Media uses Bush tragedy to criticize Trump

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," December 3, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington tonight. A day of tributes in the nation's capital after the passing of the 41st president of the United States, George H.W. Bush, and in moments, my Angle takes a look at how the media are shamelessly using what should be this reverend occasion, well, to hit the current occupant of the White House, President Trump.

And also tonight, a jarring admission from a U.N. panel. Could criticizing mass migrations actually become a criminal offense? A story you will need to see to believe. Plus, President Trump and Rudy Giuliani are opening new lines of attack on how Bob Mueller's team is conducting the witness interviews.

With no collusion in sight, has the special counsel actually crossed the Rubicon here? We're going to examine that. But first, honoring Bush by bashing Trump. That's the focus of tonight's Angle.

When a former president passes away it's appropriate to celebrate his life, his achievements and to remind the public of his record and his legacy. Sadly, though, with the death of George H.W. Bush some in the media and politicians from both parties are abusing this moment to trash, instead, the sitting president.

As the Bush motorcade was making its way to the capitol for the last time MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace, a former Bush aide herself, could not restrain herself.


NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: I think what everyone is getting at is that under Donald Trump the office of the presidency has been debased in a way that's unimaginable for people who served every past president.

I think what's lost in this moment is our reverence and our dependence and the way we need and rely upon the elegance and the traditions of the presidency.


INGRAHAM: Let's get this straight. She's talking about reverence and she's trashing the current president as the motorcade is inching its way up Capitol Hill. And then there was this gem from earlier in the day.


MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC HOST: Let's see what happens at Wednesday's memorial service. My prediction is that Trump fakes more respect for a family whose unprecedented history of public service has repeatedly belittled, then he goes back to making a mockery of the very office George Bush and this nation long revered.


INGRAHAM: Well think about it this way, President Bush was a man who loved his country, loved his family, his faith and his friends. He was a war hero and a dedicated public servant throughout most of his life. So are these folks really honoring that legacy and his innate sense of decency and kindness by slashing the man who entered the White House 25 years after him?

Look, even if you don't care for President Trump, even if you just hate President Trump, try showing just a little bit of class and decorum, as Bush 41 would have. The hits on Trump -- subtle and not subtle at all -- have been interwoven throughout the commentary and the coverage.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They both believe that the presidency is bigger than themselves which is not something that this president always adheres to.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What George Herbert Walker Bush is being remembered for this week isn't a tweet or isn't a press release or nothing much more than his fundamental character.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do not know how it's going to work when Donald Trump is an ex-president and theoretically a member of this club. I really think it's going to change because I don't think these men who share something in common will share that in common with Donald Trump.


INGRAHAM: At some point you don't even know what to say to these people. That was Ron Klain by the way. They lack all sense of decency. They reduce a presidential death to just a political battering ram like any other issue. But what you hear -- if you listen closely, is the last gasp of an embittered establishment.

Now, as we have seen across Europe and across much of the United States, populism is swamping the old guard, whether it's on the right or on the left. So rather than direct their anger at Trump, the establishment frankly in both parties should be directing it at themselves, for it is their policies that the voters turned against in 2016.

Things like open borders, China trade, NAFTA, high taxes, endless wars, those weren't Trump policies. Those were the policies of the establishment and the establishments GOPers apparently think that the way, what, win them back the people that they lost to Trump is to belittle the president non-stop, even during formal and informal on-air eulogies and tributes?

At a time like this when a father, a grandfather, a great grandfather and a former president has died, we should be bigger than the petty politics of the moment. I think we should be capable of uniting as Americans and celebrating the best of George H.W. Bush without resorting to the same old usual political snark and calumny. And isn't that what President Bush would have wanted? And that's The Angle.

Joining me now, we have an amazing panel, former governor of Arkansas and Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee, presidential historian, Reagan biographer Craig Shirley and former White House counsel to George H.W. Bush, Ambassador C. Boyden Gray. All of you, it is great to have you.

I know our former President Bush would love the fact that we're all getting together to talk about this moment and his legacy and honor him for who he was, his patriotism, his love of country, his deep sense of public service.

Craig, I want to start with you. What did Bush, I mean, you knew him -- I knew him not as well as Boyden. I want to hear from Boyden on this, but we grew up in the Reagan revolution. I worked for President Reagan, Reagan- Bush. You know, worked there. If it weren't for Reagan-Bush I wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be doing this.


INGRAHAM: None of us would be here doing this.

SHIRLEY: Right, that's right. It would be a different world for me.

INGRAHAM: Yes. So, a different world, but I have to believe that the man he was wouldn't have loved a lot of the stuff he's hearing.

