Huckabee: Democrats are picking at the bones of the Mueller report

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," May 1, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: No way. All right Hannity, great to see it tonight, fantastic job and coverage throughout. I'm Laura Ingraham, this is The Ingraham Angle from an extremely busy and on fire Washington, tonight.

Five hours of getting hit every direction by the Senate Democrats Attorney General Bill Barr has had about enough. He is refusing rightly, to go in front of the House Judiciary Committee tomorrow and the hearing today was nothing but a 2020 Democratic preview and a lot of preening and grandstanding.

President Trump weighed in a short time ago.


DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT: Well, I guess they want to treat him differently than they have anybody else and for many, many years they have never done it this way, where they're bringing in outside counsel or something. That's not the way - you know, you elect people, they're supposed to be able to do their own talking.


INGRAHAM: Now we're going to get to that issue in just a moment with a phenomenal legal panel and we're going to reveal what the Democrats and the media are really attempting with this Barr hearing.

But first, I want you to understand the most crucial part of Barr's Senate testimony and what it tells us about where we're going over the next several months and beyond all the fake outrage over Bob Mueller disagreeing with Barr's release of the summary without his summary and the slanderous attacks on the Attorney General today, this is the most important thing to know.


BILL BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We first heard that the Special Counsel's decision not to decide the obstruction issue would meet at the March 5 meeting when he came over to the department and we were frankly surprised that - that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction.

And we asked them a lot about the reasoning behind this and the basis for this. Special Counsel Mueller stated three times to us in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found obstruction.


INGRAHAM: Okay, this is a stunning. What all this means is that despite all the chatter and gossip, hair pulling today, despite the continuing leaks Mueller was unable to find obstruction and further the Justice Department, their long standing opinion from OLC that a sitting President cannot be indicted had no bearing on Mueller's findings.

Notice that the legal geniuses over at MSNBC did not interrupt their live coverage of the hearing to highlight what I just shared with you because they were too busy doing fantastical real time fact checks which I'm going to show you in just a moment.

But this was my favorite description of the day.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Special Counsel investigation started by his handpicked Deputy Attorney General.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We will continue to hear from the President's handpicked Attorney General.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trump's handpicked Attorney General William Barr.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This behavior by his handpicked Attorney General. This Roy Cohn type guy who's working for him, not the country.


INGRAHAM: Now wait a second. Was the Attorney General and the Trump administration supposed to be picked by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. What will they prefer a randomly selected AG, just pull someone off the street or maybe we can just go to a lottery system instead.

Every Attorney General is selected by the sitting President. He serves at the pleasure of the President. Every single one of them so these people, these other media outlets. They don't even know just basic government functioning, I guess.

Or they're just spinning foolishness. And the media were not alone and their slanderous attacks on Barr of course. Having determined that there was no Trump-Russia collusion, Democrats have now moved on to a Trump-Barr collusion narrative.


SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN: I think his plea was done too harshly, that conclusion is inescapable.

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You've only put your own credibility into question but seem to be giving sanction to behavior to the language you used in that Press Conference you held.

SEN. MAZIE HIRONO, D-HI: You lied. And now we know. Being Attorney General of the United States is a sacred trust. You have betrayed that trust. America deserves better. You should resign.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You slandered this man from top to bottom.


INGRAHAM: Senator Graham of course is 100% correct. If the Democrats want to impeach this President on the basis of this Mueller report. I say you know. you try, you go for it kids. You have the whole report, you got all for 448 pages, none of the Democrats by the way have actually gone to view.

The fully unredacted report, they can go, they can go to a special room of the Justice Department if they're so set about - you know, set on this idea of impeaching Trump. Go, look at the full report unredacted.

You know, only two people have gone to see it both Republicans. These people are complete and utter frauds. If you think you have the evidence to impeach, roll the dice, let's see what you got, guys. Let's see what you have. See where it ends up.

But in the midst of this congressional harassment today Barr explained how this Special Counsel process actually works.


