House Democrats hold Barr in contempt, Trump asserts executive privilege over Mueller report

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," May 8, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle," yes, back in the swamp tonight.

House Judiciary Committee's Democrats embarrassed themselves today after overplaying their hand holding Attorney General Bill Barr in contempt and President Trump asserted executive privilege over the entire unredacted Mueller report.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Two years. Almost $40 million, after two years nothing. No collusion. Now the Democrats are saying we want more. You know it was going to be like, we want the Mueller Report. Now they say Mueller Report, no who want - start all over again.


INGRAHAM: Well, tonight our all-star legal panel of Robert Ray, Wisenberg and Harmeet Dhillon and John you are here to tell you what you need to know and what everybody else as typical is getting it wrong. Plus, Jim Comey told CBS that the FBI doesn't spy. The FBI's first-ever assistant director of intelligence however is here to tell us why the former director is lying to you. And Raymond Arroyo is here for seen and unseen. The media's race obsession over the royal baby. Wow. And Frank Luntz is also going to stop by on why the Democrats are struggling to get on message.

But first, Democrats hold America in contempt. That's the focus of tonight's Angle. Now, as they prepare to vote for a resolution of contempt against Attorney General Bill Barr, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee revealed themselves once again. It's a depressing and yet very illuminating spectacle for our country to see elected officials acting like meth dealers, because after relentlessly pushing Russian collusion for two years, they were finally busted. No collusion and no obstruction. But Democrats refuse to accept reality and instead they continue to sell their poison to scandal addicts on the left


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The collusion part of the Mueller Report recounts the constant interaction of Trump operatives with Russian adversaries.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you think there is no collusion and no obstruction, you haven't read the Mueller Report.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Trump gets on the telephone with Mr. Putin and has a 90-minute conversation or something like that where he can see on a phone call that he smiled at him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's your leader, the commander-in-cheat.


INGRAHAM: Yes, you're going to win the presidency with that line. Now to keep the high going, Democrats hold out Bill Barr two-time Attorney General as their new nemesis. And then they create a phony conflict that's focused on a narrow set of redactions in the Mueller Report and on Barr's refusal to testify again on the Hill after Democrats change the rules for his questioning.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is all part of a cover up. We have lawful responsibilities, constitutional responsibilities to engage in and one of which is possibly impeachment. How can we impeach without getting the documents? And so, I ask my colleagues on the other side to stop osculating.


INGRAHAM: That is a very hard word to say. That's not fair. All right, Barr wasn't ever legally required to release the full report to Congress. We forget that nor is he legally allowed to release certain redacted parts of it and the Democrats know this. Now, most of them on the committee are lawyers. Well, maybe they passed a different type of Bar exam. I don't know.  Barr has bent over backwards in an effort to accommodate Democrats and to be transparent, but none of that matters, because this is all theater. It's all choreography. It's wrapped up in a bogus concern about congressional oversight.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This obstruction means the end of congressional oversight. We're afraid of the loss of the power of Congress to be an independent and coequal branch of government.


INGRAHAM: I like them better with the chicken, when he was holding the chicken. Now, Democrats have all they need to do their constitutional oversight. Mueller spent two years and $30 million producing the report. So, if the Democrats really want to impeach the President, they should convene hearings tomorrow.

Democrats have been given the option by the DOJ to read everything, but a very minimally redacted copy of the Mueller Report. But guess what? None of them have actually gone to review it or read it over at the DOJ. It tells you all you need to know. But after winning a majority in November, Democrats remember Democrats promising results and focus.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Democrats pledge again a new majority for the people agenda. Lower health care costs, lower prescription drugs, bigger paychecks, building the infrastructure, clean up corruption to Make America work for the American people's interest, not the special interest.


INGRAHAM: But what did they have to show the American people. Nothing.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it was maybe the Ranking Member said, we should be doing legislation and how many signatures, how many bills have been signed into law by this committee. Well, ask Mitch McConnell who has declared that the Senate is a graveyard for all legislation that comes from the house. We have passed outstanding legislation out of this committee. It's gone to the graveyard.