SHIRLEY: You know, it's amazing, it's just that -- is that, you know, when Eisenhower was in office -- they derided Eisenhower as (inaudible). He couldn't read if his lips were chapped. And then he becomes a battering ram used by the establishment against conservatives.

Richard Nixon was cited the other day, I saw on MSNBC as an exemplary president and remember how they treated Richard Nixon in office. Gerald Ford was mocked when he was in the White House and then they made him an exemplary figure. They like presidents -- Republican presidents who no longer have power.

They bashed the heck out of George Bush when he was in office, annoy the bumper sticker in 1992, annoy the media both for Bush --

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

SHIRLEY: Yes. In ‘88 he had famous dust-ups with the media. He banned Newsweek from his campaign plane because they produced that awful cover.

INGRAHAM: You never know this. We're going to get to the media angle on this, but now I have to say, Boyden, as a White House counsel you knew the Bushes so well. When I first met you it was just at the end of the Bush era in 1992. It's a heartbreaking loss.

But, you know, listening to Bill Kristol for instance today, he tried to capture what he thought were the big conflicts of the moment, again, at a time where it's just great to honor who Bush was. Let's watch.


BILL KRISTOL, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, THE WEEKLY STANDARD: There were Reagan Republicans and Bush Republicans. There is W. Bush Republicans and McCain Republicans, and what strikes me compared to today is what they all have in common. And then the Reagan Republicans and the Bush Republicans, the McCain Republicans some were a little more conservative than others.

They had different views on some issues, but they all respected the country, respected the institutions, tried to live up to what they thought was a pretty impressive history, pretty impressive future for this country and that is unfortunately, I believe, a contrast with the Donald Trump's Republican Party.


INGRAHAM: I kind of agreed with everything up until the very last minute.

SHIRLEY: Up to the very last minute.

INGRAHAM: Boyden, your sense about just how rank the abuse of this moment is just to, again, as Craig said, bash Trump.

C. BOYDEN GRAY, FORMER COUNSEL TO GEORGE H.W. BUSH: It doesn't make any sense and he wouldn't have done this -- that is, 41 wouldn't have, and two of Trump's greatest achievements, deregulation and judges were right out of the Bush playbook. So, I don't understand why Kristol would turn what was actually a pretty good recital into a negative in the last two sentences. It doesn't make any sense.

INGRAHAM: Governor Huckabee, like all of us sitting here who owe so much to the Reagan-Bush legacy, to see, you know, the family gather, this is a moment of mourning and it is a moment of reflection on a life well lived. Policy debates. They're important. Craig writes about them. I speak about them.

But at this moment it's about this incredible man. I mean, what an amazing family this was. I mean, they were well to do but they never lost that kind of innate sense of love of country and love of family, and their faith, which is being underplayed by some today, conveniently.

MIKE HUCKABEE, FORMER GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS: You know, if I'm going to get a lesson in how to deal with a death and how to do it with class and dignity, I'm not going to look to Mika Brzezinski, I'm not going to look to Nicolle Wallace or Bill Kristol.

I'm going to look to President George H.W. Bush who -- even though he was not real fond of the 45th president and thought that some of his ways were not his, but he intentionally made sure that this president would be invited to be a part of the funeral service. Laura, that's class. That's dignity.

That's the president Bush that we loved and considered to be a great statesman, who loved his country more than he disliked anybody, and I think he gave us the template for how to handle these kind of moments and we ought to be taking our lessons from the man that we're honoring whose casket lies in state at the Capitol right now.

INGRAHAM: Yes. I always get such a lump in my throat when you see the casket being walked up the steps, and it's just -- it's sad that these are the types of moments that are required to get us to stop for a moment or should stop for a moment. Like, we're Americans. We want to be successful, and free, and independent.

We have an incredible history and incredible founding documents. It shouldn't be just these moments. I want to talk to all of you for a moment about the recasting of the historical narrative. Craig, we talked about this a little bit on the radio this morning.

Some of the more absurd moments of the past 24 hours came when the rabidly anti-Trump press again tried to piggyback on the death of an American patriot to defend their own reputations.


JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: He understood that the press wasn't the enemy of the people, and even said basically at the end of the day, "We're all in this together and I will be here for you just like I know you would be here for me." What a remarkable difference between 1988 and 2018.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think it was a mark of that sense of respect as I say that was very, very noticeable then and is all -- is virtually absent now.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He had good relations with the media. He called us the media, invited us to White House dinners occasionally. He kept up with us. I was just reading Maureen Dowd. I love Maureen Dowd.


INGRAHAM: All right. This rank revisionism is stunning and it's -- they regularly spewed vile against George H.W. Bush. Boyden, you worked at the White House. I was here as a young Reagan staffer. They were trashing him. And Maureen Dowd by the way, who is lionizing him today, I mean, and she's a very -- I love her writing. I'm going to say it's really fun.

