Examining Washington Post's double standard: Fairfax vs. Kavanaugh

close

Video

Examining Washington Post's double standard: Fairfax vs. Kavanaugh

The Washington Post fails to run story covering sexual assault allegations against Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax, but broke a similar story against Justice Brett Kavanaugh; panel reaction on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," February 4, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle" from a very busy Washington tonight. The state of politics and the Commonwealth of Virginia is chaotic. We are going to bring you all of the crazy controversies surrounding both the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor in that state, what does that say about the current political climate.

Plus, lawyers representing Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann - we're not dropping this, my friends - prepare for a possible defamation case, a libel case. We're going to tell you what media figures, politicians, and entertainers are going to be feeling the heat.

And it was a game worth forgetting, as Sean and I were saying. Why the Super Bowl was among the lowest rated ever and how can it be avoided next year? Raymond Arroyo has big answers. And the big winner from Super Bowl LIII.

But first, the rise of the PC puritans. That's the focus of tonight's Angle.

Now, rather than offering their own positive, pro-growth agenda for America, the Democrats have gone really negative and really nasty. They casually hurled charges of racism at conservative targets, of course, including at the President himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. SHERROD BROWN, D-OHIO: Well, I think this country hasn't dealt well with the issues of race. I mean, we have a president who's a racist, who we have--

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let me pause you there. That's just - that - you believe, in his heart, he's a racist?

BROWN: Well, I don't know what "in his heart" means.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Ohio must be really proud. Well, Trump is the first President to try to reverse the bleed of manufacturing jobs from Ohio, the old rust belt. And being called a racist is how he's repaid by Sherrod Brown? Well, of course, he's probably going to be joining the 2020 race. And so he has to join in with the rest of the race hucksters who are dividing America under the guise of tolerance.

In their America, the wall is racist. Deporting illegals is racist. ICE is racist. Century-old monuments, they're racist. Assimilation, definitely racist. Requiring English to be spoken, absolutely racist. College Indian mascots, oh, they were way racist. Way beyond blackface, many costumes are now racist. But now liberals are in a huge pickle. How do they maintain the racial bona fides when one of their own governors cut loose during a med school Halloween party dressed like this?

Well, of course, with the release of this image on Friday, the career of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam hangs in the balance. Now, initially, the Gov. apologized.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. RALPH NORTHAM, D-VA.: I am deeply sorry. I cannot change the decisions I made, but I accept responsibility for my past actions, and I'm ready to do the hard work of regaining your trust.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: But then at a press conference the next day, Northam was like, "Picture? What picture?"

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NORTHAM: I am not the person in that photo. That same year, I did participate in a dance contest in San Antonio, in which I darkened my face as part of a Michael Jackson costume. I used just a little bit of shoe polish to put under my - or on my cheeks. And the reason I used a very little bit is because I don't know if anybody has ever tried that, but you cannot get shoe polish off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh, my God. Ed Gillespie lost to him.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: It's like (inaudible) you've got to be kidding me. Now, Democrats, of course, moved to quickly jettison him, knowing he can become the Todd Akin of the 2020 race.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: First of all, I think that the Governor should resign.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He should resign. I mean, there's just no question that he should resign.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's more long pastime for him to just step down.

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.: He should step down and start his road to redemption.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Or at least becoming a vegan.

Now, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic National Committee, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Joe Biden, all rushed out with statements demanding that Northam resign as well.

The left now finds itself hoisted on its own petard. Dissatisfied, they're nutbag base, Democrats have set themselves up as these PC puritans, a band of politically correct enforcers who traverse the culture, stamping out any and all who violate their ever-shifting ethical codes.

So, now, everybody is walking on egg shells everywhere to avoid being called out for white privilege or gender privilege, without the privilege of knowing what this new orthodoxy even requires. Ralph Northam's fate will ultimately be decided by Democrats in the commonwealth, and Republicans would do well to avoid joining the PC puritans of the left. Because the Democrats, they're tripping all over themselves to prove how enlightened they are by throwing even their own under the PC express. I find it richly ironic that Joe Biden was one of the first to tweet out, "There is no place for racism in America. Governor Northam has lost all moral authority and should resign immediately."

Well, the Democrat front-runner in a new Iowa poll, of course, Biden has a lot of nerve. After all, this is a guy who said this of his own future running mate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-America--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

BIDEN: --who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook man.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Clean. And who can forget this charming observation from Amtrak Joe?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The Washington Examiner has now dug up an NPR transcript from 1975 where Biden talks about his support for segregated schools.

So, is this disqualifying the new Democratic Party? Is Biden, after all these years been in - in the Senate for all these years, Vice President for eight years, is he just a deep-seated racist incapable of running for President on the Democratic ticket?

I think you all get the point. This is going in a bad direction for the Democrats and probably for the rest of us as well. But each time the Dems highlight the evolving purity of their party and reach into the past to convict someone today, they end up distancing themselves from America.

