Media obsess over Melania's white hat

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," April 25, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening from Washington. I am Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle." We have a big show. We are going to reveal powerful forces in America that is keeping the illegal immigrant caravan at our border from falling apart. It was actually being disbanded. What happened?

Why do we allow individual lower court judges to upend our border security, our sovereignty, and the president's constitutional authority? I will offer my solution in tonight's "Angle." Plus, the high cost of socialized medicine. Little Alfie Evans parents have been trying to liberate the 2-year-old from a U.K. hospital. Why won't they let him go? Kanye West blows up the internet supporting Trump while the left goes into a volcanic meltdown. We'll get into it all in our "Seen and Unseen" segment with Raymond Arroyo. The media are furiously trying to spin a GOP congressional victory in an off-year special election as a loss for Trump. We will expose the real agenda.

And another untested social experiment is underway, as girls begin joining the Boy Scouts. But at what cost? An Eagle Scout response. But first, the tyranny of the judiciary. That's the focus of tonight's "Angle." Yesterday, a federal district court judge in D.C., Jon D Bates, overturned President Trump's decision to end the DACA program.

The judge was appointed by George W. Bush ruled that Trump's action was arbitrary and capricious because the Department of Homeland Security failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful." Well, this judge ordered the administration to continue to accept new DACA applicants. Delaying the implementation for 90 days so that the Trump folks can rewrite their basis for ending DACA. If this ruling stands, it could actually mean that tripling of the number of illegals ultimately protected by this Obama-era program. DACA would then be open to an additional 1.2 million more people, according to an analysis by the Migration Policy Institute.

That is on top of the nearly 700,000 already protected by the program. The very idea that one unelected district court judge could have this type of power should outrage every American.

I don't think any serious legal scholar really thinks that President Obama had the constitutional authority to waive his noble hand and grant 700,000 young people de facto citizenship. Remember, he gave them the right to work here without fear of any deportation, all by this executive action.

Remember, when the Democrats have a majority in Congress, they failed to pass broad-based amnesty. So, Obama, through his Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, decided he will do it on his own. This was done despite the misgivings of his own Justice Department. But nevertheless, Obama pushed it as far as he could.


FORMER PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The bill hasn't really changed. The need hasn't changed. It is still the right thing to do. The only thing that's changed apparently was the politics. It makes no sense to expel talented
young people who, for all intents and purposes, are Americans.


INGRAHAM: Yes, that whole citizenship thing, millions of people who came here illegally to get citizenship, that's all a formality, Mr. President. What President Trump and his administration did by rescinding DACA was to actually restore the rule of law and return immigration decisions and the fate of those DACA kids to the constitutionally appropriate branch of government, Congress. Yet district court judges from San Francisco to Brooklyn and now here in Washington, D.C., have stymied this president at every turn. This is totally absurd and an abuse of power. Now, you might be asking yourself how we got here.

And how did we get to a point where people from foreign countries believe they can crash our borders, game our immigration system, and ultimately just wander freely in our country? Well, the answer, one out-of-control judge in California have a lot to do with it. Her name is Judge Dolly Gee. In 2014, we saw of the mass influx of illegals crossing our southwest border. Remember the Obama Department of Homeland Security placed a lot of those illegal immigrant family units in detention facilities.

Well, in 2015, Judge Gee ruled that the government could not detain the children in center set up. Although centers in Texas because the judge ruled they were not safe and sanitary enough.

She based that decision on this 1997 settlement agreement that was called the Florez case, that required that unaccompanied alien minors be released into the country without delay.This Judge Gee went further, ruling that not only should the minors be released into the United States once apprehended, but their parents should be allowed to go free as well. So again, that one district judge in California is responsible for the release of an estimated 107,000 unaccompanied minors into the interior of this country since the year 2016.

And then also most of the 167,000 apprehended family units released as well. Again, think this through. One district court judge has forever changed our cultural, demographic, and economic, perhaps national security landscape, one judge. That is not what our founders intended.Now let's face it. The runaway judiciary has become in effect a new flank of the resistance. They are taking away your power and it's time for Congress to circumscribe the authority and the reach of these district court judges. Think about national health care policy, immigration policy, national security. These matters are all beyond the scope and understanding frankly of a district court judge. It's like giving a local mirror control over U.S. foreign policy. It's ridiculous.

Remember, the Constitution Article 3 Section 1 states the following, "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." It continued.

What does that mean? It means Congress can regulate the lower court jurisdiction. It's time they do. In fact, they have done so in the past. Congress should immediately pass legislation that establishes any cases touching on important national security or national economic concerns should be referred to the appeals court or the Supreme Court directly without delay, or at the very least, constitutional determinations of the type we are seeing in this DACA case.

They should be referred to the appellate judges, three-judge panel or maybe an on-banc panel of the whole court. They are far more knowledgeable in constitutional knowledgeable on constitutional and all these matters. The tyranny especially of the district court bench has to end. The people's will should no longer be held hostage to the capricious whims of one ill-equipped disgruntled life tenured jurist. That's THE ANGLE.