BARR: His work concluded when he sent his report to the Attorney General. At that point, it was my baby. And I was making a decision as to whether or not to make it public and I effectively overrode the regulations used discretion to lean as far forward as I could to make that public and it was my decision how and when to make it public, not Bob Mueller's and the job of the Justice Department is now over.

That determines whether or not there's a crime. The report is now in the hands of the American people, everyone can decide for themselves. There's as an election in 18 months, that's very democratic process but we're out of it.

And we have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.


INGRAHAM: Bingo. That was the key moment from today. And by the way, particularly when there was no criminal wrongdoing discovered by Mueller, zero. He couldn't do the interview with the President. He didn't want to go to court to try to get to sit down with the President because he knew he would lose.

So let's break this down for some of the armchair legal analysts out there. There is no disagreement about the central facts of Mueller's investigation. Fact one, there was no criminal conspiracy with Russia. Some people call that collusion, none.

Fact two, while the Mueller report did find possible instances of obstructive behavior, it did not come to a conclusion to recommend prosecutions, a binary choice either or. The rest just window dressing.

The inconsequential rantings of fanatics who didn't get what they wanted and they're bitter and they're clinging to the old narrative that went nowhere. The criminal prosecution of the President's - President of the United States wasn't going to happen, it didn't happen.

Now to unpack what we learned today and examine where we go from here, we're joined by Sol Wisenberg, former deputy Independent Counsel, Fox News Contributor. John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Joe diGenova, former U.S. attorney.

All right, it's great to see all of you on a very important night tonight. Sol, after the Mueller letter to Barr leaked out last night, Democrats tonight are calling for Barr's resignation. Including by the way Joe Biden who just made the call for the resignation a half hour ago.

Now they claim that Barr lied on April 10 when he was before the Committee and he said, he didn't know if Mueller disagreed with those conclusions on obstruction. My question to you. Did Barr lie about that?

SOL WISENBERG, FMR DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: I don't think he did at all based upon what - what I was read - what I have read. If you actually read what was sad and look at it - look at everything that's been written on it, he was asked whether or not Mueller agreed or not with his conclusion, his legal conclusion which he made when Mueller dropped the ball and didn't do it.

That there was no criminal obstruction. He didn't know at that time. What the Barr letter disagreed with was the failure of Mr. Barr's - Attorney General Barr's four-page announcement of the findings to have sufficient nuance.

He - Mueller felt that, it didn't have - show the proper ambience or nuance and then when he called him, when Barr called Mueller, it turned out that what Mueller was really upset about is the media coverage about him dropping the ball and not making a call on obstruction but on that really basic question, did Barr lie?

Of course, he didn't lie because all he said was, I don't know if Mueller agrees with my legal conclusion that there's no criminal obstruction but you have to understand Laura. This isn't about substance, it's about this destroying Barr. Barr has to be destroyed because he's a man with credibility and gravitas who is doing a good job and supporting the President.

And he's supporting the President because that's what an Attorney General should do. He's not supporting the President, right or wrong so he has to be destroyed. By the way, that's why Rod Rosenstein now has to be destroyed. They loved it when they thought he was protecting Mueller but now he's part of the Barr team so he has to be destroyed, that's what really this is all about.

INGRAHAM: All right, Joe diGenova, now if you look at some of the liberal media, they're going to say that Kamala Harris had the most scorching series of questions. She stumped Bill Barr during the hearing today. Let's watch.


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Has the President or anyone at the White House ever asked or suggested that you open an investigation of anyone?

BARR: The President or anybody else?

HARRIS: Seems you would remember something like that and be able to tell us.

BARR: Yes but I'm trying to grapple with the words suggest. I mean, there have been discussions of matters out there that they have not asked me to open investigation but--

HARRIS: Perhaps they've suggested.

BARR: I wouldn't say suggest.

HARRIS: Hinted.

BARR: I don't know.

HARRIS: Inferred. You don't know? Okay. After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report-

BARR: I will say that no one--

HARRIS: Sir, I'm asking a question.



JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Well, I would say Willie Brown's paramour can be pretty snooty when she wants to be just like Bob Mueller's letter is pretty snooty. I think, I think what happened here is - let me just say something about actually it's Andrew Weissmann's letter to Bill Barr. It's not Mueller's letter. Mueller is stayed too long at the fair, he's not functioning anymore. It's Andrew Weissmann who wrote that letter.

That letter was a legacy letter. It's designed to cover their touches because they don't like the reaction to their report which was a sophomoric, adolescent 400 pages of very poorly written legal work. It's kind of first year law school writing in my opinion. Now Kamala Harris, she's running for President.

She does what she does, she's snooty, she did her little thing. I think quite frankly, they've embarrassed themselves and they're embarrassing the United States Senate and top Kamala Harris with Mazie Hirono and you really have the monsters. I mean it's quite remarkable.

INGRAHAM: I knew the idea that someone with the experience. The wealth of legal knowledge, the gravitas, all those words apply to Bill Barr. You know him, I've known - we've all known, all of us, I guess in this - on this panel have known him for a couple of decades.

Right? I mean, all of us but the idea of these people one after the other trying to destroy a man's entire legacy based on Bob Mueller's team being upset about the tone as Sol said and the context not being fully flushed out in a brief summary of the ultimate conclusions in this report. Really?

That's where today's Democratic Party, the wanted Democrat party stance.

JOHN YOO, FMR DEPUTY ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Look, they're trying to ambush Barr, they time the release of this letter for the start of hearings but the sad thing is the letter doesn't matter. Everyone can see the report now. They can compare it to Barr's letter and see whether they agree with the summary.

Now, Barr's letter doesn't matter anymore. In fact the sad thing is the Democrats are so focused on something which history will never remember, won't even make a footnote in history, is they're ignoring a thing that Barr did do for which we should, I think praise him and but also understand which is Barr took the obstruction charges, took the evidence and he as the Chief Prosecutor in United States for the federal government decided to decline prosecution and effectively clear Trump.

And that means not only is collusion over, there's no evidence of collusion but obstruction is over. As in the clip you played, Attorney General Barr, I think rightly said the Justice Department's job is over. The whole thing is over. So if Mueller and Weissmann and people want to use this letter for some purpose, I think it fails, what they're really trying to do I think is create - put on a platter some evidence for Congress to start some kind of impeachment proceedings and that's the only avenue left.

INGRAHAM: And we know where that's going to go. Sol, another thing. I just want to pick up on what Joe said about Kamala Harris here and in training for 2020. Another thing that she said was, did you look at all of the underlying or any of the underlying information Sol.

In other words, a witness interviews million pages of documents at the White House ended up by sending over there and he said no, I took the report at face value. The fact, I'm not - I'm not a finder, an original finder of fact in this case so he actually took Mueller's conclusion or facts on obstruction at face value.

And she just kind of rolled her eyes and they're like oh, she really scored points against him. Should the Attorney General of the United States Sol, have reviewed the underlying information after a two-year investigation with 20 prosecutors looking into this.

WISENBERG: Only if there is a serious factual dispute that was revealed in the report and really there weren't many factual disputes in the obstruction section so and the report is very detail so I don't think he needed to do that and keep in mind also Laura, we've talked about this before.

Barr did something that I think was very generous that he didn't have to do that I wouldn't have done. Barr accepted Mueller's analytical framework. He accepted Mueller's theory for example, that the firing of the of the FBI Director could conceivably be obstruction under any circumstances, which is an absolutely ridiculous concept and bought - and Mueller's discussion of the law on that topic, not the constitutional part but just whether or not somebody can be convicted of obstruction for doing something, they are legally allowed to do and nothing else was a very brief and as Joe pointed out, unsatisfactory section of the report.

So Barr accepted this ridiculous theory just for the premise of making his - just for the purposes of making his decision. He didn't have to do that and it's ridiculous, the idea that by firing the FBI director, no matter what your motive was could ever be criminal obstruction of justice is a joke. It's absurd.

