Ken Starr: Impeachment is hell
Former independent counsel discusses his new memoir and Democrats' obsession with impeachment. On 'The Ingraham Angle,' Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy reacts to the new Strzok-Page text messages.
This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," September 11, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: We will be following more of this on the Fox News Channel. Let not your heart be troubled. We are always fair and balanced. We are not to destroy-Trump media. A lot more news comes your way because there she is, Laura Ingraham is standing by our nation's capital tonight, Laura.
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Sean, great to see you. Great show tonight. And welcome to 'The Ingraham Angle.' I'm Laura Ingraham in Washington and do we have a show for you tonight.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough is saying that the president is doing more damage to the country than 9/11. The man who was commissioner of the FDNY during those horrific attacks is here to respond.
Plus, Newt Gingrich joins us tonight with how the media is using 9/11 as a weapon against Trump. Plus his messaging advice to the GOP this November.
And an 'Ingraham Angle' follow-up, former New England Patriot Matt Light is here to blow the whistle on how the NFL is making a mess out of dealing with the anthem protests. But first, time to build the wall. That is the focus of tonight's 'Angle.'
It's one of the president's cornerstone issues, and one that he continues to invoke at rally after rally.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And we are building a wall on the southern border, which is absolutely necessary.
And we will build the wall, that I can tell you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE/FEMALE: Build the wall! Build the wall! Build the wall!
TRUMP: Do not worry, we are going to build the wall, OK? Don't worry. Don't even think about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Well, Congress intends to put nine spending bills on the president's desk by the end of September and the end of the close of the fiscal year. But there is no funding for the wall.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R—K.Y., SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: We still are in favor of the wall. We still want to get funding for the wall. But we think the best time to have that discussion is after the election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: I think McConnell and Ryan have made a political calculation that funding, or even talk of the wall, will spook voters before the midterms. They've even convinced the president of this. Here he is last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We are getting the wall done but I have had so many people, good people, great people, they'd rather not do it before, they'd rather do it right after the election. They don't want to do anything that will upset the apple cart, and my inclination -- if it was up was up to me, I would shut down government, build a border security.
(CHEERING)
(ND VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Well, Mr. President, your inclination is right. This wall must be built. He claims he is a commitment from McConnell and Ryan to vote on the wall and its funding after the midterm. But if you are worried about turning out the Republican base, wouldn't into make sense to talk about the wall, the need to build it now and get it done? Here's what my radio listeners said today.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Trump rally that I went to, nobody was chanting "3 percent GDP." Guess what they were chanting? Build the wall. That is why people went and voted for this cap.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We can afford to take care of the rest of the world and not our own people who voted for getting the wall done.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Begin our build the wall campaign by all Trump supporters. I've got my donation ready to send in and millions of Trump supporters are ready to donate, too.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There were to be a huge of red wave if they would finally do their job and do what they promised.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: This is a winning issue for Republicans and the necessary security measure for America at this perilous moment. On this 9/11 anniversary, just look at what we spent to protect ourselves. According to the Stimson Center report, since 9/11, the U.S. has spent at least $2.8 trillion on counterterrorism, 15 percent of our discretionary budget goes to fund counterterrorism efforts across the government.
In 2017 alone, Congress dedicated $175 billion to fight terrorism. And that doesn't count for the trillions that was spent in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the work we've done in Syria and Pakistan. A Brown University study estimates that the total cost of all that war since 9/11 through this year could be a staggering $5.6 trillion.
So we lay out all this money to enforce other country's borders, but we can't afford $20 billion to enforce and fortify our own? Our porous border remains one of our greatest national security threats. Since fiscal year 2001, there have been more than 11.6 million illegal border crossings along our southern border.
And in just the last few days, the border patrol in the Rio Grande Valley reports that they have arrested in the United States eight MS-13 and 18th Street gang members. Five sexual predators, some wanted by authorities, and of course they frustrated drug smuggling attempts at the same time. Well, that is just a few days and only one region of the border.
How do these people get into our country? And might a wall stop the flow of illegals who pose a criminal and possible national security threat to our citizens? Well, I disagree with the good people the president referenced earlier. Now is the time to talk about the wall and to awaken citizens to the ongoing threat posed by an open border.
And particularly on 9/11, we should remind people of the horror visited upon us by five hijackers who overstayed their visas. It is a whole separate issue. And think of this, as of 2017, we have over 700,000 people here on expired visas. That is even separate from the wall. This is total madness.
All of this, but controlling our border, who comes in, and who goes out of the country should be one of our top priorities. If not, our number one priority. This summer, Reuters found that immigration was the top issue for voters going into the midterms. If Republicans want to really motivate their base to turn out and vote and win in some of those -- win over some of those security moms in the process.
