Trump signs religious liberty executive order

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

INGRAHAM: Good evening from Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle." What a day of bombshells over the Mueller investigation and Trump and Stormy. But, NBC's bombshell exploded in its space, we're going to tell you how their big wiretap scoop missed the mark just a bit. And remember, Rob Blagojevich, the former Illinois governor? Well, his wife is saying that he was railroaded by Mueller and Comey's bestfriend. Tonight, she's here with a message for them and a warning for President Trump.

And Ben Shapiro will join us to defend himself against the outrageous accusation that he incited a deadly attack on a mosque. But we begin with NBC walking back its big story today, that the feds had wiretapped the phones of the president's personal attorney, Michael Cohen. Now the story now has a lengthy correction on top saying that three senior officials disputed that report, but the correction explains that Cohen's calls were monitored but not wiretapped, big difference. And that investigators didn't actually listen to his calls. Well, Fox News has confirmed that at least one of Cohen's phones was monitored with a device that records phone numbers dialed and the length of those calls.

And even before, by the way, NBC realized its mistake, Giuliani correctly shot down the report telling the "Daily Beast," "We think it's going to turn out to be untrue because it would be totally illegal. Disclosing a wiretap is itself a federal felony." All of this came after Giuliani emphasized that the Trump team will no longer sit idly by while Mueller's investigation creeps into every part of the president's life.


RUDY GIULIANI, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: This started with collusion with the Russians. No. Now, they go to obstruction of justice, collusion among the players. What they are really trying to do is trap them into perjury and we are not suckers.


INGRAHAM: Let's get into today's developments with former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, and former Whitewater deputy independent prosecutor, Sol Wisenberg, and former FEC Chairman Bradley Smith. Guys, we have so much to get through. I want to go to you first, Bradley. There was a moment during the interview this morning with Rudy Giuliani, where he again reiterated that this was not a campaign contribution, and then he added another thought that seem to contradict the first thought. Let's watch.


GIULIANI: If we had to defend this as not being it campaign contribution, I think we could do that. This was for personal reasons. This was -- the president had been hurt personally, not politically, personally so much, and the first lady, by some of the false allegations. That one more false allegation was 6 years old, and I think he was trying to help the family. For that, the man is being treated like some kind of villain, and I think he was just being a good lawyer. Imagine if that came out on October 15th, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. So, to make it go away, they made this --

GIULIANI: Cohen didn't even ask, Cohen made it go away, he did his job.


INGRAHAM: Bradley, do you see my point there? I mean, it was all during the campaign. I mean, it all October, whether it was three weeks before the election or two weeks before the election, I wasn't quite getting that particular point and whether it makes a difference in terms of any FEC violations.

BRADLEY SMITH, FORMER FEC CHAIRMAN: Right. Well, I don't know exactly -- you know, I can't speak for Rudy what he was thinking, but the basic law on this is that many things that can influence a campaign are not campaign expenditures. So, for example, if the candidate thinks, I would look great in that new suit, he might spend $1800 on a suit, but it's not a campaign expenditure. If he thinks, I would do better on this grueling campaign if I had a week at Martha's Vineyard first, not a campaign expenditure, personal expenditure.The rule on this is not that something related to the campaign is a campaign expenditure, it's something related to the campaign as a campaign expenditure. The FEC rejected both those options.

It has to be something, an obligation that would not exist but for the campaign. I think there is a strong argument at least from what we know publicly than a man like Trump have said, look, we would have made these payments. Celebrities have to make these kinds of payments. He would have reasons like, protecting his family, protecting his commercial viability, not wanting the distraction. All of those things that might have made him to do it. The New Yorker has run an article suggesting he's paid -- made similar payments in the past, which would suggest that it's not something pertaining to as candidate and even Stormy Daniels if we are to believe her said in her "60 Minutes" interview that it is as far back as 2011, she was told not to say anything about this, suggesting that long before he was a candidate, they wanted to keep this quiet. So, I think that there's a very strong argument that this is not a campaign contribution and not a campaign expenditure and it really doesn't matter whether Cohen paid it and Trump reimbursed Cohen, it's not a campaign expenditure.

INGRAHAM: Does it all go to the state of mind then, Sol, the state of mind of Donald Trump, when he was reimbursing, during what time frame, is that relevant here to look at this? Because again the way Bradley just described it, I completely understand that. But the way of course it's being reported across most media today, it is burned down the house kind of stuff. Your reaction?

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL, WHITEWATER: Well, I would never burn down the house for this kind of campaign law violation, assuming that it is one. I mean, this is not the crime of the century, it's relatively small potatoes. Bradley is more of an expert on the election law than I am. I've always thought the test was, is it for the purpose of influencing the campaign? So, I think it's always a question if you do something 11 days before the campaign, but it's relatively a fact question, and by no means would be easy to prove. But again, in the grand scheme of things, it's relatively minor. I can't imagine any president being impeached, much less prosecuted for a felony for that. It doesn't change the fact that Rudy isn't really talking about it in a very intelligent way and that it's very dangerous to go on television and start talking about what your client said and did.

