Michigan state representative: Amash is weak on important issues

close

Video

Michigan state representative: Amash is weak on important issues

Rep. Amash gets pro-Trump primary challenger; State Rep. Jim Lower speaks out on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," May 20, 2019. 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.' Of course, I say this every night, but we really do have a lot of breaking news from the Nation's Capital tonight.

Just in the last few hours, you heard Hannity hit on some of this, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee has released thousands of pages of closed-door interviews with top Obama officials. It's like Christmas we've been calling through them for you and you will not believe what former AG Loretta Lynch said about spying, yes indeed. John Yoo and Joe Diare here in moments to discuss the latest.

Also tonight Victor Davis Hanson is going to tell us how Obama's Intel Chiefs are now turning on each other. It's like something out of you know the Serengeti, they're turning on each other. Plus he details where the real obstruction lies.

And we sent our cameras to a rally held in Times Square today calling for Congresswoman Ilhan Omar to be removed from the House Foreign Affairs Committee and one of the men leading that effort will join us tonight.

But first, rinse and repeat, that's the focus of tonight's ANGLE. Now as Joe Biden continues to dominate these early months of the 2020 presidential race, the other Democrat candidates are - they are left to pick up whatever table scraps they can get.

Poor old Beto thinks that taking ear hair and white privilege will make him relevant again. Kamala is trying a reset, Corey a rebrand, and Kirsten a reframe. And then there's Mayor Pete, who desperately needs a Reboot-I- Gieg.

Well,but of course, he's oblivious about his own deficiencies as a candidate, because he usually glides through interviews, rarely facing tough questions. Now last night he appeared on this network for a town hall event in front of a studio audience that included a lot of supporters.

Now when he wasn't pushing for tax increases or lobbying lame cheap shots, he was trying to pass off political pabulum as some type of high-minded oratory.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:I believe we're living through one of those transitions between moments in American history as consequential as the one that brought us the New Deal or the dawn of the Reagan era, which I would argue is actually a 40-year period that has only now come crashing to a halt with the hostile takeover of the Republican Party by the current President.

And it does call for that longer view. So everybody's got different attributes that they bring. One of the ones I bring, I think, is the possibility of that kind of generational shift.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now that's the political equivalent of kind of cotton candy. It tastes good at first, but it's only kind of a nausea kicks in. I think somewhere Cecil Rhodes is muttering that he wants a scholarship back.

I think I was ahead of the curve a few months ago when I called out Buttigieg for sounding just as judgmental and sanctimonious as some of the Christians whose faith he was questioning.

Last August he derided President Trump as basically a disgraced game show host and a Vice President Pence he said this, "A social extremist, the likes of which our country has not known in national politics". Wow, so much for those conservative family values.

Beyond his Boy Scout demeanor and mayor peach dig (ph) Buttigieg is but another creation of a media apparatus desperate to oust Trump. And, as I'm sure, you saw again and again on the other networks, he showed this unattractive strain last night.

But it's hard to patronize and condescend your way to winning the nomination. It's you can't do it. You got to treat the people like they deserve to be treated. But forget Mayor Pete, maybe we should call him Pope Pete, because don't you love how he - because he attends church we're supposed to treat him as the be-all and end-all moral authority or the arbiter of who is and who is not operating in good faith.

So he finds conservative media objectionable, but third trimester abortions - well, they're perfectly moral.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Do you believe at any point in pregnancy, whether it's 6 weeks or 8 weeks or 24 weeks or whatever that there should be any limit on a woman's right to have an abortion.

BUTTIGIEG: I think the dialogue has got so caught up on where you draw the line that we've gotten away from the fundamental question of who gets to draw the line. And I trust women to draw the line when it's their--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, is that an example of good faith, is that you actually call that good faith toward the unborn innocent child? He or she probably doesn't feel the good faith. And does the father ever have any rights at all? I think we need a Papal Proclamation.

This eager-beaver mayor has perfected the art of mild-mannered extremism. His modulated tone and kind of cool cat exterior are designed to make the extreme seem downright pedestrian. It's all as normal as a Sunday school lesson or hot apple pie. But don't be fooled you're too smart for that.

Here he is showing that he's not too far from his buddy Al Sharpton on hot- button historical issues.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HUGH HEWITT,HOST SALEM RADIO NETWORK: Should Jefferson-Jackson dinners be renamed everywhere because both were holders and slaves?