Now, yesterday, it was MAGA hats that were racist. But today, anyone who ever impersonated Michael Jackson at a dance party might as well have burned a cross on someone's lawn. Former Democratic Congressman Jim Moran, a Northam defender, put it this way this weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIM MORAN, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE: I think it is a rush to judgment before we know all of the facts and before we've considered all of the consequences. Even if the worst-case scenario is to judge, I think there is an issue of redemption.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh, no. Redemption, forgiveness, which was once only reserved for the left, is now unavailable for them too.

As we've seen with Kevin Hart, Al Franken, the PC puritans get to decide who is orthodox and who is unclean. And they alone decide whom to burn at the stake. But don't be deceived. This whole effort is in fact a smoke screen, my friends. It's a party-wide effort to distract from the Democrats reliability.

I think their atrocious policies are what we should be focusing on. So everyone is locked on Northam's KKK costume mess, and it's a mess. Let's not forget how he came to national prominence last week. It was his abhorrent defense of the Democrats' abortion on-demand at all stages agenda.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NORTHAM: The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, he's the one who needs to be resuscitated. The exposure of the grisly reality that the Democrats desire abortion even after birth has startled voters across the political spectrum, and it should. But suddenly, we are talking about 30-year old pictures instead of a murderous policy that imperils the lives of thousands of children today? Republicans should not fall into this trap. Avoid the identity politics and the PC puritans. Stick to the facts and to the issues. We win on those. Democrats are vulnerable on those.

Most Americans are unaware, for instance, that when Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo signed that law and got the standing ovation, expanding abortion in New York last week, he simultaneously removed abortion from the state's criminal code.

So now New York permits the abortion of a child beyond 24 weeks for essentially any reason. And infanticide is no longer illegal. Let the Democrats continue their witch hunts. The stocks in the town square will surely be full.

Republicans should keep connecting with the rest of America who fear that come 2020, we could be heading off the rails of prosperity and toward socialism.

And that's the Angle.

Joining me now, Candace Owens, Communications Director for Turning Point USA, and Howard Franklin, current consultant to former Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who's slated to give the Democratic response to tomorrow night's State of the Union. It's great to have both of you on.

Candace, Northam is kind of just the latest case, isn't he? This constant racial rush to judgment, Joe Lieberman was talking about today as well and yesterday, will surely come back to bite the Democrats again and again.

CANDACE OWENS, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, TURNING POINT USA: Absolutely. And I think that in the future, we're going to be able to underscore how disingenuous they are on the topic of race altogether because of acts like this. I mean, I actually didn't find their response to be enough. I'm sure, it's nice they called for him to resign, but where are the mobs? Where are the protests? Right?

Whenever the left feels upset about something, no matter how disingenuous that thing is, they seem to be able to assemble a mob overnight like they did for Brett Kavanaugh, like when Antifa knocks on the door of Tucker Carlson. Where are all of those people? Do I know where they are? They are nowhere because the left doesn't actually care about race unless it's a means to garner power for them.

INGRAHAM: Howard, there are those on the left and fans of the President who say that Republicans can't bring this issue up. They have no standing to bring this issue up. And I want to play something for you. This is from Morning Joe. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE SCARBOROUGH, CO-HOST, "MORNING JOE": How do you - if you are a Trump supporter, how do you offer any lectures on race? How do you offer any lectures on lying?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They have no morals at all. I mean, Republicans are happy to ask Ralph Northam to resign. They have a much worse guy who is heading their party. It's ridiculous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Of course, Howard, everyone knows Democrats, the ultimate founders, of course, of the KKK, not the Republican Party. The roots of racism in the past, in history, in this country is not embedded with the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln, but with the Democrats.

HOWARD FRANKLIN, CONSULTANT TO STACEY ABRAMS: I'm assuming there's a question in there somewhere, but I'd just quickly say I think one of the reasons that Democrats have to talk about race and spend so much time talking about race is because we're a party that praises diversity.

And many of the people who fly our banner, who vote for our candidates, who activate (ph) and who, as was mentioned, rally and sometimes oppose other folks who are out there doing things that we disagree with, offer diversity as a part of this tapestry. And so it's not something we can run from. We don't have maybe the luxury the Republican Party has with being homogenous.

INGRAHAM: Oh. What I'm trying to figure out here - and here's the question. How do you excuse Joe Biden's myriad comments over the years?

FRANKLIN: I would - I would say that we do--

INGRAHAM: That you've got to be Indian to go into a 7-Eleven. Obama is clean, articulate, and bright. Isn't that - a storybook man. That's what he said of him. The "clean" thing I'm still trying to figure out. But if a Republican said that, he'd never work again. But Biden says that, it's like it wasn't that old Joe. How - how the heck does that work in this scenario?

FRANKLIN: Yes. I'm not here at all to defend misspeaking or--

INGRAHAM: So, is he a racist too?

FRANKLIN: I don't know that whether or not--

INGRAHAM: Is he a racist for saying that?

FRANKLIN: I don't know - one - I'll say - one thing I'll say for sure here is that it's impossible to take one or two statements over a 30 or 40-year political career and make an assumption about what's in the heart of the person who made the statements.

