Report reveals how tech giants censor conservative speech

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," April 16, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

INGRAHAM: Good evening from Washington. I am Laura Ingraham. This is 'The Ingraham Angle.' It was another -- we say every day -- huge news day, and we've got it covered for you from every angle. President Trump goes on offense after a serious 24-hour news cycle full of vicious attacks from the swamp. Mr. Trump's attorneys are locked in a battle to keep federal investigators from misusing protected information that was seized by the FBI from his personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Whitewater Independent Counsel Ken Starr, is going to give us an expert analysis on the danger to the attorney-client privilege, especially when the client is the president.

And meanwhile, the mainstream media are swooning over James Comey's so-called revelations. In tonight's 'Angle,' I will expose the most important revelation at all.

Plus, Carter Page says he will prove in court that many of Comey's statements last night are simply not true. You don't want to miss my exclusive interview with a former Trump campaign advisor, and also, don't miss my one-on-one with the true champion of free speech. That's Brent Bozell (ph). He'll join us for our 'Defending the First' segment.

By the way, get a load of this, desperate Democrats slipping in the polls, trying a new scare tactic. Voting Republican kills women. Yes, the pro-life party, OK. But first, the petty prattling of James Comey. That is the focus of tonight's ANGLE. Look up the word 'priggish' in the dictionary. I'll wait. OK. I'll help you out. Here it is, self-righteously, moralistic and superior. Well, that pretty much sums up former FBI Director Jim Comey's performance during his big ABC book launch interview last night. But it's not his imperious, condescending, holier-than-thou attitude that should concern most of you.

It is what the man actually did while FBI director to compromise government investigations and abuse government power. And his goofy new memoir titled 'Higher Loyalty,' he probably doesn't realize how much he hurts himself on the bureau he used to lead. During his sit down with ABC, Comey revealed, unwittingly perhaps, a clear anti-Trump animus.


GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: Did you tell him that the Steele dossier had been financed by his political opponents?

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: No, I don't think I used the term 'Steele dossier.' I just talked to him about additional material.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: Did he have a right to know that?

COMEY: That it had been financed by his political opponents? I don't know the answer to that. It wasn't necessary for my goal, which was to alert him that we have this information.


INGRAHAM: Wasn't necessary for his goal? What was his goal exactly? Beyond just alerting the president to this information? The fact is, Comey, and a one-on-one national security briefing, chose to omit a material fact that would most certainly have given the president a fuller understanding of the intent behind the dossier.

It would have certainly spurred him to ask more significant questions. Stephanopoulos, well, he gets credit for asking the question, but boy, it would have been nice to have some real aggressive follow-ups. Such as, what other material facts have you withheld from key government officials in briefings, Mr. Comey? Remember, this is the man who admitted last year to leaking government information to reporters through a proxy.


GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: Did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the Department of Justice?


GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: And to whom did you show copies?

COMEY: I asked private -- the president tweeted on Friday after I got fired that I better hope there's not tapes. I woke up in the middle of the night and Monday night because it didn't dawn on me originally, that there might be corroboration for our conversation, there might be a tape. My judgment was, I needed to get that out onto the public square. I ask a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter.


INGRAHAM: Well, that should be a big problem for Comey. They treated it very briefly last night at ABC. As Jonathan Turley wrote, 'Besides being subject to nondisclosure agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and non-classified information.

Assuming that the memos were not classified, though it seems odd that it would not be classified, even on the confidential level, there is 18 USC 641, which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or any department or agency thereof.'

So, think about this, when Trump tweets that Comey is a weaker leaker and should be in jail, well, he pretty much nails it. Comey admitted he was a leaker, but he wants no repercussions because he claims he was doing it for the good of the country.

I think that is bull. He was doing it to try to rehab his own reputation after being fired. Trump's big mistake, of course, was not firing him on his first day in office. Last night, Comey double down on his attack, president and may have shown his true motivation.

During the hour gabfest, Comey claimed Trump was morally unfit for office, and then he coyly suggested that he couldn't say for sure whether the Russian prostitute story wasn't sure or if the Russians had more information with which to blackmail the president.


COMEY: I think it is possible. These are words that I don't think I would utter about the president of the United States, but it's possible.


INGRAHAM: What isn't possible, Jim? What kind of statement is that? That's unreal. Comey just sank his own reputation and undoubtedly harmed the reputation of the FBI leadership, not the rank and file, but the leadership as a whole. His motivation seems clear. He didn't like Trump from the get-go. He considered him undignified and fairly unintelligent, wearing ties and his tanning goggles too long. The most revealing part of the ABC interview was when his wife, Patricia Comey, just popped in.