BUTTIGIEG: I think it's the right thing to do. You know, over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor. And I think we know enough, especially Jackson. You know, you just look at what basically amounts to genocide that happened here.

Jefferson's more problematic. You know, there's a lot to, of course, admire in his thinking and his philosophy. It's not like we're blotting him out of the history books, you're deleting him from being the founding fathers. But you now naming, something after somebody confers a certain amount of honor.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well so do statues and monuments, and we have a lot of those of Thomas Jefferson, but he's not for blowing those up.

Now look this is all giving aid and comfort to the kind of modern-day Taliban, the Destroyers of history, the people who rather than learning from the sins and shadows of history, prefer to simply strike the names and the images of our past from the public square.

That way you short-circuit debate altogether. All right, they're not purging them from the history books, just from your sight line and from everyday life, so you don't see it anymore. How magnanimous some of them.

Now I'd be delighted to have Mayor Buttigieg on 'The Ingraham Angle,' I'll treat them fairly, but I'm not going to let him traffic in the generalities about complex issues that I've heard him speak about such as China or religious liberty.

I'd ask him really serious tough questions. And I'd ask him to tell us more about his parents, specifically his father's Marxist pedigree. And tell us the glories of socialism that family members - your dad may be champion as a professor, and were you steeped in those at home? I think the country would like to know.

You have plenty of time to share all of your truth while on the road, especially given how little time Pete Buttigieg seems to spend in South Bend these days. According to a new report in the South Bend Tribune, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg was out of town for nearly half the days in recent months.

And then in response to reporters' questions for his calendars, they asked him to produce his calendars, this is what the South Bend Tribune said. "His administration responded by providing a calendar in which 45 of the 120 days were redacted. Other days didn't indicate whether it was in town and some were blank".

Well, that's very transparent of him. Look, if you can't show up for the city you're pledged to serve, what confidence can the American people have that you're going to show up for them. In good faith, that's THE ANGLE.

All right joining me now to react, Dan Bongino, Fox News Contributor and Author of the upcoming book "Exonerated: The Failed Takedown of The President Donald Trump by The Swamp"; and Chris Hahn, Radio Talk Show Host and Former Aide to Senator Chuck Schumer.

Dan, Buttigieg is just one of many of the 2020 radicals, and they're trying to kind of - they're trying to take the moral questions for their own, and he in particular has been pretty deft at doing that to a fairly, I think, favorable press.

DAN BONGINO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, I mean, but we're talking about a guy, Laura, who is a far leftist. I mean not willing to publicly put any restrictions whatsoever on the termination of life in the womb, I mean, I understand what's moderate about that.

Secondly, we're talking about - again, let's not forget this Laura, a guy who literally started a fake fight with Mike Pence. Mike Pence who publicly praised him, even though they were of different parties, said he had work with him when Pence was the Governor of Indiana.

And then what does Buttigieg do in one of the most disgusting political moves I've ever seen, he turns around and attacks him and starts a fake fight with a guy, who even though he's of a different political party, Pence had praised his working relationship with him when he was the Governor of Indiana. He's nothing more than another radical leftist trying to pretend to be a moderate and the media's playing along.

INGRAHAM: Well, last night he was asked about reducing the deficit, and well his answer might surprise you. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUTTIGIEG: Higher marginal income tax rate on those earning the most, a reasonable wealth tax or something like that to make sure that people are giving back when they become enormously wealthy; perhaps a financial transactions tax that taxes these millisecond differences in computer trades that people become enormously wealthy off of; and also closing the corporate tax loopholes and incentives for offshoring.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Chris, that's four different tax hikes. Is that going to fly in middle America today?

CHRIS HAHN, FORMER AIDE TO SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: 99 percent of Americans would have no effect - it would have no effect on 99 percent of your viewers, 99 percent of people voting. It's a very small amount of people who would be subject to any of those revenue contributions--

INGRAHAM: No there's no trickle-down effect--

HAHN: I think it's going to fly quite right well in Middle America. In fact, every poll I've seen from middle America and people of moderate income have said that they want to see higher taxes on the wealthy and corporation and on trades. So let's see - let's see what happens if those are the proposals are out there. I think they should do it.