Joining me now for reaction are three esteemed attorneys in San Francisco, Harmeet Dhillon, RNC national committee woman, in Orlando, Scott Bolden, a Democratic strategist, and with me in Washington, Sol Wisenberg, cute and cuddly as always, who is the deputy independent counsel --

Scott, I am teasing. Good to see all of you. Let's start with you, Harmeet. When we see an entire federal program either struck down or in this case a decision invalidated in 90 days if the judge isn't satisfied, it will be invalidated. That's a lot of power for one unelected district court judge residing in Washington, D.C.

HARMEET DHILLON, RNC NATIONAL COMMITTEEWOMAN: That's right, Laura, but he isn't the first one. He's the third in the country, as you mentioned, in your opening. Judge also in San Francisco did it and then a judge in Brooklyn.

But what's interesting to note for your viewers is that there was a federal judge in Maryland who ruled the opposite way. What's wrong with this whole scheme is that one district judge is now overruling basically another district judge.

This scheme of nationwide injunction is inviting litigants to forum shop and so, of course, they are all running to the most liberal jurisdictions in America, northern district of California, eastern district of New York,
and District of Columbia. That's not how our courts were meant to be. Our courts were meant to have a hierarchy, as you mentioned. And only a superior court, not an equivalent court, should be allowed to do this. President Trump has been subject to 22 nationwide injunctions. That's more than any other president in history.

INGRAHAM: District court judge, right, Harmeet? A district court judge.

DHILLON: A district court judge.

INGRAHAM: Sitting in a court house and an injunction that affects the whole country. That's wild.

DHILLON: It didn't used to be a thing. In 175 years of our country's history, there were no nationwide injunctions. It's recent fashion and it's out-of-control, Laura.

INGRAHAM: Scott, let's go to you. Robert Bork talked about the political seduction of the law. He had given lots of speeches over the years about, and he disagreed with Justice Scalia on this about limiting the federal courts jurisdiction because of the allure, the political allure that a lot of these judges end up getting tangled up with.

Both they can on the left and right. His view is, sadly you can't trust a lot of each judges to just apply the law faithfully in the constitution faithfully. They end up legislating from the bench. Your take.

SCOTT BOLDEN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION PAC: My take is I don't know what you all are talking about. There are three branches of government. There is no federal district judge that overrules another federal district judge. The checks and balances of the Constitution which, Laura, you want to change because you disagree with their position.

INGRAHAM: Change, I want to restore.

BOLDEN: You want to change it. Here's the checks and balances. DOJ and anyone else who loses at the federal district court level, here's the thing, they can go to the Court of Appeals or the Ninth Circuit or whatever circuit. They can even go to the Supreme Court. You don't have to stay at the federal district court level. This idea that somehow issues of national importance are important have to go to more qualified judges --

INGRAHAM: Scott, you know -- Scott, you know a district court judge spends most of his or her time figuring out the sentencing guidelines and how they
apply. I clerked on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. These are like sentencing guidelines cases, I want to go to you, Sol.

BOLDEN: You know where the majority of the court of appeals come from, those judges come from the federal district court.

INGRAHAM: We get that. In the Constitution, you could do away -- the Congress could do away with all of these courts if they want to do. Sol, you like Bates. You know him because he worked for Ken Starr. In this case, he goes beyond the Brooklyn judge or the Ninth Circuit District Court judge in California by saying not only must you restore the current DACA, but you must start taking new applications.

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL, WHITEWATER: In actuality, it's a very narrow opinion. What Judge Bates did, and by the way, Judge Bates is not your normal district court judge. He was appointed to the FISA Court by John Roberts. He is respected throughout the judiciary.

It doesn't mean his opinion is correct, but he is not one of these wacky California judges like Allsup, you know, the clerked for William O. Douglas. What he actually said was this under the Administrative Procedures Act, the government did not adequately explain why they think that Obama lacked the --

INGRAHAM: Here is the explanation. Obama was acting as a legislator. That's basically what Sessions said in his letter. Obama was acting as the super legislator because his Democrats couldn't do amnesty. So, Obama, contrary to what his own Justice Department told him to do, he decided I'm going to do this by executive -- created a de facto amnesty for 700,000.

WISENBERG: All Judge Bates said was, you didn't -- you got 90 days to come up with a better reason.

INGRAHAM: Judge Bates wasn't just saying that. He also talked about the
people relying on DACA and that --

WISENBERG: That's because it's part of the law.

INGRAHAM: It is all made up. He made it up.

WISENBERG: The D.C. Circuit law. He's got to follow the D.C. Circuit.

INGRAHAM: No, he made it up. You do not think we have a problem with runaway judges in this country?

WISENBERG: Absolutely, and I'm not saying I agree with Judge Bates' decision, but it's a mainstream decision and all he said -- if he had wanted to be like one of these California judges, he would've said, I
vacate it right away. You've got 90 days. You were sloppy, is what he
said. You've got 90 days --

DHILLON: He did a permanent injunction. He issued a permanent injunction.