Give them what they want. Fund the wall immediately. Attach it to one of those spending bills going to the president at the end of the month. Now I know people are worried about a government shutdown. But this isn't -- this isn't a small deal.
If this isn't done now, Mitch McConnell, I am telling you, if they are not smart enough to know this at this point, they are never going to know it, and this wall will never be built. And that is the "Angle."
Joining us now the reaction is Univision anchor Enrique Acevedo along with Jason Owens, deputy chief border patrol for the Laredo, Texas border sector. Great to see both of you. Enrique, let's start with you here. This is just a few of the facts. This is Border Patrol facts along our southwest border.
Fiscal year '17, we've had 415,191 border apprehensions. Fiscal year '16, 563,000, '15, 444,000, '14, 569,000, '13, 489,000. So, this is what, Enrique, our Border Patrol are up against. So why not make their job easier by having a physical barrier in place to lighten their load so they can look for the bad guys?
ENRIQUE ACEVEDO, UNIVISION ANCHOR: There's already a 700-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexico border --
INGRAHAM: The 2,000-mile border.
ACEVEDO: -- and here are a couple of other facts. We have 21,000 well-armed men in what you call an open border. We have drones. We have military grade surveillance equipment.
INGRAHAM: How did they get across, Enrique? Hold on. I want this to be a productive conversation.
ACEVEDO: We have thousands of thousands of resources --
INGRAHAM: Hold on. I want this to be a productive conversation.
ACEVEDO: Sure.
INGRAHAM: So when I go through the stats and I think we put them on the screen, we are talking 11.6 million people who have been apprehended at our southwest border since America was under attack and we lost almost 3,000 Americans, OK?
ACEVEDO: Right.
INGRAHAM: That is a security problem. And we might have some wall and I understand we have some fencing but we have, like, 170 miles along the Laredo sector alone that is completely open. People can walk across or swim across. That is the problem.
ACEVEDO: I'm glad you want to make this a constructive conversation, Laura. You just had 3,000 U.S. citizens lost their lives on 9/11. There were at least 400 non-U.S. citizens, 90 countries lost citizens on that day.
INGRAHAM: Exactly.
ACEVEDO: And those attacks were not just to U.S. citizens.
INGRAHAM: Perfect.
ACEVEDO: Which goes to show you that the multiculturalism, the diversity was also a target, under attack by terrorists on that day, that is why they chose New York City, that is why they chose --
INGRAHAM: OK, let's get to the wall --
ACEVEDO: -- the World Trade Center because they are against everything --
INGRAHAN: OK, let's stick to the -- let's focus this conversation. Jason, I got to go to you on this because we got to move this forward. Because the line from the more of an open borders crowd is a wall is unnecessary, totally superfluous, you were on the ground every day, you are in San Antonio now, but you're on the ground every day, your border agents are doing their best. Would a wall help or not?
JASON OWENS, DEPUTY CHIEF BORDER PATROL, LAREDO, TEXAS: Let me put -- the answer is simple, yes, it absolutely would. I can tell you that Enrique is right. We do have 700 miles of border along a 2,000-mile border. It's not enough. What we have right now is not enough to fully secure the border.
We had nearly 20,000 men and women in the U.S. Border Patrol, almost 2,000 in Laredo sector alone. It's not enough. We still have people getting through. We still have things that are coming across our border that we don't know about. If we want to have a secure border, if we want to truly protect this country and what it stands for, these are things that we need.
And the subject matter experts that have done is job for decades on end, are telling you, we need a wall, we need infrastructures. We need roads to be able to respond. We need cameras to be able to detect the traffic that's coming across and we need the brave men and women out there to able to do the job right.
INGRAHAM: You guys saw the facts in "The Angle," a $175 billion just in fiscal year 2017 on counter terror measures. And we can find $25 billion over a period of time to pay for a physical barrier? It's not everything, but it's a statement and it will stop a lot of the flow. We saw in Operation Gatekeeper in the San Diego sector. That cut down Border Patrol - - border crossings by 89 percent. That was started under Bill Clinton and then ultimately expanded under George W. Bush.
So Enrique, Mexico has the right to protect their borders, Guatemala has the right to protect their heirs, every country has that inherent right, that sovereign right to control who comes in and know what their intentions are. You agree with that, correct?
ACEVEDO: Of course. And we have spent over $100 billion and since 9/11 militarizing our south border, and that is a fact. This is taxpayer money that has been used to militarize our border at a great cost for a once dynamic border communities and immigrants, human rights. Instead of being part of a broader strategy, border enforcement has become the only strategy. So I think that is where we have to, you know, really look at what has been going on over the last 50, 60 years.
