Will Mueller get his presidential interview?

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," August 7, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Welcome to Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is "The Ingraham Angle." We have a jam-packed show for you tonight. Busy primary tonight across the country. And we'll give you some hints about what November might look like. This includes an extremely razor thin margin in Ohio's 12th district.

Former Governor Mike Huckabee is also here to react to a loony left wing -- Rosie O'Donnell's latest stunt in front of the White House. You could almost hear it last night from our set. Plus the president's legal team expected to respond to Robert Mueller's demands as early as tomorrow. So that's news. Dershowitz is here to tell us what should and should not be included. And Representative Steve Scalise joins us exclusively on the increasing hostile that republicans face these days, including a death threat that he just received.

But first, big tech and the new corporate censorship. That's the focus of tonight's Angle. Remember what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told the Senate hearing back in April?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, FACEBOOK: There's certain content that clearly, we do not allow. Hate speech, terrorist content, nudity, anything that makes people feel unsafe in the community. From that perspective, that's what we generally try to refer to what we do as a platform for all ideas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: A platform for all ideas. Really? Over the past few months, Facebook and other tech giants have given us ample reasons to doubt that proclamation. The latest example started early yesterday morning when Apple pulled several podcasts associated with the controversial and incendiary Alex Jones. Facebook followed suite, unpublishing four of Jones' pages, claiming that the videos on those pages violated that hate speech policy. Hours later YouTube decided it wasn't going to miss out on all that censorship fun and YouTube suspended the Alex Jones channel with its 2.4 million subscribers.

Well it's easy to dismiss concerns about big techs actions all coordinated it seems to shut down Jones, because of course, he's the media's poster child for conspiracy theories. But this isn't about Alex Jones. This is about freedom and our access to information from the sources we as individuals trust and like. If big tech can control the information flow, then they can also perhaps even influence the outcome of the midterms and even future presidential elections.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Essentially, Alex Jones has been deleted, digitally deplatformed from these websites, you wonder if he'll have any influence going forward because these private companies do have an incredible amount of control over the internet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: And that's the point, controlling who has a voice and who doesn't on these monster platforms is tantamount to limiting speech. And as you'll see in a moment, it's also viewpoint discrimination. Back in February, Facebook launched a new algorithm that would cause top conservative pages to see a dramatic drop in traffic. And this included personal pages, by the way. President Trump's Facebook page saw a 45 percent drop. Diamond and Silk said their content was similarly blocked on Facebook.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Facebook, along with other social media sites have taken aggressive actions to silence conservative voices such as ourselves by deliberately restricting and weaponizing our page with algorithms that censor and repress our free speech.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Next it was YouTube, who let conservative influencers build up an audience for years, only to end up limiting their channel temporarily, demonetizing them with no warning at all. This has happened to conservative commentators like Ben Shapiro, Dave Ruben and Dennis Prager.

For many on the left, the view seems to become if you can't beat them, prevent them from speaking. Just look at what's happened on the conservative speakers on college campuses. And after liberal radio hosts flopped on Air America -- remember them -- well, some democrats thought to revive the fairness doctrine to snuff out conservative talk radio. Thankfully that went nowhere. But now they've moved onto the internet and squelching political speech there.

A leaked proposal circulating amongst democrats outlines a detailed plan to take over the internet by regulating digital platforms and purging content they deem harmful or inaccurate. In other words, information they don't like. They would require social media users to be tracked and labeled according to how reasonable their content is deemed to be. Democrat Senator Chris Murphy even hinted at this yesterday, tweeting, Infowars is a tip of a giant iceberg of hates and lies, that uses sites like Facebook and YouTube to tear our nation apart. These companies must do more than take down one website. The survival or our democracy depends on it.

How dramatic. Translation: the survival of the democratic party depends on it. There's an old saying in TV and radio that content is king. Same goes for the internet. If they can shut down political speech on the grounds that it's hateful, you have to ask where does this end? If you want to see hate, check out some of the comments on my Twitter feed after the show tonight. Then you'll see hateful.

Why do leftists always seem to escape big techs censors? I don't know Louis Farrakhan comes to mind. He's a casual racist, of course, and an anti-Semite who called white people "potential humans," praised Hitler and blamed Jews for 9/11.

