tv The Ingraham Angle FOX News July 24, 2018 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
in 15 seconds, if you go to hannity.com, you can see our friend gregg jarrett, number one book in the country. great book. we will always be fair and balanced. we're not the destroy-trump media. let not your heart be troubled. there she is. what wise acre comment do you have? go ahead. hit me. >> laura: wait, you have something very special on thursday, and it is roseanne who gave one of the most hilarious interviews earlier this week. i'm sorry but i screamed laughing. i thought she was acting it was so funny. >> sean: i think she probably was. everybody forgets roseanne used to be a stand-up comic. she wants a chance to explain all this and we're going to give her that chance. >> laura: apparently, hannity, only the liberals can say really wrong off color mistaken things, awful things. soirks -- >> sean: you defended bill maher
on your show in >> laura: yeah. >> sean: people have the right to be really stupid. some people make comments and want to apologize and no one wants to accept an apology. a lot of important questions about the world we live in, and we will deal with it. by the way, in case you have nothing to talk about tonight, another slow news night? >> laura: no, we have a lot going on. great show as always. good evening. i'm laura ingraham. this is "the ingraham angle." ahead on a cannot miss hour, if you haven't been watching television tonight, you haven't been watching "hannity," you didn't know what was released about an hour ago. rudy giuliani will be joining us shortly with breaking news, exclusive reaction about the release of a secret recording between then candidate donald trump and his attorney, michael cohen. also two simple questions. why does john brennan still have a security clearance? it should be revoked. the answers are coming up later on in tonight's angle.
you don't want to miss this. this always happens right before the show. news breaks. it's crazy. everything at the last minute. even outside the white house, he has the president's ear. who am i talking about? great night to have him on. former white house chief of staff reince priebus will join us. he will offer insights into the president's thinking on russia, communications, what is going on with the chief of staff, and the current controversy about this tape being released. later we will dive into two explosive cases, one involving police and race in a caught on camera moment in georgia. we'll get into that and a lot more coming up on "the ingraham angle." i have to tell you something. when we got giuliani on the phone and we got our slate of guests, you're going to want to buckle up. tonight, breaking news. cnn claims to have gotten their hands on recordings between then candidate donald trump and his then attorney michael cohen. the tapes were provided by cohen's now current lawyer.
lani davis. and lani is an old friend but he was out there defending bill clinton not too long ago. long known for his steadfast defense of all things clinton. here's a piece that cnn played, and it must be stressed that we at fox news have not confirmed the authenticity of these tapes. >> i need to open up a company for the transfer of info regarding our friend david. so that -- i'm going to do that right away. >> give it to me -- >> and i've spoken to allen about how to set the whole thing up. funding, yes. and it's all the stuff. all the stuff. because you never know where that company -- >> you never know he gets hit -- >> i'm all over it.
i spoke to alan about it when it comes time for the financing. >> what financing? >> pay in cash. >> no, no, no. >> laura: the tape is cut off. right at that point. joining us now for reaction, alan dershowitz, author of the book "the case against impeaching trump," a huge best seller. and saul wisenberg, thank you both for being with us. this news breaking an hour ago. professor dershowitz, let's start with you. we are all lawyers. something that sends a chill down my spine, up my spine, about hearing a conversation between an attorney and a client. i don't care what the government is threatening you with, what the prosecutors are threatening. to hear a private conversation played between the two on national television, it's like i have no words. but i guess they waived the privilege, right, alan? that was a decision the trump legal team made. >> i think you're going to have
to ask rudy. rudy is a friend of mine, a great lawyer. he rarely makes mistakes. you have to ask him why he waived the privilege about that conversation. the conversation is a natural one. i've had it with clients dozens of times. clients suggest something. if the tape is accurate and if that's what's on it, the client suggests maybe cash and the lawyer says no, and the client says, fine, we'll do it by check. that's what lawyer-client conversations are supposed to be about. back and forth. the client suggests something and the lawyer says something else. the client generally listens to the lawyer. the big picture is "a," there's nothing that suggests any crime. "b" what is strongly suggested by the prior interview is that cohen has made his decision. he's going to cooperate with the prosecutors. he's going to flip. he's going to try to get immunity, and he's going to testify against donald trump. whether he has anything to say that is incriminating, it's a
real question. even if he does, whether he's allowed to say it. remember, giuliani didn't waive other privileges, just that tape. even if he has something that might be incriminating, no evidence that he does, he can't reveal it unless it's a violation of the lawyer/client privileged or waived if it's a lawyer/client privileged material. >> laura: what's the potential jeopardy, if any, that this tape posed to the president of the united states? again, so people understand this, it's hard to hear this tape. it's a little bit unintelligible. we're going to talk to giuliani exclusively in a few moments. their impression is that what the president said is no cash. cohen says no, no, no, no. then trump says a check, a check. so he could be, again, maybe we can -- make this tape clearer.