Why don't we invest more in finding the root causes of immigration? Why wait until people are at our door and try to build a wall to try to solve something that has to do with structural issues, like poverty, violence, things that we are seeing in Central America --
INGRAHAM: Well, we are dealing with a lot of violence.
ACEVEDO: -- a border wall is not going to stop those people from leaving their home.
INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, we are dealing with a lot of violence, as I noted in "The Angle" just in this last week, MS-13, 18 Street gang members, among the most vicious -- not just in the United States, but in the world -- have been apprehended crossing the border. The problem without having a wall is the flow is so great, tens of thousands coming across every month, that you can't catch everyone.
The wall slows down the flow. And you brought up the issue of militarizing the border, Enrique. I want to read this. This is a quote from an op-ed that you wrote recently, "Militarizing the border is something enemies would do, not friends and strategic partners. Immigration is an economic issue and it won't be solved by having more armed guards at the front door. A 2,000-mile wall won't seal the border, it will suffocate it."
I will let Jason deal with that. Are you a part of the militarization strategy, you and your agents, Jason, and doesn't that hurt, according to Enrique, the relations between Mexico and the United States?
OWENS: No, actually it does not. So we are a law enforcement organization. We are part of Customs and Border Protection, CBP. And along with providing border security, our job is to facilitate lawful trade and travel. That is a very important mission and it serves both sides of the border.
One of the things that I think is important to remember is we are not just talking about the flow, the volume of traffic coming across, but what that traffic consists of. Now you referenced some MS-13 members and gang members. I can tell you in my sector alone, one of nine along the southwest border, we have already caught almost 50 known gang members this year alone.
Over 770 criminal aliens that have been deported and came back after committing violent crimes, murder, assault, rape, you name it. These are the types of folks that were coming across that represent a threat to us. That's the ones that we are concerned with. We need to know about, we need to know that they are coming across and we need to be able to stop them.
A wall helps us do that. It also perpetuates lawful trade and travel because it takes the criminal element away. If they cannot exploit a weak and porous border, they have no reason to exist and both sides of the border, both communities thrive.
INGRAHAM: All right gentlemen, thank you -- real quick, Enrique. Yes.
ACEVEDO: I just want to say, we can name one example of a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil involving a crossing between the U.S. and Mexico.
INGRAHAM: How many people have flown planes into U.S. buildings before 9/11?
ACEVEDO: Look, what I'm saying here is that why are we focusing on the border and neutralizing the border --
INGRAHAM: OK. So that's it. OK, I'm glad we got to that. So Enrique, you really -- you really aren't for border enforcement or any wall or any fence. You've actually believe in open borders and a free flow of people and goods. I just wish more people would say that because it would make the conversation a lot easier.
Borderless world, open borders, open markets, free thought, whatever their lingo is. Otherwise, a wall would actually make their relationship with Mexico better because we could go through normal ports of entry and control trade and control the people in the flow. It would be much better for Mexico. Much better. All right, gentlemen, we are out of time, but thank you so much. Great segment.
And by the way, a shocking story of media depravity on a most solemn day for this country. An op-ed for "The Washington Post" shows that MSNBC's Joe Scarborough complaining that the president is a greater danger to the United States than foreign terrorists, something he expanded on this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIIP)
JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: If you strip America of its ideas, forget about knocking down buildings in the financial district. Forget about running planes into the Pentagon. Those are tragedies, but those tragedies bring us closer together. America is an idea. You gut America of that idea, that is when you do the most harm to Americans. This seems to me a far graver, graver threat to the idea of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Here to respond is New York Fire Department commissioner during 9/11, Thomas Von Essen. Tom, first of all, it's a solemn day for all of the firefighters in New York and across this country, police, first responders, all the victims and their families. Thank you for your service to New York, all those years and especially on 9/11. I had to get your thoughts on this. Joe Scarborough, saying the president is more dangerous to America than the 9/11 terrorists.
THOMAS VON ESSEN, FORMER COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK FIRE DEPARTMENT: It is even worse when you hear him say it. It is pretty upsetting. Being at the ceremony this morning, it was one of the family members got up and he was begging politicians and the press to stop politicizing September 11th, to stop using families as fodder for, you know, opinions on one side or the other.
These are folks that mostly, all of them actually, innocent people on airplanes or in buildings, were firefighters, police officers, and emergency first responders, who just try to go in and make a difference and help people and get them out of harm's way.
I have known at least I would say between five to ten of the firefighters, good friends of mine, whose kids grew up and went to military academies, all with the idea of going in the military, serving the country, serving to honor their father. And most of those fathers were really special guys. The best of the best we had, and we had some really great people.
