Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz talk Rob Porter, Russia probe

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," February 8, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening, from New Orleans. I'm Laura Ingraham. We have a phenomenal show for you. Just in time for Mardi Gras. Full of great guests, great topics, don't want to miss a minute. Stay right here with us.

We have a potential blockbuster revelation from an FBI informant on the Clintons and the sale of American uranium to Russia.

And we've got Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz on the Democrats shameless hypocrisy, howling about Republicans undermining Mueller after doing all they could to sabotage the Whitewater investigation.

Plus, we are at ground zero in the fight over American heritage and confederate monuments here in New Orleans, and we are going to have a lively debate.

But first, Bush and the global elites strike back. That's the focus of tonight's Angle. For eight years during Barack Obama's time in office, his predecessor, George W. Bush, was really quiet. He painted a lot.

Remember this one he did of the dogs? They look like goats. And W gave speeches and he wrote an autobiography. He did a lot of great charity up appearances for the military, but he refused to utter even the tiniest of criticism as Obama was taking a wrecking ball to America's domestic and foreign policy.

Let's think about it. When the Obama administration up ended our health care system, Bush said nothing. When Obama ram through bloated stimulus bills and exploded our debt, Bush was mum. When horror stories of neglect at the VA surfaced, total silence.

When the Obama administration abandoned our men in Benghazi and then sent Susan Rice out to lie about the attack, well, the cat had W's tongue, and when Obama threatened religious liberty with his contraception mandate, crickets. When he was asked to comment about Obama policies, this was Bush's customary response.


GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER PRESIDENT: I don't think it is good for the country to have a former president undermined a current president. I think it's bad for the presidency, for that matter.


INGRAHAM: But since Trump was elected, George W. Bush seems willing and eager to spout off, although, he doesn't mention Trump by name, he might as well, and not only is he criticizing our 45th president, he is now doing so on foreign soil. That's nice.

Today in Dubai -- where else? He criticized Trump for ending the DACA policy claiming there are people willing to do jobs that Americans won't want to do. Americans don't want to pick cotton in 105 degrees. But there are people that want to put food on their families tables and are willing to do that. We ought to say thank you and welcome them.

OK, I'm not Will Ferrell, but give me a break. Hillary Clinton couldn't have said it better herself. Bush tried this routine back in 2007. His amnesty with a side of border security, it didn't work then, and it certainly is not going to work in the era of Trump.

But Bush didn't stop at needling Trump about immigration. He also offered this trenchant insight on Russia's election interference.


INGRAHAM: Is that recorded on an old Barbie tape recorder? What is that? Look, if I were George W. Bush, I wouldn't be so quick to bring up Russian meddling. I kind of recall -- remember that ranch in Crawford? He was pretty cozy with Putin when he came to visit in Texas.

Remember, he looks into Vlad's eyes, and I think he saw his soul, as I recall. So, it was OK to try to work with Russia back then, but not now, right? Well, I say this about looking into Putin's soul. How did Bush so badly misjudged Vladimir Putin?

Look, let's face it. Bush is repulsed by Donald Trump because, number one, Trump is more of an economic nationalist. And number two, Trump's election was a repudiation of both of the Bushes and the Clintons. And also, of course, W is still smarting from Trump's trouncing his baby brother, Jeb, in the primaries.


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Poor Jeb, he's doing other commercial of me. This guy, he is a maniac. This poor guy, I feel sorry. He's like a lost soul. You know, this poor, pathetic, low-energy guide.

You can go back. You interrupted. You apologize, Jeb? Again -- I know you're trying to build up your energy, Jeb, but it's not working.


INGRAHAM: My God, that was so funny. So, it's to be expected -- come on, that was brutal. That the Bushes would return to their natural habitat after all these years, places where no unquestioned international trade deals or the massive flood of humanity into our country.