Look, you guys are going to call him a socialist no matter what he does, and that is a very modest proposal to try to reduce the deficit which is out of control under President Trump.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second we have an economy, Dan, that is on fire. We have historically low unemployment - at least since 1969.We have an incredible sense of confidence in the future, more people are working. I mean if you want to work today, you're going to get a job. I mean there's just no doubt about.

BONGINO: Right.

INGRAHAM: I don't - I can't remember a better time rate to be an American then right now.

BONGINO: Sure. The economy's motoring precisely because Donald Trump did the opposite of, thankfully, what Chris just said. I'm so glad Chris wasn't an advisor to Donald Trump, thank the Lord.

But, Chris seriously doesn't know what he's talking about. I don't know if he's not familiar with the economics of how taxes and marginal taxes work. But 20 percent - 80 percent of - excuse me, 20 percent of top earners pay over 80 percent of the taxes.

HAHN: Right.

BONGINO: A financial transaction tax would tank the stock market. I'm not sure Chris is sure about this kind of stuff.

HAHN: I doubt it.

BONGINO: But the stock market invested in deeply buy pension funds, union workers and others. And this idea that the corporate tax rate is only going to affect the business - who do you think businesses' customers are? The American people who pass the taxes on to--

HAHN: So, Dan, Dan--

BONGINO: No, no, no, I'm not done - who pass their taxes on to the consumers. Chris, pick up an economics textbook once in a while, it's very illuminating. You will learn some stuff.

HAHN: I unlike you have taken economic classes in college.

BONGINO: Actually I have an MBA--

(CROSSTALK)

HAHN: --who are watching this show. And for 99 percent of Americans is the President's trade war with China and the tariffs he's proposing and his failure to keep open trade going around the world.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: OK. Hold on, hold on. All right boys.

HAHN: --all of the Americans. All of the people you are worried about.

BONGINO: Very good job.

INGRAHAM: All right. Hey, Hahn, we can do it a long segment sometime on trade. But there ain't no inflation insight. Finally, we are taking China seriously. We didn't under the previous eight years, we didn't under Bush. We're finally doing it now.

We finally have a President who sees the world as it is not as some fantasy that we play out at Harvard or wherever the elites are going to school and learning that, "Oh, the world is all going to - they love us if we just treat them right".

We're doing what we need to do now. The economy is absorbing. The tariffs that our small percentage of a $20 trillion economy. So don't play this game and the tariffs are - the economy, that's a ridiculous argument.

HAHN: Laura, you are you are smart enough to know, while this economy is booming as it is--

INGRAHAM: No, I am smart. Smarter than you, as you know what you're talking about--

HAHN: --we should not be running up deficits like this President has.

INGRAHAM: Right. So you want to tank--

HAHN: No Republican in history would have--

INGRAHAM: --you want to turn it over to China. You want to turn this over to China because of the soybean farmers? That is ridiculous. We got to get into what's going on with Kamala Harris, though, because she's one of the other candidates who were trying to kind of rebrand and restate things.

And let's listen to what she said with her bold new plan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I am going to announce the first-ever national priority on closing that pay gap and holding corporations accountable for transparency. There will be penalties if they don't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Now, Dan, look more people are embracing socialism and I think a lot of young people coming out of colleges and universities today where they probably don't have the economics that they should have, if they're either graduating in a major of economics.

And they hear that and say sounds fair, so what about that? I mean, that maybe it will sell with young people today.

BONGINO: Well, it's said because even left-wing media outlets have debunked the pay gap that she's referring to. The pay gap she's referring to is largely due to different career choices amongst men and women.

It is currently illegal, I'm not sure if Kamala Harris knows this. I'm sure she does. She's very bright. She's probably just lying to people. It's currently illegal to pay men - and thankfully, by the way - men and women differently based exclusively on sex. I mean, I don't know what else to say, Laura. She's just making it up.

So what does she want to do now? She wants government experts with the dreaded air quotes in the boardroom determining what people's salaries are? Good work with that one.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Chris just hold on. We didn't play the sound bite that that - where she talks about the actual 80 percent - you know 80 cents of the dollar. And even liberal-leaning PolitiFact debunked that said she's using the wrong numbers and she keeps repeating them over and over again. And that's not that's not working for.