Well he's still standing tall on his Facebook page -- has a million followers. And what about those who traffic in violence? If Facebook really cares about standards or safety, I don't think they would be granting ANTIFA chapters from coast to coast where their pages can plug their next thuggish beat down of conservatives with their black hoods and all. And by the way, if there's so much concern over conspiracy theories like the one Alex Jones peddles, well, do moments like this give social media kings pause?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP

ROSIE O'DONNELL, TV PERSONALITY: The fact of the matter is, he's not only bad because he's a liar, he's bad because he doesn't know how to inspire people or invoke that emotion in them.

CHRIS CUOMO, CNN HOST: What about his rallies?

O'DONNELL: First of all, people are paid, Chris. You know that. People were paid since he went down on the escalator. He pays people to show up at those rallies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Trump pays people to go to his rallies. That would be a lot of money. She still has a YouTube channel. The truth is we conservatives always want more political speech, not less of it, even when it's offensive to us. Our only point usually about speech is limiting it if there's a direct incitement to violence, or material that is injurious to children. But political speech in general, we want more.

Now, while Facebook and apple are private companies and thus aren't actors for first amendment companies, they be really careful with these moves to circumscribe certain groups political speech, because voters in the future might just demand that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube be treated more like public utility, public utilities that have to operate in the public interest. But since a utility can't refuse to give electricity to a family because they disagree with their views or heaven forbid because they're of a different race, they act in the public interest. Ted Cruz, by the way, in response to the Alex Jones purge said tech companies have quote a degree of power and an ability to censor that William Randolph Hearst at the height of Yellow Journalism could never have imagined. They have the ability if there is a speaker that is disfavored simply to silence the speaker. Your words float off into oblivion and nobody hears them.

Well, he's right about their power. The big five tech companies are now worth an estimated $4 trillion. Well, that figure puts them above the GDP of all but seven countries on the planet. The immense size of these companies is concerning, but so too is the speed with which they can succumb to external pressure. Point in case, just three weeks ago, Mark Zuckerberg defended keeping Infowars on his platform.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ZUCKERBERG: If you look at the things that are getting the most distribution, people flag them as potential hoaxes, we send those to fact checkers and if those fact checkers say that it is provably false, then we will significantly reduce the distribution of that content.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why don't you want to just say, "get off our platform"?

ZUCKERBERG: As abhorrent as some of this content can be, it gets down to this principle of giving people a voice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: So why did he end up caving here? We'll continue to demand answers for you. Remember when disgraced FBI agent Strzok texted Lisa Page about an insurance policy to keep Trump from getting elected? Remember that? Well maybe, just maybe these latest moves are the beginning of big tech's own version of an insurance policy to see that someone with Trump's views never reaches a position of authority in government again. And that's the angle.

Joining us now with a reaction, Monica Crowley from the London Center for Policy Research, Attorney Dan Gilleon and Elizabeth Heng, a Republican Congressional candidate from California who had one of her campaign ads temporarily blocked on Facebook. It's great to see all of you. Elizabeth, let's start with you because I watched your campaign ad.

And you had some images from your -- your parents' country of birth, Cambodia and, you know, the brutality of Cambodia, the Cambodian purge. And Facebook, you know, blocked it. They said what to you when you brought this up? This is some of the images from the ad. What did they say to you when you brought this up ?

ELIZABETH HENG, R-CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, CALIFORNIA: They said that my -- the ad was shocking, disrespectful, and too sensational to be on Facebook. And that is -- that was absolutely maddening in so many ways for me. You know, my -- when I decided to run for Congress, I got into the race because I -- and part of my message was that great things can come from great adversity.

My parents lived through the genocide in -- in Cambodia and came to the United States as refugees. And so for some reason, Facebook found that offensive and removed my ability to advertise the campaign message.

INGRAHAM: Dan, this is kind of problematic. I mean, I think for (ph) civil libertarians -- this is more (ph) Democrats, ACLUs and (ph) amazingly quiet on this. And they have a statement on their website, but I don't don't see them on any television shows. They're too busy representing illegal immigrants. But Dan, where are the libertarians on this issue? I mean those are historical photos.

I mean, the holocaust. Are we not able to talk about that and the horrors that were perpetrated on Jews on these social media platforms? What's going on here?