but right now it's unclear what he said. could the president have been saying we want a paper trail? >> i don't know. it doesn't matter what he is saying, laura, in terms of your question. i agree completely with professor dershowitz. there's no indication of a crime here. it may end up that it establishing that president trump lied which is certainly a serious matter. i understand he said he didn't know anything about the payment by the parent company of "national enquirer." that's very different as to whether or not there was a crime. i see nothing resembling that. i do think it's shocking that irrespective of whether it was wise or prudent to waive the privilege, shocking that a lawyer is taping a conversation with a client, whether it is privileged or not. certainly confidential client information. i am not sure that cohen has definitively made the decision to flip. the only reason i say that is
because by doing -- by taking the actions publicly that he is taking, it seems to me that he might be making a last-ditch effort for a pardon. i see no other reason for it, because if he wants to do a deal and to flip, typically, the prosecutors don't want you going out and talking on national tv. it's a bit of a mystery. >> laura: we keep hearing. michael avenatti seems to have divinely discovered that there are more than one or two tapes. you hear him on tv. it's like there are many tapes and everyone will see it's all horrible stuff about to come out. that's what you get from him. professor dershowitz, there doesn't seem to be any transaction that actually took place here, correct? whether the president misspoke or misrepresented things on air force one when he referenced not knowing about the transaction, there was no transaction here ultimately. does that have any relevance? >> yeah, there is no crime.
this couldn't be an attempt or conspiracy because in the end he says pay by check. but the whole context of the conversations would seem to undercut the cash analysis. the context of the conversation is let's create a legal form, let's create a corporation. let's not leave it up to one person. when you create a corporation, you create records. corporations don't pay by cash. corporations almost always paid by check or by wire and leave a paper trail. so if, in fact, the president did say, and it's hard to hear, pay cash, that seems very much out of context to the conversation. the other thing is, the tape ends very abruptly. it could suggest there is more on the tape that is exculpatory but that cohen has either kept it as leverage or may be erased it because maybe he doesn't look so good on it. ending the tape abruptly like this one ends is suspicious. and when you get forensic experts coming in they can tell
you whether it was cut off, whether the phone stopped -- i thunk this was an in person conversation but we're not positive. it will tell you a lot more. i think this tape has to be subjected to forensic analysis. i had a case like this 40 years ago. the issue is whether the wiretaps. the forensics proved we were right and we won. >> laura: i think all of us in the makeup room were listening to this 15 times and none of us could figure out what was said. i want you both to stay right there. because joining us now on the phone is rudy giuliani, personal attorney for president trump speaking with us exclusively after the release of this recording. mayor giuliani, thank you so much for checking in with us tonight. first of all, your reaction to this tape's release? >> well, first of all the major point is it's outrageous that someone would tape his client surreptitiously. number two, it's also foolhardy for them to try to yell and scream.
and make believe what's on the tape. i agree with you the tape is a little bit hard to hear. i assure you we listened to it numerous, numerous times. the transcript makes it quite clear at the end that president trump says "don't pay with cash." cohen interrupts and says no, no, no. i've got it. and then you are distinctly, if you slow it down, check. and then cohen followed with no, no, no. and then quickly cuts off the tape which indicates exactly what professor dershowitz was saying, that cohen doesn't want the rest recorded. there's no way the president is going to be talking about setting up a corporation and then using cash unless you are a complete idiot. again, the president is not an idiot. >> laura: there was a moment tonight on cnn where lani davis
kept saying we are showing you that what giuliani claimed that michael cohen was the one who brought up the issue of cash, not his client donald trump. showing you with this tape that it was trump who brought it up. he seemed to say the release of the tape, rudy, was because of you and what you said. >> well, the fact is the president does bring up cash but he said don't pay with cash. [laughs] and then cohen says no, no, no, and the president says check. and then cohen says i've got it. point is, the president wants the transaction to be memorialized. >> laura: rudy, there was some concern about the decision to waive privilege in this case, a lot of legal commentators. we just talked to dershowitz. >> it's all well and good for them to say that, but the reality is, the tape was leaked not by us. nobody believes that. last week, we were treated to how we leaked it, jay sekulow
and i laughed at it. this was leaked on us with a very, very description of what was on the tape probably by the same people lying on cnn. we had to correct the record. we have no problem making this limited release because it is corroborative of the president's statement. >> laura: so are you still maintaining tonight that the recording that was released this evening is 100% exculpatory towards the president and his previous statements about this? >> i think your two guests just said that. no indication of any crime being committed on this tape and that's absolutely right. >> laura: you know what the left is going to say? you know what they do. they've been doing it for months. that the president gave the impression that he didn't know about any of these transactions, that this might've been happening but he didn't know about them. the comment on air force one. sol referenced it.
