Gingrich: Democrats have become an anti-American party

close

Video

Gingrich: Democrats have become an anti-American party

Democrats push anti-America rhetoric, anti-Trump protesters say 'America was never great'; former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich reacts.

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," June 20, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is a "Fox News Alert". The world is watching and waiting to see what the U.S. will do to respond to what our military officials are calling, "an unprovoked attack from Iran".

The Pentagon releasing this video of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, using a surface-to-air missile to shoot down a U.S. drone last night. Iran released its own video late today, claiming the drone violated its territorial airspace over the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf.

The Pentagon insists that this is international airspace. President Trump says Iran made a mistake, but downplayed any suggestion that it was a provocation that came from the top.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: I think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid that did it. We'll be able to report back and you'll understand exactly what happened. But it was a very foolish move that I can tell you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So how will the U.S. respond? For answers we go to Fox News National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin live tonight at the Pentagon. Jennifer?

JENNIFER GRIFFIN, NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Laura, it's the first time Iran has admitted shooting down an American warplane. It's the second time in a week that they have fired at a U.S. drone. This time they hit their target. A $110 million U.S. Navy Global Hawk.

Competing narratives from Iran and the Pentagon about where the drone was flying, when it was shot down, Iran's Foreign Minister tweeted this hand- drawn map and some coordinates that would have put the drone about eight miles off the coast of Iran in Iranian waters.

The Pentagon responded with a map showing a flight path of its own and a denial the unmanned drone was over Iranian territory, claiming it was in international waters, roughly 20 miles from Iran shoreline when fired upon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LT. GEN. JOSEPH GUASTELLA, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE (via telephone): This attack is an attempt to disrupt our ability to monitor the area following recent threats to international shipping and the free flow of commerce. Iranian reports that this aircraft was shot down over Iran are categorically false.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRIFFIN: The Iranians released this video of the advanced surface-to-air missile used to shoot down the American drone. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs arrived at the White House today with military options for the President.

By inviting a bipartisan group of top congressional leaders to be briefed in the Situation Room, the White House fulfilled its duty to consult with Congress before using military force. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accepted the White House version of events.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned about bumbling into a war and asked Mitch McConnell to move on the defense bill next week which has an authorization for the use of military force against Iran attached to it. Laura?

INGRAHAM: Jennifer thanks so much tonight. And my take on this, a word of caution tonight as we see Iran's latest blatant provocation against America with the shooting down of that drone in our international waters.

You listen closely, because many of the same voices, not the President, but others, who were urging our invasion of Iraq in 2003 are back in the mix, in government outside of government, in the White House a few and maybe in the Pentagon.

Now one of the most compelling parts of Trump's "America First" agenda, remember back in 2016, and this helped him win the GOP nomination and the presidency, it's often overlooked. His election signaled a change from Bushism and endless war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Our actions in the Middle East will be tempered by realism. The current strategy of toppling regimes with no plan for what to do the day after, gradual reform, not sudden and radical change should be our guiding objective in that region.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Gradual reform. Well whatever response America is mulling, we must be wary of doing anything we'll draw us into another long-term conflict in the region.

Of course, we must protect our interest, protect our friend Israel, including our rights to patrol international waters and airspace. But America cannot and should not be sucked into wasting billions and billions of taxpayer dollars in a region that's been in turmoil for decades - even generations.

Writing on the subject this week Pat Buchanan said it best. "If war comes now, it would be known as Trump's war, for it was Trump who pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal, though according to UN inspectors and other signatories - Britain, France, Germany and Russia and China, Tehran was complying with its terms."

Well, whatever you think of the Iran, fair not, that's how the U.S. and the international media would frame this, and perhaps to the great detriment of Trump's reelection.

The only real obstacles that I see at Trump's winning in 2020 are: One, on economic collapse, and Two, a new American war. That risks Trump throwing in with the Bush war hawks and a repudiation of his own doctrine of principled realism in foreign policy.