INGRAHAM: OK. We're getting somewhere now.

FRANKLIN: But--

INGRAHAM: I agree with you.

FRANKLIN: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: I actually agree with you.

FRANKLIN: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: I think, Candace--

FRANKLIN: And let me - let me also--

INGRAHAM: Yes.

FRANKLIN: --clarify one other thing. This isn't about Northam having done what he did, in my opinion, as a political professional. It's really more about his inability to respond to it in a way that's clear and concise and compelling it rallies Democrats to his side. He can't in one moment say I'm really sorry for having made this mistake and it's actually me, and then the next day say, hey, I don't--

INGRAHAM: Oh, that's dumb.

FRANKLIN: --remember taking that photo.

INGRAHAM: Yes, that's a dumb - that's like off the dumb chart. I mean, I can't even begin to - I kept watching him going, I can't believe--

FRANKLIN: There we agree. There we agree.

INGRAHAM: Ed Gillespie could not beat this guy? That's what I kept saying. For the life of me, that - well, he needed to be closer to Trump and he wasn't. That's the reason he lost in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

But Candace, my concern here is it's easy for Republicans to kind of sit in the sidelines here and kind of laugh. He deserves it. Good, I'm glad they got him. Got you, got you, got you. I don't like any of the stuff. I really don't. I don't like the fact that this becomes someone's entire life, whether it's a photo or an offhand statement, whether made years ago or recently. I'm not saying it's - obviously it's a really messing (ph) photo.

But I don't like when Republicans are sending stuff around on social media and reveling in the moment. I don't think that's the way to go. I don't. I don't - I mean, because I had someone on Friday saying, well, Ralph Northam is obviously a racist. And I - it was one of my favorite guests. And I said, "Do you really think he's a racist?" He said, "Yes, I do." I don't think - I mean, I think that photo is a bad photo. But I think to say "someone is a racist" because of what they did in med school with a Halloween costume, I don't think that's going to go into a good place for this country.

OWENS: Look, I think racism is definitely - it's a strong word, and accusing someone of being a racist is a strong word. But I don't think necessarily the right is reveling in what's happening to him. I think that they're just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the left. Think about the way they attacked Brett Kavanaugh because he got--

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: We're going to get to that in a minute.

OWENS: --because he--

INGRAHAM: Yes.

OWENS: And that's something that needs to be pointed out here. There's only one side that isn't playing these dirty tricks and trying to get people pushed out of office because of things that happened decades ago, and that's the left. So what we're starting to see here now is that's a slippery slope.

Everybody is going to get in trouble if we have to suddenly answer for things that we did decades ago. And you're right. I don't like it. But I do think it's necessary, and I am happy that it's happening right now with Ralph Northam because it opens a wider conversation that we need to have--

INGRAHAM: That's right.

OWENS: --in this country.

INGRAHAM: I think you're absolutely right. Now, Candace, Howard, stay right there. If you're looking for yet another stark example of media hypocrisy, look no further than The Washington Post. Now, this is the paper that first brought us the completely, as Candace mentioned, uncorroborated accusations against now sitting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. They did not publish accusations against current Lieutenant Governor, however, and potential Northam successor, Justin Fairfax.

They wrote, The Washington Post, in phone calls to people who knew Fairfax from college, law school and through political circles, found no similar complaints of sexual misconduct against him. Without that, or the ability to corroborate the woman's account, in part because she had not told anyone what happened, The Washington Post did not run a story."

Well, I - yes, I totally agree. So why wasn't that standard applied to Kavanaugh? We reached out to The Post and asked someone from the Post to come on tonight. They simply referred us to a statement about Fairfax while ignoring our questions about Kavanaugh. I'd actually like to have a really good conversation. I think it'd be positive and good for them too, but no luck there.

Now, I want to bring in former Ronald Reagan advisor and American Spectator columnist Jeff Lord. He's going to bring this conversation to this point of Kavanaugh and the double-standard that we've been talking about.

Jeffrey, it's pretty clear cut double-standard, isn't it?

JEFFREY LORD, FORMER REAGAN ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Laura, this has been going on for decades, absolute decades. I hate to admit this, but I'm old enough, when I was in college to remember Spiro Agnew bringing up a speech in which he said it's just a handful of people in The Washington Post and The New York Times and the liberal media, and they all hang out together, they all have this double-standard, and they don't give the American people the straight story.

This has been going on forever in a day. And they will do two things. There is the sin of commission in which they will go after somebody like Brett Kavanaugh and then there is the sin of omission in which they will not go out the appropriate liberal - with the appropriate liberal. They do it all of the time.

INGRAHAM: And Howard, what I just - I enjoyed because it was so pathetically obvious. After this Northam thing blows up on Friday, then it became, "Well, Trump supporters can't talk about this because Trump is a racist." So they turn from that real quick. And they went to their Sherrod Brown, "Trump is a racist" (EXPLETIVE) comment, all the - Judge Curiel (ph), they just went to that litany.