INGRAHAM: Harmeet, and then Scott.


WISENBERG: -- injunction when it was a conservative judge in Texas invalidating --

DHILLON: Scott, you raise a good point. I think Democrats should be very concerned about this as well because the tables will be turned one day and it's not the place of judges who are an equal branch, not a superior branch, to be issuing nationwide injunctions on the basis of two or three people in front of them. That's outrageous.

It's not precedented in our history, but this judge did go further, Laura, than the judge in California. He issued a partial summary judgment here with no trial. He sorts of made up some of these rulings, they make no sense.

Finally, President Obama himself in 2012 when he signed the DACA order, he said this is a temporary measure. This is a stopgap. This is to give hope to some people until Congress acts. Now it's being converted.

INGRAHAM: Comey made a comment. I want to play this for all of you. Scott, you can react. This is what he said tonight on CNN. Let's watch.


JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: After I was fired from I put together a legal team of three people, one of whom was Professor Dan Richman at Columbia University. After I had asked him to give this information to the media. I separately gave my legal team four memos which were unclassified. They included the ones that he had gone to give the substance of it to "The New York Times." The bottom line is I see no credible claim by any serious person that that violated the law.


INGRAHAM: Scott, no problem? A couple memos were confidential. Four of them were not.

BOLDEN: Absolutely, and because they were not confidential or seen as sacred and what have you, no problem. I guarantee you this. Under the Trump administration, if they really thought he had leaked secret documents are classified documents, he would be prosecuted right now. What is the delay?

You yelled and screamed about this for months about him leaking but what about the substance of those documents, which is the real issue. And why hasn't he been prosecuted if he has broken the law with the Republican administration that he is at war with right now? Why not?


WISENBERG: As a practical matter doesn't matter because the judgment proves in D.C., there is no D.C. jury even if he was ever prosecuted that whatever convict Jim Comey. They are not going to convict anybody who is an enemy of Trump.

BOLDEN: Because he has done nothing wrong, Sol.

INGRAHAM: Yes. He did nothing wrong. Come on. Regulation for DOJ says you can't traffic trade or transfer property even if it's not --

WISENBERG: It's government property. Government property had no business giving --

INGRAHAM: Why wasn't Hillary prosecuted?

WISENBERG: Whether it was classified or not, he had no business whatsoever turning over to his buddy. He's done a lot of things wrong that aren't necessarily criminal. He has really acted shamefully beginning with what he did --

INGRAHAM: Today we had the travel ban arguments. A quick sound bite, this is Justice Anthony Kennedy, maybe think a swing vote on the court with the travel ban oral argument. Let's listen.


JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY: Suppose you have a local mayor as a candidate. He makes statements. He is elected, and on day two, he takes acts consistent with those hateful statements. Whatever he said in the campaign is irrelevant?


INGRAHAM: Harmeet, he played both sides in oral argument questioning in that case and that question, he seemed to indicate that he was siding with those would strike down the travel ban. What's your take?

DHILLON: Well, Laura, I think they did play both sides, several of the judges, but most of the conservative judges seem to be siding with the
administration on this. I think this case is up in the air. I would be
foolish to make a prediction here. I think they thought about a very
Ultimately, I think the Trump administration should win this but obviously you know, there are politics and very strong feelings. We heard some rhetoric about flipping the tables and one of the candidate made anti-Semitic remarks. I know they are thinking that way. If they look at the four corners of the law, hopefully should be --

INGRAHAM: Or the Constitution. Scott, prediction, will it be upheld or struck down?

BOLDEN: I certainly hope it will be struck down. A tough case here. Trump's biggest problem and DOJ's biggest problem is they do have broad authority, but Trump's own statements, political and outside the courtroom, he's his own worst witness. The judges have to grapple with that. I don't think they can ignore his statements, whether they are inconsistent or not.

INGRAHAM: They can, depending on what --


INGRAHAM: We've got to go.

WISENBERG: For once, Scott is halfway right. The problem isn't what he said before the election. It's what president has said and tweeted since the election. He's got to watch that. We talked about that before.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, fantastic segment. Did I get any continuing legal education credit with that segment? When we return from I will reveal exclusive information tonight about how forces in America kept Mexican authorities from fully disbanding the illegal immigrant caravan. You don't want to miss it. Coming up.


INGRAHAM: Welcome back to THE INGRAHAM ANGLE. I can reveal to you exclusively tonight some blockbuster new information about that caravan of illegal immigrants arriving at the southern border.

A source close to the Mexican government told me today that after Mexico had effectively disbanded the caravan and deported many of its members, the American media outlets including CNN along with various NGOs in the United States whipped up a lot of stuff that helped reconstitute the caravan and indeed recruit new members. It started chugging its way to Tijuana. What happened is a narrative was created that helped, as I said, recruit new members and convince those already in the caravan to keep the party going. Well, they sold these individuals as political refugees of course, when most are seeking asylum based on purely economic reasons because they want a better way of life.This top source also told me that the caravan was basically finished until a CNN reporter sympathetically focused on the plight almost exclusively of women and children in the caravan.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Many of them coming from Honduras, telling us that they are fleeing violent political corruption as well as poverty, trying to make their way north. They say doesn't matter what President Trump says or if President Trump sends the National Guard to the U.S. Mexico border. They will find a way to get north.