She used to call him like -- just belittle the Bushes like what they watched, what they listened to for music. I was reading a column from May 1, 1990. She called them the gracious cruise director of international politics. She lampooned him for patting Barbara on the derriere during the Dukakis campaign. That's the nice stuff she said about him.

As for his great relationship with the press as we alluded to earlier, look at this 1987 "Newsweek" cover. Bush considered it the cheapest shot of his political career. Check it out. Well, you could read it. It's like referring to him as the wimp factor, or how about this great relationship with Dan Rather during a 1988 interview.


GEORGE H.W. BUSH: Well, Dan, let's be careful here because you're --

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS HOST: I want you to be careful, Mr. Vice president. How do you explain -- you can't remember if the other people at the meeting say he was apoplectic.

BUSH: I wasn't there at that point.

RATHER: You weren't in the meeting?

BUSH: I'm not suggesting. I'm just saying I don't remember.

RATHER: I don't want to be argumentative Mr. Vice President.


BUSH: It's not fair to judge a whole career. It's not fair to judge my whole career by a rehash on Iran. How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York? Would you like that?

RATHER: Mr. Vice President --

BUSH: I have respect for you but I don't have respect for what you are doing here tonight.


INGRAHAM: All right, give us all a break. We could go on and on with this but Craig, that just -- Helen Thomas, all of these crowd, Boyden, you had to deal with these people.

SHIRLEY: -- with The Washington Post once wrote that George Bush reminded every woman of her first husband. I mean, the media was vicious to him during the ‘80 campaign. He got in a very contentious argument with a group of reporters because they charged he wasn't tough enough to be president.

This man was a war hero. He would set out in the wilds of Texas to create a business. Of course he was tough enough and he got really angry with them. He says, "You know, none of you ever had to watch your child die. I did." So this idea that he wasn't tough enough to be president, which is nonsense.

But the media, the wimp factor, which was written by Evan Thomas, who was the original red-diaper baby because his parents were both well-known rich limousine liberals, is that they viciously attacked him all during his presidential career.

INGRAHAM: I'm going to tweet this column after the show or during the commercial break, "Bush's Taste Down Home to Less so" ridiculing the Bushes morning -- I'll just read this one piece because it captures what -- everything that elites think, and they were the elite. I mean, the Bushes were the elites. This is the media elites trashing Bush because he was a Republican, Boyden.

GRAY: Well, I knew that he was going to win the election. And with that Dan Rather thing, I happen to be in the White House and stayed, couldn't leave for three hours because of the phone response.

INGRAHAM: Love it.

GRAY: They loved it. And to think that he was a wimp or something like that, when he took on Dan Rather, that was one of the high points of his campaign and I think one --

INGRAHAM: But Boyden, you were there, Craig was there, I was there. This was nonstop combat. People had this -- looking back, all that Reagan was an avuncular man. Reagan was so nice and optimistic. Trump is so mean while Bush is so -- Bush was tough when he need to be. They're different personalities. Different world experiences. So what? It's OK.

SHIRLEY: The author, Evan Thomas -- the Newsweek was banned from the --

INGRAHAM: Banned from Air Force One. Mike Huckabee, Jamie Gangel who interviewed the Bushes many times. Remember -- everyone has to remember Bush did not vote for Donald Trump. He called him a blowhard according to, you know, he said "I didn't like Trump, but I know he's a blowhard." Bush didn't like Trump. That's fine. I mean, I disagree with him but it's fine.

Jamie Gangel spoke today on CNN about whether the Bush funeral and the memory of George H.W. Bush will necessarily alter the way Donald Trump speaks. Like he should have different policies, I guess, because George H.W. Bush passed away, and I want to play this exchange for you, governor, and have you react on the other side. Let's watch.


JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Will it have an effect on the tenor of this town?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a great point and a great question because we had this conversation just three months ago when we said farewell to Senator McCain and everybody thought maybe that would be a reset moment in Washington and, of course, it was not.

GANGEL: The Bush family has said he has the White House and I think John Kelly has been responsible for this, that they have really just opened the doors, bent over backwards to make everything work.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But come next week do we see a more bipartisan Washington when they get back to the border wall fight, when we're back to new developments on the special counsel? I would not bet on it.


INGRAHAM: OK, so governor, Trump should give up the wall because George H.W. Bush died. That's the argument they're actually making on CNN.

HUCKABEE: Sophistry. I know. Every president has his own personality. They have their own focus and you know, the media in what you've just played has reminded us why most of Americans absolutely don't trust them and hold them in contempt.

And every president has their contentious relationship with the press. This one that we have now is probably, maybe has the most contentious relationship but is in large measure because the press absolutely refuses to be journalists and they just want to be opinion mongers.