I think she's trying to do her little rebrand, but sure it's - even with the more socialist leaning young people, I don't think it's working.

HAHN: Well, what she actually proposed Laura was that companies that do business with the United States government have to certify themselves that they are paying men and women equally who do equal jobs.

Now what I'm hearing from Dan is, it's OK for the government to interfere between a woman and her doctor' and the health choices she's making, but not for them to hold accountable--

BONGINO: What are you talking about?

HAHN: --people who they're buying goods and services for equal pay, equal work.

BONGINO: These are two totally different issues.

HAHN: I don't understand, would you want small government or big government, Dan? I don't know what you want.

INGRAHAM: All right guys. All right, well, I know I whatever--

BONGINO: However, I want government to defend life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You want government in the boardroom detecting people--

INGRAHAM: Whatever we do - guys, we're out of time, but whatever we do in this these conversations, we at least have to have a benchmark of foundational truths when it comes to numbers. And the numbers that she was citing - whatever her plan is going to be, the numbers she's citing were not accurate. So that - I think that's a big problem for.

But thank you very much for coming on. And former White House Counsel, Don McGahn to defy a subpoena to testify before a House panel and Republican Congressman releases thousands of incriminating closed-door interviews with former Obama officials - thousands of pages. My legal panel, Joe diGenova and John Yoo are here to break it all down, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: We have a lot of big legal news to get through today. From new closed-door transcripts just released by Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to Democrats exploding in their own closed-door meeting over whether to move forward on impeachment or not against Trump.

So let's bring in former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo and former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova. All right gentlemen, I want to begin with this Don McGahn side, before getting to these transcripts.

Now he was the White House Counsel - the first White House Counsel for President Trump. Now the White House today is laying out why the former counsel should defy a House subpoena to testify before the Judiciary Committee and McGahn through his lawyer has agreed to skip it.

Here's what President Trump said before heading to Pennsylvania tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: As I understand it, they're doing that for the office of the presidency for future presidents. I think it's a very important precedent and the attorneys say that they're not doing that for me, they're doing that for the Office of the President. So we're talking about the future.

The Democrats want to redo and we've had enough and the country's had enough--

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: No redos. Joe, Nadler was over on CNN tonight saying they're coming - they're going to hold McGahn in contempt.

JOE DIGENOVA. FORMER US ATTORNEY: Well, McGahn was the counsel to the President. He gave 30 hours of testimony to Mueller. That was not a waiver of executive privilege, because Mueller is in the executive branch and was an employee of the President of the United States.

So there still is executive privilege when it comes to testimony from the Hill, as well as various confidentiality privileges that the President has such as consultation and communication, so they're on very strong legal ground. And if the House litigates contempt on McGahn, they're going to lose.

INGRAHAM: John, is it customary for folks out there who aren't you know well versed in legal issues, constitutional issues such as this executive privilege. Is it common for White House Counsel to testify on the Hill ever? I mean, I just don't recall. Maybe I'm not recalling it, but I don't recall it and past administrations.

JOHN YOO, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: No, in fact, that's the grounds on which the Justice Department has set and it's opinion why McGahn can't testify.

According to the Justice Department and lower courts that have looked at this, the aides that are closest to the President, like the Chief of Staff, the National Security Advisor and the White House Counsel they're basically extensions of the President himself.

And so just like Congress can't drag President Trump to testify before it, because that would show disrespect to a coordinate branch of government, it'd be like it's of Congress drag Chief Justice John Roberts before it to testify, they can't do that either.

So too you can't drag the closest aides to the President in front of Congress and force them to answer questions.

Second, the Justice Department makes a very good point which is if Congress really want to harass the President and prevent him from doing his job doing the business of the country, it could just subpoena and keep bringing all of these staff before it.

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, this is what they're - I mean, this kind of seems to be the goal here. And by the way, the other breaking news tonight came courtesy of these closed-door transcripts that were released by the House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins.

Now these were interviews that were conducted with a number of Obama era folks, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Now here's one interesting exchange. This is Nadler questioning her. I think this is in December of last year.

"Do you believe the FBI or DOJ ever investigated the Trump campaign for political purposes?" Lynch says, "I know they did not" Nadler then says, "And how would you have reacted if you had received a request of this nature from any presidential administration?" She says, "I would have declined it and told them how inappropriate it".

