Meadows: DOJ, FBI can be part of the clean up or cover-up

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

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening from Washington, I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle." Organized hatred, that's the focus of tonight's Angle. Remember in 2009 when President Obama, speaking at Notre Dame said this about the need for civil discourse?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESDIENT: As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles and fight for what we consider right? Without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh what a nice sentiment, but where is he tonight? What does he say about the threats against the Trump administration? Somehow the Dems went from hope and change to nope and deranged. Over the weekend the owner of a Lexington, Virginia eatery, you probably heard of that, it's called the Red Hen did something incredible. She asked White House spokeswoman, press secretary Sarah Sanders and her family to leave the restaurant, simple because she works for Trump.

Well the owner of the Red Hen Stephanie Wilkinson told the Washington Post, "I have a business and I want the business to thrive. This feels like the moment in our democracy where people have to make uncomfortable actions and decisions to uphold their morals". So Ms Morality walked Sarah Huckabee outside and told her the Red Hen has, "Certain standards that I fell it has to uphold such as honesty, compassion and cooperation". And she invited Huckabee to leave, which the White House press secretary did.

Now Huckabee returned home with her husband but the rest of the family went to another restaurant across the street. Well that didn't stop Wilkinson or her crusade to drive Conservatives apparently from establishments, even ones she doesn't run, in the same town. Governor Mike Huckabee was on my radio show today.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

FORMER GOVERNOR MIKE HUCHABEE: There's a part of that story that has not been told. You're going to be the first to hear it. Sarah and her Husband just went home, they'd just sort of had enough. But the rest of her family went across the street to a different restaurant. The owner of the Red Hen, because no body's told this, then followed them across the street, called people and organized a protest yelling and screaming at them from outside the other restaurant.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Publicly shaming Conservatives and targeting them in public. It's become the new tactic of the left. It's not enough to malign them for their beliefs and positions. Now they have to be publicly humiliated, including their families and, you bet, their small children. Incidentally, Huckabee's in laws, I love this, are Liberals, they don't even like Trump. Hollywood is getting in on the action too, actor Seth Rogan. He bragged on TV how he recently embarrassed speaker Paul Ryan in front of his children.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SETH ROGEN, ACTOR: And he said, "Can I have a picture with you?" And I look over and his kids are standing right there, expectantly, clearly fans of mine and I said, "No way man" and I couldn't stop and I said, "Furthermore, I hate what you're doing to the country at this moment and I count the days till you no longer have one iota of the power that you currently have". I look over and his kids are still standing right there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Nice guy. I always get him mixed up with Jonah Hill for some reason but if I were Seth Rogan, I'd be trying to keep every fan I could. He's not exactly Chris Pratt but I digress. By the way even the Cineplex isn't safe from the tactics of the left. Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, she attended a showing of Mister Rogers, documentary ironically is all about civility and kindness. Apparently the left wing mob who confronted and flicked spit on the attorney general of Florida, didn't get the memo.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What would Mister Rogers think about you and your agency in Florida? Taking away health insurance, put people with pre- existing conditions, Pam Bondi, shame on you. Shame on you, shame on you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So that's the video of Bondi leaving the theatre, so that's what they wanted. But as she came in, she and her boyfriend were verbally assaulted and physically threatened in the concessions line.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL: They came up again and every curse word in the book and they said to him, "Hey blue eyes, come on, aren't you going to protect her?" Using a lot of other words too, "Aren't you going to protect her? What are young going to do? What are you going to do?" And they're this far from my face, one spit on my head. They were trying to create a fight.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Oh you bet they were. And if this continues, somebody's going to get hurt. Now imagine if just a few years ago, Obama administration officials or just run of the middle Democrats were verbally assaulted in that way. There would be called for the National Guard to step in, but since Conservatives are being targeted, all bets are off, all standards are out the window.

This is all evolving into a type of domestic terrorism and it's only going to get worse. Homeland security chief, remember Kirstin Nielson, was driven out of a restaurant in DC last week by angry protesters. White House senior advisor Steven Miller was also reportedly heckled at a DC eatery. And tonight protesters are reportedly staked outside his apartment building. They even staged a protest outside of Nielson's home, blaring audio of this child separation at a border facility.