And it's unfortunate they're taking what ought to be the celebration of a great patriot, a great statesman, a great selfless servant of this nation and instead of focusing upon his qualities, they're trying to focus on what they perceive to be as the lack of qualities in Donald Trump -- the very qualities that many Americans, frankly, believe to be the reason he's president right now.

INGRAHAM: Seven percent, Craig, of the media, seven percent voted for George H.W. Bush and (inaudible) Boyden's (inaudible) goes, wait a second. Was it that many?


GRAY: They did not plug (ph) it, did they?

INGRAHAM: So again --

GRAY: I guess they had a lot of writers at National Review that year.

INGRAHAM: They embrace a Republican in death but don't treat them fairly in life when they're actually in office, appointing people like Justice Clarence Thomas. Remember it? They trashed him for the Clarence Thomas for whom I worked and love.

GRAY: Remember the hearings? Remember the Thomas hearings, how vicious they were?

INGRAHAM: Yes, well again.

GRAY: Yes, right.

INGRAHAM: So, but that is the world as it is. We're not trying to gloss over the real differences that exist but Craig, Reagan and Bush, you have written about it, "Rendezvous with Destiny" which is one of the great, great biographies of Reagan. Tell us a little bit about that.

SHIRLEY: It was very contentious. They didn't get along. The 80's primaries, Boyden was there. It was heated. It was argumentative. They were in two cultural universes, is that, you know, one was more moderate, the other one was more conservative. It was a marriage of convenience at the Detroit convention.

The Reagan so opposed picking George Bush who most people thought was the obvious choice because Bush had come in second in the primaries, had foreign policy experience and all that. is that they sought the co-presidency with Gerald Ford and then tried to get Paul Laxalt, former senator or senator from Nevada on the ticket. So they very much resisted the idea of picking George Bush.

INGRAHAM: But they ended up having eight years --


INGRAHAM: -- in the White House and boy, it was a great partnership.

GRAY: It was a great relationship.


INGRAHAM: So, it ended up being a really good pick in the end.

SHIRLEY: But that's politics.

INGRAHAM: That's politics. It's a good -- it's a trade-off, right, Boyden?

GRAY: Yes, absolutely. It was a great choice and Reagan really appreciated Bush who never wanted to take credit for the great things he did for Reagan, but Reagan knew.

INGRAHAM: In a way, a perfect vice president.

GRAY: Yes. He was. Yes.

INGRAHAM: Governor Huckabee, final thought?

HUCKABEE: Well, I think it's a great time for us to reflect upon what service and sacrifice is all about. George Bush was a courageous man who enlisted to serve his country under age, shot down. He lived his life -- an exemplary life of family, faith and love of country. God bless him and God bless his memory.

INGRAHAM: We should pray tonight for his family and all those who are grieving and mourning. For our country, learn something going forward about you can disagree but at these moments it's time to be Americans and stand for all the goodness in his life. Great panel. Thank you so much.

And President Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani ramping up their attacks on the special counsel. Is their anger warranted at this juncture? An examination in depth, next.



RUDY GIULIANI, LAWYER FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I think the special prosecutor has stepped over the line now with the way he's intimidating people in order to tell what he believes is his version of the truth. An ethical prosecutor would stop this and pursue some other line of inquiry with other people. You can only exert a certain amount of pressure before it becomes unethical and destructive.


INGRAHAM: The president's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, is taking aim at what he calls the destructive tactics employed by special counsel Bob Mueller's team. Now, this was soon followed by the president taking issue with a possible plea deal between his old lawyer, Michael Cohen, and Mueller's team, a deal that could spare Trump's former attorney, jail time.

"You mean he can do all of the terrible, unrelated to Trump things having to do with fraud, big loans, taxes, et cetera and not serve a long prison term? He lied for this outcome and should in my opinion serve a full and complete sentence. Throw away the key.

Joining me now is Jon Sale, former Watergate prosecutor, Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union and Byron York, chief political correspondent at the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor.

All right Jon, let me start with you. Is there a method to this madness now being employed by the president and Giuliani? They're kind of tag-teaming on Mueller. What's the theory, strategy, point of that?

JON SALE, FORMER WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: Well, I don't think its madness. I think what they need is to maintain support in the Senate and most importantly with the American people. But as a defense lawyer, Michael Cohen is a dream. A dream, but I'm troubled by the power of prosecutors. Michael Cohen, the first thing that comes to your mind. What is he? He's a fixer. Well, I don't know what a fixer is.

Nobody has on LinkedIn card I'm a fixer. I mean, I know dentist, I know doctors. I don't think I have ever met a fixer. So Michael Cohen taped his own client. What lawyer has taped his own client? A judge found probable cause to authorize searches of Michael Cohen's residence, his hotel, his office.

