If you haven’t disagreed with conservative author, Ann Coulter, you’re probably one of her biggest fans or aren’t part of the political mainstream. For the past two decades, the 13-time New York Times bestselling author has been at the forefront of major political discussions, bringing a fearlessness that often means making observations that conflict with conventional wisdom and that are, at times, eerily prescient.
She was one of the first to experience the trendy, albeit tone deaf, scoffing at the idea that then-candidate Donald Trump would achieve the stunning victory he did in the 2016 presidential election — a shocking political event, by the way, that Coulter prefaced by valorizing him in her book “In Trump We Trust.”
Despite what that title suggests, however, Coulter’s faith in Trump hasn’t been blind. She’s sharply criticized the president for personnel choices, failing to fulfill his campaign promise of building a southern border wall, and, among other things, the gold fixtures characteristic of his private jet and penthouse.
But in her latest book, “Resistance is Futile: How the Trump-Hating Left Lost Its Collective Mind,” Coulter humorously defends the president in a way that will likely rally her conservative readers to the president’s side. Before calling for an end to the current media environment, Coulter meticulously details the ways in which major outlets like CNN and The New York Times made a mountain out of the mole hill of evidence surrounding the Russia investigation.
While speaking with IJR, Coulter discussed how media outlets furthered the “Russian collusion” narrative which, her book argues, was bogus from the start. She also answered questions about social media censorship, abortion and the Supreme Court, Trump-accuser Stormy Daniels, and, of course, her favorite topic: immigration.
Listen to the full interview below:
IJR has included a transcript of excerpts from her answers below:
Whether she read Chuck Todd’s op-ed calling for the media to “fight back”:
“No, I saw the headline and I laughed and that’s all I needed to know.”
Traditional versus online media:
“The media does not want competition for their lies and boy are they getting it with the internet. […] Nobody under 50 gets news in the traditional way. People hear, ‘Oh, there’s a story about some shooting in Ferguson.’ They don’t turn on MSNBC or NBC or ABC to find out what happened. They go to the internet and this has been very, very, very bad for the left — for people to be able to get the truth.”
Whether social media platforms should be regulated:
Michael Cohen/Getty Images
“Well, I think they should have to live under the First Amendment. It sounds worse when you put it like that — be regulated — it sounds like you know, net neutrality and some government body. No, we have a fully-developed body of law around the First Amendment. These are monopolies — you could treat them like public utilities but I don’t think that’s necessary. All that’s necessary is to say, ‘This is a public forum. You can’t throw people off unless they are inciting immediate, imminent lawbreaking or, particularly, violence. And none of that is what people are being thrown off for.'”
“Take what many conservatives are running away from because fine fine Alex Jones isn’t your cup of tea. A conspiracy theory isn’t fighting words. Americans always have a conspiracy theories out there, but the approach of America — set for us by our founding fathers and for 200 years — is you combat false facts with true facts. You combat a conspiracy theory because we believe in free speech and the competition of ideas and the truth rises to the top. But if we’re comparing conspiracy theories, for Pete’s sake, Spike Lee has conspiracy theories, he wins awards for his conspiracy theories. Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell with their Bush put dynamite in the World Trade Center. Conspiracy theories are rife in America. They get shot down through freedom of speech.
That’s really as far as I know Alex Jone’s appeal is more to like young, white gamer gate boys. He may not be my cup of tea, although I do find him funny at times […] The way he’s being treated like he’s David Duke — No, this isn’t America.”
Chris Kleponis-Pool/Getty Images
“They’re starting with the cases that they know the National Review types will say, ‘Oh well, we don’t mind that. Well, it’s a private corporation.’ I don’t know why it should matter to anyone. It certainly doesn’t matter to me whether it’s the government taking away my freedom of speech or it is a social media monopoly. My speech is squelched, nonetheless.
And their big argument: ‘Oh, you know start your own social media platform.’ Well, okay. Gab did and now their bank has pulled out on them. The hosting company that hosts their servers is dumping them. What are you going to do? Lay your own fiber in the ground so that you can create a backup server or any server at all? Are you going create your own bank to do this? I mean it’s just unbelievable how they’re coming after free speech.”