Joe, after what we now know, what about that?

DIGENOVA: Well that's a sloppy question, because he said "for political purposes". But she would say they were investigated for non-political--

INGRAHAM: Legitimate purpose.

DIGENOVA: In fact, that's the defense now of the Obama administration DOJ, FBI people. Well,when we said there was no spying, we meant there was no politically motivated spying. There was spying, but it was because we really believed that the Russians were influencing that.

Look, this is a scandal of immense proportions. The fact that they have to lie about it now after denying it, just shows you how bad off they are and how frightened they are a Bill Barr. And John, real quick there's also an issue with what Comey claimed Loretta Lynch said about the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation.

And this is another quote from the December 19th interview. She said, "I was quite surprised that Comey characterized it in this way. We did have a conversation about it, so I wasn't surprised that he remembered that we met and talked about it.

But I was quite surprised that that this was his characterization of it, because that was not how I conveyed it to him, certainly not how it was intended." calling the probe a matter instead of an investigation. John what do you make of that?

YOO: I can't imagine worse punishment they're making people read through all these transcripts of Obama.

INGRAHAM: Thank you, that's my producers tonight.

YOO: I mean, I've been reading through these for the last hour, it's painful watching them point the fingers at each other. But you're exactly right. There's a lot of pages about is this a matter, who decided to essentially clear Hillary Clinton in those first press conferences?

As you can tell, you're suggesting Laura, neither Comey nor Loretta Lynch now wants to take responsibility for essentially clearing Hillary Clinton. But one of them did, because they're both in charge. The FBI and that Justice Department they're in charge and they shouldn't, I don't think, have ever gone public and cleared her in the first place.

But they went and took that moment to stop it - a step and started this whole chain reaction of events. I think that led us into the investigation we're--

INGRAHAM: No, no, we're touching - they're getting the surface of this tonight because there's so much. Joe before let you go, Justin Amash calling for the impeachment of President Trump, a Republican Congressman never Trumper, hates Trump. What's going on, real quick?

DIGENOVA: A libertarian loser who was--

INGRAHAM: That was square it (ph).

DIGENOVA: Who was dear friends with Mark Sanford and is very angry about the way Mark Sanford was treated. So this is get back time. He's a four- year-old and if he's such a great libertarian, why isn't he concerned about the spying that went on by the Obama administration.

He's a loser. If he doesn't care about the FISA Court, cares about impeaching the President, that's ridiculous.

INGRAHAM: Buffoonery. All right, gentlemen, thank you so much. Now within 24 hours Amash got a primary challenger Michigan state Rep Jim Lower - Representative Lower joins me now exclusively.

Now, Amash has been in Congress for nearly a decade, so why do you think, Mr. Lower, that you can defeat him for this one comment - just one comment, it's a little "I" word.

REP. JAMES LOWER, R-MICH.: Well, there's a lot more that we can we can talk about other than that comment. But it's more than just a comment. He's calling for our President to be impeached and he doubled down on it today.

I saw that he doubled down on those comments saying that the Mueller report indicated that he should be impeached. There's nobody besides Bob Mueller that would have loved to come out with that conclusion, and even he couldn't come to that conclusion. It's completely ridiculous.

You know at this point Justin Amash is more in common with Rashida Tlaib than he does the average Republican primary voter in the district. So we are going to beat him on this issue. But we're also going to beat him on the fact that in 10 years in Congress he's gotten one bill passed and it was to rename a post office - completely ineffective.

INGRAHAM: Now Amash was asked about all this, let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you feel about a primary opponent now announcing after your tweets about impeachment?

REP. JUSTIN AMASH, R-MICH.: Yes, it's not serious.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So you feel like you're safe for two more years after this?

AMASH: I feel very confident in my district.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Very condescending. It's not serious. Are you serious tonight, Mr. Lower?

LOWER: 100 percent serious. In fact, when votelower.com-- that's vote l-o- w-e-r dot com. launched thousands of dollars started pouring in from all around the district, all around the state of Michigan and throughout the country. So it's a 100 percent serious campaign. I've won hard campaigns in the past and we're going to win this one too.

INGRAHAM: Yes, in the past by the way and more was written about this today. He's been dogged by his connections with China, his financial interests in China, Chinese companies and I think that's part of it too.

