This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," June 1, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening from Washington, I am Laura Ingraham and this is the Ingraham Angle. What a way to wrap up the week, it's been wild and we are going to tell you tonight why the FBI's version of events in the Russia probe doesn't seem to add up.
Plus my exclusive prime time interview with Dinesh D'Souza, the inside story about what it's like to be politically targeted by Obama's prosecutors. Then former attorney General Michael Mukasey's pardon of D'Souza exposes the government's out of control of prosecutors. Plus we are going to tell you who Samantha Bee really blames for her obscene insults of Ivanka Trump. Raymond Arroyo reveals her private outrageous comments in Friday Follies.
Also Ann Coulter is here with details of how MSNBC's Joy Reid came back to her and someone else you might know. And Larry Kudlow, he's here to respond to critics on Trump's bold trade moves. But first let's try to unlock a mystery.
Why doesn't the Russia investigation timeline seem to add up? Investigative reporter John Solomon's latest piece in the Hill points out some key discrepancies. First let's look at just a few facts and dates. One, the FBIs most senior counter intelligence agents visited London in the first week of May 2016. Days later on, May 10th, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer met in London in a bar with Trump advisor George Papadopoulos who reportedly revealed that Russia had some dirt on Hillary Clinton. And then Trump campaign advisor Carter Page was contacted by an associate of an apparent informant in June. But not until July 31st did the FBI launch its counter Intel investigation.
Well John Solomon discovered that the FBI violated its own rules by using informants before the investigation was ever launched. So why were FBI informants contacting Trump figures about Russia long before the Russia probe was opened? Something else that doesn't add up, whether a key player was an FBI informant or somewhere closer to a Russian spy. Reporter Lee Smith wrote an important piece on that in real clear investigations entitled, "The Maltese Phantom of Russiagate". Lee is here to discuss how Russiagate all began.
We are also joined by retired FBI Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin
Brock who supervised the rewriting of bureau rules governing sources, that was a decade ago under then Director Bob Mueller, it's great to see both of you. Alright Kevin, I got to start with you here because to listen to all these key figures, Intel chiefs over the last week or so, this was all done by the book. These informants, this is the normal course of business. I want to play for you something that both Clapper and Brennan said this week. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES CLAPPER, FORMER US DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The informant is the most benign form of intelligence collection that you can do--
JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENC AGENCY: To label someone a spy when they are a confidential human source I think is doing a disservice to these individuals but also to the FBI. Having a confidential human source who was able then to talk to individuals who may be consorting or collaborating or colluding with Russians and others. This is what the FBI absolutely needs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN BROCK, RETIRED FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR: Well it's true that using a confidential source can be a routine technique but is not benign. And the attorney general's guidelines that govern--
INGRAHAM: That you wrote, that you helped to rewrite.
BROCK: Well I helped to. We re-engineered all of that a decade ago and we and to go to the DOJ and coordinate to make sure that our re-engineering of our source program was going to comport with the attorney general guidelines. They're that important. And an FBI agent can't go out and just open the source and gather information willy-nilly. They've got to abide by the guidelines. And the guidelines are very specific to particularly in counter intelligence investigations and even more particularly when you are directing your source towards an American citizen.
INGRAHAM: So what has to be in place?
BROCK: Well here's where the importance of John Solomon's article comes into play. If the FBI opened a source or tasked a source to gather information particularly from a US person before opening a formal investigation, then that would be in violation of the guidelines. I'm not saying that that's what happened here but we don't know all the facts. But that is a clear bright line in the Attorney General guidelines.
INGRAHAM: If you had to guess so, I mean you are being very judicious and very diplomatic but you are not in the diplomatic court so what's in your gut here. You've seen a lot in your career and in your history. We are missing a lot of documents. There's a lot of key months that seem to be missing in the document trail here.
BROCK: Right. So to get to the source document is going to be important for Congress. These are the questions they should be asking. They should be asking the FBI not so much for the identity of the source, but when did you open the source and how did you task the source, and what was the timing of your investigation to make sure you were in the clear.
INGRAHAM: Lee, even on this, you've been writing about this, really important stuff.
LEE SMITH, AMERICAN JOURNALIST: Thank you, thank so very much.
INGRAHAM: we are going to get into this Misfud character with another oddity in all of this but what about the timing of this investigation like process can get really boring, what does it matter but it matters here why?
SMITH: Well I think because the FBI supposedly officially opened up the investigation July 31st and we are seeing a lot of other things, a lot of dates seems to predate July 31st. and one of the things that I have been looking at in fact, it's not just the investigation, but also looking there was a press campaign as well. And the press campaign preceded July 31st by at least a month.
INGRAHAM: Explain what you mean, a press campaign?