INGRAHAM: Okay, one more question, Joe. Your old friend Hillary Clinton spoke out tonight. And she's already, got to listen to this, she's already kind of spinning Trump's re-election in 2020. Listen for it, watch.


HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER FIRST LADY: You can run the best campaign. You can be the person who gets the nomination. But unless we know how to protect our election from what happened before and what could happen again because there's greater sophistication about it, you could lose.


DIGENOVA: Hillary is explaining why Donald Trump is going to be re-elected, they're trying to give an excuse for losing right now and after watching Kamala Harris today, I can understand why.

INGRAHAM: All right, stay there because Bill Barr completely embarrassed the Democrat and media establishment today when he talked about that ridiculous dossier. Ed Henry has new details, we have more legal analysis. Huckabee is going to be with us, we're jam packed tonight, stay there.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you state with confidence that the Russian - that the Steele Dossier was not part of the Russian disinformation campaign?

BARR: No, I can't state that with confidence and - and that is one of the areas that I'm reviewing. I'm concerned about it and I don't think it's entirely speculative.


INGRAHAM: All right, to clarify what you just heard, Attorney General Barr says there is a possibility that the Russians and the Democrats accuse of colluding Trump together, they were actually the ones colluding with the Democrats. So the Russians are with the Democrats. Wouldn't that be an interesting switch?

Well, this could have all been part of one big Russian disinformation campaign. Chief National Correspondent Ed Henry is here tonight with all of these details, Ed.

ED HENRY, CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Laura, it's like when I interviewed a Democratic Congresswoman last month and she said, I don't know why you're focused on collusion, it's not even a legal term and I said well because Democrats have alleged collusion for two years now.

Now you have Democrats wondering why is Attorney General Bill Barr investigating possible Russian disinformation in that dossier when it was Democrats claiming the most important issue in the country maybe was Russian disinformation. Well, at one key point in today's hearing the Attorney General testified, he's not going to back off his recent use of the word spying to describe what the Obama administration did to the Trump campaign.

Particularly when such surveillance he said is, "unauthorized and inadequately predicated." He took direct aim at former Obama era officials like John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper. Barr noting that if the Intel community only had one confidential informant and FISA warrants for only one person, Carter Page, that raises questions about whether this was really a weak investigation or maybe was there more spying that we simply have not learned about.

The surveillance that we do know about was based on the dossier of course by ex-British spy Christopher Steele, it contained salacious anti-Trump material paid for by the Democrats. Some of the mainstream media have suggested it was legit except even The New York Times reported last month, after Mueller's report was released that Intel officials fear the dossier was full of "Russian disinformation." They added, "while many Trump aides had welcomed contacts with the Russians, some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared to be false, others were impossible to prove."

Now Republican Charles Grassley today debated on why Mueller did not investigate whether the dossier itself was part of Russian disinformation, watch.


SEN. CHARLES GRASSLEY, R-IA: Shouldn't the Special Counsel have looked into the origins of the FBI's investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?

BARR: The origins of that narrative?


BARR: I don't know if he viewed his charter that broadly and I don't know whether he did or not. That's something that I am reviewing and again, we'll look at whatever the Special Counsel has developed on that.


HENRY: And the Attorney General added he has multiple criminal leak investigations underway which could put James Comey, Andrew McCabe and others in the crosshairs, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Oh goody, goody. Ed, thanks so much. Great to see you tonight. Now back with me now, former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova and Governor Mike Huckabee, former Presidential candidate and Fox news contributor. You did a great job filling in for me.


INGRAHAM: Great to see you. All right, Gov, we heard from Hillary Clinton tonight for going on and on and on, already predicting Trump's going to win basically and trying to delegitimize a Trump re-election tonight but the Democrats seem to have this problem with the word spying still. I want to play something for you, this is various cable networks around April 10. Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This FISA warrants to surveil, to spy on Carter Page is in October 2016.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The application to spy on Carter Page was 50 pages.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When they spied on former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The application to spy on Page was approved by the President's own Deputy Attorney General.


INGRAHAM: So the last April, they had no problem with it. Calling it spying but now, it's like how dare you use the words spying.