These are anarchic, organized spectacles, they're no accident. Each flash protest is planned out and choreographed. It's planned online first, again, and it's meant to shame the political opponent to stoke violence and hatred, and maybe even intimidate people in the future from getting involved in the Trump administration at all. Why would they want that hassle? Then at a weekend rally, this is the best, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, issued her own very soft call to action.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: The American people have put up with this President long enough. What more do we need to see? What more lies do we need to hear? You see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you form a crowd and you push back on them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: We're going to be talking about that phrase, ‘Push back on them', in just a moment. We invited Ms Waters and a number of Democrats to appear tonight, no surprise, they all refused. She did find time to go on MSNBC tonight and Sunday to share tis unifying message.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WATERS: And I want to tell you for these members of Cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they're not going to be able to go to a restaurant, they're not going to be able to stop at a gas station, they're not going to be able to shop at a department store. The people are going to turn on them, they're going to protest, they're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the President, "No I can't hang with you"

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Harass them, approach them, drive them out, push them back. So is Maxine Waters fomenting violence using her position as a member of Congress to do so? Well frankly, I said this today on radio, Paul Ryan should at the very least open an ethics enquiry into Waters' rhetoric and I think they should move to censure her.

She seems to be using her office to foment, or at least justify, acts of harassment, intimidation, that could very well lead to violence. Now reactions of outrage from the White House to Nancy Pelosi forced Waters to the microphone today. But if Maxine Waters thinks a non-apology double talk, 48 hours after her incendiary and outrageous statements that she repeated yesterday are sufficient to quell the firestorm? She has another thing coming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WATERS: There's nowhere in my statement, any time, any place that we talked about harm. And so our members of the Democratic caucus are talking about civility, and that makes good sense. But protest is civility.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Drive them out, harass them, get up in the face, all the things that people take away from what she said in her very words. For threatening women and children at a dinner, at the movies, it's civil Maxine? No wonder why she's too afraid to come on. She'll only go onto the soft ball interviews on MSNBC maybe she should come on a show she can't intimidate. Let's be clear, she knew exactly what she saying and she did not apologise for her comments in the least. The woman has been saying crazy, hateful, incendiary things for years, and the difference now is the entire Democratic Party had drifted into Maxine land.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WATERS: As far as I'm concerned, the Tea Party can go straight to hell.

I don't honor him, I don't respect him and I don't want to be involved with him. The American people had better understand what's going on, this is a bunch of scum bags.

Let's impeach 45, impeach 45, impeach 45.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: The left wants to cry targeting people, maliciously attacking them in public for their beliefs and lifestyles. But now because Conservatives are the targets, a new standard has emerged. Since they believe Trump's policies are detestable, or sorry Nazi-like, the left believes it's a by any means necessary scenario, so they attempt to justify their thuggish public bullying, by blaming whom? Trump of course.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

ELISE JORDAN, JOURNALIST: Should someone who lies constantly and enables the President's lies be openly welcomed in society wherever they please.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I would say that the polite discourse in inappropriate when there are babies in cages. Does that mean we're going to violent? No. But does that mean Sarah Sanders can have a nice quiet dinner when she is taking our tax dollars to implement this policy, I don't think so.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It wasn't until we had three year olds in caged that these people couldn't go into public, too bad on that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But this vulgarity that exists represented primarily by now pushed by the President but now coursed on either side of the isle has made it much worse and much harder to do anything in this country.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

INGRAHAM: Oh spare me. For decades, Hollywood and the left have driven any semblance of decency and civility from the movie house as well as the lecture hall. They've cheapened everything from the music to fashion but Trump is to blame for the vulgarity of the culture? Nice try. Our politics are now devoid of conversation, debate, ideas. The left has created a political culture where demonization of opponents and boycotts are routine. Hey, if you can't debate them and beat them in a debate, try to shut them down altogether. Organized chaos is their favourite tool, yes, it's very Alinskyite.

But the idea is not to come to some common understanding, or even win an argument of course, but to destroy political opponents and you bet, attempt to silence them. When Democrats are urging uprisings online to deny Republican women safe havens, peace, just having a dinner in private, in a public place? A moment of enjoyment for her family, they won't allow that? Something is deeply wrong. Now is the moment for all people, right and left, to condemn this uncivil disobedience and those advocating for it. Threatening, yelling and haranguing officials in public? That's not going to create positive outcomes or a better policy, even Chuck Schumer said that today, good for him. It will only harden the political divide in this country and perhaps, lead to violence. And any blood spilt, remember what happed a year ago with Steve Scalise, any blood spilled will be on the hands of Maxine Waters and any Democrats or never-Trumpers condoning tacitly or explicitly these ANTIFA style tactics of vicious intimidation. And we will not stand for that, and that's the Angle.

All right, let's discuss with my first guest, Monica Crowley, senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee and Democratic strategist Richard Goodstein is a former advisor to Bill and Hillary Clinton. Jason I got to start with you, former member of the House of Representatives, Maxine Waters comment, a non-apology apology this morning at 9am on radio. I called for her censure, on the floor of the House or Representatives, where do things stand tonight?