“What I loved about Trump, the reason it was one of his greatest moments as president, was what he said — ‘good people on both sides and bad people on both sides’ — was obviously, absolutely, 100 percent correct. And the media was upset because Trump wouldn’t say exactly what they wanted him to say. Facts do not matter, reality does not matter, you have to say what the media wants you to say when they want you to say it. And it’s been so easy for them to push around every other Republican in the past […] They’re bullies, they like pushing people around and they can’t push Trump around. He wouldn’t agree to say something counterfactual just because the media was being hysterical.”
Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings:
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
“Just watching these Kavanaugh hearings this week, one thing that was odd that I don’t think anyone else really noticed […] when [Republicans would] ask him about rulings of his, they would specifically find the rulings where he sounded most liberal — you know, where he was taking the criminal’s side. Well, ok sure that’s what the law commanded in those cases but their effort is to show liberals how liberal he is. I don’t believe when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was up, the Democrats were looking for the decisions in which she was the most conservative. No, we’re always paying obeisance to the liberal media and ‘oh no, I have these liberal views’ […] it’s showing the overwhelming power of the media to back people down.”
Comparisons between Robert Mueller’s investigation and the ones into former Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon:
Alex Wong/Getty Images
“I had so many mainstream media journalists — I do have some friends who are liberal journalists — and they said to me, completely sincerely, ‘You got to explain to me why this is different than Clinton.’ And that’s why I included this chapter — both to contrast it with Clinton and then Nixon. But the history of independent counsels has been just to annoy Republican presidents — to try to keep them from being elected, to keep them tied up so they can’t do what they were elected to do […] But the only independent counsel in history who caught a sitting president committing felonies in office, and serious felonies — serious enough that the entire Supreme Court boycotted Bill Clinton’s next State of Union address with him suborning perjury, perjuring himself in a private citizen’s civil rights lawsuit against him that was obviously legitimate, upheld by all nine Supreme Court justices. That was Ken Starr going after Bill Clinton. That was the only one. That’s the one they hate.
So in Ken Starr’s case — and there are other details that are worth mentioning there. He didn’t start with White Water and then just leap off and do an investigation of Clinton’s private life […] By the time Ken Starr was assigned by Attorney General Janet Reno and a three-judge court to investigate President Clinton for committing felonies in office, Clinton had committed as president, about a half dozen felonies — serious felonies that challenged the whole concept of the rule of law.
In Nixon’s case, people forget […] The night the plumbers were caught breaking into the Democratic headquarters, on one of the plumbers was [former Nixon aide] Howard Hunt’s phone number — which is why I say in my comparison to the whole thing — it would be as if they caught the Russians red-handed breaking into the DNC to hack the emails and one of the Russians has Steve Bannon’s phone number in his pocket. The next day, they’d search the White House office of Howard Hunt. From day one, the break-in at the DNC led directly back to the White House. And, it was a real crime — I mean espionage and spying, like I say, the Democrats did it all day long but Nixon was a Republican. Ok, so you got a real crime that is tied directly to the White House.
What do they have with Trump? What they have is their own hysteria. They have no evidence any place of a crime. And other than going back into the lives of Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen and digging up crimes that have absolutely nothing to do with Trump, nothing to do with the campaign. All of the crimes he’s getting are process crimes — lying to investigators. And I’m not suggesting that you should ever lie to investigators but these are crimes that exist only because of the investigation.”
Claims that Trump obstructed justice:
“It can’t just be — well it certainly isn’t lying to The New York Times or lying to the media. No, that’s not obstruction of justice. Sorry media, you’re not that important yet. But you have to be frustrating the finding of truth in some legal violation. So, if there’s no underlying legal violation, then there can be no obstruction of justice […] Everything they’re describing as obstruction of justice is something that is a power of the president — that President Trump has every right to do under the Constitution, and often under specific statutes. He is fully empowered as the president and the sole possessor of executive power to fire Mueller, to fire any of his political appointees, fire [Deputy Attorney General Rod] Rosenstein, to fire [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions if he wants to and I certainly hope he doesn’t.”
The Parkland survivors:
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
“As much as our hearts go out to the families, I mean it’s got to be unimaginable pain, no one would want to be in their shoes. Yes of course, of course our hearts break for them, but that doesn’t give them the right to tell us what the public policy should be because we want to prevent other families from having to grieve this way. And it is really sleazy the way the left is always, always, always sending out victims to make their argument. If they have a good argument for ending the school-to-prison pipeline, then you know let’s have it one on one.”