PATRICIA COMEY, JAMES COMEY'S WIFE: I wanted a woman president really badly and I supported Hillary Clinton, a lot of my friends work for her, and I was devastated when she lost.

COMEY: My wife and girls marched in the women's march. The day after President Trump's inauguration. At least my four daughters, probably all five of my kids, wanted Hillary Clinton to be the first woman president. I know my amazing spouse did.


INGRAHAM: The Trump hatred seems to run a strong in this family. Though he says he didn't vote in the election at all, Comey ended up being a partisan who believed by his own admission that Hillary Clinton was going to win the election and he was worried about any taint that that email investigation would have brought.

And when she went to south -- this is the worst thing, when someone starts to immortalize their meeting, they go in the car, and they type it out of my computer -- he immortalized his meetings with the president-elect in the hopes of collecting damaging evidence that could be then used against him at a later time. Maybe an insurance policy. Of course, Comey is trying to inflate himself from his anti-Trump bias charge by saying, well, look, I don't want him impeached, but listen carefully.


COMEY: I think impeaching and removing Donald Trump from office would let the American people off the hook and have something happen indirectly that I believe they are duty-bound to do directly.


INGRAHAM: They are duty-bound? You are a good one to talk, Jim. You are petty, prissy, and piggish, and now we know you are an anti-Trump partisan. And that is the 'Angle.' The bottom line is, Comey debates himself and the FBI he used to lead. Don't take it for me. Don't take my word for it. Let's hear it from some former agents who once thought highly of him and one who still does. Joining us now from Tampa is former FBI agent, Bobby Chacon, and in San Francisco, Terry Turchie, the FBI's former director of counterterrorism, and former FBI assistant director, Ron Hosko, still thinks very pretty favorably of Comey, and joins me here in studio. I'm delighted to have these gentlemen. Great to talk to you.

Ron, I want to start with you. You have a lot of respect for Jim Comey. Just the sound bites I have played in that opening monologue, I think from the issue of -- well, it's possible, speculating like any other pundit on television, that does an enormous disservice to the people still working in the FBI because everyone watching that is going to think, aha, Jim Comey didn't like him, he said he was afraid, during that first briefing, why did he feel uneasy?

RON HOSKO, FORMER ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI: I agree with you, Laura. I have a lot of respect for Jim Comey, but my concern, too, is for the men and women of the FBI. The impact of the book, the timing of the book, the content of the book, and certainly, the content of some of these comments on how they are perceived by the public.

That to me is the troubling part. Jim Comey is the former director of the FBI. He is certainly entitled to his opinions. He has a right to his opinions. I assume his book went through prepublication review at DOJ. And so now comes time for the reckoning.

Who believes that? Who thinks he is self-aggrandizing? And for me, what is the potential harm on the men and women who work in that building and across our country trying to keep us safe? That is my biggest concern. Not book sales, not Jim Comey's ego, not his political viewpoints, but what about the men and women of the FBI?

INGRAHAM: Terry, let's go to you. This is what they talked about last night regarding the leaks. Let's watch.


GEORGE STEPHANOPOLOUS, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: The president has tweeted innumerable times, calling you a leaker. What is your response to President Trump?

COMEY: Look, it's true. I'm the one who testified about it. That's how people about know it. I gave that unclassified memo to my friend and asked him to give it to a reporter. That is entirely appropriate.


INGRAHAM: Terry, entirely appropriate?

TERRY TURCHIE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI: Well, it was entirely inappropriate, and he is now very busy and engaged in trying to convince people that everything he did was normal and right and nothing that he did was normal and right certainly on the Clinton email investigation, and even on the Russian collusion investigation.

I have a lot of respect for Ron. I've never met him personally, but I've watched him talk about a lot of issues pertaining to the bureau and I've also been aware of his reputation. He and I differ at this point in having any respect for James Comey.

I think James Comey's higher loyalty is to his wallet at this point. And I think a strategy is now designed around making sure that his book sells a lot and he can go out and get vengeance for whatever hard feelings he has about the president after what happened.

I have to tell you, what really bothers me and why I feel so strongly the way I do, if you look at the last Friday at about the same time all kinds of experts and everything out were coming out about this book, we also have the IG's report come out. Inside the seventh floor, on the seventh floor, at that very time that all of this was going on, McCabe was actually calling the assistant directors of New York and Washington field and chastising them for this week that occurred.

Now, I think that idea, that was something that was common practice up there and probably a lot more going on, then we ever would have thought. He knew who did the leaks, McCabe knew who did the leaks, but he went in the very next day and he also told the director he had no idea. That just is appalling to me that you would --

INGRAHAM: Guys, Bobby, I want to go to you on this. This is the former FBI director. I just keep thinking, it is not like the run-of-the-mill, some kind of GS-12 or someone working at HHS or HUD, this is a former FBI director, they are supposed did not to be political actors, calling bills balls and strikes without political animus.