INGRAHAM: Ari, I want to play for you a montage that media comments today about this wiretap issue. Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They were able to get texts, emails, and wiretaps on his many phone lines, leading up to the raid and continuing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you are involved in a conspiracy, crime or dirty tricks.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Or a cover-up or an obstruction or trying --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If there is evidence of the crime, I don't care if you are the president's lawyer. You get the same treatment I do, you go to a judge and say, I want to listen to his phone.


INGRAHAM: OK. Well, it turns out that that didn't happen, and you wonder why people call it fake news. They were positively jubilant all day, like we will have the recordings. We will be able to listen. I mean, the speculation about what the conversation might have been if Trump actually had a conversation with Michael Cohen. I have never heard anything like that. Your reaction to this media feeding frenzy?

ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, the whole velocity and direction of the press is to blame Donald Trump for everything and that's been a constant, Laura. It's been since he became a candidate and has accelerated since he became president.

So, when NBC hears about something like this, they really haven't explained how and why they got it wrong. They run with it and, CNN, MSNBC and CBS have never explained how they put a story on the air saying multiple sources read a memo saying that Donald Trump Jr. had advanced notice of the Wikileaks. Now they have to retract that because a person reading the memo got a date wrong and the notice was after the Wikileaks was aired. But they never explained how they possibly all could have had multiple sources getting that story wrong because the threshold is so low for anti-Trump stories.

And it's hurting journalism, it's one of the reasons America splitting into two, frankly, where you have those who don't believe the press and other people who hate Donald Trump. It's not healthy for the country who have the press get it wrong like this.

INGRAHAM: And by the way, Michael Avenatti, the attorney for Stormy Daniels, we invited on the show, but he declined. He was also out there saying, this is a fact. I've noticed they are treating him like he's just an objective analyst, whether it's about the law or what happened. He keeps saying, it's a fact, and you see these journalists stroking their chin, it's a fact. Of course, it wasn't a fact, it wasn't a fact at all.

FLEISCHER: They treat Michael Avenatti the say way they treated Adam "Press Play" shift. If either of those to say anything anti-Trump, they can get on the air instantly and have no cynical tough questions asked.

INGRAHAM: Bradley, I want to go to you on this other development that we learned today. The e-mail that Michael Cohen used to, I guess, facilitate or finalize the deal with the payment to Daniels, was a email. Does not have any bearing on this case and how all it would be looked at by Mueller, who we know -- and we will get into this in the next segment -- we know can be overzealous and pushes the boundaries of the law to get the results that he wants. It's not first time it's happened. We saw that with the Blagojevich case. So, let's talk about a little bit, the e-mail. They are making a huge deal of this also in the media tonight.

SMITH: Of course, I can't say what Mueller will do, right, but I go back saying, look, again, if it's not a campaign expenditure, if it wasn't an obligation that would not have existed but for the campaign, then it doesn't matter how it was paid. It would have to come from somewhere else. In fact, this is one of the problems, Laura. Imagine if the Trump folks had paid for this with campaign funds and reported this as a campaign expenditure. I can guarantee you, and you can bet the farm, a lot of the same people critical of the administration now, Trump and the campaign would have filed complaints alleging that this was an illegal diversion of campaign funds for personal use. And that is the problem that you have here. That's why you have this personal use doctrine. So, either they will get them coming or going and if he spent his campaign funds, they would say you can't spend campaign funds for that, it's personal. If he spends personal funds they would say, that had to have been to benefit your campaign and that's illegal, it can be both.

INGRAHAM: Sol, let's move on to the monitoring of perhaps text messages, who was being texted, not the content but who was being texted and the monitoring of Cohen's phone calls. To whom was he speaking? What number was he speaking to? So, not the content, but the log of the calls. Is that surprising to you, unusual to you, or what would that indicate that Mueller believes?

WISENBERG: No, it's actually -- first of all, remember, the campaign finance stuff is not Mueller, that is the Southern District. So, this is a Southern District issue, not a Mueller issue. But it's relatively standard operating procedure and you don't need probable cause for that.

It happens in hundreds of thousands of cases throughout the country, and by the way, on this NBC thing, if NBC had talked to anybody who is knowledgeable on criminal law and white-collar cases, he would have immediately said, that can't be right. That story can't be right because Giuliani is right about that, it's a crime to leak something like that. That's incredibly serious, more serious than leaking grand jury information. I knew the story couldn't be right when I heard it. Why didn't they check with somebody who actually know something about criminal federal law before going with this? I don't understand it.

INGRAHAM: The Southern District, what it finds, Sol, however, if it finds something in all those documents that they took from Michael Cohen's various places of residence, and anything related to Russia or ten tangential to the Russian investigation, that could be used as a proxy to get information for Mueller, right?