INGRAHAM: More excuses. More blame shifting from chicken man. More Russia hysteria. No attempt to work with Republicans on the border crisis or much of anything. Now, they may have voted to hold the Attorney General in contempt today, but what they really did is to hold you the American people in contempt. Savvier than Democrats obviously think they are. I think most working people; they just want government to function properly and to stay out of their lives. And if two recent polls are any indication, the American people are letting the Democrats know where they stand.

On the economy, a recent CNN poll showed that 56 percent of Americans approve of the President's handling of the economy. That's a new high. In the most recent Gallup poll conducted almost entirely in the weeks following the Mueller report showed that Trump is enjoying his highest approval yet in their survey at 46 percent. At the same time in his presidency, well Barack Obama was a 44 percent. I seem to remember that he actually won his re-election. So, what's the real motivation here on the part of the Democrats? Congressman Jordan nailed it today  (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't think today's actually about getting information. I don't think it's about getting the unredacted Mueller Report. I don't think last week's hearing was actually about having staff question the Attorney General. It's all about trying to destroy Bill Barr because Democrats are nervous, he is going to get to the bottom of everything. He's going to find out how and why this investigation started in the first place. What can be done to a President, can be done to any of us. And this committee is supposed to look out for that fundamental fact more than anything else. And we are not doing that today.


INGRAHAM: Exactly right. And given Congress's most recent approval numbers, I'd say the American people have held them in contempt for a long, long time and that's The Angle.

All right. Joining me now with reaction is Robert Ray, former Whitewater Independent Counsel and Harmeet Dhillon, board member for the Republican National Lawyers Association who also serves on Trump's 2020 Advisory Council. All right, Robert, we're going to get what some of these same Democrats were saying about Eric Holder's contempt of Congress, back in 2012. But it seems to me that they're smearing a good man in order to what wound Trump or satisfy their base. Do I have any of that wrong.

ROBERT RAY, FORMER WHITEWATER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: They can't get at the president because they understand for political reasons that they can say at most that they're thinking about impeachment proceedings, but not actually have the courage of their own convictions and failing to do that of course prevents really a court from ordering the release of grand jury material. So, the Attorney General had no choice but to follow the law and they're holding him in contempt for it.

I think the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jordan among them have correctly pointed out that what's really going on here is a failing an effort to successfully attack the President. They have now gone on to try to attack Bill Barr's integrity. Remember that he's only been in office less than three months as the Attorney General under the President. But that apparently wasn't long enough before we now find ourselves in a contempt proceeding, which of course ultimately will go nowhere.

So, we really haven't changed anything other than sort of--

INGRAHAM: It's theatrics.

RAY: It's procedural gymnastics which I have to say you know as late as last night, the Democrats apparently were prepared to trade away contempt proceedings as long as the Attorney General agreed on behalf of the Justice Department to go to court and seek a court order to release the grand jury material. So that sort of blows up the whole notion that really contempt is other than political theatrics.

INGRAHAM: Yes, this is sound and fury signifying nothing.

RAY: Exactly.

INGRAHAM: And grand jury materials, Harmeet as you know as a practicing lawyer extremely successful are supposed to be kept secret. And so that ended up making for a huge debate today. And this is how it all played out. Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it is absolutely shocking that the majority of this committee is going to ask the chief law enforcement officer of the United States to commit a crime.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Nobody is asking the Attorney General to disobey the law. We're asking the attorney general to obey the law and produce the Mueller Report and the supporting documentation.


INGRAHAM: OK. Harmeet, who is telling the truth? Would Barr be violating the law by releasing the fully unredacted Mueller Report.

HARMEET DHILLON, REPUBLICAN NATIONAL LAWYERS' ASSOCIATION: Yes, well of course he would be and it's not his job to go do the impeachment homework for the Democrats by going to court and asking them to waive that obligation. And in fact, in recent court cases on this exact same issue, the D.C. Circuit has refused to make grand jury material public even if they're 50 and 60 years old.