HUCKABEE: And I thought Barr did a masterful job of the spelling out exactly what that meant, going back to his own background. But the bigger problem for the Democrats is they got nothing, they got nothing. They're like people who show up at the barbecue restaurant at closing time and all the meet is gone so what they're left to do is just lick the bones, nob on them a little bit and suck the barbecue sauce out of the bottle.

They've got nothing else to do.

INGRAHAM: I'm hungry.

HUCKABEE: And I think it in a way I almost felt sorry for him watching them but then I didn't because they were so rude and disrespectful of the Attorney General and how he maintained his composure and didn't crawl across the table and go after a few of him is a testament to diplomacy, grace and being a gentleman.

INGRAHAM: Yes, a true professional. Joe, they're making a big deal tonight about the fact that Barr set - on the House testimony tomorrow because they're going to have - they were going to have staff attorneys ask some of the questions. For our viewers out there, why is it a problem if some staff attorneys ask questions of the Attorney General?

Does that mean - the stuff you see online - people saying can't take the heat, can't take some questions from staff attorneys, big deal?

DIGENOVA: No, actually it's just not protocol, it's just not done to a Senate confirmed cabinet member. They are supposed to be questioned by the members of the committee and it seems according to Chairman Nadler that none of the Democratic members is capable of asking the Attorney General proper questions.

That's a surprise to me since many of them are lawyers but the only time you allow counsel to interview witnesses in a hearing is when it's an investigative hearing, when it's almost like a grand jury. You never do that for oversight hearings or budget hearings or anything.

So - and remember, Bill Barr agreed to appear and then after he agreed, Nadler decided to change the rules. It's typical Democratic dirty pool--

INGRAHAM: This is all making it look like you're hiding something.

DIGENOVA: Oh sure, it sure, I mean, it's just ridiculous.

INGRAHAM: All right, Governor, now disgraced FBI Director Jim Comey, one of Joe's favorite people. Now he's the man who led the charge for all these corrupt anti-Trump agents. He's again in the process of blame shifting, writing in a New York Times Op-Ed, just came out.

"Mr. Trump eats your soul in small bites. Mr. Trump makes everyone a co- conspirator to his preferred set of facts or delusions." Well, the lack of professional responsibility from this man is stunning.

HUCKABEE: Well, first of all he's dead wrong about Donald Trump. Donald Trump does not eat people's soul in small bites. He takes it one great big chomp, innings over and he's done with it. It's one of the reasons that he's President because he does know how to take on an adversary.

Jim Comey has a lot of explaining to do. How he leaked? How he lied?

INGRAHAM: You heard Barr. He's investigating. He's going to investigating Comey, right? I mean, that's what we think tonight.

HUCKABEE: I don't want revenge but I want justice. I really am not interested in just okay, they did this to us, let's do it to them.


HUCKABEE: I'm interested in justice for one reason. If the most powerful arm of the federal government can go after and almost take down a sitting President, what on God's earth could they do to me?

INGRAHAM: Regular people. Joe, Comey.

DIGENOVA: James Comey, America's dirty cop.

INGRAHAM: Brennan, Comey, Clapper.

DIGENOVA: James Comey, America's dirty cop ate the soul of the FBI. He destroyed the FBI and this little piece of paper which is the FISA court ruling from 2017, where the Chief Judge outlines four years of lying by the Obama FBI and Justice Department to the court about illegal spying by three contractors is going to be their undoing.

And the court has already informed the Justice Department of the extent of the lying by the Obama FBI and DOJ. You know what? Comey can write poetry and go stand and the forest --

INGRAHAM: Redwoods.

DIGENOVA: Whatever. This goofy guy, he better get used to it, because this is going to be his undoing.

INGRAHAM: I don't ever want Joe to hold up a prop and point at me for anything.


INGRAHAM: It's scary. When you hold up a prop, and it's like a FISA -- forget it. But they are trying to spin these investigation of their conduct, are they not?

DIGENOVA: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: That's what this is about. They know they are on the griddle. They're on the griddle now, all these guys.

