i never asked michael cohen to bring this proceeding on my behalf. i have no personal interest in this legal matter. that is all there is. nothing more. maybe the media can try to focus in on the biggest abuse of power scandal in this country, may be the forgotten men and women in this country, who for 2016 election was about. you know, jobs, getting out of poverty, off of food stamps. focus on that, national security, 105 out of 105 missiles at their targets. that is all the time we have left this evening. we will always be fair and balanced. we are not the destroyed trump media. laura ingraham is live. i think i paid for a ten bucks. i think she technically is my attorney, too. >> laura: [laughs] i was going to say hannity, hannity, hannity, hannity, hannity, hannity. i love all the different intonations. i got vertigo. i don't know if i can continue without show after watching that. hannity, all i can say is -- i will just say this. if you are like my brother but i

am glad for like a millisecond the heat is off me and off you. >> sean: [laughs] i appreciate it. that is like a sibling. >> laura: my question is, you can't pick your own counsel? or have somebody you talk to? you can do that any day of the week, number one. number two -- >> sean: i kind of believe in privacy. legal questions about mostly real estate, and no third party, nobody! >> laura: this is what i would've advised you as your counsel, i'm representing you in this matter. as your counsel, i would say, cohen should have been getting real estate advice from you, okay? because i know the real estate you have invested in and you would beat him every day of the week. you don't need cohen for real estate, thank you very much. >> sean: a $20 bill, i'm sending it in the mail, officially enlisting our services as my attorney. laura ingraham, my attorney, is taking over next. >> laura: sean hannity, thanks

so much. good evening from washington. i am laura ingraham. this is it "the ingraham angle." it was another -- we say this 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's 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. and carter page said 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. 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. yeah, the pro-life party, okay. 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. okay. 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 fbi 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 are done with abc, comey revealed, unwittingly perhaps, a clear anti-trump animus. >> did you tell him that the steele dossier had been financed by his political opponents? >> i don't think i used the term "steele dossier." >> did he have a right to know that? >> 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. >> laura: 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 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-up. such as, what other material facts have you withheld from key government officials in briefings, mistress ph? remember, this is the man who admitted last year to we can government information to reporters through a proxy. >> did you show copies of your memos to anyone outside of the

department of justice? >> yes. >> and to whom did you show copies? >> 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. >> laura: 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 nonclassified 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 , he pretty much admitted. comey admits he is a leaker but he wants no repercussions because he was doing it for the good of the country. i think that is. three. he was trying to do it to rehab his good reputation after being fired. trump's mistake 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. >> it is possible. these are words that i don't think i would utter about the president but it's possible. >> laura: what isn't possible, jim? what kind of statement is not? that's unreal. comey just sank his own reputation and undoubtably 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? when his wife, patricia comey, just popped in. >> 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. >> 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 dead. >> laura: oh. the trump hatred seems to run a strongly ms 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 thing that that email was going to bring. and when she went to south, -- this is the worst thing, when someone starts to moralize their meeting, they go in the car, and they type it out of my computer -- he immortalized his meetings with the president-elect and my hopes up collecting them in a lysing evidence that could be used against him at a later time. maybe an insurance policy. of course, comey is trying to inflate himself from his anti-trump by his charge by saying, i don't want him impeached. but listen carefully.

>> 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. >> laura: they are duty-bound? you are a good one to talk, jim. you are patty, percy, 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's former fbi agent an end san francisco, the fbi's former director of counterterrorism, ai assistant director, still thinking pretty fame favorably of comey. 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 monologu 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? >> i agree with you, laura. i have a lot of respect for jim comey. 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? >> laura: terry, let's go to you. this is what they talked about last night regarding the leaks. let's watch. speak with the president has tweeted innumerable times, calling you a leaker. what is your response to president trump? >> it's true. i'm the one who testified at. i gave that unclassified memo to my friend and asked him to give it to a reporter. that is entirely appropriate. >> laura: terry, entirely appropriate? >> it was entirely inappropriat

inappropriate. 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 righ right. 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 t

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, he knew who did them. 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 -- >> laura: 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, 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. >> in almost every key element of this endeavor, he has contradicted himself or their stuff in the record that contradicts them. it's it's a mess. an absolute mess. this book is a mess and it's hurtful, and it couldn't be more damaging to the men and women of the fbi, 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 prostitues 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. >> laura: 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 of e 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. >> 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 tense 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. >> laura: [laughs] i'm sorry. there is something funny. i asked know my producer today on radio, how many times have you said the word embrace? how many times have you used the word embrace in your life? >> not that many times. >> laura: the detail. the shrimp scampi the president date, and the appetizers, somewhere between the appetizer and the scampi, he looked at me, come on. it's like a bad harlequin romance. >> we have to keep in mind, laura, he is writing a book. jim comey is very effective in the use of language. >> laura: oh, my oh, my god, t. >> i will say i agree with bobby and terry, that some of the content -- i haven't read the book, i for 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. >> laura: louis freed to drive his own book but that was after he was gone and the president was gone, correct? >> about five years afterwards. >> laura: that is kind of a different deal because you can write about -- quickly. >> 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. >> laura: 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.