JASON CHAFFETZ, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: No if you impugn the integrity of another member, if you're in sighting violence like that, she should be censured and I'm glad you brought that up. I think that is very appropriate. Make members of the House of Representatives vote on whether on not they think it's acceptable what she's doing, what she's trying to do. Because this is the face of the resistance movement, it is violent, it is vulgar, it is a scorcher philosophy and it is going to lead to violence unless the rest of the body stands up and says, "This is not acceptable"

INGRAHAM: Richard

RICHARD GOODSTEIN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: You know Jason just said and you said earlier, someone might get hurt. Donald Trump at a rally during a campaign said punch him in the face and guess what? We saw that video of somebody walking up the steps and getting punched in the face. Somebody got knocked over, driven over and murdered in Charlottesville because they were racist protesting or taking issue with the protesters in Charlottesville.

So people have gotten hurt from uncivil behaviour and I think for people who are Trump defenders to stand up on behalf of somebody who mocks a disabled, you know go down the list, derided a gold start family, the list goes on, for them to call out somebody else for being uncivil is a bit much. Look, Maxine Waters is not the face, much as you or others would want them of the Democratic Party. When Michelle Obama said, when they go low, we got high, I think that stood of where Democrats wanted to be.

INGRAHAM: Where are the Obama's?

GOODSTEIN: What I'm saying the problem is, that position lost. So I think I don't blame somebody like Maxine Waters kind of taking the position she did.

INGRAHAM: I think everybody's rhetoric needs to come down a little bit. I agree with you on that, I really do and I think we all can do better. There are many Democrats, however, who have supported Maxine Waters. Let's watch a few of them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Do you wish she hadn't said it?

REP. ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, D-N.Y.: No she has the right to say what she feels and I support it

SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J.: Yes if I saw an administrator out and about, there's nothing wrong with confronting that person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: He doesn't even know how to refer to a staffer. Monica, look, Trump can get pretty heated sometimes so I think Richard has a point there but you as a sitting Congresswoman, represents a part of LA that's seen violent riots. Remember that's when she really cut her teeth, her claim to fame was 1992, I went back and watched that today. She said push back on them Monica, turn on them, harass them so they can't go into public. Turn on them, push back on them. That's not debate them play fun with them, that was different. A crowd surrounding an individual with her children or with her family members, that's a different deal.

MONICA CROWLEY, LONDON CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH: Yes and we are so far beyond normal politics Laura, that's sometimes it's difficult to see what's really happening. But let's be really clear, the left is at war. The left is at war with the constitution, with the rule of law, with free market economics and with their very values. So they are fighting this wat 24 hours a day, seven days a week and now they are in a position where they are losing both on politics and policy. So they are resorting to these tactics of reaching for the most extreme rhetoric and the most extreme activity to try to divert attention from the fact that they're agenda has failed and continues to fail.

The President's agenda, the Conservatives' agenda is in fact winning. But the fact now, we have to understand that we are engaged in this wat whether we want to fight it or not. The Alinksy tactics, the Cloward and Piven tactics of overwhelming the system whether it' at the border or elsewhere--

INGRAHAM: Well they want anarchy. Anarchy is their friend, correct?

CROWELY: Absolutely and it's about destroying the system so they can rebuild it in their sort of radical amass.

INGRAHAM: I would say,Jason also flooding the border is a way, you got a lot of old voters, you got a lot of old tedious old clunky voters you got to replace with new voters. I really believe that's always been a strategy of the left. The Chamber of Commerce types that love the cheap labour but they love to flood the border, flood the zone, whatever you want to call it with new voters, new people. They don't lie the old people of the United States, they voted for Trump, for goodness sakes. But Jason the President tonight spoke out about Maxine Waters, I want to watch here.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: There only good at one thing, what's their term. Resist. It's the Party of Maxine Waters, do you believe her? No, no, no, no, this had become the Party of Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well look, Chuck Schumer came out today and tried to distance himself. I think he saw where this was going, even Nancy Pelosi tepid criticism. But she did have her supporters out there and even in the media a lot of never Trumpers, hate Donald Trump, anything that could throw a wrench into his plans. But Trump's not letting this go, should he let this go Jason? Should he just focus on the substance let Nancy Pelosi implode?

CHAFFETZ: No, look, this is much deeper than anything that's happened in the last week. The Democrats, they're minds are exploding because Donald Trump is not only garnering more support and has a lot more public support than a lot of previous Presidents have, you know, at this point in his Presidency but his policies are working. Look at all the economic indicators, look at what's happening overseas and this so-called big wave that was going to hit us in the 2018 election, that's not happening. And the only thing they're left with is this desperation of yelling screaming, taunting people and it's not productive.

INGRAHAM: Last word.

GOODSTEIN: Listen, the reason that Democrats' heads are exploding is because it shocks the conscience to see babies in these metals fences, cages, call them what they want, that's what shocks the conscience. You want to talk about violating the constitution, that's what's got people going crazy--

CHAFFETZ: Oh don't do that. Where were you in 2014 when I introduced an asylum reform bill that passed out, I passed out a bill out of the judiciary committee in March of 2015, go back and read it.