And you have a sitting Governor of Virginia that just went through the Charlottesville deal with a Robert E. Lee statue and the protest and the torchlight and all that. And they got for the Democrat great hope in Virginia and then he's exposed. And suddenly they're on Trump. So now, no Republican can ever talk about this issue. I just reject that. I called you-know-what on that.

Go ahead, Howard.

FRANKLIN: Well, I won't - I won't go quite that far. I mean, Trump is completely impossible to escape. It's very easy to point to things that he says on a daily or hourly basis that might underscore where there might be hypocrisy here. But let me just - let me point out one thing. I mean, we're kind of comparing apples to apricots here. We had with Judge Kavanaugh, Justice Kavanaugh now, a number of witnesses who were called to the stand to testify--

INGRAHAM: Not when the story came to light.

FRANKLIN: --who offered--

INGRAHAM: Wrong. That's wrong.

FRANKLIN: Well, listen, I don't - I don't know that that's true. I think we were talking - we saw them come to testify when the hearing actually took place. But we don't know whether or not the Post was able to get anybody on the record or to get background on this story before any of this came to life--

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Wait a second. Wait a second. Wait a second.

FRANKLIN: --rest of the American people.

INGRAHAM: Blasey Ford is lucky if she doesn't get slapped with a defamation suit after all this. OK? There was no corroboration. They were trolling for this information.

FRANKLIN: This sounds like no collusion.

INGRAHAM: They were - they were so--

FRANKLIN: It sounds very similar.

INGRAHAM: --aggressively curious.

FRANKLIN: No collaboration, no collusion. Right?

INGRAHAM: Yes. They were so aggressively curious about Kavanaugh.

OWENS: What about 2000? What about 2000?

INGRAHAM: And Candace, go ahead.

They were aggressively curious, but suddenly--

OWENS: And what about 2000? This happens over and over again on the left. And you're exactly right. They ignore the allegations completely party- wide. They ignored the allegations against Keith Ellison, and there was a ton of evidence in a police report to support this woman's--

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKLIN: Ignore the allegations.

OWENS: And they ignored her.

FRANKLIN: Keith Ellison didn't win his crime ahead (ph).

OWENS: And they completely ignored the allegations. And this is what the problem is. That has nothing to do with what I just said. What I'm saying is the people within the Democratic Party say they launched some investigation to determine that she was not a credible witness, and yet Christine Blasey Ford had not a shred of evidence, and they all decided that she was an incredibly credible witness, because at the end of the day, this has nothing to do with sexism, racism, misogyny. OK?

The left doesn't care about any of that. It's just a mad quest for power, and ultimately it's harming this country. It is actually removing the severity of words like racism and sexism and misogyny when you point the finger, as you pointed out, Laura, you say it to - you say it to everyone. It just means nothing anymore. And Howard--

INGRAHAM: Yes.

OWENS: --I just want to say this one thing. You said earlier that your party has to always run on topic of race because it means something. No, it means nothing to you. You run on the topic of race because your policies don't hold up. And that's what's really happening right now in this country. Your policies - you cannot win on the merit of your ideas. So you instead point the finger and use ad hominem attacks against conservatives.

INGRAHAM: Howard, do you want to respond?

FRANKLIN: I don't know where to begin. First off, I thought we were talking about The Washington Post and whether or not media--

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: It's a fluid conversation. This is cable TV--

(CROSSTALK)

FRANKLIN: We - yes, obviously - fluid is a euphemism I'd love to use in this particular case.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

FRANKLIN: Obviously, we're talking about a couple of different things that deserve to be connected here in a meaningful way.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

FRANKLIN: Certainly, no party is completely responsible or the complete - represents the worst thing that members, standing members of that party, have said or done at one point or another in their political career. So I'm--

INGRAHAM: Jeff?

FRANKLIN: I'm in no position, and I don't think anybody in this panel--

INGRAHAM: Yes.

FRANKLIN: --wants to say that the Republican Party is Donald Trump or Northam is the Democratic Party.

INGRAHAM: All right. I've got to get Jeff Lord to - really quick.

LORD: Laura, a friend of mine suggested today that the dilemma that Northam is posed is choosing between the abortionists and the abolitionists. And they've got a dilemma coming their way.

INGRAHAM: All right. Jeff Lord, great to see you. Great to see all of you. Howard, Candace.

And still ahead, lawyers for Covington student Nick Sandmann looked to be preparing libel suits against dozens of celebrities and journalists. Wrap them all up, find out who should be lawyering up. Next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It's national emergency. It's other things. And you know, there've been plenty national emergencies called, and this really is an invasion of our country by human traffickers. We're going to have a strong border. And the only way you have a strong border is you need a physical barrier, you need a wall. And anybody that says you don't, they're just playing games.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: But we're learning tonight that the President still will not go so far as to declare a national emergency at our border. But you might excuse him if he did because more than 2,000 caravan migrants have just today boarded dozens of buses - I hope they are air-conditioned - provided by the Mexican State of Coahuila on route to the border city of Piedras Negras. From there, they will either make their claims of asylum or illegally enter the United States.