If the President and the Pentagon think a targeted show of force can produce the intended deterrence, that's fine. But anything prolonged, requiring a large deployment of American troops, would have a more harmful effect on his presidency than anything Mueller ever did. We're going to discuss this in the next few minutes with Newt Gingrich, later on in the hour.

But first Trump's prescience in another area and pragmatism on refugees, that's the focus of tonight's ANGLE. Back in 2016 then candidate, Donald Trump, warned about the weak and unreliable process we had and that we were using for vetting refugees.

Now, then he was suggesting banning refugees from suspect countries.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We are going to stop the tens of thousands of people coming in from Syria. We have no idea who they are, where they come from. There's no documentation, there's no paperwork. It's going to end badly folks - it's going to end very, very badly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And it almost did. As we reported last night, the FBI has arrested 21-year-old Syrian refugee Mustafa Mousab Alowemer. He's suspected of planning an attack on a Black Church on Pittsburgh's North side to "Take revenge for our ISIS brothers in Nigeria".

Oh by the way - and on this "World Refugee Day", it's important to note that Alowemer had been admitted into this country as a refugee the same month that then-candidate Trump issued that warning you just heard.

Of course, we all remember, that when the President signed his executive order banning refugee travel from seven countries, including Iran, Libya, North Korea, Venezuela, Yemen Somalia and some Syria, the Left went nuts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.: What the President has done is not in the interest of security. It is reckless. It is reckless and rash.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D-MASS., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let's all be clear, President Trump's order has nothing to do with security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: No, nothing to do with security at all Elizabeth. Well, lower court's blocked the President's initial order and the Administration went back to the drawing board. The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Trump's more narrowly tailored executive order, setting the President's broad national security powers under Article II of the Constitution.

But the Administration was right to be persistent despite the blowback from the open borders left. And this latest example of a radicalized refugee hell-bent on killing in the name of his warped religious views - come on.

But for the incredible work of the FBI, that Joint Terror Task Force, we would be reporting another Church attack tonight. So my question is. Where's the media coverage of this story? Except for a few of us on Fox, it's getting minimal coverage.

Gee, I wonder why? You know why, because it reveals that Trump was right and his critics were wrong. The President's priorities, keeping Americans safe, restoring sanity to our immigration system - they're not racist, they're not anti-Muslim. They are pragmatic and prudent and patriotic.

America should welcome true refugees fleeing persecution, you bet, but not at the expense of our own citizens' safety and security. And for whatever reason, even under Trump, we have been kind of slow to admit Christians and other religious minorities from the Middle East. They're not safe themselves in ISIS and filtrated refugee camps over there nor are they safe in their home countries on their ancestral lands.

So extreme vetting should take into account the refugees ability to assimilate rather than just to be set two pockets of America that end up insulating them from becoming self-sufficient English-speaking, educated participants in our wonderful representative democracy. We've seen that happen.

And as we welcome these true refugees fleeing persecution, we have lots of work to do to remove those who are unlawfully present in the U.S. right now and are already ordered deported.

Tonight, ICE is telling us - you won't believe this, that there are - count them - 570,000 immigrant fugitives still living here. Now understand, these are individuals who have had all their immigration due process, including appeals. They have been ordered deported by our immigration judges and must be found and deported. Period.

Now none of this includes the millions of other migrants already released into the interior U.S., including the 207,000 family units migrants from this latest surge. Now most of these are not legitimate cases for asylum, they're not refugees, but they've heard through the grapevine in their home countries that bringing a kid across will give them a fast path to the Promised Land.

Look, I still remember, Barack Obama, 2014, during the height of his own border crisis saying this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: Do not send your children to the borders. If they do make it, they'll get sent back. More importantly, they may not make it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: If they do make it, they'll be sent back. How many of you think of those have been sent back? Almost none. But when Trump talks about actually doing what Obama said we would do, deporting those ordered out of the country, the Democrats go nuts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WARREN: This so-called crisis at the border is fake. This is a crisis of his own making, because it was a campaign pledge.