But it's painfully obvious that the bushes were never comfortable with conservatives of the Reagan, Buchanan, Gingrich, or certainly not the Trump variety. They are comfortable, however, well, cozying up to the Obamas or hanging out with the Clintons.


BUSH: I don't know if that makes any sense. He told me he used some big birds.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Used properly. So, President Bush --

BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT: This is the point where I reach my back pocket to make sure my billfold is still there. I don't know any big words.


INGRAHAM: Isn't that sweet? Isn't that nice? It brings back such great memories. Let's get back to the proposition we put out at the beginning of the show. Why is George W. Bush suddenly so vocal? You weren't going to talk about successive presidents.

Well, I think it might have something do with the economy taking off. Of course, the current market correction notwithstanding, 70 percent of registered voters in a new Quinnipiac poll essay the economy is good or excellent under Trump.

The simple act on that Trump's approval ratings are up to 40 percent, and an economist you go survey had him at 45 percent. Then you throw in an incredible state of the union, the unraveling of this ridiculous Russian investigation -- we will get into more of that with Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, they feel now they need to respond.

That what Trump is doing is actually working. The president should wear the tired Bush critiques as a badge of honor. Trump is doing what previous administrations were unwilling or unable to do.

And President Bush himself should know by now, come on, there is no constituency for perpetual military intervention, open borders, and totally unplaced international trade deals.

Mr. President, George W. Bush, your brother ran on that platform, and the people chose Trump, and that's the ANGLE.

Meanwhile, let's shed some light on the Democrats glaring hypocrisy in accusing Republicans of undermining the Mueller investigation, as I just alluded to. Now, you recall Democrats did everything they could to undermine Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation into misdeeds by President Clinton, and you compare what Democrats are saying now with what they said back then.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is a growing concern, I can tell you, in the Senate, in the sense that Mr. Starr is now operating out of any sense of reasonable behavior.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: We get a politically motivated prosecutor who is allied with the right wing of opponents of my husband who has literally spent four years looking at every phone bill -- looking at every telephone call we've made, every check with ever written.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO, D-TEXAS: This is a president who, on many issues, is basically beyond shame at this point. So, any sense of fairness or thoroughness for the sake of the investigation, I think, is questionable from the White House.

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.: He is trying to distract attention from the Russian investigation and to discredit whatever Mueller says in the end.


INGRAHAM: I love that. Let's go to the man who was in the eye of the storm back then, former independent counsel, Ken Starr joins us from Washington, and Harvard law professor emeritus, Alan Dershowitz is in Miami.

Now, guys, before we get into the Russia probe, I need to get your thoughts on this uproar over the Staff Secretary Rob Porter. He is now accused by a couple of ex-wives of indecent behavior, and this was an absolute firestorm in the White House briefing room today.

Professor Dershowitz, your reaction to the pretty quick takedown of Rob Porter?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: Well, I want to make a legitimate point. I think anybody who is accused by the "Me Too" people or anybody else and who denies it should have an opportunity to make their case, to present their argument.

It used to be that it was a she-said/he-said dispute, now it is a she-said and you can't even respond dispute. Both sides have to be heard. A process has to be put in place, whether in the White House, in Congress, anywhere else.

Whether it is a Republican, like in this case, or a Democrat like Al Franken, there has to be an opportunity for both sides to present evidence and there has to be a fair process for determining who is telling the truth.

Sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it's clear, but even in the Bill Cosby case, where it seems so obvious to everybody, the jury came back with a hung jury. So, we need to have a process. We can't suspend due process just because there is a movement afoot that is making some very, very important points, but we need due process.

INGRAHAM: Judge Starr, now the move seems to be to take down General Kelly because Kelly has worked side-by-side by him, even as one of his ex-wives said, I don't want him to lose his position in the White House.

He is incredibly smart, incredibly dedicated to his job, but I personally had -- they had a bad relationship, according to her. But now they are saying Kelly has got to go because Kelly actually stood up for his integrity because, as Alan Dershowitz said, these were accusations, haven't seen a photo or anything like that I guess.