They found a treasure trove of information which led to his plea in the southern district of New York to tax evasion, to false statements to a bank, which involved lying, then his lawyer goes on CNN and offers up his testimony to the special counsel.

Well, is that a way to try and sell your cooperation? And then after that what's his plea? His plea, what is it of all things? It's to lying. So if that's the best they can do, there is something wrong with I think the power of prosecutors. There is incentive to shade the truth.

INGRAHAM: Well, I'm saying it as an old defense attorney. It's way out of control. They've got no real supervision. They can never budget -- they can blow their budget and just get more money. Byron York, I want to go to you.

Michael Isikoff, Yahoo News, said to tonight special counsel Bob Mueller's prosecutors have told defense lawyers in recent weeks that they're tying up loose ends in their investigation providing the clearest clues yet that the long-running probe into Russia's in the campaign may be coming to its climax potentially in the next few weeks right before Christmas.

BYRON YORK, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Yes. I mean, now that has been a question recently, you know. When we heard about Mueller talking to this whole Jerome Corsi stuff and Roger Stone stuff and then wrapping up Michael Cohen, you know, what's going on?

Was he either opening up new inquiries in which we would have this investigation, you know, through 2020 or something? Or was he really trying to tie things up in a bow and finish it up? So, a lot of these complaints that we're hearing from the president and Giuliani about Mueller could be coming at a time when Mueller's actually winding down.

INGRAHAM: Matt Schlapp, now they're actually floating the idea that Trump talking about his constitutional right to pardon could be tantamount to witness tampering. Just for fun on a Monday night let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the middle of an active investigation, President Trump praises Roger Stone for not testifying against him. Is this witness tampering?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is what some lawyers would suggest cite 18 USC 1512 -- laws against witness tampering.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is right on the edge of witness tampering. Federal law makes it a crime to do anything to dissuade or try to postpone or delay someone's testimony.


MATT SCHLAPP, CHAIRMAN, AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION: Can I just try to explain something here, which is everybody involved in this investigation - - if you're Mike Flynn, if you're Paul Manafort, any of these names you just mentioned, they all know that there is a chance of a presidential pardon and they all know the president has already used his pardon powers, you know, I wouldn't say aggressively but robustly.

So they all know this is at play. So, what is -- why is Michael Cohen doing what he's doing? He's a no-down (ph) dirty dog. They have everything on him they could possibly want.

INGRAHAM: Well, he wants it -- well, he was looking at, you know, basically life in prison. Now it's down to about 60 months.

SCHLAPP: Right. Because he has a corrupt business

INGRAHAM: They want that wiped out all together.

SCHLAPP: But it's his corrupt business. Just remember, its corrupt business. That's what they got on him.

INGRAHAM: Taxi shield.

YORK: Remember when Papadopoulos pleaded to lying and Van Der Zwaan pleaded to lying, and Flynn pleaded to lying, people said, well, I guess they're not going to use them as witnesses because they've just pleaded to lying. This has just happened to Michael Cohen. So Mueller is not planning to use these men as --

INGRAHAM: They're not nothing, but they're process crimes.

YORK: -- as witnesses in a future prosecution.

INGRAHAM: But John, we don't know what Mueller has. I keep saying this as an attorney. You don't know what the Mueller team has. Andrew Weissmann, he's not over there at the southwest Washington at the Mueller headquarters with the marble faux pillars out front where he's playing pattycake. So there's something that we're not seeing that they're holding back. I'm not saying it's the big kahuna here, but there is something else going on because otherwise the week -- they wrote this editorial today. They said the following, the special counsel has taken his attention away from diplomacy and other ordinary business of the presidency. Mueller has failed to deliver the goods not simply because there are no goods to deliver but because delivering them is not the point. The point is to hurt Trump. They haven't gotten close to conclusion. Even old Jake Tapper said that last week.

JON SALE, FORMER ASSISTANT WATERGATE PROSECUTOR: Regardless of what Mueller, nobody is pointing out that there is a presumption of innocence which goes to everybody, including the president. So I just am at a loss for everybody saying, my God, Mueller must have something and the world is going to cave in. Whatever Mueller has --

INGRAHAM: I just there is some trick. There are some tricks up their sleeves. I don't think this is just going to be some tepid report that says they could have just used some better judgment, Byron York, where it's like the appearance of impropriety. I don't know.

SALE: Can I put out one thing quickly?

INGRAHAM: Real quick, then we've got to get to Byron.

SALE: The problem with a special counsel is they're on a mission. If they do a thorough investigation, they have not failed if their conclusion is the president did not break the law. They are just as successful in their mission if they come to that conclusion.