he said i didn't know. sounds like he knew something was being set up to perhaps buy the rights to this karen mcdougal story. correct? >> no. in fact, if you go back a little further on the trupanscript, i don't have the whole thing. cohen says we need financing. the president is saying wait a second. what financing? then he has to explain it. the president did not know about this before this conversation. at least with regard to the transaction. he may or may not have known about mcdougal's claims. i don't know that. he didn't know about this transaction. this is the conversation. they talk about how they're going to buy the rights. >> laura: the rights to this story from the "national enquirer," the company that owns the "national enquirer" were never purchased. that transaction did not -- >> that's another thing that's absurd.
what it makes clear is, this is -- at most -- an attempt to do something. i don't know of any attempt to this category of crime they are looking at. in any event, i don't think anyone can suggest that this represents anything where the president did anything wrong. that's the reason why he waived it. would we have put it out had it not been leaked? no, we wouldn't have put it out if it had not been leaked. >> laura: were you given a heads-up that this was coming out tonight at all or was it a surprise? >> we found out at 6:00 this afternoon. we have been over the tape over the weekend about five times. what i urge people to do is go online and listen to your broadcast. play the tape. if play it three times. the third time you play it, it will become clear.
i have been listening to tapes even longer than alan dershowitz. about 4,000 hours of mafia people on tape. i know how to listen to them i know how to transcribe them. this tape is crystal clear when you listen to it. i've dealt with much worse tapes than this. >> laura: are you concerned there are other recordings out there between cohen and the president? as a lawyer, as someone who has dealt with people who have been in a lot of trouble before, just like you have, the idea of a lawyer taping a client -- it takes your breath away. are there other tapes you are aware of? >> today someone was leaking from, i'm sure their side, it can't be ours. there are 12 tapes with cohen and the president. may have been avenatti or somebody else. don't quote me on that. he's leaked like there are a lot
more tapes with the president. dershowitz asked him how. it would be illegal for them to have that information. in any event, there are no other tapes with the president. we have all of the tapes in our possession. we have transcripts of all them. we are comfortable with it. there are no others. >> laura: rudy, you have known lanny davis a long time. i've known him going back 20 years during the clinton saga. do you have any thoughts about his decision to represent michael cohen, given his long ties to the clintons? >> not at all. i don't have any concerns about that. he is a lawyer and he has the right to represent who he wants. i question the strategy of doing it, trying to make it -- if putting out a tape in which you are kind of proud of the fact that you are a lawyer, putting out a tape of your client. if you want to cooperate with the government, you need credibility. first thing that happens is this
guy's going to be disbarred. it's ridiculous. he's a pariah to the legal profession. >> laura: there was a moment tonight on cnn where chris cuomo actually asked about this recording and whether it might taint the entire substance of it. let's watch, listen. >> this recording could be argued to be fruit of the poisonous tree. where as counsel, michael cohen shouldn't have been recording his counsel -- his client, then donald j. trump, now president trump. how do you get past that this whole thing doesn't look good for cohen? because he should have never done it. >> it is up for mr. cohen to explain why he was taping. >> laura: he didn't want to go into it. >> this is great. when have i ever said it's up to the president to explain? that's his lawyer. being interviewed. and he throws the ball to his client? this is crazy representation. have you ever heard of anything like this?
you put out a tape of your client. you then make believe it says something it doesn't say. believe me, there were three other versions of this before we got to this one that were even worse. the transcript, if you have the patience to analyze it, and now he is saying give the ball to my client. >> laura: i don't mean to harp on the clinton connection here but it is interesting that cohen chooses the longtime confidant, booster, defender of the clintons. after everything that happened during the campaign, to represent him. i mean, you know how this deal goes, rudy. was cohen trying to send some kind of message to the president, look out, here we go come? you better watch out? it's an odd choice of lawyer in my view. it's an odd choice. >> i don't know.