PELOSI: The President has chosen fear. The fact is, the women and children at the border are not a security threat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Talk about fear, I get scary just look - scared just looking at those two. But ignore the emotional pleas. You're going to hear out. It's going to be all the sob stories. These border crosses, who no doubt, want a better life for their families, we all understand that. They received all the due process they deserved and then some, they need to be sent home with their families.

If they had children here, now American citizens, the families can reunite in their home countries. If the rule of law is not respected at our border, why should it be respected anywhere? Why should American citizens have to follow the law?

We have an explosion of homelessness in America's once most beautiful cities. We've documented this. You've seen the photos, you've seen the video. Many of the homelessness in places like California is just being exacerbated by their terrible sanctuary policies and the introduction of more indigent illegals into the mix. It can't continue.

If people are truly caring about the human suffering of real refugees, they will embrace the President's policies, clear out those who are abusing our immigration system, and ensure that whoever comes means us no harm, and that's “The Angle.”

All right joining me now is Counterterrorism Expert, Aaron Cohen; along with Investigative Reporter and Fox News contributor Sara Carter. Aaron, you've been doing some digging for us tonight in this Pittsburgh terror plot, so what new news can you tell us.

AARON COHEN, COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERT: Well, there's nothing new specifically to report from law enforcement. They're keeping everything pretty quiet. What is known and what has been circulating is that the FBI did some great work in thwarting this potential attacker.

As you mentioned, he came over the border at the same time Trump had made his speech about keeping - about putting the kibosh and allowing refugees to come in from these six or seven predominantly terror countries or terror extreme countries, which is the same year that this individual ended up coming into the U.S. legally.

He is a refugee for asylum, and as you can see, it turned into a potential would-be terror attack. The FBI ended up using its informant network to be able to thwart the attack. Thank God, because they are getting much better at being able to prevent these types of attacks from actualizing.

And so we're lucky, because they've done some good work. The--

INGRAHAM: We're lucky. Yes.

COHEN: We're lucky because they've done some good work - that's right, we're lucky. And here is the thing, when I watch your “Angle” report and I see the shock and the content that the Left has for immigration.

What's going to be even more contentious is when the liability of terrorism on a mass scale, which could potentially be coming to this country, because of how porous these borders are with the lack of a wall, with the lack of any seriously a Tier I immigration stoppage from the those seven terror porous countries.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

COHEN: Correct. What we have here--

INGRAHAM: I mean, we already have people from the Congo. Yes, we have what we believe toxic mix potentially in the making right now.

COHEN: Africa is a monster - Africa is a monster, monster mess right now, and it is waiting to explode and until we start treating immigration as a national counter-terrorism layering problem, then we are not going to effectively be able to deploy any type of Israeli style security to prevent the next church attacker from border (ph).

INGRAHAM: All right. We got it. Sara Carter.

SARA CARTER, CONTRIBUTOR: I think there is something that we need to discuss here. This was not just about attacking the one church. Let's think about what he was planning, Laura.

He was planning on a secondary bomb after the church was attacked. He had discussed this with the two FBI agents--

INGRAHAM: --backpack bomb, correct.

CARTER: Yes, backpack bomb. He was going to wait for the police to get there. I'm going to tell you how important this is. That's what they do. When I was in Iraq, when I was in Afghanistan, when I covered the war, they would always say, don't go right after the bombing, because there's always a secondary. That means he was trained.

I'd like to know a little bit more about who's he talking to--

INGRAHAM: Where is the digging? Where is the digging by American reporters on this? Did he go to a mosque or was he--

CARTER: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: Maybe he didn't, maybe he did. But let's find out a little bit more about his connections. We have his high school.

CARTER: That's right.

INGRAHAM: We got some folks in his high school speaking out, but not saying much. But this is like an amazing lack of curiosity on the part of the American media.

CARTER: And it's almost like they're afraid to tell the truth. They're almost afraid to go out and find the story.

INGRAHAM: Why?

CARTER: Because they don't want to talk about the issues. And the issues are that this is not just about immigrants. This is a national security problem. The Democrats don't want to bring this up.

