FOX NEWS: Tucker Carlson said the departure of chief Trump strategist Steve Bannon will make the White House more placid. Bannon was one of the few populists in the Trump admin that wouldn't feel comfortable working with Hillary Clinton.
FOX NEWS: Tucker Carlson said the departure of chief Trump strategist Steve Bannon will make the White House more placid. Bannon was one of the few populists in the Trump admin that wouldn't feel comfortable working with Hillary Clinton.
Tucker Carlson responds to Bill Kristol for accusing him on Twitter of "rationalizing slavery" and implying he is anti-Semitic. Carlson said Kristol, an old friend, refused to explain himself. He noted how the Weekly Standard founder used to express his ideas in a thoughtful matter but now sits on "on Twitter all day every day." "Now, he just goes on Twitter and stays on Twitter all day every day," Carlson said. "Dashing off little thoughts and impressions, scoring tiny little points against strangers in cyberspace, keeping obsessive track of his likes and re-tweets. At an age when he could be playing with his grandchildren, Kristol is glued to social media like a slot machine junkie in Reno. And after a while, of course, that distorts you." Transcript, via FOX News: TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS: Last night the top of the show, we addressed the removal of civil war monuments from public places around the country. We made the point that the sudden outrage over confederate icons isn't entirely about slavery horrifying as slavery is. It's also part of a larger effort on the left to discredit the founders of this country and the beliefs they enshrined in law. Once you believe that any figure in history who once owned slaves is inherently illegitimate and should be erased, it's hard to take our founding documents very seriously. How can you accept the bill of rights when it was written by slave owners? Well, you can't. Which is why so many on the left don't. And ignore the first and second amendments among many others. That was the point we were trying to make. You may disagree with it but it didn't seem crazy or mean spirited. Here's the tweet that Bill Kristol, the former Weekly Standard editor and contributor sent minutes later referring to our segment last night. Quote, "They started by rationalizing Trump. They ended by rationalizing slavery." Rationalizing slavery? That is not even close to what we were saying by any interpretation. What an outrageous thing to say. But it got worse. Just minutes later, Kristol suggested, somehow we were anti-Semitic too. Here's a second tweet. Quote, "Next, Luther, Voltaire and Marx were anti-Jewish. So, why is it a big deal that the marchers were chanting "Jews will not replace us," end quote. Okay. That is libel but it is also really stupid. And yet, Bill Kristol isn't stupid. I know that because I worked for Bill Kristol for more than five years in the 1990s, I knew him well. He was a genuinely smart guy. He's a good boss, too. He was humane and fair-minded. He was the kind of person I never would imagine would write something that nasty and dishonest about an enemy much less an old friend. What happened? Well, Kristol refused to explain himself today. We can only guess at that. Part of the explanation has to be the moment that we're living in right now where hysteria has supplanted rational debate. Well, the purpose of political argument is no longer to explain your beliefs but to highlight what a morally upstanding person you are, a virtuous guy you are, using by contrast of your opponent who is by definition evil. It's childish, obviously. But for many people, it's pretty tempting. Even 64-year-old men with Harvard degrees fall for it, apparently. But part of the problem is also the medium. Twenty years ago when Bill Kristol had something to say, he had a magazine to say it in. He talked through ideas with his friends, then he spent hours writing a piece that expressed its ideas precisely. There was thinking involved in the process. Now, he just goes on Twitter and stays on Twitter all day every day. Dashing off little thoughts and impressions, scoring tiny little points against strangers in cyberspace, keeping obsessive track of his likes and re-tweets. At an age when he could be playing with his grandchildren, Kristol is glued to social media like a slot machine junkie in Reno. And after a while, of course, that distorts you. When disagree with someone, it doesn't occur to you to pick up the phone and hash it out. You tweet it hoping for re-tweets. It's depressing as hell. Kristol isn't the only one who does this obviously. Washington is littered with formerly impressive people who now to shout and preen on social media. But I hate to see it with him. I liked Bill Kristol once and I thought he liked me. What a shame.