WISENBERG: If you are cynical, you could use it as a proxy.

INGRAHAM: You know me after all this time, I'm a little cynical about this whole operation. You are right, I am.


INGRAHAM: I am a former defense counsel. You're a former prosecutor so that's a line that we draw, but we love each other.

WISENBERG: Well, I've been on the defense side longer than I've been on the prosecution side, but you're right. If they come across something that looks like evidence of a crime and it's in Mueller's bailiwick, it does go back to Mueller. But there's really nothing unusual about track and trace monitoring. It's like mail covers. You are just seeing what numbers are they dialing. How many times are they talking to this person, but they are not actually getting the content of the message.

INGRAHAM: So, if they see that Cohen after his offices were raided, made a phone call to a White House number, they can put the screws on Cohen and asked to whom did you speak and what did you speak about, right? He can refuse to answer, or they could get someone at the White House to answer that question, right? Otherwise, they won't find out what happened.

WISENBERG: Right, but I guarantee you as a general matter, they will be putting the screws to Cohen across the board. That's obvious from the way they are conducting this investigation. The question is, what do they have on him that has nothing to do with the president?

INGRAHAM: I have to play this for Ari. Ari, today at the White House briefing, I knew that this was going to happen with Sarah Huckabee Sanders and indeed the press focused right on -- well, you said the opposite about Stormy Daniels. Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you explain why the president, when he asked questions to reporters, a few details about the $130,000. Why the president was not truthful with the American people?

SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: As Mayor Giuliani stated, and I will refer you back to his comment, this was information that the president did not know at the time but eventually learned.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are the American people to trust or believe what is said here and by the president.

SANDERS: We give the very best information that we have at the time.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Circle May 3rd on the calendar because this is the day when we look back in the briefing that Sarah Sanders made it so painfully clear that she has lost credibility with the American people, the reporters in that room.


INGRAHAM: I think it's so hilarious for CNN to talk about losing credibility with the American people. That really stood out to me. Ari, what about that with Sarah Sanders. I mean, she goes out and says what she knows, and I thought that was a low blow, cheap shot by that CNN political director.

FLEISCHER: It's tough, and it's a hard job especially when you are giving incomplete information as the press secretary. And if incomplete information is given to you by the president, you are particularly vulnerable. And I think that is what happened here. When the president was on Air Force One and when Michael Cohen answered the question about payments that he said the Trump campaign or the Trump Organization, they were being precisely accurate. But they both omitted crucial information. Sarah, when she briefed the press and said no payments by the president, either Sarah went one step too far and over spoke, or the president gave her information that turned out to be incorrect. I don't know which of those two is the fact. But the timetable, Sarah, is 100 percent right and it's entirely reasonable for the president not to have known with specificity what Michael Cohen did in October of 2016, but he learned it later. That makes all kinds of sense and in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the usual routine between Michael Cohen and Donald Trump. Michael Cohen cleans it up and doesn't fill him in all the details and the president is happy not to know all the details. And that's probably (inaudible) years back, it's a pattern. So, tough day to be the press secretary, but there is irony in the day NBC gets it wrong and media and CNN regularly has it wrong. Blame the press secretary for getting something wrong.

INGRAHAM: It's interesting today, we will go to Bradley on this and then Sol. George Conway, who is the husband of Kellyanne Conway, I've known George for 25 years, very smart lawyer. He decided to tweet out -- I believe it was a regulation. He says, not considered the candidates personal funds and then he recites the relevant part of the statute.That was considered to be interesting because, of course, he is the husband of Kellyanne Conway. It would lead people to believe that George Conway, another smart lawyer, is saying he is trying to influence the election with this Michael Cohen payment. To me, that seemed like a huge leap, Bradley, and it was like a head-scratcher for me.And I love George, I was like, why the heck are you sending out that tweet? He doesn't know the background on this and I don't think any of us do. It still being developed.

SMITH: Yes, one of the things we can't for the last year is people are always letting conclusions outrun the facts on the ground. You know, the statute basically says a campaign expenditure, something for the purpose of influencing a campaign, but that has to be considered in conjunction with other definitions of the statute.

And another part of the statute specifically says what are not campaign expenditures. And things are not campaign expenditures if the obligation would have existed irrespective of the campaign. Like buying a new suit, getting a haircut, or for some people, I suppose having to pay off people who are harassing you with threats.

INGRAHAM: Or nuisance suits. Sol, I want your reaction to that. A nuisance suit if it was a pattern of conduct for this operation, it's a huge organization and he's a big target as a celebrity. This probably could have been done before or was done before, I have no idea. But if it was, that goes to the intent issue.