Laura, I just spoke today to people in Guatemala, as you know--

INGRAHAM: Yes.

CARTER: I frequent there I've been there twice already over the last year. They said, the influx of people coming from Africa, the people coming from other parts of the world is growing.

They see them coming through Colombia, coming from South America to the United States, because they are hearing the same things--

INGRAHAM: FastPass.

CARTER: Exactly. FastPass--

INGRAHAM: FastPass to the United States.

CARTER: FastPass. And imagine how many more - you said 570,000--

INGRAHAM: Ordered deported.

CARTER: Ordered deported. That's what we know. We don't know about all the others that came in.

(CROSSTALK)

CARTER: That's right. And the adjudicators have told me, the adjudicators have said, look people from Syria - we're talking about countries that really have a broken government.

INGRAHAM: There is no--

CARTER: They are not an Interpol. They don't have criminal histories, so we just don't know--

INGRAHAM: But Trump was right. But again I want to go back, Trump was prescient. He was correct and he was defiant and he was trashed for it. And maybe you can quibble with the way - order was rolled out and had to read it.

OK. But his basic instinct is to protect America first and he gets trashed by the Left for doing that, even though Obama is said the same - said, "Well you got to go home". Obama said you got to go home, none of them went home. Ariel (ph). Yes, I mean, this--

COHEN: I think what we're seeing here - again, people need to remember that immigrations and Customs Enforcement falls under the Department of Homeland Security. Homeland Security was created for this specific reason.

Homeland Security is designed to make sure that we have multi layers of stop guards in place, so it would take a multi failure event for another would-be potential terrorist who wants to blow up a Christian church to be successful.

INGRAHAM: We don't need a multi failure event, Aaron. Aaron, we don't have them to need a multi-failure event. You know what we need? We need someone who crosses our Southern border - Sara has been down there, I've been down there - cross right over, your processed. It takes about 24 hours, 36 hours, you are released.

There are multi - you got one person comes in connected to another person already here, maybe he is a refugee, maybe he's not. They're connected.

COHEN: Correct.

INGRAHAM: This individual apparently, according to the FBI tonight - panel, was already in contact with another individual. We're learning more about who that individual is inside the country. We understand - it looks just a regular American. American kid, he is going to have a great life and suddenly he is radicalized individual.

CARTER: Well, Laura, this is why it's so important for the Department of Homeland Security, for the FBI and others to deal with the SIA situation, which is Special-Interest Aliens.

We really need extraordinary vetting. We know that it's not happening and we know that people are coming from countries. Some of them are very good people that are just looking for a better life. But a large majority from certain parts of the world are connected to Al-Qaeda and Islamic see.

INGRAHAM: Look at Belgium--

COHEN: - which is--

INGRAHAM: Well, they are wrapping me here. But I got to tell you, from Belgium, from France to what we're seeing with the problems in Sweden and throughout the EU, we got to get smart here and as far as I can tell we got Trump. Trump is the one who stays, who is saying this is madness and there are few others.

Panel, thank you so much tonight. And up next is the Left seems to ramp up it's dangerous and anti-Semitic rhetoric by the day. Has America become more immune to this hateful speech? Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is here next on that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: As Trump was relaunching his re-election campaign in Florida, Tuesday night, our own Raymond Arroyo talked to protesters at an anti-Trump event just blocks away. They revealed a new line of thinking on the Left, a deeply negative view of their home country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAYMOND ARROYO, CONTRIBUTOR: Your placard says "America Was Never Great", why do you say that?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because we slaughtered an entire, I don't know, people do get our lands.

ARROYO: But, I mean, we're all free. We can come out here and say our piece, right?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure. I think yours on the wrong side of the bridge.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Trying to kick Raymond off. Although that language might be expected from an activist, I guess. But more prominent voices are now contributing to the warped mindset.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ERIC HOLDER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: When I hear these things about let's "Make America Great Again", I think to myself, exactly when did you think America was great?

GOV. ANDREW CUOMO, NEW YORK: We're not going to make America great again. It was never that great.