Tucker Carlson delivers commentary on CNN's Jim Acosta's heated exchange with Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller on immigration at Wednesday's press briefing. "Jim Acosta and the network he works for don't know much at all about this subject," Carlson said on his FOX News program. "They don't know how many immigrants come here every year or how, they just don't have any clue as to how many should come ideally. They know very little of the economic effect those immigrants have on Americans who already live here because they don't care enough to find out." "They are utterly ignorant on the subject of immigration and yet, and here is the amazing part. They are still filled with absolute moral certainty and boundless self-righteousness. They are buffoons in other words," Carlson also said. "The drunk guy at the party with bad breath who won't stop talking. Boy, is that embarrassing!" Carlson concluded. Conservative commentary Mark Steyn also weighed in on Acosta. Scroll below for his interview with Carlson. Carlson's full commentary from the Wednesday broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight: TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Well, good evening and worker to TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT. The Trump administration took a big step today toward fulfilling an essential campaign promise by endorsing immigration reform bill crafted by Senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue. The bill would sharply restrict immigration based simply on family reunification and instead give priority to immigrants who have skills, who speak English who might help the country. Who would also cut future legal immigration by 50 percent, bringing the number closer to historic levels, he would also abolish something called the diversity lottery. The White House press corps hated it. Polling shows the public liked it. The White House rolled it out today in the briefing room and there was quite an exchange. Watch this interchange between Stephen Miller, the White House top policy advisor and Jim Acosta of CNN who started off by implying this bill somehow for reasons he didn't quite explain must be racist. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: This whole notion of well, they could learn — you know, they have to learn English before they get to the United States. Are we just going to bring in people from Great Britain and Australia? STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE POLICY ADVISOR: Jim, I have to honestly say, I am shocked at your statement that you think that only people from Great Britain and Australia would know English. It's actually — it reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree that in your mind — this is an amazing moment. This is an amazing moment that you think only people from Great Britain or Australia would speak English. It is so insulting to millions of hard working immigrants who do speak English from all over the world. Jim, have you honestly never met an immigrant from another country who speaks English outside of Great Britain or Australia? Is that your personal experience? ACOSTA: There are of course people who come from other parts of the world. MILLER: That's not what you're saying and it shows your cosmopolitan bias. And I just want to say — ACOSTA: Sounds like you are trying to engineer the racial and ethnic flow of people into this country. MILLER: Jim, that's one of the most outrageous, insulting, ignorant and foolish things you have ever said. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Ouch. Well, apparently undeterred Jim Acosta rooted through his bag of cliches and came up with, presto, the old statue of liberty trick. What do you think of that, Stephen Miller? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ACOSTA: The Statue of Liberty has always been — MILLER: Jim, Jim, let me ask you a question. ACOSTA: — a beacon of hope to the world, for people in this country and they are not always going to speak English, they are not always going to be highly skilled. They are not always going to be. MILLER: Jim, I appreciate your speech, so, let's talk about this. ACOSTA: It was a modest — MILLER: Jim, let's talk about this. In 1970 when we let in 300,000 people a year, was that violating or not violating the Statue of Liberty law of the land? Tell me what years meet — tell me what years meet Jim Acosta's definition of the Statue of Liberty poem law of the land? So you are saying a million a year is the Statue of Liberty number? Nine hundred thousand violates it, 800,000 violates it? (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Well, you won't be surprised to learn that Acosta did not have a specific number in mind. Actually, even a general number to within say several 100,000. He had no idea at all. None. And yet, he kept talking. Which turned out to be a mistake. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MILLER: We have had periods of very large waves, followed by periods of less immigration and more immigration. And during the — ACOSTA: Period immigration right now wants to build walls and bring about a sweeping change to immigration. MILLER: Surely, Jim, you don't actually think that a wall affects green card policy. You couldn't possibly believe that, do you? Actually the notion that you actually think immigration is at historic low, the foreign born population of the United States today, Jim. Jim? ACOSTA: You just on Monday talking about how border crossings — MILLER: Do you really, I want to be serious, Jim, do you really at CNN don't know the difference between green card policy and your legal immigration? (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: We can answer that question. No, they don't know the difference. Jim Acosta and the network he works for don't know much at all about this subject. They don't know how many immigrants come here every year or how, they just don't have any clue as to how many should come ideally. They know very little of the economic effect those immigrants have on Americans who already live here because they don't care enough to find out. They are utterly ignorant on the subject of immigration and yet, and here is the amazing part. They are still filled with absolute moral certainty and boundless self-righteousness. They are buffoons in other words. The drunk guy at the party with bad breath who won't stop talking. Boy, is that embarrassing! Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com "If you want to do The Jim Acosta Show, there's a rusting boxcar around the back of the freight yard with three semi-comatose hobos who are interested in it. But nobody else is," Steyn said.