DIGENOVA: It's the Brennan-Clapper griddle. They are fighting back the only way they know how -- dirty.

INGRAHAM: Guys, great to see both of you.


INGRAHAM: And thanks for mentioning the barbecue. Arkansas is always go back to barbecue. These guys, come on.

Coming up, could we look at another future co-presidency? No, I'm not talking about -- no, no, not talking about that. Raymond Arroyo with me next, all the details, "Seen and Unseen."


INGRAHAM: It is time for our "Seen and Unseen" segment where we expose the big cultural stories of the day.

Joe and Jill's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad interview, and the moments you may have missed or tried to miss from this year's White House Correspondents' depression fest. Joining us now with all the details, Raymond Arroyo, Fox News contributor, "New York Times" bestselling author of the new book, "Will Wilder, The Amulet of Power." All right, Raymond, aside from Joe Biden repeating himself over and over again with a big interview with Robin Roberts, why was it so bad?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Laura, it was really embarrassing. Here's a man who has spent decades in politics being coached through an interview by his wife. Now remember, the Clintons pitch themselves as co- presidency. Could the Bidens be trying a similar tactic? Watch Jill Biden here.


JOE BIDEN, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT: We can't stay fractured like we are now.

JILL BIDEN, JOE BIDEN'S WIFE: And if I could jump in here.

JOE BIDEN: We're sensitive to whether or not someone wants me to reassure them.

JILL BIDEN: I think what you don't realize is how many people approach Joe.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trump is very confident that should you win a nomination that he could beat you easily. Are you as confident?

JILL BIDEN: I'm confident.



ARROYO: She may be a little too confident. I'm not sure he's convinced, Laura, but at least she is fully in.

INGRAHAM: At one point he was speaking in the beginning about what is your pitch to the country, and he said to make America moral again.

ARROYO: And she said dignity, say dignity.

INGRAHAM: Dignity. Say the dignity line.

ARROYO: She is the visiting angel of the 2020 election cycle. She's his caretaker, helping him along.

Laura, Saturday night the president held a big rally in Wisconsin, and he totally took the wind out of the sails of the White House Correspondents' Dinner here in D.C. Once a star-studded event, it was headlined by a historian this year. But some in the media still tried to play it off like the Oscars, though the star power was notably diminished.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Look at the stars, Wolf Blitzer.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wait a second. Wow. So let's take the temperature of the room where we have our intrepid reporters and partygoers, Laura Jarrett, Kaitlan Collins, and Kate Bennett looking fabulous. Very glam, ladies.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This weekend was always a weird sort of fever dream mashup of Washington and celebrities.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My favorite celebrity moment last night was Sean Spicer interviewing Alisyn Camerota for "Extra."


ARROYO: That was the big star, Sean Spicer interviewing Alisyn Camerota. Imagine the Grammys if no musical acts showed up, or the Tonys with no Broadway performers. That is what happened here. White House Correspondents' Dinner, no president.

INGRAHAM: The only good time that when we went was when we snuck in that time, remember?

ARROYO: We are not talking about that. My favorite moment, Laura, was when the president of the Correspondents Association, Olivier Knox, offered this moving story from the dais.


OLIVIER KNOX, PRESIDENT CORRESPONDENTS' ASSOCIATION: February, 2017, is when the president of the United States called us the enemies of the people. A few days later I was driving my then 11-year-old son somewhere, probably soccer practice, when he burst into tears and asked me, is Donald Trump going to put you in prison?


ARROYO: Laura, so we should put this in context. Woodrow Wilson tried to censor the press. You have John Adams who made it illegal to write seditious things about the president.

INGRAHAM: That's all.

ARROYO: You and I have been censored, people have tried to defund us, our jobs threatened, I've been threatened with excommunication, OK? This is part of the job of being a journalist. You call things out, people are going to attack you. That is the job.

INGRAHAM: Obama was trashing Fox, talk radio, cable news, dismissing them in the most -- at least Trump tweets about it. Obama wouldn't even sit down or talk to most people who didn't agree with him most of the time.