WISENBERG: It is a fact question, like I said, 11 days before the campaign, it will be a fact question. The reason I think George -- I don't know him, but I will call him George. The reason he sent that out is because Giuliani said, the president paid for it with his personal funds.Ergo, for sure it is not a campaign violation. I think he is just pointing out that it's not who pays the funds. He's not saying it is a campaign violation. He's just saying, for the guy that pays the funds, that's the purpose of it.

INGRAHAM: Maybe he's just saying, I'm smarter than you are. I'm just teasing. Thanks to all of you.The Russia probe isn't the first time Mueller and his pals have been accused of trying to railroad a big name politician. Our exclusive interview with Blago's wife and her lawyer, coming up.


INGRAHAM: Could history be repeating itself with overzealous prosecutor seeking fame and glory? In the Washington Examiner this week, Mark Vargas cited the fate of former Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich of Illinois. The Democrat is serving a 14-year sentence for corruption. Vargas argued that the governor was a victim of overzealous prosecution by then U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald who the writer called James Comey's best friend. It was then FBI Director Bob Mueller, who in 2008 authorized a totally unnecessary and ruthless predawn raid of the governor.

Here with us exclusively are Blagojevich's wife, Patti, and Chicago Attorney Len Goodman, who represents the former governor. It's great to see both of you.Patti, your husband has been in jail for now seven years of a 14-year sentence. He was convicted of a couple of different corruption charges, bribery and extortion, I believe. I think when people hear that they think, he must have taken a bribe, promised to do something for someone giving him money, and he must have been heard or there must have been documentary evidence saying all that. But in fact, none of that happened.

PATTI BLAGOJEVICH, WIFE OF FORMER GOVERNOR ROD BLAGOJEVICH: No, none of that at all. You know, Laura, for me listening to your show, it's almost like Yogi Bear says, deja vu all over again. Ten years ago, the same people, Comey, Fitzgerald and Mueller, used these out-of-control prosecutors and FBI agents came after my husband with their unchecked power to undo an election by the people.These people are so far from (inaudible), they are a million light years away. These are politically motivated opportunists who use their offices for their own personal enrichment to further their careers, to sell books --

INGRAHAM: I don't think Bob Mueller needs to further his career, he has been the FBI director. He's esteemed by Republicans and Democrats. However, and you could get in on this, he did authorize a raid that was reminiscent of both Manafort and Michael Cohen. It was a predawn raid, they go in and take everything out of the apartment. And it happened to you guys.

LEN GOODMAN, FORMER GOVERNOR ROD BLAGOJEVICH'S ATTORNEY: It's completely unnecessary in a white color case. They could have called the lawyer, Rod would have come down and surrendered. To do that to his two young children was disgraceful.

INGRAHAM: I think we have to remember that Patrick Fitzgerald, for people that are watching are like, why are you talking about this guy, Patrick Fitzgerald? He's representing James Comey right now. They are best buddies going back to the 80s, working in the Southern District of New York.He went after Scooter Libby, outrageous prosecution, and he went after Conrad Black. The poor part of that conviction overturned by the Supreme Court. And of course, not once but two times, they tried Blagojevich.

The court sadly didn't take the case a couple of weeks ago and they could have cleared up this ridiculous federal bribery statute which is extremely confusing, wide enough to drive a truck through, and yet he is praised for being -- he is the most esteemed person. He did the Enron investigation and the Enron case, but there were problems there, too. Andrew Wiseman overstepped it without Arthur Anderson. Arthur Anderson ends up getting exoneration exonerated. Meanwhile, they laid off 85,000 people in the interim.

In some cases, they are protecting us, but they have unchecked power often times and it can be out of control. And I'm sorry, but as I speak of the former criminal defense attorney, Len I don't want to be on my high horse, and say the defense is always right because it's not. But if they want to get you for something, they will get you.

GOODMAN: That's true. Blagojevich was investigated early on in his administration. He and his family endured five years of investigations. He sat for two interviews with the FBI. He was someone who believed in the system and believed he was interested in doing right.

As Patti said, he never took a bribe, never took a kickback, never tried to enrich his family. He's one of the only elected officials that have ever been prosecuted for corruption based on political acts, fundraising and doing political deals.They went after him. They have -- when the federal government invest resources and their credibility in making the case that somebody is corrupt, they will do whatever it takes.

INGRAHAM: What happens, Len, if their job is to prosecute, and you have come up empty, he didn't take a bribe, he didn't fly in a fancy jet, he didn't take vacations on someone else's time. But the court will convince a jury to say, he believed that he might have to do something that a donor wanted him to do.That is crazy. Bob McDonald ultimately got exonerated for that. But we can't really -- I have to say to the people watching. Bob Mueller, Jim Comey and Patrick Fitzgerald, just because they are smart guys and went to great schools and have done some good stuff in their careers doesn't mean they will always get it right.

If you are overzealous and you have a history of being overzealous in the high-profile cases, we just listed three, Patrick Fitzgerald, Conrad Black, Scooter Libby and now his pal, Comey and the involvement in this -- you have to start asking tough questions.