Victor Davis Hanson responds to the Cal-exit movement on Tuesday's edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight. He said people aren't leaving the state to spread "California values," but because of the 13% income tax, high gas and sales tax, and poor schools. Hanson also noted California's minerals, oil and agriculture are located in the red parts of the state. He said if Calexit did actually happen the state would become an apartheid society. TUCKER CARLSON: Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stamford, he's a professor at Cal State University, Fresno, he has been in California all his life. His family has been there for over 100 years, he has watched the state change. He joins us now. Did you just hear that interview? VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION: What's that? Yes, I heard that. CARLSON: So, he said two things that really struck me. One, no, he does not think that California has much in common with the rest of the country. And two, yes, the middle-class is leaving. He was honest enough to admit that. And that is a good thing, what do you make of that? HANSON: Yes. Well, it is unhinged because about 75 percent of the geography of California is red. And we have these two Californians from San Diego — where about 30 million people live, but if you were going to secede all of the minerals, the oil, the agriculture is farmed or worked or mined by conservatives. And when they go, they are not to leaving to spread California values. They are leaving because they have 13 percent income tax, the second highest sales tax, third highest gas tax and yet their schools are rated 46 in the country. And I think Forbes rated our freeways 49th in the country. So, we have one out of every four people in California who was not born in the United States. And we have 22 percent below the poverty level, one out of three on welfare, so it is Mississippi in Massachusetts in one state. And people are leaving to get away from that. CARLSON: Exactly, I was always very pro-immigration, always. And watching this happened in California really made me pause. This guy just admitted –
– HANSON: Well, I mean — CARLSON: — that he is happy to replace the middle-class population of California with poor immigrants, because he did not really say why, but that is a good thing? HANSON: Well, I am sitting here in Palo Alto, and I can tell you that poor immigrants are living seven and eight families to a house in Redwood City, and they clean the tables of the techies in the masters of the universe. You mention to them, let's build affordable housing on 280, we have open spaces, we have mass transit, or beautiful freeway, and they go ballistic. CARLSON: Yes. HANSON: So, they do like this apartheid society, whether the part is a civil class or everybody else, it's the hello. So, it is kind of pathetic that people would admit as you pointed out that they are really medieval in the way that they envision California. CARLSON: But you are totally right about their attitudes. Move the Somali refugees to Nantucket, that is the answer as far as I'm concerned. So, okay, I want to get to this. President Trump says, you can take the smartphone from his cold dead fingers. He tweeted this today. Quote, "Only the fake news media and Trump enemies want me to stop using social media, 110 million people. Only way for me to get to the truth." Meanwhile the press are finally growing tired of comparing the President to Hitler and now moving on to the secondary autocrats like Mussolini and Kim Jong-un. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC HOST: I think all of this going around and purging people just like Kim Jong-un. What is he doing? Knocks off all of his relatives when he gets scared? When you get scared of your position around you. We do not do that in this country. We fire them. Trump seems to know how to fire. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You cannot compartmentalize everything, because it is all morphed together as Donald Trump unfit for command in my opinion. MATTHEWS: I work with families and say it's 10:00 at night upstairs the White House. There is no General Kelly around, the Romanoff's are at dinner. Okay? They are sitting around having dinner. You have got Jared there, the favorite son in law. You have got the favorite daughter. You have got John, Jr., maybe stopping by. They are all sitting around talking about what kind of job General Kelly is doing. DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, HISTORIAN: The key to Donald Trump is just this kind of blind fierce loyalty, and that's what Franco expected in Spain. That's what Mussolini wanted in Italy. (END VIDEO CLIP) CARLSON: Every time I feel kind of depressed because I think Trump is screwing up. I look at these people and I think, man, there is something worse. I guess. HANSON: Yes, I mean, they are historically illiterate if not obscene, because Mussolini was responsible for killing about 1.6 billion people in the Balkans in North Africa. Kim Jong-un has probably killed two to four million. Stalin killed 20 million. So, there is no comparison to be made. And as far as the tweets go and Twitter and all of that, it is not an either or, people I think understand that he has redefined social media in a way that sort of electronic fireside chat. It's just that we go down the cul-de-sacs, and if you have 30,000 of them and you divide them with how many days since he has been inaugurated, you get maybe 30 or 40, and such a number, you're going to make a mistake or you are going to be indiscreet. And what is the point of that? Well, the point of that is, it distracts from reaching 10 million barrels of oil, which is a record where we are redefining the strategic importance of the Gulf States, or Eastern Europe, because they now are energy independent of OPEC and Russia. We have got 2.6% economic growth. We have got record jobs, record corporate profits, record Wall Street, and all that stuff is getting lost in some of these ten, five percent of the daily tweets. CARLSON: Right. HANSON: So, we do not want to, it is like a fine watch. You know it is not quite working right, but you don't want to take it apart and ruin it. But you want to find a way to calibrate it that is effective. I think that John Kelly is a man to do that.