i can't comment on that, laura. some will say i'm interfering with counsel if i do that. i don't want to do it. i question the whole tactic, the comments tonight, shifting the thing to cohen. throwing him under the bus. >> laura: rudy, finally here -- >> you have to be able to answer for your client or not answer at all. >> laura: finally on the issue of talking to mueller, special counsel here, reports came out that you all will talk about collusion and nothing else. is there any developments on that you can tell us? >> no, i think we have been distracted the last couple of days. they have been distracted. with the -- they're getting ready for the manafort case. so we'll probably get an answer in the next couple days, a week. >> laura: all right, rudy giuliani, we are really appreciative. let's bring back sol wisenberg and alan dershowitz to react.
to what we just heard from mayor giuliani. sol, let's start with you. anything jump out at you that the mayor just said? >> what jumps out at me in one way is what is not being said. of course i haven't heard the whole tape, as the mayor points out. but in all this conversation about did he say cash or didn't he say cash? my question is, why is he even discussing buying the former play mate's story if it's not true, which he has said it isn't true? why would you care? why would you want to buy it? let's look at the big picture. professor is right, it's not a crime, but i think it is the elephant in the room. it needs to be mentioned. >> laura: i would say, sol, businesses settle things in different ways all the time because well-known people are targeted and sued because people know you will settle. that goes right to the settlement. they probably just wanted --
i don't know. i am just guessing. professor dershowitz, you deal with this all the time. people want to get stuff off their plate. if we can put it away, let's put it away. how do we do it? come up with different strategies. that's what i am guessing, if i were representing a client on this matter. does that seem particularly odd to you? >> no, it sounds very plausible, especially since they did seem to use the word plural. perhaps what the president and cohen were discussing was the run-up to the election, there were probably lots of people who come and demand cash in order to not embarrass the president just before the election. they were discussing how to set up a corporation in order to make payments if necessary to keep it from influencing the election. that happens all the time. i don't think you can infer guilt from a payment of money. i think the tape is ambiguous. i think rudy giuliani did a good job on your show explaining it.
i think we have a better sense now hearing lanny davis on cnn and hearing rudy giuliani on this show. i think there are a few conclusions we can reach. number one, there is no crime. i think everybody acknowledges this doesn't provide evidence of a crime. number two, it does show that cohen and trump are no longer joined at the hip. cohen would no longer take a bullet for the president. he may in fact fire a bullet at him. we don't know that. and three, we have two extraordinary lawyers, lanny davis and rudy giuliani, both on different sides of this contentious issue. as distinguished from avenatti who has no experience or background in any of these issues. these are two guys would have litigated these cases for years and years. they are worthy adversaries and this is a very, very exciting confrontation. high, high stakes. stay tuned. this is an unfolding drama. >> laura: you are a lawyer, you
want to represent one of these clients. you are on television. lanny loves to be on tv. i used to be on tv with him on another network years ago. we would debate all the time during the impeachment when you are working for starr. sol, you can't blame him for wanting to do the case. of course he wants to. my question is, what is the "there" there? a campaign finance violation? or a conspiracy to thwart campaign finance laws? i heard that theory floated on another network. how are you getting to a to b to c in that analysis. maybe you are smarter but i can't get there. sol? >> based on everything i've seen so far, i don't see a campaign finance violation. even if there was, as i said months ago, on your show i think, it's pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. no president is going to be impeached for relatively minor campaign finance violation. at most, it's very embarrassing. this is the least of the president's troubles, i think.
i thought it was striking that mr. giuliani did not deny the report that you talked about that basically is not going to be -- the president is not going to be talking to mr. mueller at all about obstruction of justice. if he talks to him at all, it will be about collusion. i think as a lawyer, that's a good position to take. >> laura: professor dershowitz, before we let you go, i'm glad we got that question in to rudy. because that report has been floating around. he was like, they are focused on manafort now. i get the sense that, what does mueller do at that point? it's a game of chicken. are you going to subpoena me? are we going to fight the constitutionality of that? where do we go? >> comey would be very -- mueller would be very, very wise to accept this offer. why? he's not going to be able to question the president about obstruction of justice. the president will claim presidential authority to fire comey and he will win on that issue. and so, really, if he's getting
an opportunity to sit down with the president and discuss and ask him questions about russia and alleged collusion, he's probably getting all he would ever get after litigation. my prediction here is if mueller is smart, and i think he is, he will accept this offer and have an opportunity to put hard questions to him, and perhaps expect to spring a couple of perjury traps on him. which is why if i were giuliani, i would be a little wary about having the president sit down unless the questions were scripted and the answers could be scripted in advance, and the president wouldn't go off script. all of those are unlikely events, knowing this president and knowing the situation. >> i couldn't agree more. >> laura: we will have you both back later after the extensive voice analysis. bringing the experts to analyze the tape. what was said -- you know that's going to happen. it will be all over the place tomorrow. what a great night to have you both on. we really, really appreciate it. thanks so much for spending so much time with us.
