attorney standing up to the Philadelphia district attorney. The issue, the city's sanctuary policy. Stay with us for this one. You're going to love it.

Plus, we begin tonight with the new details of contact between officials at the highest level of the Obama era Justice Department and that former British spy. Long after the FBI cut ties with this Christopher Steele character and the Trump dossier author, well, what happened? Bruce Ohr, who was at the time a senior Justice Department official continued to maintain extensive contact with Steele. He wasn't supposed to.

This according to new e-mails Fox News has obtained. Bruce Ohr's new connection to this whole sordid affair is only made worse when you consider the connection of his wife Nellie. Now Fox News has already confirmed that she worked for that outfit, Fusion GPS during the 2016 election. Explicitly hired to help investigate Trump and Russia related subjects.

And if you think the Trump legal team isn't following all of this, well think again. Here is counsel to the president Jay Sekulow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAY SEKULOW, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: She had the number four at the United States Department of Justice, the number four. His wife happens to work for Fusion GPS, who happens to be retained to put together the dossier with Chris Steele. And Chris Steele happens to be talking to the FBI and to Bruce Ohr, the number four at the Justice Department. Christopher Steele gets fired for leaking information. Yet Bruce Ohr continues the ongoing dialogue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Unbelievable. In a moment, we're going to show you what could be false testimony that Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson gave to House investigators last year. But first I want to bring in our powerful legal panel to break this all down.

In Miami, Guy Lewis, a former U.S. attorney, in South Carolina, James Trusty, former DOJ attorney in the criminal division, and here with me in studio, Robert Driscoll, a former the deputy assistant attorney general. Welcome to all of you.

Robert, let's start with this new information. I mean, Christopher Steele was not to have contact with the FBI after they had to disassociate themselves from him when he, against policy, was leaking information to the press.

ROBERT DRISCOLL, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Right.

INGRAHAM: Now it turns out from these e-mails that were discovered, that wasn't the case. He had ongoing contact with members of the FBI including from August all the way through into 2017.

DRISCOLL: Right. Yes, and I think what's a little more disturbing is that his wife was working for Fusion GPS. I mean, it's one thing to say that the contact continues.

INGRAHAM: Bruce Ohrs's wife from the FBI.

DRISCOLL: Bruce Ohr's wife. Some people, you know, maintain contact with colleagues even after they're cut off or something like that, but where his wife had an interest in the Fusion GPS research getting pushed, the fact that Ohr is the one that was involved in this is a little bit disturbing.

I think they're calling hearings next week some time to determine, you know, what kind of -- whether anything substantive was said or done, but certainly it's troubling.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Bob Goodlatte wants to bring everybody back.

DRISCOLL: Right.

INGRAHAM: Now, Guy, let's go to you on this. It seems like getting information, key pieces of information out of the Justice Department, is -- I mean, pulling teeth, pulling taffy, whatever you want. It's really difficult. But the information kind of trickles out slowly. How conceivable is it that Bruce Ohr didn't know what his wife was working on at Fusion GPS? The connection between Trump and any Russian related topics?

GUY LEWIS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Laura, not at all! I mean come on! These guys, Ohr and his wife, they shouldn't be touching anything on this with a ten foot pole. It's so clear to me that there is a conflict, that there is an appearance of impropriety. They shouldn't have anything to do -- they shouldn't have had anything to do with this investigation, with this case, any submissions to the FISA court, any of this business.

And they know this. That's my problem. And I don't understand -- I hope Congress continues to -- look I love the Justice Department. I'm a product of the Justice Department, but Congress needs to continue to beat them over the head for more transparency -- more transparency. That's what this case needs.

INGRAHAM: James your reaction to all these latest developments?

JAMES TRUSTY, FORMER DOJ PROSECUTOR: Yes, it's a huge red flag, Laura. I mean, I was with DOJ 17 years and seven in D.C. And I can't for the life of me figure out any good explanation for why Bruce, who I know, was sitting down with a decommissioned informant. And then to add to that, that the FBI had people there writing up 302 reports.

I mean, it sounds like they had decommissioned this informant and is fully intended to keep using him. That's one aspect of it that's troublesome. The other is to go back to the FISA warrant. The FISA warrant said, "we, the FBI, speculate that maybe this was a politically motivated dossier" and they swear off that Christopher Steele knew that.

I just don't understand how Steele could be having these meetings with Bruce, with Bruce's connection to Fusion GPS and not likely know there was a Hillary Clinton campaign source for the funding of the dossier. So again, big questions, still a lot to unravel, but absolutely red flags in terms of this process.

INGRAHAM: Yeah I want to go back to a January 31st, 2017 text exchange which we just got our hands on. And this is -- remember, the FBI specifically instructed Steele he could no longer operate or obtain any intelligence whatsoever. Yet Steele asks Ohr in this exchange if he could continue to help feed information to the FBI saying, "just want to check you are OK, still in the situ -- situation -- and able to help locally as discussed along with your bureau colleagues."

"I'm still here to help as discussed, or texted back. I'll let you know if that changes." Steele replies, "If you end up though, I really need another bureau contact, point number who is briefed. We can't allow our guy to be forced to go back home. It would be disastrous."

Now, investigators, Robert, are trying to figure out who our guy is? Again, this is Steele, who is not to have contact with the FBI, in contact with Bruce Ohr whose wife works for Fusion GPS.