Patti, I will let you speak. I know you have a heavy heart and a lot on your mind. But if you could tell Donald Trump one thing other than pardon your husband or commute his sentence, what would you tell him about Bob Mueller? Your experience with him.

BLAGOJEVICH: Well, I think the president knows that when people have unchecked power it's a very dangerous thing, and we believed in the courts. We believe that the court system would work properly.

And so without -- and unfortunately, our trust was misplaced. We thought the justice system was going to work. We believed that people operated with true and honest motives. And we were sadly mistaken. And this is something that he is seeing now unfortunately what we have gone through 10 years ago and what we have been going through for the kast 10 years.

If they can bring down my husband who was governor of the fifth-largest state for asking for campaign contributions, absolutely no one is safe in this country. Not a single donor is safe and not a single politician who has to ask for campaign contributions is safe.

INGRAHAM: Thank you both for being here tonight, for telling your story. And litigating the case in the press is very difficult, but at some point I guess I feel like they have no other options given the enormity of the special counsel's office, the power they have, the manpower they have. They have got lots of legal eagles working for them, and nowTrump has beefed up his team, so I guess it's bring it on. Thanks to both of you.And by the way, immigrants in that caravan we have been talking about at the border have begun applying for U.S. asylum after trekking more than 2,500 miles. But their American organizers are very and inpatient with the legal process.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The fact that they can't move this group of 150 refugees isn't lack of capacity. It's a lack of political will.


INGRAHAM: Stay right there for my exclusive interview with the Mexican ambassador to the United States who has the very latest for us. Don't go away


INGRAHAM: Most of those caravan immigrants are now in the United States for processing and are expected to file for asylum. But the groups American organizers are vowing to get every single one of mostly those Central Americans into the country, and to stay permanently. Meanwhile the DOJ has sent dozens of prosecutors and judges to the border to make sure those asylum claims are valid. They have their work cut out for them.

Let's discuss the situation as it relates also to Mexico as this caravan is now kind of an annual thing. Geronimo Gutierrez, the Mexican ambassador to the United States, is with us. Mucho gusto.


INGRAHAM: I'm not doing the whole thing in Spanish, although it's tempting. Let's talk about what's happened here. I think people initially were wondering, how do people do this annually? They take this long trek through Mexico. At one point the Honduran ambassador to Mexico actually marched with the migrants, saying he was on orders to do that, which was wild. But how do they manage to get across the border into Mexico and then for weeks make their way up to the U.S. border? Is Mexico doing enough?

GUTIERREZ: This event really started several years back to calling attention to human rights fundamentally in Mexico. And the United States and Mexico are obligated by international law on asylum matters. And the truth is in this year at the caravan got so much attention that people were much more interested, and some of the people actually that were not originally in the caravan joined it. That's the truth. The caravan started with around 1,300 people.

INGRAHAM: Most coming from Honduras.

GUTIERREZ: Most coming from Central America. And the truth is I can understand why here people get the perception that the Mexican government is not doing much, which is certainly not the case. First of all, I will give you the figures that over the last 10 years Mexico has repatriated around 1.1 million people. According to law and due process, international and due process.

INGRAHAM: How many of the caravan folks did you deport?

GUTIERREZ: From the caravan many of them were repatriated, around 260.

INGRAHAM: Deported, they were repatriated.

GUTIERREZ: They were repatriated according to legal process.

INGRAHAM: Do you know how many?

GUTIERREZ: Around 260. Several were actually offered some form of humanitarian assistance or regularization in Mexico, and some of them indeed got to the border.

INGRAHAM: Didn't most of the people, though, not want to stay in Mexico? I kept saying, if you want to get out of trouble in Honduras, why not by part of Mexico or apply for asylum in Mexico? There's something called the safe, Mexico has to be called a safe country, correct?

GUTIERREZ: That is correct. It is in the interest of both the United States and Mexico, I think, to make sure that wherever migration takes place, through our countries and between our countries it's legal, safe, and orderly. And that' where we work. In fact we have very good cooperation with CBP and DHS. We don't see eyeball on eyeball on everything. We are in favor of securing the borders and having secure borders.

INGRAHAM: No wall. Or you don't care about a wall as long as you're not paying for it?

GUTIERREZ: I think we left that topic behind.

INGRAHAM: I'm never leaving it behind, not the Mexico part paying for it.

GUTIERREZ: Mexico is in favor of having secure borders. We don't always share the same view as the administration on how to achieve that goal.

INGRAHAM: I've got to play Vicente Fox because he was on my show not so long ago, former president of Mexico, a very interesting guy and very colorful figure. Let's watch.


INGRAHAM: OK, so we shouldn't have a border?

VICENTE FOX, FORMER MEXICAN PRESIDENT: God didn't create borders. We shouldn't have a border like you don't have with Canada.