INGRAHAM: Women and children. You see that shot, they were almost all men. Just one woman. What? What else do we know about who is in the caravan? And MS-13 gang member tried to sneak in the country pretending to be an unaccompanied minor. Lastly, we exposed how American attorneys may try to use our lax asylum laws to force us to take in hundreds of these illegal immigrants,conducting seminars and so forth.

For reaction, we are joined by Congressman Steve King of Iowa, member of an immigration and border security subcommittee in Congress. It's good to see you, but this is disturbing. This is just wild what's happening.

You have these lawyers, including this guy who was one of the lead lawyers in this effort, Alex Mensing, a project coordinator for Pueblo (inaudible) which is organizing this effort to help the caravan.

The concern, Congressman, is that we have American lawyers and other nongovernmental organizations almost working hand in glove, de facto, with media outlets to push -- Mexican election coming up in a few months. Put the political pressure on Mexico and as I said, keep it all going. They make their way to Tijuana and then what?

REPRESENTATIVE STEVE KING (R-LA), IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY COMMITTEE: Seeing this caravan make its way towards the United States and divert towards Tijuana and seeing the way they are facilitating this with the media and with the immigration attorneys, I wish the immigration
attorney organization has at least 15,000 members in the United States of
that organization.

There is federal statutes that prohibit and are a felony for contributing
and aiding and abetting illegal immigration. They better have their laws
right if they're going to go to a foreign country and help facilitate an
unarmed invasion into the United States. We are weak on our asylum laws.

That is how the law was passed by voice in the middle of the night after everybody left for the airport for Christmas vacation. A few years ago, several years, I don't have the exact year. I read the text of that and they were ready to gamble out and everybody headed to the airport and it was set up to be, this was during the Pelosi era when she was the speaker and when Harry Reid --

INGRAHAM: Let me explain to people. You claim asylum when you say you have a credible fear of persecution for a variety of reasons. It's really lax. You can -- it's race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group. I don't even know what that means and political opinion.

Some of us feel persecuted for having a political opinion here. On those grounds committee can claim asylum. Overwhelmingly, the immigration judges have granted asylum or allowed people to be released. Then they never come back for their hearing or deportation briefing.

KING: Training them what to say so when they arrive --

INGRAHAM: Workshops. They are doing workshops with these migrants.

KING: I stood on a cliff outside of Roma, Texas, and watched them inflate the raft, bring a pregnant lady across. They brought it to the shore and the grass, helped her up, handed her bags of her possessions and she stood and waited for the border patrol to come along to claim credible fear.

INGRAHAM: Why haven't Republicans in Congress done anything to change this law? You have been a staunch advocate of strengthening immigration laws. Noncontiguous countries, other than Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Central America and beyond.

If they show up at our border and they throw themselves at a border patrol agent, they don't have to cross the border, just show up. They can get asylum in the United States very easily or at least be released into the United States easily. We must have a new law that says you can be expeditiously and immediately removed back to your country, like you are if you are a Mexican. Mexicans don't have that ability. Only other than Mexicans have that ability to be released back into the United States. That's nuts. We talked about this judge in D.C. part of the judicial tyranny.

KING: Changing the credible fear language, we did a tour of the border last October with Chairman Bob Goodlatte and others. We went through a support system. We saw a lot of what was going on. The simple change is written into the Davis Oliver Act that's got a lot of enforcement provisions in it.

INGRAHAM: Where is this act?

KING: This act is looking for a way to come to the floor.

INGRAHAM: Paul Ryan, he's not going to bring into the floor?

KING: It seemed to me that the votes were a little short because it's tied up in some of the Republicans insist on DACA amnesty as part of --

INGRAHAM: Here we go. You cannot just do something that protects the American people. That protects our sovereignty, our borders, our health, our national security. You can't just do that for the American people without a big giveaway to illegal immigrants. Is that correct? People watching this, they want to throw something. I do, and I am hosting the show.

KING: The president whom I support, promised he would end DACA, but he served up DACA amnesty.

INGRAHAM: I don't talk about that. That drove me crazy too.

KING: We should make a deal between the rule of law and amnesty --

INGRAHAM: I completely agree 13,186, 13,186 UAM, unaccompanied minors under 17 have already been released this year in fiscal year 2018.

KING: Laura, I can guarantee they were driven to, bust to, or flow to all 50 states. Records show --

INGRAHAM: They go to sponsors.

