11-year-old says teacher shamed her for choosing Trump as her hero

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," April 9, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

INGRAHAM: I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington. We now know when we'll have answers about the FBI's abuse of the FISA Court to spy on the Trump campaign. Congressman Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows are here to react. Plus, what don't the media and the democrats tell you about child separation under Obama? Newt Gingrich is here to expose it. Also, what is the President's path to victory in 2020? His campaign manager making a rare appearance. Brad Parscale will tell us tonight.

And an 11-year-old little girl says she was shamed by her left-winged teacher when she proposed writing a pro-Trump report for school. Her parents are steaming mad and they are here exclusively to sound off. But first, persistence versus the resistance. That's the focus of tonight's “Angle.”

After spending a few precious hours watching the Attorney General testify today before the House Budget Committee, I thought one thing. Why on earth did Bill Barr volunteer for this type of abuse? Leaving the comfort of his retirement just to have to answer to some of the nastiest people on the face of the planet? Nita Lowey of New York badgered Barr on his synopsis on the Mueller report.


REP. NITA LOWEY, D-N.Y.: All we have is your four-page summary, which seems to cherry-pick from the report to draw the most favorable conclusion possible for the President and make definitive legal conclusions in less than 48 hours. I would argue it's more suspicious than impressive.


INGRAHAM: A knee-jerk liberal or just a jerk? Well, after watching this next clip, you decide.


LOWEY: Your conclusion is something we've seen before. In June 2018, you wrote a memo as a private citizen and a former Attorney General to the Department of Justice, laying out the President's case against obstruction of justice. Your audition clearly went well.


INGRAHAM: Your audition clearly went well. Wouldn't you just love to read Bill Barr's subliminal thoughts about this entire charade scrolling at the bottom of the screen off? I'd pay big money for that. Attorney General didn't need this. He already was Attorney General, don't forget, almost thirty years ago when he was a lot younger and probably had a lot more patience.

But, like so many others in this administration, I'm thinking Bob Lighthizer at USTR, Wilbur Ross at Commerce, Alex Azar at HHS, Steve Mnuchin at Treasury, Betsy DeVos at Education, they all left their very comfortable lives and moves to Washington to help solve problems and make a difference.

That's what civil service is supposed to be all about, isn't it? But, this is what they deal with instead. Like Alex Azar at a recent Senate hearing about the detention of alien kids.


ALEX AZAR, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: We are getting 300 to 350 unaccompanied alien children crossing the border and referred to HHS every single day right now. These are 10, 12, 13, 15-year-old kids. They're not coming with parents. They're coming across the border by themselves.

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY, D-OR: What is the capacity of the child prison system that you're seeking with this money?

AZAR: You keep saying prison system. If you have got an alternative approach to how to care for these children, please tell us because--

MERKLEY: Well, let me give that to you then. Let me explain it to you.


AZAR: It would be nice--



INGRAHAM: I loved it. That's what every cabinet secretary should do in these hearings. Turn the tables on these people. Congress has the power to fix the immigration laws, don't they? And if child detention or separations are so offensive, "Hey, why don't you change the laws?" Better yet, seal up the border and the endless travesty altogether. Now, of course, Congress does have legitimate important constitutional obligations to do proper oversight of the executive branch. I'm all for it.

But, what the Democrats have been doing since Trump took the oath of office isn't oversight, it's character assassination, either of the President himself that he was secretly working with the Russians or of anyone who works for him. Look at what the jackals did at Secretary Mnuchin's hearing today. Well, now, get this, we have a crisis on our southern border and all impedes 45 Mad Max scene cares about is Trump's old tax returns.


REP. JOYCE BEATTY, D-CALIF.: Secretary Mnuchin, will you comply with the law by the deadline tomorrow?

STEVEN MNUCHIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: As I've said before, we will follow the law.

BEATTY: You're not afraid that you will be fired if in fact you release two returns (ph)?

MNUCHIN: Well, I am not afraid of being fired at all. I've said we will follow the law and we are--

BEATTY: Okay. Mnuchin, I'm very pleased you're not afraid of being fired.


INGRAHAM: Now, coming up empty there, Auntie Maxine went back to her favorite category. I'll take Russian oligarchs for 500.


MNUCHIN: I don't believe I've ever met a Russian oligarch.

BEATTY: So, you never met or talk with or had any conversations with Mr. Deripaska or with Mr. Viktor Vekselberg, or anybody about sanctions. Is that correct?

MNUCHIN: That is correct. I've never met either of them.

BEATTY: No, no, not met, but had a conversation with.

MNUCHIN: I've never had any conversation with either one of them.

BEATTY: Okay, let us continue.