KENNETH STARR, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Right, General Kelly, I think, was waiting for the evidence, and when the evidence came in, from what we know, he responded, and he responded decisively, which is what you would expect of a good military man.

Let me add to what Alan said, and I agree to what we said, we need to be reminded in this country as we were reminded by Felix Frankfuther (ph) and many other justices and great jurors that the history of liberty in the United States is largely the history of procedure. Throw away procedure, throw away due process, and you have a very different kind of state.

You do not have a rule of law system. It is precious, and so rushes to judgement are to be avoided. So, let's get the evidence, evaluate, and assess the evidence. I think, from what we know, that's what General Kelly was doing.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Let's move on from that to what is happening today -- to what is happening today in the Russian investigation. Professor Dershowitz, we now know that the Clintons paid for that dossier. It looks like now Sidney Blumenthal was involved, an old Clinton hand.

Judge Starr knows about him very well, was funneling information to Christopher Steele as well. Some of it looks like it ended up in that dossier, or a second dossier that ends up funneling and in some way, shape, or form to that FISA judge.

And yet Democrats will say, well, that is not dispositive. The search warrant to follow Carter Page was not only based in part on that dossier. So, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

STARR: Well, we don't know what the FISA court decided, how much weight they gave anything. We don't know how much weight was given by the FISA court to any particular aspect.

What we do know is that people who file an application, x party in front of a court have a special obligation to present all sides and to make sure that if they are relying on something, and they know there are questions about his credibility because of its source.

They have an obligation to prevent it fulsomely to the court. Now there is a footnote apparently in the application that does say that it came from a partisan source. That is not good enough.

You need to present -- you need to act as if the defense is presenting their side. You have an obligation to present both sides of the issue. Again, as Ken said, it is all about process.

Process is the way in which we achieve process, and I think there are problems with the process. I want to hear both sides of the issue, but at the moment, I think there was a breakdown of process.

INGRAHAM: Judge Starr, as a former federal appellate court judge, when you think about this FISA judge, we don't know who it is. I guess, there were a number of judges involved in reviewing these applications, if a material fact had been withheld in that application to spy on an American citizen and a material fact is, the opposition candidate paid for the dossier among other things, is there any recourse for the judge at this point?

Is there sanctions that can be filed against certain Justice Department attorneys? We had a guest on the other night who said he thought there could be ethical issues for the FBI and maybe even criminal charges if, indeed, there was a conspiracy to keep this information.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, it's serious. Let's not rush to judgment. Let's be consistent and say, we need to know how that FISA application for the renewal was, in fact, prepared. Who prepared it, what did they know, when did they know it?

I do think this is very serious for the reasons that Alan stated. There's another dimension to this, the FISA regime was designed to provide a judicial check on what might otherwise be an untrammeled executive excess of potential abuses.

And so, there is a very special -- call it a fiduciary relationship that I think it's very deep, probably as deep as it gets. There always should be honesty and transparency with the court.

There is no excuse for anything, but it is all the more sensitive when you are talking about the power of the executive branch to spy on Americans --

INGRAHAM: Go back and read your emails. There is one more sound bite I want to play for you guys. Professor Dershowitz, this was Eric Holder, former attorney general, speaking out today. Let's watch.


ERIC HOLDER, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: If one looks at the dismissal of James Comey and the reasons by the president told Lester Holt he did that, if you look at the president's attempts to get people who were heads of the intelligence agencies to get involved in this matter, if you look at the president's as -- actions, I think you technically have a case of obstruction of justice.


INGRAHAM: Professor Dershowitz, your reaction to that very quickly?

DERSHOWITZ: Well, I think he's wrong. President George Bush the first did practically the same thing when it came to the Iran contract. He pardoned Caspar Weinberger and a handful of other witnesses, nobody suggested obstruction of justice. A president can't obstruct justice, in my view, if you simply exercise his constitutional authority. He has to do something like perjury, destroyed evidence, pay hush money the way Nixon did.