DRISCOLL: Yes.

INGRAHAM: Who is our guy? We can't allow our guy to be forced to go home. It would be disastrous. Must be some guy in the Justice Department, I would think.

DRISCOLL: It certainly appears that way. I fear there will be a failure of memory where, you know, people will say, my god, I sent thousands of texts. I just can't remember what that one was referring to. But it certainly appears that -- I mean, again, it appears there is an operation. I mean, you would like to give people the benefit of the doubt and say, OK, maybe they were texting about baseball or something after the fact. There is some contact, but those e-mails again are pretty damning.

INGRAHAM: Text has changed, I mean, that -- I've got to go -- I got to go to you in this -- I find this to be another amazing development this week. There's been a lot of drama in the Paul Manafort trial. I know you've been following the ins and outs of what's happening with Judge Ellis. The special counsel Bob Mueller's team filing a formal complaint against the courtroom behavior of Judge Ellis.

The prosecution writing, quote, "The court's reprimand of government counsel suggested to the injury -- incorrectly -- that the government had acted improperly and in contravention of court rules. This could prejudice -- this prejudice should be cured."

Let's go to you, Guy, about this. I mean I've known Judge Ellis just casually. I mean, he's a cantankerous kind of old style judge. But there seems to be a real effort in my view to kind of smear him now because he's been tough on the Mueller team. What's your take here?

LEWIS: No, I agree, Laura. Look, you clerked for the Second Circuit. You clerked for Justice Thomas. You do not -- prosecutors, you don't win fights with federal judges. And you don't try to pick fights with federal judges. Look, I don't mind that the prosecutors are being aggressive, that they're standing up for their position.

I don't know if I would have filed something like that and instead probably would have asked for a sidebar and said, hey judge, you know, you told the injury, you said something yesterday. I'm not sure it was correct. Could you remind the jury that what you say is not evidence and you don't have an opinion in this case? That's probably how I would have handled it as the prosecutor.

INGRAHAM: James, one of the uncomfortable exchanges and there are many during the past few days. I'm sorry, but some of it is just entertaining, let' just say that. There is one point where Judge Ellis thinks that Greg Andres, who of course is one of the lawyers for Mueller, is not looking at him.

And so the judge says, "I'm here Mr. Andres," like I'm here from the bench. Andres says, "I'm sorry, judge, I'm listening. And Ellis says, "I know but when you look down, it's as if to say, you know, that's BS. I don't want to listen to you -- any more from you." Andres says, "Judge you continue to interpret our reactions in some way. We don't do that to you and we're not being disrespectful in any way. Ellis says, "Alright, then look at me."

And he kind of -- I mean, James, he kind of apologized, I guess was it yesterday saying, you know, well things get kind of out of hand I guess. But what do you make of all of this? It's this kind of normal back and forth? I mean, I certainly, when I was pressing cases I would not have taken the judge to task for reprimanding, not in the way they did, but they kind of feel like they have, you know, they have a head of steam against the judge.

TRUSTY: Well they've had a tough go at it. He's been very intrusive, He's been very opinionated. I mean, it's starting to sound like he's going to send Greg to bed with no dinner at this point, but the bottom line is, you have to keep in mind procedurally if you're a defense attorney and you're getting heckled from the bench during the trial, you actually have a remedy someday.

You take it up to a higher court and you say we didn't get a fair trial because he was making us look like an idiot in front of the jury. If you are a prosecutor and the case goes on and gets to be an acquittal, then you have no recourse. You can't go back and say we got an unfair trial. So your recourse is either you take it or you file something or find some way to address it with the court.

And I think they just hit a critical mass where they said we're going to have to take this on more publicly, not a sidebar, tell the judge hey, here is a couple of instances where you're demonstratively wrong, which he was, and try to get him to kind of step back a little bit. So, it's a tough spot for a litigant to be in, but I'm not really critical of the fact they filed a motion because it's now or never.

INGRAHAM: I mean, didn't he kind of make that poor Greg Andres cry? I mean, I'm sorry, but you have to have your big boy pants on when you're before Judge Ellis. He's a tough judge. Also, nothing happened today and Robert, I want to get your take on this. There was a mysterious recess this morning at about -- I think it was like 10:50 or so. They had like a sidebar, then it was recess, no one -- it was not explained.

Then they re-adjourned after 2:00 and then they started talking about how Rick Gates took out a loan I guess for $200,000 for, you know, sports tickets. I mean, is that normal to have -- you start in the morning, you have a recess for four hours and you come back? Maybe Ellis just wanted to cool things down?

DRISCOLL: It's just speculation because we don't know, but what I've heard around the courthouse and from other people I know down there is there may have been a jury issue.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

DRISCOLL: Because when he left --

INGRAHAM: It was under seal --

DRISCOLL: He didn't go back -- he didn't go back to the chambers. He went into the direction of the jury room. He didn't go out the chambers door. He went in the same direction as the jury box or the jury room. So, there may have been a jury issue that he was talking to them about, either someone read a newspaper or someone, you know what I mean. We don't know.

INGRAHAM: It's under seal so we don't know. But of course I'm watching it like minute by minute, what's happening. People are doing a great job of blogging about this. I was like, wait a second it stopped. I need this to keep going. It's very -- I wish I was in the courtroom. It's actually really fascinating.