>> laura: the russia investigation appears to have been triggered in part by this dubious fbi warrant that the fbi -- fisa more into it, excuse me, that they obtained to spy on former trim campaign aide carter page. now he has submitted documents that said that he will -- that comey was not telling the truth about several of the more absurd thinks he said last night. joining us now, 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 in this interview. first of all, the full screen, so we can read it.

stephanopoulos said, you also had your eye on carter page. he 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, helping the russians accomplish their goal of interviewing and the american elections, that is what the counterintelligence investigation was all about. carter, your reaction to that? >> 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. >> laura: so, carter, what happened in federal courts today? what is your filing attempting to show on what you claim it will prove ultimately? >> 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. >> laura: 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? >> it is just so late laden wio 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 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 safety -- >> laura: 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, and march of 2017, or you did speak to the doj and march of 2017, and then they continued to apply for another fisa extension. correct? and my stating that correctly? after you already met with them? >> 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 -- >> laura: 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, saul eisenberg, and raleigh, north carolina. we'll also talk about comey. saul, 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 for my decision? >> 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 is 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, laurel, if you look at their manual, in the section that talks about searching attorneys who are subject or targets, it says before the war and 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 would or a magistrate that she points, looks at it. because this is the attorney for the president of the united states. >> laura: 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, what do you think the media's reaction might have been to that? >> very negative three of the attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct. yes, there are exceptions. my word, we are a country where we look at the rule of law and that means process counts, procedure counts, and i couldn't agree more with what saul 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, is a good procedure. we are certainly using the right procedures. i think it is unfortunate and unwise that the government is playing super hard ball here. your reaction to the comey

interview, specifically, his speculation regarding there was something that russia had on the president, wetherbee's allegations in the dossier might have been true, that could have possibly been true, and he is saying people are duty-bound to go out and implicitly, he said, both this man out of office. your reaction to that? >> 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 barrel. yes, louis did a book, his book "my fbi" as 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. and before that, judge william webster, 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 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. >> laura: saul, the three fbi former agents we had come all three are great people. we have about 15 seconds. your reaction to comey? >> you know, i am on record on the director. his whole conduct in the course of the 2016, the way he allowed the clinton investigation to proceed is shameful. there is nothing you can do to rehabilitate himself. >> laura: gentlemen, thank you

so much. you know, it is not paranoia if someone really is out to get you. brent has uncovered strong evidence that google, facebook, and twitter really are out to censor conservatives. he joins us with shocking findings next. i'm always on call. an insulin that fits my schedule is key. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ (announcer) tresiba® is used to control high blood sugar in adults with diabetes. don't use tresiba® to treat diabetic ketoacidosis, during episodes of low blood sugar, or if you are allergic to any of its ingredients. don't share needles or insulin pens. don't reuse needles. the most common side effect is low blood sugar, which may cause dizziness, swtiting, confusion, and headache. check your blood sugar. low blood sugar can be serious and may be life-threatening. injection site reactions may occur. tell your prescriber about all medicines you take and all your medical conditions. taking tzds with insulins like tresiba® may cause serious side effects like heart failure. your insulin dose shouldn't be changed without asking your prescriber. get medical help right away if you have trouble breathing, fast heartbeat, extreme drowsiness,

swelling of your face, tongue, orhrhroat, dizziness, or confusion. ask your health care provider if you're tresiba® ready. covered by most insurance and medicare plans. ♪ tresiba® ready ♪ >> laura: time now for defending the first series where we expose the enemies of the first amendment, free expression, and free thought.

the media research center released this 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 hide conservative content from the trending section, backed up by a detailed study. youtube, google, and twitter partnered with leftist groups that hit conservatives and check this out. of the 25 members on the panel that guides twitter's policies, 12 are liberals and only one is current on my conservative. i can't believe there is one. shocking but not surprising, is that? for more details, we are joined by the founder of the very important and indispensable media center. it is great to have you. first appearance of marshall, man! where have you been? tell us what you found. >> is a massive study done by my colleagues.