coming up, former white house chief of staff reince priebus will be here, another great guest for a breaking news night. former white house chief of staff. he's going to discuss white house communications, the midterms, and the breaking news tonight. stay there. midterms, and the breaking new metastatic breast cancer is relentless, but i'm relentless too. mbc doesn't take a day off, and neither will i. and i treat my mbc with new everyday verzenio- the only one of its kind that can be taken every day. in fact, verzenio is a cdk4 & 6 inhibitor for postmenopausal women with hr+, her2- mbc, approved, with hormonal therapy, as an everyday treatment for a relentless disease. verzenio + an ai is proven to help women have significantly more time without disease progression, and more than half of women saw their tumors shrink vs an ai. diarrhea is common, may be severe, and may cause dehydration or infection. before taking verzenio, tell your doctor if you have
fever, chills, or other signs of infection. verzenio may cause low white blood cell counts, which may cause serious infection that can lead to death. serious liver problems can occur. symptoms may include tiredness, loss of appetite, stomach pain, and bleeding or bruising more easily than normal. blood clots that can lead to death have also occurred. talk to your doctor right away if you notice pain or swelling in your arms or legs, shortness of breath, chest pain or rapid breathing or heart rate. tell your doctor if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant. common side effects include nausea, infections, low red and white blood cells and platelets, decreased appetite, headache, abdominal pain, tiredness, vomiting, and hair thinning or loss. i'm relentless. and my doctor and i choose to treat my mbc with verzenio. be relentless. ask your doctor about everyday verzenio.
>> laura: they all claim to know the motives behind president trump's statements, the media, politicians, the intel community. nobody knows what the president is thinking more than his aides, even some who are no longer in habiting the white house. that includes old friend, former white house chief of staff reince priebus. the first person the president called after the helsinki summit. call me. joining us now, reince priebus, great to have you on. how are you, man? hey, stranger. >> i was out for a couple weeks with the family. >> laura: nice, nice. >> enjoying something i haven't been able to do for many years
called a vacation. >> laura: a little rest. a little rest. no rest for the weary tonight. >> what a night i picked. >> laura: reince is trying to get out the back door. what was your reaction? you heard the previous segment. >> i haven't heard the tape. but what i have done is looked at the story from cnn on their own website. even in their own story, they are sort of equivocating back and forth as to what the president said or didn't say. it's not really clear what he said or didn't say. i think sol, on your last segment, had it sort of right. at the very worst, it might be embarrassing but it's not illegal. one thing i have learned from being out of the spotlight on the daily grind is that when you go back to wisconsin and michigan and ohio, it's not just a talking point. it's the absolute truth. i have not found a single person who is swayed by any of these stories, which is a massive
financial boon to -- no offense -- but the cable news. especially a couple other networks. it's not moving america. the president was at 37% on election day when he won. if you believe the worst poll, he's at 45 today. and so what people focus in on is where is the economy and isn't it great that we are projected potentially 4% growth of gdp under donald trump. that's really what matters. >> laura: how many well-known people do you know who have demt with people who make allegations -- i don't know what happened. i do know when you are well known, you are a target. you were a target in other ways. you are a target and a lot of people are like, i don't want to deal with it. or maybe a made a mistake, get this off the table. >> just because someone says on tape doesn't mean they're guilty. >> laura: it happens all the
time. corporate america, the cost of doing business. >> i have been a lawyer for 20 years. there was a litigator for most of it. i've sat with many clients who said i can't believe you are it. you say, that's great. or we can spend a couple hundred thousand in legal fees. >> laura: be a litigator. used to be, i'm coming after you. most people don't do that. they're not going to deal with that. when you are with the president, things like this came up all the time. how does he handle it? what is his reaction? you were there when this kind of stuff bubbled up in the last days of the campaign. people were freaking out. people thought he should drop out of the race. that billy bush thing happened. now this came out days before the election. how is he dealing with it? >> i was one of the people, over -- i would freak out over things like this. over time, what i figured out about the president is that nothing sticks to him.