Al right, finally guys, I want to get everyone's thoughts on whether President Trump will actually finally sit down for an interview with Mueller's team or whether Mueller will have to issue a subpoena and everything that that entails. Let's go to you Robert on this. Oh, sorry Robert, I'm going to go to James. I just went to you. James, go ahead.

TRUSTY: Alright. Well, look, I don't think Mueller himself feels like he has that strong a hand to issue a subpoena here or at least to get the kind of compliance he wants.

INGRAHAM: Why?

TRUSTY: There's a lot of layers -- well, there's a lot of layers of why the president shouldn't have to face a subpoena while in office, but you know, executive privilege kicks in. And frankly, the fact that they've called the president a subject makes it very tough for me to understand how they could ask questions about obstruction because the obstruction angle is purely target.

So, I think what they're looking at is what are our chances if we actually subpoena him? We were going to get a motion to quash. What's it going to read like? And I think a motion to quash filed by the White House would be pretty damning and pretty powerful in terms of addressing everything they want to complain about when it comes to the Mueller probe up until, you know, calling him a subject and treating him like a target.

INGRAHAM: Guy, is there any way that the special counsel will accept the terms that Trump's legal team offered?

LEWIS: Laura, not in a million years. The president will never sit down voluntarily and speak to these guys. He would be crazy to. The special counsel, I think, Bob is tough as a nail. He's hard as a rock. He will issue the grand jury subpoena and then they'll file their motion to quash and it will make its way up through the Supreme Court. Eventually they'll have the last laugh (ph).

INGRAHAM: Well, that's going to -- we're going to have you guys back a lot when that happens because that's going to go on for some time. Fantastic conversation guys, thank you so much. Have a great weekend.

And if you heard heads exploding across Hollywood last night, there's one good reason. Kanye West just doubled down on his support for Donald Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KANYE WEST, RAPPER: There's a musician, African-American, guy out in Hollywood, all these different things, you know. Everyone around me tried to pick my candidate for me. And then told me every time I said I liked Trump that I couldn't say it out loud or my career would be over. I'd get kicked out of the black community because blacks -- we're supposed to have a monolithic thought we can only like -- we can only be Democrats, you know.

What it represented to me is not about policies because I'm not a politician like that, but it represented overcoming fear and doing what you felt no matter what anyone said and saying you can't bully me. Liberals can't bully me. News can't bully me. The hip hop community, they can't bully me.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Remarks from Kanye West on Jimmy Kimmel last night are giving new bout of agita (ph) to liberals and Hollywood. The rapper of course sparked a meltdown among the left early this year after proclaiming his support for President Trump. And clearly he's got no plans to stop fighting against the anti-Trump group think, and as he said, the bullying of the entertainment industry.

Joining us now to analyze all this is radio talk show host Kevin Jackson and Eric Johnson, is a civil rights attorney. Eric, let's start with you. Kanye West, I mean, he's an interesting cat, interesting character. He has a huge following. And --.

ERIC JOHNSON, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Very much so.

INGRAHAM: -- I find it -- I fond it just fascinating that it's controversial for someone to say I think for myself. You won't put words in my mouth. You won't tell me the how to -- what to believe or for whom to vote. I'm my own person.

Somehow that's a point of controversy in the group think that is the entertainment industry today. And I think he's just smashing the stereotype and I think it's freaking people out. Your reaction?

JOHNSON: Well, I don't think its freaking people out. I mean, I think Kanye is trying to play both sides of the fence. He's always been a free thinker. I mean, a long time ago he stood up on national T.V. and said George Bush didn't care about black people. So, he's always had a free thinking on himself.

What he's trying to do right now is really cater to both sides of the fence. He wants to maintain the fact he does support Trump but he wants to do it in such a way that could possibly apiece his followers who may not support Trump. So really it seems like more of a tactical marketing skill on his behalf rather than some instances of bullying. I mean, he's a multimillionaire. There is no way he can feel bullied about who he chooses to vote for.

INGRAHAM: You know what I mean. I mean, let's go to Kevin on this. Kevin, you understand what this is ultimately all about.

KEVIN JOHNSON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: There's a certain subset of the American political world that says if you are of a certain background or certain ethnicity, certain race, there is only one direction you can go in --

K.JOHNSON: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: -- and whether it's, you know, whether it's Clarence Thomas or whether it's, you know, Walter Williams or Tom Sowell or any given number of free thinkers out there. They're vilified in some ways they are vilified.

K. JOHNSON: Yes.

INGRAHAM: And Kevin, I find it to be a fascinating conversation.

K. JOHNSON: It is and it is not just in entertainment, Laura, the way you set it up. It's the black community that will ostracize you. And Kanye got it right. You will be bullied and he named everybody in the mix, the liberals will bully you, the media will bully, guys like this guy will bully you.

Look, Kanye said what he said. There was no upside for him in this. He wasn't catering to any particular side. What Kanye said is I'm a human being. I'm going to think for myself. I'm not going to let anybody determine what I say as a man and good for him.

JOHNSON: And so -- and everyone else thinks for themselves.

K. JOHNSON: And the impact is -- I let you talk. The impact has been felt because not only has Donald Trump raised the level of black support.

INGRAHAM: He doubled that.