Tucker Carlson reports The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) wants the Office of Congressional Ethics to open an investigation on former DNC chair and current Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz over an IT staffer accused in a bank fraud case. Last week, Retired Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said on Tucker Carlson Tonight that there is now evidence that then-Democratic National Chairwoman and current Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz used Imran Awan for "malevolent activities" and "manipulative things" against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary race.
Calexit leader Shankar Singam appeared on Tuesday's broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight to promote the secession of California from the union. Singam said California doesn't have much in common with the rest of the country. He declared, "This is California. We're not the United States." The Calexit proponent also said it is a "good thing" that the middle class is fleeing the state because it will make room for the "new wave" of immigrants. Singam told Carlson that "the United States" should be thanking "us" for "exporting" the state's middle class to the rest of the country. "If everyone in the middle class is leaving, that's actually a good thing. We need these spots opened up for the new wave of immigrants to come up. It's what we do," Singam told Carlson. Carlson responds to Singam's claim that California is one of the largest economies in the world, saying that is due to the large wealth gap between the rich such as tech companies and the poor. Carlson pointed out that there is basically no middle class as they are packing up and moving out of the state. "Your state or country or whatever we're calling it now, there's been a massive exodus of middle-class Californians to neighboring states. The numbers are there. You've lost hundreds of thousands making between $100,000 and $200,000 over the past 10 years and they've enriched Idaho and Montana and even Wyoming and Washington state. If it's such a well-run place, why are the middle class leaving?" Carlson asked Singam. "Tucker, you have to look at the bigger picture here," Singam answered. "The fifth largest economy in the world. Just repeat that. Say it again. We are the fifth largest economy." "That's the first time I've heard that," Carlson said. "It's basically the economy of Mexico. You've got a small number of rich people, the tech people, and then you've got a ton of poor people and the middle class is leaving. That's a recipe for instability. You're aware of that, right?" "If everyone in the middle class is leaving, that's actually a good thing. We need these spots opened up for the new wave of immigrants to come up. It's what we do. We export our middle class to the United States. You guys should be thanking us for that," Singam said to a stunned Carlson. "Not only that, when our middle class does move out to Texas and Colorado they are taking our values out to the United States. If you look at Texas, in fact, all the major cities Californians are going to they are turning blue. And soon enough Texas will be a blue state," Singam said. "Dude," Carlson said to Singam. "I've never met you, I've never heard of you. I don't know if this is a parody segment, you know, if you're punking me or if you're really high and you're just telling the truth because high people do. But you just said you're happy to be exporting the middle class in your state. I happen to think your policy makers are happy that they are leaving but the fact that you are admitting this on live TV — bottom line, are you being serious?" Carlson asked. "I'm only admitting the truth," Singam responded. "There's a middle class of people who are leaving California and moving to Oregon and Colorado and Texas, yes, there is." "And you're happy about that?" Carlson asked. "I think they'll find out how boring it is and come back," Singam answered.