INGRAHAM: Eric Holder has an interesting way of looking at these facts, but I knew Dersh would get it right as usual. The dynamic duo, fantastic. Thank you so much.

By the way, it's ironic, don't you think, how the Democrats keep pedaling the small story of Trump's collusion with Russia, and meanwhile, the potential evidence of the Obama administration's actual collusion with Russia keeps growing. I'll give you the details when we come back. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: An FBI informant is telling Congress that the Russian government paid millions of dollars to influence the Obama administration and then- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to approve the Uranium One deal.

Informant Douglas Campbell is now saying that the money was to go from a U.S. lobbying firm that is, by the way, populated with it a bunch of former Clintonistas to the Clinton Foundation's Global Initiative and the plot thickens from there. Here is Ed Henry to put this new revelation in perspective for us.

ED HENDRY, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Laura, good to see. Fox has confirmed that this FBI informant as you mentioned Douglas Campbell spent four hours behind closed doors Tuesday answering questions from staffers on the Senate Judiciary panel as well as the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees.

And he said in private that Moscow paid millions to that U.S. lobbying firm to try and influence then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton even though she has insisted she was hands-off in this deal.

This was a major deal during the Obama years that allowed a Russian nuclear energy agency to gain a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with mining interests in the Western U.S.

A sweetheart deal in the end that led some Russian officials to tell this informant that the fix was in. "The Hill" newspaper reported that Campbell says (inaudible) Worldwide was hired by the Russians to influence the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton in particular, and they spent millions doing it.

Victoria Toensing, a lawyer for the FBI informant told Fox that the Russians lay the groundwork for this deal after former President bill Clinton and Frank Justra (ph) a wealthy Canadian philanthropist and investor in Uranium One went to Kazakhstan in 2006.

Justra (ph), a major donor of the Clinton Foundation said he later sold his stake before the deal went through and 18 months before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. She had the final say on this matter, but it first required approval by nine different government agencies.

But the former president received a $500,000 speaking fee and multi-million dollar donations floated into the Clinton Foundation from Justra, which critics have charged was payback. Hillary Clinton has insisted she had nothing to do with approving this and said this in an interview with WABC.


HILLARY CLINTON (via telephone): I had nothing to do with the decision. Now, that is fact. I had nothing to do with it. It was delegated to somebody else in the State Department, and nine people had to agree, and they all agreed from all of the different agencies in our government, and then two Republican governors had to agree.


HENRY: Now, Clinton's aides have said this was a GOP manufactured scandal, and Democrats on Capitol Hill say FBI officials have privately told them they have lost confidence in this informant. But remember, the Trump Justice Department has sent signals recently that Uranium One and other Clinton Foundation problems are getting new scrutiny -- Laura.

INGRAHAM: Thanks so much for that report, Ed. Really helpful. Now let's get some insight into the seriousness of this informant's allegations and the budget battle. This thing has been mild all-day long. Rand Paul gave an unbelievable speech. We're going to hear about that.

Joining us now from New York, I'm so happy he is on. He wrote a great column today, Dan Henninger, deputy editorial page editor of "The Wall Street Journal." Dan, it is so good to see.

Before we get to the budget fiasco on Capitol Hill, I have to ask you about this Uranium One story, because Hillary Clinton all along has said she had no personal involvement in OK-ing this deal. She was one of nine different agencies that had to vote on this from the Committee on Foreign Investment, but she said it wasn't her personal deal.

DAN HENNINGER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: She is trying to put some distance between (inaudible) and her as are the Democrats, who are now, such as Elijah Cummings, a Democratic congressman, suggesting that the Republicans are raising the issue of Douglas Campbell to distract from the Russian investigation.