There is no compelling reason to do that here. And his transparency and openness has been met with absolute demagoguery and despicable lies by the Democrats here and there really you know Laura you made the point and analogize them to meth dealers. I think these are the types of dealers who are actually using some themselves because they're so addicted to this narrative that they can't give it up and it's an awful spectacle.

I mean you know as you pointed out and others have pointed out today, Elijah Cummings, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Jerry Nadler seven years ago all made a big fuss about the proceedings of contempt against Eric Holder. And in that case, Eric Holder had openly defied and given nothing and stonewalled Congress--

INGRAHAM: Fast and furious.

DHILLON: For over 400 days, over 400 days on this gun running stuff.


DHILLON: And then he only gave the documents after he left office. Here our Attorney General is only like--

INGRAHAM: Yes, they rushed it.

DHILLON: Weeks into it and he's been treated like this.

INGRAHAM: Yes, they rushed this whole thing. I want to get into it is Robert, how the Democrats are rushing any possibility of accommodation between the Justice Department and Democrats. They went back and forth, the letter saying, we're happy to try to accommodate you as we can. We'll let more people see the minimally redacted report, but they don't want any of that. And back to Harmeet's point, I want to play some of the old sound from seven years ago that the Democrats were dismissing this whole idea of contempt. I think we have it. Let's watch


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Contempt of Congress, contempt of Congress. It's not only to monopolize his time. It's to undermine his name.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Some of my colleagues on the other side seem almost giddy about today's vote. After turning this investigation into an election year witch hunt.


INGRAHAM: Robert, I love the witch hunt. The witch hunt word is back. So, I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored here.

RAY: Its consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Right. You know, apparently, I was paying attention the day they taught law in law school. And you know, I just -- I don't really understand the point of a contempt proceeding under these circumstances where the Attorney General is in fact following the law and that's why they're citing him for contempt and it's not a constitutional crisis. This is completely blown out of proportion. And I do think it's the last gasp effort on a road that the Democrats are not going to take which would be impeachment.

Nevertheless, they are attempting to create mischief and to do the next best thing in this process until the American people ultimately say, hey, enough. And the country's attention turns to a re-election campaign where it should be. And also, frankly on solving the problems of the country I mean not the least of which is that there are foreign policy issues on the horizon. We've got three carrier groups in the Persian Gulf, a revolution in Venezuela.

INGRAHAM: We got our border. We got our border. I just left the border. The border is a nightmare. OK. And these Democrats turn a blind eye to that. They don't call that a crisis, but they called Barr not giving them grand jury materials a crisis.

RAY: This proceeding today--

INGRAHAM: That's a scandal.

RAY: This proceeding today went all day long and the vote didn't actually happen until 4:30, so no legislation happened today.

INGRAHAM: That's a total joke.

RAY: Harmeet, I want to play one thing really quickly. This was Chris Christie today and he was talking about going back to Holder and so forth. Let's watch


CHRIS CHRISTIE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY: Let's look at breathless about this, okay. Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress over Fast and Furious and what happened from that. Absolutely nothing, because the prosecution for contempt of Congress is then referred to the Justice Department and Eric Holder said, yes, I prefer not to be prosecuted. That was the end of that. And no U.S. attorneys working for that Attorney General. We're going to prosecute him for contempt of Congress. So, this is not unprecedented. In fact, it's done unprecedented in the last decade.


INGRAHAM: Yes, Harmeet almost out of time. But I however - I see Chris Christie sitting next to Jeff Sessions and I love Jeff Sessions as a person. Christie just cuts right through us like you guys don't even know basic constitutional law, it's embarrassing

DHILLON: Yes. Absolutely. So, the three ways that you can actually pursue contempt none of them are going to work in real life, the one arresting people and putting them in the pokey stopped in 1930 and the other two civil and criminal. They never get prosecuted for the exact reason that Chris Christie just said.

And in this case, Jerry Nadler has chosen to pursue the lowest moving possible failed effort which he knows is going nowhere. So, he's really filibustering and it's fairly transparent and it's toothless and one more point is the reason why these people are asking the Attorney General to go to court is they know that if they go to court, court's going to say get out of here, political question, we can't help you.

