Parkland student discusses his meeting with President Trump

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," March 9, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JASON CHAFFETZ, HOST: Good evening from New York. I'm Jason Chaffetz in for Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle."

There are many big developing stories tonight, after agreeing to meet with North Korea's Kim Jong-un, how should President Trump avoid walking into a trap? We will get expert insight.

Plus, a Florida school shooting survivor joins us to discuss his meeting with the president yesterday and to explain why he is not on the gun control bandwagon.

An actor and congressional candidate, Antonio Sabato Jr. joins us from California to discuss Hollywood's hypocrisy on the NRA and guns.

But we begin with news that will only intensify the battle over illegal immigration. After the president blasted her as a disgrace yesterday, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf is defending her decision to warn illegal immigrants of a recent ICE raid targeting violent criminals.

The Democrat tried to present her defiance federal law and potentially obstructing justice as somehow normal, which it most certainly is not.


MAYOR LIBBY SCHAAF, OAKLAND: Throughout this journey with this new administration, we are navigating the complicated power relationship between local, state, and federal governments. And that's part of the beauty of our Constitution, that's part of the beauty of our democratic form of government.


CHAFFETZ: It's not that complicated. But her case for harboring illegal immigrants was further undercut by deadly developments in Denver.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice-over): Inside those flames is a 57-year-old man trapped inside the cab of his semi-truck, hit by a suspected drunk driver. Denver police say Ivan Zamarripa-Castaneda ran from the crash leaving the driver to die. Authorities say the 26-year-old is also in the U.S. illegally.

U.S. Immigration and Customs agents want to deport him back to Mexico, but the Denver Sheriff's Department in charge of the jail is refusing to detain him should he post the $25,000 bond telling Fox News that unless ICE gets a federal criminal warrant it, quote, "will not honor civil detainers as it is considered unconstitutional."


CHAFFETZ: Let's discuss all this with immigration attorney, Allen Ohr, who is joining us from Washington. Allen, thank you for coming in this beautiful evening.

ALLEN OHR, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: Thank you for having me.

CHAFFETZ: You are a very accomplished immigration attorney. When you see these stories and hear about this, what's wrong with trying to protect Americans by taking people that are not only here illegally, but that are committing crimes, criminal element. What I would love to have in the few minutes we have together is talking about the criminal element, the criminals. Not everybody, just out criminals.

OHR: I just think that criminals is such a small part of the large group that you are trying to isolate and even with the case that you sort of spoke about tonight with the dui, the hit and run sort of case, the fact that he is an immigrant had nothing to do with the actual accident. It's a tragedy and we understand that, but the fact that he is undocumented didn't have much to do with that.

CHAFFETZ: But doesn't it have everything to do with it if he is indeed here illegally and he indeed committed that crime, don't you believe that that crime would have never happened if we had actually locked down the border and he never came across our borders illegally?

OHR: That's absolutely preposterous because as we all know hit and runs are on the incline all over the United States so --

CHAFFETZ: But if that person is not in the United States, if he is not here in the first place, you are telling me that he still would have committed that crime in Denver if he didn't --

OHR: -- absolutely. That's a fallacy to say that if all people who are undocumented were not here, we would not have hit and runs. So, of course, there would be hit and runs --

CHAFFETZ: I didn't say there wouldn't be any hit and runs. I'm saying that person, if he did do it, wouldn't have killed that other person who died in that truck accident.

OHR: That's a possibility of extremities that I really can't --

CHAFFETZ: A possibility? That's a reality for that family. Is it not?

OHR: Once again, it is an absolute tragedy of what happened to the family in that incident, but a hit and run is nothing specific to immigration itself specifically.

CHAFFETZ: It is if the person that committed it is here illegally.

OHR: Right. So, we are actually a little bit past that because we want to sort of talk about the detainer and why the courts aren't turning him over because he has a constitutional issue to actually be charged and why civil detainers don't really work.

And so, what we are sort to hear is listening to it that the court has told you Colorado is telling you that it is unconstitutional for them to hold them if he makes bond --

CHAFFETZ: I'm not buying into that argument, by the way.

OHR: Well, it's a constitutional argument. It's about law and order in this country. Therefore, since we are going to uphold the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment requires that if they want to hold him, they need to give him a criminal detainer not a civil one.

CHAFFETZ: Wait a second, even just last week, I think it was Jennings versus Rodriguez in the Ninth Circuit determined that you can detain somebody if they are here illegally, you can detain them.