The gentleman from North Carolina, Ranking Member Mr. McHenry is recognized for five minutes.



INGRAHAM: By the way, that went on longer there. Okay, she's is just a complete and utter embarrassment, along with Pelosi, the co-ruling queen of the resistance. How is any of this helping their constituents? The answer is, it's not.

Now, the Republicans, remember they're also called the GOP as in the Grand Old Party. I'm thinking Democrats should be called just UP as in the Unserious Party, okay, because for more than a year the Trump team undertook the painstaking process of doing things like renegotiating NAFTA, the trade deal that had given unfair advantage to companies that move their plants to Mexico. Canada and Mexico both signed off on it.

So, why has it Nancy Pelosi called it up for a vote, because she's unserious, she's parroting bogus concerns of her buddies over there at the AFL-CIO about labor laws in Mexico.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: It's a big issue how a labor - people or workers are treated in Mexico and we - to lift up our own workers, you don't do that by suppressing workers in other countries. It's an exploitation on both on both sides.


INGRAHAM: I don't know what that was. She and Beatty should get together. All right, exploitation, I haven't heard Nancy demand the same from China lately, have you? They don't do anything with labor law problems. The truth is Pelosi wants to throw sand in Trump's gears every chance she gets. If Obama had negotiated the same deal, she'd have been all for it. But, she'd rather deny Trump a victory than do the right thing by the American people.

Same scenario by the way is that play with the ongoing invasion across our southern border. Congress could fix this in a weekend. Now, estimates are that this month alone, we could see 150,000 migrants overwhelming our border, our Border Patrol. So instead of closing loopholes, ending this crisis, Democrats just use every opportunity to grandstand for the cameras.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Homeland Security is descending into chaos. A major, massive curve (ph) is no substitute for a change in policy.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Congress must exercise its duty to provide a check on the executive branch.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You pretty much have to be a yes person. Otherwise, you do not last long.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Nielsen will be known for implementing a cool policy.


INGRAHAM: Oh my God! It's so bad that cabinet secretaries get berated about policies totally out of their area of responsibility even.


REP. MATT CARTWRIGHT, D-PENN.: Well, I'm dismayed to hear that you're willing to drive our healthcare system off the cliff with no plan for replacing it.

BILL BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, I think the premise - your premise that the Justice Department makes healthcare policy is simply wrong. We take legal positions in cases.


INGRAHAM: Okay. How Barr remained as cool as a cucumber is beyond me. Now, even as the hearing was ending, Chairman Jose Serrano - we warned you about him last year - couldn't give the condescension and self-righteousness a rest.


REP. JOSE SERRANO, D-N.Y.: I grew up politically in the ‘60s; that's where I developed a lot of my feelings about things in our great country. It's very troublesome to see a Justice Department against the law of the land. We lean on you to come through for this country and when we see you taking sides against the law of the land, or taking sides that we may not think is in the best interest of the American people, it troubles us. Nevertheless, we want to thank you for your testimony today.


INGRAHAM: Yes. We all should be thanking Bill Barr and the entire Trump team. Now, despite a constant stream of defamatory attacks and scurrilous charges from the Democrats, the Trump Administration has still managed to accomplish an enormous amount for our country, with the economy, the courts, on trade, et cetera. Mindful persistence versus mindless resistance; Americans will have a clear choice in 2020 and that's “The Angle.”

Now, there's a big headline out of the Barr hearing that I couldn't even get to in “The Angle.”


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Office of the Inspector General has a pending investigation of the FISA process in the Russian investigation and I expect that that will be complete in, probably in May or June, I am told.


INGRAHAM: My next guest certainly didn't miss that and joining me now, Congressmen Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows. Congressman Jordan, do you expect this report to bring some resolution?

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OH: I hope so. The Inspector General's reports have always been good and it's - interestingly enough, Mark and I met with Mr. Horowitz today and he said exactly what the Attorney General said. He said- -


JORDAN: --that in May or June, he expects his report. Remember, the last one last year, he's the one who told us about Andy McCabe who lied three times under oath, lied to the Inspector General himself, lied to James Comey. So, we expect the Inspector General to do the good work that he has always done and like the Attorney General said, and you're right, the Attorney General has handled himself so professionally, so solid, so steady. I think what the American people want in an Attorney General; I've been very impressed with him.

INGRAHAM: He said another - made another point about the FISA abuse investigation. You guys did your own?


INGRAHAM: In calling for another one, let's watch what Barr said.


BARR: I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016.


INGRAHAM: Tonight, we learn he has a team, he has put together some team of people - we don't know who's on the team, but what are you expecting?