ARROYO: Journalists shouldn't be saying woe is me. They should be saying, I'm still standing.

INGRAHAM: Most of these people aren't journalists. Most of these people are commentators. We are commentators. They are journalists, but they're really commentators.

ARROYO: OK, Laura, I have to share this tidbit with you. Metro Vancouver is unveiling a new pair of mascots. I wish I were making this up.

INGRAHAM: The transit.

ARROYO: Their names are actually Poo and Pee. They come bearing a very important message.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The only things meant to be flushed are pee, poo, and toilet paper.


ARROYO: Why do we need a giant turd and a droplet of pea to remind people that those are the only things that should be flushed. They're worried because I guess feminine products and other things about being flushed --

INGRAHAM: What happened to taping something on the door?

ARROYO: I don't know. Though I do think San Francisco might consider a big syringe and a big poop. Maybe they can rent it from Vancouver to warn people of what not to --

INGRAHAM: San Francisco is such a beautiful city, but maybe that should be the mascot of San Francisco, period. Or a large hypodermic needle, one of the two. They're walked around.

ARROYO: One of the two.

INGRAHAM: All right, you have a pair of book signings coming up next two weekends. Real quick.

ARROYO: I do. Fairfax, Virginia, next weekend, and then New Orleans, I'm back in New Orleans the following weekend. All the details are at

INGRAHAM: This weekend in Fairfax.

ARROYO: This weekend in Fairfax, next weekend New Orleans.


Ahead, two outrageous comments from Democratic lawmakers. First, what Rep Omar says about the American founding and, quote, white Americans. And then a local Alabama politician's stomach-turning remarks on abortion.

ARROYO: You should mention dignity here. Mention dignity.

INGRAHAM: And how it affects our dignity. The very dignified Horace Cooper, Leo Terrell debate next. Thank you.



INGRAHAM: Now remember when Congressman Ilhan Omar said some people did something on 9/11? Yesterday she had even harsher words for the country that she migrated to and now represents.


REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN: This is not going to be the country of the xenophobic. This is not going to beat the country of white people. This is the country that was founded on the history of Native American genocide, on the backs of black slaves, but also by immigrants.


INGRAHAM: Here now, Horace Cooper, co-chair of Project 21, and civil rights attorney Leo Terrell. All right, Horace, is it productive for all of us when the only American history certain elected officials acknowledge are the negative chapters, and everything afterwards kind of blurred up?

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: This is race hatred, and it apparently is motivated by hatred of who we are as a country. There is no perfect country, but when America stands on the world's stage, America stands head and shoulders above. Our actual history more than outweighs with the exceptional accomplishments of the things that make America a remarkable place.

INGRAHAM: Leo, it sounds like she's steeped in, like, Howard Zinn's "A People's History" or something. That's the only historical reference point of certain people on the left. But do you take any pause in what she said, or do you think that is just the best way to look at the country today?

LEO TERRELL, CIVIL RIGHT ATTORNEY: That is her being truthful. There is not one thing that she said, Laura, that was dishonest.

COOPER: Truthful?

TERRELL: This country was built on slavery, a group of white men who considered African-Americans as property. Nothing came out of her mouth that was untruthful. History is painful, and yet Horace wants to go with denial.

COOPER: It's a distortion. It's a distortion.

TERRELL: That's not true.

COOPER: What about those Americans, what about those Americans who lost more of their lives than any war that we've ever been in ending slavery. What about that consequences?

TERRELL: You are changing the subject.

COOPER: No, I'm not changing the subject.

TERRELL: Tell me what she said that was untruthful.

COOPER: What I'm saying is it is distorting. It is distorting. America is --

INGRAHAM: It's a question of emphasis. It's a question of emphasis, I think, that Horace, you're getting at. It is only focusing on the negative. It is focusing on the Islamophobic. We have problems like every country. But there is a reason people want to come here both as refugees, as legal immigrants. There's 90,000 Somalis live in St. Paul, Minnesota, 90,000 because of our good graces and our generosity and our willingness to help people. And then there are a lot of people out there tonight, I think, Leo, who say we opened our doors and opened our country and glad you're here, but my gosh, is there anything we've done right?

