Rove, Gingrich, Baier and Hume pay tribute to Barbara Bush

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," April 17, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening from Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle." We begin this evening as I said with continuing coverage of the passing of First Lady Barbara Bush. The former first lady died today at her home in Houston, as Sean said, at age 92. She was one of only two women in U.S. history to be both the mother and the wife of a U.S. president.

But Barbara Bush was special in so many other ways. She was down to earth and also dignified. She was elegant. And she was admired, and she was loved by Americans and politicians on both sides of the aisle, which doesn't seem possible today. Tributes are pouring in from family, friends, and others, whose lives she touched.

Joining us tonight for a look at the legacy of this remarkably gracious and kind woman are Bret Baier, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, and Brit Hume. It is great to see all of you tonight on this sad night.

But I want to start with you, Karl Rove. What a life, what a lady. I mean. the tributes from everybody, from Bill Clinton to foreign leaders, Democrats, liberals, conservatives, and with today's politics, it is kind of refreshing all over again to hear how many people loved her so much.

KARL ROVE, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. A rather fermentable presence, a woman of great character, of enormous values. There is going to be a big welcoming party I suspect for her. But I'm sure the authorities in heaven are making sure that everybody is on their best behavior because Mrs. Bush had an expectation that you are capable of doing good things and she would let you know if she felt you were—you could do a little bit more to achieve what she thought was possible from it.

She was—I met her when I was 22-years-old and I have—a smile that could light up a room, a warmth, a respect for everyone, fun to be around, brash, smart, really smart, and capable of, many a time I saw her like needle pointing and you'd think that she was focused on the needle point and then she'd inject into that conversation and you knew she had been paying attention to every single word that you had been saying.

I was supposed to have lunch with them two weeks ago today and she went into the hospital on a Monday. And she was a remarkable presence and think about it, advisor to a president, husband, her husband, whom she loved dearly, met him when she was 16-years-old, fell in love with him, married, together for nearly 76-years, married for 73, I mean really ...

INGRAHAM: Remarkable.

ROVE: And really remarkable. Hard to match up that.

INGRAHAM: Newt Gingrich, one of the great things about her, and there are so many great things about her, is her—she doesn't have a lot of pretense. Like when she was commenting first about becoming the vice president's wife, she said a lot of fat, white haired ladies who are wrinkled are tickled pink about my ascending to this role. She is just so fun. She didn't dye her hair; she didn't get a face-lift. She's like, I am who I am. That is so refreshing today. Again, I use the word refreshing, but it's just I love it.

NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER UNITED STATES SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, I think at one point, she described herself as the nation's grandmother. And I think that that sort of captured it. And she had—I think at that point, she had like 25-point higher approval rating than her husband. And, you know, Bush and I were talking the other night about what a remarkable couple.

And also though, I think Karl called it right. She was ferocious. I mean she was pleasant, she was nice, she was hard, but in terms of both her husband and her sons, in terms of both Jeb's campaign, George W.'s campaign, there's no question she was going to go all out and she was prepared to reach to every friend she had and she wanted the family to do well and it did, so a remarkable American family.

INGRAHAM: Bret.

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, first of all, that love affair was really a lot of who she was, love affair with H.W. Bush, 41st President, and with her family. Today, we're told that H.W. held her hand all day long next to her and that she was surrounded by family and he was right next to her when she left the earth.

So I think you're seeing this family rally around each other. It was a big part of their life to be together. She said that it was the most important thing in her life and she gave a lot of commencement addresses. And one of them at Wellesley College said, at the end of your life, you will never regret not having passed one more test, not winning one more verdict or not closing one more deal. You will regret time not spent with a husband, a child, a friend, or a parent.

INGRAHAM: That is for sure. We all think that in our lives, it goes by really fast, those moments. We actually have another moment from that same address at Wellesley College. Brit Hume, I want you to react to this. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARBARA BUSH, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to offer a new legend. The winner of the hoop race will be the first to realize her dream, not society's dream, her own personal dream. Who knows, somewhere out in this audience, may even be someone who will one day follow in my footsteps and preside over the White House as the President's spouse I wish him well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And the crowd, we cut the crowd there, but the crowd, Brit, went crazy. They ended up loving it. There was controversy, though, about her appearing. But compared to what it's like today, that was 1990, and a Republican goes to a college today, it is a different, you know, reception. But they ended up loving her there.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: They did and—but she was someone that people I think—it wasn't that she was so cuddly because she really wasn't cuddly. But she was warm and friendly and she was outgoing, but she had standards. And you knew it when you are around her. I mean, I always felt that I better be on my best behavior around her.

And she used to say, you know, apropos of her devotion to family, she used to say, when she was first lady, she used to say what happens at your house is more important than what happens in the White House. Not a view often expressed but one that at the time I think was taken well and was very much like her. She was very focused on family, her family in particular, but family values in particular, which may have fallen out of favor to some extent but they never did with her.

INGRAHAM: And at one point, she said, I'm worried about parents who don't parent. It's a simple thing that kind of stay with you. And, Karl, there was another moment where she was talking about, among the professional things that she did or things that as first lady, was her literacy initiative that really took hold during George W.'s term. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARBARA BUSH, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: I decided that I wanted to do something that would help George, that would help the most Americans possible, without costing the government huge amounts of money. You can go to hospital and read to children.