MEADOWS: Yes, I don't know who's on the team, but I can tell you if they're near the quality of this AG, we can expect great things. I think Jim and I have walked away very, very impressed with two things, one is he wants to get to the truth and make sure the American people have had the truth before them, wherever it leads, and the second is, is that he is extremely diligent about making sure that no stone goes unturned. I mean he's looking at every aspect.

And so, this particular comment was refreshing to Jim and I because it goes beyond - it appears it goes beyond what the IG is looking into.

JORDAN: And notice the time frame. He said the summer of 2016.


JORDAN: We're going to start of this.



JORDAN: That's what was so important about this. This is when Christopher Steele is starting to give the installments on the dossier and remember, they take this dossier to the secret court and they don't tell the court who paid for it. They don't tell the court that Christopher Steele is biased against the President, extremely biased against the President, and they don't tell the court that later they had terminated Steele from actually working--

INGRAHAM: They lied about Carter Page. I'm going to say this tonight. They lied - I've had Carter page on this show. He's a quirky kind of guy. But, I went through the - the oligarchs, all the people I ever met. Like I saw someone at a conference, said hi in the hallway. I don't even - but the guy that this is a linchpin of some big, you know, election manipulations, is - was ridiculous. He was used as a lever to get -


MEADOWS: You're exactly right.

INGRAHAM: I'm sorry. I don't know--

MEADOWS: No, no, you're exactly right. I think one of the interesting things is, is four different phases on -


MEADOWS: --and no indictment. I mean, you know, come on, it's--

INGRAHAM: Hey guys, what I talked about on “The Angle,” I'm very serious about this. I happen to know Bill Barr; I've known him for decades.


INGRAHAM: Okay. The fact that a man like that, who was Attorney General, he was a CEO of a top telecom company in the world, internationally-acclaimed- -


INGRAHAM: --incredible person, had to put up with that and still gets put - has to put up with it.


INGRAHAM: --not oversight but abuse, this is abuse. This is what Nadler and Schumer are saying about him. Let's watch.


REP. JERRY NADLER, D-N.Y.: He is a biased person. He is someone who is an agent of the administration, is an appointee - a political appointee of the President whose interest he may very well be protecting here.

REP. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-N.Y.: I don't think Barr has conducted himself in a manner that earns people's trust. Color me dubious that he's going to be fair unless he proves otherwise.


MEADOWS: Yes, Laura, one of the interesting things when we look at that, Jerry Nadler says this for television, but in private he's exactly the opposite. You know, there's two Jerry Nadlers out there.


MEADOWS: And there's the one that wants all about transparency when he comes before the American people but in the privacy of rooms, where Jim and I've been, oh, he wants to make sure that everything is protected and orchestrated just the way he wants. You know, it's time that we peel it back and let the America people know.

INGRAHAM: But what do they expect that - that Bill Barr or the AG was going to be chosen by Nadler?


INGRAHAM: It's like, well, this is the Trump's chosen guy. Duh, and remember when Holder said he was Obama's wingman?


INGRAHAM: --when he was Attorney General. They didn't have a problem with that.

JORDAN: Yes, Bill Barr is a good man, doing a good job. These guys can't help themselves. They're so focused on the President, they can't help the country. Think about last week, Nadler does his subpoena for the Mueller report, even though Bill Barr said he's going to give it to us in a matter of days. Cummings does two letters to the bank and to the accountant of the President--

INGRAHAM: Unbelievable.

JORDAN: --seeking his private business records. And Richard Neal, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee says, "I want his tax return," for purely political reasons. All in one week; these guys are completely focused on that, and not doing what's best for the country.

INGRAHAM: We got a crisis on the southern border; we're going to get into this later.

JORDAN: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: Crisis on the southern border. 150,000 people they estimate could be coming in just this month.


INGRAHAM: And they want the tax returns. Maxine is making a big deal about it.

MEADOWS: Oh, I mean these are twenty-twenty subpoenas. They have nothing--

INGRAHAM: That says nothing.

MEADOWS: .with transparency.

INGRAHAM: What about Mike Cohen? You have a big press conference tomorrow. Any sneak peek? What can we get from you?

MEADOWS: You know, we've got a plan that we're going to really make sure that we hold Cohen accountable.

INGRAHAM: A prison ministry, what are you all doing?

MEADOWS: And put everybody on record.

JORDAN: He lied seven times to Congress. Two are just undisputable - indisputable, I should say. So, we're going to talk about that tomorrow and we are going to be joined by the minority leader Kevin McCarthy.


INGRAHAM: Fantastic.

MEADOWS: Yes, so it will be good.

INGRAHAM: Thank you.

MEADOWS: Tune in at 11.

JORDAN: You bet.