SMITH: I mean if we are looking at, this is the way the Obama administration typically works, they did it with the oronzio (ph). There was always an intelligence component and there was always a press campaign as well. That's how the Obama administration worked. These two things happened, they were political operations. I think that what happened here, I think that we're making a little bit of a mistake by looking simply at the spying part of this so when Clapper and Brennin get on TV and they say spying is the highest form of patriotism I think that we are paying a little too much attention to the spying. There is a larger political operation to dirty the Trump campaign.
INGRAHAM: The text messages that we've seen thus far and more seem to be trickling out every now and then, indicate there is a lot of interest in the White House as to how this was proceeding. Now defining what this was still remains to be seen. But you have the struck page texts, they want to be kept apprised of what's going on. What is the likelihood that Susan Rice or Obama or Ben Roser, any of these people had no idea that this stuff was going on. What are the chances of that in your mind?
SMITH: I think it's highly unlikely as I said my experience looking at the Obama administration is mostly through the oronzio (ph) so when Russia-gate popped up I said, I know what this looks like and it goes up very high and a lot of significant people are looking at this. This is not simply in the FBI or the DOJ.
INGRAHAM: So this could have been cross intelligence agencies, DIA, CIA, FBI military, who knows at this point?
SMITH: I don't think we know exactly who yet but there seems to be a lot of prominent figures who come in who were involved. One of the things that I always come back to, which I have written about is when John Brennan is effectively screaming at James Comey through Harry Reid telling him to get on this, telling him to start looking at Trump Russian connections. I think that point, stiff of fact that John Brennan may have a hand in this.
INGRAHAM: Well Kevin we also find out that the initial reporting which at least said about George Papadopoulos, and that first contact that he had with Alexander Downer, the Australian diplomat where he, it was initially reported that had lost thousands of emails that Russia has from the Clinton campaign. It turns out that after he gave an interview just recently to an Australian media outlet he said no, no he didn't say that, he said that they have dirt. So initially when he said gosh a Trump campaign official said that he knew before this was released, before these emails even came to the public domain, he knew, that sounds really bad. That's not what he said, he said they have some dirt. Who knows what he was talking about there if that's the case?
BROCK: He didn't even say dirt he said some damaging information to the Clintons. This is all very interesting and you asked earlier about what my gut feeling is. What doesn't sit well in the gut of every retired FBI executive and many, many agents is that this investigation was initiated and run as well as the Clinton email investigation out of headquarters, a headquarters management personnel.
INGRAHAM: What does that mean to people watching right now? Out of headquarters versus a field office.
BROCK: I can't find words sufficient enough to explain what an anomaly that it. In my professional experience I don't remember that ever occurring. The FBI by design puts it investigations out in field offices away from the heat of Washington politics for a good reason. So to have the case run out of headquarters by a few, a cadre who were present in both investigations is incredibly unusual and so it starts to raise questions about did they conduct the investigation in accordance with attorney general guidelines which would have been done routinely in the field.
INGRAHAM: Guys, Lee just final thoughts real quickly.
SMITH: Sure. I think that what we are seeing with a whole lot of reporting. John Solomon's excellent piece. Kimberley Strassel's excellent piece, there are a lot more questions that remain to be answered.
INGRAHAM: And that means documents have to be turned over and perhaps things need to be declassified in a more transparent and fast fashion than they are. Guys thanks so much. And what is it like to be targeted by the way for your political beliefs by the full force of the federal government? Well we ae going to ask the man just pardoned by the President Trump, Conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D'Souza.
Dinesh D'Souza thanks for being with us tonight. Boy this pardon has set off a firestorm of freak outs among people on the left and today we had an especially big freak out from a former Obama US Attorney Barbara McQuade who was on MSNBC this morning. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARBARA MCQUADE, FORMER US ATTORNEY: It concerns me that not only is he violating the norms of not going through that normal process but is he painting a narrative that can be convenient for him that sensitizes the public. But the government is sometimes, or maybe even very often, very unfair to people which I think has long term damaging consequences to the criminal justice system.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DINESH D'SOUZA, AUTHOR AND FILMMAKER: The left has freaked out more over my pardon than maybe any other. I was watching something on CNN I think it was earlier today or yesterday, these things become a blur. And they were how dangerous it is that I got this pardon.
And I was thinking about that and it occurred to me that I think I know what they're getting at. It's dangerous to them. It's dangerous to their ideology and it's dangerous in a way that other pardons. I mean think of the Clinton pardon of March Rich, you've got a guy here who's an international arms trader and possibly a tax fraud involved all kinds of rackets. But he's not dangerous to the ideology of CNN, in fact he helps to support progress of causes, he gives money to the Clinton Foundation. I on the other hand am a non-white immigrant. I came to America with $500 in my pocket and I have been exposing the whole progressive ideology so I am dangerous in that way, they are right about that.