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 g hot against conservative thought. it's happening in academia, entertainment, business, religion, everywhere. everywhere, they are suppressing conservative thought. now they are going to the social media giants. these social media giants have audiences of the billions. would we have shown in this massive report is whether it is facebook, twitter, google, youtube, they are all employing different tactics to go against conservatives. >> laura: was going through some of these. censorship of conservative speech. here's an example. google's search showed that the 2016 campaign searches were

biased in favor of hillary clinton. youtube shutting down conservative channels by mistake, by removing videos that promote white right wing politl views. they rely on left-wing fact-checkers like snopes and wikipedia. why is wikipedia left-wing? >> there are so many things that wikipedia does, it was a liberal spin. >> laura: we always have to edit my page, i know that. i stopped looking. >> they insert, insert nasty stuff about you. they have been, they have been importuned partnering with them to unmask conservatives and to go against conservative content and to uncover these awful conservatives and what they are doing. >> laura: 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

conservatives ideals. that is really true, isn't it? even though the soviets suppressed speech, trying to suppress his speech, we are talking about in effect a global effort to suppress our silence conservatives. we have seen the nonsense happening to shows like mine, they try to do it with brush and others. this is what they do pray 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, what can we come with the consumers of information and others watching, what can they do? >> they have to recognize what is going on. jack dorsey is the ceo of twitter. he just recently, he was promoted -- he promoted an article that calls for the destructive of the conservative movement. >> laura: he retweeted it. if that just -- >> it's not just happening in the united states. conservatives have to recognize this and start looking for new

homes. >> laura: our own platform? >> conservatives, if they leave, the business model falls. congratulations that your audience is up 20% ever since they went after you. >> laura: glass half-full here on "the ingraham angle." brent, thank you, we will link this on my facebook page. everybody needs to read it and support the efforts you are doing. i don't know what we would do without media research center. if democrats are so convinced the big blue wave is coming in november, why are they falling back on their old playbook? you will find out. stay right there. you won't believe uncle joe biden's latest. stay there.

♪ >> laura: with the trump economy roaring, democrats are falling back on my politic idey

politics. first, keith ellison started with this scare tactic on friday. >> where men are dying because we are losing elections. -- women are dying because we are losing elections. >> laura: then, joe biden. >> that's what these guys are all about, man. republicans don't want working class people voting. they don't want black folks floating. >> laura: did he just say the g.o.p. doesn't want the working people voting? who do you think turned out far trump? who does biden think alike the drum? wine and brie crowd? democrat seymour that there vaunted blue wave. a poll in january show democrats holding a commanding lead over republicans but now that a lead is down to four. what happen? let's discuss with fox news contributor katie pavlich and radio talk show host carla nixon.

great to see all of you. 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 will eat alpo, black people -- republicans don't like black people. why is that all the democrats have to offer? >> i wish i had an answer for you on that one. i don't necessarily -- however, the democrats are in pretty good shape when it comes to the midterms. that meant terms are about to turn for the last year, donald trump has been reneging on his campaign promises, the democrats have been having the scapegoat olympics. >> laura: katy, paul ryan was asked about this on "the meet the press yesterday" -- about e identity politics. >> i think it was a craft of the left for a while. now it is a practice on the right.

my concern going forward, if i have two 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. >> laura: why does he have to elbow the right on his way out the door? praising mueller and then he's like the republicans -- thanks, paul. >> i think they are bad for america and they are anti-american because they divide us into different groups. 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 it up. 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 will die. women should be depending on democrats and their big government policies in order to survive. we just reject that as a whole. women are doing well.

they are out of living men, earning more than their male counterparts, graduating college -- >> laura: not opioid addicted. >> for him to say that, doesn't hold water with the facts. people are looking at their paychecks and come in, i have more money, i am pretty sure i'm liking what they are doing, identity politics are pretty hollow. >> laura: you said the president's reneging on campaign promises. obviously the wall has to be funded by congress, he demanded, he could have shut down the government, the democrats would have blamed him for that. rasmussen is an outlier on some of these polls. most have the president 42, 45, sometimes 39. but this is what rasmussen says today. 51% to 48%. rasmussen was very close in the last presidential election cycle, most had hillary running. where do you think it really stands? >> i think the democrats do really have -- even right now

it's not about policy a lot because the policy discussion unfortunately isn't at the forefront, i think the democrats are in good shape for this reason. a perfect example -- >> laura: black unemployment. think of the virginia elections were predicted to be about the democrat running by eight points because of turnout. this is not about voter enthusiasm. >> laura: impeachment is a way to get republicans pretty into his. if it's impeachment mania, get trump -- you can't make trump out to be the victim. they did that with quentin. i was there, i was all, go ken starr. it backfired on republicans because people didn't think they were inherently trying to undo the results of the presidential election. beat them on policy, turnout. >> the discussion of impeachment won't matter. the question is, the internal

investigation going on, will it ever come to an end? that is something of consequence. if it comes to an end and there is nothing or there or something, it could be of consequence. >> laura: do you think people care if donald trump -- i think this is all baked in a cake. he was a celebrity, a businessman billionaire celebrity. >> at the time, he was still a democrat. >> laura: he was still a democrat. >> the other part of it, this discussion was had before he ran for president and salacious details came out and i didn't really matter. >> laura: 18-34-year-old crowd, they like going to rallies because it is kind of like a big party, where my shirt, get up and speak, for the first time, i get to go to a microphone, they have fun. going out to vote, may be. they turned out for obama, you are right. >> as we saw, the majority of the people who were there were