MALE REPORTER: Yes.

BARBARA BUSH, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: You can do that.

MALE REPORTER: Sure, absolutely.

BARBARA BUSH, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: But I don't think many people thank me for the literacy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And she got a little bit annoyed by that, which you don't blame her because it's in every state, she raised over 10 million dollars— get famous authors like newt Gingrich and Bret Baier, to go and speak, and she said, I'm never going to pay you. You're doing it for free, and everyone said, you bet I'm going to do it for free, no problem. I love the literacy. I think she does not get enough credit for that. So important, and its family literacy that she said holds families together, faith, family, and literacy, reading together.

ROVE: Absolutely right. This was a great passion for her. And the focus was, it is your responsibility as a parent or as a friend or a family member to help someone else learn to love to read, and to do so at an early age. And it's remarkable, even today, the effort goes on in a huge fashion.

I want to talk though quickly about one other thing. You may remember that moment when she was the first lady of the United States, where she went to the hospital in Washington and held an AIDS baby. This was at a time when a lot of people thought that AIDS could be communicated by simply touching an individual.
And so a lot of these babies who were lacking human contact, and she went and did that and it's because she wanted to set an example and she wanted to make it clear that we—this is one of the things, this woman, she may have worn fake pearls and she may have had gray hair, but she had a respect for every single human being in which she came in contact with and expected other people to have that same kind of mutual respect for every one of God's creatures and every one of God's people. And I thought it was a powerful moment when she did that, and emblematic of this great and noble woman who served our country.

She was very patriotic. She loved America deeply, and cherished the great values that we have and our freedoms and wanted others to enjoy and respect them as well.

INGRAHAM: And she was part of the greatest generation, I mean she and George H.W. Bush.

GINGRICH: I mean, the whole story of their romance or really deciding to get married but then wait him going off to war, the youngest Naval pilot in World War II shot down, luckily saved by an American submarine. There's a lot to their whole lifetime. And moving to Texas, which back then for them was a pretty radical move, running for Congress, serving as head of the CIA. I mean everywhere he went, she went.

(CROSSTALK)

ROVE: Their house in Midland, Texas—

GINGRICH: Go ahead.

ROVE: Their house in Midland, Texas, if you've ever been there, is a very modest.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

ROVE: I mean it's paper thin walls, and at one point they were living next door to the local prostitute with whom they shared a bathroom. I mean, this was the wild west frontier of their late 40s and early 50s. And then I might get a woman from—

BAIER: You know, the secret service.

ROVE: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Yes.

BAIER: And they don't usually do that. But the people who worked for the Bushes loved the bushes. Her secret service name was Tranquility, her code name. And she had a certain touch. As Brit said, she could be fiery and sharp witted. She really loved privacy. And when she left, she was hurt in 1992 when Bush lost. She wanted to get back to private life. She told the story that she was in the store and some lady came up to her and said, wait, aren't you Barbara Bush? And she said, no, she's much older than me. And, you know, she loved the private life.

INGRAHAM: Let's end with Brit Hume. Brit, there was a moment during the 2016 campaign that we were just howling out earlier with my producers, because Mrs. Bush was talking about what the country needs at this point. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MALE REPORTER: Do you think there's room for another Bush in the White House?

BARBARA BUSH, FORMER FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: I think this is a great American country, great country. And if we can't find more than two or three families to run for high office, that's silly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: We got Jeb running and Jeb, wait, ma, what's going on here? But she's just hilarious.

HUME: She was later to change her view of that if you may recall.

INGRAHAM: Yes, I know, but—

HUME: I think, Laura, and all of this, we should have a particular thought for George H.W. Bush nights. And when I met him and covered his campaign back in 1980, they had been married already for 35-years. And this marriage has gone on, for what, 72, 73-years. Whenever they were together, as others have noted, in recent years in particular, they were always holding hands. It was one of the great marriages of our time. And here he is, as late as he is in his life, with all the maladies that he's suffered, having to endure this loss, we've all lost something tonight but he most of all. God bless him.

INGRAHAM: Yes, absolutely. Great way to end it in broken hearts across this country tonight. Thank you all so much for your all reflections.

And tonight's "Angle" is next up next on the less war on the rule of law. And then Newt will rejoin us for a look at the pushback in California against the sanctuary state madness and Governor Jerry Brown who was in Washington today. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: The desperate, lawless Democrats. That's the focus of tonight's "Angle."

Now, my friends across the political aisle are cheering the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision today that struck down on vagueness grounds, a federal immigration statute that triggered deportation for individuals convicted of violent crimes. The illegal alien in the case had been arrested for burglary, which both the Obama and Trump DOJ argued should trigger deportation. Why? Since, the defendant's conduct posed a significant risk of violence.

Well Neil Gorsuch, of course the newest Justice of the Court, applied a textualist approach in deciding to join the liberal justices in the majority. Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy dissented on grounds that the statute's language was plenty clear.