K. JOHNSON: He doubled it. It's at 29 percent now because people are finally starting to wake up. Kanye brought a level of consciousness to many blacks in America who feel identically the same. Look, I have been a conservative my entire life so I don't know what that wake up means, but there are many people who need a Kanye to say something like that. And it is the bullying that the left tells you that they don't want to do but they are the biggest bullies on the planet.

INGRAHAM: Eric.

JOHNSON: Well, they're not bullies just because they disagree. I mean, the simple fact of the matter is, there's not a disagreement with the Republican Party per se, but more so some of the policies that the black community feels that have not been in their best interest. If Kanye wishes to align himself with that, the issue is, if he's aligning himself with policies that most of the African-American communities don't support that's the reality of the situation.

K. JOHNSON: Not the same.

INGRAHAM: I think that, you know, whether it's the violence in Chicago, it had a huge spike under Democratic leadership under Rahm Emanuel, where the Democrat, you know, a protege of Obama, that things have gotten worse. And you see the African-American community in the hardest hit neighborhood saying we want new leadership, it's not working. And they are open to talking to people. They're open.

K. JOHNSON: Absolutely. But Laura, let me respond to one other thing.

JOHNSON: I don't think it's an issue of the Democratic thing in Chicago.

K. JOHNSON: No, no, no, you talked earlier. Look, it is an issue. Kanyte West was threatened. The black conservatives like myself, we get threatened all the time. I have never threatened anybody that differs from me politically and I never will. We can disagree, but I don't want --

JOHNSON: I mean, maybe because you haven't, that does not mean that liberals are not threatened and people who have different views are threatened either.

K. JOHNSON: No, it has nothing to do with that. You said Kanye West hasn't been threatened. He's been threatened personally. There were rappers that came out and said you have a concert we're going to be there. A guy who was Crip said he wanted to kill him. That's the vitriol that happens on the other side so don't pretend that this doesn't happen.

INGRAHAM: I think a debate is a good thing and so if there is an interesting conversation that comes of this, I think it's positive. If it's just more chatter, there is nothing positive that comes of it.

K. JOHNSON: I agree, Laura.

INGRAHAM: So, let's hope something good --

JOHNSON: The issue is --

INGRAHAM: Let's hope something good comes of this. Now, I want to get to another issue guys. I want to get your take on this national anthem protest because it's re-igniting now in the NFL of course. Last night, really cool, fun preseason games. A handful of players took knees or raised their fists during the anthem.

Now, the president, like it's not surprisingly, tweeted out today in part, quote, "numerous players from different teams wanted to show their outrage at something that most of them are unable to define. They make a fortune doing what they love. Find another way to protest."

Eric, your reaction to that because, you know, you have Kenny Stills out there saying, "Look at my twitter feed. Look at my twitter feed. I explained why I'm doing what I'm doing. Look at my social media. It's not just a whim. I mean this." And he's sticking up for his right to do what he does.

JOHNSON: And I think that when we speak about bullying in politics, we have the biggest bully in the White House right now, given the fact that this situation has turned on racial lines in the fact that by trying to make it about the military. The players have been very adamant over and over it is not about the military, some of them have fathers, uncles, brothers, mothers, sisters who have served in the military.

It is about bringing attention to the racial injustices that have been systematically done by the police and other instruments of government in this case. Now, I do agree that there maybe a need for their method of protest to transform to a more economic and more political base similar to what we just saw happen in St. Louis where the prosecutor was defeated by a democratic, more progressive opponent.

Maybe some of these athletes should now take their protests to the polling places to draw out people out, to vote out some of these people, the prosecutors, the district attorneys, the people, the judges --

INGRAHAM: Yes. I mean, I think -- Kevin, hold on.

JOHNSON: -- actually protesting against.

INGRAHAM: Eric, I think -- Eric, I think what people -- no one says people don't have the right. They have the right to do whatever they want, say whatever they want, First Amendment, cool, more speech is better. All that is fine. I think what some of the fans feel like is everything is so infected with politics.

Can we have some areas where we can all just get together and root for our teams without having to get into a political thing? I think that's what more people are kind of irked by, not the fact they're speaking out but that they want just one zone where it's no politics. But Kevin, maybe off a bit. Your reaction.

K. JOHNSON: I think that's part of it, but the idea that it became racial because Donald Trump is the president is ridiculous. He was protecting the flag. America first. Make America great again. He pointed out the inconsistencies in the Black Lives Matter movement and the fact that these guys really was more self-indulgent.

JOHNSON: But what about the inconsistencies with the All Lives Matter and the Blue Lives Matter movement.

K. JOHNSON: Can I just finish? Let me just finish.

JOHNSON: I mean, the fact is these people --

K. JOHNSON: The fact of the matter of is, it was a self --

INGRAHAM: Let Kevin -- let Kevin try to finish.

K. JOHNSON: It was a self-indulgent move by Colin Kaepernick and he's hurting the league and people understand that. And look, you can try to make this black and white. The same problems that were persisting in the community, the so-called policing issues, were happening during the time of Obama. Why didn't somebody take a knee then? They waited for Donald Trump so that he could be the person to do it? If it matters so much --

JOHNSON: Who said they waited for Donald Trump?

INGRAHAM: I think this has been stirring for some time.