TERRELL: Laura, we are not saying that. We're just saying where can we find the truth that she is articulating? What history books. It's been whitewashed.

COOPER: It has not been whitewashed.


INGRAHAM: -- learn about George Washington today. Are you kidding me?

COOPER: It's all --

INGRAHAM: Have you read a kids' history book today? I do.

COOPER: It's all the libs talk about.

INGRAHAM: Guys, I have got to switch gears. We're not solve anything here. But unbelievable remarks from Democratic Alabama state rep on abortion blowing up the Internet. Let's watch.


JOHN ROGERS, D-ALABAMA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Some kids are unwanted. So you kill them now or you kill them later. You bring them in the world unwanted, unloved. Then you send them to the electric chair. So you kill them now or kill them later.


INGRAHAM: I thought that was some kind of sick joke, but it actually happened. Horrifying. Horace, is this a slap in the face to the work you do at Project 21, kill them now or kill them later, whatever.

COOPER: This is jaw-dropping. Human lives are looked upon as some sort of inconvenience, and apparently the end outcome, their death, is inevitable. We ought to be doing the exact opposite. Where are Democrats joining with Republicans, conservatives, and liberals standing up for innocent human life.

INGRAHAM: Again, back to the sins of the past, how about the sins of today and what we are doing and snuffing out lives. And Leo, I can't imagine you would applaud that comment.

TERRELL: No, no, I will not. It was a poor choice of words for a person who I believe is pro-choice. But I do not agree with his terminology and his analogy. But the argument of choice is always a debatable issue, but his use of words were absolutely incorrect.

INGRAHAM: All right, coming up, aunt Becky and a desperate housewife may not be the only celebrities embroiled in the college admissions scandal. The breaking details you can't miss, next.


INGRAHAM: Hollywood elites are on edge as more celebs could be joining actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman in that college admissions scandal. Trace Gallagher live in our West Coast Newsroom with all the details. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: And, Laura, from the very day actresses Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman and dozens of other parents were charged in the college admissions scandal, federal prosecutors made it very clear there were just the tip of the iceberg. Now "The New York Times" is reporting that prosecutor are now pursuing and have notified a new set of parents, most of whom live right here in southern California, and seven southern California defense lawyers tell "The Times" that a lot more parents are very worried they too will be targeted to and are scrambling to get legal representation.

We should note the ringleader of this cheating scam, Rick Singer, was a college consultant for a living and presumably had some legitimate clients, but even those parents have to wonder if they dotted the i's and crossed the t's.

Separately, target letters from federal prosecutors have also reportedly been sent to some students, including at least one of Lori Loughlin's daughters, meaning the students themselves could be charged as willing participants.

Meantime, we are also learning about the family of a Chinese student that allegedly paid $6.5 million to get their child into Stanford. Molly was admitting in the spring 2017. Her family, who lives in Beijing, not been charged, and it is unclear if they knew what Rick Singer was doing to facilitate her acceptance. It is not over yet, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Trace, thanks so much.

And a dangerously naive comment from one of the 2020 Demos is tonight's Last Bite, next.


INGRAHAM: You are so lucky, because it is time for the Last Bite.

I've told you about the threat of China. Trump has told you about the threat of China. It seems like everyone now knows about the threat that communist China poses to our country and the free world, except rambling Joe.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man. They can't even figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains in the east -- I mean in the west. They are not bad folks, folks, but guess what? They are not competition for us.


INGRAHAM: What? They're not bad folks? They have like 800,000 Muslims in reeducation camps. What? Where is he getting his information from? This is why former Def Secretary Bob Gates said this of Biden five years ago in his memoir. He said "I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades."

Remember, my podcast, today. Awesome with (INAUDIBLE) Tomorrow, Kellyanne Conway. Go to PodcastOne, subscribe. You'll love it.

Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Team" take all the analysis from here. And I'm going to be watching in my slippers.


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.