INGRAHAM: Thank you for coming in tonight. We really appreciate it. They did 40 interviews. You did 40 interviews, by the way, didn't you, over the course of your own investigation?



INGRAHAM: Well, I'm glad you met with the attorney--


INGRAHAM: Inspector General. That is a good little tidbit tonight. All right, remember those reports last week that the Muller team was not happy with Bill Barr's summary letter to Congress, well, it turns out they had a chance to review it, the Muller team, but they declined.


BARR: Mr. Mueller's team did not play a role in drafting that document, although we offered him the opportunity to review it before we sent it out and he declined that.


INGRAHAM: Boom, for years now Sol Wisenberg, former Whitewater Deputy, Independent Counsel, and now Fox News contributor. Sol, why would Mueller not want to read Barr's synopsis before it was released?

SOL WISENBERG, CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think it injects him into, probably in his mind, into a political function that really is, I mean (ph) the Attorney General is Chief Law Enforcement Officer but he also plays a political role. That's Bill Barr's function. Once Muller said, "I'm not going to make a decision about whether or not this is criminal obstruction or not," I don't think it's his function to review that. By the way, if he did review it, he would become political.

If he reviewed it and didn't have a problem with it, the democrats would attack him and the Republicans would use him as a cajole (ph) against the Democrats. So, I have no problem with Mueller declining to review it. I do have a problem if any of his people leaked their unhappiness with Attorney General Barr to the press.

But remember, Barr made it very clear in his letter. He said, "Mueller isn't making the call." But Mueller took all the obstructive acts, the allegedly obstructive acts and he set out both sides of the question, both sides of the issue, the side that would this might be obstruction and the side that would argue against it.


WISENBERG: So, we're going to see all that. Barr did not suppress anything. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with that letter that he wrote.


WISENBERG: It was just an interim report, that's all.

INGRAHAM: They badgered him. I did this on “The Angle.” They badgered him on this summary. And he said - he basically said, he went to great lengths not the really summarize but to use as much of the language from Mueller himself as he could without revealing redacted material or potentially redacted material. He said, "No material was even flagged for redaction," and thus he was kind of in a bit of a bind, but he decided to release the four pages in the interest of public disclosure, because he knew the public wanted something. But he basically says, "Let's wait until the whole thing comes out and then we can have further discussion."

I know, Sol, you were keeping your eye on a D.C. Circuit Court opinion about grand jury materials. We don't have to get too wonky here, but it's very interesting and I want you to explain it to us.

WISENBERG: It came out just a few days ago. It's Barr vs. McKeever; it's a historian that wanted grand jury records released from 1957 and the District Court said, "You know, I have the inherent authority. I don't need Rule 6(e). District courts have the inherent authority to release grand jury materials." The D.C. Circuit overruled him a couple of days ago and said, "No, you don't. If it's not a judicial proceeding under 6(e) - in connection with a judicial proceeding, you cannot release - order the release of grand jury materials." And that could have - what that could essentially mean is that even if Barr wanted to, he doesn't, but even if Barr wanted to go to the court and get a 6(e) exception, he probably couldn't get one in D.C.

INGRAHAM: They pressed him on that. They actually - we didn't play this sound bite THE ANGLE, Sol. But, they actually pressed him on that today, I can't remember which congressman, but pressed him on the 6(e) and they were saying, why don't you - why didn't you go to the court and ask for certain information, or will you go to the court?

And he says, "I don't have any plans to." And he said, "Why don't you go to the court?" And they said, well, and they kind of put it off. He said, "Well, if you have an issue, I'll review it with you and if you make some good case then I guess I could."

So, they actually raised that, but they didn't get into the D.C. Circuit decision. Fascinating. Sol, thank you so much.

WISENBERG: Likewise.

INGRAHAM: And ahead, exposing how the democrats in the media continue to cover up the Obama Administration's role in child separation at the border. Fact from fiction. Newt Gingrich is here, live on that.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Obama separated the children. Those cages that were shown, I think they were very inappropriate. They were built by President Obama's Administration, not by Trump. Take a look. The press knows it; you know it; we all know it.

INGRAHAM: Well, within moments of that, the child separation under Obama, the media rushed to 44's defense.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The President tried to falsely blame Barrack Obama for the policy which is widely regarded as highly inhumane, a moment that showed some separation between Mr. Trump and the truth.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It is a direct lie when the President blames the Obama Administration on separation.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are going to need a backup generator for the fact- check machine.


INGRAHAM: Backup generator - well, come on, this is interesting. So, it is in June of last year, even McClatchy Newspapers had to admit this in a headline, "Yes, Obama separated families at the border too." And then today, in one of the more remarkable admissions that I have ever seen, Sam Vinograd who is a CNN national security analyst and Obama alum said this.