JOHNSON: The fact is, when it got to a point where they felt that they had to do something about it, it just coincided with Donald Trump. But the question is, if this had happened while Obama was president do you think that he would take the same position that Donald Trump is?

INGRAHAM: Of course not. No, he wouldn't have at all. You're right about that, Eric. He would have supported the players and what they're doing.

K. JOHNSON: Of course.

INGRAHAM: But the owners have this policy in place and they've kind of put that on the shelf now. They're hoping they can figure this out. Guys, have a great weekend.

And have you noticed recently how often some liberals now favorably invoke Ronald Reagan to make a left wing political point? A Reagan cabinet member and a biographer reveal the truth, next.

And later, outrage mounting over the horrific sexual assault on a five-year-old girl by an illegal immigrant in Philly. The U.S. attorney for the area will join us exclusively on why he's laying blame with city officials.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKIE IBANEZ, FOX NEWS HOST: Good evening and welcome to "America's News Headquarters." I'm Jackie Ibanez in New York. The man accused of starting the blaze ravaging parts of southern California made a brief court appearance today. Fifty-one-year-old Forrest Gordon Clark called the six felonies against him including aggravated arson a lie. The Holy Fire has scorched nearly 18,000 acres in Orange and Riverside counties forcing thousands to flee their homes.

It's just one of nearly 20 wild fires across the state shaping up to be one of the worst fire seasons in California's history. Meanwhile, in just a few hours, NASA is set to launch it's first ever probe to the sun from Kennedy Space Center. The Parker Solar Probe is expected to get as close as nearly four million miles to the sun's surface. And if all goes as planned, it will set a record as the fastest object to leave the earth.

I'm Jackie Ibanez. Now back to THE INGRAHAM ANGLE. For all of your headlines, log on to foxnews.com. Have a great Friday night.

INGRAHAM: Have you noticed how the Trump presidency is spawning a lot of bizarre trends on the left? But one of them would have been unthinkable until a short time ago. Ronald Reagan is suddenly in vogue with liberals. If only the 40th president was alive to hear their praise.

Joining me now with more on this is Bill Bennett who served as secretary of education under President Reagan, I worked for him, full disclosure, and is also a Fox News contributor, along with Craig Shirley, the author of four bestsellers on Ronald Reagan, including "Reagan Rising." Great to see both of you. All right, Bill, I find this to be fascinating that we now have all these liberals coming out and saying, well, the Trump folks, on any given number of issues, gosh, if only they were more like Reagan. How do you process this today?

BILL BENNETT, FORMER SECRETARY OF EDUCATION UNDER REAGAN: Yes, well, it's kind of funny, isn't it, a rosy memory changing the way things were. I don't remember it being very pleasant back then, serving with Ronald Reagan, with the liberals in the media. There is a line from Shakespeare, though, that says he's good being gone. But one has to say, whatever criticisms came down during the Reagan era, and there were a lot of them, I got some, you derivatively got some. You were working for me, as you said. Ronald Reagan got plenty. It's nothing compared to what Donald Trump is getting. So if they can use Ronald Reagan to beat up Donald Trump, they will do it. And they can do it with a straight face. I don't know how they pull off the straight face.

INGRAHAM: Craig, you always remind us of this fact, that the left will do anything to regain power, even invoking the political figure they thought was basically the enemy. I want to play it in flashback sound from some of our favorites in the media. And I believe this was during the administration, right after the president -- yes, right after he passed away. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MORLEY SAFER, FORMER CBS CORRESPONDENT: Did his vision include extraordinary deficits? Did his vision include cutting the budgets for education and the back of the hand in terms of --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you saying, Morley, history will not be kind to him?

SAFER: I don't -- no, I don't think history particularly will be kind. I don't think history has any reason to be kind to him.

SAM DONALDSON, FORMER ABC ANCHOR: I used to say I thought if you were down on your luck and you got through the Secret Series, got in the Oval Office, said Mr. President, I'm down on my luck, he would literally give you the shirt off his back. And then he would sit down in his other shirt, and he'd sign legislation throwing your kids off school lunch programs, maybe your parents off Social Security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: He wanted grandma to eat Alpo, remember that, guys, Craig? This is unbelievable.

CRAIG SHIRLEY, RONALD REAGAN BIOGRAPHER: Ketchup was a vegetable, too.

Look, this is a pattern that plays itself out actually many times, Laura. When Eisenhower was president, liberals derided him, Dwight Eisenhower couldn't reed if his lips were chapped, then he becomes a paragon of virtue. Barry Goldwater was attacked by psychiatrists and newspapers and denounced as crazy. Now he's held up by liberals as a paragon of virtue. The left hated Richard Nixon. I saw a liberal history on MSNBC the other day actually favor Richard Nixon comparably to Donald Trump. Gerald Ford, both Bushs were all hated by the left until they were no longer in office, then they become convenient tools to bash the current occupant of the White House.

So it's nothing new, but it's especially appearing with Reagan because they know nothing about Reagan. As I said earlier to you this morning, Laura, I said they're in over their head. They don't know what they're talking about.