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This things that are savagely wrong in this country. What we're seeing in this country doesn't reflect our spirit. What we're seeing in this country doesn't reflect our potential--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, it's one of the greatest times ever to be an American and is right now. Joining me now with reaction, former Speaker of the House, Fox News Contributor, Newt Gingrich.

Newt, are we blowing this out of proportion tonight or have many of the most prominent vocal voices and then the activists on the ground really just now very blatant about defaming the foundations and accomplishments of our home country? I mean, the hatred is palpable.

NEWT GINGRICH, CONTRIBUTOR, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, I think it's kind of amazing that President Trump has this knack for framing things in such a way that his opponents go crazy.

So you now have, for example, the President says "Keep America Great", which I think is a great campaign slogan for next year. The Democrats promptly say, "No, no, "Keep America Weak". The President says, "I'm proud to be an American". The Left says, "I'm ashamed to be an American".

The number of lies being told right now about the United States are just astonishing. But all was doing is his drawing to the surface the deep hatred, which on campuses certainly began by the middle of the 1960s, and has grown and grown like a cancer, and you're now seeing it with leading national Democrats and they have a real problem.

If you want to be a Democrat today and go to a normal Democratic meeting and start talking about how wonderful America is, how great the founding fathers were, how remarkable Constitution, you'd be booed off the stage.

So the Democrats have begin to be the party which is a genuinely anti- American party and that's pretty remarkable.

INGRAHAM: Yes, I mean we've moved from - like when I was in college in the 1980s, it was you know "Ronnie Raygun", remember there was like he's going to mushroom cloud over this Soviet Union, and it was just ridiculing him. We all kind of forget that now in the glow of Reagan biographers. But they were just trashing Reagan.

But they were really saying America and her core is illegitimate, because her founding was illegitimate. Her founders were racist. But this is just grown, Newt, with social media and grown with this or the prevalence of 24- hour media.

And the Academy is just - they are emboldened. Hollywood's emboldened. And you're right, though, Trump has this way of just drawing out their utter anti-American madness. I think the regular people look at this going, "Wait, I love my country. I fly my flag. I love my country. It's not - well, no one's perfect.

GINGRICH: Well--

INGRAHAM: My god I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

GINGRICH: In 1984, the Republican convention, Jeane Kirkpatrick, the Ambassador to the United Nations captured this. And she'd been Hubert Humphrey's advisor on domestic policy. She actually was originally sort of a moderate Democrat, and she had gradually been driven out of the party by the Left-wing.

And she gave this amazing speech which is worth our audience Googling and pulling up. Where she talks about the blame America First Democrats - that they're always blaming America First.

Well, if you watched the last three or four days, talk about concentration camps, which is just a total absolute lie. I mean, it is smearing America. It is insulting to everybody who's genuinely worried about the Holocaust and the concentration camps in which six million Jews were killed and millions of other people were killed.

And yet, on the Left today, as we watched recently with Vice President Biden, Biden telling the truth about friendships that were unacceptable - that's more damaging than Alexandria Ocasio saying things that are absolutely, totally false. But feel good if you're a Left-winger.

INGRAHAM: It's false defamatory and I think deeply vindictive at its core. But Newt, I also get quick thoughts on what's happening with these heightened tensions between the U.S. and Iran. So asked if the U.S. was going to retaliate after one of our drones were shot down, the President had this to say today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Iran made a big mistake. They made a very bad mistake.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How will you respond?

TRUMP: You'll find out.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you willing to go on war with Iran?

TRUMP: You will find out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Newt, thoughts, how should we respond?

GINGRICH: Well, I think the President is doing the right thing. I mean, he's not going to trigger what he's going to do.

I suspect at the highest levels we're talking right now with the Iranians and we're saying, "Look, now you have a huge problem. Either you take full responsibility, in which case we will have to retaliate or you have to fire somebody. I mean if you want to claim it was a subordinate, fine, fire them. But if you're willing to take responsibility, well we're moving".