INGRAHAM: John Avlon on CNN today, again the media, the Democrats, the never Trumpers, they're all questioning why this occurred. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: What are we supposed to think about this?
JOHN AVLON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think the power of the Presidency means a get out of jail free card. But this is also somebody who has been a self-styled Conservative electoral who's really just been a Twitter troll for a long period of time right now, appealing to all the worst instincts and conspiracy theories.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
D'SOUZA: Well I've never alleged a conspiracy by anyone. What I have done is exposed the sordid racist history of the Democratic Party. A history that actually continues to the present. I've also exposed a lot about Obama. Look Obama would not have indicted me if I didn't make a film that deeply upset him. I didn't just go against his ideology, I kind of got into his head. And sometimes when I speak on campus people go, "Well gee Dinesh, what makes you think that Obama even saw your dumb movie or even cares about anything you have to say?"
Well the reason I think that is because he was attacking me on his personal website barackobama.com, so there you go. This is a narcissistic President who believed in the vendetta and recruited goons like Eric Holder and Preet Bhahara to then carry his water for him and go after me. And every little indication of my case shows that.
INGRAHAM: CNN and others that subscribe to their liberal ideologies Dinesh, their point is that people like you and people like me are just, we are all thrite. So you notice how that's changed now? You're not a conservative and you are not winning in the arena of ideas. You're outright, or you're xenophobic or I love it when they call you racist that's always fun. So it's a way to avoid an argument, a debate. We saw this going back to college. Dinesh and I went to college together at Dartmouth College way back before they called it political correctness, they were trying to avoid the fundamental debate about the greatness of western civilization, how off track they have been on so many issues. The decline of true and intellectual diversity, they didn't want that to be. They wanted to shut down the debate which is line with wanting to shut frankly you down, or even this show.
D'SOUZA: I mean here is a tiny detail about my case that's so revealing, this Clinton appointee judge who adjudicated my case, the same guy who said, "Oh no there's no political targeting here". As part of my sentence, he sentences me to mandatory psychiatric counselling. Now let's think about this for a minute/ what about my case? Here I've given too much money of my own money to a candidate, a college friend of mine running for office. I'm not Jeffry Dahmer I didn't put bodies in the refrigerator. Why do I need psychiatric counselling? If not that it's the progressive view that I'm not just wrong but I'm somehow crazy. That people who disagree with them require not persuasion but therapy. And so this is a kind of re-education project that was attempted on me and finally the judge just became super frustrated and he threw up his hands and basically said the re-education has failed, this man cannot be psychologically rehabilitated which I took as a great compliment.
INGRAHAM: They tried Dinesh. They should have put you up on the rack, maybe they should have water boarded you. That would have actually been enhanced interrogation that they would have supported on the left. Dinesh I also want to get your thoughts on some comments made tonight by Steve Bannon featured tonight on CNN. He seems to be re-entering the public arena, he's been over there in Italy, maybe working on that populous moving over there. But he said this regarding the Mueller investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: I was the guy who said don't fire Comey, this things petering out. I've always said he is a combat marine, great individual, that ought to play out as it's going to play out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
D'SOUZA: In fairness Laura I just don't know what to make of it. I mean I will say that actually Mueller was the head of the FBI when m case first surfaced. And the Congressional oversight Committee had been trying for a while to get my FBI file and couldn't and then finally they got it redacted. But in it, it identifies me as a prominent critic of Obama and I think that's very interesting because why is that in my file? If this was a case of lady justice being blind then and we are clearly investigating a campaign violation, then why highlight politics. I think it's because the FBI, the Mueller FBI was signalling to the justice department, the Holder justice department, "Here's a guy who is one of your political enemies. Here's a guy you may want to go after". So this is the stuff that the left is dong behind closed doors. This is what makes people like me dangerous to them. This is why I'm not an ordinary conservative but someone who ultimately they would like to see locked up.
INGRAHAM: Well they've seen and they're tried to silence Conservatives before. Again going all the way back to college campuses, they shut down speakers. You've had problems on college campuses, obviously Ann Coulter, we are going to talk to her in a short while. She's had problems even being able to speak, physically not being allowed to speak and participate and now that's being, in the Obama era Dinesh and that was actually used as a tactic. Intimidation, following a fox news reporter. Cheryl Atkinson thinks her computer was broken into. These are intimidation tactics that go beyond the stuff that we'd normally think of. So they're worried about Russia but they're adopting the the tactics of the old Soviet Union, it's stunning.
D'SOUZA: There a deep level of lying and deception that goes on here. You know that both Obama and Hillary were disciples of Saul Alinsky.
INGRAHAM: Dinesh what do you think in the end happens to this Democrat Party as its moving farther and farther leftward?