But look, setting aside which theory of statutory interpretation is most faithful to the constitution, do any of you wonder why this is an issue at all? I mean, look, anyone here illegally, except that DACA people, is potentially a deportable alien under current law. In other words, if you don't have permission to be here, go home. Well, maybe the government can't deport 12 million people. We hear that all the time. But certainly they could report a lot if they wanted to.

But democrats, however, are not interested in enforcing the law. Instead, they're interested in growing their voter rolls. And the Democrats, they don't even recognize victims of illegal alien crime.

Now, remember, according to reports, Jamiel Shaw's father said he never received a call from President Obama after he lost his son. But remember, he found time, President Obama, to call that other victim, Sandra Fluke, but I digress.

Governor Jerry 'Mr. Sanctuary' Brown was in Washington today and he was asked about the cities in California rejecting his sanctuary policies. Well, remember, the sanctuary laws forbid state and local police agencies from even notifying the federal government when incarcerated illegals are
about to be released onto the streets.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MALE REPORTER: The leaders of these local communities, for mayors years to sheriffs, are saying that your law favors the rights of criminal illegal aliens over the rights and the safety of these communities. Your response?

GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN, D—CALI.: Absolutely false. I would like to see a scintilla of evidence till support such outlandish Fox proposition.

MALE REPORTER: Well, hold on, that's not a Fox proposition.

GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN, D—CALI.: I think Fox News exploits this issue. We have criminals that do horrible things all the time. Which ones may be documented and which ones aren't, other guys will look at that. But we have a very strong law enforcement community in the state. And I think the scapegoat of the immigrants by these very biased stories—

MALE REPORTER: With all due respect—

GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN, D—CALI.: Wait, wait.

(CROSSTALK)

GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN, D—CALI.: With all due respect, I want to protect people. And for you to say what we don't care about victims is really insulting.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, with all due respect, to use his language, some of your own county officials are saying your policies don't seem to care about victims past or future. And just yesterday, Los Alamitos voted 4-1 to align themselves with the Trump administration and opposing Brown sanctuary state policies. And today, San Diego County voted to do the same. Wow.

So how long can Jerry Brown allow this to go on? He's tearing his date apart and he's endangering the citizens. And now Brown is even waffling on his response to the President's call to said National Guard troops to protect the border. Well, Governor Moonbeam says he's willing to send 400 troops, so long as they have nothing to do with immigration enforcement. What are you going to do? Build schools? Build—what's that supposed to do?

Well, regardless of the threat, they might present to the citizens of California. Illegals, they're always welcome, so long as the liberals are in charge there. Now, this is California Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman, who was with me on the "Angle" a few weeks ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. BRAD SHERMAN, D—CALI.: Look, you have more crime in California than Wyoming because you have more people in California.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, are we to tell the American people tonight that if you—because the California wants to be sanctuary, fugitive state, whatever you want to call it, we have to sacrifice a certain number of Americans for this utopian idea that borders are pointless?

REP. BRAD SHERMAN, D—CALI.: The fact is, if you want less crime, moved to the Cayman Islands. They've got so few people there; you can go a whole week without a violent crime.

INGRAHAM: Is that your argument?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So that's their argument? If you want to be safe from illegals, move to the Cayman Islands? My friends, this is madness. As I often say, if enforcing our immigration laws spares one American from death or rape or theft or abuse, it's worth it, even in California. And that is the "Angle."

Joining us now for reaction is Newt Gingrich, Former Speaker of the House and the creator of the New Defending America Course, which seems entirely appropriate for the subject matter at hand.

Newt Gingrich, your reaction to this? I mean, that line from Sherman, if you want to be safe, move to the Cayman Islands, that's basically all they have left is invective identity politics or that kind of nonsense.

GINGRICH: I think—I was talking with Kevin McCarthy today, the Republican Majority Leader who's from Bakersfield and he made the comment, because we're talking about John Cox's candidacy for governor, and McCarthy said, if you combine sanctuary cities with the tax gasoline tax increase, you suddenly haven't California the kind of ferment that they had with prop 13 that led to Reagan.

And that is what you've seen happen. People in normal, everyday cities are rebelling. Sheriffs are saying they're not going to obey the state law. The entire counties are opting out. And I think it's a good debate because let's just take MS-13, which is an El Salvadorian gang, spread all across America, extraordinarily violent. You look in Fairfax County for example, Virginia, the number of additional murders, rapes, attacks. If the Democrats want to be the party that protects the rights of MS-13 to stay in America and kill people, I think that's a great fall campaign issue.

INGRAHAM: Now, you're a great storyteller, all your books, the novels that you've written, the history courses online and others that you've taught. Republicans sometimes aren't great storytellers, Newt. And I've talked to friends about this. Republicans are always numbers, charts, percentages, GDP, but the story of Kate Steinle, Jamiel Shaw, Donald Trump understood that the stories of real people are what's going to cut through the clutter.

GINGRICH: Right, but it's a combination of, here's a story, and here is the larger meaning. And they're bringing the two of them together. That's where Republicans very often, sometimes they're up here with an interesting larger meaning but no hook, no ability to make it real. And that's why for example I cite MS-13 because it's so demonstrably a violent gang, and there's no justification for tolerating any MS-13 member being in the United States.