Charles Krauthammer concedes in the past 7 years the country got used to Obamacare and now do not want to give it up. He suggests Republicans regroup, "extricate" the word repeal from their vocabulary and start on "repairing" Obamacare. From Friday's broadcast of Tucker Carlson Tonight: TUCKER CARLSON: So I have to ask you a healthcare question. Is it over for the moment, the push to replace Obamacare with something else? CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think so and it should be. They ran into a dead end. I'm rather critical of McCain's vote. I don't see why he didn't want to proceed to conference to see whether Republicans could have hammered something out. But this is really a dead end. They're going to have to regroup and do this with Democrats. And I think the key here will be semantic. The Democrats want their pound of flesh for the failure and they are going to extricate the word 'repeal.' Republicans are going to have to abolish the word repeal. If they talk about repair, and in the end, it won't make much difference in the substance of things. That's where we are headed. We're going to repair Obamacare. And as we see over 7 years the country got used to it and didn't want to give it up.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The obvious takeaway was this was a White House in chaos and it simply couldn't continue. That old saying from the former chairman of the economic commission for Richard Nixon (Herbert Stein) was when something cannot go on, it won't… Stein's law… Priebus is a good man, the president is right, but he was over his head. He was not a confidant of the president. He didn't have the authority that you needed. People went around him. Now, what the White House needed and I think the reason that you haven't had even Democratic criticism of the appointment is that we're getting what we needed which is somebody who would be the gatekeeper. Somebody who will restore some kind of order. Somebody who will be the authority. And I do think, we talked about this earlier in the night, the test case is going to be everybody's going to have to go through the chief of staff, we hope. The test case is Scaramucci. If Scaramucci has a direct line, then we are going to have parallel governments. [If] Scaramucci has to go through Kelly, then we are going to have something that resembles a reasonable chain of command… TUCKER CARLSON: Do you think [Gen. Kelly] will be able to do it? KRAUTHAMMER: I think he will. But in the end, it depends not on him, but on Trump. the success of the chief of staff is 90% whether he has the authority and confidence of the president and whether the president will listen to him. I'm rather pessimistic about that, but if anybody can do it it will be Kelly.
Retired Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said Thursday on Tucker Carlson Tonight that there is now evidence that then-Democratic National Chairwoman and current Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz used Imran Awan for "malevolent activities" and "manipulative things" against Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary race. Shaffer talked about Awan's other brothers who worked on Capitol Hill, family members fleeing the country to Pakistan, and that he got paid 3 times the average Congressional I.T. employee. FOX News reported on bank fraud by one of the brothers, how he double-billed the House of Representatives, and the possibility of "putting sensitive House information on the 'cloud' and potentially exposing it to outside sources." Awan was arrested at Dulles airport trying to leave the country. Entire transcript: LAURA INGRAHAM: What happens when a Congressional staffer with close ties to a top Democrat and access to sensitive hard drives gets caught wiring $300,000 to Pakistan and then is arrested trying to flee the country? Sounds like a pretty fascinating story. But if you're in the American media, they're not much interested. Former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz kept Imran Awan on her payroll for months, even as he was being investigated by the Capitol Police for a host of possible crimes. She even tried to hinder that investigation, but our intrepid press has shown little interest in the story. Tony Shaffer is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel, he joins us, and he has been following this case. This is wild. I watched CNN earlier today. I'm jetlagged, so I needed something that would put me to sleep temporarily. So I had it on, and the guy, I don't remember the reporter's name, but he reported it by saying "there were these conspiracy theories out there about this Debbie Wasserman Schultz staffer" who basically is just in trouble for some bad checks, for some bank fraud, it's just a conspiracy theory. Implying that people like you who have been covering this and have been looking into it are the conspiracy theorists. LT. COL. TONY SHAFFER, U.S. ARMY (RET): This is more like a Quentin Tarantino movie with everything except a gimp, and I think the gimp will show up… Look, this is complex, but let me try to simplify. Basically, Debbie Wasserman Schultz employed three brothers who are of Pakistani origin at three times the salary of everybody else who does I.T. on Capitol Hill. This all started years ago. INGRAHAM: They must be really good at their jobs. SHAFFER: Apparently, they failed at working at Best Buy and other places, so I guess if you fail at