INGRAHAM: Do you have a fence in your house?

FOX: If this will happen, this will happen in this next generation because we are going to be on a one to one.


INGRAHAM: No border, is that a common feeling in Mexico?

GUTIERREZ: No. to tell you the truth, I actually served with President Fox. And I have to disagree with him on this one. Borders exist for good reasons, and good borders make good neighbors. And that's the truth. That is not what everybody believes in Mexico. We believe in having secure borders. And again, we are working very closely with the United States in that regard.

INGRAHAM: What about your southern border? I know the United States is actually offering assistance in the southern border. A lot of this stuff is not public, but trying to help you secure your border. It's how long, about 800 miles long or so, is that right?

GUTIERREZ: We work on our southern border, we're working very closely with different agencies in Mexico on security matters.

INGRAHAM: But people are streaming across, though, right? You got 1,000 of those caravan members came across.

GUTIERREZ: But again, if you look at the numbers, Laura, you will see that we have work, again, according to international law and due process, and repatriated over 1.1 million people in less than 10 years that are essentially coming through our southern border.

INGRAHAM: But why is Jeff Sessions, if you guys are doing your job, why is Jeff Session saying this? Let's watch.


JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: We are adding 35 assistant United States attorneys to the border to prosecute illegal entries into our country. We're also announcing that we're moving 16 or 18 actually immigration judges to the border. We are going to not let this country be overwhelmed. People are not going to caravan or otherwise stampede our borders.


INGRAHAM: People are just outrages about this. I got to meet you a month
or so ago, two months ago. And you lived in Texas, if you are American,
you would be a conservative Republican. Let me just say that about the
ambassador here, OK. But you are in a tough pickle, though, because we
have now had a 238 percent increase month to month -- excuse me, year to
year from April of 2017 to April of 2018, 238 percent increase of illegal border crossings. That's southwest border, not coming from Canada. Wild.

GUTIERREZ: But the numbers, Laura, if you look at the year before, they were way down.

INGRAHAM: That's because Trump had the tough rhetoric, we're going to build the wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. Everyone was like I'm not going to try to come. I'm going to stay back, I'm not going to go and make that trek. Trump is not going to let me in. But Trump -- not Trump, letting people in, we are doing catch and release. I'm blaming us for this, not you. We are catching them, processing them, and saying, bye, have fun with your sponsor, and then they never come back. It's a nightmare.

GUTIERREZ: But the truth is that both Mexico and the U.S. I they have a shared interest in making sure that whatever immigration takes place is legal, safe, and orderly. And we do need to make sure that there are sufficient avenues for that. I think that if you look at the immigration from Mexico, you will see that a lot of the Mexicans that have come to the United States did so because they did not have an opportunity or very good opportunities in Mexico. And that's not the fault or the responsibility of the U.S. That's on us.But the U.S. should also recognize that there is a need for those people here. And Mexicans don't have acheap plan saying, go on break the law in the U.S.

INGRAHAM: Mexican migration is actually down.

GUTIERREZ: It's way down.

INGRAHAM: But the northern triangle is up. That is where a concerted effort between Mexico and the United States to stop these people from making the trek, because if it is 200 that are getting in under asylum, which is phony, sorry, we're going to have 2,000, then 2 million. It's going to keep getting worse and worse. I'm telling you, Mr. Ambassador.

GUTIERREZ: But last year that's why we had the U.S. and Mexico convene a meeting which took place in Miami to address both the development side of the equation, and also the migration and security side. We should do more of that. We cannot be satisfied with what is going on, neither Mexico nor the United States nor the Central Americans. But we --

INGRAHAM: But look, in Mexico we had lots of remittances going back to Mexico for years and years, those are down now, but they're still hefty. It's a good amount of money. Mexico likes those dollars coming back in. You don't want the guns from the United States going in Mexico, we don't want the drugs from Mexico coming to the United States or the cartels or the human traffickers, we don't want any of that. But I'm telling you, Honduras, they love the American dollars going in. It's 19 percent of the GDP. Your smart. You went to Harvard. I only went to a small school in New Hampshire. I mean, 20 percent, let me do the math. That's one fifth of the GPD, right. That's a lot.

GUTIERREZ: That's a lot.

INGRAHAM: But it's good to have you on. And will you come back, and I think there is a lot Mexico and the United States can do to improve the United States. And I'm optimistic about NAFTA, I'm going to say that right now. Are you optimistic?

GUTIERREZ: I'm moderately optimistic. We still need to tackle some issues, NAFTA is very important for the U.S. and also for Mexico. I think there is a serious and a good faith effort on both sides, or the three sides, actually, to get it done. And I think next week will be crucial.

INGRAHAM: If we have a leftwing new president of Mexico, NAFTA is not going to be a good deal. The renegotiation wont' be a good deal. We've got to get it done now.

Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much.

GUTIERREZ: Thank you very much.