INGRAHAM: We can't deal with him.

DHILLON: It's between the people and the--

RAY: They will absolutely lose if they go there on their own. This was all a ploy to leverage the Attorney General to join that application and he doesn't have to do so and now as the result of this what's happened to the Democrats. There is a blanket exertion of executive privilege which means that this whole thing is going to get shut down in a hurry.

INGRAHAM: OK guys. Phenomenal analysis. We have two more - two other smartest legal minds in the country John Yoo and Sol Wisenberg here in studio to tell us why the President is using executive privilege to shut down the Democrats theatrically on the Hill. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: Now, President Trump's claim of executive privilege over the full Mueller Report and its underlying documents earlier today set off some fireworks between the White House and the House Judiciary Chair.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Chairman Nadler is asking the Attorney General of the United States to break the law and commit a crime by releasing information that he knows he has no legal authority to have.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. We are now in it. They are stonewalling the American people from all information. It is an attack on the essence of our democracy.


INGRAHAM: Now, for anyone looking for adults in this back and forth don't walk to Jerry Nadler is not a constitutional crisis. It's not an attack on the essence of our democracy. This is the executive branch and the legislative branch flexing their muscles in ways that are - that has happened over decades and longer than that. And it's a constitutional exercise. If you know constitution 101, you can see through this.

Joining me now, two people know more than that. John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Sol Wisenberg, former Whitewater deputy independent counsel, Fox News contributor. John, I want to start with you. Now, Democrats love to call the President's language reckless, but what about what we just heard from Nadler calling what happened today, the last few days a constitutional crisis, John.

JOHN YOO, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Laura, as you suggested, it's not a crisis, it might be a confrontation. But as you rightly point out, this is the way the framers designed the constitution to work. They gave Congress some powers, a right to conduct hearings and oversight, but they gave the executive branch powers too and part of that is the right to keep confidential communications and certain kinds of work product. And they didn't expect you would run to court right away and try to litigate it, go to the Supreme Court, ask for their permission for they said ambition should counteract ambition. Let the two branches fight it out as you suggest using their own powers and let it work its way through the political process.

INGRAHAM: Now, we're going to get to the Don Jr. being asked to testify before the Senate Intel Committee in a moment, but I want to ask you Sol about this question today, did the administration waive an executive privilege claim over the Mueller Report already. That's what the Democrats were saying. And since they had McGahn testify already, how can you keep him from testifying again. That was--

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well, there are two different things. They have certainly waived executive privilege with respect to the portions of the Mueller Report that have been released to the public. But you've got to remember as John reminded me before the show, Congress doesn't just want the unredacted Mueller Report. They want all the background information. They want all the 302s, all the grand jury.

INGRAHAM: 302s and witness interviews.

WISENBERG: Witness interviews, grand jury information. So, they're asking for something very much in addition. With respect to the question about Don McGahn, you can testify in a proceeding. I for example can decide to testify at the grand jury and if I am later indicted, I can make the decision, you know what at trial, I'm not going to testify. So, it's a different proceeding. So, that's my answer.

INGRAHAM: But can McGahn - if the President prevent McGahn. Let's say McGahn says, I want to testify--

WISENBERG: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Can the President prevent McGahn for the layman out there from testifying on Capitol Hill and does that look like the President wants to hide something or protect this executive privilege, the deliberative process privilege whatever.  YOO: This is actually the very core of executive privilege that's been upheld by the Supreme Court in the Watergate tapes case. The Supreme Court said quite clearly. Communications between the president and his top advisers are protected and, in that case, they were even - might have been protected against the need by the courts to resolve the Watergate tapes case. I think they would definitely be privileged against a request by Congress and even though McGahn is not working for him anymore, he can still invoke the privilege just like if you and I had an attorney and then we don't have that attorney, we fire the attorney, our attorney client privilege still exists.

INGRAHAM: I don't know why they never allowed him to testify in the first place. I kept saying at the time you and I were talking about why were they allowing the White House Counsel to go up on Capitol Hill and testify during this whole thing. I think that was a huge mistake.