INGRAHAM: Bingo, bingo.

YORK: It's going to be a one-sided report because that's what he's doing. He's a prosecutor. He's not going to give a defense brief for the president. So he's going to give it to Congress -- it's going to get to Congress. And the new Democratic majority will figure whether --

SCHLAPP: Can I say something fast on that? It's very important. This is a political exercise. Impeachment, special counsels, it's all about politics, Laura. We just had a big nationwide campaign. Show me the ads the Democrats ran on collusion. It's not a real thing. This whole investigation as far as the American people are concerned, as far as their daily lives, has no impact and they're tired of it.

INGRAHAM: But later on we'll tell you what does have impact, is what's going on in the trade world and with China. We're going to get into that.

And also a shocking proposal -- great segment, guys -- from a United Nations official. Could the mere criticism of mass migration end up now becoming a criminal offense? This is not exaggeration. We're going to play the tape. A story that has my blood boiling and had it boiling over the weekend, next.


INGRAHAM: Frightening proposals emerging from a U.N. panel over the weekend. Not only does the so-called United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration want to make immigration a universal human right, they want to make it a crime for media outlets to allow for certain types of criticism against migration. Watch.


MARCEL DE GRAAFF, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MEMBER: Criticism of migration will become a criminal offense, and media outlets -- and that also concerns you -- that give room to criticism of migration can be shut down.


INGRAHAM: Here now is someone who knows more about this than the average Joe, I would say, this diminished E.U. today, is Nigel Farage. He was the vice chairman of the pro-Brexit movement that raised red flags about all these issues, especially on immigration destroying the fiber of the U.K. Nigel, thanks for staying up so late for us tonight. We really appreciate it. Is there a chance that with this global compact on migration that this actually could come to pass, that this type of criticism of migration could be criminalized?

NIGEL FARAGE, VICE-CHAIR, LEAVE MEANS LEAVE: You were quite right to say that what the U.N. wants to do is make immigration a human right. What it also wants to do is make illegal immigration legal by defining a refugee as anybody that wants to move between countries. So basically, what it wants to do is to make us all global citizens, and governments are going to this next week. Many will sign up to it without ever consulting their own people.

But you are quite right. The most worrying part is the section on the media, where it says very clearly that media outlets who are intolerant, critical, xenophobic, or racist in their criticism of mass migration -- now, as soon as you start to define people like that, you're getting into territory where people can be defined as committing hate crimes. They want to make it -- they actually want to make it illegal to criticize open-door immigration. Is it actually going to work? Well, thankfully, the U.N. itself doesn't have legal power. But --

INGRAHAM: But Nigel, doesn't this also, though, operate as kind of a framework for international human rights cases? And it ends up being a framework that, under a different Supreme Court in this country, could actually be referenced? There are a lot of justices who believe that referencing foreign law is OK, which, of course, it's not the way it's done in our country, and sadly, it's been done in the past.

So that's the problem. It becomes another international norm. And climate change is one thing. I'm not talking about climate change, but in this case it's a norm. So if you -- we do a lot of stuff on migration. You and I have talked about the migration, immigration, illegal immigration issue for years. So just talking about the fact that we have so many illegal immigrants on social welfare now in the United States, a big survey came out today, about 60, I think 61 percent on some type of social program, that would be considered, perhaps, hateful.

FARAGE: Yes. Here I am in London. There are, as we speak, 1,000 police officers in London who just investigate hate crime. And the definitions of what hate crime get broader and broader. This is an attempt by the U.N. to make any criticism of mass migration something that should be considered criminal. And effectively what they're saying is they will favor media outlets that promote their ideas materially. They're even talking about funding media outlets that support their view.


FARAGE: No, I'm being serious. Believe me, I have seen this myself in Brussels, because the European Union, that is the sort of prototype for the globalists. And the European Commission actually give money to media organizations that promote their views and increasingly demonize those that take a different point of view. And you're right, the International Criminal Court, areas like that can start to make judgments in these areas that will, you're quite right, be referenced by national courts.

INGRAHAM: And they also, they marginalize voices. You see this happen on social media, it's happening on Twitter, obviously on Facebook, YouTube channels, they're making judgment calls on who and who is not part of the acceptable club. Nigel, I want to play a soundbite from the grand dame of migration, which is Angela Merkel, of course. This is just from a week and a half or so ago. Let's watch.


ANGELA MERKEL, GERMAN CHANCELLOR: The pact for migration as well as for refugees is the right answer as we are just as the beginning of solving global problems together internationally.