INGRAHAM: Really great to see you.And stay right there. Free speech on campus, is there any? Ben Shapiro defends himself against allegations now that he incited a terrorist attack, no kidding. That's next in our "Defending the First" segment.


INGRAHAM: Time now for our "Defending the First" where we expose the enemies of the First Amendment, free expression, and free thought. You all know Ben Shapiro, and if you don't, where have you been? He's become one of the nation's leading figures in the effort to preserve free speech, especially on campus. He's also been the frequent target of
leftists who are trying to shut down his speech.

What's the latest attempt? I was waiting for this. This is a campaign now
to blame Ben Shapiro for inciting a deadly terror attack on a Canadian
mosque last year? We welcome back to "The Angle" Ben Shapiro, the editor
and chief of "The Daily Wire." He looks so unassuming, and Ben, what do
you weigh, like 150 pounds?

BEN SHAPIRO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, about 165, come on.


INGRAHAM: But I'm saying, you don't look like all that intimidating. You write stuff and you go on TV. But explain how you are allegedly involved in inspiring this horrible attack on a mosque, because you made comments about Islamic terror in the past and it was all stitched together?

SHAPIRO: Yes. So there is this evil piece of human crap who shot up a mosque last year, and this evil piece of human crap happened to be somebody who had seen some of my tweets on Twitter as prosecutors found out. He had also seen tweets from people like Bret Baier. He had seen tweets from you. He had seen tweets from a bunch of different people. But I guess my account was the one he had viewed the most.

Now I have 1.4 million Twitter followers, so I guess the idea from the left is that if somebody views enough of my tweets, they are inevitably going to become a terrorist. Weird that I don't have a spate of enormous terrorism across the country thanks to my Twitter following, but of course none of this is real. When a Bernie Sanders supporter shot up a Congressional baseball game, people on the right did not say this was Bernie Sanders' fault, Bernie Sanders incited it. This is a crazy person.

INGRAHAM: We play fair, though, Ben, we play fair, and they don't care about those rules. What their goal is, and this is why we bring you on for the series, their goal is to intimidate other conservatives using you as an abject lesson, we're going to use you as an example, don't speak out on these issues, because if you do, it doesn't matter if it's in Canada or Australia or anywhere else, we are going to brand you a hater, we're going to try to stop your livelihood, stop you from making money, stop you from getting speeches. That's what this is about, is it not? So it's this malcontent in Canada who is kicking up a fuss. We have seen it with the Southern Poverty Law Center with their obscene list of Islamic -- what is it, Islamophobes, or whatever. I think I'm on that list. It's ridiculous. But they do it to shut down speech.

SHAPIRO: No question. If you're going to talk about the SPLC, but their same logic they are responsible for the attack on the Family Research Council since the guy who shot up the Family Research Council was a follower of the SPLC and used apparently their map of hate groups as a target.

So all of this is really dangerous, and all of it is leading to an attempt in the United States by people on the far left to imitate what we have seen in places like Britain, in places like Canada, to actually shut down dissenting points of view if those dissenting points of view do not meet with the politically correct standards of the left. So the fact that I have tweeted out about the evils of radical Islam, and I cut a video talking about the percentage of Muslims worldwide who may believe radical things based on polling data for the Pew Research Center, this apparently was enough to blame me for a terrorist attack that has nothing to do with me, that I have obviously denounced, that was, as I say, committed by an evil piece of human debris. But again, all of this is nonsense generated by the left specifically in order to shut down free speech. That's their goal.

INGRAHAM: Kanye West has become a very interesting figure on the cultural scene, no doubt, expressing his love for many people, but among them most controversially is Donald Trump. And now he has gotten attacked by everybody, comments he made about slavery being a choice, which is not obviously what he meant. But now it turns out that we are seeing, perhaps connected, we don't know, an increase in support among African-Americans, especially African-American men, double support to -- I guess the figure is now up to 22 percent. It was 11 percent approval, now it's 22 percent, where the overall approval is also increasing I believe to 16 percent from eight percent. That is interesting. Is it just a coincidence here with Kanye West?

SHAPIRO: It's important to tell obviously whether it's a coincidence in this short period of time. But I will say this. What Kanye did by basically saying think for yourself, if that is such a threat to the left, it demonstrates how the left has to use identity politics to shut down any real debate.

I don't think Kanye West ought to be nominated for Heaven Heritage Foundation, or I don't think the guy is spending his off hours reading Friedrich Hayek. But what Kanye did say here, which is very simple, is listen, I'm not just a black guy, and I'm not just a Hollywood celebrity. I'm an individual with my own thoughts and feelings and I get to formulate my own logic, and I also get to figure out what I believe. And it everybody else thought like this, then perhaps we ought to be able to have these conversations that we haven't been able to have so far. Good for Kanye West for at least beginning the conversation. I'm stunned that it's Kanye doing it, but the guy gets all the credit. It is a pretty amazing stand that he's taken at a time when he doesn't have to take it.