KING: They made go to an address in Las Vegas, who knows. It could be a coyote house. It could be a drug smuggling house -- MS-13. I was in Arizona. They busted him for a pickup load of marijuana, 240 pounds. He had a tattoo on his arm. I saw with my eyes. I unloaded that marijuana, 240 pounds. It's a stunning thing when you put your eyes on it you walk in the warehouses and going to those jails. About 81 percent male by the data I'm looking at. Some of those youth have a little gray in their beard, Laura.

INGRAHAM: I get it. They might not be 17, Congressman? We have to get something done. Thank you so much for your advocacy and work on this.

Up next, the media focuses on the first lady's hat while missing the real
story. Kanye West goes full "Make America great again." Stay there.


INGRAHAM: Time now for our seen and unseen segment. Someone just ran behind the side. Orson Welles. See, this is fun. It's live TV. Right? I think that's what makes it fun. You know it's live.

On tap tonight, the Orwellian nightmare of socialized medicine exposed by the plight of a dying child. Kanye West strikes again, making liberal heads spin after tweeting support to Trump. And to put it all in perspective, we are joined by FOX News contributor Raymond Arroyo. Raymond, the media coverage of the first lady yesterday focused on her hat.

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Her hat. Stephen Colbert kind of
captured it in this clip. Watch.


STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW": Today the two men addressed the crowd, and there was an awkward moment. Trump goes for the kiss and, oh, saved by the hat. That's more than a hat. That is a defensive perimeter.


COLBERT: Their deal is either she gets to wear the hat or Trump has to wear a cone.



INGRAHAM: We call that the cone of shame on my dog.

ARROYO: There was actually coverage, mainstream coverage of this idea. And the narrative is that the Trumps are distant, that they are loveless. Here's the bottom line.

INGRAHAM: What do they want them to do, make out in front of everybody?

ARROYO: I guess. But they are depriving Melania of a really important moment. This woman yesterday pulled off --

INGRAHAM: It was fabulous.

ARROYO: Michelle Obama when she was running the White House or Laura Bush before her, they had teams of people, hundreds to organize.

INGRAHAM: Consultants, professional party planners. Desiree Rogers screwed up at the state dinner and people snuck in. Remember that?

ARROYO: But Melania Trump did this all on her own. She assembled a team of 10 people, just her staff. It's her staff. She went over the protocol.

INGRAHAM: That video of her arranging everything.

ARROYO: And she chose the flowers, the lights, the whole thing. She should be given credit for that, not maligned for not grabbing the hand when it was presented. She did hold his hand. She did indeed let him kiss her. So this narrative, I am tired of this narrative.

INGRAHAM: They cannot give her one moment. This was an elegant, wonderful, beautiful presentation of America to France, and with the French touch and the New Orleans stuff.

ARROYO: Jambalaya.

INGRAHAM: I don't want to mention New Orleans.

ARROYO: You're waving everybody off.

INGRAHAM: I'm a waver.

ARROYO: Don't wave me, keeping me down for this segment.

INGRAHAM: I like that we are in double boxes.

ARROYO: Because you don't like me next to you.

INGRAHAM: Exactly. Alfie Evans, this is another infuriating case. National Health Service in Britain is preventing parents from giving medical assistance to their child. This is so heartbreaking.

ARROYO: This little boy came in December of 2016. He was brought of the hospital with an infection. He's been on a respirator. They said if you take the respirator out, he would die. He wouldn't be able to breathe on his own. Well, it's been out since Monday. His parents fought to keep the respirator.

INGRAHAM: But they don't want to pay the money? They don't want to spend
the money?

ARROYO: National Health Service in Britain, they look at an actuarial
table and they say --

INGRAHAM: Not a human life.

ARROYO: Does the cost exceed the quality of life? In the case of this little baby who has a degenerative brain disease, they say he should be cut off. No more care. The parents are fighting. They want them to have care. The father went to see the Pope last week in desperation. The Pope not only blessed his effort, he interceded. The Pope sent the head Bambini Gesu in Rome to Liverpool, England. She is standing there, the doctors won't meet with her. There is a medical jet waiting to take this child to Italy to get medical treatment. They won't release him.

INGRAHAM: The Pope wants to take the baby and help the baby and the National Health Service won't let the Pope and give him Italian citizenship too.

ARROYO: They won't let him free. Now, why? I will tell you why. Because it's a shame. It would be a blight on the face of this national health care which has become its own religion.

INGRAHAM: Dehumanized.

ARROYO: To have a citizen go elsewhere for medical care. They would rather let the child die in the hospital.

INGRAHAM: The child is suffering now because it's being denied food and hydration as well, or food?

ARROYO: They are giving it some hydration now. But let me tell you, the networks in the United States, 28 minutes of coverage to the royal birth. None to Alfie Evans.

INGRAHAM: The queen made some statement about that.

ARROYO: And William and Kate as well. The good news, lots of prayer services happening around the country. In New York tomorrow at noon at the U.N., also Notre Dame today and other schools.

INGRAHAM: Let's pray for a miracle here. Pray for a miracle.

All right, this have the Twitter-sphere going crazy. I'm just glad it's not focused on me. I'm glad when I am not trending.

ARROYO: That's a good day.