D'SOUZA: To me the party is in many respects is rotten to the core. And what's really holding it up is not the Democratic Party itself, by its own weight it would collapse. But it's sustained by a kind of outside alliance involving people in academia, the left in the media, and the left in the entertainment industry. The left controls these three megaphones of our culture and they can put out a huge amount of big lies and disinformation as long as that continues. So they're what's holding up the Democratic Party right now. They're the cover up artists for this party.
INGRAHAM: Dinesh D'Souza thanks so much for giving us your first prime time interview after the pardon from President Trump. Thanks Dinesh.
D'SSOUZA: Thank you.
INGRAHAM: And former Attorney General Mike Mukasey is here next to tell us how politics drove prosecutors in the Obama administration. Now this critical to understanding what the swamp is trying to do to Trump with that Russia probe, so stay right there.
You just heard Dinesh D'Souza tell us about the horrors of the political prosecutions of the Obama administration which I asked former AG Mike Mukasey about, a short while ago. Judge Mukasey thanks so much for joining us tonight. We just heard my interview with Dinesh D'Souza about the horrors of these political prosecutions, what he believes by the Obama administration and his experience certainly has some implication I think for the Russian investigation as we might look at this unholy alliance of the FBI Director Jim Comey and DOJ prosecutor. What do you think about, for lack of a better term this runaway prosecution that a lot of us are concerned about?
MIKE MUKASEY, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think that in a normal course that sort of case would have been prosecuted with the outcome being fine. It's not one of Preet Bhahara's brighter chapters that he participated in prosecuting this in the way that he did. He's had a couple of other dings and dents but that a pretty substantial one.
INGRAHAM: Judge Mikasey, Adam Schiff said that the pardon of Dinesh D'Souza is basically a transparent effort by the President to signal to others that, "Look if you do right by me, I'll do right by you"
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIFORNIA, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE: It's further evidence of a corrupt intent on the president's part, further evidence that he may have violated the law by obstructing justice in the firing of Comey. But in other efforts as well, it looks a lot like a message to Cohen who may also be implicated in exceeding campaign limits in that's Stormy Daniel's payment. And then you have the further announcement by the president that he may pardon Martha Stewart, another TV personality who was convicted of guess what? Obstruction of justice and lying to authorities. So he's nothing about transparent--
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MUKASEY: Oh please they the same thing every time he either issues a pardon or makes a statement, that it's a signal. It's a dog whistle and so on and so forth. I think the prosecution of Dinesh D'Souza and the way that it was done was unjustified. I think the prosecution of Martha Stewart was dubious. And so far as Rob Blagojevich I thought the prosecution of him was entirely justified. Now the President simply commuted his sentence. I don't know whether he should have done that or not. He's served six years and that's a judgement call and he was certainly not pardoned.
INGRAHAM: Let's talk about what John Brennan has been up to. He is now a commentator on another network and I guess former top Intel official, US government. But he has been on a tear of President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I think Mr Trump has demonstrated paranoia and insecurity as well as a real concern about the investigation that is under way. Certainly his tweets do not seem like they are coming from a person of innocence and confidence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MUKASEY: My reaction ordinarily would be that John Brennan was director of the CIA maybe should be told to stick to his day job. The trouble is given with what we are finding out what he did in his day job including his participation in putting an informant in the Trump campaign maybe we are better off with him as him of an amateur pundit. I think that he may be projecting his own views if I may be an amateur psychiatrist for the moment, onto the President because he is going to have a lot to answer for I believe when the entire story gets solved about what the CIA was doing with the running of the investigation and what it was doing with regards to having its informant and his being put into the Trump campaign.
INGRAHAM: We talked a little about this on radio this morning judge but you made a great point when I asked you this question which is why are so smart. Who paid this informant? Was he just doing this pro-bono, this work for the Clinton campaign or the US government, I mean what was it, who paid?
MUKASEY: Understand, his history was as a CIA asset. Being put into an FBI investigation is very off. Understand these two agencies, number one don't share their toys very well and aren't supposed to. The CIA is supposed to operate in an outward looking, foreign directed fashion. They are not supposed to be doing anything in the United States. There's a statute that restricts that. The FBI conducts intelligence investigations in the United States and for him to be put into essentially an FBI investigation, I'd kind of like to know how that happened. Who coordinated it, who paid him and how that was arranged? And when it was arranged?
INGRAHAM: Barbara McQuade is a former US Attorney appointed by Barack Obama and she said the following today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCQUADE: I think today's news about Michael Cohen really shows you what he expects in an attorney general. His experience with a lawyer is someone like Michael Cohen, a Pitbull, a Roy Cohn, someone who will protect him. Someone who will very aggressive in defending his interests no matter what. Being loyal to President Trump as opposed to being loyal to the mission and if that is what is his motivation then that is a crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MUKASEY: For her to comment on what the President's expectations are in his attorney general when the attorney general who served in the Obama administration in Eric Holder referred to himself as the president's wingman strikes me as pretty rich.