He admitted he was a leaker -- if he didn't care about people knowing who he was, why did he have to go through the Columbia law professor in the first place? Why didn't he just come out and say, you know something, this is how it went down.

Instead, he had to go through his pal to go to the reporter because he didn't want to be known. And now he says, he had to testify under oath before Congress, he couldn't lie about it there, otherwise he would've been guilty of perjury. He was caught. He's not some great humanitarian because -- it's ridiculous. He either thinks we're stupid or he's stupid. I don't know which one it is. It's ridiculous.

BOBBY CHACON, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: In almost every key element of this endeavor, he has contradicted himself or their stuff in the record that contradicts them. It's a mess. It's an absolutemess. This book is a mess and it's hurtful, and it couldn't be more damaging to the men and women of the FBI.

It's coming out at this time, it demeans the office of the director, to issue a book that talks about the size of the president's hands and unconfirmed rumors about prostitutes in Moscow. He is dragging the men and women of the FBI back into this political maelstrom that they don't deserve. He put them there in the first place and now he's dragging them back there again. It is unconscionable that he does that.

INGRAHAM: I don't know the three of you that well, I know you a little bit of television and professional. And I can't imagine any of the three of you -- we will play the next description of that odd, you know, formal meeting, where Comey was hiding in a moment -- I can't imagine any of the three of you describing anything this way. Let's watch.


COMEY: I pressed myself against the blue curtain, thinking, this will save me from having this public embrace with the president. I'm walking forward, thinking, determined there was not going to be a hug. I'm not a master of television, but I knew that would be a real problem. Our arms are tensed, and he gets just far enough that I get something worse than a hug. The cameras were on the left side of my face so the whole world saw him kiss me.


INGRAHAM: I'm sorry. There is something funny. I asked all my producers today on radio, how many times have you said the word embrace? How many times have you used the word embrace in your life?

HOSKO: Not that many times.

INGRAHAM: The detail. The shrimp scampi the president ate, and the appetizers, somewhere between the appetizer and the scampi, he looked at me, come on. It's like a bad harlequin romance.

HOSKO: We have to keep in mind, Laura, he is writing a book. Jim Comey is very effective in the use of language.

INGRAHAM: Oh, my God.

HOSKO: I will say I agree with Bobby and Terry, that some of the content -- I haven't read the book, I've heard the commentary about it, some of the content, I think, is below the dignitary -- the dignity of Jim Comey and of the position of the director and that sort of thing is hurtful to the reputation of the organization.

INGRAHAM: Louis Freed did write his own book, but that was after he was gone, and the president was gone, correct?

HOSKO: About five years afterwards.

INGRAHAM: That is kind of a different deal because you can write about -- quickly.

CHACON: Speaking of his language, I've never seen somebody in his position be so queasy and uneasy, mildly nauseous. I mean, if he did what I did for almost 30 years of the FBI, it takes a lot more to get the men and women who I worked with to become mildly nauseous or queasy about the things that we have to go and do in the streets every day.

INGRAHAM: All right, Gentlemen, thanks so much.

Up next, Carter Page reacts to all of this. Remember, he is the guy that they spied on using that dossier funded by Hillary. He has some choice words for all of this. You won't want to miss that. Stay here.


INGRAHAM: The Russia investigation appears to have been triggered in part by this dubious FISA warrant that the FBI and DOJ obtained to spy on former Trump campaign aide, Carter Page. Now Page has submitted documents in federal court that he says will point to evidence that Comey was not telling the truth about several of the more absurd things he said last night.

Joining us now from New York for an exclusive interview is the one and only, Carter Page. Carter, it is good to see you. First of all, I want to play, if you don't mind, before we get into your filing, what was said about you last night in this interview.

First of all, the full screen, so we can read it. Stephanopoulos said, you also had your eye on Carter Page, who had also been working with the Trump campaign. Comey says, correct, Stephanopoulos says, what was your concern there?

Then Comey, says, was he in any way coordinating with the Russians as an effort to influence our elections? We hear the word collusion all the time. Collusion is not a word that is familiar to me from my work. Comey continues and says, if is anybody conspiring or aiding and abetting, helping the Russians accomplish their goal of interfering in the American election, that is what the counterintelligence investigation was all about.' Carter, your reaction to that?

CARTER PAGE, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISOR: Well, I actually love that quote. I forget, it was a very long series of words there, conspiring, aiding, abetting. That is a perfect description of what the Steele dossier was doing on behalf of the DNC and the Democratic candidate that year. It's actually a perfect -- what various people were doing in Washington, again, it's early, we don't know the full details, but that basically sums it all up.