INGRAHAM: And we all worked for President Reagan, and we all know that on the issue, for instance, of immigration, a lot of Democrats are saying the Republican Party of Donald Trump, if only, again, they were more like Reagan on immigration. So let's play a few of the choice soundbites from President Reagan on immigration.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RONALD REAGAN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: The simple truth is that we've lost control of our own borders, and no nation can do that and survive.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace. If there had to be city walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Bill, you can take a hit at that one. First of all, I get shivers every time I hear him speak. But talk about the city on the hill. The city had walls that would have a door. So the left takes that part of the city on the hill, anyone can come. Ronald Reagan wanted everyone to come. But then of course they forget the part about the wall and the part about the country without borders isn't a country.

BENNETT: Once again, he's good being gone. It occurred to me while you were talking to Craig, maybe two, three, four elections in the future we will see videotape of Donald Trump saying, the liberals saying now those were the days when people had a heart and soul.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: I don't think so.

BENNETT: Just a thought experiment here Laura, could it possibly be worse, until it gets worse? But, no --

SHIRLEY: Bill might be right.

BENNETT: But there's so much the two share in common. Craig was saying the other day, or maybe I read it in his book, this commitment to defense, to a defense buildup, which was so essential to both of them. The focus on the wall, Reagan wanted to tear one down, the right one, and Trump wants to build one up, and that's the right one, too.

But they're very different personalities, and yet they're very much going in the same direction, it seems to me. The thing I think, I would be interested in Craig's opinion on this this, having served in the cabinet and proudly for Ronald Reagan, I think this is a more conservative cabinet than Ronald Reagan had. Don't you?

INGRAHAM: Craig?

SHIRLEY: Yes, I think so. But it's also, don't forget, Bill, the bench, you were a great conservative in the cabinet, and of course Ed Meese, but the bench was a lot thinner. This is a byproduct of the Reagan presidency is that there is a lot more talent now to be available for the Trump administration that wasn't available in 1980.

INGRAHAM: Think about that. Think of all the people that were waiting in the wings to get appointed to the appellate courts. All those 50 something year-olds, late '40s, they were children of the Reagan era, were they not, Bill?

SHIRLEY: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing, the left would probably love that, if it weren't for Reagan. If I didn't work for you, I wouldn't be doing any of this.

SHIRLEY: No AAA, AA leagues very much highly populated then with the right people. I remember, Laura, at our place, we got known as Fort Reagan. At one point we had 134 political appointees. And I remember Senator Wiker (ph), who was supposed to be a Republican, saying what are you doing with all these political appointees? I said I think we're doing it right. We won, we won. We won the election. And that was a great training camp. And it's interesting to see where a lot of those people have gone. Famous television personalities --

INGRAHAM: Bill, they can blame you bill. They can blame you bill. Guys, thanks so much.

And the so-called blue wave for Democrats may already been fizzling out. Why? Good old Nancy Pelosi. Details after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Thanks to Nancy Pelosi the so-called blue wave may be fading out a little bit. The divisive House minority leader is becoming the shining star of the GOP attack ads leading up to the midterms. Here is a little sample.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Failed liberal politician Paul Davis is at it again, but this time he's running for Congress, and this time he's not alone. Now Nancy Pelosi and her Washington Democrats are bankrolling his campaign because Davis' record in Topeka is the Pelosi agenda in Washington. A vote for Paul Davis is a vote for Nancy Pelosi.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And Democratic House candidates and members apparently smell blood. Dozens of them and counting will not commit or outright they refuse to support Pelosi continuing as the Democrats House leader.

Joining us now to analyze, Fox News contributor Rachel Campos-Duffy, and Tezlyn Figaro, the former national racial justice director for Bernie Sanders. All right, Tezlyn, let's talk to you. I think all parties have their person who you want to kind of move on. It's just the way it is. Republicans have had the same issue, not so much with Boehner, but the Republicans wanted him to move on and ultimately he did. What do you see, though, you have this incredible number of Democrat incumbents, now it's at 51 who say will not support her?

TEZLYN FIGARO, FORMER BERNIE SANDERS STAFFER: Well, it's funny you asked me what do I see, because I feel like I'm a prophet, because just last week I prophesized that the blue wave, certainly someone was bound to drown. So just call me Noah, Laura.

(LAUGHTER)

FIGARO: At the end of the day people are ready to move on. It's not just Democrats who are also saying they want to get rid of Nancy Pelosi, but also Republicans and independents as well. Three quarter of Americans have polled to say the time is over for Nancy Pelosi.

So it's really sad because poor Tim Ryan when he tried to run against Nancy in 2016, people thought that it was a joke. So we've seen over 20 Democrat leaders say that they will not support her in June. And now we're in August and now it's over 50 who are asking Nancy to move on. So it reminds me of the old stalker girlfriend that just refuses to stop calling on the phone, over and over repeatedly, and doesn't understand the relationship is over.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: OK, Tezlyn cracks me up. Tezlyn, I needed to laugh on Friday, that cracked me up.

Rachel, first of all, the Republicans kind of putting all their eggs in the anti-Pelosi basket, I think they have such a great agenda on the economy, economic prosperity, relative peace out there. The Pelosi thing gets a little old for me. But nevertheless I guess it's kind of good, I guess, but don't both parties have these people who just refuse to move on?

RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, you can walk and chew gum. You can tout all the good news that the Republicans and Donald Trump agenda has brought about in their district, and you can remind voters that, make no mistake, I don't care what those 50 Democrats are saying, if the Democrats take control of Congress Nancy Pelosi will be the leader of the House, Democrats are in step all the time, and she will be the leader.