INGRAHAM: Yeah I mean you were attorney general. Talk about the relationship between a President and the attorney general. People are making this out to be such a crime that President Trump wanted an attorney general whose first instinct it was not to recuse himself. Now the recusal issue is something we've talked about before but that has stuck in the president's craw. If I were the President, I would not be tweeting, "I wish I hadn't selected Jeff Sessions". I don't know what he thinks that gets him. I don't think that's particularly wise to do but nevertheless that's how he feels. He thought, "Why am I appointing an attorney general if the first thing you do is recuse yourself?"
MUKASEY: Well the circumstances kind of caught up with Jeff Sessions and with the president and the time that Jeff Sessions recused himself, it may be that he technically didn't have to because the investigation at that point was a foreign intelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. But then due in a large measure of what the president said and did it became a criminal investigation. And at that point was when the regulations required that Jeff Sessions recuse himself.
Now for the president to suggest that somehow Jeff Sessions should have the gift of prophecy and known that the situation was going to develop that way I think is ridiculous and for him to start claiming that he should have appointed somebody else inane and it doesn't, as you point out, it doesn't serve his interest. Particularly when he's got an AG in place in the person of Jeff Sessions who is pursuing his agenda and very effectively bringing MS13 cases, immigration cases, concluding a huge antitrust settlement, effectively running the justice department. So I think he ought to quit complaining about that.
INGRAHAM: Judge Michael Mukasey, former attorney general of the United States, thanks so much.
MUKASEY: Good to be with you.
INGRAHAM: Now have you ever expected that Samantha Bee's apology to Ivanka Trump may not have been so sincere. But you won't believe how phony it was until Raymond Arroyo revealed what she said last night behind closed doors when the press wasn't invited. Don't move.
INGRAHAM: It's time for Friday follies. Is that really follies?
RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: The "follies" looks a little beaten up. A little beaten up.
INGRAHAM: But that's OK, because we begin tonight with a serious subject. It show why Samantha Bee's apology for her obscene insult to Ivanka Trump seems fake. You're not going to believe what she said last night behind close door. Here's what she said, "The New York Times" bestselling author and Fox News contributor Raymond Arroyo is going to tell us. Raymond, this was a television awards ceremony. What great timing.
ARROYO: This was from the Television Academy that grants the Emmys. They gave Samantha a special award, Samantha Bee, for her social activism, lifting society. Now remember, this is this woman who told Ivanka Trump, you're a feckless "c" word, and you should wear something tight and low-cut so your father will change his immigration policies. She had to apologize for that.
But at this ceremony which the media was not allowed into, she said this. We don't have the audio, but we have a transcript. Here's what she said. "We spent the day wrestling with the repercussions of one bad word when we all should have spent the day incensed that as a nation we are wrenching children from their parents." Now, it wasn't one word. It was also the context that somehow Ivanka Trump should tart-up to get her father's attention. That was never addressed at all either in the apology or here.
INGRAHAM: She didn't like the fact that Ivanka Trump was actually holding up her infant son, like that was an affront to Samantha Bee. She's was an affront to Samantha Bee. She's trashed me for wearing my cross. Let me hold it out for her, because it actually works against vampires. Hi, Samantha.
INGRAHAM: She's trashed me for that. Actually, do we want to play the clip?
ARROYO: Play that clip.
INGRAHAM: We loaded it. That's all right. We don't want to give it the light of day. So she continues to be present, claiming she's sorry, she wants to move it onto to political conversation. Who died and made her head of Amnesty International?
ARROYO: The problem with this is it's misogynistic. She claims to be a feminist, and here she is calling a woman, reducing a woman to her genitalia with this horrible word. And it seems the network, TBS, is standing by her.
Now the president has started tweeting. Naturally, his daughter was attacked here. Here's what he said. "Why aren't they firing no-talent Samantha Bee for the horrible language used on her low-rating show? A total double standard. But that's OK. We're Winning. And we'll be doing so for a long time."
INGRAHAM: I like how winning is capitalized.
ARROYO: He wants to let you know.
INGRAHAM: Not clear why, but I'll like it. It's capitalized.
ARROYO: Brian Stelter and CNN has jumped into this and he claims the president has gone too far. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It seems, Brian, like the president is following a lot of conservative pundits who are jumping on this double standard bandwagon.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, he absolutely is. He's tapping into a very potent strain of grievance politics, something that we hear almost every day on the president's favorite FOX News talk shows. He's tapping into the idea of conservative victimhood, that conservatives are treated in a worse way than liberals. In this case Roseanne Barr treated worse than Samantha Bee.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARROYO: They make it seem as if the president is somehow to blame for foul-mouthed comedians.
INGRAHAM: Yes, it's his fault.