INGRAHAM: So, Carter, what happened in federal courts today? What is your filing attempting to show on what you claim it will prove ultimately?

PAGE: Well, Laura, it's a request or a road map for what I am planning to put out there in terms of my amended complaint. I filed a complaint last September and I plan to do an update that complaint. It is interesting, because everything -- it was an honor to speak after the three FBI, former FBI officials.

Everything they are saying about restoring the dignity and kind of looking out for the dignity of the FBI, they reflect the people -- I never met Mr. Comey. They were the type of individuals that were just on before me that really represents exactly what I am used to dealing with, in terms of all of my interactions, both at the FBI, but also CIA and other intelligence services.

You know, I hope, in order to do that, what they need to do is, in terms of the restoration of the dignity of the FBI, is to release all of the FISA warrant applications, to get all the right info out there, as to what actually happened.

INGRAHAM: Were you surprised, Carter? Were you surprised when Jim Comey brushed off the question about why he didn't inform the president and his first meeting with the president in Trump Tower to do that national security brief? He didn't reveal that the dossier was funded by Hillary? He kind of set, that wasn't my goal, that wasn't necessary to affect my goal. Were you surprised about that?

PAGE: It is just so late laden with so many political motives. I think that is another example. I think part of that quote, I forget the exact terms are used, I'm not sure whether I used the term Steele dossier. I
wonder if he used the term dodgy dossier because that's exactly what it was. It is so beyond any common sense.

What's interesting, over the last 24 hours, week or so as this has sort of become the big news item, I was always wondering, how come I never got -- out from the FBI never reached out to me after I sent them a letter in September of 2016, offering to talk to them? You know, these safe reports that are out there, which apparently got use eventually in the FISA court.

INGRAHAM: I don't mean to interrupt but everyone should understand that not only did you offered to speak to them, then you did speak, I believe the Congress, in March of 2017, or you did speak to the DOJ in March of 2017, and then they continued to apply for another FISA extension. Correct? Am I stating that correctly after you already met with them?

PAGE: It will be interesting, when all of this ridiculousness is completely out there. Rank order the most ridiculousness of the four. I used to think the original one, after the world premiere of the dodgy
dossier came out in October --

INGRAHAM: Each one gets worse than the next, Carter. Because in each successive application for the FISA warrant, they knew they'd continued to omit material facts. Thank you so much for joining us.

My friends, we are witnessing an extraordinary and possibly historic legal case playing out in New York. President Trump's lawyers are trying to block federal investigators from indiscriminately searching through thousands of documents seized from his personal attorney. At stake is the attorney-client privilege, which is an even bigger deal, when the client is the president.

Joining us now to examine the implications of this, former whitewater independent counsel Ken Starr in Dallas and his former deputy who interviewed president Clinton in that investigation so long ago, Sol Wisenberg is in Raleigh, North Carolina. We'll also talk about Comey. Sol, I want to start with you.

The president's attorney, Michael Cohen's office was rated, now they say the president and Cohen should have access to what you have, or a special master, which is a third party, should review the documents. What should we take from that decision?

PAGE: My understanding is that you are right, she said, first of all, Cohen gets a copy of everything that the government has. That is number one. Number two, the government said, we want to start looking at the documents. Not even our filter team.

Number three, the judge has said, I may still appoint a special master. She's not going to do with the president and Cohen wanted, which was to let them decide what is privileged and what is not, like you would do if you got a subpoena.

But it's not necessarily a terrible ruling for the president or Mr. Cohen. Keep in mind, really striking what the U.S. attorney's office is doing here, Laura, because if you look at their manual, in the section that talks about searching attorneys who are subject or targets, it says before the warrant is approved, you have to think about and decide on what procedures you are going to use when you search through the documents.

Either a filter team, which the government wants here, or a special master, or a judicial officer. It is right here in the U.S. attorney's manual, but the government doesn't want to do it, the special master, doesn't want to do a judicial officer.

By God, in the case of Lynne Stewart, the attorney who was convicted of aiding and abetting a terrorist, even she got a special master, but the president of the United States doesn't get one. So, I think it is really striking.

And I agree with Judge Napolitano, who was on earlier today, who said the government shouldn't even get to look at this stuff until a judge, either Judge Wood or a magistrate that she points looks at it, because this is the attorney for the president of the United States.

INGRAHAM: Let's go to Ken Starr. Ken, a general question, imagine if Hillary Clinton's attorney's office had been raided, had to turn over their phones, computers, big deal, went in to three locations, what do you think the media's reaction might have been to that?