INGRAHAM: Let's talk about Kevin McCarthy for a moment. He looks like he has the inside shot to be the next speaker of the house. He's had kind of a rocky relationship over the years with conservatives. I mean, he's never come on the show. We've invited him on many times. I really look forward to talking to him. He doesn't really go on conservative talk radio, neither did John Boehner, neither did Jeff Flake. There's kind of a pattern there. But what about him? He has developed a pretty good relationship with President Trump.

GINGRICH: Well, I think McCarthy is very dedicated to try and to enact the President's program. I think he understands—you know, he put out a lot of his own resources into getting the ballot initiative and repealing the gas tax on the ballot in California, which will make it a big issue in November. I think that McCarthy is one of those guys who, in a sense, is a little but risk avoiding. I mean, I know it's a shock to you but coming on a show like this, if you are a senior leader, there is a certain risk that, you know, you're going to—

INGRAHAM: Well, Newt, I mean, you didn't shy away when you were Speaker of the House. You didn't shy away from television.

GINGRICH: No, but that—

INGRAHAM: You could actually answer a question. If you can't withstand questions on 'The Ingraham Angle', then what are you going to do when you go on these liberal shows where they're just going to smash you over the head every time? I mean, I don't get that. I mean, you have to be able to talk to the conservative audience about your policies. And Trump would go everywhere and anywhere, so would Reagan.

GINGRICH: My guess is that you're going to see McCarthy on talk radio—

INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, he needs us now. Where will he be in the morning?

GINGRICH: Yes. Well, we couldn't know because he is—

INGRAHAM: The morning after.

GINGRICH: Yes, because he's in a new role. I think the morning after, he's going to be helping—

INGRAHAM: Trump.

GINGRICH: —Donald Trump passed his agenda.

INGRAHAM: I want to talk about a couple of other things. The Stormy Daniels obsession by the American media. I mean, even Meghan McCain, who, you know, sometimes is a little, very moderate, but she's an interesting person. She's on the View today and she is even fed up. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGHAN MCCAIN, CO-HOST OF “THE VIEW”: It seems like a publicity stunt on some level. I mean, I think yesterday, because you didn't have anything to do with the case, it seems a little like you were just trying to get attention, which I understand that you're being sued by our President but it does seem like you're benefiting a lot. I mean, you've gone on your Make America Horny Again Tour. I'm sure you're making a lot of money. No disrespect. I hadn't heard your name until all of this had happened and now you are literally live on 'The View' giving an entire interview with us. So it has been beneficial for your career.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GINGRICH: You know, of course it is. Look, in the age of the Kardashians, Daniels does represent one of the weirder subsets. And that is what we become as a country. Moynihan, the former senator, who wrote a brilliant essay called Defining Deviancy Down. And that's what we've done.

We've gotten to a point where the elite media, you know, I mean, if she was trying to talk about somebody on the left, the elite media wouldn't cover it at all. But The elite media has proven, as they are with Comey this week, that if you want to be anti-Trump, they will give you all the time they possibly can.

INGRAHAM: If you are a Republican who is anti-Trump—

GINGRICH: That's right.

INGRAHAM: You can get a column in The New York Times, you'll be—get a contributor ship on—

GINGRICH: More on the Republicans.

INGRAHAM: Yes, they're—

GINGRICH: They just don't know it yet.

INGRAHAM: They're on the island of misfit, you know.

GINGRICH: And they're gradually drifting away. I mean they will presently be—

INGRAHAM: Yes, that'd be democrat.

Big news that broke tonight, Newt, and I want to get some of your take on this issue. Big bombshell news, Fox News now confirming that CIA Director and Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo made a top-secret trip to North Korea over the Easter weekend and he met dictator Kim Jong Un. Purpose of the speech—the appearance was to prepare for direct talks between Trump and Kim and a possible upcoming meeting. Your reaction to this news? This is wild.

GINGRICH: Well, I mean, let's start with objective reality. Pompeo graduated first at West Point, he graduated first at Harvard Law School. He is an extraordinarily smart guy.

INGRAHAM: Underachiever.

GINGRICH: The President has said flatly, if he can find a way to talk and not fight a war, he wants to see if they can get to a deal. I think that they have shaken the dictatorship so badly. They may get to a deal. That would be a historic achievement.

INGRAHAM: Newt, they were calling the President a warmonger, that he was going to start World War III. All the other networks, just a couple of months ago, he was bringing us to the brink of nuclear war. They were going to invoke, you know, the constitutional amendment where they would go in and they can remove him from office because we're going to go to war. I mean, this was nonstop on television. Now we could have this incredible break. This is amazing.

GINGRICH: And this is my prediction. If they reach an agreement and Kim Jong Un gives up all of his nuclear weapons, the first report in elite media will be 'an act of statesmanship, Kim Jong Un overcame his resistance to Donald Trump and decided he would go ahead and take the risk for peace anyway.'

INGRAHAM: It will spot as anti-Trump.

GINGRICH: It will somehow be an anti-Trump moment.