GOODSTEIN: That was for--

CHAFFETZ: Democrats were nowhere in support of that bill. It talked about accelerating the reunification of children and their parents. Where were the Democrats? I didn't have a single Democrat come and support us to do that bill. Democrats were nowhere, they didn't care about it.

GOODSTEIN: 68 centers voted for an immigration reform bill. Not all that long ago, and that was Republicans.

INGRAHAM: I think even J. Johnson, I thought it was interesting that he came out over the weekend and said, like we did what we did--

GOODSTEIN: I agree.

INGRAHAM: We did what we did because they were seeing everybody, same thing that we're seeing now, they were seeing everybody absolute overwhelming of our borders and we have limited resources and a limited amount of people. We can't process 50,000 people in three months, it's really hard to do that so here was a moment of candour from J. Johnson. But everything's got to calm down, everything's got to calm down, the Democrats have to calm down and this violent rhetoric has got to go. Great panel guys. Mark Meadows reveals how Congress is squeezing the DOJ and FBI next.

Tired of getting the run around from the FBI and DOJ, Devin Nunes went straight to the Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats today. Nunes had given the agencies a five pm deadline to turn over key documents in the Russia and Hillary Clinton investigations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DEVIN NUNES, R-CALIF.: I would say we cleaned up most of what was on the table except for the most important piece, "Did you or did you not run informants into the Trump campaign, especially before the investigation even began?" Very simple question, it deserves a very simple answer.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well the FBI responded very late tonight saying they're already responded to Nunes' request. Congressman Mike Meadows joins us now to respond. That just happened, apparently Congressman, so you guys have all the documents you are entitled to.

REP. MIKE MEADOWS, R-N.C.: Well the one thing that FBI and DOJ is very good at is creative writing. You know, any time that you would suggest that we have all the documents, when we have tens of thousands of documents that have not been delivered. As we speak right now, we have a valid subpoena that has not been really responded to appropriately and its 97 days and ticking. So for them to suggest that we have everything is just factually incorrect.

INGRAHAM: Kevin Kleinsmith, tell us about Kevin Kleinsmith.

MEADOWS: Well obviously Chuck Ross did--

INGRAHAM: We need our own deck of cards, just to identify them because they're lots of casts and characters. It's like the love boat.

MEADOWS: Yes you've got Sally Moyer, you've got all these different individuals but there is one common theme and it's called bias. Bias is against this President--

INGRAHAM: He was an FBI agent, number--

MEADOWS: And it was actually attorney number two, what we believe--

INGRAHAM: Attorney number two in the I.G. Report.

MEADOWS: What we believe Chuck Ross, the I.G. has not confirmed that, that's what we suspect. But Chuck Ross did some great reporting today and said that, actually, he was the one reporting Papadopoulos. So here you have someone that was key to opening up this investigation in the Donald Trump Russia collusion narrative that never happened and yet, you've got someone with inherent bias that started it. It's just extremely troubling.

INGRAHAM: Now Kleinsmith, like Moyers, is evidencing bias through various text messages that were released.

MEADOWS: Right, I mean a lot of text message and it's not just the text messaged, it's the fact that they were key components of an investigation that Peter Strzok was involved with. So it's all of them coming together with not, not two but five people that were biased against this President and yet, initiating the very investigations. So here's the interesting thing Laura, what we've got to do as a country is become transparent. Give us the documents, let us put them out to the American people, let them judge for themselves what is right and what's wrong and it's time. I've said this before, the DOJ and the FBI has an opportunity to either be part of the clean-up crew or the cover up.

INGRAHAM: I wonder what happened with Jeff Sessions because he was on our show last week and he seemed, "Okay, we're working on getting these documents and". What's going on? Is he not aware of--

MEADOWS: He's recused himself --

INGRAHAM: That's right he's recused himself.

MEADOWS: But he's really recused himself of any knowledge of what's going on. Rod Rosenstein knows better, I mean he really does know better and the buck stops with him. And I can tell you that we are going to have full action this week, Laura this week on the House floor where we compel them to turn over those documents.

INGRAHAM: So just so people know, Kleinsmith is the one who wrote, "Viva la resistance".

MEADOWS: If he is indeed attorney number two, which we believe that he is --

INGRAHAM: Maybe a really dumb question but why is it that we can't identify attorneys working for the, they're not exactly undercover agents working in the--

MEADOWS: You've hit the nail on the head. Actually they're not part of the counter intelligence division--

INGRAHAM: Which they were trying to pass them off as, correct?

MEADOWS: Which they were trying to say the I.G., they're actually part of the general counsel's office. So an attorney working for the FBI, normally is not an undercover operation and certainly wasn't here.