Let's get something clear. Most of the Russian inclusion story at this point is mainly conjecture. Meanwhile, the sale of Uranium One was approved by CFIUS, on which she sat, is a fact.

And the story that Ed Henry, the fact that Henry laid out, about the relationship between the Clinton Foundation, (inaudible), and the owners of Uranium One is well known. And I might add one more thing, Laura.

We know that in 2015, the FBI set up an investigation into the relationship between the Clinton Foundation and various pay to play accusations. The Justice Department more or less shut that down in 2016, but "The Washington Post" reported last month that that investigation, led by four FBI offices into the Clinton Foundation, has been revived. So, possibly the FBI will get to the bottom of the Uranium One story.

INGRAHAM: Well, another thing that is really interesting here is that the Clinton -- I think the Clinton spokesperson said that they weren't even aware of the FBI's investigation. Most of the CFIUS committee that approved this sale -- again, 20 percent of U.S. uranium production, bought by this Uranium One company, originally Canadian, bought by the Russians, Russian state-owned company named Rosatom, turned in to Uranium One (inaudible).

And we didn't know there was a racketeering corruption influence pedaling investigation going on. Now to me, that seems like bizarre that they wouldn't know that the FBI is looking into this?

HENNINGER: How could the State Department seriously argue that they didn't know that any of this was going on? Even back then, the FBI had offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and Little Rock where the Clinton Foundation is headquartered starting this investigation.

It is just beyond belief that the Clinton Foundation at least wasn't advised that the FBI was making this investigation and surely that would have found its way to the secretary of state.

INGRAHAM: All right, Dan, let's move to draining the swamp. What we thought was going to happen with the Republicans in charge of the House, the Senate, and the White House. We are instilling some fiscal responsibility in this budget process, but here we are again right up against the clock. Rand Paul gave a speech today on the Senate floor, it was unbelievable, let's watch a piece of it.


SENATOR RAND PAUL, R-KY.: Are you going to cheer for the Republicans and Democrats holding hands and having a trillion-dollar deficit, or are you going to say to yourself, hmm, I'm suspicious that the Republicans and Democrats are clasping hands and giving us a trillion- dollar deficit?


INGRAHAM: Dan, a trillion dollars added to the deficit, trillion dollars we are going to have to borrow. Your reaction?

HENNINGER: Well, I'm kind of a mixed feeling about what Senator Paul is doing here. I certainly agree with him. We don't want to drive the deficit towards a trillion dollars, but this is really the 11th hour, literally, to be stepping in here and holding up this budget, which is really about finally extending sufficient funding to the U.S. military across two years.

When the Defense Secretary Mattis came up there on Capitol Hill yesterday, and said, look, guys, if we don't get this money, we are going to continue of soldiers, pilots, killed in training exercises. We simply do not have what we need. They have to get that done.

I do think there is a problem here. The government shutdown, that was owned by the Democrats last time it happened. I think they're going to stand back and point to Senator Paul, and say, it is your guy who is threatening to shut down the government now. He is taking political heat off the Democrats.

INGRAHAM: Dan, do you know what he is doing? I talked to one of his people earlier tonight. They just want to vote on the amendment. They just want to vote on the amendment to stay within their budget limitations. If he gets that boat, then they will be able to go forward. They are just looking for a vote on an amendment. I don't know why they won't give him that vote.

HENNINGER: Well, government is supposed to shut down at midnight. If they can do that, I think that we have to get that done. It's not so much they discretionary spending inside the budget. The real problem, as Senator Paul knows is the entitlement spending, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

INGRAHAM: Yes, always is.

HENNINGER: We are not going to be able to do anything about that unless you get more than 51 senators in the Senate as we have now.

INGRAHAM: All right, Dan Henninger, thanks so much. We are coming to you tonight from the city that we all love, wonderful New Orleans, but it has a lot of problems, a lot of violent crime, and a mayor who seems more intent on tearing down statues than keeping the citizens here safe. We debate that.