And despite Democrats' constant downplaying of the situation, Americans are noticing. According to a new Gallup poll, 21 percent of respondents now name immigration as the country's most important problem. That's the second highest total for immigration in the 80-year history of the poll. So I say, if Democrats want to make this a defining issue ahead of 2020, bring it.

Here now, Mark Morgan, Customs and Border Patrol Chief under President Obama, and Jon Summers, former Comms Director for Former Senator Harry Reid.

Mark, the President seems to get it, Americans get it. Why wouldn't we declare a national emergency like yesterday?

MARK MORGAN, U.S. BORDER PATROL CHIEF UNDER OBAMA, CAREER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: So - I think, Laura, I think that's the question. And if you look at the rhetoric that's going on, I think the Democratic Party is really putting the President in that box. I mean, now, in - we've talked about that before.

INGRAHAM: How about the Republican Party? Aren't they? Some of the Republicans worry? Do you think Mitch McConnell is thrilled about a national emergency being called? I don't think so.

MORGAN: I don't think so either, but - but if you look at the history, 2006, the bipartisan bill that was passed; in 2013, again Senate passed the immigration bill that put $8 billion in there for border security, including a fence. And now, all of a sudden, they're saying, no wall, no barrier. It doesn't make sense.

And when the Speaker of the House puts down the gauntlet and says "no wall," in fact, she actually mocks it. Right? She talks about only giving a dollar and then she whispers "no wall." What's the President to do?

INGRAHAM: You try to breach Nancy's security and she'll stop you pretty quick though. And she enforces her border pretty well.

All right. Jon, this is the New Mexico Governor. OK? Torres Small. There's a little snippet. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)  Xochitl Torres Small, U.S. Representative, New Mexico: So one component is personnel. Then there's technology and there's infrastructure. So, for example, I've seen places where the wall works."

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I elevated her to governor, but nevertheless, she's a congresswoman. She said there are places where the wall works. And I think the Democrats have cutely but transparently tried to say, well, they're not going to have a wall from sea to shining sea. President Trump has never said wall from sea to shining sea. He's always said, "In some places, it will make sense; in some places, it won't. But a wall does slow down the human trafficking, the drugs, danger, also people just coming to violate our laws."

Why are Democrats so hell-bent against protecting this country?

JON SUMMERS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Because the way - well, Democrats are all for protecting this country and have dedicated billions of dollars to border security in order to do that. In fact, you may remember last year, we took a bipartisan bill that Congress passed up to the President who said he would sign it, had $25 billion in that that included money for a physical barrier in areas where it's needed, as well as technology, as well as people. The President started hearing from the likes of Ann Coulter and others, you know, extremists in his party, and all of a sudden, backed out of that deal. And now we're where we are today. A year ago, he would have had $25 billion, a bipartisan bill from Congress.

INGRAHAM: But at some point--

SUMMERS: And he said no to that.

INGRAHAM: OK.

SUMMERS: So--

INGRAHAM: You can talk about what happened yesterday. That's not--

SUMMERS: Well - but what happened yesterday matters--

INGRAHAM: But - well--

SUMMERS: --because when you're talking about--

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: --makes you guys lot worse. No.

SUMMERS: --how Democrats don't like border security, it's just wrong.

INGRAHAM: OK. But it's not working clearly. We have a porous border.

Mark, this is what - this was your job. I mean, this was what you were doing. We have a porous border. And to say it's not a crisis is so disingenuous. I don't care if you're a Republican, in open borders, more - you're generous toward immigration or not. It is a crisis. When you have thousands of people who know they can just come here and be released into the system. They are hurting children who are being harmed on the way.  The traffickers are being enriched. The cartels love this situation. They love it. And no amount of drones is going to stop the people from crossing because they're just released. They're caught, released, and off to the races. So drones are great, but they're not it.

MARK MORGAN, U.S. BORDER PATROL CHIEF UNDER OBAMA: Laura, you're absolutely right. And again, with all due respect, it's disingenuous to talk about what was said before. If you look at the plan that the president has laid out, it includes what the experts, Laura -- and this is what's frustrating for me. They are not listening to the experts. And the experts have said for decades what you need is a multilayered approach of infrastructure, technology, and personnel.

INGRAHAM: More judges, too.

MORGAN: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Asylum reform. We need that badly.

MORGAN: Absolutely. But as far as the physical security, that's a multilayered approach. If look at the president's plan that he laid out, that's what he's go. He's got money for infrastructure, the wall, personnel, and technology. What's disingenuous is you have people in Congress that saying well, let's just get technology, and let's just get personnel. Any one of those things by itself doesn't answer the problem.  You're right, a caravan of 2,000 people, guess what, 1,000 drones isn't going to stop it.

INGRAHAM: Remember, remember.

JON SUMMERS, FORMER AIDE TO SENATOR HARRY REID: That's what the majority of Democrats are talking about

MORGAN: I disagree with that.