So I would really doubt that if you ask any of those kids graduating from the Naval Academy or West Point or the kids who went on the job to honor their parents or their fathers, how they felt about the police officers and the firefighters.
I think you might get a very different version of the politics of just disagreeing with the president, who we should be working to help, no matter what our opinions are and comparing them to a grave threat from a foreign nation.
INGRAHAM: Yes. It's easy to make these comments from a comfy studio in Manhattan, I guess, but I don't know. I just kept thinking of, you know, that day and what we were seeing on the ground and all the firefighters who walked up and everyone else was walking down, those buildings shaking and falling. Senator Angus King in Maine, he compared Russian election meddling, Tom, with 9/11. Let's watch.
(BEGIUN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ANGUS KING, I—MAINE: They used airplanes into the towers. Now people can use the click of a computer key in St. Petersburg, Russia to attack. It's an attack that continues, and it's the same kind of attack today that occurred in 2001.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: So Russian election meddling, serious, but it's basically the same kind of attack as 9/11. I don't even know what to say to these people at this point, but I am wanting your opinion.
VON ESSEN: No, I mean, there is no comparison. I don't know how reasonable people, if they were just thinking about the folks that were involved, the firefighters involved, the civilians involved, people who worked at Wall Street, people whose wives went to work that day, people whose sons and daughters went to work and we were lost because of some evil, sick people that decided to hurt a country that they hated so much, a civilization that they hated so much, a way of life that they hated so much.
And if these politicians would do their job that they swore to do, we wouldn't have half of these issues that we have. I don't know how they take paychecks and go home every night. I don't understand how somebody takes an oath and then just doesn't do their job.
That doesn't happen with firefighters and police officers and soldiers. If you don't do your job as a soldier, you pay a price. With these politicians, they are not doing their job. They haven't done their job as far as immigration or any of these issues for 20, 25 years. So, I am not really too hopeful on them doing it now.
INGRAHAM: And Tom, I just can't believe we are still debating whether the country needs to have a secure border, all these years. I'm not just talking about Trump. Obama, Bush, all these years, we still don't have a secure border. I mean, thousands of people crossing the border and it is a security threat. It is a security threat.
Tom, thank you so much. It is great to see you tonight and our prayers are always with New York, Shanksville and Washington, D.C. Thank you so much.
And when we come back, Newt Gingrich has a critical piece of advice for President Trump and the GOP to win in November. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
INGRAHAM: As we discussed in "The Angle" tonight, President Trump has a lot of critical decisions to make as the midterm's approach, including regarding the wall. The stakes could not be higher for the president, his agenda, and the future of the Republican Party, even the country. So, what should the priority be?
For answers, let's bring in former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who has a great series about all of this on his website, Gingrich Productions.com that everyone should check out. Newt, let's talk about this. First, on the wall, I can tell you, my radio listeners plastered me with calls today after we learned that nine spending bills that will be delivered to the president, at the end of this month.
No funding for the wall. Not a penny. Zero. After that was one of the key campaign promises of President Trump, and he has expressed his repeated desire to have that thing built.
NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, look, I think he ought to keep pushing for the wall. I think the contrast between Democrats who want open borders, which would flood the country with people, and the president's desire to control our border is pretty dramatic. I would not recommend that he close the government. I don't think we are in a position to explain it and I don't think it gets us very far.
But I think he ought to keep pushing for it and I think after the election, confident they'll have an additional continuing resolution at some point. And then I think he can be much tougher. But I think between now and the election, he's begun to draw a really big contrast of the speech he gave in Montana.
He began to draw the right contrast between, as he put it, Democrats who want to abolish ICE and Republicans who want to abolish MS-13. I think he needs to continue at that level, keep pushing. I will be a little surprised if he doesn't get some things done because I know with my own conversations with Mick Mulvaney, the director of the budget, they do have some money and they are in fact building parts of the wall right now.
INGRAHAM: Well, all I know is that it's about $130 billion a year for all the services that illegal immigrants get in the United States. It's $72,000 per illegal immigrant, $94,000 per illegal immigrant child in the United States. I mean, this is a huge amount of money we threw around, including in other countries, which, I know we have to spend but most voters hear this, like, why can't you fund the money -- find the money to build this wall?