INGRAHAM: You're on satellite, so unless your German is really good, it's basically this is a right. We have to stand up for the right of refugees. I believe in standing up for refugees, but it doesn't mean that every country's border has to remain open if a global entity like the U.N. says, OK, you've got to do it, whether it's to the 7,000 people in Tijuana or any other group.

FARAGE: Let's just remember what a refugee is. There is a 1951 definition of what a refugee is, and it's a person in fear of their life or their liberty as a result of their race, their religion, their views, their orientation. That does not mean that millions of people that have crossed the Mediterranean over the last couple of years, encouraged by Angela Merkel, were refugees. They weren't. They were economic migrants coming from all over the world, using the opportunity of the huge stupidity made by Angela Merkel.

I genuinely believe, good evening, Laura, that Christians living in Iraq and countries like that who have literally got nowhere to go, they qualify as genuine refugees. But you cannot open the door to mass millions and suddenly pretend that's OK. And this is exactly what the U.N. are trying to do next week. They're trying to bail out Angela Merkel and the other politicians who have made these huge mistakes. And I would have thought what Mrs. Merkel ought to do, rather than defending her judgment, is to apologize to millions of German people for fundamentally changing the nature of a culture of the towns and cities in which people live without ever asking the people.

INGRAHAM: Sweden is seeing its populist movement. We saw the results of last election. We see it happening in Andalusia in Spain. Macron, he is in some really hot political water. Obviously, Brexit. Things are changing. And the elites don't get the message. But Nigel, thank you for being up with us late.

FARAGE: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: Really important topic, and I really appreciate it. Thanks so much.

And my friends, it's often kind of hard to understand just why China is such a threat to you, the American people, the American worker, American factories, real jobs. Our next guest is going to show you what happens when China tries to destroy an American manufacturing base. One company that's fought against China and won. He's going to tell us why this is so important. The man fighting back will explain, next.



PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Today I'm directing the United States trade representative to examine China's policies, practices, and actions with regard to the forced transfers of American technology and the theft of American intellectual property. As president of the United States, it's my duty and responsibility to protect the American workers' technology and industry from unfair and abusive actions.


INGRAHAM: That event, President Trump, was attended by my next guest, Cambria CEO Marty Davis. His company was the target of a Chinese effort that would have destroyed, potentially, his company, and that is until he and the White House with its own policies and its focus fought back. Marty is going to join us in just a moment.

But first, Trace Gallagher is live now in our west coast newsroom with the back story on this battle. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Laura, as the U.S.'s largest producer of quartz countertops, backsplashes, and floor tiles, Minnesota's Cambria company makes it their business to keep an eye on foreign competition. For example, in 2010 the company said China exported $5 million of quartz into the U.S. Last year that number jumped to more than $450 million. And for the first nine months of this year the total bounced up again to $526 million. But the quartz wasn't just being imported. It was being illegally dumped in the U.S., meaning China was subsidizing it so it could be sold in this country well below cost.

The goal of course is to undercut the competition and control the market. Cambria estimates that last year alone China displaced $1.2 billion of U.S. quartz. And adding insult to injury, China was also slapping a 40 percent tariff on quartz being imported to their country. Last April, Cambria petitioned the U.S. Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission to intervene, writing, quote, "Fair trade and free-trade are inseparable paradigms. You simply cannot have one without the other. We believe strongly in free trade -- to protect it, we must demand fair trade."

And sure enough, subsequent investigations have found that China was indeed dumping underpriced quartz into the United States. So in September the Commerce Department increased tariffs on select Chinese quartz to five times the previous number, and bumped up the tariffs once again in November. Clearly the companies reselling the cut-rate Chinese quartz were hoping to keep the goods flowing. Now it appears they too will have to make a few adjustments. Laura?

INGRAHAM: Trace, thanks so much.

And Marty Davis, CEO of Cambria is here. Marty, this is a wild story. You started this company when?


INGRAHAM: In 2001, and you saw a market. And you live in Minnesota. Your family has done business in Minnesota, and you want to employ Minnesota employees. What happens years later with China's involvement?

DAVIS: We saw an opportunity. We started the company, we founded the company, myself and Jim Ward, our finance manager, were the original employees. Today we have nearly 2,000. We went through a lot of struggles to build the business, as you would imagine. By 2010 or 11 after the meltdown of 2008, we got back on our feet, and the company was starting to flourish as was the industry. And we developed a lot of technology, invested heavily in innovations, did a lot of work around productivity, and really the business started to skyrocket. And about that time, 2013, 2014, the Chinese producers from China started to dump product into the United States.

INGRAHAM: What does that mean, dump product? For people who are watching.

DAVIS: They're subsidized by their government. The People's Republic of China is not a friendly participant in a free-enterprise economy in America. They subsidize their companies. They run their banks. They're state-owned. And they're going after American manufacturing.