none of this sticks. what i found about his character is that he is a person who's able, and i'm not one of these kinds of people, they can handle 50 massive bullets coming at you and arrows, however you want to term it, at one time, remain the same kind of person on a pretty much daily basis in spite of the fact that may be today ten arrows are coming at you. next week it might be 50. then next week might be a pleasant week where only two or three. >> laura: things have to calm down, don't you think? >> i think it would be better for him. here's what i think about the president. if you look at the fundamentals of what he's accomplished. we talk about it every day. it's unbelievable. if somehow or another some of these other issues could just go away by 50%, you would be talking about the president on the $10 bill. so i do also believe that there's a huge benefit to the president in putting some of these things to bed. >> laura: you don't have to fight every one at once. you don't have to swing at every
pitch. you don't have to swing at every adversary. >> he would be at 65%-plus approval rating. my belief. but i also know the president has, in spite of all those types of advice i've given, he has also defied it all. he was a guy who went down the escalator in january or june of 2015 and thought -- >> laura: said you were all wrong. you are all experts. probably watching. you're wrap. i get it. i don't think everyone is always wrong but i get the point. he has done well. republicans are seven points down among independents. the republican pool has shrunk. his numbers have ticked up which is fantastic but you need the independents. they want things to calm down. do they not? >> in moderate house districts, that is true. >> laura: what do you do if you are advising the president? he calls you. what do you say? >> look, for one thing, i probably wouldn't have -- i would not have advised him to
say that he misspoke in helsinki. i would've probably advised him to do what i think -- and i'm just guessing -- what's in his head. look, people, i am trying to get along with somebody here. you might not agree with every single approach i'm taking but i am doing my best to get along with a person that has been difficult for us to get along with. i am trying a different angle here. that's what i'm doing. just be straight about it and move forward. not to claim -- >> they're all in the situation saying it's armageddon if he wanted to have a better relationship with russia. >> the rest of the country outside of here and outside of new york is not really paying attention that much. so to compromise what you actually believed in order to get through it -- >> laura: you are saying he didn't misspeak. >> i don't know if he did or not. i don't think he did. i think he genuinely wants to get along with the person and he has the demeanor of hey, we are going to get along. we're going to be friends through this.
we are going to talk about things. >> laura: so did bush. so did clinton and so did reagan. >> i will give you an air of dignity for a while and we will see where it goes. >> laura: what frustrates him the most right now? >> i think probably what frustrates him the most is that he has an economy that's booming. people are back to work. black unemployment is under 6%. he is doing all the things he promised to do. and he's competing with a 24/7 media cycle that really doesn't profit on -- >> laura: good news. >> not even good news. but fairness and that there is two sides of a story. we have 24/7 cable and there is no money -- there's only money in division. there's no money in sort of -- >> laura: that's the way it is. he knows it. he thrives off it. he's great when he goes to the people, not just rallies. the factory floors, vfw, it
humanizes him. >> i loved whenever -- i would always advise the president to go the vfw, the american legion, veterans with disabilities, all those things. you are right. it humanizes him and whatever can humanize him makes him stronger in middle america. >> laura: people don't know he's actually very charming and is really funny. and he can be -- you don't see that a lot. >> that's all very true. and i think the more that comes out -- 45% by the worst poll. i think the democrats are handling themselves, you know, if they would find a way to be moderate, but they can't. so they're -- >> laura: republicans are going to hit them on trade and tariffs? >> well, i believe that sonny perdue is a pretty smart guy. if he thinks these subsidies need to help the farmers, i agree with him. but i also think that if you're
handing out 12 billion in subsidies, it's probably saying something about the policy. i think he needs to be careful. >> laura: good to see you. thank you for coming in. another slow news night for us. stay with us. the debate continues over the release of the secret trump-cohen recording. back in a moment.
>> laura: we have lots of breaking developments from the release of this secret trump-cohen tape. for further analysis, let's bring in chris hahn. a political commentator, democratic party activist. with me in the studio, matt schlapp, chairman of the american conservative union. you have heard the tape. you've heard the commentary. lanny davis was on cnn. he was absolutely triumphant, saying don't listen to me. listen to the tape. let your own ears be the judge. he said it about 15 times. listen closely. donald trump saying cash. now, i didn't hear it that way. maybe some expert analysis will show something different even if
it is true, doesn't mean from dershowitz and sol wisenberg, no criminal implication. this is a pretty blockbuster night. >> i listened to the tape. i hear his assistant come in. >> laura: diet coke. >> then he is talking to cohen. it's a little -- it's kind of like not clear. i would just say it seems like we're in the same spot we always were. which is donald trump lives a very extravagant life, everybody knew it. it was on the tabloid press in new york every night of the week. the idea that this is a replay to some more detail about that life, i don't know how that's instructive on what's going on in the cup today. -- country today. most voters, i think they would come to the same conclusion. >> laura: chris hahn, your reaction to the news tonight. >> remember when they had the sound effect, did you hear laurel or the other thing? i always heard laurel. if you believe donald trump is not telling the truth, you hear
what you want to hear. >> laura: [laughs] that's pretty funny. >> i heard the president acknowledging on tape that he did something that he has said many times before he didn't do. so i don't know if that's a crime or anything like that, but i do know that it shows he lied. there was a time when the president lied about a sex scandal, it's a big story. and clearly a big story tonight and a big story for a couple of days. the quinnipiac poll, bigger story, significant drop there and we will see what happens. >> laura: chris cuomo raised the issue that chris mentioned just now. let's watch. >> they say that the president said do not pay with cash. check. and that he was advising cohen to do it all on the up and up because the president wanted to make sure that this was paid for properly.