not young people. 40-55-year-olds, not actually there to support gun control, they are to be anti-trump. going back to the point about impeachment, and saying something that will rally up republicans, they got to get the grassroot soldiers out there. it is 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. >> 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, turning identity politics -- >> laura: president trump won on illegal immigration. >> is a sovereignty issue. three when i think law and order, safety, it's good for women especially. we want a safe country. if people are coming across the border, they are not safe. 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 there. are you a repair man? let me see her credentials. we want to say that with the repair man. let's see that wade >> law and order is great as long as we have a reasonable balance between law and order and justice. >> laura: fantastic segment has always paraded president trump just make a deal with the devil in order to drain the swamp with the justice department? what is that all about? we'll tell you next.

♪ >> laura: the white house has confirmed to "the angle" that president trump has made a deal with senator cory gardner that may raise eyebrows among 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 nominees but we have a republican senator blocking nominees. reprehensible. let's discuss the merits of this deal with self-described marijuana lawyer, robert corrie. and here in the studio with me, the chairman of spartan approaches to marijuana, washington, d.c.,-based attorney, john callicott. great to have both of you. john, let's start with you. the president on marijuana, he didn't talk a ton about this

during the campaign. i think his supporters were all about law and order. they weren't for big weed. >> exactly. it is a real shock. 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 will say, most people don't favor a full-blown legalization. what they favor is some decriminalization and actually most republicans don't favor any kind of legalization. the numbers are -- the majority don't favor this course of action. anywhere in the country. what you've got is him going against his face to take this position, which 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 disaster. but we should incubate this industry in various states so they can export it through the market other states is kind of

insane. >> laura: robert? >> hello. thanks for having me. >> laura: your reaction, robert? >> reaction, first of all -- >> laura: slow response. god bless you. [laughs] 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. >> 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, a good deal for america, a good deal for everybody. marijuana prohibition is not conservative. it is a failed government policy. it needs to end. the people wanted to end. no question about that. this was a good deal for everybody. a good deal for thousands of people who are employed in america's newest industry. but let's go to the next step. it is true.

congress needs to be they want to make the change. not attorney general jeff sessions. really, not even president trump. the owners ought to be on congress to eliminate federal marijuana prohibition. i think the bar is firmly in thr court. >> laura: i have a question. did you toke up today? you are a little -- what are "political congratulations"? you say it is not the president president's duty to do this responsibility, it is congress. why are you giving him congratulations? i'm not following. >> because the president and senator cory gardner came to an agreement that benefits everybody. >> laura: well, it benefits you because you are a big lawyer who makes a lot of money from pot. sorry. it benefits you. it benefits colorado, his estate, they are raking in the box, as people so my kids go from pot to the next drug, who cares what happens.

just like millionaire weed, just like tobacco, john, i am on your side come i want to be fair to robert, but to me, this is not quite president trump won the election. i know there are a lot of young people who love pot. they love pot. the truth about pot and its medical effects, truth? >> i think the problem you see with pot is that it's really bad for you. it increases schizophrenia and certain people. there's about six times more likely to have schizophrenia when you smoke. you are a team is more likely to kill yourself when you smoke. people are saying this is a good deal for the american people, first of all, the america people don't want this. second second of all, every days legalized, -- every state that has legalized, 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. >> laura: big money is pushing this? john boehner just became an advisor member, totally sold out his principles. cory gardner, he actually is to be against marijuana. now he is born into. we will have both of you on radio because we have so much more to talk about. we are over for the segment. excellent segment. robert, you did not answer my other question. i will leave that for the audience to decide. we'll be right back. so i go national, where i can choose any available upgrade in the aisle - without starting any conversations- -or paying any upcharges. what can i say? control suits me. go national. go like a pro.

>> laura: before we go, let's take a look at some of the tweets that have come my way. tweet me at @ingrahamangle. well, mental illness? you could make that argument. i think we should have asked the

question about a previous guest, who seemed very nice. roberts. that's all the time we have. shannon bream and her fantastic "fox news @ night" team and their great interviews and great features take it from here. shannon, you have a great show on tap. >> shannon: yes, we do. thank you very much, laura. happy monday. welcome to "fox news @ night." i am shannon bream in washington. who will have the latest elements from syria where we are getting word of a new possible mystery attack tonight. first, president trump blasting the fbi chief he fired as a disgruntled employee. a criminal, and once again a "slimeball." fired fbi director james comey's first interview on this from bookselling quest. yielding several accusations against the president. manages to fire up hillary clinton supporters as well. ed henry is firing the saga for us. >> it's almost like the resist movement has finally found something it sees eye to eye withre