INGRAHAM: I just think he's trying to say to people you don't have to be imprisoned by your past. As hard as it was, as abusive and unfair and unjust as it was, it doesn't have to define your future. And a lot of philosophers have said that over the centuries and frankly over the millennia. You can create your own identity. Hillary Clinton was out there yesterday, or the day before yesterday, a Q&A about socialism, America, whatever. Let's watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You may be the only presidential candidate since World War II that actually had to stand up and say, I am a capitalist, and you did. Did it hurt you?

HILLARY CLINTON, (D) FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Probably. It's hard to know, but if you are in the Iowa caucuses and 41 percent of Democrats are socialist or self-described socialists, and I am asked are you a capitalist and I say yes but with appropriate regulation and appropriate accountability, that probably gets lost in the, oh, my gosh, she's a capitalist.


INGRAHAM: All right, Ben. One sentence.

SHAPIRO: She actually told the truth. Good for Hillary. She finally stumbled across something that is true, and she said it. Democrats are tending toward socialism. What can you say?

INGRAHAM: Inadvertent, but nevertheless. She was bundled up quite a bit there.Up next, religious liberty at the White House and Donald Trump, what he did today. Stay tuned.


INGRAHAM: President Trump established a new office in the White House to create partnerships between the government and faith-based groups. It is part of an executive order called White House Faith and Opportunity Initiative that Trump signed it today during a National Day of Prayer ceremony.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are proud of our religious heritage, and as president, I will always protect religious liberty. The faith initiative will help design new policies that recognize the vital role of faith and our families, our communities, and our great country. We take this step because we know that in solving the many, many problems and are great challenges, faith is more powerful than government, and nothing is more powerful than God.


INGRAHAM: I love that moment. Trump may often sound like the most pro-faith president in modern times, but gosh, they're still much more to do. Here to discuss, Reverend Johnnie Moore, spokesperson for the president's informal evangelical advisory group.It was a hot day outside of the White House there. A lot of evangelical Christians, people were stunned. Like, how do you guys support Donald Trump? Married three times, all that deal. Now with Stormy Daniels. Why does this president speak to the evangelical base today given what's happened?

REV. JOHNNIE MOORE, EVANGELICAL ADVISORY BOARD: To the religious liberty community he's a total hero. That's what he's done. This executive order this year was part two. Last year at this National Day of Prayer, he ordered basically an audit of the entire federal government to determine every single example where religious liberty was being violated, with the whole cabinet sitting there. This year he's saying, we cleaned all that up. There is a whistle-blower element of this executive order. He is saying to the public, if you see a problem, tell us about it. But now we've got all that settled, so how can we partner together as a faith community? And doing it in the Rose Garden, steps out of the Oval Office was a powerful symbolic image.

INGRAHAM: Seeing it, his words, everything that's going on and swirling around him. Did any of you get together, do you pray regularly with him? Do you?

MOORE: We pray with the administration all the time. We pray with him and we pray with others. The other day a reporter asked me, is it true that there is an evangelical in the White House every day? And I said, there are like 25 per day, and at least 10 or 12 of them in the West Wing, and a bunch of them on the cabinet as well. This is a faith friendly administration.

INGRAHAM: Although he said he was going to help for the Little Sisters of the Poor, contraception mandate, going to get rid of that. But they're still litigating that. So he hasn't given -- Congress has to do some of this stuff, but couldn't he with an executive order address that issue, and then probably head to the courts?

MOORE: The fact is the Obama administration had so obsessively deconstructed religious liberty across the federal government, it took them a whole year to untie all of this. I think the Little Sisters of the Poor, they are going to fight this to the very end because they were taken advantage of.

INGRAHAM: They want President Trump, he is going to get in there and make sure this doesn't happen, that they are mandating contraception coverage to these nuns.

MOORE: A hundred percent of the time President Trump has demonstrated he is entirely supportive of religious liberties, the most pro-religious liberty president that we've had. And I think when it is all said and done, as we've seen again and again and again, the proof will be in the policy. That's what it will be. And it is a National Day of Prayer, too. This is amazing. For eight years, President Obama had a private celebration. He issued proclamations. This was a powerful ceremony.

INGRAHAM: It's great to see you, and we are praying right along with you guys today. Thanks so much. And we will close it out. Stay there, we will be right back.


INGRAHAM: That's all the time we have left tonight. But guess what. Ed Henry was at a charity event in New York, and guess who he ran into. Rudy Giuliani. He is going to tell Shannon what he found out in his conversation with Rudy up next. The "FOX News at Night" team is going to take it from here, all of the new developments. Of course the Mueller and the Cohen and the Rudy, and it goes on and on and on, Shannon. News didn't break totally tonight before your show, but we thought we'd give you a little bit of a reprieve. Have a great show.


<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.>