WISENBERG: Keep something else in mind too. U.S. vs. Nixon was a prosecutor against the President. This is just the Congress. And as John said, courts typically when it's Congress versus the President.

INGRAHAM: Stay out of it. It's a political question.

WISENBERG: They typically stay out of it.

INGRAHAM: It's a political question. All right. Late notice today broke that the Senate Intel Committee, remember that Republicans still control the Senate is asking, subpoenaing not asking Don Jr. to testify regarding this Trump Tower project in Moscow.  Now John, Jr. and team basically said that they'd already agreed to appear before the committee. He said, no problem. So, why subpoena him? What's going on here?

YOO: I actually don't get it. I used to work in the Senate. I've signed congressional subpoenas.

INGRAHAM: That's strange. He said, I'll testify.

YOO: There is no need to subpoena someone who's voluntarily appearing. You would only use a subpoena after someone appears and refuses to answer questions or not produce documents. So, I think like what's going on in the house just in a smaller version. People in Congress now overreact.  INGRAHAM: Ryan Paul and Mark Meadows buying way - by the way are calling out the ranking Republican Senator Richard Burr tonight saying, what are you doing? It's a curious development. When I first saw it, I'm like what a thing, this has to be happening in the House, it can't be happening in the Senate. Strange.

WISENBERG: I don't understand it. The only explanation I can have for it other than if there is some PR reason which I - you wouldn't think would be the case with Burr is that they don't want a situation where he says, I'm going to voluntarily come here and then he tries to pick and choose what he can answer and then they have to go do a subpoena. They want to make it clear - I'm just guessing, you're here under our subpoena.  INGRAHAM: Yes. And then an interview he did on this show was cited and all the stories about this and being asked about the Trump Tower project. You cleared up a lot for our viewers tonight. Thank you so much. And coming up if you thought 2020 Dems had an obsession with race, why do you hear what the media is saying about the royal baby. Plus, shocking video that could make your eyes pop. Raymond Arroyo here seen and unseen next.


INGRAHAM: It's time for our seen and unseen segment, where we expose the big cultural stories of the day.

The media's race obsession over the royal baby, the most famous coffee cup in the seven kingdoms, and terrifying video that will make you rethink ringing that doorbell.

Joining us now is Raymond Arroyo, Fox News contributor, New York Times bestselling author of the book "Will Wilder, The Amulet of Power." All right, Raymond, the royal baby is now two-and-a-half, almost three days old. So how are the media in trouble over this already?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced and introduced their son to the world today. Contrary to earlier reports they didn't give him a gender neutral name and they did refer to him as a boy.


MEGHAN MARKLE: He has the sweetest temperament. He is really calm.

PRINCE HARRY: I wonder who he gets that from.


MARKLE: And he's just been a dream. So it's been a special couple days.


INGRAHAM: And he has a name, right?

ARROYO: Archibald Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

INGRAHAM: I love it.

ARROYO: Some are saying it's a wink to Markle's American roots. There are well known Archies of course in the United States. The first one that comes to mind is Archie Bunker of "All in the Family."



ARROYO: And then there's the comic book character of Riverdale fame, Archie. But amazingly, CNN and "The L.A. Times" are so race-obsessed, they couldn't celebrate the child's birth without running headlines like this, "How black will the royal baby be?" asks CNN.

INGRAHAM: What? What does that mean?

ARROYO: And "The L.A. Times" asked "Will Meghan Markle and Prince Harry raise their baby to be black?" Laura, I have to read this little bit.  This is from Carla Hall's piece in The L.A. Times. She says "I'm guessing that one of his first questions to his parents will be, am I black? The answer is, yes, you are." No, the first question will probably be when can I sit on the throne, mommy. That's what I would ask in his position.

INGRAHAM: Seventh in line.

ARROYO: CNN piece, a producer there, John Blake, wrote this, "Let's not turn this child into another great mixed race hope." Can you believe the racial politics injected into this birth?

INGRAHAM: I just thought the baby was really cute. I loved how the baby reporter said can you tip the baby. I can't see the baby's face. And then they did a little tip just to see the little baby's face. He's so cute.