But remember this, because we're energy independent, because of the policies of Donald Trump, we are actually at exporting energy, so we're not affected by the Straits of Hormuz. China, India, Japan, Europe they have a huge investment in this. And I suspect to one level we're saying to them, you want to come and help us patrol the Straits of Hormuz, because you're the ones whose economy will crash if those straits get closed.

INGRAHAM: Good. Let's spread the burden. Mr. Speaker, fantastic--

GINGRICH: That's right.

INGRAHAM: --tonight, as always. And has the watchdog group "Judicial Watch" just uncovered a real case of collusion between the New York Times and the FBI to target Trump? Our legal eagles are here next to tell you what you need to know.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Judicial Watch just obtained internal FBI emails, and they showed that a "New York Times" reporter offered advanced information to the FBI about a story they were working on right after Trump came into office. It concerned Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, and contact he might have had with the Russian ambassador to the United States. "The Times" wasn't looking for comment but just tipping off the FBI. That same "New York Times" reporter also published the Comey memos that the former director admitted leaking during Congressional testimony.

For more, I'm joined by Sol Wisenberg, former deputy independent counsel, FOX News contributor, and John Eastman, a Constitutional law professor. Sol, a "New York Times" reporter sends an email to the FBI that asks no questions and offers only information. Is that a problem?

SOLOMON WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: I don't have enough information to know whether or not it's a problem. But what this isn't, this doesn't appear to be a situation where a reporter is going to publish something and wants to make sure that the administration doesn't have a problem with national security secrets. What can be dangerous in a situation like this is where a reporter is saying I'm going to report a, b, c, and d, and if you don't disagree with me, I'm going to assume that it's correct. Again, it's very difficult to tell from the little bit that I have seen about it whether or not it was inappropriate.

INGRAHAM: John, it certainly feeds, I would imagine, this notion that the FBI, deep state, was still looking for ways to delegitimize the Trump election, that his family is only in there because they are going to benefit, or they are cozy with the Russians, or -- you don't usually see this unless it's a clear, clear issue of implicating national security. A conversation with the Russian ambassador, that's not necessarily implicating anything. But it does fit the narrative of the deep state versus Trump for some.

JOHN EASTMAN, SENIOR FELLOW, CLAREMONT INSTITUTE: It does. What struck me most about the stuff that was released is the very friendly tone and banter about it. This is not the first time these folks have communicated, it appears. And one wonders how extensive the coordination on strategies and communications and what have you had been.

You get a reporter that interviews you and they run by a quotation they are going to use to make sure they didn't bollix it, that it's accurate. But beyond that reporters normally don't give advance notice of the stories they are going to run to people involved in the story or people on the sidelines who might have some vested interest in the story.

INGRAHAM: And the "Washington Examiner" just in the last few weeks published another piece where the inspector general found an FBI official engaging in misconduct, engaging in this behavior of accepting gifts from the press. This is from Horowitz, "concluded that a now former deputy assistant director with the FBI engaged in misconduct by disclosing info to the media that had been filed under seal in federal court maintaining dozens of unauthorized contacts with reporters and accepting a $225 ticket from a member of the media to attend a dinner sponsored by the media."

Sol, a lot of us think there is a real cozy relationship in the Washington establishment, whether you have been here for a long time, it's kind of you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. But it cuts against our understanding that the press should really be a check on government, a legitimate check, not picking and choosing which government officials are going to feed information to advance a particular political narrative. And that's what a lot of us see coming out of these last especially few years of trying to dog President Trump.

WISENBERG: The event you're talking about is even more disturbing than that, Laura, because it was one of the few instances that Inspector General Horowitz reported about where FBI officials not only inappropriately released sealed information to the press, but then accepted favors from those same members of the press. This is very inappropriate conduct and could have been prosecuted. And I read a piece the other day that none of the people cited by Horowitz for engaging in this type of behavior have been charged.

And as you know, of course, McCabe, the former deputy director McCabe has not been charged. And there was a very strong referral on him almost two years ago. So that's what I would focus on.

INGRAHAM: So wrongdoing, I think deteriorating the public's view of the role of government, the role of the press, and there's just no repercussions.