ARROYO: Believe me, there were foul-mouthed comedians, nasty people saying horrible things before Trump, they will exist after Trump.
The president did take her bait a little bit here. Remember, Samantha Bee's ratings are down by almost half.
INGRAHAM: Why are we responding to Samantha Bee? He's winning on economy, he's winning on trade. The economy is flying. Focus on the substance. Who cares what --
ARROYO: But can he match Obama's "The Final Year," an HBO documentary, like an extended West Wing portrayed the national security apparatus. John Kerry, Samantha Power, and Ben Rhodes as heroes. Here's a little clip of that documentary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We've got to make sure it will be harder to dismantle in the event we take a different turn.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just came outside to try to process all this. It's a lot of process. I can't put it into words. I don't know what the words are.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARROYO: Ben Rhodes can't find the word. That's after Hillary's defeat. They all thought Hillary was going to win and you see that in the documentary. The Boston Globe wrote "This team's professionalism, empathy, pragmatic idealism are enough to make you weep with all that has gone missing."
INGRAHAM: What I focused on is Samantha Power who was unmasking individuals every day somehow over at the U.N. She said we have to make it harder to dismantle, meaning the foreign policy apparatus. Iran deal gone. What else?
ARROYO: Climate change.
ARROYO: And Cuba. Those are the three benchmark things that they celebrate in this documentary. On a day when Donald Trump has brought North Korea to the White House, this is a hard documentary to swallow. How time has devoured what was supposed to be the ultimate narrative.
INGRAHAM: I would have been loving to sit next to Ben Rhodes on the sidewalk.
ARROYO: I can't speak.
INGRAHAM: I've got to take a moment.
ARROYO: I'm going to take a moment now.
INGRAHAM: Raymond, on that rival network, there's an anchor who seems to stay on the air no matter what she says. Ann Coulter has some wild new info on Joy Reid's nasty blog, next.
INGRAHAM: Wouldn't you know, comedian Samantha Bee is suffering pretty much no consequences at all for her repugnant attack on Ivanka Trump. And the liberal media double standard apparently also applies to MSNBC's Joy Reid. Over the last few weeks, hateful and nasty blog posts by Reid from as far back as 2005, they have all surfaced. She's repeatedly apologized for the posts. Her network said she has evolved and her show remains on the air.
Joining me now, one of Reid's targets, New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter. Ann, great to see you. I'm sure none of this surprises you. This is what you and I have become accustomed to, liberals can say anything they want about woman, minorities, Jews, and get away with it. But you found interesting nuggets from her past.
ANN COULTER, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Yes. It actually went up on Daily Caller today. One was she was wishing for you and me to be left in the public square in Iraq, which I think is interesting because I agree, I wouldn't want to go to a majority Muslim country. I don't know why liberals want to turn this country into those countries. But you consider that really the worst thing you can do to us.
And then in a separate post, I guess she liked or retweeted someone suggesting that, I don't know if it was just me or both of us, kill ourselves. And then of course there was the always popular calling me a man for having a beautiful swan-like neck. Liberal women, as long as we're being frank here, are not used to that because they have rolls of fat on their neck, really taken aback by my beautiful swan-like neck.
But the point of all this is, these nasty, nasty things that get posted by liberals, it shows they just want to get rid of Roseanne. I've been told my entire life, oh, no, newspapers, TV stations, they are just trying to make money. It's whatever the public wants. No, it isn't. It has never been that. Liberals say much, much worse things. But they're part of the political agenda. The reason they wanted to fire Roseanne was, I mean, she used to be kind of a leftwing loon. She became a Trump supporting, still kind of a loon. But she had a wildly popular program, and apparently it was popular with Trump supporters whom enjoy calling racists.
INGRAHAM: Did you see that they're trying to maybe reboot the show without her, with just her daughter, who is obviously the more liberal character? And John Goodman apparently said I would be up for that. But this is the kind of ideas they have. Half of the country who voted, voted for Trump, roughly. All of these people are looking for something that just doesn't offend them on a minute-by-minute basis. And this show kind of had some funny moments where someone who liked Trump wasn't ridiculed every five seconds. So that's all it was. It wasn't even all that political of a show.
But I bet the producers, people behind the show, they were tired of having to answer for it at various social events in L.A. or Malibu. This is a nice, kind of ugly way of saying, oh, this is off the air, we can go back to doing business as normal, Ann.
COULTER: Right. Right. I mean, I never saw the old show or the new show, but when she was getting ratings like we haven't even heard of for 20 years, to be dumping that show because of crazy tweets she was sending? She has always sent crazy tweets. This is nothing new. I mean, I don't want to be sent to that concentration camp. Yes, I condemn her tweet. But she's always sent crazy tweets that are deserving of condemnation. It has nothing to do with that. And if they really cared about offensive tweets and so on, obviously Samantha Bee and Joy Reid wouldn't be on air. But we've got to keep them.