INGRAHAM: There's one other thing that I'm dying to talk to you about of many. But what Comey has been saying on his book tour, there's so many things we could get into. But specifically, let's talk about what he said today about Scooter Libby. I think we have it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: It's an attack on the rule of law. There is a reason President George W. Bush for whom Scooter Libby worked refused to pardon him after looking at all the facts on the case. It was an overwhelming case. There's no reason that's consistent with justice to pardon him. And so it's an attack on the rule of law in my view.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GINGRICH: I spent a lot of time looking at this case, I'm a friend of Scooter Libby. I lived through that entire situation. There's nothing more despicably dishonest that Comey has said than what he said just then. Comey appointed his close friend, Patrick Fitzgerald, to be an independent investigator at a time when the entire case was a phony case.

The CIA said to Valerie Plame was the whole case was about what she outed and who outed her. The CIA said she wasn't a covered person. The CIA Council has said, it did no material damage to the CIA. They knew who had done it. The person who did it was in fact Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department. Patrick Fitzgerald told him to keep his mouth shut. He then locked up by New York Times reporter for 85 days to get her to testify.

Scooter finally out of concern for her gave her permission to testify because she said I have proven here, I'm not going to do it. She then testified after she got out of jail and after the case was over, she went back, she wrote a book and said, I realized later that that prosecutor gave me false information so that I gave false testimony.

INGRAHAM: Should have been disbarred.

GINGRICH: And he should have been disbarred and frankly, Comey should have been disbarred. Comey presided over what was very clear. They were trying to get Dick Cheney. And Comey in his finally told you the reason. Comey went in the first time he saw Cheney, they're in the cabinet room, they're sitting next to each other, Comey tries to be friendly, Cheney says I know who you are and looks straight ahead and says nothing till Bush comes in.

Comey is such a petty person that he sought to destroy Cheney. Scooter wouldn't turnover and destroy Cheney so they decided to destroy Scooter. I think what he said today is the most despicable language and the biggest falsehood and everybody ought to understand, Scooter Libby is the threat of the future. If they can do this to Scooter Libby, if they can do this to Donald Trump, they can do it to every American.

And that's why I'll disclose this. If you read the original statement by Rosenstein, what he sent to the President, which I'm actually publishing tomorrow, and you read what the inspector general said about McCabe, you have to conclude. These are both internal reports. You have to include we were in enormous danger with the top two people in the FBI, both dishonest people, totally untrustworthy, and totally self-serving.

INGRAHAM: A partisan investigation. I don't care if Jim Comey was nominally a Republican. This investigation from the beginning had an anti-Trump animus. First they wanted an insurance policy with Strzok and Page. Then he got elected and they were in freak out mode. And then they had to go right with the Steele dossier right back to the FISA court and keep it going. Even after that Carter Page talked to them, he went up and talked to them. He was willing to talk to anybody. He would talk to the test pattern on TV, God bless him, but Carter Page will talk to anybody, and they kept that thing going.

GINGRICH: Because I think between 8:00 at 10:00 on election night, liberals in America went through a psychotic trauma of such scale, I'm serious.

INGRAHAM: They are still suffering from it.

GINGRICH: They are. That's why I said it's psychotic. At 8:00, they know Hillary Clinton was going to be the first woman president. At 10:00, this horrifying moment had occurred, and people like Comey—remember, Comey's wife and daughters are both at the parade, they're at the march the day after the inaugural.

INGRAHAM: I love that line, and she pops into the interview. She just pops into the interview with Stephanopoulos, she was like 'It was so great,' and they all voted for Hillary.

GINGRICH: McCabe's wife was a Democratic candidate who got $700,000 from the Clinton machine. But of course none of this would mean they were in any way biased.

INGRAHAM: Jim Comey—

GINGRICH: And then by the way, the judge who is currently looking at the case in New York happens to be Kimba Wood, who was Bill Clinton's nominee to be attorney general. But again, I am sure she is going to be totally neutral.

(LAUGHTER)

GINGRICH: You can't keep a straight face.

INGRAHAM: I can't, because if you are writing this as one of your scary EMP novels, like everything is going to blow up, you would write this, Newt, I would say, you have really taken your novels too far now. This is really out of control, Gingrich. This is cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Newt Gingrich, thank you so much for joining us on Barbara Bush and everything else.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: OK, get this, this is a really fun topic. The city council in Washington, D.C., is now considering legislation to lower the voting age for federal and local elections to 16. That's not a joke. You can bet Democrats hope this triggers a nationwide movement. They want us to sweep the whole country, sweep Donald Trump out of office. The left is losing the war of ideas, we know that, and the crackdown on immigration is making it harder to import new voters, so why not just pad the voter's roles with impressionable children?

Let's discuss the wisdom of this with a former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski here in the studio, and civil rights attorney Leo Terrell in Los Angeles. All right, Leo, look, I remember being 16, just a few years ago, but I remember being 16. It was fun. We were playing high school sports and goofing around on the weekends, going to the go kart track, do they still do that anymore? Maybe once in a while. But explain why that is the way to go when in most states you can't get a tattoo at age 16.