And later, Franklin Graham on the vocal fate of Donald Trump. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: We are in New Orleans tonight, the city at the heart of the battle over preserving American history and Confederate monuments. New Orleans has the worst murder rate, even worse than Chicago today, and more shootings per capita than Baltimore, if you can believe it. And Mayor Mitch Landrieu is on a crusade, not necessarily to stop crime, but to hide history.


MAYOR MITCH LANDRIEU, D-NEW ORLEANS: These monuments celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy, ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, ignoring the terror that it actually stood for. And after the civil war, these monuments were part of that terrorism as much as burning a cross on someone's lawn. They were erected purposely to send a strong message to all who walked in the shadows about who was still in charge in this city.


INGRAHAM: New Orleans took down four Confederate statues last may after the city council declared them in a public nuisance. There was no vote of the people. Landrieu called the effort a move toward healing. Let's discuss statues, the mayor's priorities, and what is next with Malcolm Suber who is a coordinator with the group called Take 'em Down NOLA, and Thomas Bruno. He's a board member of Robert E. Lee Monumental Association.

Malcolm, let's start with you. So you must be pretty happy that you took down four statues. You got Jeff Davis down, Robert E. Lee is down. You got that liberty monuments down, and General Beauregard, you got him down. So you got four statues down, markers down. What's next for you?

MALCOLM SUBER, TAKE 'EM DOWN NOLA COORDINATOR: Well, our name is Take 'Em Down NOLA, and we want to take them all down. There are 20 more statues that are dedicated to white supremacy in the city of New Orleans. We have hundreds of streets named and parks named for Confederate and white supremacists. And so we want to wipe the slate clean. And we have challenged the mayor from the very beginning, don't do a half job, let's do the whole job. If you really believe --

INGRAHAM: Malcolm, I want to jump in here for a second, because Jackson Square, that is New Orleans, Jackson Square. Do you say that Jackson square -- Jackson square is not New Orleans?

SUBER: No, it's not New Orleans.

INGRAHAM: Do you want Andrew Jackson to be eradicated from New Orleans.

SUBER: Of course we want --

INGRAHAM: So Jackson is down. OK, let's move on. Would you like Thomas Jefferson, anything related to Thomas Jefferson --

SUBER: Of course Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, all of those racists, yes.

INGRAHAM: George Washington has to go? Who else is left? Is Madison OK? Is James Madison OK with you?

SUBER: No, he is not OK. He was a slave owner. He is not OK.

INGRAHAM: OK. So we need to rename Washington, D.C., correct?

SUBER: Yes, I would do that.

INGRAHAM: OK, rename Washington, D.C.

SUBER: That's not for me to determine. That's for the people of Washington --

INGRAHAM: No, we need to know, Malcolm, where you are coming from, and we just established it, thank you very much.

Let's move on to Thomas. Thomas, time for you to talk on. Hold on, my friend. We got it. White supremacy, we got it. Let's go to Thomas. Thomas, what is your sense on this?

THOMAS BRUNO, ROBERT E. LEE MONUMENTAL ASSOCIATION: Well, Laura, thank you for having me, first of all. And I would like to say, I love the fact that Malcolm wants to allow Washington, D.C., to vote on the name of the capital. Why didn't he allow us to have a vote in New Orleans on the removal of the monuments? The mayor, the city council has decided for themselves on this issue --


INGRAHAM: Hold on, let him speak please, Malcolm. Malcolm. Malcolm, my friend, you must let the other guest speaker. It is rude. Please let Thomas speak. Thank you. Go ahead.

BRUNO: OK, so Malcolm says that these statues represent white supremacy. I'm not in a position to tell Malcolm what he should think about these statues. These are pieces of art. Folks are free to make their own interpretation of what they mean or don't mean. There are a variety of different ways of looking at these pieces.