And it's going to stick in the craw of our voters. I'm telling you. It is a sticking point and I'm glad the president is pushing for it, but we need that money. Newt, Steve Bannon yesterday on the show made a point about whether or not this is an election where you can still persuade people in the midterms. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: Trump has been at war with the permanent political class. About eight months ago, I started this film, feeling that by the time we had the run-up, it was going to be like the tea party movement. We needed these rally films to kind of get people in power. So this film is for the base plus to get them excited.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Yes, well his point was this is going to be a base election. He wants you to go watch his film, but you're not going to persuade people going down the home stretch. It's only turning out your base. Do you agree with that?
GINGRICH: No. I think he's half right. We have to turn out the base. The president has to convince people to vote. If we don't have the base, we lose. It's not complicated. But in addition, if we pose -- if we pose a choice between an open borders Democrat, for example, Gavin Newsom's proposal in California to give free health care to every illegal immigrant who comes to California, that is so crazy.
That you can win a huge block of people who aren't normally your base, but they are sure not going to vote to have their tax money go to encourage people from the whole planet to come to California for health care.
So, I think we have issues that could actually win this election and dramatically broaden our base. But I would agree with Steve. We have to turn out the base. The people who care about Trump have to vote this fall or are we just playing loose.
INGRAHAM: And Newt, now Barack Obama has been dispatched as the not so secret weapon for the Democrats. We don't need to play the sound bites, but, you know, we talk about Donald Trump, resentment, paranoia, he's dividing America, it's my recovery, meaning Obama's recovery. How effective is Obama going to be? Two term president, very popular in the country still. Is that something to concern the Republicans?
GINGRICH: Well, I think we have to take him head-on. This is the guy who told us at Saddleback Church that he believed in marriage between man and woman because it came straight from the Bible and he believed it. This is the guy who told us you get to keep your doctor. You get to keep your health insurance.
This is the guy who said there was a red line in Syria and exactly one year later said he never said there was a redline in Syria. Barack Obama is a left-winger who spent his entire career denying reality. One simple example, we lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs under Obama. We've already gained 400,000 under Trump. I like that choice.
I think if you want to go back to Obama, higher unemployment, fewer jobs, more food stamps, let's have that debate. But listen, we need to have the courage to take head-on the real Obama, not "The New York Times" fantasy version.
INGRAHAM: And wait, would you waste time going after the anonymous in the White House, finding out who it is? Lie detector tests or interrogations, or is that kind of a dead end?
GINGRICH: First of all, I do think that if there is somebody currently working in federal government who is leaking when you have national security concerns, that's a legitimate concern and we ought to find out who they are. I think second, I just tell everybody, think of Bob Woodward's book as fiction because that's what it is.
And remember, I've got a piece I'm writing right now on all the things people said about Lincoln. Lincoln was far more constantly attacked than Trump has ever been and I think we ought to put this in context. These two things are trivial.
In the real world, we are creating jobs, we are reducing unemployment, we are doing remarkably well, and that is the real question this fall. Do you want to see more jobs or do you want to go back to food stamps with the Democrats?
INGRAHAM: Hey, I mean, the economy is on fire, and yet on 9/11 of course, the Democrats focus on what Trump's gesture was when he got off the plane, I guess in Shanksville. Let's watch what Jen Psaki and what she said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEN PSAKI, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's not even about like the commander-in-chief and what's appropriate. It's like he's missing a human screw. I mean, how do people react in a day like 9/11? This is not rocket science.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Basically, the ongoing story that you heard in the Woodward book et cetera, that Donald Trump just has no empathy, and that is why you shouldn't vote for Republicans in the midterms.
GINGRICH: Look, I think the fact is if you have empathy, we have the lowest global black unemployment in history. That's very good. We have the lowest level of Latino unemployment in history, that's very good. All those people who now have jobs, that's a lot of empathy.
This whole effort to attack Trump personally because they can't compete with him on policy, they can't compete with him on performance, there is something pathetic about the level of personal assault that goes on every single day.
INGRAHAM: Newt, thank you so much, as always.
GINGRICH: Thank you.
INGRAHAM: Democrats have made it clear that impeachment is on the ballot this November. Former Clinton investigator Ken Starr thinks that sets a damaging course for this country. He'll tell us why, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MAXINE WATERS, D—CALIF.: If they say, Maxine, please don't say impeachment anymore. And when they say that, I say, impeachment, impeachment, impeachment.
(APPLAUSE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You've already said you support impeachment of the president.
ALEXANDRA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D, NEW YORK CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: I think it is certainly something that needs to be on the agenda. I absolutely do.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bill Clinton was impeached but not removed from office. And we don't want to be in a situation where the president is deranged and we have got nothing that we can do about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: The midterms are fast approaching, and some Democrats are having a tougher time hiding their obsession with impeachment. Ken Starr, the man who led the Clinton investigation in the '90s that brought about the former president's impeachment, calls the process hell for the country. He's out with a new book today titled "Contempt, A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation." And we are also joined by former U.S. attorney and FoxNews contributor Andy McCarthy. Gentlemen, it's great to see you.