SAM VINOGRAD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: President Obama separated children from their families wolfs - from adult wolfs, it was for their protection.


VINOGRAD: It was if there was a risk of trafficking or other kind of harm that might have been incurred.


INGRAHAM: That's what the Trump folks are doing now. If the child's welfare is in jeopardy, they have an obligation to keep the child safe. Ever heard of it? Well, when Obama does it, it's good; when Trump does it, it's cruel. Joining me now, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Fox News Contributor, host of the fabulous new podcast Newt's World. Mr. Speaker, did the media all of a sudden get Obama Administration amnesia here?

NEWT GINGRICH, CONTRIBUTOR: No, not all of a sudden. The media has been operating for four to three years on the premise that if Donald Trump does something, it's evil and if the same thing is done by a Democrat, it must have really been good. This is (ph) who they are.

INGRAHAM: They're so obsessed with hating Trump that they've lost all - it's like someone obsessed -


INGRAHAM: ...in a relationship. Like you - you can't text someone 15 times every five minutes, that's bad. But you lose all sense of reality, well, that's like what they're so obsessed with hating on Trump that they can't remember what happened three years ago.

GINGRICH: Well, but I think you have to start with that notion, none of these people represent the news media. You could say that they represent fake media; you could represent - that they represent anti-Trump propaganda, but they don't have any interest in the truth. They want to know, what can they do today to hit Donald Trump and that's their whole lot method and it's a groupthink that it is pretty astonishing. And we have very seldom in our country's history seen the kind of groupthink that we now have.

In fact, I just did a newsletter in which I compared it to the Salem Witchcraft trials and to Savonarola in Florence in the 15th Century, and - this is how it was (ph) the flagellants in the middle ages. You suddenly have this wild pattern sweep and people begin doing crazy things because they are all doing it and therefore they have to do it.

INGRAHAM: Speaking of burning people at the stick, this is what they are doing now to people as they leave the administration. I want to show you what it was tweeted today about Kirstjen Nielsen. Now, this was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeting - retweeting the senior writer for Rolling Stone Jamil Smith, "Kirstjen Nielsen should be a pariah for life. No cable deals, no cushy college gigs."

On what should happen to Trump's foot soldiers who think they can escape with their reputations intact simply because they were following orders and the - you know, the favorite spokesman for the Democrats today, self- appointed AOC says, in stealing thousands of children deporting their parents, refusing to provide info on reunification, Nielsen oversaw one of the largest scale - I don't know if that's grammatical, but largest scale human rights violations in recent history, awarding her a lucrative deal, prestigious post, is to legitimize and celebrate that abuse.

So, they want to make it toxic nuke (ph)--


INGRAHAM: --for anyone to be connected with, work for or support any policies that Trump has ever been associated with.

GINGRICH: You get the level of hatred from these folks that Lincoln got from the slave owners. I mean you have a level of just deep vitriolic hatred and they think that anything they can do is okay because they're pure, anything they do to us is okay because we're bad.

INGRAHAM: Ilhan Omar said, "Stephen Miller at the White House us a white nationalist. He's a Jewish American." And she gets away with that; it's on cover Newsweek.

GINGRICH: Yes, well, this is the person who today said some people did some bad things at 9/11. And now, I mean, you can't describe who did it or what they did, it just tells you how literally these people are being brainwashed into a left-wing theological position that is a frenzy.

INGRAHAM: The cabinet for this administration, a lot of people aren't familiar with the names and the personalities, individuals. But, I said earlier in “The Angle” that here, these people are really - these people have had really successful lives, very comfortable lives.

They come into this town, they're defamed, they're maligned, they're called traitors, treasonous, white nationalists, racists, xenophobes and I'm thinking they still - they still show up to work every day and they still fight for this country. You know, might not agree with everything they do , but that's OK. But this is what it is. It's not Congressional oversight, Newt, is it? Is that --

GINGRICH: No, no, no. This is closer to an inquisition. But I love the moment today with Water, Congresswoman Waters, going after Secretary Mnuchin, and Mnuchin explaining he wasn't afraid of being fired. And I don't think Congresswoman Waters has any idea how wealthy Mnuchin is.


INGRAHAM: That'd be the best thing that ever happened to him. He'd probably get to go back to New York.

GINGRICH: Waters might be worried about getting fired, because she has not visible means of support. But Mnuchin will be fine. It's amazing to watch the level of ignorance that the Democrats are now displaying. They're combining two factors. They're really ignorant, and they believe in really weird ideas.