And by the way, she embodies everything middle Americans hate about Washington. She represents San Francisco looney policies that have never worked. And the Republicans are back home, and by the way, they're kind of enthusiastic now. I don't think they were feeling so good a month ago. They're feeling pretty good right now. They're back home. They're seeing the impact of their agenda. They're talking to constituents and face-to-face reminding them of who brought them about, who said it was going to be Armageddon, Nancy Pelosi, and who called bonuses crumbs.

INGRAHAM: They're personalizing it. They're personalizing it.

CAMPOS-DUFFY: They're working hard in their district.

INGRAHAM: They have to personalize the message. Just like Obama and the Democrats did, you have to personalize it.

Speaking of the Real Clear Politics average, let's put it up on the screen. Today the Democrats have a five percent advantage. But a month ago they had an 8.2 percent advantage. Bloomberg opinion headline, by the way, kind of extends this conversation on this. "Pelosi is the wrong target for Democrats." Joe Cunningham saying "The Democratic Party needs new leadership. If elected, I will not vote for Nancy Pelosi as speaker. Time to move forward and win again." And 34 Democratic nominees now say they are neither for nor against Pelosi, but 42 of the parties' nominees say they will not support Nancy Pelosi.

Well, who has the juice, though, Tezlyn, to take on Pelosi? Let's say the Democrats are able to pick up all the seats they need to take the majority? You have got to have something to be -- you can't beat something with nothing. Who beats Pelosi?

FIGARO: It's amazing that they continue to keep pushing Nancy Pelosi on people, and it's amazing that she won't sit down. A lot has changed in the last two years. I really don't know the answer to the question. I would like to see if they would like to support Congresswoman Barbara Lee. They claim to love black girl magic. Let's see if they're willing to put someone who is actually an African-American female in office. But I guess that will be going a stretch.

INGRAHAM: I want Maxine Waters as the speaker of the House, because auntie Maxine, I like. I think she's kind of fun. She doesn't like Trump very much, but she makes politics interesting. We're going to put it very nicely on a Friday. We're out of time, guys, but we'll continue this conversation on radio next week. Thanks guys, have a great weekend.

Philadelphia sanctuary policies are slammed after a five-year-old girl sexually assaulted by an illegal alien. U.S. attorney for Philly says enough is enough. He joins us with his plans to take on local officials next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Philadelphia's sanctuary city status is under intense fire after the brutal rape of a five-year-old girl by an illegal immigrant. And the U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Pennsylvania which oversees Philly says he's had enough. William McSwain recently sat down with us about his efforts to fight back against the city's sanctuary policies and their devastating consequences.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

INGRAHAM: Mr. McSwain, thank you for joining us. Good to have you with us. So your U.S. attorney in the very important city of Philadelphia. And there is a big controversy there as you are acutely aware of involving the sanctuary status of Philadelphia. Tell me why from your perspective, and then we're going to get into this specific case, why your perspective, sanctuary status is harmful for public safety.

WILLIAM MCSWAIN, PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: Fundamentally those of us in law enforcement aren't supposed to play favorites. Those of us who are prosecutors aren't supposed to play favorites. That's a fundamental principal because we are the supposed to enforce the law, and that means we're supposed to enforce the law in a fair, non-partisan manner.

The problem with sanctuary cities is they turn that whole principle on its head and they politicize law enforcement.

INGRAHAM: How do you mean?

MCSWAIN: I mean what they stand for. They stand for the proposition that a certain group of people are not going to be subject to our laws for political purposes, namely we're talking about illegal immigrants.

INGRAHAM: Well, they make the opposite claim. Those who are defending the sanctuary city policies, including the mayor and his boosters, Mayor Kenney, they will say actually sanctuary status keeps the place safer because illegal immigrants won't go to the authorities otherwise because they're going to be afraid of being deported. So it actually makes the city less safe if you don't have a sanctuary policy in place. How do you respond to that?

MCSWAIN: I think actually they have it exactly backwards. They do say that they think that it fosters trust among the community and law enforcement to not enforce immigration laws, but actually I think what fosters trust between the community and law enforcement is when the community knows that law enforcement is not going to play favorites. If they know that the rule of law is going to be respected, the broader community, therefore, believe that law enforcement is doing their job. So when the proponents of sanctuary cities make that argument that you just articulated, I think they have it exactly backwards.

INGRAHAM: The D.A. of Philadelphia, Larry Krasner, he is not too pleased with your criticism of the sanctuary city policy. He said about your statement linking this rape by this Juan Ramon Vasquez who was released, ended up raping a member of his own family, a five-year-old child, he said, well, that's very dramatic to somehow link the sanctuary status to this rape. "The Trump administration has made it so that immigrant children can get raped because they're afraid to call the police due to its policies of deporting people who are victims."

So they're linking Trump to you, the deportation of actual victims of domestic violence, and you're seeing this bubble up with the judge versus Jeff Sessions yesterday. So how do you respond to that? He's hitting you hard, saying you're basically, this is typical Trump administration stuff from you.