LEO TERRELL, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: This is too easy. Age is a number. Sixteen and 17-year-olds can get married in many states, they get a job, they can drive their car. I don't see where age is a number. What I have been impressed with, I think this whole nation has been mesmerized by those kids in school in Parkland. Those kids were articulate, smart, and to make an assumption, Laura, you are a lawyer, to make an assumption that age is somehow a measurement of competency and maturity, I would beg to differ.

INGRAHAM: Why 16? Why not 14?

GINGRICH: Argue against me on this.

INGRAHAM: Prefrontal cortex. Do you know what that means?

GINGRICH: You can get married at 16-years-old. Explain it to me.

INGRAHAM: It's not me. I'm not a scientist. But there are those who are, and the prefrontal cortex of the teenage brain, it's science, liberals are all about science, it's not about emotion, it's science, prefrontal cortex of the teenage brain is not developed yet. It's not in balance. The emotional brain, the limbic brain.

GINGRICH: So—

INGRAHAM: Hold on, Leo. Take a breath. It's OK. So by 25-years-old, we are all developed. Our teenage brain is now in sync with our emotional brain. This is science. This is not punditry. So isn't it better to allow the brain to develop just a little? The rational part of the teen brain is fully developed and won't until the age of 25-years-old. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain's rational part. Teens process information with the amygdala, and this is the emotional part.

GINGRICH: Laura Ingraham is going to play the scientific card on me on this case? Come on, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Leo, you're out of ideas. Corey, this is hilarious. If you cite science—

COREY LEWANDOWSKI, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: You can't cite science. No fact. We don't want facts. Just like Comey, no facts. Facts don't matter. We'll just do it based on public opinion polling.

But here's what it comes down to—half the time in Florida they are arguing you can't buy a weapon at 18-years-old. We're going to raise the minimum age to buy a handgun or assault rifle to 21-years-old. But in Washington, D.C., where you can't own a gun, we're going to lower the age for people to vote even though they don't have the ability to do it. You can't own a gun, you can't drive in Washington, D.C., at 16 years old. You still have to show up at school think every day, you can't excuse yourself because you are not a legal adult. But we're going to give you the biggest and most important right that our country has, which is to make a rational decision when it comes to voting at 16-years-old. This is just liberal propaganda.

INGRAHAM: But it's also because they want this to catch on and sweep the nation, correct?

LEWANDOWSKI: Of course, because the Democrats are losing voters every day. When you can't import illegal immigrants to vote in your elections, that's what happens. Next things you know you can't have a voter I.D. law in every state that requires people to present an identification to say I'm a legal U.S. citizen before I vote in this important thing.

INGRAHAM: Leo?

TERRELL: Corey, that's a red herring. I've been on this show for three minutes. No one has argued against me regarding 16-year-olds being allowed to marry. And if you're going to make the argument, the scientific argument, Laura, why do we allow 18—

INGRAHAM: They can't drink and they don't go to war. They don't go to war at 16 and they don't drink. Should be change the relevant ages for those two important rights, as well?

LEWANDOWSKI: You can't drive at night at 16-years-old.

TERRELL: Let me pull out a favorite conservative cause. Local decision-making by local officials and now big brother government, Corey and Laura, is going to tell the District of Columbia they cannot make a decision. I cannot believe it. Role reversal.

INGRAHAM: Leo, I'm interested in the federal elections. D.C. is going to do what D.C. does. That's cool. But the federal elections obviously, governed by the U.S. constitution. We all understand that. And the framers had a pretty good, even by 16-years-old, kids were driving vehicles, they were driving tractors and doing all sorts of stuff at age 16-years-old, even going to war. But now we have a different view of it. I guess we could change it. We could change it to 14-years-old, 13-years-old, 12-years-old, why—in utero?

LEWANDOWSKI: Leo, then we should change the rules that say at 16-years-old, if you can vote, you can go to the military, you can own a weapon, and you can buy all you want. You might as well do it all at once. Why not.

INGRAHAM: Why shouldn't you be able to have a gun?

TERRELL: Listen, excuse me, you can have at 16-years-old or younger, you can have a rifle, you can possess a long gun, you cannot buy a handgun, but you can have a rifle in this great country. Why not?

INGRAHAM: Why? You can vote. We are playing devil's advocate here, because if you can vote, which is a sacred right, then why are the other rights not as honored and as respected for that age group? If you have the wherewithal, the mental acuity, the judgment, in order to make that very—complicated decision, for whom you want to vote, primaries, and then national elections, or you think it just a throw away, just a goof to vote?

TERRELL: I can't believe you. Come on, conservatives, 50 states, 50 different laboratories, all that stuff we learn and government, let the local government make a decision. Why are you arguing against local decision-making?

INGRAHAM: But you guys weren't for that when it came to gay marriage. You wanted a national right to gay marriage, liberals. I'm talking about liberals. You are picking your poison; you're picking your issues. States wanted to do that for abortion and gay rights. And you were like, no way, that has to be a federal right. OK, it's federal established now. So now we have a Democrat quandary. They are worried, I'm telling you, they are worried Trump will get reelected. They are way they are out of ideas. They are like, oh, my gosh, we've got to get more voters, we've got to get more voters. Let's bring the kids in.