Judge Starr, let's go to you first. I remember 1998 like it was yesterday and all that was happening at the time. Bill Clinton at the time had about a 40 percent approval rating, 42 percent, mid-40s. But after he was impeached, his rating approval numbers started going up, up, up. Is that part of what you're thinking may happen here if the Democrats actually go for the brass ring on impeachment?
KEN STARR, AUTHOR, "CONTEMPT": It could very well happen, because the American people, and part of the message in my book is be careful what you ask for, because I do think impeachment is hell. It's hell to go through for the American people. Even though there are very strong feelings on one side and then on the other side, that is not our system. We have impeachment in the constitution. It's an important last resort.
And the country did not feel, as a whole, that Bill Clinton, for all of his crimes, and he committed crimes, and we proved that he committed crimes, that he should actually be removed in his last year and a half in office. We have elections in the country, and those elections mean something. Midterms coming up. Why in the world are the Democrats -- some of the Democrats -- seriously discussing impeachment? I think it's folly, but that is the politics. I think it is just very bad for the country. It is ultra-divisive.
INGRAHAM: Judge, if you could do it all over again, would you still except for a job as an impending counsel? Knowing what you know now? I know it's a ridiculous question in a way.
STARR: No. I think about that question, and the answer is, yes, I would. But I would not have made the second time around the blunders I made, especially dealing with the press, as I described in the book. My decision to sit down with a real snake in the grass named Steven Brill and to be interviewed by him, and for him then to completely distort what I had to say, and other journalists said that was a distortion because he was distorting what I had to say, and that brought on an investigation. And so when I think about how I conducted it, we tried to conduct it, and I think we did with integrity, I'd make a lot fewer mistakes.
INGRAHAM: And Rosenstein worked for your team of prosecutors way back when.
Andy, I also want to get your thoughts on the new text messages released today by Congressman Mark Meadows. They show more communications between the former FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. And to some come they point to a coordinated media leak campaign intended to harm President Trump. The correspondence ends with Strzok congratulating Page on an article being planted on Carter Page. Andy, your thoughts. Are there other ways to read this?
ANDREW MCCARTHY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: There are a couple of ways to read it, Laura, although I must say that when you have a situation like we have here where you've had a lot of evidence of high ranking FBI officials leaking, you have to take that into account. I have been in investigations where people -- I don't know that they used this phrase as clumsy as a press leak strategy -- but there are sometimes that you have to have a strategy because you are being killed by leaks and you are trying to tamp down on them.
Then there is another way of looking at it, which has never been my preferred way as a prosecutor, but there are prosecutors who endorse this, and that is this idea of tickling the wires, this idea that you take information that you have from your investigation, leak it to the press so that it gets out, and then as you monitor your wires, see if the people who are mentioned in the stories say and do things that are indicative of consciousness of guilt or concealing evidence and the like. Again, I don't think that is a proper way to go about an investigation, but it is done.
INGRAHAM: Strzok's attorney, Aitan Goelman, said that the term "media leak strategy" in Strzok's texts refers to a department-wide initiative to detect and stop leaks to the media. And then Mark Meadows responds today by saying "The American people aren't buying his misdirection. In fact, Mr. Strzok did lead an effort to control leaks, as his attorney suggests. It's worth mentioning that such an alleged effort was clearly a failure. It should raise questions whether there was a serious effort at all."
And finally, Andy, on the issue of impeachment, you are very skeptical about the idea that the Democrats would either have enough people to vote for impeachment, members, or that they would be able to get any Republicans on board, enough to get at that critical level.
MCCARTHY: I think if they were wise, they'd heed Judge Starr's sage words, but I think if they're just going to play brass knuckles, brass tacks politics, they're going to need more than a margin of a few congressmen or representatives in order to have enough in the way of numbers to get even the simple majority that you need to file articles of impeachment in the House. I just think they'll need a more comfortable margin if they want to go about that.
INGRAHAM: Judge, finally, does Mueller need to wrap this up, Judge Starr? It's like he hasn't gotten everything he's wanted. He didn't get Trump for a sit down, it doesn't look like it's going to happen. Is it time to get the show on the road here?
STARR: Given what we know, there's no evidence of collusion. And I think the American people have wanted to know that for a long time. The two indictments that have been returned do not point to collusion at all. So yes, especially with respect to Russian collusion. Now, there is another perspective, and that is we don't know what other assignments he has been given by the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein. So stay tuned.