INGRAHAM: You think about just what the Obama team did when it came to the crush at the border. Remember 2013, 2014, 2015. The numbers started to spike. The Obama team said they're going to have to go home. He set his own benchmark with the DACA kids if you came, I think, after December, 2013, you'd have to go home. That was Obama's immigration priority.

But when things got crowded, they're like, oh, my God, let's just start releasing people. So they started releasing all these people, Newt, which helped lead to this crisis. But they built family detention centers in Texas and Florida, put people in Pennsylvania. They ran out of space and they just started releasing people. People don't realize Obama had this crush, too. And he just gave up, and he just decided, I'm not going to fight this. Let them all go.

GINGRICH: Yes. And of course, I think what people realize is, every time you do that, you increase the number of people who want to come here, because the word goes back home, hey, if you get there, they're going to let you in.

And of course the judges -- one of the real stories here, as an attorney you understand much better than I do, the number of judges who are at the heart of our immigration problem because of their capricious involvement in telling us what we can't do I think should be a major scandal.

INGRAHAM: It is -- I think it's like a Constitutional crisis that one district court judge can imperil the entire sovereignty of the United States of the America, which is what happened again yesterday and the day before in San Francisco. Another district court judge --

GINGRICH: And doing it on national security issues.

INGRAHAM: The Supreme Court is going to have to get involved. Newt, it's great to see you, as always.

GINGRICH: Good to see you.

INGRAHAM: And how is Trump going to win reelection in 2020? His campaign manager is here. He'll tell us, next.


INGRAHAM: Today's radicalized Democrat Party has moved further away from the voters they need to win in 2020. They still have no clue, it's unbelievable really, how to speak to the working class white voters, let alone how to get their votes.


INGRAHAM: So we told you last night about how the Democrats are leaving the white working class behind. It probably explains why the president won, of course, in 2016. And even the "New York Times" had to admit it. But now, with the left trying to woo the white working class all again, how is Trump going to protect this significant voting bloc? Joining me now exclusively is Brad Parscale, campaign manager for Trump 2020. I can't believe, Brad, we're at 2020, thinking that this is where we are.


INGRAHAM: Now, what is the campaign going to do to lock down that base voter? Some Trump voters turned against Republicans in 2018. That's a fact. How are you going to bring them back?

PARSCALE: Well, I do think there is a little misinformation about that. There was a lot of people that said from '14 to '18 that suburban white women left. They didn't. There's different types of people come out for different types of cycles. So I think it's hard to look at a ticket without the president on the ticket and say, oh, they turned against him.

I think the president has done things. If you look at the budget, with family leave, I think if you look at what we've done in the way the president is pushing against socialized medicine, and suburban moms really want --

INGRAHAM: What do you mean socialized medicine?

PARSCALE: Pushing against that.

INGRAHAM: Oh, yes.

PARSCALE: Bureaucrats, pushing against that, meaning that, do these moms really want their kids sitting in lines waiting to say, hey, can we get, you know --

INGRAHAM: But they freak out. The women freak out because of the tweets, the tone. I can't tell you how many women that I talk to, I like the money in my pocket. I wish he wouldn't tweet so much. And I always say, look, that's part of who he is. He connects with the voters that way. That's how he does it.

But for women, it's like they love the charming Trump. They love Trump with an arm around someone, a little self-deprecating, which we see. And I've said this on the show many times, so if he's watching he knows what I'm saying. But women like that kind of charm. Obama had it, Clinton has it, and Trump does have it. How does he deploy it more effectively?

PARSCALE: Maybe that's something we need to show more. One thing I always say when I'm interviewed is how great he is in person and how funny. And you probably know this, too. I've sat on Air Force One while he's throwing Starbursts at me. He's actually a fun guy. And he really likes people.

INGRAHAM: But he sees it as a sign of weakness to come out on stage and try to be too jokey. He's like, this is serious business. I'm the president, and I'm going to kick blank and take names, which people also like. But that is something that I think for this election they're not going to be caught off guard. The left is like, we're not going to be caught off guard. We were in 2016. No more.

PARSCALE: Yes. Look, I think we have a lot of candidate, we don't know what's going to be on the other side yet and what position the president will take. I think this president is one of the best marketers in American history. I think he understands the people, he understands how to communicate to people. And he's going to move in a way based off of the other candidates. Either way, though, I think he's going to stay strong. He's fighting for this country. He did this for no other but to save the country, and I don't think he's going to move away from that, and I hope he doesn't because it's still how he won the election, and it's going to be how he continues to win.

INGRAHAM: It's been floated that Trump could be sabotaging his own 2020. One of my colleagues on FOX, Tucker Carlson, was like, maybe he doesn't really want to run in 2020. And Tucker is not the only person who has said that. Others have said that. Is there anything to that?