LEWANDOWSKI: The Democrats continue to shrink, their base continues to shrink. It's a bipolar, bicoastal base, which is only in the east coast and the west coast, and so they need to do anything they can to bring new people into the system. We want voter participation, as high as humanly possible. Of course we do. But 16-year-olds—

TERRELL: I've got a news flash for both of you. In the last Republican victory, guess who had more popular votes? The losing Democrats. They are not hurting for voters. In 2016—

INGRAHAM: Leo, you know we have a thing called the Electoral College.

LEWANDOWSKI: Look, it's like Tom Brady. Tom, you threw for 10,000 yards in the game but you didn't put any points on the board. It doesn't matter who has the most votes. It's how you win the electoral college. You lay out the rules, we play by them.

TERRELL: I don't dispute that. Laura, you guys are shuffling the board. We're talking about losing votes. They got plenty of Democratic voters. But you are taking you away the right of the local government to make a decision.

INGRAHAM: We have the electoral college. We have Ohio and Wisconsin and we have other states. It's not just California and it's not just New York, not just New England. We have 50 states. And I like that.

TERRELL: This is amazing. Role reversal.

INGRAHAM: I like all states to have a say in who becomes president. All I'm saying is, if that's 16, why not 15? And if it's 15, why not 14? Do you remember what you were doing when you were 16? Give me a fun memory from 16.

LEWANDOWSKI: I don't think I can say those things on television.

INGRAHAM: Leo? Do you have a fun memory from 16? Take it away. Let's be fun for a moment.

TERRELL: Sure, sure. OK. I was playing sports, I ran for president of my high school, and I won. I was mature enough and I like politics, just like you, Laura.

LEWANDOWSKI: I was chasing girls and playing high school basketball and having a great time.

INGRAHAM: Oh, my God.

TERRELL: I am throwing every logical, political argument, I can't win.

INGRAHAM: At this point, I'm not sure 54-year-olds should be able to vote for the president. I'm just kidding.

LEWANDOWSKI: There may have to be an I.Q. test or something.

INGRAHAM: OK, gentlemen. I'm going to leave it there. We love the kids. Don't get me wrong.

And stay right there. Reporter Sharyl Attkisson is here with her insight with how shady forces in the media try to control not only what you see and hear, but whom you should believe. Our "Defending the First" series next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

Last night, we told you about the shocking fact about the tech giants war on free speech. And tonight, we look at how to fight back, and the first thing to do is to recognize what you are up against. One tactic the left uses to restrict the free flow of information is by ginning up a propaganda war on so-called fake news.

Let's bring in reporter Sharyl Attkisson, host of the great Sunday show "Full Measure" and the author of the book The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote.

I'm so happy she is with us. You are the only person at CBS who was ever nice to me. I say this all the time.

(LAUGHTER)

INGRAHAM: We worked at CBS together years ago. And Sharyl, we are delighted you were with us. So this "Defending the First" series we're doing I think is really important because a lot of people out there, they feel like they don't know how to fight back against this. They feel like they are under assault, all these fact-checkers that are out there seem to only check facts in a negative way about Republicans. PolitiFact, I know you know them, they say the GOP lies 32 percent is false, only Democrats only eight percent of the time. Are you finding that the fact-checkers need a fact-checker?

SHARYL ATTKISSON, HOST OF "FULL MEASURE": I devoted a chapter to looking at this whole idea to shape and control our narrative in many different creative ways, to create what I call an artificial reality online and on the news so that people think that things are true that may not be true or that they are an outlier if they have certain feelings when they may not be. This may be media literacy efforts, it may be called fact-checking, it may be called anti-fake news—

INGRAHAM: What do you mean, maybe literacy efforts?

ATTKISSON: I noticed that people who started with these fake news efforts, which were really an effort to control information more so than just get rid of fake news, they have now moved on, some of them, to, you know, we're going to start teaching in public schools and requiring this as part of the law to tell you who to believe, and it usually involves them saying, if you read it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, you can believe that, but if you've seen it somewhere else, you need to be wary, ignoring the fact that some of these formerly well-respected news publications have made some of the most egregious errors in the last couple of years. It's not that simple.

INGRAHAM: We were just doing a segment about whether 16-year-olds should vote. I think Democrats want 16-year-olds to vote because they are fresh pagans. They are in the midst of some would say the propaganda machine, especially in public schools, a lot of private schools. They are right in it. They're right in the thick of it, and it all skews Democrat.

Let's talk about other fact-checkers. There is a now a fact-checker at Univision, and the statistics at Univision are really bad for Republicans. I guess 95 percent of fact checks in January of 2017 to April of this year, 95 percent went against Republicans, zero percent democrat, two percent Republicans and Democrats, three percent nonpartisan. That is the Media Research Center. Univision obviously not a big fan of the president either.

ATTKISSON: That is why I try to say that when you see these efforts of third parties to curate your information or tell you what to believe or try to curate who is right, that is something to be suspicious of in itself. That doesn't mean you can't ever get valuable information from them, but that's usually an effort under a different name by an entity that wants to shape the narratives and shape your opinion.