INGRAHAM: News tonight that Eric Prince's computers have been seized and so forth, any thoughts on that? Former Blackwater CBO

MEADOWS: Well so what you see is Bob Mueller continuing to grab and collect information. By the way, you got 1.2 million documents from Donald Trump in 90 days and yet they can't turn over 50,000 documents to Congress in nine months, there's a problem.

INGRAHAM: What's next for Nunes after the 5pm deadline, FBI said you guys got everything, what's next?

MEADOWS: I think the next thing for Flora action for all of this where--

INGRAHAM: Ryan will do that?

MEADOWS: Well he made a promise to Jim Jordan and I last week, that said if we didn't get all the documents by Friday, then we would see Flora action this week. I'm waiting for him to follow through on that commitment but if he doesn't we have appropriate--

INGRAHAM: He will, he's a man of his word.

MEADOWS: Well, we're going to count on it.

INGRAHAM: You've got to keep the pressure on him.

MEADOWS: This week.

INGRAHAM: Congressman thanks so much for being with us.

MEADOWS: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: Another deadline that has passed. Let's get reaction from Former Attorney General Mike Mukasey. Judge Mukasey, great to see. You just heard from the Congressman. This is wild, the justice department said you've received all the documents, essentially, you're entitled to. Where are we tonight Judge?

MIKE MUKASEY, FOMRER ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well I haven't seen the subpoena and I haven't seen the documents so I'm a little bit in the dark about where we are. But it's not an impossible task to turn over documents. I think they ought to do more discussing in between them in and among themselves than posturing publicly.

INGRAHAM: Well it looks like the documents Nunes requested were about informants placed inside the Trump campaign or who approached the Trump campaign. I think part of what he's trying to determine, when this investigation really began because they were saying that this investigation into the Trump possible collusion began into the end of July of 2016. But indications are that it began in the spring of 2016. State department very well involved, the Christopher Steele and that Dossier, in and out of the halls of justice and perhaps the state department so I think that's what they're worried about. That who was really running this investigation and who gave it the impetus Judge, from the very beginning?

MUKASEY: Well you hit the nail on the head, that's what we really need to know, when I started and how. And to the extent that there was, I mean I'm interested in example, in knowing how this informant who started out as a CIA asset suddenly became an FBI informant. You know, those two organizations don't really play with each other's toys.

And I don't understand how that happened, who brought it about, who paid him, what he was told about his responsibility in going into the Trump campaign, and when that happened. That is something that I think we ought to know, and if there were any others obviously we ought to know that as well.

INGRAHAM: Judge, something I just asked Congressman Meadows about the failure of the inspector general to reveal who these staff attorneys are at Justice. And again, it looks like one of them, Mr. Clinesmith, was writing unbelievable text messages that he was so depressed after the election, he was stressed and depressed, and basically saying the resistance lives on. He's involved at the heart of this investigation along with Strzok and of course Moyer. But we're not revealing whose these people are? Why? They're not undercover agents.

MUKASEY: Obviously not. And I think that Ad even more significant, at least to me, is not just the statements about the resistance but rather a set of messages that pass between Strzok and his friend the night that Donald Trump got the nomination where she wrote to him this is unbelievable that Trump has gotten the nomination. His response was, yes, this increases the pressure to terminate MYE, which was the code name, midyear exam, for the Clinton investigation. That's not just an expression of opinion, that is a statement about how we ought to do our jobs. And that on my reading was not in the I.G. report, I don't recall seeing it. And that's something I think they ought to question Strzok about when he testifies.

INGRAHAM: And judge, he was just walked out of the DOJ last week. Apparently just lost his security clearance. That's what Jeff Sessions said, he just lost his security clearance. Someone who was a political advocate running two critical investigations as the lead investigator. I never worked at DOJ. I've worked at the White House and Transportation, Education, Supreme Court. I've never worked at DOJ, but if that's the way business is done at the DOJ at these high levels, we are in big trouble in this country. Big trouble.

MUKASEY: It certainly doesn't inspire confidence, nor does something that was reported in the I.G. report, namely that there were FBI agents in contact with the press who were getting free meals, free tickets, and other perks, and that there were so many of them they couldn't tell who had leaked information. Now, that was an absolute jaw dropper. The notion that FBI agents were getting compensation essentially from reporters and developing relationships with them, that should have been a firing offense.

INGRAHAM: Judge, thank you so much. We're going to debate the left's dangerous flirtation with political violence after the break

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Tonight we welcome back the return of our arbiter statement. Isn't that fun? We discussed the dangers of the left lurch from political dialogue towards physical confrontations in tonight's Angle. But other questions linger. Did the Red Hen restaurant violate the rights of White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders when it kicked her out? And did Congresswoman Maxine Water illegally incite leftists to commit violence? Here to debate both of these issues, attorney and former Georgia state rep LaDawn Jones and political analyst and Washington attorney Gayle Trotter. OK Gayle, you have the floor. What possible cause of action could Sanders have against this restaurant?