Like, the libertarians are fine if we have to sell that sell America out to the Red Chinese for like soybeans or for some high-tech equipment then so be it, that's the so-called free market. So I think that's probably going to be another thing that we're going to look into. And I think you are serious, so we wish you all the best. Thanks for being with us tonight.

LOWER: Yes. And if you look, he's the only Republican in Congress to have voted against funding for the border wall. He's very weak on immigration issues.

INGRAHAM: He's terrible on immigration.

LOWER: He's just weak on basic pro-life issues, too. On those issues, on the border wall --

INGRAHAM: He's terrible on most issues.

LOWER: So our core platform, he's weak on it, I'm strong on it, and that's why I'm going to beat him in the fall.

INGRAHAM: All right, thank you very much, sir.

And President Trump just wrapped up a rally in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. Remember, that was supposed to be his Waterloo last time?  Making a strong pitch for his 2020 reelection, bid former White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, is here with us on the path to victory.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: When you have the best employment numbers in history, when you have the best unemployment numbers in history, when you have the best economy probably that we have ever had, I don't know, how the hell do you lose this election, right?

(APPLAUSE)

INGRAHAM: Well, you can expect to see a lot more moments like that in the coming months, because despite recent rumors that he was going to cut back on the rallies, "Axios" reporting today that the president will officially launch his 2020 campaign next month. There is a gigantic field looking to take him down, and we're going to go through some of them and imagine how these candidates would match up against Donald Trump.

Here with me now for some analysis, he has been a stranger, former White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus. Reince, it seems like yesterday the 2016 campaign, I cannot believe we are here already. But why is Biden now hailing himself as the consensus candidate? And look, he's blowing the doors off it so far in all polls, it doesn't matter.

REINCE PRIEBUS, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF: Look, if you look at what the American people think out there, there's only 30 percent of the American people not even actually think socialism is remotely compatible with our country. And you have Joe Biden who is reluctantly starting to creep to the left.

And what you have to do, I think, and everybody has to put their mindset in the Midwest. The president won by 36 electoral votes. Wisconsin, 10, Michigan 16, and Pennsylvania is 20. That's 46 of important electoral votes that the president needs. You cannot win Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania on a $93 trillion Green New Deal, that's $600,000 per household, $32 trillion in a health care package. It's not going to work.

So the Trump campaign, I believe, is going to jam down their throats of every person that is watching on television these numbers. That is why Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, all the things you talked about in your opening statement --

INGRAHAM: They are all rebooting. They are all rebooting, rebranding, resetting, redoing. But they are trying to figure out Trump. For them Trump is like an amoeba. They're trying to nail him, but they can't, because they hit him here, he moves here. It is very interesting to see them try to run against an explosive economy.

PRIEBUS: It's an explosive economy and Trump is an explosive candidate.

INGRAHAM: Right, but he's going to get right in your face. He's not this guy who is going to play defense. He'll get right in your face. It's worked.

PRIEBUS: These numbers, $600,000 per household for what they are talking about, they're going to have to account for voters in western Pennsylvania and central Michigan. How are we going to pay for that? So even voters that voted for Trump reluctantly in 2016, they love what he does. They might not like sometimes how he does it. They're going to looking and say, wait a minute, I don't like everything about Trump, but this is crazy stuff. Which is why Biden, to your question, which is why Biden is a little bit different than the rest of the pack.

INGRAHAM: But he came out tonight against the Hyde Amendment. He wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment, meaning you would fund I believe abortions overseas, right?

PRIEBUS: So he's creeping along this crazy left position that these folks are taking. If the election just is a referendum on Trump, it gives some of the Democrats an opportunity. It's like every president, like every candidate, right? But if it's about socialism, reparations, Green New Deal, the Electoral College, it's not going to work.

INGRAHAM: Running that I'm a nicer person than Donald Trump.

PRIEBUS: That's not going to work in politics.

INGRAHAM: It means people are going to take money out of your pocketbook.  They are coming for your wallet. They're coming for your money. They are the ones that want to make decisions for you.