OHR: That's the confusion of the circumstances. Not an issue if you can detain them. It's how long you can detain them, which is a due process and constitutional issue.

CHAFFETZ: The Supreme Court.

OHR: But the Supreme Court did not say you could hold them indefinitely. What the Supreme Court said was that they didn't agree with the reading that California said that it would be six months and --

CHAFFETZ: Now I know you are not the attorney in this case, but based on the facts that we are seeing in the news report. Do you think the Denver sheriff should hold this person and let ICE know that he is there so that they can detain him rather than releasing him out into the streets of Colorado?

OHR: Well, I believe the international news in the newspapers, ICE knows that he is there, right? I mean, so that's really not the issue, does ICE know that he is there. So, the issue is really --

CHAFFETZ: They station somebody outside the door? Do you think Denver sheriff has an obligation duty when they are asking, ICE is asking to have him detained, do you think they should do that or not do that?

OHR: Well, Denver has asked them to give them the criminal reason for why they should detain him, which is a constitutional right, so without giving that information, they are absolutely correct.

CHAFFETZ: ICE is saying we have reason to believe. We have probable cause.

OHR: There are 11 million people that are here undocumented. It's a civil penalty. It is not a criminal detention. So, it's not a matter of having each and every person. So, what you are sort of saying is you are going to pick everybody up and put them where?

OHR: No, I'm talking about the criminal element. Again, 80,000 times under President Obama, there were people that were here illegally committed another crime, got convicted of those crimes, and rather than deporting them, they released them back out into the United States. Do you think that's a problem?

OHR: What exact crimes are we talking about?

CHAFFETZ: Everything from homicides --

OHR: -- talking about civil penalties or drugs?

CHAFFETZ: It shouldn't matter.

OHR: It shouldn't matter? Really it shouldn't matter?

CHAFFETZ: It's everything from homicide to rape to DUIs?

OHR: I think that's the extreme end of it. It could also be a traffic violation, a speeding ticket. Those rare anomalies that you wish --

CHAFFETZ: They are not rare anomalies to the people who are killed or maimed or the victims of these crimes. Why should we tolerate even one of them?

OHR: -- or any other I want where the person is a U.S. citizen, those things are still anomalies, right?

CHAFFETZ: I'm not talking about anomalies. I'm talking about people illegally here that credit crimes. Once they are incarcerated, they are being detained why not deport them? What is the case to say it's better interest of public safety to release them back out into the United States?

OHR: OK. So, that is not exactly what Colorado said. What Colorado said was please give us the criminal reason why we should detain him, not a civil reason, and we will do so. What is so hard for the federal government to provide the state with the appropriate information to meet the constitutional burden to hold someone beyond the national time.

CHAFFETZ: I'm telling you during the Obama administration, there were 80,000 times where criminal aliens were detained and then they had a choice, America had a choice, President Obama and his Justice Department decided to -- and his Homeland Security Department release them rather than support them.

OHR: I understand that, but that's history. So, we are not talking about the Obama administration. We are in the Trump administration and a year into that --

CHAFFETZ: Donald Trump is trying to do the right thing and you got the mayor of Oakland saying, no, we don't have any -- you shouldn't help and the legislature in California is saying you shouldn't cooperate.

OHR: We are talking about the Constitution. We are talking about Constitution unfairly detaining someone on a civil penalty, right? Why can't the federal government provide the appropriate documents to meet the standard that the state needs to detain the person? That's a very simple thing to do.

CHAFFETZ: They can detain them. But you know what, you have places like California and sanctuary cities where they choose to just release them rather than cooperating with ICE --

OHR: That is not what California decided to do. That is not what the mayor did. The mayor did not go to individual people and say, look, ICE is coming for you. The mayor said, here to the general public, please beware that this is taking place, do not be afraid no. Need to run and hide. Like a public announcement. Just like anything else that ever happened --

CHAFFETZ: No, it was a call to go run and hide. It was ICE, hey, guess what, we are coming after the criminals, and if you have got something coming for you, guess what, ICE is coming your way and they did hide.

OHR: There were 121 arrests during this raid.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, and they missed a couple hundred other ones.

OHR: But what crimes have these people actually committed and what are you doing with them?

CHAFFETZ: We will give you a list. Listen. Thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate the discussion. Even President Trump's critics are now praising his diplomatic coo with North Korea. Could the U.S. still be walking into a trap? That debate in a moment.