PARSCALE: We're building one of the largest political campaign operations in history. I think he's put so much emphasis into what we're building in 2020. I go in weekly and give these reports. He would be wasting a considerable amount of time, which he does not like to do.

INGRAHAM: So, we can put that to rest?

PARSCALE: Yes. And by the way, I hope so, for my own job's sake.

INGRAHAM: Yes, what are you going to be doing, Parscale? You're going to go work on Madison Avenue.

Last month "Politico" reported that some advisors are telling the president to hold off on 2020 rallies. Whose bright idea is that? Is that accurate?


INGRAHAM: Because it seems like he get energized the rallies.

PARSCALE: No, I don't think that's accurate. What we talked about doing is mixing official events with campaign rallies. He needs to get on the road, also, and talk about all of his achievements, all the promises that have been kept, and get out there and do those things. But rallies aren't going away. We already have a couple on the line for this month. We're going to continue to be out there. The president is going to get out there and engage with people. By the way, there are huge data mining operations. They're important for multiple reasons.

INGRAHAM: Yes, so you're getting emails at these rallies?

PARSCALE: No, cellphone numbers.

INGRAHAM: Oh, cellphone numbers.

PARSCALE: At the last rally we go over 100,000 cellphone numbers.

INGRAHAM: Now, people say Brad is so young. He's like this tech guy. They said in 2016, who is this guy, Brad? And then he ends up winning. And now we understand other campaigns are trying to find their own Brad. They're bradding it.

PARSCALE: It's "Parscalization" they called it. It was the term, which I became a verb.

INGRAHAM: "Parscaling up."

PARSCALE: Yes. I think it shows, they all talked about how the president didn't know how to run a campaign. Now they're all trying to copy his campaign. It goes to show I wish they would copy his policies because he knows the right policies to get the country fixed as well. It's ironic that they've chosen this. But the fact is the world has changed, marketing is being driving more and more to cellphones, technologies, and the Internet. And they're chasing it.

INGRAHAM: Are you going to pinpoint the person on the block who cares about the issue, are you going to get that specific?

PARSCALE: People in the house.

INGRAHAM: So families that disagree?

PARSCALE: Yes, families disagree. We target them differently. Most of us have our own individual track. It's not by an address. We create our own maps and our own steps across the Internet, and we track that.

INGRAHAM: And one candidate you're focused on?

PARSCALE: Look, I just said, today I said I had to go to the office to buy a bigger binder because we're trying to track all these candidates. It's going to get so thick. I'm flipping through the pages. I think right now I don't see any clear person that is stepping up to the president.

INGRAHAM: Minnesota, could he flip it next time?

PARSCALE: I think New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Nevada I think are all good places for us to be right now.

INGRAHAM: Are you going to flip one, that's your goal, or two?

PARSCALE: Or three or four. That's my goal. It'll be a good night if I get more than two of those.

INGRAHAM: I know you're at Andrews Air Force base.

PARSCALE: Early tomorrow morning, yes.

INGRAHAM: Thanks for joining us.

PARSCALE: Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

INGRAHAM: And an 11-year-old student says she was shamed by her teacher for choosing Trump as the subject of her school report. Her parents are here to sound off. You don't want to miss it.


INGRAHAM: I learned about this over the weekend, and I was just infuriated. An 11-year-old girl, Bella Moscato, was told she had to write a report on her hero. She quickly chose President Trump, president of the United States, someone she has admired since she was in third grade. But her teacher says no, shamed her in front of other students, and warned Bella to choose a different hero. The school district superintendent telling "The Ingraham Angle" "the District does not endorse or condone any limitation or prohibition upon a student's choice of the president as the subject of his or her "Hero" report. We certainly regret that any student or parent may have been made to feel otherwise."

Bella's parents Valerie and Arthur Moscato join me now. Valerie, it's great to have you guys on. What exactly did the teacher say now when Bella said Trump was her hero?

VALERIE MOSCATO, DAUGHTER SAYS TRUMP IS HER HERO: When she found out that Trump was her hero, she said, you're not allowed to pick Trump. He spreads negativity, and he says bad things about women. And I was like floored when I heard that.

INGRAHAM: Well, for a little girl to have the poise to not just buckle under the pressure and actually come home and, Arthur, say, mom, dad, this doesn't seem right, that's what actually gives me a lot of hope, is that your little girl, Arthur, said, you know something, no, I'm not giving in. That's pretty unusual, I have to say.