Best Buy you get to be hired by the Hill. INGRAHAM: Were they at Best Buy? SHAFFER: I can't remember which one, it was one of those outlets. Now, what happened though is that she has employed those folks, and over the past years, there's been real issues regarding the fact that every other Democrat person they worked for on the Hill fired them. But they were retained by her. Now, what is really key here to remember, Laura, is not about hard drives. It's about the fact that these individuals, during a time they worked for her on Capitol Hill, and her position as a member of Congress — INGRAHAM: Three brothers, Pakistani origin, which is not in and of itself a bad thing. SHAFFER: — had massive access to all databases to include e-mail of members of Congress, super user access to the system itself, and most importantly the sensitive information being held by the House Foreign Affairs Committee and other committees that they had access to. What this all comes down to is like, okay, you can have all that, but what gets worse is she actually employs these folks apparently to do hideous things behind the scenes. There is evidence now that a least one of these brothers was helping her do the Bernie Sanders malevolent activities, trying to manipulative things against him that actually helped her do things like voice change calls, they actually did all other things which and then — INGRAHAM: Who are these characters? Who are they? SHAFFER: And then they dumped — then there's evidence some of the information they had access to dumped off into a third database that's actually being called a breach. That's why the Capitol Hill Police rolled in saying there's something wrong here. Now the FBI has rolled in and let me give you the big take away here, it looks like a foreign intelligence service may be the recipient of all this. Something called the Muslim Brotherhood. INGRAHAM: Whoa, whoa, whoa. The Muslim Brotherhood and Debbie? They are really going to say it's a conspiracy theory now. SHAFFER: It's a conspiracy now, but that's apparently where all of this has been going. That's why the FBI has now been investigating. INGRAHAM: These brothers have been kicking around Capitol Hill in various capacities for IT, but they essentially were blacklisted by most of the other Democrats. Correct? SHAFFER: That's correct. INGRAHAM: Yet she gave him a home. Very interesting. SHAFFER: She gave them a home. And they actually suspended most of their access in February of this year and she kept them on anyway. INGRAHAM: She's just a very nice person. Apparently, it's a jobs program over there at the DNC. SHAFFER: $300,000 being kicked over to Pakistan finally was the straw that broke the camel's back. INGRAHAM: The wife is gone, she's safely over there in Pakistan.
Former House Speaker on whether Trump and Sessions can continue working together and the alleged rift in the White House between Anthony Scaramucci and Reince Priebus. Transcript, via FOX News: LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Thanks, Tucker. Real news. And Tucker will be back here tomorrow, and in the days ahead this show we'll have more as you said about America's deadliest criminal gang, and our special series hunting MS-13. But now for reaction to Tucker's interview with the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, we are joined by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Newt, what's frustrating is to watch Sessions down there in El Salvador, he's doing the work and advancing the agenda that Donald Trump won so startlingly on and so successfully on in November. He's very gentlemanly, very genteel, he's hurt by the comments. That a natural response. And compare that to this, this interview that Scaramucci gave to the New Yorker that is filled with expletives, trashing Steve Bannon who has beencarrying the conservative populist banner for years, loyal to this President. Trashing Reince Priebus who's been working really hard in the administration, regardless of what people say about how effective he is. That's just a study in contrast and also another example of an administration stepping on its good news and its message. And for a lot of my radio listeners, it's very frustrating. NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Well, I think it is frustrating. I think first of all to distinguish the two, in the case of Sessions and the President, I think the President is very deeply pained by things like his son-in-law and his son being taken into a witch-hunt which is what it really is. INGRAHAM: It's what it is. Yes. GINGRICH: And so, I think in that sense you are seeing a man who is thrashing around because of the pain level. But you'll notice, I think Sessions has taken a very mature way. I think Sessions is doing a great job at the Justice Department. Virtually every one of President Trump's major values at justice are being implemented by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. And my guess is, over that two or three months that will probably shake out and we'll work out. Today soap opera, yesterdays really, is unfortunate because, you know, Trump is trying to do a lot of really big things. And he's actually getting a lot of big things done. And the soap opera blocks you from seeing the big things. So, they had this huge victory on deregulation, repealing 16 regulations before we know regulations. But how can you see it with this kind of a soap opera going on? They had a relatively good statement today about the tax cuts, they want to move this fall. Those are vital to the economy, which matter to every American. But of course this totally is drowned by the soap opera. And, you know, my advice would be, let's go back to remembering the White House