>> laura: we don't get lanny's reaction but he went on to refute it. cnn's website says it's unclear what's being said in the tape. >> i agree with rudy. your viewers can make up their own mind but let's be clear about what this is. he is buying the rights to story that makes allegations, a salacious story. i don't think it is very uncommon for people who are prominent people want to not have a bunch of negative things written about them and they buy stories. are all the parts of the stories true? i don't know. what the tape shows potentially is that they wanted the story not to run. that's what we're talking about. >> laura: his comment on air force one was that like he didn't have any knowledge of the transaction or we don't have -- that was about stormy daniels. it wasn't about mcdougal. that was different. >> he denied knowing anything about mcdougal as well. so here we are with him knowing something about mcdougal.
i don't think we can believe anything he says about mcdougal or stormy daniels or any of these other things that might pop up there like this, because he has been proven a couple times now to not being truthful with the american people. if i was advising him, i would say put it all out there, all the dirty laundry on anybody who might have something. >> laura: oh, really? did you say that about hillary? wait a second. hold on, hold on, hold on. get out the dirty laundry? have you ever said that about hillary? have you ever said that about the clintons, get the dirty laundry? you would have so much dirty laundry, there is not enough laundromats in washington. [laughs] i mean, come on. what politician does that? >> i advise everybody who is in any kind of scandal like this to put it out there and let it all be out there and deal with it all at once. the drip, drip, drip gets to you eventually and it will eventually -- i don't think it has gotten to the president yet but it will eventually get to him. >> laura: i think this is all baked in the cake before the
election. the mcdougal story dropped in "the wall street journal." he wins ohio, florida. i think nobody cares about this. >> laura, it doesn't -- >> when you are a 69-year-old millionaire who lives in public, there are so many drips to all of that life. i think it's a mistake. he should say i'm trying to fix the economy, kill isis, and you knew what i was when you picked me. i am a fighter. i'm fighting for you every day. >> laura: interesting conversation. chris, i think you make some good points. matt, you make better points. just kidding. just teasing. come on. laugh. does providing security clearance to someone like john brennan, speaking of a topic i think is interesting, is the public good being served? tonight's angle coming up. nteree are you ready to take your wifi to the next level?
>> laura: the clearance threat of john brenan. that is the focus of tonight's angle. the media have been in a fit of apoplexy after the white house press secretary sarah sanders announced yesterday that the president is considering revoking security clearances for certain obama-era intel officials along with one from the bush administration. >> it's political.
it's entirely political. >> it is punishing your critics. >> they are attempting to gaslight and distract him something else. >> i think it's very, very dangerous undermining of the intelligence community and almost the creation of an enemies list. >> this is not a small thing to have a president suggesting retribution for political criticism in this way. >> it reminds me of what happened with erdogan after he took control in turkey. who did he go after first? he went after the generals. >> laura: what a buffoon. erdogan. all right, joe. here is how nbc nightly news led their broadcast. >> it's an unprecedented threat aimed at some critics of the commander in chief. the white house considering stripping the security clearances of six former intelligence officials. >> laura: duh, duh, duh. unprecedented threat. they make it sound like president trump is threatening
to bomb john brenan's house. shouldn't it concern the media that former intel officials are using their credentials to lend themselves credibility as they go off to engage in political combat with the president of the united states? the truth is former intel officials have retained their security clearances for decades. not as a booby prize for service but to benefit the government, maybe consulting work and so forth. for instance the cia is working on a case involving something a former in tell official had worked on, he can use his continued access to act as a reference. maybe give some insight. has it all gotten out of hand? roughly 4.2 million americans had security access or were eligible for access since 2015 according to the office of the director of national intelligence. the general accounting office calls it a high risk for national interest. it's perfectly legitimate for the president to recall the clearances of retirees in the interest of national security,
isn't it? if the government needs retired officials to help on cases, the government can insist they go through the normal clearance process again. when we are talking about individuals like brennan, it's a wonder how he maintained a experience at all. let's look at the brennan record. before he became their favorite trump basher, the democrats in the senate despised him. some urged his resignation as cia director for lying about spying and not spying on the bad guys but on the senate. he has been caught lying multiple times during his government career. senator dianne feinstein in march 2014 called out the cia under brennan's leadership for its effort to harass and thwart an ongoing senate investigation into the bush era enhanced interrogation program. >> based on what director brennan has informed us, i have