CHAFFETZ: President Trump's bold decision to become the first sitting president to meet with the North Korean leader is drawing praise even from his critics.


DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: Does Trump get credit for pushing North Koreans to make concessions such as suspension of testing. The answer, I think, is maybe he does.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Engagement is good. I have been calling for direct talks for more than a year and so that is a positive development.

ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: President Trump can truly solve this problem. That would be going down as a great president. There is no way around that that is the reality here.


CHAFFETZ: Many in the media have also warned the president is potentially walking into a trap, but the administration is assuring everyone they are not letting their guard down.


MIKE PENCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As the president said, progress something made, a meeting is being planned, but the world should know this, North Korea should know this. All options are on the table and we will continue to apply maximum pressure until North Korea abandons its nuclear program once and for all.


CHAFFETZ: President Trump weighed in this evening with a tweet, "The deal with North Korea is very much in the making and will be, if completed, a very good one for the world. Time and place to be determined."

Let's discuss how the president should proceed with Larry Korb of the Center for American progress and Fox News foreign policy analyst, Kiron Skinner. Thank you both for being here. We really do appreciate it. What are the perils? What are the problems? What are the challenges? And you know, what mine fields potentially lay out there, Larry?

LARRY KORB, SENIOR FELLOW, AMERICAN PROGRESS: Well, I think the real question is, what are your preconditions and what will happen when you make a deal if you do. For example, let's say Kim agrees to give up all of his nuclear weapons. The question is how are you going to verify that?

It takes a couple years to set up an inspection regime as we saw in Iran and even then, the president doesn't think it's that good. North Korea is much more difficult to inspect. What will you do if you don't come to an agreement? Then what next?

Because Kim has been legitimized, I mean, this is a ruthless dictator who does horrible things to his own people, and now you have met with him, something he has been trying with the last four presidents who turned him down, so he walks away with something.

I think those, you should have thought of that, and even today they kept sending different messages, some preconditions. No preconditions. You know, what's your plan? Normally, when you have heads of state meet, you have negotiators ahead of time work out things.

CHAFFETZ: But you do believe that the president is doing the right thing and that he should actually take this meeting.

KORB: Yes, I think he should. I think he needs to do it in the right way and lessen the risks.

CHAFFETZ: Now Kyron, what's your take on this? Is the president doing the right thing here?

KIRON SKINNER, FOX NEWS FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST: I think so and I disagree with Larry Korb with the way he has presented it. I don't think the dangers and pit falls exist as much as many of the detractors are trying to say for this particular reason.

At least since 1992, we have had discussions going on with the North Koreans at lower levels of the U.S. government. They ended up in an inconclusive way because we are dealing with authoritarian regime. Really a totalitarian leadership, it's important that the top of the U.S. government be involved in the initial discussions with the North Korean leader.

So, what looks unconventional, I think really reflects the reality of the failed policy of more than a couple of decades. And we're going in to this, maybe there are different messages coming out of Washington and out of North Korea as a result of this, you know, unusual announcement and unusual approach.

But the fact remains that the U.S. remains committed to degrading North Korea. It's going in with a history behind its back and having learned lessons of all failures of negotiations in the past.

CHAFFETZ: Larry, how do you -- why do you think we even got to this position? I mean, it seems that the one thing that has changed is President Trump. He has actually taken a very aggressive stance. He has used unconventional communication, if you will. Don't you -- do you give some credence to that or is there any belief that that is actually what drove the North Koreans to the table?

KORB: Well, I think there is two things. One, he has reached a point where he is ready to go nuclear. Since President Trump has come in, he has had 22 tests, various things. So, he is where he wants to be. And the question becomes now what next?

And if he is willing to give this up, even if you can verify the question what is he going to want in return? Is he going to ask us to take our troops out of South Korea for example? Those are questions that we need to think about before we get in there. Kiron is right.

I mean, we've had negotiation that haven't worked, but even again, you don't want the president to go in and make a mistake because it's not like a lower level person making a mistake if he does it, then it's very hard to undo.

CHAFFETZ: Kiron, does it matter where this happens? I mean, the optics are such a big part of this, but you really want to get to the substance of what's happening. Where should they do this?

SKINNER: I don't think it really matters, but it would be, I think appropriate and interesting to do it on the Korean Peninsula. I think it would send a major signal to the Asian partners if it happened there. But let me speak to the point about the president and making mistakes.

The president is not going into negotiations with Kim Jong-un. He is going in to discussions and talks. And if you go back to the Reagan administration, there was no possibility of getting the first nuclear disarmament agreement of the cold war had it not been for Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev building a personal relationship and talking and Reagan talking with other Russian leaders, such as (inaudible) during those years.

I think we have got to also give the president a kind of wide latitude here because he is just going to talk and begin to lay the groundwork for the negotiations that will follow.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, but Reagan never did it without George Schultz and Wineberger. Tillerson said yesterday he didn't think we ought to have negotiations. That same day the president contradicted him. That's what I worry about. What kind of message are we sending? It's not unified.

CHAFFETZ: I think this is a positive step forward. I thank you both for your expertise on this topic. We hope to have you back and again, thank you for joining us tonight.

We have update out of California coming out of our Los Angeles bureau. There has been a hostage situation we have been reporting on Fox News and we have Will Carr, who is in our Los Angeles bureau to give us an update.

WILL CARR, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: And, Jason, we have just learned from our correspondent, Adam Housley, from two different members of law enforcement that all of the people who were being held hostage are now dead, including the gunman as well.

Evidently, according to our Adam Housley, the numbers are a little fluid with this, but it does sound like it's been a tragic ending to a long day there on the ground. We will take you back. This started around 10:00 a.m. this morning when a man walked in to the largest veterans' home in the country armed with a gun.

He walked in to a ding room. There was a party going on. He let some people leave. But he held a number of hostages. That led to police swarming the area. They shut everything down. There was a SWAT standoff. There was a hostage negotiation. They tried to negotiate.

We know that they could not get in touch with the gunman for a long time and now, again, our Adam Housley reporting that the gunman is dead and at least two of the hostages dead as well. They are trying to figure out if, indeed, there was a third hostage as we have been reporting throughout the course of the day -- Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Will Carr coming from California some tragic news. Thanks for your report. We appreciate it.

Stay with us, because newly released audiotapes raise new questions about the police response to the Stoneman Douglas school shooting. A student survivor who personally met with the president, President Trump, yesterday joins us with his reaction next.


CHAFFETZ: The deputy who lost his job for not confronting the Florida school shooter apparently did not tell the truth about his response. Deputy Scott Peterson claimed he thought the shots were coming from outside the building, but a radio recording released by the Broward County Sheriff's Department indicates Peterson knew the shots were coming from inside the building.


CHAFFETZ: The deadly shooting that killed 17 people is leaving stupidity from around the country to push for more gun control. But one student from Stoneman Douglas High School is launching his own effort to prevent school shootings. Kyle Kashuv discussed his ideas with President Trump yesterday and he is joining us this evening. Thanks so much for being here.


CHAFFETZ: What was it like to meet the president and first lady?

KASHUV: It was quite amazing. They were so outgoing and welcoming and really responsive.

CHAFFETZ: Did he know the subject? What did he ask about?

KASHUV: Of course, he knew the subject. We talked about what (inaudible) about my subject and what I thought was best to do.

CHAFFETZ: Now when you see and hear these recordings, I mean, I can't imagine going through this and I'm sorry, you know, as a young man that had you to go through this but when you hear those recordings, and you know that there was somebody armed with a gun there at the facility. What runs through your mind when you hear that recording?

KASHUV: Look, it's absolutely terrible that they let the students in the building be sitting ducks while he had an armed weapon. He could have went inside and he let the shooter roam free in the halls knowingly. He waited for everyone to simply just die in the building only then to enter. That's really heart-breaking.

CHAFFETZ: What do you want to see happen? What do you think should happen next?

KASHUV: I think the stop prevention for violence act is extremely -- would have prevented this completely and I'm really proud to say it's a bipartisan effort. Got 15 Democrats and 15 Republicans in favor of it who signed on.

CHAFFETZ: Have you been on Capitol Hill and met with Senator Hatch. Who else did you meet with?

KASHUV: Senator Rubio, Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Murphy as well as Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

CHAFFETZ: You have the a-list. That's good. What did you tell him? Give me the quick pitch. What did you tell him you need to do?

KASHUV: I talked about every single one of my concerns on the Second Amendment and what we had to do to protect it. I specifically sat down with Chris Murphy and we discussed what had to be done. Although we disagreed on gun control, we did, the senator -- we did find a common ground. I think that was most important in that we represented that there was a bipartisan effort to make a change. There issues both the left and right can agree on.

CHAFFETZ: Where is the common ground? Where do you see that there is actual agreement?

KASHUV: I think the hard bill specifically shows.

CHAFFETZ: What does it do? What does it say?

KASHUV: It basically hardens students and schools and gives funding for technological advancements and makes sure we are safe. Increases communications between school and law enforcement. Makes corrective prevention to make sure that we can properly register students who have mentally ill or having like mental issues that might act out.

CHAFFETZ: And the governor of Florida, Governor Scott signed a bill today into legislation. Do you agree with that bill?

KASHUV: There was one thing that stood out to me and big concern because right now we have people in the military serving age 18 serving and defending our country. However, we don't protect our citizens legal age to vote and have the mental cognitive ability to vote to have the same weaponry. I think that's really hypocritical.

CHAFFETZ: So, you don't believe there should be two different thresholds where you can actually purchase a gun. Should that age be higher or lower?

KASHUV: I think right now if a voter is able to vote at 18. That means they've register. They have a cognitive ability and proper cognitive development to do so, and if they have that cognitive ability then they should have the same rights as any other adults.

CHAFFETZ: Now there is also some proposed legislation or thoughts on legislation should be able to go out and get some sort of restraining order on people that can't distinguish right from wrong. Are you supportive or not supportive of that?

KASHUV: I'm really supportive in making sure that people who have mental disorders and not mentally stable, cannot acquire a weaponry because at the end of the day, bad guy, if you are not mentally stable you shouldn't have a gun.

CHAFFETZ: And you're developing an app to help with this, do you have a name for it yet?

KASHUV: Yes, sir. It's called the reach out app. What we are doing is allowing students from the same school develop emotional connection and solve their emotional issues in school without any federal government funding.

CHAFFETZ: It's great the state of Utah is doing that as well. And there is an app out there.

KASHUV: Eight-six lives saved.

CHAFFETZ: Eight-six lives saved with this app in Utah. And I hope they duplicate it around the country. I'm sorry that you and your young friends, you're too young to have to have gone through this, but thank you so much for being here.

KASHUV: Thank you.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you.

In a related development the NRA immediately filed suit today to block a new gun control law just signed by governor of Florida, Governor Scott.


GOV. RICK SCOTT, R-FLORIDA: So after reviewing the entire bill I had to ask myself, would this bill make a huge investment and dramatically improve school safety in hopes of never seeing another tragedy like this again? Will this bill provide more funding to treat the mentally ill? Will this bill give far more tools to keep guns away from people who should not have them? The answer to all three is yes.


CHAFFETZ: Not everyone thinks the answer is yes. Joining me from Orlando is Republican Congressman Ron DeSantis. Ron and I served in the United States Congress together. We were on the same oversight committee as well as the Judiciary Committee. He is also now running for the governor of Florida. So Congressman DeSantis, thanks so much for joining us.


CHAFFETZ: So the governor signed a bill. Would you, if you were elected governor, would you have signed that bill?

DESANTIS: I think I would have approached it a little bit different. I think certainly the school security I think is long overdue. The money for mental health and being able to identify these individuals who are dangerous so that they are not able to possess weapons, I think all of those are good.

I think when you start getting into some of the blanket restrictions on people's second amendment rights, I think that that is constitutionally vulnerable. I think those lawsuits are probably going to succeed. I mean, think about it. You have an enumerated right in the Bill of Rights. There is really no precedent to just do a blanket ban on certain adults. We wouldn't say that if you are 18 to 20 you don't have a fourth amendment right and police could search your house without a warrant. We wouldn't say that they could seize your property without just compensation if the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply.

So I think that was problematic. I don't think that provision will actually prevent any gun crimes. But here's the thing, and you know more than anybody in dealing on the oversight. We worked together for years, this between the locals and Broward County, and between the federal with the FBI was the most catastrophic failure of government that I have witnessed since I have been in the Congress or when I served in the military.

You guys mentioned the different warnings that were given on the scene. Obviously they went to the guy's house 23 times. They had ample opportunity to arrest him. They didn't do it. We then got a briefing this week in Washington from the FBI. Not only did they get a great tip in January. Not only did they get a tip the previous year, 2017, in Mississippi. The caller in 2018 who took it to the FBI actually connected the two to the Mississippi one. So they knew this guy was dangerous, and they made the decision not even to alert the local authorities.

And so we can argue about different laws. The fact is the laws that were on the books were sufficient to prevent this had government done its job.

CHAFFETZ: Now one of the provisions in there is to, in Florida, and it's available in other states, for instance, in Utah, there are teachers and school officials who can carry weapons. Are you in favor of that? Do you think that would help?

DESANTIS: I would not mandate any teachers to carry or administrators. What I would do is say a school should not be advertised as a, quote, gun- free zone. If you have maybe it's one or two faculty members who are licenses, who have a conceal carry permit, I don't think they should be predicted from using that bringing the firearm in a concealed way on campus. And the reason is even if no one decides to do it, just the fact that it might be there, I think that gives a potential shooter pause. And if you are beefing up the outside security and you are hardening the schools, then guess what, the schools are no longer such an inviting target.

I mean, we have kind of let these things be sitting ducks and there is sickness in society with some of these really demented individuals that are attracted to that. I think just saying that a conceal carry permit holder can go to campus and teach or instruct with that, I think that would serve as deterrent to people to treat that as viable target.

CHAFFETZ: Congressman Ron DeSantis in Orlando, thank you for joining us.

DESANTIS: Thank you.

CHAFFETZ: Hollywood celebrities are helping fuel a pro-gun control campaign, but they may want to take a look in the mirror instead. New details next.


CHAFFETZ: Hollywood is helping to lead the charge to destroy the national rifle association while giving big time money to the pro gun control campaign. But if they want to take a stand against violence, they may want to look at their own material. A new study by the conservative Parents Television Council finds a dramatic increase in the portrayals of violence on TV in recent years. According to the study, nearly 61 percent of 287 broadcast primetime television episodes featured some form of violence during their November sweeps period, 39 percent of those 287 those featured gun-related violence.

Let's get reaction from actor Antonio Sabato Jr. who is also running for congress. He joins us now from Calabasas, California. We thank you so much for being here.

ANTONIO SABATO JR., ACTOR: Thank you, my friend.

CHAFFETZ: We are putting up on the screen, you can't see it, but we are putting up on the screen this picture of George Clooney. Mr. Clooney has been pretty aggressive about guns and his belief about gun control.

SABATO: Right.

CHAFFETZ: Do you think Hollywood is part of the solution here or is Hollywood part of the problem?

SABATO: They are part of the problem. These are the same people that actually believe that Hillary Clinton was going to become the president and was going to be a good president. She left our people to die in Benghazi. Let's not forget that.

These are the same people that went to the Academy Awards protected by LAPD, body guards wearing pieces, guns all over the place at the Academy Awards, and then they are making movies on a weekly basis with guns that they want to ban.

You know, the NRA has done more to protect the American people than Hollywood could ever do. So let's talk the truth here and make sure the American people know what's going on here. And I think they know that because we elected Donald Trump. He's doing an amazing job, and that's why I'm running for office in November. I'm going to win because we have got to bring common sense into government and our common daily lives.

We can't live with these lies every single day. The media are spilling lies 24 hours a day against our president, against the Republican party. That's all they do. And this time they are not going to win because the American people have woken up. We want our America back and we have got to protect our America and our constitution.

CHAFFETZ: So what do you think is Hollywood's responsibility? They are entrepreneurs. Do they just profit? The reason they make most with guns in it is because Americans go to them and they pay money to go see them. So is it their responsibility or should we just call out their hypocrisy? What's the right answer?

SABATO: Well, if they want to talk about gun-free zones and always blame it on the NRA, then they are the hypocrites. But listen, right now why don't they make more movies about positive stuff? What about family values? What about God once in a while? What about, you know, the 10 Commandments? What about good stuff, positive stuff, loving, caring stuff. And I'm not talking about the Disney most. I'm talking about in general.

TV shows that involves God and family and sitting down at the table and things like that, I urge them to do that. We've got to come together and talk about the real stuff here. The problems are not the guns. The problems are the people who are pulling the trigger like what we have seen in Florida. And then we keep voting these people who are sheriffs, people in government who cannot protect the American people. And this happened in Florida. So right now we have to educate people and tell them the truth.

CHAFFETZ: Do you think, you know, the breakdown of the family, it seems to be a common denominator with a lot of these kids. They can't distinguish right from wrong, there may be some mental incompetency, a break down in the family. Does Hollywood believe in any of that?

SABATO: I don't know. Listen, we have some issues right now. The opioids epidemic. People are addicted. Kids are addicted to medicated stuff, and that's really bad. People are not sitting around with their kids anymore and talking about what's going on in your life? Can I get to know you? Do you want to get to know me? It's always about computers and phones and this and that and all these distractions. We've had guns in this country for 200 years, and all of a sudden we're having these problems happening every single week, and they always want to blame it on guns. Let's blame it on people, let's blame it on society, and let's bring love and happiness and family values back into our daily lives.

CHAFFETZ: Well, listen, I thank you. I think there are a lot of kids throughout who can distinguish right from wrong. It's like a puddle of gasoline, and then they sit 15 hours and watch a video game or go watch a violent movie and it's like throwing a match on that gasoline and kaboom.

SABATO: They're left alone. These kids are left alone. There is no more communication between the teachers and the parents anymore. Parents cannot walk into a school and talk about their issues with the school itself. All these regulations and this and that. So, we're not really free anymore. They want to hold us hostage and, you know, we don't have bibles in school anymore. They wanted to take our American anthem away. We don't respect the flag. I'm fighting for what is right. We have got to fight for the flag and we've got to fight for this country. We have 26 beautiful amendments. We have got to keep them there. One of them in the second amendment.

CHAFFETZ: Antonio Sabato Jr. from California, we thank you for joining us.

SABATO: Thank you, guys. Thank you.

CHAFFETZ: Democrats in the media are promising a blue wave in the upcoming midterms, but they may be headed for more of a belly flop instead. We'll explain next.


CHAFFETZ: Business is suddenly booming in America and we have got even more sensational news today -- 313,000 jobs were added to the economy in February, far exceeding expectations from economists. And unemployment remained at an 18-year low of 4.1 percent. That all throws a monkey wrench into one industry, the professional pundits who have been predicting a blue wave of Democratic victories in the upcoming midterm elections.

Two new polls defy those hopes, one by Axios and Survey Monkey shows five Senate Democrats would lose to Republicans candidates if elections were held today, and a new Marist poll has the president's approval rating at 42 percent, the highest he has had since he took office.

Let's get reaction from Adriana Cohen, a Boston Herald Columnist who is in Massachusetts with us this evening, and radio talk show host Leslie Marshall who is in California. California seems to see things a little bit differently. So Leslie, take a shot here because there is a lot of good news out there from more people, money in their pockets in tax returns. We have good things happening on foreign policy. You have got good unemployment numbers. Tell me why you think there is suddenly going to be this big blue wave.

LESLIE MARSHALL, NATIONALLY SYNDICATED RADIO HOST: Well, because here in California it will be blue. It will be a blue wave in this state, the number of seats especially in the House. Now, I have to tell you, I was once thinking it would just be the Senate the Dems would flip and they wouldn't be able to flip the House, and I'm actually turning that around because we certainly have some Senator seats in the Democratic side that are in very red, very pro-Trump districts.

CHAFFETZ: But what do they run on? What's their message?

MARSHALL: Here's the thing, Jason, here's the thing, Jason, that's one of the things I mentioned the other day here on FOX is that the Democrats don't have and haven't learned from the last election the unity. You have still that divide between the left and the left of left. And you don't have a unified message. And I've said before and I will say it again to my party here, you can't run on we don't like Trump, anti-Trump. That's not strong enough for any platform.

CHAFFETZ: And Donald Trump is actually not on the ballot in 2018, so Adriana how do you see things playing out even from the perspective of a very liberal Massachusetts?

ADRIANA COHEN, BOSTON HERALD RADIO HOST: Right. But the Democrats have been obstructionists since President Trump was inaugurated. And they voted against the tax cuts which is benefiting millions and millions of Americans. They vote against regulatory reform, which is growing the economy. Everything Trump does they obstruct.

And so, Democrats can't run on a Trump derangement syndrome. They have to actually stand for something. And if we look at the economy, it's helping women. President Trump is helping women. It's helping African-Americans. The unemployment rate is at all-time low. You know, our economy can't get any better at this point. We have the largest workforce participation rate in decades. And so at the end of the day Americans are going to care about the kitchen table issues which is how much money they can put in their pocket. And the economy is booming. They don't care so much about social issues. And unfortunately the liberals, all they care about these days is protecting criminal illegal aliens.

CHAFFETZ: Leslie, you have Nancy Pelosi at the top of the Democrats in the House and you have Chuck Schumer. Is that the winning formula for Democrats? Put Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in charge?

MARSHALL: Well, Pelosi and Schumer aren't in jeopardy of losing their seats. We have to look at who is going to be coming up, like in San Diego, Darrell Issa's seat, or if we look further north for Devin Nunes and other people like that. Those are areas that could be flipped.

Listen, let's just take Texas, OK? Right now out of all the Republican states, out of all the red states, Donald Trump, the resident has the lowest approval rating in the state of Texas. In 1994, when we had the biggest surge in Democratic voters come out, one Democrat was able to flip a seat statewide in the big red Texas. And guess what? Over a million Democrats came out on Tuesday for the primary to vote. So maybe we could see flip a little blue.

CHAFFETZ: They also had record turnout. Ted Cruz didn't exactly have a whole lot of challengers and they had red turnout on the Republican side of the aisle as well.

MARSHALL: Yes. And that's one of the reasons that Texas is not going to be blue. People hear a blue wave, that's what they think we are painting the map blue. No. We are looking at states like California that are blue. We're looking at other states that are purple. And if you can flip a couple seats in a state like Texas that is a definite win. And you know in state seats, in state legislators throughout the country, we have seen a lot of blue where there was red.

CHAFFETZ: Adriana, I'm going to give you the last word. How do you see it playing out?

COHEN: You know, Rasmussen has a new poll out, 78 percent of all Americans say their quality of life is either good or excellent. And so why on earth would voters shift course, vote for a liberal in November who is going to raise their taxes, take their guns, take their freedom away.

The economy is booming. President Trump has restored the American dream. And also I want to say Democrats are the party that supposedly supported the working man. That's no longer the case. The Republicans are. All the unions are supporting this tariff reform. President Trump has created 3 million jobs since he got into office, 263,000 of those jobs were union jobs. They were manufacturing jobs. And so this is going to even grow even stronger with the infrastructure plan that's going to be put into place.

And so I am curious to know who the Democrat party actually represents these days because the women are getting jobs, African-Americans are getting jobs, and blue collar workers.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you both for being here this evening, Leslie and Adrian, we appreciate it.

A quick update on the California hostage situation. The California highway patrol just announced it resulted in three deceased females and one deceased male. We'll be right back.


CHAFFETZ: The most hated man in America, and the pharma bro. That's the description that's been used for Martin Shkreli. And today he was finally served some well-deserved justice. Martin Shkreli is the now former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals. He infamously raised the price of life-saving drug Daraprim by 5,000 percent. I know a little something about this saga having chaired the House Oversight hearing in 2016 when Shkreli testified, or rather he didn't testify. He just kept pleading the fifth. Shkreli was happy to discuss the price hike in TV interviews but not with the United States congress.


MARTIN SHKRELI: I probably would have raised the price higher. Try to be a CEO yourself, see how it goes.

CHAFFETZ: What do you see to that pregnant woman who might have AIDS, no income? She needs Daraprim in order to survive. What do you say to her when she has to make that is choice, what do you say to her?

SHKRELI: On the advice of counsel, I invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You can look away if you would like, but I wish you could see the faces of people who cannot get the drugs they need. I know you're smiling, but I'm very serious, sir.


CHAFFETZ: Congress was united on both sides of the aisle that day. I dismissed Shkreli after 10 minutes as it was clear he intended to do nothing by smirk and squirm rather than testify. He then had the gall to post on Twitter, quote, "Hard to accept that these imbeciles represent the people in our government." I guess you can call members of Congress whatever you would like, but when you raise the price of drugs on people that will die without them by 5,000 percent, that's something else.

Fast-forward today in a different picture. Shkreli was reportedly crying as a judge in New York sentenced him to seven years in prison. He's also been ordered to forfeit more than $7 million and his coveted Wu Tang Clan CD. He was convicted on a matter unrelated to the drug price hike but one that still may be telling, defrauding hedge fund investors.

Shkreli's attorney told the judges sometimes he wants to hug his client and sometimes he wants to punch him in the face. I know more than a few people who would probably prefer the latter.

That's our show for tonight. I'm Jason Chaffetz. I really thank Laura Ingraham. This is the fourth time I've been able to host this show and I appreciate her confidence in allowing me to substitute the show for her. It's truly and honor and a privilege and I appreciate the dialogue and all the guests that were with us tonight.

Laura Ingraham will be back on Monday, but we've got a great show. You've got to stay tuned to FOX News because Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team are up next. Have a great weekend everybody, and goodnight from New York. The United States is still the greatest country on the face of the planet. We appreciate you joining us.


Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.