John, we have to talk about the Hope Hicks testimony on Capitol Hill, a lot of hullabaloo about that. The lengths to which people have maligned her and the executive privilege is very quickly -- your thoughts there.

EASTMAN: I have been reading the transcript, it's riveting reading. It's such a farce. On a day that we have an act of war committed against the United States by Iran, they're asking Hope Hicks about private communications and discussions that occurred in the White House, which is off limits. We have three separate branches of government in this Constitution, and the Congress doesn't get to inquire into the deliberative processes of the president or his top advisors any more than the president would be right in demanding that Chairman Nadler's chief of staff come up and testify to the Department of Justice. This is a farce. And we've got much more serious things happening in the world than this farce of a hearing. This one and the Mueller hearing as well.

INGRAHAM: It's unbelievable. Guys, thank you so much, great conversation tonight.

And up next, a victory for religious liberty at the Supreme Court. The group that argued that case is here.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: And now a fantastic resolution to a story we brought you earlier this year. This peace cross built 94 years ago at the sight of a World War I Memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland, came under siege from liberals who wanted it torn down, and they sued for its removal, claiming it violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

But in a win for religious liberty today, in a seven to two decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Maryland peace cross war memorial can stay. This passage from Justice Alito's majority opinion says it all. "A government that roams the land tearing down monuments with religious symbolism and scrubbing away any reference to the divine will strike many as aggressively hostile to religion."

Joining me now with more on this landmark victory is Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of the Liberty Institute that argued this case on behalf of the American Legion before the Supreme Court. Kelly, is today a full victory? Is it as far as you hoped the court would go?

KELLY SHACKELFORD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, LIBERTY INSTITUTE: There are some people that wished that the Thomas opinion, which would have been more explicit in saying Lemon is dead.

INGRAHAM: Lemon -- remember, you don't have a legal audience.

SHACKELFORD: Yes, I know.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: The Lemon versus Kurtzman test, which liberals have relied upon to I think diminish what the Establishment Clause is really all about in the First Amendment. But it looks like you guys won on the substance. But the court did to ground this in this has been around for a long time. And my concern is will there ever be another memorial like this that's allowed, a new one on a new part of public land?

SHACKELFORD: I think this is pretty significant. You have got to realize what they could have said today. If they would have struck down this memorial, if you strike down this memorial, you have got to go into Arlington Cemetery and take down the large crosses in Arlington. You have to go into every community of the state of this country that has religious symbols and images. The religious cleansing would have been I think breathtaking.

And instead of that, they want the other direction. They said this approach we have been using for 50 years is really not working. It's causing the government to be hostile to religion. That's why nativity scenes, veterans' memorials with crosses, menorahs, everything has come under attack.

INGRAHAM: So you think we're moving in the director -- there was the Lamb's Chapel Case when I was clerking for Justice Thomas, but you think we are moving in a direction that is going to be more hospitable to all religious expression? Because that's my concern, that going forward you won't be able to do a cross like this because it's new, it's not belongs in a museum or it's been around for a long time.

SHACKELFORD: No, I don't think so. I think some people tried to read what was said in the opinion today as it's only if it's old.

INGRAHAM: The ones who don't trust the court, like me.

(LAUGHTER)

SHACKELFORD: But I think Gorsuch an Thomas came back in a concurrence and they said no, no, we're saying that if it's something that we've been doing since the beginning of the country like praying before meetings, et cetera, that is long-standing even if you just started this week.

INGRAHAM: Justice Ginsburg in her dissent, she read it from the bench, and they don't usually read them from the bench, so that means they're pretty upset. "Just as the Star of David is not suitable to honor Christians who died serving their country, so a cross is not suitable to honor those of other faiths who died defending their nation." Sotomayor joined her. The dissent claimed that by having the peace cross on a public highway the government elevates Christianity over other faiths, over other religions, and over non-religion."

That's pretty much -- we were just at Normandy. Why would those crosses even on the gravestones be acceptable or in any other depiction?