should focus on actually solving real things, and people should work together and recognize that the primary opponents are outside the White House, they are not inside the White House. INGRAHAM: Is this not about the people of the country? This is about America. And Americans. GINGRICH: And we need happy Americans. Ronald Reagan always understood that. I will go back to Reagan, and maybe that's not fair, but I came to Washington in 1987 to work for President Reagan. And the idealism and the resolute nature of the way he went about his business, he wasn't perfect, had some scandals, but in the West Wing there was a sense of, I don't know, even with the rivalries, there is a sense of purpose. There is a sense of we were in this together. And when it's such a public feud versus keeping it inside the family, and Scaramucci was out there saying, well, you know, I'm a straight shooter, well, yes, sometimes these fights are better settled behind closed doors rather than in public. I mean, I'm sorry, but to go after Steve Bannon and say, he's there in the White House until 11:00 every night, or wherever he is because he is trying to build his brand? Bannon does need to build his brand. He's trying to help the country and help Trump. And I think this, I'm sorry, I like Scaramucci, I think he is really talented, but this episode is humiliating to the President. I think it ultimately humiliates him. It does not serve the communication of this agenda well. I'm probably going to take them off by saying it, but I say it out of deep love and affection. He's not helping his agenda at all. GINGRICH: It raises the question about what do we mean by communication? INGRAHAM: What is the communications director's job? GINGRICH: That's right. INGRAHAM: What was Pat Buchanan's job? GINGRICH: Yes. First of all, most communications directors appear on television. Most communications directors are directing — INGRAHAM: But he says he doesn't want to be on TV. He says, he doesn't want the limelight. He made that point in an interview. In an interview. GINGRICH: That's right. And so, most communications directors who are successful spend their time recognizing that the White House has enormous assets. It is all the cabinet officers. It has all of its outside allies. It has people that are spokespersons on various media shows. And the communications directors job ought to be to orchestrate a strategy to maximize getting what the President wants to get done. And if you take, for example, the tax cuts. These are enormously important to this administration. They may be the key to the 2018 election. Now, they are to be spending 80 or 90 percent of their time building that coalition to make sure the tax cuts get through by Thanksgiving. Every time we get into one of these soap operas, you take away energy, you weaken the team — INGRAHAM: Is it demoralizing to the people inside the government? GINGRICH: Of course it is. Look, if this was a football team and you end up fighting in the huddle, it's not helpful. I mean — INGRAHAM: But Bobby Knight was a successful basketball coach, I happen to be a big Bobby Knight fan. He humiliated people but he got the best out of them. GINGRICH: Right. INGRAHAM: Someone compared him to, you know, maybe that's what Trump is trying to do, because Trump must have green lit all of this. Scaramucci wouldn't have done this unless Trump — I don't know. GINGRICH: Now, look — INGRAHAM: I hope not. GINGRICH: I'm not going to draw a line between what Scaramucci did and what the President did. I think the President you can make an argument that in the Lombardi, Bobby Knight tradition, he's very rough-and-tumble but he really forces people to perform. INGRAHAM: Right. GINGRICH: And he really gets an amazing amount of people. INGRAHAM: Yes. GINGRICH: And he's also frankly prepared to change people. Look at the campaign where they went through several campaign managers. You know, Trump in that sense is very hard driving. He doesn't think that his success is a — INGRAHAM: He can do that himself, Newt. Right? GINGRICH: Right. INGRAHAM: He can change the staff himself. He doesn't have to send out a hit man to bruise up people until they — GINGRICH: My advice to people like Priebus and Bannon is, do your job. INGRAHAM: Yes. GINGRICH: Don't get involved in some fight. To do your job. Get up every day, serve the country, help the President. And I think that's the order, by the way. You serve the country, and you help the President. If the President wants you to leave, you know, you are two corridors down. It's not hard to communicate with that. INGRAHAM: That's what Sessions attitude. GINGRICH: Yes. And I think Sessions has exactly the right attitude. He's not going to get sucked into the soap opera. He is going to the Justice Department, he is going to implement the values that he and Trump agree on. INGRAHAM: And Sarah Huckabee Sanders was on Martha's show last hour and she said she basically hopes that Scaramucci cleans up his act. But she was very diplomatic in the way that she is set-up. But I think she is acquitting herself with great grace and under the circumstances. Speaker Gingrich, thanks very much.