I'm going to say just a closing word on impeachment. As I describe in the book, 31 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted in favor of impeachment, and yet even with that modest, but still, 31 is not nothing, 31 Democrats supporting, we see what eventually happened. There was another way, and I think that way needs to be discussed. Is the impeachment process something that should be reserved for the gravest kinds of offenses, high treason and the like? Is that the way we should approach it?
INGRAHAM: High crimes.
STARR: Truly high crimes and misdemeanors. Let's get rid of parsing language and say this is a disruption of an election. So what should we do? And there was not a serious conversation with respect to a resolution of censure. We need to have that debate.
INGRAHAM: All right, fantastic, thank you, gentlemen.
Ahead an "Ingraham Angle" follow-up. Former NFL star Matt Light of the Patriots sheds light on the issues regarding the Anthem and what the league is doing about it. That coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
INGRAHAM: And now an important "Ingraham Angle" follow-up. Last night we discussed how the NFL is fumbling the current Anthem protests, promising millions and millions of dollars to leftwing social justice groups. We are now joined by former New England Patriot Matt Light. The offensive tackle was on the executive committee of the Players Association. He joins us tonight with exclusive insight into what is happening among the NFL, the Players Association, and this recently formed Players Coalition that has gotten such a huge chunk of cash.
So Matt, question to you. First of all, it's great to see you. What do you make of the NFL offering almost $90 million to what some are saying is just a buyout or buy off of this Anthem protest? Will it work?
MATT LIGHT, SUPER BOWL CHAMPION: I think anytime you give a group that much money, you hope a lot of good comes out of it. And I think that's exactly what the players expect to happen with this money that has been allocated toward these issues that have become such a hot topic. And I don't have a problem with the players banding together and trying to come up with a message and affect change. But I do have a problem with the overall spirit and the tone of what has been going on in the National Football League. And, quite honestly, for a lot of former players, it's a very difficult topic to bring up.
INGRAHAM: I would imagine if you are a player who is not wild about the Anthem kneeling and just think it distracts from the game and it's the wrong place, wrong time for the kneeling, as good as the intentions are for some of these players, I bet they are intimidated of speaking out. I bet a lot of the players are afraid to speak out.
LIGHT: And that is the real story, Laura. There is a problem when you have two different viewpoints but they are not opposing. We have one group, like myself, and like you, and a lot of viewers, and like most Americans, and by the way, the overwhelming majority of the players in the National Football League, who feel like kneeling is disrespectful, for a million reasons, right. And on the other side, you have people that want to make a difference and help those. Those aren't two opposing views. Those are two people that are trying to express what they think about this current situation that should really have never happened. And it wouldn't have happened if we had better leadership.
INGRAHAM: Ben Watson was on the show last night and I thought he was just -- I think he's a terrific guy. Five kids. He's really positive. He said, I will call the White House and I'm happy to work with the White House on criminal justice reform. To me you can get a lot accomplished working together instead of pointing fingers, and I've probably been guilty of that myself from time to time.
But there are a lot of good players who want to help their communities. They can do that, and they are doing that already before Kaepernick, after Kaepernick. So I think it has all gotten muddled up. And one of your former teammates said something interesting today, I want to play the bite. This is Devin McCourty on 9/11 and the protests. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEVIN MCCOURTY, NFL PLAYER: I think a day like today where we are talking about 9/11 everywhere, I think it is the quality of what people went through when they were trying to rescue lives. That's the same thing we are trying to fight for.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Devon McCourty, thank you for an expiring message. Thanks for what you are doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: What are thoughts on that?
LIGHT: Listen, Devin McCourty is a great teammate, he's a great man, he's a guy that actually gets dirty. He gets down in the weeds, whatever the topic of conversation is, whatever he wants to do, he goes full tilt into it. Now, I was quick to come out and say that I didn't appreciate when the Patriots knelt last season. And I caught a lot of flak for that. And I still feel that way. I don't feel like that's a respectful way to do things. I don't feel as though if you have a cause that you should be able to put your teammates in harm's way, so to speak --
INGRAHAM: But Matt, are there people on the Patriots now, players now, who agree with your point of view, who are afraid to speak out themselves, yes or no?
LIGHT: Of course there are. It's tough thing to do, Laura. You get attacked from every angle. But again, we are not talking about two opposing viewpoints.
INGRAHAM: No, but you're expressing your viewpoint, Matt. You're talking about a group of people who -- they are expressing their viewpoint. Fine, causing some controversy, but that's fine. But there are a whole bunch of other players, because we've heard from them, who don't want any part of this and just want to go out and play a great game and to do the Anthem and go home to their families.