INGRAHAM: But what is trending is Kanye West who I had a problem with when he took Taylor Swift's award out of her hand. Remember that old deal? That's Kanye, right.

ARROYO: That was Kanye. He is a free --

INGRAHAM: He was a pal of Trump.

ARROYO: Now he issued this tweet today which reads, of course "The Make America Great" hat again. But then he came out and said he loves Trump and no mob is going to dissuade him from that love. He is being attacked, as you can imagine.

INGRAHAM: He must have watched our "Defending the First" series that we've been doing on the "Ingraham Angle" because we've been defending people's rights to just have a different opinion.

ARROYO: I am of two minds on this. I'll just make this quick.

INGRAHAM: You're a big hip-hop fan. Right up with Frank Sinatra and Capital Records sessions.

ARROYO: But here's the idea. I'm not sure if he's trying to promote his upcoming two albums and his line, his line of clothing, or if this is truly a cry for freedom of speech and might be an opening in a community that has been monolithic. We'll see.

INGRAHAM: Didn't another hip-hopper come out.

ARROYO: Chance the rapper came out and set up not all black people have to be Democrats.

INGRAHAM: Taking a chance.

ARROYO: Taking a chance. There it is. There's his tweet. We will see where this leads. Hopefully this will start a conversation. Why can't there be white liberals and white conservatives and black liberals and black conservatives?

INGRAHAM: It has to be monolithic and one way.

ARROYO: Diversity is more fun.

INGRAHAM: Prayers for baby Alfie. Raymond, thank you so much.

And you're going to want to stick around to see the next segment. The media are telling us that congressional victory for the GOP in Arizona is actually a win for the Democrats. Isn't that cute? We are going to expand how they are wrong next.


INGRAHAM: When is a win not a win? When the left doesn't like the results. Then the spinning begins. Republican Debbie Lesko won a special election for Congress in Arizona last night but we were told that's really bad news for the president.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tremendous shift in an essentially Republican land. And when you put all the numbers together, it's just not good for them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If that were translated across the country, the Democrats would easily win the House and then I think Senate seats.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Members of Congress, they can sniff a wave when they see one. And there are a lot of canaries in this coal mine.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There is real serious consideration that they may lose the United States Senate as well.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not only is there a wave but Republicans are kind of running for the hills at this point.


INGRAHAM: Running for the hills? Joining us now to analyze the analysts are former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino in Florida and in New York Chris Hahn, a Democrat and a former aide to Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer.

OK, Chris, let's start with you. I think both sides do this at times. When Obama wins big in a district in then there's an election on the Republican, or the Democrat only wins by seven, then Republicans might say something. But this is kind of a weird deal because it's a special election. It's not a regularly scheduled election so it's always going to be fairly low voter turnout. So I think the Democrats were kind of hyping this little much.

CHRIS HAHN, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, look, I think that the swing here were significant mostly because of the demographics of that district. Let me just explain. The average age of the voter there is 60 years old. And that is a voter that tends to be reliably Republican. And the fact that
this race was as close as it was with those demographics is particularly troubling to Republicans who I have been talking to all day.

There were other races around the country where there were swings last night too, including here in New York where a Democrat took an assembly seat that had been held by Republicans for the last 40 years. And he took it by 18 points.

So there is a mood among Republicans that there might be some changes in the air, and they've got a lot of work to do. And like one of the people quoted before said, you extrapolate that 15-point swing across the country and it is devastating. But more importantly, if you look at the demographics here, mostly white, older, that is really bad especially given the fact that the candidate that the Democrats put up there was pretty much a mainstream Democrat, did not separate herself from Washington Democrats. And there was nothing wrong with the Republican candidate. She was not some crazy --

INGRAHAM: OK, OK, OK we've got it. We've got it. Dan, go ahead.


DAN BONGINO, FORMER SECRET SERVICE AGENT: Listen, I have no doubt, Laura, that the Democrats are probably going to pick up some seats in these midterms. What do you expect? That media has been on a 24-hour conspiracy news network tirade on a fake Russian collusion fairytale against Donald Trump. They've been calling him anything that ends in an "ist" or a "phobe," a phoba-phobic-ista-phobe, for the last year. Of course there's going to be some anti-Trump anger. But here's the problem, Laura. I concede one point to Chris. Yes, there's probably going to be some good wins by the Democrats for them, not for us. But if this turns out to be a blue puddle rather than a blue tidal wave, they are in a lot of trouble. Why, Laura? Because they are solely invested in impeachment and they can't do it without taking the House.

INGRAHAM: You know what, guys, another point I think we should think about is Congress itself and Republicans in Congress have not done enough to enact the president's agenda. I think that's part of the -- if Republicans are kind of dispirited, it's not because the economy. The economy is doing really well. They are dispirited because the Republicans aren't getting it done. They didn't repeal Obamacare. The wall is not being built. They spent a lot of money on this omnibus. I mean, if you are a Republican, like, this Congress is lame. Maybe Debbie Lesko is going to be better and hopefully she will be. We have to move on. We have another topic.