INGRAHAM: Ann, I want to talk about where this party is going. I talked earlier to Dinesh about this and how everything has become radicalized. They claim that Trump is the radical, where he's pretty mainstream and wants to work with Democrats on trade and other issues. And yet we see the Democrats now lurching towards perhaps an Elizabeth Warren, a Kamala Harris, maybe Cory Booker in 2020. And then you have the old establishment figures like John Boehner out there a couple of days ago. He came out and he's still sniffing and harrumphing clearly about Donald Trump. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want to talk to you but what's happening with the Republican Party.
JOHN BOEHNER, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: There is no Republican Party. There's a Trump party. The Republican Party has kind of taken a nap somewhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: What do you think about old Boehner's comment?
COULTER: I hope it's not a nap. I hope it's dead. I want the Republican Party to be the Trump party. We might start winning again. But I thought John Boehner was off promoting marijuana or something.
INGRAHAM: He joined some marijuana board. He was always against marijuana until he just became an advisory board member of -- in other words, kind of informal lobbyist for legalizing pot across the United States.
COULTER: And you wonder why I want the Republican Party dead. Just move it aside. I mean, it should go the way of the Whigs. This is a great turning point as it was when Lincoln took over. That party has served its purpose. All it did was lose elections, serve corporate interests. Now Trump has to actually do what he ran on.
INGRAHAM: He has a long row to hoe there. Ann Coulter, thanks so much.
And while the left slashes at the president, the economy is setting records and making history. Up next, the inside story from Larry Kudlow from the White House.
INGRAHAM: You know the Trump economy is red-hot when even The New York Times has to admit it. Check out this reporting. It's headlined, "We ran out of words to describe how good the jobs numbers are." And it also went on to say, "The economy is in a sweet spot with steady growth and broad improvement in the labor market."
Just look at these numbers. The unemployment rate fell to an 18-year low at 3.8 percent in May as the economy added 223,000 jobs. Black unemployment fell to a new record low at 5.9 percent, down sharply from the 6.6 percent in April. Average hourly earnings, I love this, increased 2.7 percent from a year earlier.
Meanwhile, Trump is draining the swamp by slashing 3,000 federal government jobs in May for a total of 24,000 since he took office.
Here now, the man charged with keeping the Trump boom going, Larry Kudlow, the head of the National Economic Council. Larry, thanks for joining us. We appreciate it tonight. I was thinking back on, you know, November 10th, 2016, all these -- oh, my, global markets are going to collapse, the stock market's going to crater. The economy, the global economy is going to be thrown into total turmoil with president Donald Trump. They were all freaking out. Mark Cuban was predicting these dire consequences. The New York Times had to admit today that things are crazy good.
LARRY KUDLOW, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: Wow. Because I remember my great friend Paul Krugman trashing all of us and saying that the economy was going to go into a deep recession and the stock market was going to crash, I guess the day after the election. So it's a little bit different, the reality. And today was another great day for jobs, up 223,000. Wages are rising. Unemployment is falling.
INGRAHAM: We went through it all.
KUDLOW: Small business numbers did very well again today. Manufacturing report did very well again today. It's never perfect, but we're on the right track. And you know what, the big issue for my critics and the president's critics and the economic area, you'll never get to three percent, you can't beat two percent. Well, right now we're running four quarters, 2.9 percent, and the second quarter, according to the Atlanta Fed's model, GDP now, 4.7 percent, that's their estimate. I'll be happy with three. They're saying 4.7.
INGRAHAM: When was the last time the economy had a quarter at 4.7 percent?
KUDLOW: I probably can't even remember that. I'm going to say the 1990s.
INGRAHAM: Yes, probably '94.
KUDLOW: Four, five, six, seven.
INGRAHAM: There was all this good news. New York Times, Trump touts job report before official release, breaking protocol. This is what they seized on, because all the other stuff was really good. So Trump tweeted out this morning, looking forward to those jobs report.
KUDLOW: That's all he said. Like the rest of America, looking for the jobs report. Listen, by law and custom, all right, I get the jobs data the night before. I get it from my pal Kevin Hassett at the CEA. We take a look at it. I called him to let him know, because it was a great number. It's a private number, it's a secret number, you can't put it out. I got hold of him on Air Force One. He was extremely --
INGRAHAM: Happy. You can tell Trump, he's about to tweet it out, though. He's excited like a kid, he's excited about the news. He wants America to win. He wants to win.
KUDLOW: He does want to win. And you know what, I figured, I didn't want to bother him coming home from a long trip. I thought he needed some good news, he got good news. The tax cuts, the rollback of regulations, the opening of energy, the protection of some of our own trading rights.