SUMMERS: There are 585 members of Congress.

INGRAHAM: But Jon, your own boss said no sane country would allow birthright citizenship, Harry Reid. He sounded like a lot of Democrats.  We have birth tourism motels. Everyone's worried about Russian collusion.  You've got the Russians and the Chinese, they have ads in all their circulars. I saw them when I was in Moscow. Birth motels. Come here, live in Miami, go to Long Beach. It's crazy. At some point everyone has got to put politics aside and say, look, we have a country, I think still, we want to country. So let's have policies that make sense. A wall is not everything but it does do a lot to stop the flow, the fast flow in.

SUMMERS: And the problem is that the president is only talking about a wall. We are all actually an agreement of what we are talking about.

INGRAHAM: He's not.

SUMMERS: Yes, he is. He's always talking about the wall, the wall, the wall.

MORGAN: His plan. His plan he puts to the American people includes technology, infrastructure, and personnel.

SUMMERS: If he would actually talk more about the need for all of those things and not just talk about the wall, but about the comprehensive approach, I think we could make a lot more progress on that.

INGRAHAM: Well, I think he does talk about multilayered. But it obviously is important. I think it's important not just for the campaign. He did make it a campaign issue, we have to be honest about that.

SUMMERS: And Mexico to pay for it, he campaigned, on that, too.

INGRAHAM: But all of these fancy pants legislators all living in their big polices, and the senators, they all have multi-level security themselves.  They've got walls, security systems, they've got a lot, especially the rich ones. They've got nice walls. Gentlemen, thank you so much.

And when President Trump reopened the government, he also called for by bipartisan committee to attempt to hash out some border compromise, Jon was talking about it, before February 16th. So why haven't we heard about any progress?

Here now remember that committee, Republican Representative Tom Graves of Georgia. All right, Congressman, any progress whatsoever, and if not -- don't be partisan about this -- what can we do now to make some progress before the 16th.

REP. TOM GRAVES, R-GA., BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE ON BORDER SECURITY: Not being partisan at all, there's been zero progress. We have had one meeting since his conference committee was created, and it was created by Nancy Pelosi.  You remember she said open the government and we'll negotiate. She created this committee. She controls this committee. Her chairman chairs this committee. She has more votes than anyone on this committee. We've had one meeting. I have requested more. I've stayed all last week, went through the weekend. And yet no more meetings.

INGRAHAM: Well, Henry Cuellar, said this on "Fox News Sunday" about the wall.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HENRY CUELLAR, D-TEXAS: First of all, we're not going to have a wall. Now, can we look at some sort of enhanced barrier? That is something we can certainly look at. But I have to say, living on the border, you have to let the local border patrol chief have the say so and let the local communities be involved so they can come up with maybe some sort of enhanced barrier.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: OK, what does this look like? I'm a bit confused. Enhanced barrier. Not a wall. See through it. I always think a while you can't see through, but we're going to have it see-through. So it's kind of already and enhanced barrier. It seems like there's a semantic problem in part, correct?

GRAVES: Well, it's a little bit of a play on words. Enhanced barrier for the Democrats is taking an old wall and improving it. So it's no new wall.  The president wants new walls, which I agree with. So enhanced barriers, one piece. That's only it.

INGRAHAM: Well, when you see the video just released last week and the week before of hundreds of people at one time crawling across an area that my 10-year-old could crawl over this. This is not a difficult barrier. In some places you just walk right across the desert, very dangerous parts.

GRAVES: Right, and that may be --

INGRAHAM: You aren't a country when that is how you get into your country at a place where a lot of people want to come in. That's not what a country does, if you want to stand country, at least.

GRAVES: Right, a lot of areas for improvement. But when you look at the plan that was presented by Homeland Security, they clearly see there needs to be new, additional barriers, steel barriers, walls, in addition to enhancements, in addition to technology, border patrol, additional judges and such. There is a lot to do. But a wall is a critical component of it.  And I'm not sure why they are walking away from it.

INGRAHAM: Well, what they will say is we're going to do drones and sensors and a lot of the big interdictions are happening at ports of entry, drug interdictions. So they are hanging a lot of it on the ports of entry where they are making some progress and lower number of apprehensions. So any time you bring it up, they're like, well, apprehensions are down. We don't have a border crisis. This is what they continue to repeat.

Stay there, and thank you so much, Congressman, for joining us. Up next, Nick Sandmann, the teen at the center of that Covington Catholic controversy, along with his lawyers, have sent letters now to multiple media outlets. They are preparing for a possible libel fight across the board. A lot of people involved.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: OK, you're going to love this story. More than 50 media organizations, celebrities, and politicians ranging from Elizabeth Warren to NBC's Chuck Todd, actors Alyssa Milano, Jim Carrey, were sent letters from lawyers representing Covington Catholic student Nick Sandmann. The student had his reputation destroyed after a rabid Trump hating press jumped on an edited clip of his interaction with a Native American activist, Nathan Phillips.