STARR: Very negative. The attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct. Yes, there are exceptions. But my word, we are a country where we lift up the rule of law, and that means process counts, procedure counts. And I couldn't agree more with what Sol just said that the special master, the third party review is exactly the kind of thing that one would expect the government reasonably to say, we are dealing with the president of the United States, even if we weren't, it's a good procedure. But we are certainly should use the kind of procedures that are most protective of the dignity of the presidency. So I think it is unfortunate and unwise that the government is playing super hardball here.

INGRAHAM: Ken, your reaction to the Comey interview, specifically his speculation regarding there was something that Russia had on the president, whether these allegations in the dossier might have been true, that could have possibly been true, he said, and his saying people are duty-bound to go out and, implicitly, he said, vote this man out of office. Your reaction to that?

STARR: I am deeply disappointed. I love the bureau. I admire the bureau. I admire the men and women of the bureau and I have worked with prior directors of the bureau. Louis Freeh was just mentioned. Yes, he did a book. His book 'My FBI' is specifically and expressly a tribute to the men and women of the FBI, how courageous they are, putting their lives on the line each and every day, protecting America, now especially with counterterrorism.

And before him, Judge William Webster, a former judge, we have had great
directors of the FBI. And so I don't think this is besmirching the bureau at all because the work of the bureau goes on. These are great men and women.

I must say, of the thousands of agents that I have known of and the many hundreds that I personally worked with, not one had any issue with respect to basic integrity and to acknowledge and honor their traditions of the FBI. And I think we are seeing those dishonored by Mr. Comey. It's a very disappointing display.

INGRAHAM: And Sol, just the three FBI former agents we just had on, all three are great people. And we have about 15 seconds. Your reaction to Comey?

SOLOMON WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: You know, I am on record on the director. His whole conduct in the course of the 2016 in the way he allowed the Clinton investigation to proceed is shameful. There is nothing he can do to rehabilitate himself.

INGRAHAM: All right, gentlemen, thanks so much.

And you know it is not paranoia if someone really is out to get you. Brent Bozell has uncovered strong evidence that Google, Facebook, and Twitter really are out to censor conservatives. He joins us with shocking findings next.


INGRAHAM: Time now for our 'Defending the First' series where we expose the enemies of the First Amendment, free expression, and free thought.

The Media Research Center released a devastating report today documenting the censorship of conservative speech by Silicon Valley's tolerant tech giants. Among the findings, claims from former employees that Facebook hides conservative content from the trending section were backed up by a detailed study. Google, YouTube, and Twitter partnered with leftist groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center that hate conservatives.

And check this out. Of the 25 members on the panel that guides Twitter's policies, 12 are liberals and there's only one conservative. I can't believe there is one. Shocking but notsurprising, is it? For more details, we are joined by Brent Bozell, founder of the very important, indispensable Media Research Center. Brent, first of all, it is great to have you. First appearance on the show, man! Where have you been? Tell us what you found.

BRENT BOZELL, MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER FOUNDER: It is a massive study done by my colleagues Dan Gainor and Ashley Goldenberg. It's 50 pages documenting what conservatives have been suggesting has been happening. This is -- it sounds hyperbolic, but Laura, this is true. This is emerging, the greatest censorship of free speech worldwide in the history of man.

Let me explain this. The left is on jihad against conservative thought. It's happening in academia, in entertainment, in business, religion, everywhere. Everywhere where they are attacking they are suppressing conservative thought. Now they are going to the social media giants. These social media giants have audiences in the billions. And what we have shown in this massive report is whether it's Facebook or Twitter or Google or YouTube, they are all employing different tactics to go against conservatives.

INGRAHAM: Let's go through some of them. We have a full screen on this. Censorship of conservative speech, here's an example. Google's search aids Democrats in study found that 2016 campaign searches were biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. YouTube shutting down conservative channels by mistake by removing videos that promote white rightwing political views. Tech companies Facebook and Google are relying on anti-conservative fact checkers like Snopes and Wikipedia. Now, why is Wikipedia, for our viewers out there, whys is that a left-wing?

BOZELL: If you look at so many Wikipedia does, it puts a liberal spin against conservatives on a regular basis.

INGRAHAM: We always have to edit my page, I know that.


INGRAHAM: I stopped looking. It's easier that way.

BOZELL: They insert, insert nasty stuff about you. They have been, they have been partnering, YouTube has been partnering with them to unmask conservatives and to go against conservative content and to uncover these awful conservatives and what they are doing.