ARROYO: They didn't want to break the "People" magazine embargo.

INGRAHAM: I like the name Archie. I think is quote.

ARROYO: Archibald, yes.

INGRAHAM: I thought the name was Sussex.

ARROYO: No, no. They're the duke and duchess of Sussex.

INGRAHAM: I was like, that's odd, to call the baby Sussex.

ARROYO: I hate that they are injecting racial politics in this. this should be a moment of unity. He is not a check in a box. He's a child of God and it's a moment to celebrate.

Laura, another media scandal broke out of sorts. A coffee cup that showed up on a Winterfell banquet table in the hit series "Game of Thrones" last Sunday. "Game of Thrones" fans first spotted the errant cup, and they went nuts.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They left a coffee cup.




ARROYO: Well, I guess we can now call it "Game of Foams." But this is not all that extraordinary. Look, continuity, when you have a long shoot like this, continuity sometimes misses things. You will see modern cars go by.

INGRAHAM: That's true.

ARROYO: It happens. Like many of the characters on "Game of Thrones," now the coffee cup as well has been erased. He's met his end.

INGRAHAM: It's like the erasing of history in America, digitally erasing history.

ARROYO: Starbucks ended up making millions of dollars.

INGRAHAM: We had a doorbell situation?

ARROYO: We can't get there yet. We can't go to that story yet. That's at the very end. We have to first go to a very important story about the death of smart cars in America, and why I think is a good thing. You know those dinky little cars that look like supped up golf carts. Daimler, the manufacture of the smart car, is discontinuing sales of the battery- operated vehicles in the U.S. and Canada supposedly due to a decline in the micro-car market. Sales have dropped from 25,000 to below 1,000.

INGRAHAM: Clown car.

ARROYO: But you can still see them in Europe.





ARROYO: In the U.S. people don't want them. In single, childless Europe these vehicles make a lot of sense. They are going through the roof in Italy and France. You know why? They have the lowest fertility rates in the world. now, 178 of 200 countries is where Italy stands, and of course the sales of these smart cars are through the roof. In America it's a good sign that we want big SUVs.

INGRAHAM: Big families need big cars. Now we have a video, real quick.  We're almost out of time.

ARROYO: This is a sneak attack caught on camera. An Oklahoma man on Sunday went to ring a friend's bell. He strolled up to the front porch, and drama unfolded.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ouch! Take me to the hospital! Take me to the hospital!


ARROYO: The snake randomly appeared. It was wrapped around the light there. It lounged for the man's face. He was taken to the hospital and put on antibiotics. Thank God, the snake was not venomous. It could have been a lot worse, Laura. It could have been that guy who assaulted.  Remember the guy who licked the doorbells. You don't want that to happen.

INGRAHAM: OK. You are signing books in New Orleans?

ARROYO: I am, Octavia Books this Saturday, May 11th, 3:00 p.m. All details at

INGRAHAM: Go see Raymond, everybody.

And Jim Comey said this morning that the FBI doesn't spy. So is he lying?  The first ever director of intelligence for the FBI joins us next. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: Former FBI Director Jim Comey has kind of long held himself out as a paragon of truth and honesty among the redwoods. He recent New York Times piece decried President Trump and Attorney General Barr as amoral leaders. So was Comey a moral leader at the FBI, an agency whose leadership targeted American individuals on phony predicates using confidential informants? Is he honest now when he says this with a straight face during his latest media blitz?


JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: The FBI doesn't spy. The FBI investigates. We investigated a very serious allegation that Americans might be hooked up with the Russian effort to attack our democracy.


INGRAHAM: So what happens when we exam Jim Comey? Joining me now, Kevin Brock, he was the first FBI assistant director of intelligence, and former special agent for 24 years, and Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary and FOX News contributor. Kevin, first to you. When Jim Comey says the FBI doesn't spy, is that the truth?