The preservation letters are considered the first step in a possible libel and defamation lawsuit, so the teen's legal team, also with those letters requesting to preserve documents, released a 15 minute video that say -- that shows the truth, excuse me, about his interactions at last month's March for Life. Here's some of that video. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As one of the native men began to debate with one of the students, keep your eyes on Nick Sandmann. This is a critical moment that was omitted from the mainstream narrative.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get the -- out of my face with that --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's proven man, come on.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It appears as though Nick is trying to hush his schoolmates to show more respect to Mr. Phillips. And that was that.  Their bus arrived and the students went on their way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Here now is Libby Locke, a defamation attorney. She worked on the UVA fake rape case, and that was of course blown up by "Rolling Stone."  She joins us now. Libby, this is really an interesting approach. The family decided to produce their own narrative, which, the power of video.  I had never seen that before. I thought I had seen everything. That was wild. How seriously should the celebrities, and we're going to get into their names, Alyssa Milano, Jim Carrey, and others, how seriously should they take this preservation of all your documents letter they will receive?

LIBBY LOCKE, DEFAMATION ATTORNEY: Look, Laura, think they have to take it very seriously. I know Lin Wood. He is a very good lawyer, very experienced in this area. I think this is a brilliant optics move, P.R.  move, on behalf of the Sandmann family and Nick himself in order to produce this video.

This video shows clearly how false the media got it, how false the claims were that that the media first rushed and published. And, look, the letters, the preservation letters that Lin Wood sent out, I think these celebrities and the media types who rushed to judgment and published this stuff, I think they have a lot of concerns, they should have a lot of concern, because Lin knows what he's doing. If you recall, Lin Wood was the lawyer who represented Richard Jewell who was proclaimed by the same mainstream media as being the Olympic Park bomber. Lin went, media outlet by media outlet, and got Richard Jewell's reputation back. He was falsely accused. It was the same rush to judgment these outlets who are really far out there and saying these false and defamatory things about Richard Jewell. And I think Lin is going to take the exact same approach here with the Sandmann family. And so I think there's a lot to be concerned about on the part of these media outlets.

INGRAHAM: I want to remind people some of the things that were said. We are going to kind of show them in succession. This is just a smattering of what was said by some celebrities, and there were a lot of journalists obviously who said a lot too. Bill Maher, this is what he said. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL MAHER, COMEDIAN: I don't blame the kid, the smirking kid. I blame lead poisoning.

(LAUGHTER)

MAHER: And bad parenting. And oh, yes, I blame that -- kid. What a little -- smirk face.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Yes, that was lovely. Alyssa Milano, she said this in a tweet, "The red MAGA hat is the new white hood. Without white boys being able to emphasize with other people, humanity will continue to destroy itself." That's an example, I would say if I were defending this, of a general opinion. The things they are going to center on aren't things like that, frankly. They're going to be specifically targeted at him, I think.  Correct? Because there are a lot of people with red hats there that you could say, well, I think one of the Indian activists also had a red hat on in one of those shots. So it has to be specifically targeted at this young man.

LOCKE: Yes, remember, Laura, and I know you know this from your time at the spring court, clerking for the Supreme Court, there is no wholesale exception for opinions. There is the Milkovich case which says even if there are facts that are embedded within what is otherwise a statement of opinion or implicit facts as part of that opinion, it is still actionable.  So here there's no get-out-of-jail-free card for something that they proclaim to be opinion. And I think Bill Maher is out there. I think he's got risk.

INGRAHAM: Maggie Haberman. There's a lot of other people, Maggie Haberman, a lot of other journalists, Chuck Todd, they are all getting letters. So every specific comment is going to be looked at very carefully. That's how it works with defamation.

I want to play really quick, we're going to run out of time, this is from Lin Wood, the same video, the truth, the second one. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a bunch of future school shooters.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you going to tell somebody to go shoot up a school. That's really weird.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: A bunch of school shooters, again, a video most people didn't see. These are a bunch of school shooters there.

LOCKE: It's gross. It's gross, the racial slurs and accusations and insults that were being hurled at these young men. We are talking about adults who were hurling these things at teenagers, and how Mr. Sandmann in particular conducted himself in the face of those kinds of attacks, vile attacks, and Mr. Phillips friends who were there with him, yelling at these kids to go back to Europe. It was really disgusting, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, it's going to be interesting to see this plays out.  But a lot of these journals, a lot of celebrities, maybe they don't know better. But a lot of the journalists, who frankly are supposed to do this for living, report facts, they should know better.

LOCKE: The standard here, Laura, is going to be negligence. This is a high school student. This is not a public figure. Look, they have real risk here.

INGRAHAM: All right, got to go. Thank you so much.

LOCKE: Thanks, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Fascinating. We'll be following every aspect.