LIGHT: That's the overwhelming majority of people, Laura. And listen, we need to start naming these things. If it's social injustice, talk about who it is that needs to be out of the police force. Be very specific. And we need our leaders, we need Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith to stand up and make a difference.
INGRAHAM: I want to know where all this money is going in the Players Coalition. We've got tens of million dollars, are you convinced that this is all going to go to the right places and not end up going to a lot of left-wing groups or ultimately not accounted for properly?
LIGHT: It is up to us to do it. If we don't do it, no one will. So yes, we have to hold them accountable, and I hope that the players do the same thing.
INGRAHAM: Matt, thank you so much.
And by the way, hurricane Florence racing toward the east coast. There is new information on what may be ahead now for the millions of Americans and our past. Fox News's Rick Leventhal has a live report from the ground in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
INGRAHAM: Carolina residents bracing for what President Trump warns could be the biggest natural disaster to hit the mainland United States in decades. FOX News reporter Rick Leventhal right in its path joins us now from Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, with a live update. Rick?
RICK LEVENTHAL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Laura, there is more than 5 million people now under hurricane watches and warnings including most of the folks along the North and the South Carolina borders, and that includes Wrightsville Beach, which is under a mandatory evacuation order. And pretty quiet tonight. It seems like a lot of folks have heeded the warnings and gotten out. The folks who are still here have to get out before tomorrow morning. That is when the bridge will close for good here.
One of the locals came up to me and said you are not planning to stay through the storm, are you? And I look at him, and he said, not a good idea. When the locals tell you to get out, it is probably a good idea to get out.
Part of the reason is the storm surges expected to be after 13 feet which would take it above the garages and into the first floors of most of the structures on this strip of land. The other big concern here, of course, the wind, which is expected to be at least a Cat three, somewhere between 111 and 129-mile-per-hour winds. The structures here, the new ones, are rated about 130, so there are some builders watching this very closely and homeowners of course as well, very nervous tonight.
The other big issue, Laura, is the rain, which could be two to three feet, up to four feet, not just along the coast but inland. A slow-moving storm could dump a lot of water, create a lot of flooding and a lot of problems for the next few days, perhaps even weeks.
INGRAHAM: And Rick, what is the sense about the move of the storm up the coast? Is it going to stall out over the outer banks in Wrightsville and go inward, inland? Is it going to come up the coast?
LEVENTHAL: It all depends on what the storm does last minute. We've seen these things turn and confuse and confound the forecast, but right now, this thing, the models all seem to show it coming straight across the Atlantic right into the Carolina coast. And once it gets inland then it starts making its way north.
INGRAHAM: Rick, thank you so much. Be safe out there for us.
And when we come, history, the best teacher, as we prepare for one of the deadliest natural disasters. Past hurricane survivors are speaking out with their stories. Bianca Ambrosio is a survivor of deadly 2012 Hurricane Sandy. She chose not to evacuate. She joins us now, very briefly, to tell us about what led to the decision. Ambrosio, this is crazy how big the storm is. What can you tell our viewers about how important it is to heed these warnings?
BIANCA AMBROSIO, HURRICANE SANDY SURVIVOR: Thank you so much for having me, Laura. It's very important to evacuate. My grandparents and I did not evacuate. We did not have bottled water. Water rose up to our floor in our home. We didn't know what to expect. This is my mother cleaning the basement. It was a very scary time for my grandparents and me. Thank you.
INGRAHAM: And Bianca, I think a lot of people get brave, like they want to see what it's like, I want to see how powerful the wind is, my house can take it. But when you're talking about wind and wind this powerful and water this high, this is going to be a deadly storm. It would be great if somehow that didn't happen, but it will be a deadly storm. And how critical is it for people to get out as fast as possible with their papers, their pets, and that's about it?
AMBROSIO: I would say, get out as soon as possible, bring your pets, get your cars, leave, because three cars were submerged under water. Trees were falling on houses. My friend has a true business, was able to do emergency work. But I would get out now before it gets bad because people were in bad trouble.
INGRAHAM: Bianca, it's a word of caution, a word to the wise, we appreciate your sharing that story. So many difficult natural disasters over the years, and on this anniversary of 9/11, we remember the past natural disasters, and we've got to employ those lessons of how we deal with this next threat to the mainland.
Up next, a moving last bite.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
INGRAHAM: Today in New York and Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon, the families of the men and women who lost their lives on 9/11 gathered again to remember. Olivia Knutsen sang the National Anthem today in New York.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(SINGING)
OLIVIA KNUTSEN: O say, does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: A beautiful and haunting rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner." God bless all those first responders and the victims of 9/11, their memories will live on forever. May their families be consoled in this loss we'll never forget.
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.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox