Should Trump make good on campaign promise in Syria?

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," April 3, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

CHAFFETZ: I'm Jason Chaffetz in tonight for Laura Ingraham. We have late-breaking developments on that deadly workplace shooting today at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. We'll have a live report from the scene south of San Francisco in just a moment. But we begin Fox News team coverage with the latest from Trace Gallagher, who's been monitoring all the day's developments in our west coast newsroom.

TRACE GALLAGHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good evening, Jason. Still no word on possible motive and the shooter has not yet been identified, though, our reports tonight that she is 35-40 years old and lives in Southern California. The man who she was apparently targeting remains in critical condition tonight after being shot in the lower body. His name and position at YouTube are not being released. But the police chief is crediting his fellow employees with some heroic action. Listen to him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHIEF ED BARBERINI, SAN BRUNO POLICE DEPARTMENT: They identified one victim at the front door, main entrance of the building. They checked on that person, and YouTube employees to their credit, helped us by standing by with that person so the officers could immediately enter to go search for the threat. Within minutes, because it's a very large building, we found what we were searching after that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Yes, a very large building, it's 200,000 square feet with 1,700 employees. After entering the headquarters, police say the shooter was found in a room with a self-inflicted gunshot wound. For now, the working theory is the female shooter began firing outside and then made her way into the building and this witness supports that scenario. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DIANNA ARNSPIGER, WITNESS: We've heard like, boom, boom. A branch of the window because it was over the patio and I saw her. It's a woman and she was firing her garden and I just said, shooter, and everybody started running.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GALLAGHER: Yes, another female was shot in the ankle but ran into a nearby Carl's Jr. Restaurant where the employees apparently gave her some much needed aid. A fourth victim sprained her ankle running away from the gunfire. The CEO of YouTube tweeted, quoting here, 'There are no words to describe how horrible it was to have an active shooter at YouTube today. Our deepest gratitude to law enforcement and first responders for their rapid response. Our hearts go out to those injured and impacted today. We will come together to heal as a family.' You'll recall it was just a few weeks ago that in the wake of the shooting in Parkland, Florida, YouTube banned firearm sales and how-to gun videos. There will likely, by the way, be ample surveillance video of the incident in the days and weeks ahead -- Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Thanks, Trace. We love those first responders. They do an amazing job. Now for an eyewitness account, let's go to Claudia Cowan, who is live from the side of the shooting in San Bruno, California.

CLAUDIA COWAN, FOX NEWS REPORTER: Good evening to you, Jason. More on those first responders. You know, when the 911 calls for started coming in, right around 12:45 local time, the response by police and other first responders and ambulances was absolutely massive. In fact, law enforcement was on scene here at YouTube headquarters within minutes, and immediately saw people running for their lives. Officers evacuated the building and went door-to-door to make sure there were no other shooters and to find all the victims. Witnesses described the chaos on the sound of rapid gunfire, which they say came in several bursts.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Man, it was two or three shots and then like, within 30 seconds after that or 40 seconds after that, she was running out and she was shot in the leg. The other people that were behind me pulled her in, so I come in, I check on the girl, all right, she got shot in the leg. I ran back over there and I'm looking inside, and I'm looking, and the other guy goes, he just shot the other person. And that person got shot ten times.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COWAN: We know a 37-year-old man is listed in critical condition at San Francisco General Hospital. Two other gunshot victims are listed in fair and serious conditions. A lot if witnesses are very shaken and they will need time to recover as well.This area is no stranger to tragedies. In 2010, a major underground gas pipeline exploded, an incident left eight people died. Now San Bruno is reeling from an active shooter incident. The violent and tragic results of what we are being told was a domestic dispute. Back to you, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Thanks, Claudia. Be sure to stay tuned to Fox News for all the latest details on the story. We will continue to monitor any developments out of California and bring them to you as they come. Big news coming out of Washington on multiple stories today. President Trump says he'll send the military to secure the border with Mexico. Also, the special counsel reportedly tells Trump legal team that the president is not a criminal target in the Russia probe. Did this whole sordid mess finally be winding down?

Plus, Trump accuses amazon.com of unfairly driving retail stores out of business. We'll talk to a reporter who was blowing the whistle on a brand-new national security scandal for Democrats. You don't want to miss the story. But we begin with a number of important new developments on illegal immigration. Beginning with that possible deployment of troops on the border. Fox News chief national correspondent, Ed Henry, brings us up to speed with the latest from the White House -- Ed.

ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Jason, great to see you tonight, the president had already been ramping up the rhetoric on illegal immigration in the last couple of days as that caravan makes its way through Central America, through Mexico towards the U.S. border. But tonight, he is trying to back it up with actually dramatic action, declaring he wants to send U.S. military to secure the southern border until that wall is built. The president today convening a meeting here at the White House with the defense secretary, other top cabinet military officials to say that in the absence of action by Congress, he wants executive action to crackdown on illegal immigration, drugs, violent gangs, coming from Mexico and elsewhere.

Tonight, White House officials are making clear that the president is talking about mobilizing the National Guard to secure the southern border because active duty military is prohibited by law from getting involved in domestic law enforcement. Yet that distinction seemed to be lost on a lot of Democrats and people in the media today, watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It is a dangerous thing to do to put U.S. military forces on the border with an ally like that.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: This is not a country where U.S. military force is used on the streets of this country.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would rather have the dealings of immigration be handled in a civil context and not a military one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Not mentioned is that that then President Barack Obama did something similar in 2010, as George W. Bush did in 2006. In 2010, the Obama administration sent about 1,200 National Guard groups troops in the southern border. They mostly focused on dealing with intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, not direct interdiction. Bush administration, something similar, basically, sent about 6,000 members of the National Guard. They were focused on road and fence building, transportation, surveillance, logistics, again not direct interdictions. What the president seemed to be saying is that he may be looking at a more aggressive approach where the National Guard perhaps takes on a more direct law enforcement role. Plus, a senior official is telling us tonight the number of National Guard troops will be, quote/unquote, 'substantial,' suggesting a larger number than ever before. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I told Mexico, and I respect what they did, I said, look, your laws are very powerful, your laws are very strong. We have very bad laws for our border. We are going to be doing some things. I've been speaking with General Mattis. We will be doing things militarily. Until we can have a wall and proper security, we'll be guarding our border with the military. That's a big step. We really haven't done that before, certainly not very much before.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY: Former Mexican president, Vicente Fox, firing back on Twitter, quote, '@realDonaldTrump to militarize the southern border is to provoke more hate, distance, even further between our nations. Somebody has to talk some sense into him. He is elevating his hate towards Mexico causing a greater conflict.' As for the current Mexican administration, they had their ambassador specifically ask the White House officially today for clarification on the president's remarks, we are told by White House officials the president's Homeland Security's secretary is in contact with the Mexican government to lay it all out -- Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Thanks, Ed. Joining us to discuss all these developments are Monica Crowley of the London Center for Policy Research, and Enrique Morones, founder of Border Angels, an advocacy group for illegal immigrants. Thank you both for joining us tonight. Enrique, I want to start with you. You hate that this president wants to secure the border and put up a wall, lock it down. That is not something you want to see, is it?

ENRIQUE MORONES, FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR, BORDER ANGELS: First of all, I don't represent illegal anybody. These are human beings. I think most of the people in this country do not support Trump's agenda of hate. The border is already militarized. There's already a wall that covers a third of the border. It's led to 11,000 deaths. Donald Trump is a person totally out of touch with reality. I really support -- I was really encouraged when I heard Stormy talking the fact that he does have little hands. I don't know where she was going with that, but one thing I do know is he's a very dangerous man. He's incompetent and the whole world is saying, what happened to the United States?

CHAFFETZ: Enrique, let's go back to your first point here. People that cross the border illegally are here illegally, correct?

MORONES: Yes, but they are not illegal immigrant. There is no such thing as an illegal human being --

CHAFFETZ: If they are here illegally, enshrined in the law, it says they are an illegal alien.

MORONES: Three fifths of the human being or (inaudible) and those --

CHAFFETZ: I never used that word.

MORONES: You didn't, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: If they come here illegally, they are here illegally. They are illegal.

MORONES: No, they are not illegal human beings. They committed an illegal act.

CHAFFETZ: Oh, my goodness. Monica, is the president doing the right thing here? Walking down the border, getting rid of the rewards and incentives and making sure that people don't flow here illegally?

MONICA CROWLEY, LONDON CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH: of course, he's doing the right thing. This is one of the primary reasons why Donald Trump is currently the president of the United States.

MORONES: Hugely unpopular. The most unpopular president.

CHAFFETZ: More popular than Hillary Clinton.

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: Enrique, do you believe he is the president of the United States?

MORONES: Donald Trump is a person that was not elected by the majority. He is incompetent --

CHAFFETZ: Wait a second, get a grip on reality.

MORONES: Donald Trump does not have a grip on reality.

CHAFFETZ: He is not the duly elected president of United States? No wonder you think it's OK to come across the border illegally.

MORONES: I don't think that.

CHAFFETZ: OK, Monica.

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: Enrique, let's go to some rational thoughts. Go ahead, Monica.

CROWLEY: OK, Jason, how refreshing to have an American commander-in-chief who means what he says, says what he means, and is willing to enforce America's immigration laws and enforce the border. This is one of the big reasons why he is president. We have had presidents on both sides of the aisle who have refused for many decades to do that. We either are a nation built on the rule of law and are interested in protecting our own sovereignty or were not. Donald Trump stood up and said, America's borders are worth enforcing. The American people, the American taxpayer, the American worker, are worth defending, and I in fact I'm going to do it. This man has now issued two warnings. He issued the warning on the caravan to say unless Mexico stops, I may in fact revoke NAFTA. I'm going to take other action, for the U.S. military in the form of the National Guard on the border.

CHAFFETZ: There's one other subject I want to get to. One of the things I'm concerned about, 2016, more than 100,000 minors have crossed that border illegally and then they have been released and given out -- literally, given over to criminal gangs, and who knows who else out there. Does that bother you, Enrique, that we are taking minors and putting them in in the custody of somebody we have never vetted?

MORONES: You are saying they are putting their minors in the hands of criminal gangs? Who are those criminal gangs?

CHAFFETZ: MS-13.

MORONES: Most of the people that applied for asylum and that showed up at the U.S. border did not get it. Those that did get it were turned over to family relatives, not MS-13.

CHAFFETZ: Enrique --

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: The number is 107,000 people.

MORONES: There's Fox and then there's facts.

CHAFFETZ: No, no. Enrique, you are so off-base here.

MORONES: You could do a lot better than that.

CHAFFETZ: I gave you specific facts.

MORONES: OK, give them to me.

CHAFFETZ: I did, 107,000 people have been turned over as minors and we don't know who these people are.

MORONES: You said they are criminal gangs.

CHAFFETZ: That is one of the groups.

MORONES: They were turned over to family members.

CHAFFETZ: Monica -- Enrique, most people live in a different planet. Enrique --

MORONES: Most don't want to come here.

CHAFFETZ: Monica, shed some light to people on why -- 100,000 kids are given into the arms of who knows who.

CROWLEY: That's right. It's not just the children, although, the children are useful tools for those who want to continue to see illegal immigration go forward because it's an emotional play, right. It's an emotional draw on the hearts of their generous Americans. They try to shade this in shades of gray when actually it's shades of black and white. This country is very generous. We want people to come here, but we want them to do with the right way whether they are children or adults. There is a legal process in place for a country built on the rule of law.

MORONES: Every country in the world as a rule of law. Name one that isn't.

CROWLEY: The abuse --

(CROSSTALK)

CROWLEY: Enrique, I'll let you speak -- so now you are equating the United States with North Korea?

(CROSSTALK)

MORONES: Trump is going to have a meeting -- Trump is having a meeting with Vladimir Putin.

CROWLEY: Here's an important point, Enrique. In the years 2015 and 2016, Mexico actually deported roughly twice the number of Central Americans out of the country than the United States did. So, Mexico is very interested in enforcing their borders and enforcing their law and protecting their people.

MORONES: Every country is. Name a country that's not.

CROWLEY: The United States for a long time actually wasn't because the Republicans wanted cheap labor and the Democrats wanted votes ultimately.

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: Hey, Enrique --

CROWLEY: Excuse me, finally we have an American president who is interested in protecting our sovereignty and the rule of law.

MORONES: He's being ridiculed all over the world. He's a very dangerous man. That is what he is so unpopular.

CHAFFETZ: Enrique, you've had more than your opportunity to say what you want to say. Listen, Enrique, the United States of America is the greatest country on the face of the planet. They are not trying to break out of the United States and get into Mexico. We have to leave it there. Thank you both are being here tonight. Meanwhile, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are using a new tactic to get around the lack of cooperation by local authorities in California sanctuary cities.

Instead of going into these cities, officers are coming into communities and farm fields to apprehend illegal immigrants, even those without criminal records. Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan says his hand was forced by sanctuary policies and that it would be, quote, 'nonsensical to demand that ICE solely focus on criminals,' end quote. Let's discuss this change with Claude Arnold, a former special agent in charge for ICE at Homeland Security investigation in Irvine, California. We thank you for being here. Thanks for your service in serving our country. You know, why the change? Why not just focus on the criminals? There's plenty of that. Why this change?

CLAUDE ARNOLD, FORMER ICE SPECIAL AGENT: Thank you for the invitation to be on the show. People are characterizing it as a change, but in actuality, it's not a change. It's returning things back to the status quo, the way they were prior to the Obama administration. It was the practice of ICE, when they were out looking for the priorities, and priorities are and should be criminal aliens, but when they are out looking for these priority targets, if they run into someone who is here illegally, they are not going to turn a blind eye. Now they were restricted from doing that by policies under the Obama administration. So basically, what President Trump has done is take away those policies to return it to how it was with President Bush and all the presidents before that, at least in the 27 years that I was serving.

CHAFFETZ: I've been out with the ICE officers. They do an amazing job. They do it in a very delicate way, but a very difficult way, dealing with some very hardened criminals. People don't care because they are not citizens of this country, but some are comparing them to the Nazi Germany. Look at this montage. I want to have you react to it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We are standing in front of a building that has become the headquarters for the gestapo of the United States of America.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you hear the echoes of history here?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A 100 percent. I think there is -- we cannot let this happen. It's our responsibility. What was done to us cannot happen to other people.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Agents are getting on trains and going through the trains and spotting people and saying, what is your citizenship.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: That first group was actually Democratic members of Congress. How do ICE officers react when they see that kind of attitude from members of Congress from the Democratic side of the aisle?

ARNOLD: We are the executive branch of government. We enforce the laws that are as they are written on the books. So as law enforcers, our response to members of Congress, that if you don't think the laws are just, you're the ones who make the laws, then change the laws. We just enforce the laws as they are written.

CHAFFETZ: You are right. The first two years that I was in Congress, Democrats at the House and Senate and the presidency, they did not bring up a bill. I sat on the immigration subcommittee, they did not introduce a bill, let alone have a hearing or try to move a piece of legislation. Really quickly, only got about 30 seconds left. More than 100,000 children, people under the age of 18, come to this country illegally and then they are handed over to somebody that has not been vetted. How do we deal with that?

ARNOLD: Well, anytime we identify vulnerabilities that are exploited in the law in this case, we had something very similar in the early '90s with the asylum, where people automatically got work authorization if they applied for asylum. There was a statutory fix. It was being exploited by people with frivolous asylum claims. This is very similar situation. People know that they will be released, so there needs to be a statutory change.

CHAFFETZ: Listen, if people are naive, if they don't think there is a major, major human trafficking problem going on down at the border. Thank you for your service. Thank you to all the ICE officers out there, the men and women doing a very tough job. Thank you. Could the Mueller probe be winding down? We'll tell you why next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: The big question after the latest bombshell revelation in the Russia investigation is, how will President Trump react? We now though know that deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein specifically authorized a special prosecutor to investigate former Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort for potential collusion with Russia or Ukraine. That information was in a partly redacted and formerly secret government memo filed in court by Special Prosecutor Bob Mueller late last night. Let's examine the implications of this latest revelation with Republican Congressman Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, and Washington attorney and Democratic strategist, Scott Bolden. Scott, I want to go to you first. Do you think that this is really justified? Is it going the right direction? What in the world would Ukraine have to do with the Russia collusion on the election of 2016?

SCOTT BOLDEN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION PAC: Well, as a former prosecutor and someone who defended people in the Clinton investigations, let me just say this, not only think is going in the right direction, but if the Republicans who have authorized it. Not just Rosenstein but the original order that was given to Mueller for his investigation was to investigate collusion or coordination between these parties, either before or after the Mueller investigation. Rosenstein, even under the code of federal regulations are just following where the evidence takes them.

CHAFFETZ: Scott, I want to go to the graphic. The original letter that Rod Rosenstein sent to Mueller authorizing his investigation, there are three points to this. If we can put it up on the screen. Number two on this point is any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation. And Congressman Duffy, I was pleased and honored to serve with you in the United States Congress.But point number two says that any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation, there's a lot of things that would suggest that maybe the Democrats were the ones that were actually colluding. Do you see any evidence that Mueller is actually pursuing that part of this investigation?

REPRESENTATIVE SEAN DUFFY, R—Wis.: Jason, it was a pleasure serving with you as well. You bring a good point. Scott, I was a prosecutor as well. The charge that Mueller received was to investigate collusion or involvement of Russia and the 2016 election, which means they can look at Donald Trump, but they can also look at Hillary Clinton. The only evidence that we've had come out publicly in regard to code collusion is the fact that Hillary Clinton and the DNC colluded through Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele with Russia, they paid Russian informants with double, triple, quadruple hearsay to craft a dossier that the FBI used to go after Donald Trump. So, if you want to look at Russia collusion and Russian influence, you got to look Hillary Clinton and what they did in crafting the dirty dossier. For all intents and purposes, it doesn't appear that Mueller is looking at the Hillary Clinton campaign.

CHAFFETZ: Scott, do you think the Congressman has a point? Do you see the evidence of my frustration from the Republicans are saying, how come the pursuit of justice is only in one direction? It's a one-way street? Why not look at what the Congressman just said?

BOLDEN: Jason, it is not a one-way street. It is incomparable. The meetings, all the information, the guilty pleas that have come out of the Mueller investigation --

CHAFFETZ: They have nothing to do with collusion.

BOLDEN: They have a direct mandate to look at the coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. Let me get Hillary Clinton because the Republicans love to jump on and jumped back to Hillary Clinton. Do you think Hillary Clinton ought to be investigated? The Republicans were on the House, Senate, and White House. Two congressmen, one senator and Congressman, sent a letter to DOJ to Jeff Sessions, asking them to investigate. If they don't investigate, that means either there is nothing there or they are too busy focusing on the other part --

CHAFFETZ: You do see that there was more than $10 million that went out the door there. Sorry, Congressman Duffy, go ahead.

DUFFY: That's because you have partisan hacks at the head of the DOJ and FBI. That is why I've called for a special counsel to look at the partisanship.

BOLDEN: And it has been rejected.

DUFFY: I think all Americans will say, what involvement did Russia have in our elections? I'm on the same page as you are. We want to find that out. Let's not do it in a partisan way. Let's not just look at Donald Trump. There is a lot of smoke and I think there is fire to look at Hillary Clinton, as well. If you only look at one side of this issue are not the other, that is why there are so many Republicans feeling like it's a partisan investigation.

BOLDEN: I do believe this. I deeply believe that if Mueller finds information, whether it's a smoke, fire, evidence, facts, that Hillary Clinton somehow coordinated, notwithstanding the conjecture of what the Congressman thinks, I think he's got the authority to look at it or to ask Rosenstein --

DUFFY: We know for a fact that Hillary Clinton paid Russia to develop this dirty dossier that was used against Donald Trump.

BOLDEN: That's just not true.

DUFFY: There's $10 million -- we should look at Hillary Clinton.

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: I think Scott actually brings up a good point. I do believe that Scott brings a bigger point. You have four key senators out there, you have Trey Gowdy, Bob Goodlatte, two chairmen of the House, calling for a special prosecutor, Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows have been calling this for months, and they still won't do it. I got to tell you, to people on the right side of the aisle, it is a mystery because it does seem like it's a one-way street.

BOLDEN: I am not afraid of it. I don't think the Democrats should be. Let the investigation run its course.

DUFFY: You do understand this point very well. Jason, you are the chairman of Investigations and the Oversight Committee in the House. When you tried to get information from the FBI and DOJ, did they cooperate with you? That they provide the evidence that you asked for as and empowered individual in Congress, to do oversight? They don't provide it to the intelligence community, they don't provide it to Bob Goodlatte and the judiciary committee. They are not cooperating even with our investigations, which makes you scratch your head and say, what are they trying to hide from the American people and Congress?

CHAFFETZ: Scott Bolden, I want to give you the last word, but I do want you consider this. It is a closed investigation. There have been subpoenas in place since 2016 and still the Department of Justice will not open up the files on a closed case. I would think that you, you are very accomplished and I think a reasonable person, would understand how patently unfair it is to the pursuit of justice and oversight to not turn over those documents and allow congressmen on both sides of the aisle to review those documents.

SCOTT BOLDEN, NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION PAC CHAIR: Let me tell you this. I don't know whether it's fair or reasonable or not, but I don't know whether Republicans are bragging or complaining, because you have control of all three houses. By the way, congressmen and senators have a lot of levers to pull. You can hold them in contempt, you can impeach them, you can force them to train these documents over, you can go to court to do it and have a court hold them in contempt, and Republicans just simply have not done it. So are you bragging or complaining?

CHAFFETZ: Gentlemen, I got to leave it there. This is not a situation that's going away. I appreciate you joining us tonight on this beautiful night. Thank you very much.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Congressman, good seeing you.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you. President Trump's war with one of the richest companies in the world is quickly going to Defcon One. We'll tell you why he thinks Amazon has an unfair advantage next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: President Trump is on the warpath against Amazon.com, blasting the company in five tweets over the past five days. At a press conference today, he explained why he thinks the company has some unfair advantages over its competitors.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The post office is losing billions of dollars and the taxpayers are paying for that money because it delivers packages for Amazon at a very below cost. The other thing is a lot of retail businesses all over the country are going out of business, so that's a different problem. And that's a big problem. But if you look at the cost that we are subsidizing, we are giving a subsidy to Amazon, and we are talking about billions of dollars a year. Amazon is going to have to pay much more money to the post office. There is no doubt about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Trump has also scorched Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos for negative coverage of the administration in the 'Washington Post,' which he also owns. Let's discuss the president's accusations with Republican National Committee woman for California Harmeet Dhillon, and radio talk show host and political analyst Garland Nixon. Thank you both for being here. Harmeet, I want to go out with you first. This just seems to be a personal feud, to put it lightly, between the president and Jeff Bezos. Is that the root of everything that is going on here, or does the president really have a strong point to make on the unfair advantages the president says that Amazon has?

HARMEET DHILLON, ATTORNEY: I think both are true. Clearly the president is irked at the unfair coverage that he gets from the 'Washington Post.' But on the other hand, there are some serious issues with the United States Postal Service. It's had the same rights and allocation of expenses to the package delivery part of its business since 2007. And so it's really way overdue for an adjustment. Back in 2007, as we all know, we did not have such a dependence on mail order as we do today and Amazon's business was a mere fraction of what it is today. And one of the big problems the president is facing is that he has nominated four members of the postal regulatory commission, but they are being held up in the Senate along with a number of other nominees. If he got those people in place, a, he'd be able to have adjustment of those rates and some right-sizing of those rates, so there is some subsidy going on but it's not really anybody's fault.

CHAFFETZ: Let me --
DHILLON: And b -- one more point. We could look at the pension issues. The reason that the postal service wants a negative and a deficit is because it has to prepay its pension for 75 years worth of benefits.

CHAFFETZ: You are 100 percent worth that much. I spent a lot of time on the postal issues. The decline in first class mail, the pension issues are a big thing. Here's the take that comes from the 'Dallas Morning News.' If we put up this graphic here and the headline, 'Trump can attack Amazon but Americans will keep buying what Bezos is selling.' So Garland, does the president have a good point, or is Jeff Bezos on the right side of this equation?

GARLAND NIXON, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I don't think it's an either/or. I think the president is an error for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that the post office was never created to make a profit any more than a police department or a fire department is in business to make a profit. They've always been subsidized by the government so that businesses and American citizens can have their mail delivered at a subsidized and reasonable price. So I think he's out of line there. Number two, this is a personal issue with the president. He is upset at the Washington Post and so he is going after Amazon. I don't think that he has a problem with billionaires, wealth people --

CHAFFETZ: Garland, do you think that the only reason the president -- or that Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post--he has a lot of holdings. He did it personally, not through Amazon, but he bought it personally. Why do you think Jeff Bezos bought, of all the papers, the Washington Post?

NIXON: You are not going to get me to defend that because as a radio talk show host, trust me, I've made statements about that issue myself that I am not thrilled with Jeff Bezos owning the 'Washington Post.' However, I think it's disingenuous for the president to say he has a problem with billionaires holding media outlets. I think he only has a problem with wealthy people owning media outlets that are critical of him. And that's what it's all about.

CHAFFETZ: Harmeet, does he have a good point there?

DHILLON: I don't think that's fair. I think it is a valid concern, and there is a perception, as the president mentioned, that these big conglomerates, and it's not just Amazon, there are other big conglomerates, Google is another one that is dominating the market and taking away business from mom-and-pop shops at the retail store level. But on the other hand, I have to say as an Amazon user myself, I really value the convenience, and a lot of mom and pop operations are now selling their products through Amazon. So I think all of this can be adjusted by getting his nominees in place at the postal regulatory commission and then adjusting some of those rates here and there and making sure that it's fair for everybody.

CHAFFETZ: I want to put up this graphic, play this sound from the former budget director for Ronald Reagan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID STOCKMAN, FORMER REAGAN BUDGET DIRECTOR: I think he's right about Amazon for the wrong reason. It is a predatory monster that is destroying value jobs, businesses, assets all over America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)
CHAFFETZ: So Garland, from your perspective, at what point does Amazon become too big or too powerful, are there antitrust issues that we should be looking at?

NIXON: I think it's reasonable to look at antitrust issues. But the other part of it is this is the nature of where the Internet is going, and there is a different economy that we are living in. I don't think that Amazon is the only problem that we have. To be honest with you, I'd have to start with criticizing the recent tax bill that the Republicans put through and say that is contributing to inequality. But I don't think --

CHAFFETZ: Allowing the American people have their own money in their own wallets, what's wrong with that?

NIXON: Jeff Bezos got a $2 billion tax increase. I don't think most of us got $2 billion. Tax decrease.

CHAFFETZ: I'm telling you, the average person has a significant, significant impact. What do you see happening with the tax question in California? One of the highest tax rates in the country. So the tax reform package, you think that is what one of the problems is?

NIXON: I certainly think it contributed to inequality by a large portion.

CHAFFETZ: Harmeet, let me get your take on it. We've got to wrap up here, but Harmeet, what is your take on it?

DHILLON: I don't think so. I value the democratization of everybody's approach to being able to buy products. Every hour, every minute that I save in buying products on the internet is time that I can spend back in my business. So there are two sides of this coin. Finally, these companies have been paying their taxes now. Amazon pays its sales taxes, and so it is fair. And we have to look at some regulation, whether using excessive power to stifle competition, but that is a specific example. Overall I think it's a good thing.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you both for being here. I do appreciate it. Thanks for the discussion and have a good evening. Even some of the president's supporters are concerned that he is about to make a serious mistake overseas. We'll tell you what has many military experts so worried, coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: President Trump campaigned on a vow to give America from getting too involved in foreign entanglements. And now he wants to make good on that promise in Syria.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to get out. I want to bring our troops back home. I want to start rebuilding our nation. We will have, as of three months ago, $7 trillion in the Middle East over the last 17 years. We get nothing, nothing out of it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: But a number of military analysts worry that would create a vacuum and repeat the same mistakes they say President Obama made in Iraq. Let's discuss that with former green beret and congressional candidate Michael Waltz and former Army military police sergeant Chris Neiweem. We thank you both for being here. Thank you for your service to our country. I want to note that Michael Waltz was a FOX News contributor but now since he is a candidate for congress, he's not, but he is still joining us tonight. Chris, I want to start with you. I think the president's heart is in the right place, but is it a smart move to telegraph to the enemy that we're going to bring our troops out?

CHRIS NEIWEEM, FORMER ARMY MILITARY POLICE SERGEANT: So Jason, I don't necessarily think he is telegraphing. I think it's a jab, he is throwing a jab to throw out a trial balloon. Certainly the president doesn't think we should be spending endlessly over there. And I think that many of the experts, many of which I respect, they didn't necessarily get it on the postwar Iraq right, and so the president doesn't want us to be endlessly doing stuff over there. We've knocked out over 80, 90 percent of ISIS on the ground with less than 2,000 troop, so he's trying to rebalance and get some of our allies to pay their fair share as well.

CHAFFETZ: So Michael, is the president doing the right thing? Is he going to really, truly bring all the troops home now?

MICHAEL WALTZ, SPECIAL FORCE COMBAT VETERAN: I think you put it well, Jason, that his heart is in the right place in terms of let's finish this thing and get to the soldiers home. But three things are going to happen if we pull out now. It's too soon. The president was absolutely right to take the restrictive ROE off and to focus on annihilating ISIS. But if we pull out now, one, we're going to see ISIS 3.0. The same conditions that are there that lead to ISIS from Al Qaeda will lead to ISIS 3.0. Number two, our allies that we have been so reliant on the ground that have allowed us to only have 2,000 troops on the ground, namely the Kurds and the Arabs, will get annihilated. And if we do have ISIS reconstitute and start attacking Europe and the United States again, then it will have a check of a time getting them to trust us. And then three, we'll essentially abandon the region to Iran. Keep in mind --

CHAFFETZ: But Michael, that would go on in perpetuity. To meet those conditions, are we going to be there forever?

WALTZ: Look, we've been in Germany, we've been in Japan, we've been in South Korea, we still have 25,000 troops in Japan. Unfortunately this president, like with South Korea, is going to have to clean up the messes that Obama left him after eight years of just essentially turning his back completely on the region, and it's going to take longer. It's just too soon at this point. But he is absolutely right in getting our allies to pay up and to pony up, and we ought to look at what Bush 41 did in the first Gulf War where you had Germany, Japan, and the Golf allies contributing over $50 billion.

CHAFFETZ: The president has done huge work to get the allies to pay for NATO.

WALTZ: And he absolutely should do this, too.

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely. But Chris, under what conditions, when do you actually bring the troops home?

NEIWEEM: I don't think it's going to happen overnight. I think the president is signaling he wants to see more support from those in the region. It's tough work. Many of those we served in Iraq and Afghanistan lost eyes, lost legs fighting wars where the postwar reconstruction order, things didn't work. And he is holding up some assets in Syria. But I think ultimately the president is going to galvanize other supporters to come to the table. It's a chess match. And I think he is smart and some of our senior advisors don't give him the credit he deserves. It's chess. But we've got to get other allies to do things. I think Mr. Bolton is going to will have the president's ear. We're going to have a good plan going forward.
But we cannot just endlessly pay and do all of the work ourselves without having others help us out. It's not going to be like Iraq, and I think the president is setting those expectations.

CHAFFETZ: Let me ask you, Michael, first. It should be a simple question but I think it is one of the most difficult questions. What is victory? What is victory in Afghanistan and what is victory in Syria and dealing with ISIS?

WALTZ: I think Jason, actually that is a broader question. What is victory against Islamic extremism? That is really what we are dealing with. And I think we are dealing with, how to be undermine and defeat an ideology, much like we undermined and defeated the ideology of communism? Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, those are the battlefields of this modern, which I think is going to be a generational war to undermine that ideology because we are dealing with brainwashing and we're dealing with religion, just as it took those other battlefields and 60, 70 years to defeat the ideology of communism. So that is really what we are looking at. So what is victory look like? What it looks like is when you have women marching in Tehran and Riyadh and Damascus and where women thrive in civil society and women thrive in politics, you don't see an extremist problem. That is what we are dealing with. We are in a global war against Islamic extremism, and these are just but a series of battlefields that we have to win here.

CHAFFETZ: Chris, what is victory? When you are talking to a 20-year-old who is going into battle, leaving his loved ones, his family behind to go serve the United States overseas, how do you explain to that young soldier or whoever it might be and his family, what is victory and what -- when do you get to that point where you have actually become victorious?

NEIWEEM: That's a great question, Jason. For one, and it's a topic for another time, we've got to things right at the V.A. That's a whole other thing. We've got to get veterans able to see the doctors in a timely
matter and get that right. But I think victory is when we're able to see these attacks diminish, when we're able to see ISIS can't function, can't influence governments over there. And when our allies come together with us and have a broad coalition, where U.S. forces, it's always damned if you do, damned if you don't with the U.S. military. That's the just the truth in the Middle East. So I think the victories we have we need to secure by having our coalition governments that we install do their fair share and take control of their future. So it's a tough question to answer, but that's what I would submit to you.

CHAFFETZ: The spirit of America is unlike anything else in the world, and you see it first and foremost with the United States military. I thank you both for your service, and your contribution and your perspectives, and I again thank you here tonight. You won't hear about it on other networks, but we will tell you the shocking details in a story that is becoming a major scandal for Democrats, coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: A story that hasn't received much attention from the mainstream media is a major national security scandal for House Democrats. Forty-four Democrats employed a number of Pakistani nationals as Internet technicians who are now under investigation for allegedly gaining unauthorized access to Congressional data, including classified information. The latest revelation, amazingly, Democrats apparently exempted those employees from background checks, didn't even check their background.

One reporter has been doing great work digging up the shocking details. He's joining us now. His name is Luke Rosiak of The Daily Caller. Luke, I have got to tell you, you've done some great work on this. But give us a synopsis of what is happening here because you have 44 Democrats, including Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is the head of the DCCC, the Democratic Congressional Committee, and they brought these Pakistani nationals, and they just let them into the system and didn't ever bother to give a background check.

LUKE ROSIAK, THE DAILY CALLER: Right. The House policy says if you are going to give someone super user permissions on the House network, meaning they can read all of the members emails, you got to do a background check. But they hired this guy Imran Awan and his brother, and soon they put other relatives, too. And these guys had criminal records. They had a dozen lawsuits. They had ties to foreign officials, and they never even checked their backgrounds. And what happened next is the House inspector general found that they made unauthorized access to house data. In other words, Congress was hacked. You never heard about this. This is a shocking revelation.

CHAFFETZ: There's missing hardware. Three of these people were on the House Intelligence Committee, Democrats from the House there on the House Intelligence Committee. And this guy and his brother I believe got fired from McDonald's for goodness' sakes. He was making like $165,000 a year from Congress and he couldn't hold a job at McDonald's, right, did I read that right?

ROSIAK: That's right, and these are the Democrats who are constantly lecturing us about cybersecurity. They basically brought the fox into the henhouse and the worst happened. Congress was hacked. And we've heard more about the hacks of Panera Bread and Under Armour in the last week then we have ever heard about this congressional thing. That is because breakfast muffins and underwear take cybersecurity more seriously than House Democrats. That is what we are learning.

CHAFFETZ: Well said. Not only did they get in there but they were in there for a long, long time. This is not something that just happened in a couple days. How long did this really go on?

ROSIAK: Imran Awan started working for these guys in 2004. And by the end of it in 2016, his whole family was on board working for one in five House Democrats. And so they could read all of those emails. This is something that the Democrats basically covered up. And they actually let them stay on the network for four months after the inspector general informed them of unauthorized access being made. So you have to think that it comes back to the narrative for Democrats. They don't care about hacking. They have this Russia thing they want to keep going, it was an inconvenient truth that Congress was hacked by Pakistanis at the same time. And so they withheld it from the public. And there was a lot of cover-ups in the 2016 election, but this is the most successful one.

CHAFFETZ: And they were traveling overseas, too? At one point, he goes overseas and then he comes back. Where does this case go from here? Authorities are now on top of the supposedly, but we never hear anything about it. Where does it go next?

ROSIAK: Congress falsely called a theft case. That's not what it was about. The inspector general said this is about data going off the network. And prosecutors started surveilling this guy, and he wired $300,000 to Pakistan and tried to flee the country. So prosecutors wound up charging him with moving that money overseas. But that basically seems like it's pretextual charges, and their next court date is going to be May 4th, and we're going to see if they are going to add the real charges. But if they don't, this is a cover up, full stop. And it's pretty hard to take Democrats seriously with their fundraising group, the DNC, because that's all it is, a fundraising group, that was hacked, and they talk about it nonstop. What we are talking about here on the house side is their official U.S. government offices.

CHAFFETZ: Over a long period of time, The Daily Caller that you work for has a great story on this if you want to read all the details. But this is truly a national security scandal particularly with people on the intel committee. And then one of the things that happened is they got access to their personal emails as well. Luke, you've done great reporting on this, keep it up. I look forward to reading more from you. I appreciate it.

ROSIAK: Thank you.

CHAFFETZ: When we return, what is bringing Senator Tim Scott and Representative Trey Gowdy together? We will tell you after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Shannon Bream, I just want to give a quick shout out to my friends and former Capitol Hill colleagues Senator Tim Scott and Representative Trey Gowdy. They have got a fantastic new book out,
Unified, How Our Unlikely Friendship Gives Us Hope for a Divided Country. Be sure to check it out. They gave me a copy today. There's a lot of questions about members of Congress, but I'll tell you the people with two of the greatest bits of integrity are Tim Scott and Trey Gowdy. You see them on television. I'm telling you there are just two of the finest people and they are very close friends, and I think you'll find this book illuminating.

That's it for us tonight. I have had a great time filling in for Laura Ingraham these past two evenings. Brian Kilmeade will be in this chair tomorrow night. He has a pack of red bulls ready to stay awake. He's on 'FOX and Friends' in the morning, he'll be on this show in the evening. So be sure to follow me on Twitter if you don't mind, @Jasoninthehouse, just in the FOX house now. I would love to hear what you thought about tonight's show and follow us there on Twitter. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News at Night' team are up next. Shannon?

END

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.