MCSWAIN: I think that fundamentally the problem with that statement is that statement is a political statement. He's going political. I am doing my best as a law enforcement officer to enforce the law in a neutral, non-partisan, apolitical manner. And when you are a proponent of sanctuary cities, again, you're politicizing law enforcement. I think that the D.C. in Philadelphia unfortunately takes a political approach to a lot of issues in law enforcement. And what I'm saying is that respect for the rule of raw is a non-partisan, neutral --

INGRAHAM: But they're saying we're not the immigration force. We're not a federal immigration force. We have our hands full already.

MCSWAIN: Well, the fundamental problem, again, is that not only are sanctuary cities, in my view, wrong, but they're essentially un-American. Let me explain that a little bit. When you come before the law in America, it's not supposed to matter who you are or where you're from, who your parents are or the like. Everybody is supposed to be treated equally. So if you politicize the law and you say we're not going to enforce the law against a certain group of people. We're only going to enforce it against others, you're essentially doing something that I believe is un-American because you're not respecting the rule of law.

INGRAHAM: It's not equal justice under the law.

Juan Ramon Vasquez, let's get back to that case. In 2014 he was arrested on an aggravated assault. He was released, illegal immigrant. A year and-a-half later he was found to have raped a member of his own family, a five-year-old little girl. And then of course when he's released in 2014, that was sanctuary city time, and they say, well, making that leap from his release to the rape and sanctuary policies, that's unfair. Do you squarely -- obviously it's his fault for doing the rape, he's liable, but did the sanctuary city policy facilitate the rape of this little girl?

MCSWAIN: It not only facilitated it, it's 100 percent responsible for it. And that is non-controversial. What happened in the timeline was Mr. Vasquez was deported in 2009. He then illegally reentered the country. He was arrested for assault in 2014, and we placed a detainer on him which is a request that if he's released from local custody to give the feds a heads up, we take him to federal custody and we deport him.

Unfortunately, Philadelphia, because they're a sanctuary city, do not respect detainers. So when Mr. Vasquez was released in 2014 we didn't know about it. The Philadelphia prison officials didn't tell us about it. And instead of him coming into federal custody where he would have been deported to Honduras and had no further opportunity to commit any further crimes in Philadelphia, instead he went into the community and, as you said, he raped a five year old.

INGRAHAM: Mayor Kenney, you might have seen this video one or two or three times, reacted to that court ruling that affirmed the ability to have the sanctuary status without any federal diminution of funding, and he did the big Snoopy dance. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A sanctuary city, Yes. A sanctuary city, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: so he's thrilled that they could cut off access to the feds To the city arrest database. So the federal government, even if they wanted access in this sanctuary policy, they could not have access even to know who is in the state pen.

MCSWAIN: Correct. And one of the larger issues that is at stake here is in the post 9/11 world it's very, very important that all levels of law enforcement, state, local, federal, that they're talking to each other.

INGRAHAM: I thought that was the point. I thought after 9/11 everyone is supposed to talk to each other, obviously FBI, CIA. But aren't we all supposed to be working together as Americans to keep our communities, our countries safe? I really do not understand the sanctuary stuff. I don't. I don't get it.

MCSWAIN: The problem is prior to 9/11 a lot of law enforcement were in siloes. They weren't talking to each other. They weren't communicating. We've made a lot of progress since then. And I think that having, for example, a sanctuary city policy where the locals are now communicating with the federal authorities and are in fact defying federal law is a step backwards. And we do that at our own peril.

INGRAHAM: You're not a political figure but you live in Philadelphia, you live in the area. What is your sense about the constituents? Minorities, the poor, the disadvantaged are the ones who are victimized the most by recidivist illegal immigrant crime. Any sense about how they're feeling about this mayor?

MCSWAIN: Again, I think that what people want is they want to know their law enforcement officers, whether they're federal or local or state, are enforcing the rule of law in a non-partisan fair manner, treating everybody fairly. And it's fundamentally un-American and fundamentally unfair to not enforce the law against an entire population.

INGRAHAM: Any sense about these nationwide injunctions, the sanctuary city, defund? That was one federal district court ruling. We have other individual federal district court rulings on immigration?

MCSWAIN: Well, first of all, on that sanctuary city's case that you mentioned earlier, the last word hasn't been written on that. There was a case in the eastern district of Pennsylvania, my district, that was ruled on. But there are lots of these cases going on around the country. And they all sort of percolate their way up through the court system.

INGRAHAM: They're supposed to. There shouldn't be a nationwide injunction with one district court, or shouldn't there be.

MCSWAIN: No, there shouldn't. And what you want is you want several courts to look at an issue, have the benefit of all their analysis, and eventually these things hopefully make their way to the Supreme Court which will have the final word.

INGRAHAM: Are you having fun as U.S. attorney of Philadelphia? It's a pretty cool job.

MCSWAIN: It's a lot of work, but yes, the I'm doing my best and enjoying it.

INGRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. McSwain. Great to see you. Thank you so much.

MCSWAIN: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

INGRAHAM: We appreciate the U.S. attorney joining us and the job he's doing. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Thank you to all you fans out there. Wasn't this a fun week? We're going to be right back here Monday night of course. In the meantime, have a wonderful weekend. Not many summer weekends left, so enjoy your families and your friends, I know I will.

Ed Henry is in for Ms. Shannon Bream. He and the "Fox News @ Night" team are up next. Have a great weekend everyone. Goodnight from Washington.

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.

 

URL

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2018/08/10/christopher-steeles-communications-with-doj-raise-questions.html