HAHN: Can I just disagree.

INGRAHAM: OK, go, quick, quick, quick.

HAHN: This election is good to be about Trumpet nobody else, period.

INGRAHAM: OK, gentlemen, stay right. Let's look specifically at how the
left and the media are portraying conservatives, Republicans, and the
right. Remember when then candidate Obama made these famous remarks.


BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: It's not surprising then that they get bitter and they cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren't like them.


INGRAHAM: Or when Hillary said this about Trumpet voters.


Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.




INGRAHAM: Bitter, clinger, deplorable. And now CNN's Jim Acosta is in trouble for saying this about Trump supporters.


JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: People around the country don't know it's an act. They are not in on the act, and they take what he says very seriously. They don't have all their faculties. In some cases their elevator might not hit all floors. My concern is that a journalist is going to be hurt one of these days, somebody is going to get hurt.


INGRAHAM: After a backlash, Acosta denied today that he was referring to Trump supporters and even mocking mental illness. What's really going on here? Chris, let's get you on this. He really is echoing the refrain of the elites. They are dumb. They are troglodytes. They go around in Ford F-150s. They have the gun rack on top. I wrote a book years ago called "Power to the People." It was all about how the elites looked down on the regular working class people of the country. That's how they lost the last election. That's how they lost in 2010. They made fun of the Tea Party. They haven't learned anything. And Acosta is just a member of that crowd. Doesn't surprise me at all.

HAHN: All I can say is wah. I don't know when CNN became a safe space for conservatives. I am sorry if their snowflake tendencies were disrupted by what he said. But I am a liberal who goes on FOX News. I have been called a lot worse than that.

INGRAHAM: That's why we love you.

HAHN: I have no sympathy for any of it.

INGRAHAM: But I don't call all Democrats mental or they don't have all -- that was wild. That's a reporter. That's not a commentator. You are an analyst/commentator. He is supposed to be a reporter calling balls and strikes, at least that's what we are led to believe. Dan -- hold on, hold on. I have to get Dan on this. He's been a rapid anti-Trump reporter for CNN which I think it's one of the reasons why CNN, again God bless them, they've lost so many viewers over the years. There's no reporters. They are only opinion makers.

BONGINO: I have to say, Laura, for as much as I like Chris off the air, on the air we love to rip each other's throats out.


BONGINO: This is how I know we are winning a little bit the culture war on the right. Chris has actually co-opted one of our terms -- snowflakes.

HAHN: Absolutely.

BONGINO: This is how I know we are fighting back and winning. It really bothers Chris. Here's what Chris knows, Laura, that he's not telling you. And I know this. Chris knows his party has zero agenda. Here is their agenda -- give us your money. Give us your health care. By the way, send your kids to bunch of crappy schools, no school choice. They have no agenda. So Chris is married exclusively to identity politics, deplorable politics.

HAHN: No way.

BONGINO: And to do that, you have to come in like the savior. Look, we're going to come in and save the minority community, the Muslim communities. Females, we are going to save you from those rapacious Republicans. That's what's going on. They have nothing else.

HAHN: Danny boy. Dan, Dan, Dan, look, we're not married to any of that. We are not married to impeachment. It doesn't even matter what the Democrats care about. This election is going to be about Donald Trump.

INGRAHAM: Chris, you are making his point. Hold on. Hold on. Chris.
Dan, Chris is making your point. It's almost like the Democrats have given up on offering solutions or ideas, proposals to raise the standard of living for the average American. All of you guys -- hold on. What I'm telling you, what I see, I've been around Washington for far too long. There's a lot of -- you are a xenophobe, you're anti-immigrant, you're anti-black, you're anti-LGBT. You're anti, anti, anti, Bob Mueller, Bob Mueller, impeachment, Bob Mueller, racist. That's what it is. Where are the proposals about raising standard of living for average Americans?

HAHN: Laura, there are tons of those.


HAHN: There are tons of those proposals.

INGRAHAM: You said they are running on Trump. That's all they are running on.

HAHN: No, they are not. The people are voting on Trump. I've been on campaigns my entire life, and this guy has taken all the oxygen out of the debate. It is all about him. It's not about the Republican and what they may or may not want to do. It's not about the Democrat and what they may or may not want to do. It's about Donald Trump and what he's doing.

INGRAHAM: Growing the economy, good.

HAHN: The margin of victory here is not going to be about him.

BONGINO: Chris is making our point. While the elitist Democrat snobs, they knock the deplorables for being the uneducated ignoramus class. What Chris is actually saying is that his party stands for nothing. They're only running on one thing. We are not the guy the White House. We have nothing to offer you. We have no economic plan.

INGRAHAM: And there is no Obama in the wing.

HAHN: That's not what I said, Dan. That's not what I said. It doesn't matter what any candidate on either side of the debate says during the election. This election will be about Donald Trump.