INGRAHAM: Amy Klobuchar, senator from Minnesota, was on television this week talking about how we need regulations on Facebook. I know some conservatives are very frustrated with Facebook. But couldn't that back conservatives and just independent thinkers for the government to say we're going to regulate? How could that backfire?

ATTKISSON: Any time a government or third party gets into the mix, perhaps especially the government, maybe you agree with him today, but will you agree with them tomorrow? That is why there was a whole philosophy when it comes to our founding to keep the government out of certain things. Do we really want to invite them and whatever their goals of the day may be to be the ones to decide what we can see and what we should believe and what we can't see?

INGRAHAM: The tone of the coverage about President Trump. He's could have this historic meeting with Kim Jong Un. If President Obama had arranged this or Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, this would be—this would be all they are talking about. But it's like it's not even happening. It's really incredible. The tariffs, China is bowing out some of these issues that they have never moved on before. That would be covered. But it is almost like these substantive issues where Donald Trump is really making a difference for the country, those are inconvenient facts for this media. Its' got to be Stormy Daniels. It's got to be Cohen; it's got to be Mueller 24/7. That skews the public's mind as well.

ATTKISSON: There are two related factors I see behind that. One is the media, some Republicans and some Democrats are all against Donald Trump. He's facing extraordinary opposition. And there's other things at play but they are all related to that, why I think that happens.

INGRAHAM: Sharyl Attkisson, thank you so much for joining us, "Defending the First." And up next, another excellent reporter, Kimberley Strassel, has a simple but devastating example of how, yes, the lame stream media tries to keep the truth about the Russia probe from you. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Sometimes fake news isn't found and what they media say, it is what they don't say. And one reporter has come up with a list of questions that the mainstream media would never dare ask former FBI director Jim Comey. 'The Wall Street Journal's' Kim Strassel joins us now to share those questions with us.

Kimberly, this is going to be so good because what I have been watching Stephanopoulos do this interview that lasted five hours, is there really anyone you would want to interview for five hours, first of all? That is a separate conversation. I am shouting on the television 'get the follow-up in, George,' and the follow-up doesn't come. But give us the number one question that you would have asked if you had the opportunity of Comey.

KIMBERLEY STRASSEL, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Number one question is, did the FBI do any due diligence on the person who had hired Christopher Steele, this was the author of the dossier. Fusion GPS was his task master. This is an organization that exists to smear the reputations of political opponents. Did you look into them? Did you know this history? And did that not color your view of the source who was bringing you this information? Did you not care that it was the Clinton campaign and the DNC that had paid for what was essentially opposition research?

INGRAHAM: Speaking of opposition research, Comey was asked by Stephanopoulos about why he didn't tell the president about who funded that Steele dossier. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, 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 this term Steele dossier. I just talked about additional material.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, 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 that. It wasn't necessary for my goal, which was to alert him that we had this information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: My goal, which was to rattle the president-elect and get him really freaked out about it. I found that answer to be despicable, frankly, despicable, Kim.

STRASSEL: Yes. It says everything about this. If you actually read the full transcript, Comey admits that he claims that he knew that the dossier had been funded by a Democrat aligned group but he didn't know which one. Another question, why on earth did you not?

Here comes this man bringing this dossier full of salacious allegations, I understand he had a track record with the FBI, that he had worked with them before, but never for a political operative before, never in an election year. Did you not say, who was actually paying this guy and what is his purpose out there?

And he continued to refer throughout his entire interview to Christopher Steele as a credible source when the FBI now knows that he was out, despite FBI orders, talking to the press, blowing their probe, giving out information he had been specifically told not to, and Comey still referred to him as a credible source. There were a million questions that should have been asked about that.

INGRAHAM: And there were two people whose names did not seem to come up often. If they did, I must have missed them. Page and Strzok. Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, FBI agents who worked both investigations, lovebirds, texting each other, insurance policy, what questions should have been asked?

STRASSEL: Basic ones. For instance, is this the kind of behavior that the FBI thinks is appropriate? Is a common behavior to have people sending messages like this? Does it concern you about the political bias? Both of these people were very senior members of the probes into both Clinton and into Trump. And does Comey have any concerns, knowing what they texted to each other?

For instance, once they had a conversation about how they shouldn't necessarily send too many agents on to deal with Hillary Clinton because, by the way, she might be the next president and that could be bad. So political decisions were influencing how they handled those probes. Comey should have been asked if he still had confidence in the integrity knowing what he knows now about how the two were conversing about it.

INGRAHAM: And views on lying, we only have about 20 seconds here, but views on lying and the I.G. report on McCabe. We have about 15 seconds.

STRASSEL: Basic one. Comey spent half of that interview talking about how you cannot, should not lie to the FBI. Basic question, should McCabe be prosecuted, because the I.G. said that he lied repeatedly under oath to the FBI.

INGRAHAM: Kim Strassel, fantastic peace and great questions. We only wish they had been asked. Stay there, we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Of the many great quotes on family that Barbara Bush would frequently say, one was to us being with family is just putting your arms around each other and being there. Our thoughts and, yes, our prayers are with the entire Bush family tonight. A great lady, a great memory, a great legacy.

And now Ed Henry is in for Shannon Bream and the "FOX News at Night" team. Ed, take it away.

END

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.