INGRAHAM: You say that war is being declared on the conservative movement and conservatives are losing badly. If the right is silent, billions of people will be cut off from conservative ideals. It goes on, but we'll just stop it there. That is really true, isn't it, because even though the
Soviets suppressed speech, China suppresses speech, we're talking about in effect a global effort to suppress or silence conservatives. You have seen the nonsense that's happened to shows like mine. They try to do it with Rush and others. This is what they do. They don't want to debate because they are losing on the substance, are they not? They want to silence.

With the power of high tech, Brent, what can we, the consumers of information, and others watching, what can they do?

BOZELL: The first thing they have to do is recognize what is going on right now. Jack Dorsey is the CEO of Twitter. He put this is perspective. Just recently he was promoted -- he promoted an article that calls for the destruction of the conservative movement, promoted it.

INGRAHAM: And he retweeted it.

BOZELL: It's not just happening in the United States. It's all over the world that the left is militant. Conservatives have to recognize this and conservatives have to start looking for new homes.

INGRAHAM: Our own platforms? Or groups that hold them accountable beyond yours?

BOZELL: If a conservative leaves, if they leave, the business model for these social media giants collapse.

INGRAHAM: Use your power with businesses, high tech, everybody --

BOZELL: Congratulations that your audience is up 20 percent ever since they went after you.

INGRAHAM: There's always a glass half-full here on 'The Ingraham Angle.' Brent, thank you. We're going to link this up on my Facebook page. Everybody needs to read it and support the efforts that you are doing. I don't know what we would do without Media Research Center, frankly. Thank you so much.

And if Democrats are so convinced a big blue wave is coming in November, why are they falling back on their old low blow playbook? You will find out. Stay right there. You're not going to believe uncle Joe Biden's latest. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: With the Trump economy roaring, Democrats are falling back on identity politics big league. First, Minnesota Congressman and DNC Deputy Chairman Keith Ellison tried out this new scare tactic on Friday.


REP. KEITH ELLISON—D, MN: Women are dying because we are losing elections.


INGRAHAM: Then Joe Biden used Al Sharpton's show to dust off the race card yesterday.


JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: That's what these guys are all about, man. Republicans don't want working class people voting. They don't want black folks voting.


INGRAHAM: Did he just say the GOP doesn't want the working people voting? Who do you think turned out for Trump? And who does Biden think elected Trump, the wine and brie crowd, chardonnay, pinot noir? I don't think so. Democrats seem worried that their vaunted blue wave might not make it to the shore by November. A 'Washington Post'-ABC News poll in January showed Democrats holding a commanding 12-point lead over Republicans, but now that a lead is down to four. What happened?

Let's discuss what's really going on here with FOX News contributor Katie Pavlich and radio talk show host Garland Nixon. Great to see both of you. OK, Garland, tell me why the Democrats after a year and a couple of months of Donald Trump are going back to the same old tired playbook. Women are dying, grandma is going to start eating Alpo, black people -- Republicans don't like black people. Why is that all the Democrats have to offer?

GARLAND NIXON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I wish I had an answer for you on that one. I don't necessarily -- however, here's what I will say. I think the Democrats are in pretty good shape when it comes to the midterms because the midterms are about turnout. For the last year Donald Trump has been reneging on his campaign promises, the Democrats have been having the scapegoat Olympics, so they've kind of evened out. But by the time it gets to the midterms it's going to be all about excitement, and the Democrats have the excitement on their side.

INGRAHAM: Katie, Paul Ryan was asked about this on 'Meet the Press' yesterday about the identity politics issue. Let's watch.


REP. PAUL RYAN—R, WI, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: Identity politics I think was a craft of the left for a while. Now it is a practice on the right. So my concern going forward, if I have to be one of these people saying here's my concern of our politics in a state of America today, we should stop playing identity politics.


INGRAHAM: Why does he have to elbow the right on his way out the door? Praising Mueller and then he's like, well, the Republicans are doing it. Thanks, Paul.

KATIE PAVLICH, NEWS EDITOR, TOWNHALL.COM: I think identify politics are bad for America. They are actually inherently anti-American because they divide us up into different groups. But to Keith Ellison's point, here he is trying to get the DNC back together, which is still a complete disaster because of the 2016 election. And he is issuing this false, defamatory statement again about Republicans being responsible for women literally dying with no evidence to back that up.

And it goes back to the philosophical argument that the left has in the sense that women need Democrats and take care of them or else they are going to die. Women should be depending on Democrats and their big government policies in order to survive. And we just reject that as a whole. Women are doing well. They are outliving men. They're earning more than their male counterparts in a lot of ways. They're graduating college in more places --

INGRAHAM: Not opioid addicted.