SHACKELFORD: Under this approach, you just tear all the religious symbols down, and you ignore history that 100 years ago mothers who lost their sons in World War I picked this spot.

INGRAHAM: "In God We Trust," the coinage we use every day, that could offend people who are -- all these secular humanists who are out there giving aggrieved commentary, we don't have time to play them, but they just basically said this sympathizes with one person, Jesus Christ, above all else, and that is not allowed under our Constitution. That's what they're saying tonight.

SHACKELFORD: What they say is any sectarian symbol -- every religious symbol is sectarian. Whether it's a Star of David that is Jewish, or a cross that is Christian, they are all sectarian. So this is their way to say we want to get rid of all the sectarian symbols. And I think it just goes back to something basic. We are a religious people with religious heritage. We have secular and religious monuments, and that's OK. And that's what the court said today.

INGRAHAM: I would argue there's a lot of secular religions out there demanding fealty to various movements with their own symbolism. There's a lot of religions out there that are maybe not officially declaring it but they are just as dogmatic. Congrats.

SHACKELFORD: Thank you. It's a great day.

INGRAHAM: It's a lot of hard work on your part. Thank you so much.

And up next, a message for President Trump and the American business community. Stay there.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We rebuilt China. They've done a great job, but they took us for suckers. And that includes Obama and Biden. They took us for suckers.

(BOOS)

TRUMP: We're either going to have a good deal and a fair deal or we're not going to have a deal at all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Yes. Trump's instincts on China have been right all along. And he's being vindicated once again, by the way. And ahead of this next meeting with President Xi of China at the G20 next week, he is going to continue, we hope, to resist this idea of just doing a deal for the sake of doing a deal because of all these external pressure brought to bear on the White House from Wall Street and all these other big companies.

But we got some good news. These letters from corporations like Nike, Walmart, Costco, calling for an end of tariffs, though, so they can continue to make a quick Chinese buck on the backs of American workers, well, ignore those, ditto for the short terms fluctuations of the market. The ebbs and flows are normal. No need to freak out there. The Dow is still up 46 percent since Trump won in November 2016.

Instead, the president should continue to blow the trumpet on all the great American companies, and this is the good news, that are starting to respond by actually moving operations out of China, and in some cases even back home. Toymaking giant Hasbro shifting most of its production out of China to natural trading partners like Mexico and emerging Asian democracies, and Vietnam, of course, and India among those. Stanley Black & Decker toolmakers, they are shifting production of their hallmark craftsman brand to Fort Worth, Texas, yay. Plans to hire 500 people. Whirlpool intends to move the manufacturing of some of its kitchen aid appliances out of China and into the United States as well.

And even unlikely voices from Wall Street like former Goldman Sachs chairman Lloyd Blankfein have come around to the use of tariffs, writing last month "Saying it hurts us misses the point. China relies more on trade and loses more. U.S. buyers may eventually switch their purchases to domestic or non-Chinese companies, pay a bit more than now. Not great, but part of the process to assure pressure to level the playing field." Bingo.

Trump is actually making the global marketplace more efficient after decades of China's distortions and manipulations. We should never have allowed the communist regime to become such a rich military and economic juggernaut, but, thankfully, we now have a president committed to the principles of fair trade, and he celebrates economic patriotism here at home. Made in the USA is always going to be better.

We'll be right back with a very heartwarming Last Bite.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: It's time for the Last Bite. Zion Williamson, by now you've probably heard his name. He's 18 years old, a superstar basketball player from Duke. And as expected he was just selected by the New Orleans Pelicans as their number one overall pick in tonight's NBA draft. His response, just watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZION WILLIAMSON: I didn't think I would be in this position. My mom sacrificed a lot for me. I wouldn't be here without my mom. I dreamed about it since I was four, and for it to actually happen, I just thank God for it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: I really like that. You never go wrong, thanking the two best coaches in the world, God and your mom, one of your parents. Awesome. That's all the time we have tonight. Don't forget, check out my new podcast, dropped today, podcastone.com. Subscribe there. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team have all the latest.

Shannon?

Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.