“The left’s argument coming out of these bush-league education schools where all they learn about is white privilege is that the reason people who commit, who are thugs in kindergarten, junior high school, and high school — beating up their classmates, beating up teachers, committing crimes in school — the reason they end up in prison later is that they get reported for what they do when they’re school kids. And if we just don’t report those crimes then they’ll be fine and they’ll go off to MIT and invent cold fusion.
Well, no. Any sane person — this is primitive thinking — any sane person knows the reason they end up thugs as adults is because they were thugs as children. Thugs, thugs, see? So, Nikolas Cruz the shooter in that case had committed felonies on school property, was reported, there were people calling in saying this guy is a school shooter waiting to go off, called the FBI — the FBI was busy investigating Trump and Russia — it’s just an insane […] idea that if we don’t report the crimes of juvenile delinquents, well then they won’t later go to prison. No, it turns out they’ll commit school shootings.”
Panic over possibly overturning Roe v. Wade:
SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
“If we overruled Roe v. Wade tomorrow, abortion until probably like age 37 will always be legal in the state of New York. It will always be legal in the state of California. What will happen is there will be a few states that will ban it outright. I mean other than in the case of life of the mother and really life, not ‘I’m depressed because I can’t fit into my prom dress’ — that’s one of the tricks the left has pulled — ‘for healthcare reasons.’ There will be a few states — probably Utah, Alabama, Mississippi — a few states that will do that.
So, oh my gosh you’d have to drive two hours to get yourself an abortion. The vast majority of states I suspect will just have a lot more restrictions like no abortions in the last trimester […] so no more abortion other than of course rape, incest, and life of the mother. More people are killed in Chicago on a Friday night than are killed as a result of rape, incest, and life of the mother. And you’ll have parental notifications, spousal notifications — things like that — make sure that the abortion clinics are safe so that women and the children aren’t being butchered. You’ll have all kinds of more reasonable regulations like that in the vast majority of states and we’ll see how it goes in the states that ban it outright […] So, there’s no reason for liberal women to be terrified is what my point is. And that’s why the Supreme Court — I think they would have the sense — this will be more acceptable to the nation. Let’s just do this slowly.”
Sanctuary cities and 2018 Midterms:
CBS SF Bay Area/YouTube
“I really hope [Trump] does something big on immigration — maybe unleash Attorney General Sessions to go after sanctuary cities and hold the mayors and governors in sanctuary states, hold them liable as aiding and abetting felonies, which they are. Sanctuary cities is such a winning issue, such a winning issue. I mean it is one thing for liberals to be telling us about all of the valedictorian illegals. Ok, but these are illegals who have committed felonies and you’re fighting to keep them here as they’re going about killing more Americans? It’s madness. It is a beautiful issue and Trump has got to do something more than just talk about this stuff.”
Acknowledging Trump’s flaws:
“An awful lot of our side is a little hysterical and just as overwrought, as the Resistance is in defending Trump as the Resistance is in attacking Trump. As for during the campaign, I can’t tell you how many times — I mean I was a wild, enthusiastic Trump supporter; I introduced him in Iowa a few weeks after he announced, I brought all of my Hollywood friends to hear him […] I would do it all over again. I would write “In Trump We Trust” all over again. At least he’s saying things. He may not be fully following through and I do have to swat him on the nose with a newspaper every once in a while. But so many times I would sit down with either Republicans or Democrats and they would go through with me all of his flaws. I’d just start laughing and say, ‘No, no, no, no. You don’t understand. I am perfectly clear-eyed about the kind of man we’re talking about.’
One of the things I’m not wild about about the president is I’m from Connecticut consider it kind of declasse to brag about your wealth. Well, Trump never got that memo. So, if you’re going to go around bragging about how rich you are all the time and hanging around all these reality TV stars and the playboy bunnies who are showing up at whatever — the professional wrestling stuff — you’re probably going to get sued by a lot of grifters. All you’re doing is talking about how rich you are. I bet there are a lot of nuisance lawsuits and $130,000 is chump change for a guy worth — ok, let’s say liberals are right, it’s not $11 billion and it’s only $1 billion — $130,000 is chump change. I do sort of think that Trump is not the kind of idiot who would have an affair with these women but he might be the kind of idiot who wants people to think he had an affair with these women.”
Editor’s Note: This story has been updated for clarity.