For him to say that these are this way and that anyone who disagrees with that is wrong to me, it's absurd. These are pieces of art. They are created in a manner in which there are a multiplicity of ways of looking at them. And when historians look at these pieces of art, they have a variety of different ways of interpreting them.

I have been around these pieces of art all of my life, and it never occurred to me for one second that they were symbols of white supremacy. In fact, Mitch Landrieu himself said, when he was challenged to take down the statues, Mitch said, what are you talking about? I don't know what you mean. These statues mean white supremacy? The reason that Mitch did not understand that is because a lot of folks in this city do not see the statues that way.

INGRAHAM: Let's go back to Malcolm. Malcolm, Malcolm, hold on. Malcolm - -

SUBER: Whether or not these things are insensitive to black people. And when these statues --

INGRAHAM: Malcolm, until the last, I don't know, two, three years -- I've come to New Orleans on and off for the last 20 years. Until the last about two years, I hadn't heard anyone talk about the statues in Charlottesville, in New Orleans, in New York, and I hadn't heard anyone until mostly outside agitators came in and said, guess what, history has to be eradicated. We have to rename every federal building, we have to completely change history and context, and we have to get rid of it all. I until the last couple of years had never heard it.

BRUNO: This is the fundamental problem, because what is happening in the city is that one group of people is deciding for everyone else how we should think about a piece of art. This is, to me, the most frightening occurrence of this whole thing.


INGRAHAM: OK, talking over each other.

SUBER: And they put them up without any input whatsoever from the black community. And now that we are the majority, it is up to us to decide what --

INGRAHAM: Malcolm, you are right. Malcolm, I completely agree. Malcolm, you're not going to believe this, but I agree with you. It is up to the people to decide. And if the people decide they want to remove the monuments, that is the will of the people. Don't ram it through at night and remove the statues and put them in a place -- we don't even know where those statues are.

BRUNO: And we don't know what is going to happen to them. One of the things that is so shocking about the whole process is that the city council and the mayor never had any plan in place for what happened to the monuments.

INGRAHAM: They didn't care. But we are all against the white supremacy but we all for history as well. Malcolm and Thomas, we'll have your back, have you on radio. Both of you were great, thank you so much.

And President Trump, by the way, has made a remarkable transformation into, believe it or not, a powerful voice for faith. Franklin Graham is up next to give us some perspective today.


INGRAHAM: President Trump delivered a powerful speech at the national prayer breakfast in Washington this morning. He emphasized our country's dependence on God.


TRUMP: In the courage of our fellow citizens, we see the power of God's love and work in our souls and the power of God's will to answer all of our prayers. When Americans are able to live by their convictions to speak openly of their faith and to teach their children what is right, our families thrive, our communities flourish, and our nation can achieve anything at all.


INGRAHAM: To the surprise of many, the president, a man not known for his faith before the election, has become the most powerful religious voice in the public arena. To react we are joined from North Carolina by evangelical leader Franklin Graham. It is so great to see you, Franklin. I thought the president today -- I thought he was mesmerizing. Donald Trump is the guy holding torch for God and Christianity, Judeo-Christian culture. It's stunning.

REV. FRANKLIN GRAHAM, BILL GRAHAM EVANGELICAL ASSOCIATION: It is stunning. In my lifetime, I've never had a president like this. And he's not afraid to speak out about his faith. But this was the 66th prayer breakfast. It started, my father encouraged going back to President Eisenhower and others who worked on this at the very beginning, and every president since Eisenhower has come to this breakfast, and it is a bipartisan breakfast put on by Republicans and Democrats, and they work together. And these are men and women of faith who come together in a bipartisan way to put on this breakfast.

And it shows you that Washington can function. We need, Laura, more Christians in Washington. We need more -- can you imagine if the majority of the House and Senate were God-fearing men and women? That they could argue their points, but at the end of the day they would come together and work for the good of all American people.