INGRAHAM: It's all Trump all the time. I will take that. He is growing the economy. We might have a deal with North Korea and we're getting back on the trade track. I love it. Let's make that the referendum, no problem whatsoever. All right, guys. The 'political correctness' police don't seem to think boys deserve their own safe spaces. Now the girls want to join the Boy Scouts and are joining. The fallout next.


INGRAHAM: The Boy Scouts have begun admitting 3,000 girls into their ranks. And 170 troops nationwide have begun a soft launch program after the organization revised its rules in October. This may make the virue signalers feel good but at what cost?

Let's discuss that with Charlie Kirk, the founder and executive director of Turning Point USA, a fabulous group, who was also an Eagle Scout. Charlie, now I'm really impressed. I was impressed with Turning Point but now you're really cool. OK, so what is the problem with having girls in Boy Scouts other than it kind of messed up the description of the group's name?

CHARLIE KIRK, FOUNDER, TURNING POINT USA: I always said, Laura, I said, well, things are getting bad, but what's next? Are they going to let girls in the Boy Scouts? Now here is where we are.

I'll tell you, here's what's wrong with it. Social psychologists will tell you that in the development phase of young men in particular, there is something quite special and quite important with being just around other young boys. As soon as you put a singular young lady in that environment, their behavioral pattern changes completely. They try to impress that young woman. The way they act, the way they interact totally changes. And look, the Boy Scouts of an unbelievably successful over the last 100 yearsof turning boys into men and creating some of America's greatest leaders, whether it be Neil Armstrong or U.S. presidents or U.S. senators. So I'm trying understand what the motive behind this is, and really the conclusion I've come to his the political correct virtue signaling left, they like to destroy things that work. They want to destroy core cultural institutions --

INGRAHAM: Attack on masculinity. Traditional masculinity, it's toxic masculinity now. So you bring girls in and it's less toxic. I want to have you listen to a comment from a father about his daughter who wants to be an Eagle Scout. Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To think that my daughter could be an Eagle Scout, I want that for my sons, but yesterday I didn't know that my daughter could be an Eagle Scout. And today she could if she wants to. And that makes me
incredibly proud.


INGRAHAM: So he said my daughter, it's fantastic. She gets to reach this pinnacle just like the boys.

KIRK: Well, what do you say to the sons who want to join the Girl Scouts? Is that OK now? Why doesn't she just join the Girl Scouts, which by the way is a wonderful institution. It's been around just about as long as the Boy Scouts. And here's the real problem is that this whole move by the Boy Scouts of America is going to destroy the Girl Scouts of America. There is an institution that is designed programmatically to try to have leadership development for young women. And so that's the real problem here. It's going to destroy this other organization just to try to increase membership for the Boy Scouts.

INGRAHAM: And by the way, Charlie. Hold on, Charlie. We have a statement. It came out in October when this decision was first made before was implemented. This is Patricia Mellor, CEO of the Girl Scouts of the Green and White Mountains service in Vermont, New Hampshire. "To me a daughter is not a matter of convenience. You've made the choice for your son based on what you thought was best for him and the daughter should be getting a similar decision. We know facts prove that the girl scout program is better, is a better program for girls and young women we serve." And it goes on and on about how they are not happy, obviously because they think it's going to destroy the Girl Scouts.

KIRK: And it will. It will. And the Girl Scouts already had trouble recruiting and trying to grow their membership and this is only going to obliterate that. But the broader point is this, and you see this happening throughout our culture, and this is such an important cultural issue and politics are always downstream from culture, is that the postmodernists want to redefine truth and they want to destroy things that work. And the Boy Scouts of America for 100 years has been one core cultural institution that has turned boys into men. Now we are severely jeopardizing that by inserting young ladies into the Boy Scouts. Look, I can't understand why we just can't try to improve the Girl Scouts and we have to try to put them into the Boy Scouts. And as an Eagle Scout, someone who has benefited from this program personally, I am so disappointed. But unfortunately with the trend of this country, I am not surprised.

INGRAHAM: Charlie Kirk, thank you so much.

We'll be right back with the tweets of the night. Will yours be chosen?


INGRAHAM: Before we go, let's take a look at a few interesting tweets that came my way about tonight's show. From Vickie, "Your Angle this evening April 25 hit the nail on the head with these district judges controlling our lives. Congress should get this under control, drain the swamp." And from Adam, "I love Raymond Arroyo, has an interesting several news stories each week." We all love Raymond. And from Lisa, "Dude, a judge in Cali shouldn't make decisions that negatively impact me in Connecticut. Abuse of power and judge shopping at its worst." From Sarah, "Sick and tired of Republicans doing nothing about illegal immigration." That's a lot. That's not just one or two. I love it. Remember, tweet me @IngrahamAngle, see you on radio tomorrow morning. That's all the time we have. But guess what. You are lucky, very force fortunate, very blessed, because you have Shannon Bream and the "FOX News at Night" team, they are up next with another fantastic show, all the news of the day and the opinion that you need to get you through the rest of this day. See you tomorrow.


<Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 ASC Services II Media, LLC. 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 ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>