INGRAHAM: Oh, but this is what set everyone off, because they said Trump was going to back off on the steel and aluminum tariffs, he was never going to do that. It was all a ploy. But now, looks like he means business. All these people criticizing him. They don't know how to predict what Trump is going to do.
Here's some of the headlines today. "Trump's trade war is bad for business." This is a weird self-defeating way to bring concessions from allies, Bloomberg. New York Times, "The Trump trade slump may yet happen."
KUDLOW: May yet.
INGRAHAM: Axios: "How a Trump trade war could slow down the global economy." Trump's trade war would be very bad for many Americans. And that's just a smattering of some of the headlines.
KUDLOW: One thing I'll say. People looking at this stuff should understand that when President Trump says something, they should believe it because he's going to follow through on it. So, look, I don't want to see a world trade war, tariff war. We don't have anything remotely like that. From day one, we've gone after China. They deserve it. They're unfair and illegal trading practices had to be dealt with, OK. They're stealing our technology. That has to be dealt with.
INGRAHAM: What about our allies? What about Canada, what about the EU?
KUDLOW: The president has talked to them. In the announcements yesterday we spent a line or two saying that we're still in discussion and particularly singling out Canada and Europe. We're still in that discussion. But look, we've asked them to help us on this steel production and the overcapacity. We've asked them to help us on what the president calls reciprocity. So if we sell an American car in Germany, we pay a 10 percent tariff. If they sell a German car in America, they pay a 2.5 percent tariff. Why can't they bring theirs down to 2.5 or even zero? Why doesn't the rest of Europe understand that we have to have a level playing field? Look, I'm not a big tariff guy. I'm known as a free trader.
INGRAHAM: The president said he's a free trader.
KUDLOW: Right, that's right.
INGRAHAM: He wants reciprocal, fair trade. I want to put something up.
KUDLOW: Hang on, that's been on conversation. See, look, free trade will really help the economic growth, OK. But you can't have free trade if all these countries, most particularly China, are engaging in unfair and illegal trading.
INGRAHAM: They're subsidizing their company.
KUDLOW: That has to be cleared away.
INGRAHAM: Canada is dumping $200 million into Toyota production in Canada. They're subsidizing, not to the tune of what China's doing.
I want to put up something on the screen for people so people get why the president believes we have to right the ship here with these tariffs. China, the trade deficit for last year, $375 billion in goods and services. Canada, $18 billion. Mexico, $71 billion. Japan, $69 billion. Germany, $65 billion in deficits. The Wall Street Journal a lot free trader friends, that doesn't matter, doesn't matter. But then they wonder why people turned out to vote for Trump. Manufacturing jobs, blue collar jobs, we used to have 18 of the top 20 steel manufacturers in the world, now we have two. And none of the steel companies are in the top 10 today, Larry.
KUDLOW: Look, we actually run a surplus all in with Canada.
INGRAHAM: You're doing the timber thing, right?
KUDLOW: I'm doing the services thing.
INGRAHAM: Goods and services, it's $18 billion.
KUDLOW: But the issue here, I don't really think it's trade deficits, that's not my favorite metric. The issue here is tariffs and non-tariff barriers. So they won't let us sell to them, they won't let us export to them. We are the most competitive economy in the world. A recent poll just said we bolted back into first place. The OECD just said we're the fastest growing economy.
INGRAHAM: But tariffs are going to ruin it all, that's what the globalists are saying. That's what all your friends at The Journal are saying.
KUDLOW: I don't know -- I would like to see a level playing field. President Trump is in his heart a level playing field guy. He's a free trade guy. So let's clear away -- the whole world trading system, by the way, has been broken for years and needs to be fixed. A lot of presidents have gone down this road and then they never do anything. He's gone down this road and he won't stop.
INGRAHAM: In 1990 China's economy I believe was smaller than the size of Italy. Now it's I believe 10 times the size of Canada. Japan, excuse me.
KUDLOW: Fair trading and free market capitalism will beat the Chinese. And I give the president a lot of high marks for sticking to it. And he is not going to let go. Folks, listen to him and come -- we're in a family squabble with our allies in Europe.
INGRAHAM: Guess what, they couldn't stand. They couldn't keep going.
KUDLOW: We can make deals. We're going to have plenty of talks. But they've got to do their part. Otherwise the president has laid out the sanctions. He'll do it.
INGRAHAM: Larry Kudlow, thanks so much.
KUDLOW: Thank you, Laura, appreciate it.
INGRAHAM: We'll be right back.
INGRAHAM: This has been a great week. Soaring economy. The North Korean summit back on track. And the leftwing media covering for their own hate speech, that's been further exposed. All in all, pretty good.
Remember to tell us how you think we're doing on Twitter, Facebook. We love to get your feedback. Have a wonderful weekend with your family. Fly your flag.
Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.