PAVLICH: Right. And so for him to say that just doesn't actually hold water with the facts. And people are looking at their paychecks and going, yes, I have more money now. I am pretty sure I'm liking what the Republicans are doing, and identity politics are pretty hollow when it comes to real issues that affect people in this country.

INGRAHAM: Garland, you said the president's reneging on campaign promises. Obviously the wall has to be funded by Congress, he demanded it and they didn't do it. He could have shut down the government, the Democrats would have blamed him for that if he had done that.

Rasmussen is an outlier on some of these polls, most of the polls have the president 42, 45, sometimes 39 today 'Wall Street Journal.' But this is what Rasmussen says today, the daily tracking, 51 percent to 48 percent. Rasmussen was very close in the last presidential election cycle, most had Hillary winning. Where do you think it really stands?

NIXON: I think the Democrats do really have -- even though right now this is not about policy a lot because this policy discussion unfortunately isn't at the forefront. But I think the Democrats are in good shape for this reason. If you look at, a perfect example --

INGRAHAM: Black unemployment.

NIXON: The Virginia elections. The Virginia elections were predicted to be about even and the Democrat won by eight points because of turnout. And this is now about voter enthusiasm. So --

INGRAHAM: Impeachment is a way to get Republicans pretty enthused. Are you worried about that? And Katie, I know you've talked about that before, but if it's impeachment mania, get Trump, get Trump, you kind of make Trump out to be the victim almost. They did that with Clinton. The Republicans did that with Clinton, and I know because I was there, and I was all rah-rah, go Ken Starr. But it backfired on Republicans because people didn't think inherently trying to undo the results of a presidential election was the right way to go. Beat them on policy, you're right, beat them on turnout.

NIXON: So the discussion of impeachment isn't really going to matter. The question is, is the internal investigation going on ever going to come to an end? And I think that is going to be maybe something of consequence. If it comes to an end and there is nothing or there is something, that could be of consequence. Other than that --

INGRAHAM: Do you think people care if Donald Trump was with a porn star -- I think this is all baked in a cake. He was a celebrity. He was a businessman billionaire celebrity.

PAVLICH: And Laura, at the time he was still a Democrat.

INGRAHAM: And he was still a Democrat.

NIXON: The other part of it, this discussion was had before he ran for president and a lot of salacious details came out and they didn't really matter and he won anyway.

INGRAHAM: I don't think identity politics matter either. I mean, 18 to 34-year-old crowd, they like going to rallies because it is kind of like a big party. It's like woo-woo, where my shirt, get up and speak for the first time, I get to go to a microphone. And they have fun. And they're fun. They're fun rallies. Going out to vote, maybe. They turned out for Obama, you're right for that.

PAVLICH: As we saw with the March for our Lives recently the majority of the people who actually were there were not young people. They were 40 to 55-year-olds who weren't actually there to support gun control. They were there to be anti-Trump.

But going back to the point about impeachment and this being something that is going to rile up Republicans. Republicans have a lot of work to do. They've got to get their grassroots soldiers out there.

INGRAHAM: Yes, what are they doing?

PAVLICH: But it's not just about being for impeachment for President Trump. It's about them disregarding the entire bill of rights and attacking the very fundamental values that every single person in this country knows are important to them as an American.

NIXON: I would argue that the immigration argument is just, you know, it is the opposite version of identity politics. The anti-diversity ploy that the Republicans use, is turning identity politics inside-out.

INGRAHAM: President Trump won on illegal immigration.

NIXON: I think it's the opposite side of the coin of identity politics.

PAVLICH: The sovereignty issue has nothing to do with --

INGRAHAM: I think law and order, safety. Safety is big for women especially. We want a safe country. And if people are coming across the border, we don't know who they are. It's not safe. Safe when they are on the other side of the border coming in legally. Not safe, just like you leave your door not unlocked, you lock it, I presume, I do, you want to know who is coming in the door and who is leaving and why they are here. Are you a repairman? Let me see your credentials. We want to say that with the repairman for goodness sake. We should see that for people crossing our borders.

NIXON: Law and order is great as long as we have a reasonable balance between law and order and justice, and justice.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, fantastic segment as always.

Did President Trump just make a deal with the devil in order to drain the swamp at the Justice Department? What is that all about? We'll tell you next.


INGRAHAM: The White House has confirmed to 'The Angle' that President Trump has made a deal with Colorado Republican Senator Cory Gardner that may raise eyebrows among some conservatives. Under the agreement, the Justice Department will not crackdown on Colorado's legalized marijuana
industry if the senator will stop blocking the president's DOJ nominees. Usually think Democrats block Republican nominees but we have a Republican senator blocking our nominees. It's reprehensible.