We need men and women in Washington who believe in God, who believe in his son, Jesus Christ, who took our sins to the cross, who died for our sins, who got raised to life. We need more men and women like this. And last year, I went across this country to every state capital asking people to pray for this country and encouraging Christians to run. And I didn't tell them what party to run for. They can be Democrat. They can be Republicans. But we need Christians at every level of government. And when Christians come together, this is what you see at the prayer breakfast. They come together and they work together. It was a great thing, Laura. I was glad to be there.

INGRAHAM: At one point the president talked about how a year earlier he had asked for prayers for, I believe it was a little girl who was very, very ill, and he said, he was overwhelmed by the response, the prayer that had come in for her. And he reported that she was doing much better. That was a small moment.

I personally, I felt the power of prayer at very difficult times. And The left doesn't understand that, Franklin, because they say, he's been married all these times, and he can have a foul mouth, he said these things in the past. How can this flawed man be this evangelical and Catholic leader in a way? How does that happen? How does God use people like that? And your response would be?

GRAHAM: Donald Trump is not a perfect person. I certainly, I'm not a perfect person, and I would hate for somebody to hold me up as being the greatest example of the Christian faith or the Christian life. I've got many failures in my life and so does Donald Trump, but that doesn't stop me from believing in God and believing in his son Jesus Christ, and Donald Trump believes in God. And he believes in God's son Jesus Christ.

And I appreciate the fact that he doesn't run away from his faith and he's willing to stand up in front of the whole world and let the world know where he stands, and he appreciates people praying for him. We need to pray. We are commanded to pray for all of those in authority, Laura, all of them. When Donald Trump won the presidency, he became my president and your presidency, and God orders us to pray for him.

INGRAHAM: Franklin Graham, so great to see you. Thank you so much for joining us.

And by the way, Nancy Pelosi's pandering knows no bounds. Up next, we are going to look at how she used her grandson to advance her own divisive racial agenda. Don't go away.


INGRAHAM: Now, you would think Nancy Pelosi wouldn't stoop to using her own flesh and blood as a prop to push her radical agenda and racial politics, right? Think again.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: I'm reminded of my own grandson. He had a very close friend whose name is Antonio who is from Guatemala. And he has beautiful tanned skin and beautiful brown eyes and the rest. And this was such a proud day for me, because when my grandson blew out the candles on his cake, I said, did you make a wish? He said, yes, I made a wish. I said, well, what is your wish? He said, I wish I had brown skin and brown eyes like Antonio. It was so beautiful, so beautiful.


INGRAHAM: She is not even making sense. I wonder who he is listening to around the house. Why is Nancy Pelosi focusing on a child's skin color? Is that what Martin Luther King asked of us? Why is that relevant? Content of character.

Think about it. Her suggestion that brown skinned Guatemalans are preferable to white Americans, come on. This is cynical, the cynical standard operating procedure of the left. But look at what Pelosi is really doing. This entire stunt was meant to use race to achieve political power. That's all it is.

But while Nancy does her marathon improv act in four-inch heels on the House floor, well, guess what, the Dreamers are still stuck. At least more Americans now will know where Nancy really stands, no matter what color they may wish to be. We'll be right back.


INGRAHAM: Before we leave you tonight, I wanted to share a little taste of Mardi Gras here in New Orleans with you. Look, there is some shots of a music parade rolling through downtown tonight. It was such an incredible, communal, and family celebration for the streets. I can't wait to experience my first Mardi Gras. I'm going to be waiting for that crew of Baucus this Sunday celebrating their 50th anniversary this year, what a party this place is. It is awesome. If you haven't been down to New Orleans for Mardi Gras, you haven't lived. The Arroyos are going to show us a good time.

In the meantime, the party is just starting in D.C. We are just one hour away from the federal government shutdown. Maybe we need to send Sazeracs to all these people, Sazeracs to Rand Paul, three Sazeracs to Rand Paul and he'll vote for anything.

Shannon Bream is up next.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.