Up next, how the biggest game of the year went bust in the ratings.  Raymond Arroyo on the big winner from last night, besides Tom Brady. Who is it? He'll tell you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: OK, last night's Super Bowl, yes, I was there, it made history - - not because I was there -- because it was a low-scoring game on record, and also through some of the lowest ratings. To explain why and what the NFL should avoid going forward, when you think of football, who else to think of? Raymond Arroyo, Fox News contributor, New York Times bestselling author of the upcoming book "Will Wilder, The Amulet of Power." Raymond, as you know, I was at the game.

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: I noticed.

INGRAHAM: And we had a blast. We had so much fun. Dmitri came with me, my son. We have great friends. But besides Brady and the Pats, who was actually the big winner last night? And Edelman, sorry, won the MVP.

ARROYO: Clearly, Laura. When you don't have the match up that fans actually wanted and you have a dynasty team that runs everybody over like the Patriots in this game for the six time, interest kind of wanes. But aside from the low-scoring game, the big winner of the night was clearly in my mind Gladys Knight, who at 74 delivered one of the best National Anthems maybe ever.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SINGING)

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Laura, I know you thought that was the highlight of the evening, too. Part of the reason it worked was Knight dismissed the politically correct Kaepernick sideshow that threatened to dominate the whole Super Bowl. A red line really has been drawn around these big stages for most of these acts. And Kaepernick and his supporters created one around the Super Bowl, basically saying that any performer --

INGRAHAM: No one cares.

ARROYO: -- who appeared here was undercutting his protest. But Gladys Knight said in a statement after her performance, "I understand Mr. Kaepernick is protesting to things, and they are police violence and injustice. It is unfortunate that our National Anthem has been dragged into the debate when the distinctive sense is that the National Anthem and fighting for justice should each stand alone." She is a class act. She showed America what talent looks like. And she did it without autotune or any big pyrotechnics. Amazing.

INGRAHAM: She didn't have to strip down and show tattoos either.

(LAUGHTER)

ARROYO: We've got to talk about that.

INGRAHAM: No. Let me just say, the National Anthem was sung, and there was a gentleman in front of me, maybe 24, 25. It was all Patriots fans.  We were in the end zone kind of at the corner of the end zone on the Patriots side. All Patriots fans. He's crying. He's in a Brady jersey, crying. We were like why are you crying? He said my father -- his father is in the military, Army, and his mother was born in Germany. They met there when he was deployed. And he said I just love -- I love this country. We have a great blank-blank country. And he's crying. And I'm telling you, 74 years old, she belted out. You hear that high note, Raymond, at the end.

ARROYO: Amazing. We have to go to Maroon 5. We're going to run out of time. The lead man, Adam Levine, he did not quite fair as well, Laura.  And you kind of said what he did.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SINGING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: As you said, this was the lowest rated Super Bowl, and there was a reason for it. But in the middle of the act he was kind of desperate. He stripped down, took his shirt off. And Laura, he was singing a song, "Moves like Jagger." He moved more like Manilow. This is the whitest singer ever at a Super Bowl. They need to get Bruno Mars and Pharrell to work on acts. They could fill the room.

INGRAHAM: Let me just say, no, no, no. The Rolling Stones in their 70s could kick their tail. Adam Levine is a phenomenal musician. He's a talent. He is a talent. You stripped down, see your tattoos. We don't need to see the whole geography of the whole country on your body. My son looked at it and was like what is that? Everyone around me, by the way, nobody around me knew any of the songs. We were all -- we were reminiscing about U2 at the Super Bowl years ago.

ARROYO: Because, they are kind of love, yearning songs. And people want anthems and things they can sing together, "We are the Champions," that kind of thing.

Laura, it was the lowest rated Super Bowl in 10 years. Here in New Orleans where I am tonight, it was 26.2 percent of the households that tuned in.  That is the lowest ever. But something beautiful happened here. Thousands of people turned into the streets for what they call the boycott bowl. It ended up being a celebration of the Saints and the Who Dat nation. And though Adam Levine tried to apparently underscore this message with one love, what New Orleans showed accidentally is what one love looks like.  They came together as a people, white and black and Hispanic. It was unbelievable. And it was a show of unity and a show of love for their team. And that's what the NFL was striving for. I hope they got that message.

INGRAHAM: It should've been Brees versus Brady, Brees versus Brady. It would've been phenomenal. We have a couple pictures -- we've got some photos I think we'll put up on the screen of Dmitri and me and maybe some others. Oh, there we are. There's Dmitri. Is it bad I got him into school late? Whoops. All right.

ARROYO: It was worth it.

INGRAHAM: All right, everybody.

ARROYO: I'll see you tomorrow in D.C.

INGRAHAM: I'll see you tomorrow. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Finally tonight, programming note, tomorrow night we'll have a special live midnight edition -- you never know what's going to happen at midnight -- of "The Ingraham Angle," complete wrap-up of the president's State of the Union. We have a great lineup of guests and analysis you won't see anywhere else. It's all the time we have tonight. My newest podcast drops tomorrow, the new episode. Make sure to go online at PodcastOne.com to get it, subscribe. It's really fun.

Ed Henry is in for Shannon Bream. He and the "Fox News at Night" team take it from here.

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