GAYLE TROTTER, ATTORNEY: Yes. The restaurant violated Sanders rights because they discriminated against her in service under the Virginia human rights act which does not allow places of public accommodation to deny service to people based on their personal beliefs.

INGRAHAM: That would include political beliefs.

TROTTER: It doesn't say specifically, but the statute specifically says that it should be interpreted broadly, and other states including D.C. right were we are say that political belief, sources of employment, where you live, where you work cannot be held against you in denying service.

INGRAHAM: This is a civil cause of action, what kind of damages? Treble damages, punitive, compensatory, what do you get?

TROTTER: Yes. And if there were leftists trying to put this in force, they would put this business out of business as we have seen in other situations.

INGRAHAM: The Washington Post, LaDawn, said no cause of action here even though a lot of these civil rights attorneys weren't applauding this action said Sarah Sanders is out of luck. What is your thought?

LADAWN JONES, ATTORNEY: I agree. I also don't applaud the action but I don't think there's a cause of action there. Our legislatures in Virginia or anywhere else have to make it very clear that they do not allow discrimination based on political beliefs. They would have to prove int his cause of action to be successful that this location, the Red Hen, they always stop people with these particular personal beliefs or political beliefs rather than just Sarah Sanders herself. And because this was targeted directly at her and for her participation with the Trump organization, I don't think that they could win here.

TROTTER: I disagree. The comments that the restaurant owner made specifically said they were denying that service based on her personal beliefs. And when you look at those particular statements they would be entered into evidence as completely exonerating Sarah Sanders and making sure that the restaurant had discriminated against her. And even if you go to the point saying that Virginia statute only allows places not to discriminate based on religion, certainly in immigration religion has come into this over and over again. People on both sides have been citing Bible statutes talking about this and saying definitely this is a religious issue as well.

INGRAHAM: LaDawn, you can respond to that, then I will give you the next point.

JONES: I find it interesting that when we talk about these causes of action, we've seen these cases come through the Supreme Court. We've seen these laws come through several states where there were direct things that our laws have prohibited based on race, religion, sexual orientation that conservatives have fought very hard to say it's OK for someone to express their personal beliefs for religious freedoms. It did not apply in those cases. It will not apply here.

INGRAHAM: This is Maxine Waters on Saturday versus Maxine Waters tonight, or today. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.: If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they are not welcome.

I have not called for the harm of anybody. This president has lied again when he is saying that I called for harm to anyone. This Don the conman will say anything. He is the one that is responsible for promoting violence.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: LaDawn, she says push back, obviously the import of that is drive them out. She's urging people to surround members of the administration when they are having a private dinner with their children, it doesn't matter. How is that not ultimately inciting people to violence? And she says no, that's not what I intended. But you are telling people to harass other people. She is a smart woman, she knows what the word "harass" means, does she not?

JONES: I'm sure she does, but let's look at the legal sense of the word. What do we have the right to do as Americans? One of the fundamental rights is to --

INGRAHAM: Not incite violence, LaDawn, not incite violence. You don't have the right to do that.

JONES: Well, she did not ask them to incite violence. She asked to push back on their policies.

INGRAHAM: She didn't say on their policies. No, no, no she did not. I listen very closely, four times.

JONES: She said as he said push them out of the store but not drive them over with a car.

INGRAHAM: Are they public accommodations, though? Those are -- according to the statute, they are public places of gathering, so you have free association, Gayle. Look, I think it's a tough call on this, but she has free association as a person, Sarah Sanders. She can freely associate with anyone she wants and go anywhere she wants. But this is a private establishment. So does a private establishment say we have the right to serve you if you are barefoot, we are not going to serve you if you are a member of the Trump administration.

TROTTER: There is no question when talking about what Maxine Waters said that this is inciting. And the First Amendment does not protect incitement of violence. She wants mob rule, and she's talking about a specific action against people whose names we know, 23 members of the cabinet. Six of them are Republican women.

INGRAHAM: Create a crowd, push back on them, and tell them they are not welcome anywhere. I think if those words were used on any other class of people who happened not to be related to Trump or supporting him, I think the left would have a huge problem. They'd have lots of creative liberal lawyers who say, there could be because of action. This is a conspiracy to deprive someone of their First Amendment rights. But this is a good arbiter segment. You were both really good. I don't know, can I have a tie? No, I can't. I think Gayle has it this time. I don't have my gavel.

JONES: Of course.

INGRAHAM: No, it's not of course. I said it was really good and I want you back, you're both great. Thank you for so much for joining us.