For me, Bernie Sanders, I have got to play this video. He's got a different tactic. He's going after Trump and targeting him in a different way on the working class base. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, (D-VT) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: What I believe is the way that you beat Trump is bringing more people into the political process.  So you expand the base talking to working people and young people. And we expose Trump for the fraud that he is when he said that he campaigned on being a friend of working people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PRIEBUS: Well, we have an economy right now that has a number in the threes for unemployment. We have a number in the threes for wage growth.  We have a number in the threes on GDP. This is a roaring economy. People know. On the economy alone the president gets an A-plus.

INGRAHAM: They are never making an argument that we're going to raise the GDP by 0.5 percent more. They are not arguing that they are better than Trump at running an economy. They never argue that.

PRIEBUS: The classic Reagan question will be in 2020, are you better off today than you were when he came into office in 2016? And people can say economically they are.

INGRAHAM: Walker lost Wisconsin. Is Trump in any danger of losing Wisconsin?

PRIEBUS: I think the president, I think for a Republican to win Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania at a given presidential election is going to be tough. It's going to be a fight. This is not going to be easy. It doesn't matter what everyone is saying. This is going to be a fight. And the Democrats are energized, the Republicans will be energized. This is going to be the biggest political battle in modern history.

INGRAHAM: Are you going to be out there?

PRIEBUS: I'm going to be out there, sure. I'd love it. I can't stop from being out there. That's why I'm back on your show.

INGRAHAM: Come on.

PRIEBUS: So I'm back now. So I'm going to come back --

INGRAHAM: All right, Mueller report is over.

PRIEBUS: The Mueller report is over.

INGRAHAM: So your agents are fielding requests? You came across pretty well in the Mueller report, my goodness, Reince. No problems. Thanks for being here tonight. Come back soon.

And up next, Clapper, Brennan, and Comey now turning on each other as the truth comes out about that dirty dossier. VDH is here next, plus he reveals for us the real obstruction.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You look at what we just went through with this phony deal, this phony witch hunt that we all went through together is a disgrace.

(BOOS)

TRUMP: Now, they are all blaming each other, did you see? They are all turning on each other. Isn't that pretty to watch? It's his fault, no, it's his fault. No, we caught them. There was spying, there was spying on our campaign.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: President Trump is talking about the three former intel leaders, Clapper, Brennan, and Comey, who are now accusing one another of using the anti-Trump Steele dossier as the basis for the Russia investigation. So which, of course, has now been debunked.

Here now is Victor Davis Hanson, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.  Victor, what do you make of highly entertaining and revealing circular firing squad?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION: It is. You would think it would come from the other side. The holy grail of Robert Mueller was collusion, so why wouldn't Papadopoulos or Page or Manafort or Flynn, even Cohen didn't finger somebody else. There was nobody saying he colluded, not me.

But on the other side, the side of the noble servants who were supposed to save us from Donald Trump, suddenly Comey is saying, wow, Brennan put this unverified dossier into the presidential briefing. Then Brennan said, no, Comey is doing it. And Comey says, you know what, the dossier wasn't that important for the FISA warrant. And McCabe said yes, it was really important. And then Comey is saying McCabe leaked to the press, and McCabe said no, Comey is.

But why, Laura, isn't there a different mentality? Why aren't they saying I did it and I'm proud of it because I saved us from Trump? Suddenly it is a bad thing to mention the dossier or to put it into a presidential briefing. Same thing with emails, Laura. All these private citizens that Mueller went after, we have no evidence that they deleted from the email.  Why was Nellie Ohr deleting things from her husband's government email account? Why wasn't Mueller --

INGRAHAM: And Victor, I was just saying we are debating whether the president obstructed justice with all the verbiage and the Mueller report, but we actually have people deleting records in anticipation of an investigation or during an ongoing investigation, depending on the timeframe. That is kind of prima facie evidence of obstructive behavior with intent to destroy documents. But you had that during the Hillary email investigation, too, and the left just yawns about that.

HANSON: You did. But why would a member of Mueller's team wipe clean Peter Strzok's second cell phone, or the same thing with Lisa Page. After spending $34 million on an investigation, why would you say, we need to save money and get all Peter Strzok's data off this phone so we can give it to another employee? It makes no sense.

INGRAHAM: I want to read --

HANSON: Why are the government people deleting information that they wanted to come out to show how bad Trump was?

INGRAHAM: They say it's because of the relationship with Lisa Page, it's personal. Oh, please.