INGRAHAM: Are you afraid of competition? That's what the free-traders would say. Marty, are you afraid of competing with China? Can't you beat China, Marty? What's the problem?

DAVIS: We are free traders, and you have to have fair trade to have free trade and a level playing field. I think the president understands that and does his team. We like competition. Competition helped us develop our technologies a lot better. We have tremendous competition in the industry from other domestic producers, and it's been good for the industry and for the business. It's not competition. This argument by some of the politicians about free trade, they don't understand what free trade is. They should get out in the market and run a manufacturing facility and have your manufacturing worker have to compete with the Chinese government instead of a Chinese manufacturing worker. There is no competition there.

INGRAHAM: Tell me about the average employee you have.

DAVIS: And the business fails.

INGRAHAM: The people in your firm, tell me about them. What are they like?

DAVIS: The people that helped us build the company start from all different kinds. The graduate students and undergrads and hardworking, unskilled labor that come out of high school and go to work in a manufacturing facility. And they work hard. They're innovative. They're productive. They're focused and they're diligent in their work. They're amazing, and they'll compete with anybody in the world. But you cannot compete with a rogue party dictatorship like China who has targeted this amazing economy in America as their target to, I say heist our manufacturing platforms and move them to China.

INGRAHAM: Now, tell me about the president's approach. And I want to play a soundbite for you first. This is from Abby Phillip, she's a CNN reporter, and made this point about the president's use of tariffs, Marty. Let's watch.


ABBY PHILLIP, CNN CORRESPONDENT: The president decided to use tariffs, which is a pretty archaic tool to get China to the table. And maybe they have gotten them to the table, but they have not been making a lot of progress.


INGRAHAM: Archaic tool.

DAVIS: Yes, first of all, a lot of our politicians, and many of them Republicans don't understand the use of the word "tariff" or what it really means. Tariff is a trade-enforcement tool in many instances and most. That's what the president and his excellent team, Lighthizer, Wilbur Ross, and Peter Navarro and others that are over there, they are extraordinary leaders in this part of our economy, they understand that it's a trade- enforcement tool to ensure that trade law that is violated is dealt with. And these conditions -- they're violating existing U.S. trade law. We didn't go and ask for new law. We asked the United States government, trade and commerce, to -- we petitioned them to go after China and investigate whether they are violating U.S. trade law.

INGRAHAM: And they found that, indeed, they were. They went from $5 million worth of quartz material, that raw material to make the counter, to what?

DAVIS: Yes, $5 million imported in 2010 to roughly $570 million in 2017. And if you look at their economics --

INGRAHAM: It's $800 million. That's the projection for this year will be $800 million. That's not dumping -- if you don't see those figures and you don't think that's dumping a cheap product --

DAVIS: Laura, there's a couple of key points. If you look at what they displaced in our market prices, it's over $1 billion, which is one-sixtieth of the deficit. In addition to that, the Chinese product in some cases -- this is amazing to anybody that's manufactured in the marketplace -- their prices were below our raw-material costs.

INGRAHAM: That is the classic dumping case. If you dump it under cost then there is no competition.

DAVIS: That's right.

INGRAHAM: The people who you employ, they're mothers, they're fathers, they're high school graduates, people who graduated from college, engineers and so forth. What do these jobs mean for them?

DAVIS: Obviously, they're a great part of the company. They are the company. I would tell you that their dedication to our business is why it exists. We should have invested another $150 million in property and equipment we should have added 350 employees to our company. In 16 we shut that down as a result of this dumping.

INGRAHAM: Because of China's cheating.

DAVIS: That's a fact.

INGRAHAM: You were able to fight China here. A lot of companies can't. Marty Davis, thank you for doing that, and thank you for having an open mind politically. This is not politics. This is about the country and manufacturing.

DAVIS: This is a policy issue, not a political issue. And I don't understand why it's not a policy issue for the entire country. It's not political.

INGRAHAM: Marty Davis, thank you so much for joining us, really appreciate it.

And coming up next, the Last Bite, on an unexpected champion straight ahead.


INGRAHAM: It's time for the last bite. Remember the name Jalen Hurtx, so humble, so talented?


JALEN HURTS: None of this has been easy. Since the championship game it hasn't been easy. But I think it shows true character and true heart, trying to fight to the finish. But people have doubted me. People have said I should leave. People said I should have left right after the game. I am blessed enough to be graduating on the 15th. Not many people realize how important that is for me. So I don't think transferring was everything, you know. And I'm blessed to be here.


INGRAHAM: Jalen Hurts comes from behind for Alabama winning the SEC championship when two of the quarterback got hurt. Congratulations, Jalen and all of the players at Alabama and all the final four for going into the national championship. That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team, take it from here.

Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.