And the Bible has been used to both attack and defend the president's immigration policy. So what's the truth? An important debate with a panel of distinguished religious leaders, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: We recently witnessed that weird spectacle of Ali Velshi at MSNBC reading scripture to attack the administration's immigration policy. That followed Attorney General Jeff Sessions quoting the Bible to justify that policy. So all of this has sparked a really big debate. It's really interesting among Christian leaders on immigration. So let's discuss that now with a pair of very distinguished religious leaders, I'm delighted they are both with us, Dr. Darrell Scott of the president's Faith Advisory Council, and Dr. Kent Ingle, president of Southeastern University. Great to see you both. Dr. Ingle, let's start with you. You're actually, I think, a supporter of the president but you disagree with his policy that it initially, at least, separated families, child in one area, parents more in a formal immigration detention. Why?

KENT INGLE, PRESIDENT, SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY: Sure. I appreciate President Trump's leadership, and he is trying to do the right thing. He wants to uphold the laws of the land, there's no doubt about that. I think the issue there was to not only provide protection which is what he wants to do as it relates to borders, but I think also you have to look at compassion. How do you bring the human element into this situation so that you can provide human dignity and respect and care and compassion and provide an element that gives both.

And I think that's the thing that a lot of Americans are hoping that our president will step up in a way, along with the congress, the House, the Senate, our leaders will do the right thing and provide that protective and compassionate pieces to this legislation.

INGRAHAM: Pastor Scott, this is Bishop Michael Curry who was just slamming Jeff Sessions for invoking the bible. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BISHOP MICHAEL CURRY, PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH: For our Christians to quote Romans 13 over Jesus of Nazareth, as if Jesus of Nazareth doesn't exist, that it seems to me is highly problematic. And it's just flat out wrong. It's unbiblical, it's un-Christian, and it's un- American.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Pastor, your reaction to that? And I have something to say about welcoming the stranger. Go ahead.

PASTOR DARRELL SCOTT, TRUMP FAITH ADVISORY COUNCIL: It's not unreasonable to refer to the scripture, especially if you are a Bible believer. It's not unusual to refer to scripture as a basis to validate any actions that you engage in. Once again, if you are a Bible believer, we oftentimes use scripture to confirm or validate actions or activities that we engage in. I don't see anything wrong with Jeff Sessions utilizing that scripture because that scripture simply says to obey the civil authorities.

Notice something. Jesus nor the Apostle Paul never endorsed sedition or rebellion or violent uprising against Rome, and in using that scripture he was saying that in order to advance our cause, violence is not the way. Obey the laws of the land so they won't have a reason to accuse us of any wrongdoing. Obey the laws of the land and put other matters into the hands of God and he will work it out.

INGRAHAM: Pastor Ingle, the Bible calls on us to welcome the stranger, and it's very powerful. Welcome into your table, invite a stranger to your home for meals and so forth. But the Catholic bishop seemed to take that to mean open borders. They have a really big wall around the Vatican, it's a beautiful wall, a really nice wall. But that means anyone who steps foot over the border has to be processed into the country and released. How is that welcoming the stranger according to Biblical text? That does not mean to be devoid of all laws of the land, does it?

INGLE: Absolutely. And I go back to that passage the attorney general referred to in Romans 13 talking about obey the laws of the land. When you talk about the context of God's law, God's law always for protection, it's always for peace, it's always for harmony. And so that's why when you look at the issues that we are facing with immigration reform, all the issues and challenges that we have seen over the last couple of weeks, you have to have a come together approach that covers all the issues of -- well, you have to look at the issues of collaborating on providing security at the wall. You have to look at issues of compassion as it relates to bringing families together.

INGRAHAM: What about compassion for Americans. We all do what we can to donate to organizations that help people on the ground in their home countries. So many Christian organizations, faith-based groups in Guatemala, Central America, South America, Africa and around the world, that's where we as individuals can make a difference through our faith, through our churches and our organizations. It doesn't mean that we have to completely smash our own rule of law and say OK, you have a really sad life, I understand it's horrible, so we have to allow you to come into the country no matter how you come in.

I want to get Pastor Scott on that. This is a very liberal priest known as Father James Martin. He's not a big fan of Trump to put it lightly. That is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FATHER JAMES MARTIN S.J., EDITOR AT LARGE, AMERICA MAGAZINE: No one wants to be a refugee, no one wants to be a migrant, but they do it out of great love for their families. They have lots of guts to do it, and I think it's up to us to welcome them.

I think the problem with a lot of these Christians who are saying they are reading the Bible is I don't know what bible they are reading because the Bible I read has Jesus always reaching out to those on the margins, including and most especially migrants and refugees.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Pastor Scott, a lot of Americans feel like they are on the margins, like two blocks from where we broadcasted from there are a lot of homeless on the street, literally two blocks from where we are. Your comments on Father Martin?