KEVIN BROCK, FORMER FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE: Here's a tip for America. Let's not get caught up in the euphemism of spy versus investigate. That's not the point. The point is did the FBI or was the FBI manipulated by James Comey and others that he surrounded himself to run an investigation out of his office on behalf of one political party against another? That's what we've got to understand, and that's the truth we have got to reach.

INGRAHAM: Ari, this was Jim Comey today on CBS. He's doing this legacy rehab tour. So goes on CBS this morning and says this.


JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: The Republicans need to breath into a paper bag. It's time to move one to the most important thing we do, which is vote to decide who should represent us as president of the United States? The great middle of America represents our values, and they stir every so often, and I hope they are stirring now. I see signs of it, and are going to vote their values.


INGRAHAM: So Ari, maybe he is throwing his hat in the ring? It sounds like he could be in the running here for the presidency?

ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Laura, it is entirely inappropriate for a former director of the FBI to enter partisan politics like this. None else have done it. No secretaries of defense do it like this. There's a reason we hold those agencies in a lofty status.

And think about what those partisan statements mean to the men and women working, the brick agents of the FBI. It's demoralizing when they see their former leader call for the American people to elect one party to office. It damages their ability to be seen as nonpartisan. James Comey's ego is uncontrollable, and that's what's led him to take these actions and make these speeches. He needs to stop doing this. He is hurting the FBI.

INGRAHAM: The ranking member, Kevin, of the House Judiciary Committee, Doug Collins, today spoke out. I want your reaction. Let's watch.


REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA.,  HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER:  Without any valid legislative or administrative reason, we can only assume the Democrats that are led by the chairman have resolved to sully Bill Barr's good name. Democrats are afraid of what the attorney general will find when he completes his ongoing review of FISA abuses at the Justice Department.


INGRAHAM: So why they're holding Barr in contempt, two-time attorney general, they don't like this idea of Bill Barr investigating the investigators?

BROCK: Not at all. And here we have James Comey saying he lacks inner strength. I don't think anybody watching Attorney General Barr testify before Congress last week thought that he lacked inner strength.

INGRAHAM: Kevin, you said something during the break I want everyone to hear about the FBI's use of these confidential informants. They do use confidential informants, but particularly the way they were used, it looks like, at the origins of this Mueller investigation?

BROCK: That's right. The FBI has strict guidelines as to when they can use confidential human sources, particularly against a U.S. person. There has to be substantial predication, as the attorney general likes to say, to do something like that. We have indications that the FBI was running sources against people like George Papadopoulos and others where the case either wasn't even opened yet or was in its infancy where they couldn't have had the required predicate to do that type of activity. I think one of the things that's making Jim Comey nervous is to whether or not they colored outside the lines.

INGRAHAM: Ari, have you seen anything like this? We hit the legal aspect of this charade on Capitol Hill today with holding a new attorney general in contempt. But the political ramifications of this, do you think Americans are sitting around going there's Constitutional crisis today after Barr testifies for hours and hours and hours last week?

FLEISCHER: No. And I get such a kick, Carl Bernstein on CNN has been yipping about a Constitutional crisis for nine months. A Constitutional crisis is when we will all know it. And when you have to advocate on behalf of it, there isn't one. But this is all part of the Democrats' strategy to get their base out. That's what it is, Laura. And it doesn't matter who they tar, they are tarring a good man, an attorney general who actually makes decisions, not like Loretta Lynch who recused herself and allowed James Comey they to make the decisions about Hillary Clinton. This is an attorney general who followed the rule of law, made the hard calls.  It's what attorney generals do. And the Democrats blame him for doing his job.

INGRAHAM: And by the way, Kevin, tonight apparently Woodward was on another network saying this is a dire governing crisis. They are running out of descriptions for the crisis. It's a dire governing crisis. Things are so bad in Washington, I'd say because they're not actually doing work for the American people. They are doing these charades day in and day out after this report is already written.

BROCK: The crisis of loss of trust in the FBI by the American people. And that was bought on by James Comey under McCabe and this little investigative cabal that they had at headquarters. We have to get to the bottom of what they did and carefully look at how they started.