grave concerns that the cia search may well have violated the separation of powers, principles, embodied in the united states constitution. it may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activity or any other government function. >> laura: brennan was incredulous that anyone would question his credibility and his integrity. >> as far as the allegations of the cia hacking into senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. we wouldn't do that. that's just beyond the scope of reason. >> laura: well, naturally, they did spy and they would spy. what you just heard was a lie. ten cia staffers were found to have breached senate intel committee computers. senator mark udall called on
brennan to resign but obama protected brennan. let's not forget brennan was caught lying last year on the steele dossier. >> director brennan, do you know who commissioned the steele dossier? >> i don't. >> did the cia rely on it? >> no. >> why not? >> because we didn't. it was not in anyway used as a basis for the intel community assessment that was done. >> laura: [laughs] every time i hear that. in fact, two former intel chiefs, jim clapper and mike rogers, they disputed brennan's claims that the dossier was not part of their assessment. rogers in a letter to congress and clapper last october on cnn. >> some of the content of the dossier, we were able to collaborate in the intelligence community assessment. >> laura: given brennan's history of lying and obfuscation, any sane person would question his objectivity
and credibility. trump is right to be skeptical on brennan and call him out on his misinformation campaign. as "the wall street journal"'s kimberley strassel noted, brennan has been bragging that it was he who started the ball rolling on this entire russian closure narrative. -- collusion narrative. >> i encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between russian officials and u.s. persons involved in the trump campaign. that -- i was concerned about. i know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not u.s. persons were actively conspiring, colluding with russian officials.
ndnd >> laura: even if you are not wild about everything trump has done. david harsanyi wrote in "the federalist" in march, john brennan shouldn't be lecturing americans. he should be the focus of a congressional inquiry. he should be put under oath. it looks like that may finally be coming. >> well, we have lots of questions for john brennan, and he will definitely be sought by the committees for interview. it's an extremely disturbing thing to see he and james comey, supposedly impartial government officials carrying out their jobs in very important areas in intelligence gathering and law enforcement express the kind of extreme bias that they've shown now which i think reflects quite accurately on what they were doing back in 2016. >> laura: the idea that we should continue to allow john brennan and other deep state partisans to use their security clearances to validate their political attacks is sheer madness. to do so is to allow them to further disgrace the agencies
they have already tarnished through their biased actions. and that is "the angle." joining us now with reaction, mike baker. your reaction. brennan and his pals on the other networks are saying trump has created an enemies list. your reaction? >> first of all, you packed a lot of information into that angle. second of all, top line, what day of the week in tuesday. we started with russia. we went to iran. then we went to clearances. then we went to tapes. the speed is incredible. with this, you pointed out several important issues. people are stunned and amazed that john brennan and others would have these clearances. they don't understand the world of clearances. look, retaining your clearances once you leave the government is your currency in washington. it's a cottage industry. i'm not going to make a lot of friends by talking about this, but it's a cottage industry. keeping your clearance and moving to the commercial sector. clearances are kept by senior
officials typically up until now and in the past as a courtesy. the idea being you can talk to the people who take your position and provide -- what the left, what the resistance are talking about, they are suddenly the protectors of national security. i think we have reached a strange, surreal point. they are saying trump is threatening national security by talking about pulling brennan's clearances, by talking about pulling susan rice's clearances. they won't be able to talk. in what world do you imagine the current administration calls susan rice or john brennan and says we need to talk and get your insight on something. >> laura: stay there. we will keep you for final thoughts coming up. . we will keep you for final
they would point out there are 4.1 million people with security clearances, 1.3 of those million are top-secret clearances. what they should be doing is looking at a conversation that has run amok, anybody leaves a position of authority with responsibility for classified information, if you want to get them back, go to the personal sector, the company can sponsor you and if you need to talk to somebody in a position of leadership, fine. >> thanks so much. a phenomenal show with all this breaking news, can't wait to watch, you are on my dvr. shannon: we begin with a fox news alert. under american pressure north korea appears to be dismantling a key missile launch station. the president gets tough with iran will that bear the root as well? or i the ayatollahs a different kind of photo? general jack keane on the foreign-policy negotiations. define the gop leadership, republicans find their own way