ARTHUR MOSCATO, DAUGHTER SAYS TRUMP IS HER HERO: Well, I'm going to say this to you. My daughter called my wife during the school day to let my wife know that. And the upsetting thing to me, which I actually found out later, was that not only was my daughter told that she couldn't do that, but she had to go around and pick somebody else as her hero. When my daughter spoke to my wife -- yes, somebody else's hero.

VALERIE MOSCATO: Yes, go around and go choose, go look.

ARTHUR MOSCATO: Go choose somebody else's hero from the other students.

INGRAHAM: And didn't somebody in the class also pick Obama and that was OK?


VALERIE MOSCATO: Apparently, yes.

INGRAHAM: Naturally, that's a shock.

ARTHUR MOSCATO: So, my outburst at the Board of Ed meeting had a lot to do with that, because --

INGRAHAM: Are you both satisfied -- sorry to interrupt, but are you both satisfied with the school's response here? I tweeted out your reaction.

VALERIE MOSCATO: Absolutely not.

INGRAHAM: OK. So what do you want from the school? They seem a somewhat apologetic.

ARTHUR MOSCATO: I'm just going to say. The message that you just played my wife and I have never heard.


ARTHUR MOSCATO: Now, listen, we love our community. And we have a lot of support within there. My daughter is one of four kids. We have three boys also. The school, we've always had very good experiences. And this one is a little sour.

INGRAHAM: But Valerie, how important do you think it is for parents to speak out when this kind of stuff happens? Because it happens all the time. How important?

VALERIE MOSCATO: I think it's extremely important. And I am very grateful and happy that this story has gotten as big as it has, because this story needs to be told. And I'm very proud that my daughter knew that that was wrong and called me during the school to tell me this, because, let me tell you, Laura --

INGRAHAM: You taught her. You taught her.

VALERIE MOSCATO: Right. And if she didn't tell me this, she wasn't doing Trump. Everybody is asking, is she still able to do Trump. She's able to do Trump because of me and my husband, not because of the school, the district, or the teacher. Because we raised holy hell about it. And this is an in-school project.

INGRAHAM: We're going to try to get the teacher, Valerie, on the show and see what she says now that she maybe has had some time to reflect on it, and we'll check back with you, because we're going to keep tracking these types of stories across the country. Thank you both for joining us, and give our best to your daughter.

And up next, the inside story of how a veteran Democrat's refusal to use oppo research against AOC might have resulted in the unravelling of the Democratic Party.


INGRAHAM: Was Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's shocking primary victory over Joe Crowley the result of leaving oppo research on the table? A new book reveals how Crowley's refusal to challenge AOC over legitimate issues of campaign finance abuse might have not only cost him the seat but set the Democratic Party on an irreversible destructive radical course. Trace Gallagher has the inside story for us tonight. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Laura. The book is called "The Hill to Die On." It lays out how most political experts thought Joe Crowley's Congressional seat was, quote, safer than Fort Knox, saying Crowley was first elected in 1998 and that by 2016, he was among the Democratic Party's elder statesman, and was even thinking about challenging Nancy Pelosi for the party leadership. He eventually decided not to go against Pelosi.

But by 2018, he was much more concerned about raising money for his fellow Democrats than defending his own seat. Even when he heard that a 28-year- old Bronx bartender had gathered enough signatures to qualify for the primary, the headline in the "Queens Chronicle" said, quote, "Crowley expects an easy primary win."

But the book's authors, "Politico" reporters Anna Palmer and Jake Sherman also note that Ocasio-Cortez had no problem going after Crowley, attacking everything from his voting record to his residency. The book says it, quote, "was an open secret that Crowley lived with his family in suburban Virginia, not in Queens." And during their only debate, Ocasio-Cortez zeroed in on that point, quote, "If a person loves their community they would choose to raise their family here. They would choose to send their kids to our schools. They would choose to drink our water and breath our air."

But Crowley thought that going dirty against Ocasio-Cortez would be a sign of weakness, and the book says he had plenty of fodder he could have used against her, including that her campaign used tactics to evade campaign finance laws. A conservative watchdog group has now filed Federal Election Commission complaints against her. Laura?

INGRAHAM: Trace, thanks so much. Maybe he will primary her. Tonight's the Last Bite, next.


INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite. It may be all the rage at bars across the country, but here's proof that you might want to think before you throw an ax for fun.




INGRAHAM: Nice hair flip. Can we do the -- I love how she does the hair. There it is. Watch the hair flip. Boom. All right. There's a woman says she wasn't drinking and she didn't realize how bad it was until she saw the video.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was it hard for you to watch?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, now looking back at it. I do realize it was really close.


INGRAHAM: All right. Well, the kids love that one.

All right. Don't get forget, podcast. New one today. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it all from here.

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 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.