SCOTT: There is a difference between migrants, refugees, and illegal immigrants. The parents of these children know that they are committing a crime when they endeavor to sneak into this country. This country has a zero-tolerance policy. They know that our president is hardline in regards to that, but they try to sneak in anyways.

Now, anyone, an American citizen regardless of race, creed or color, if you are engaged in the commission of a crime and you are caught in the commission of this crime and you are apprehended, and you have a child in your custody, that child is going to be removed from your custody and placed into child services until either somebody comes and gets them or they are remanded over or whatever. And so I don't understand why we are taking any culpability toward this crime that is being committed away from the parents and making it as if we're just grabbing kids and putting them into concentration camps, because that is not the case at all. There is a crime being committed, the children are in the custody of the criminals.

INGRAHAM: And its Donald Trump's fault. And its Donald Trump's fault that a crime is being committed.

SCOTT: Because you told yourself I'm going to sneak into America, I'm going to sneak into America despite the law, and I'm taking my child. I wouldn't even put my children at risk like that. I have grandchildren. I wouldn't even try to do that if I know it was a zero-tolerance.

INGRAHAM: It's a dangerous journey, that's for sure, up through Mexico. Phenomenal segment. Thank you, both.

And by the way, the greatest hits from the president's remarks at a campaign rally tonight, and my live interview with the man he was there to support, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: South Carolina holding a runoff election in the GOP primary race for governor tomorrow. And President Trump stopped for incumbent Governor Henry McMaster at a huge rally tonight. Thunderstorms delayed Trump's arrival by an hour, but it was worth the wait for the crowd.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. HENRY MCMASTER, R-S.C.: South Carolina loves Donald Trump.

And we were watching these forces of nature, and there was the lightning and there was the thunder, and the storm and of the rain. And then it cleared. Then Air Force One landed and the real force of nature got off the plane.

(APPLAUSE)

TRUMP: So please get your -- out tomorrow and vote.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: We had to bleep the president tonight. Joining us now, Governor Henry McMaster. I was like, OK, it's a family hour, OK, Mr. President. We don't need the a-word. But he was into the moment there. So how did you rate the president's performance, go.

MCMASTER: A plus. The place was bursting at the seams. We had an overflow in the auditorium and over 1,000 people outside couldn't even get in to play safe. The people of South Carolina love Donald Trump and he certainly didn't disappoint. It was terrific.

INGRAHAM: So you guys gave Trump a 14-point victory in 2016. That was a big smash of Hillary Clinton, although South Carolina has changed a lot over the years, Governor McMaster. It looks like you will beat John Warren tomorrow although you want everyone to go out and vote for sure. But it's changed a lot demographically, and we see the resistance ramping up across the United States, including what Maxine Waters said over the weekend. She kind of didn't really apologize for it at all. But have you ever been harassed in public or do you feel the change in the discourse?

MCMASTER: No ma'am. And I really don't think we have seen much of that here. I just can't believe Maxine Waters and these other people, they have gone crazy. And the debate about whether it's a violation of this law and inciting a riot, and it probably is a violation of a lot of laws, but even worse than that is it's just plain bad manners. I just don't know what these people are thinking.

People look at them for guidance, look at them for leadership, and they are talking and acting totally responsibly. It is hard to believe, but we don't have much of that in South Carolina. That crowd tonight was about the same as the others. They were delirious with joy to see Donald Trump in South Carolina, and when I campaigned for him in the primary, the presidential primary, it was the same thing. I have seen such enthusiasm close to what I have seen with President Trump and then candidate Trump one time, and that's when I saw a Beatles concert years ago. People were just going wild and they do that every time they see Donald Trump. They love Donald Trump, can't get enough of him.

INGRAHAM: John Warren, your opponent, says he is the more Trump-like character and has the more Trump-like views.

MCMASTER: That's nonsense. As President Trump said tonight, he and I think alike, we are doing the same things. Of course President Trump has been involved in politics deeply for a long time. Remember he wanted to run for governor of New York, and before that he was involved with people running the Reform Party. But he is a student of politics and history. He was a world figure before he became president. And he and I are doing the same things, cutting taxes and regulations, getting rid of sanctuary cities, protecting the children, no tax money to Planned Parenthood. And we've got a robust economy here. We are just booming in South Carolina, $6 billion in investment, $20,000 -- it's the same thing that President Trump is doing, and we love him.

INGRAHAM: Governor, we're going to be watching closely tomorrow night. We really appreciate you joining us, staying up late after the rally. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: I know it's hip to hate on the media, and come one, we do it from time to time here as well. But displays like this tonight, well, they don't help.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SHOUTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: OK, it's got home Jim Acosta, OK. I'm not a huge supporter of Jim Acosta over at the other network, but you mainly need it to rhyme.


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