INGRAHAM: As Jim Jordan said, my friend, this can happen to any of us if it can happen to the president of the United States. That was a chilling line from him today. Both of you, thank you for political analysis, and former veteran of our great FBI.

While 2020 Democrats hopefuls spin their wheels, searching for a message to defeat Trump, the president showed tonight why he is still in the driver's seat. Media guru Frank Luntz is here next to break down the moments that mattered the most from tonight's rally.


INGRAHAM: 2020 Democrats are really struggling with their messaging, and it's fairly embarrassing, frankly. Take a look at these headlines.  "Politico" is saying Dems don't have a robust economic message. The New York Times revealing Kamala Harris is trying to reset her campaign already to take on the Trump. But as he showed tonight, the president has no problem hitting the messages that created a movement and got him elected.

Let's bring in Republican pollster, Frank Luntz. Frank, I want to take you through a few moments from tonight that I think speak to this. Let's begin with what the president said about jobs under the previous administration.


TRUMP: Under the previous administration the United States lost a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs. You remember that. They let other countries raid our factories, steal our jobs, and rob us blind. Other than that, they were very nice.


INGRAHAM: Frank, your take there?

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER: He is going back to his single greatest strength as president, the single greatest success of this administration. When you have unemployment at 50 year lows, employment at 50 year highs, and particularly among African-American Latino workers, you have a success story. And the more that he focuses on it, and the more that he draws the contrast between himself and Barack Obama, the more credit we is going to get for the economy.

And Laura, this is one place where his approval numbers are up in the mid- 50s, very strong. This what he is going to need to be successful in the next 18 months.

INGRAHAM: We see these polls, we saw them earlier, 56 percent on the economy, 46 percent Gallup, which his above where Barack Obama was at this point in his presidency. Here Frank in the rally tonight, we see Trump covering a point he did cover over and over again in 2016. But let's listen tonight.


TRUMP: Democrats say they care about the poor, but their open border policies drive down wages, drain social services, and hurt the poorest Americans more than anybody else.


INGRAHAM: Frank, I just came back from the border. We do have an open border. Unfortunately, it's under the Trump administration. So how do Democrats respond to this?

LUNTZ: The first thing is I would say to the president, instead of making the statement, ask the question. Who does the open border hurt the most?  When you put in a rhetorical question, it causes people to answer it themselves rather than hearing somebody else answer it for them. You get an extra five or 10 points. I would make that stylistic change.

But the public does not believe in open borders. They believe in national security. They believe in safety. They believe that that's the first responsibility of the president to keep the people safe. So again, I think that that is a successful message if he just makes that small change.

INGRAHAM: Frank, we talked about using the word home. Your home, the homeland. Home is a very powerful image, is it now, especially for women, some of them turned off a bit by some of the president's tonalities and tweets and so forth. But keeping the home prosperous and secure and safe, I think that's a winner for him.

LUNTZ: In that case I would do your home. I would actually have him be specific. Your home, your neighborhood, your community prosperous and safe. When you personalize it and individualize it, it has a more powerful impact.

INGRAHAM: Fascinating, Frank. We're going to bring you back a lot as we get close and closer to this 2020 race, and thank you so much.

We'll be right back with the Last Bite.


INGRAHAM: Aren't you lucky tonight, because we have two Last Bites.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked today about Steve Mnuchin's refusal to release President Trump's tax returns. Her response, put the Treasury Secretary behind bars?


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: We do have a jail down in the basement of the capital.


PELOSI: But if we were arresting all of the people in the administration, we would have overcrowded jails situation, and I'm not for that.



INGRAHAM: But don't worry, we won't leave you with that sour taste in your mouth. Here's a great moment of a mother and son who are graduating college on the same day. Yes, mom and the sun. She skipped her ceremony to attend his, but here's what happened next.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I confer upon you, Sharonda Wilson, the bachelor's degree that you have earned with all rights, privileges, pertaining thereto. Please move your tassel from your right to your left.



INGRAHAM: Oh, it was a great moment. And it's about time we end on some great stuff. That's all the time we have tonight. Don't forget my new podcast, new episode tomorrow. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it all from here.


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