Let's discuss the merits of this deal with self-described marijuana lawyer, Robert Corry, a lot of work for him in Denver, and here in the studio with me, the chairman of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, Washington, D.C.-based attorney, John Talcott. Great to have both of you. John, let's start with you on this. The president on marijuana, he didn't talk a ton about this during the campaign. But I think his supporters were all about law and order. They weren't for big weed as far as I can tell.

JOHN TALCOTT, SMART APPROACHES TO MARIJUANA: Exactly. It is a real shock because if you look at this polling -- first of all, the polls nationwide don't say what a lot of the supporters wanted to say, the supporters of legalization want it say. They actually say most people don't favor full-blown legalization. What they favor is maybe some decriminalization, and actually most Republicans don't even favor any kind of legalization or decriminalization. The numbers are -- there are still a majority of Republicans who don't favor this course of action that he's taking anywhere in the country.

So what you've got is him going against his base to take this position that I think it's kind of indefensible. I can almost see somebody saying, it should be legalized everywhere. But to say it should be incubated in these various states where we've already seen in Colorado it's a virtual disaster. But we should incubate this industry in various states so they could export it through the black market to other states is kind of insane.


ROBERT CORRY, ATTORNEY: Hello. Thanks for having me.

INGRAHAM: Your reaction, Robert?

CORRY: Reaction, first of all --

INGRAHAM: Slow response. God bless you. If this were a comedy show, we are talking about pot. Your response was a little slow. Just a joke. Late night TV here. Come on.

CORRY: All right, political congratulations to Senator Cory Gardner, first of all. Excellent work. Political congratulations to President Trump. Both of them made a good deal. It's a good deal for America. It's a good deal for everybody. Marijuana prohibition is not conservative. It is a failed government policy. It needs to end. The people want it to end, no question about that. So this was a good deal for everybody. It's a good deal for thousands of people who are employed in America's newest industry.
But let's go to the next step. And it is true, Congress needs to be they want to make the change. Not Attorney General Jeff Sessions, really, not even president Trump. The onus ought to be on Congress to eliminate federal marijuana prohibition. And I think the ball is firmly in their court.

INGRAHAM: Robert, I have a question. Did you toke up today? You are a little -- what are 'political congratulations'? I don't even know what that means. You say it is not the president president's duty to do this responsibility, it is Congress. So why are you giving him congratulations? I'm not following.

CORRY: Because the president and Senator Cory Gardner came to an agreement that benefits everybody.

INGRAHAM: But you said -- well, it benefits you because you are a big lawyer who makes a lot of money from pot. Sorry. So it benefits you. It benefits Colorado, which is his state, because they are raking in the box, as kids go from pot to the next drug, they're raking in big bucks. Who cares what happens to the next generation of Americans? They are making money as is big billionaire weed, like big tobacco, 100 years big billionaire weed, and I know, John, I am on your side on this and I want to be fair to Robert, but to me this is not why President Trump won the election. I know there are a lot of young people who love pot. I get it. They want to smoke pot. They love pot. The truth about pot and its medical effects, truth?

TALCOTT: I think the problem you see with pot is that it's really bad for you. It increases schizophrenia in certain people. There's about six times more likely to be schizophrenia if you smoke pot regularly. If you smoke pot regularly there are some studies that show you are eight times more likely to kill yourself. When you spend, I find this amazing that somebody is saying this is a good deal for the America people. First of all, the America people don't favor this. Second of all, politically it's idiotic because every state that has legalized except for, and there's only nine of them unless you don't count Maine, that's eight of them because it hasn't really come in full force in Maine, there's eight of them. Seven of those eight voted against the president. So none of the states that are going to be happy about this are ones that support the president in any way, shape, or form.

INGRAHAM: Big money is pushing this?

TALCOTT: Oh, absolutely.

INGRAHAM: John Boehner just became an advisory member, totally sold out his principles. Cory Gardner, you pointed out, real quick, Cory Gardner actually used to be against even medical marijuana. And now he is for it.

TALCOTT: Now he's for it.

INGRAHAM: We're going to have both of you on radio because we have so much more to talk about. But we are over for the segment. Excellent segment. Robert, you didn't answer my other question but I'm just going to leave that to the audience to decide. We'll be right back.


INGRAHAM: Before we go, let's take a look at some of the tweets that have come my way about some of our segments tonight. Remember, tweet me @IngrahamAngle. Tweet from Richard, 'Identity politics is creating mental illness in this country, and I mean this literally.' Well, mental illness? You could make that argument. I think we should have asked the question about a previous guest who seemed very nice, by the way, Robert.

That's all the time we have. Shannon Bream and her fantastic 'FOX News at Night' team and all their great interviews and all their great features take it from here.


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.