This is Comey on the Steele dossier's credibility back in 2018 in an interview he did with Stephanopoulos. He said "It said something that was consistent with what we believed. It was coming from a credible source, someone with a track record, someone who was a credible and respected member of an allied intelligence service during his career." Wow, it's interesting to go back and see that and read that now given what we know he said in December, meaning Comey, and how we know that Steele himself was discredited by speaking to the press, Victor.

HANSON: What's strange about James coming is that in all these assertions he has never one time cited one piece of evidence that he said he verified or is willing to verify now. There is no Russian consulate in Miami. And Michael Cohen's wife is Ukrainian, she's not Russian. And his father-in- law is not a big developer in Moscow. All of these things were false.  Comey keeps saying they were true, but all he has to do is produce one piece of evidence that shows that anything in that made-up dossier was true, and he won't do it. And it's getting kind of pathetic now. He's kind of a tragic figure because you know what is ahead for him, and it's not going to be pretty.

INGRAHAM: All right, Victor, thank you so much.

And hundreds rally to get radical Congresswoman Ilhan Omar off a powerful committee on the Hill. We're going to talk to one of the rally's organizers, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RABBI ALLEN SCHWARTZ, CONGREGATION OHAB ZEDEK: We call upon all those regardless of party to recognize the outrage of Omar being on the prestigious Foreign Affairs Committee.

DOV HIKIND, NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY: Omar is an anti-Semite. That is the issue.

Ilhan Omar must go! Ilhan Omar must go! Ilhan Omar must go! Everybody.

CROWD: Ilhan Omar must go!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: A couple hundred people there, you just heard from members of a group called the Coalition to Get Ilhan Omar Off the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The coalition packed part of Times Square today. They were protesting Congresswoman Omar's blatant anti-Semitism against our greatest ally, among other things.

Here is one of those speakers today, Rabbi Aryeh Spero. Rabbi Spero, it's great to see you. This was interesting, in New York City, where people think, well, anything that would seem to be slightly more conservative, no one would show up. A pretty interesting and a big crowd considering you are in Manhattan, in Bill de Blasio land.

RABBI ARYEH SPERO, PRESIDENT, CAUCUS FOR AMERICA: First of all, Laura, thanks for staying with this issue. We started this about two months ago when we went to Speaker Pelosi's office, and we had a sit-in, and we said, why are you allowing Ilhan Omar to sit on the highly sensitive and important House Foreign Affairs Committee? And we've continued with this, and we have this rally today. Many of us got together and decided it was time to put this rally at the crossroads of the world in Times Square.

Listen, first of all, not all New Yorkers are liberals or leftists and Marxists. There's still a lot of people here in the city that are full of common sense, and they see what's going on. This is a travesty. Not only is this woman anti-Jewish, she is anti-American. You know that she has said often that America is a country that is racist and hate-filled and it's built on genocide and slavery. This is not someone who seems to like America.

INGRAHAM: Well, she said, Rabbi, she'd say, look, that's the oldest game in the book. You disagree with someone and you call them anti-American, that's not fair. She is expressing her own views. And I want to play a short soundbite for you about what she says are dual loyalties, code words.  Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Allegiance to a foreign country, so that is how she pivots on that one.

SPERO: Yes, she accuses Jews of having allegiance to a foreign country when there are 100 million Americans at least who love and are loyal to Israel. One's allegiance to America is not mitigated because one also happens to support Israel. And she accuses the Jewish completely of using what she calls Benjamins, hundred dollar bills, in order to buy support in the Congress for Israel, which is also a lie. People are for Israel are so because they believe in this democracy called Israel.

INGRAHAM: It's our greatest ally in the Middle East, and Nancy Pelosi, I bet, would want this whole thing to go away with Omar. That's my prediction. Thank you so much, Rabbi Spero, great to see you.

And did Joe Biden get too handsy with his own wife? We will let you decide coming.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: All right, it's time for the Last Bite. The Daily Mail describes this hug between Joe Biden and his wife Jill as handsy. I don't know if I would go that far, but what the heck. You decide.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: OK. That is perhaps the stupidest thing ever. There's nothing wrong with that hug. She moves his hands a little bit. That's her problem. That's a fine hug. I don't have any for Joe's hug tonight.

That's all the time we have tonight. My new podcast drops tomorrow 11:00.  Go to podcastone.com.

Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team take it from here. 
 
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.