DAN GILLEON, ATTORNEY: Laura -- I -- I think you need to back up a little bit. And I want to restate something that you said earlier, which is really important, that none of these companies you're talking about, they're not state actors. They're not the government. And so this whole First Amendment thing you've been talking about all along, it's out the window.

So what you're talking about here are decisions by companies on their content, something that Fox News does, something that every single media outlet does. And I think for you to go and say, listen, this is all about because we're Republicans, we're conservatives --

INGRAHAM: Where -- where's the -- where's the discrimination or the similar actions against a myriad of leftists. You saw the examples --

GILLEON: Let -- let me -- let me give you an example. Let me give you an example.

INGRAHAM: Well, now why isn't Antifa blocked from Facebook? Why are they still on YouTube?

GILLEON: Well maybe they should be, OK?

(CROSSTALK)

INGRAHAM: Laura. Laura, listen, though. But you just asked me a question. Let me answer it. You know, back -- back in 2015, being liberal was knocked right off of Facebook. Right? I -- I have a lot more -- I can assure you, I have a lot more liberal friends on my Facebook feed than a lot of your viewers do and I see them griping time and time again, every night about Facebook acting against them too and knocking them off for stupid things they say.

Facebook has made a decision and it seems like it's not that hard to understand, giving -- given the history and the $16 billion that Mr. Zuckerberg took a hit on, that he's made a decision that his company is going to start making different decisions on content they did before.

But you know Infowars, it's still out there on Instagram. It's still there. And Instagram, you know, is huge. Twitter is out there --

INGRAHAM: So -- so -- so Dan, you see no difference -- you see no difference between a cable channel -- there's how many cable channels out there? I don't even know. I mean, I don't watch most cable channels but there are a lot. From a cable channel and YouTube or Facebook or the entire Apple platform worth a trillion dollars? You see no difference as far as their control of information? Really? What's the equivalent of YouTube?

GILLEON: I'm not really sure where you're going. They're non-state actors --

INGRAHAM: Name a -- it's about controlling information. What is the equivalent of YouTube --

GILLEON: Well, Instagram -- Instagram --

INGRAHAM: YouTube.

GILLEON: I don't know. I mean you're --

INGRAHAM: There isn't one is the point.

GILLEON: Instagram? Instagram?

(CROSSTALK)

GILLEON: -- but they're all companies --

INGRAHAM: -- no, no, no, no, no. You don't know social media.

GILLEON: Laura --

INGRAHAM: It does not compete -- YouTube and Instagram do not compete with each other.

GILLEON: OK. Well thank you for that information.

INGRAHAM: I got to go to Monica. Monica, you see my point. Of course they're not state actors. My point is when you have an overwhelmingly left wing directorate, employees -- 100 percent of all Twitter employees for instance in 2014 contributed to Democratic causes, that's not a, you know, conservative website piece. That's a factual determination, Twitter admitted it.

CROWLEY: Yes. And it .

INGRAHAM: Doesn't have any effect? OK, I guess.

CROWLEY: . I mean, come on. Common sense points to -- to the truth about this. Look, the -- these Internet companies, they're giants, they're behemoths. They are incredibly influential and dominant. And that's the point.

To your point about Twitter, the guy who used to run tech for Twitter is now running tech for the Democratic National Committee, just in time for the midterm elections. That's just one example. We're not talking about particular content, about Infowars et cetera.

What we are talking about is that a few select companies that have near monopolies in the digital sphere are now having control over the information that is available to you. And it's only going to get worse. So we are now on this slippery slope, Laura, where they're controlling the Infowars website and so on.

But go a couple of years down the road or maybe even a shorter time period, and they -- those leftist overlords in the digital sphere will be able to deem anything that they consider unacceptable, and that's a subjective standard, inappropriate for -- for consumption, whether that's statements about Islamic fundamentalism, maybe it's .

INGRAHAM: Abortion.

CROWLEY: . to say -- abortion, maybe it's statements about .

INGRAHAM: Pro-life.

CROWLEY: . right -- pro-life or support -- support for the police. They will be able to use this sliding scale, based on what they think is appropriate rather than the First Amendment standard. And that is a very dark and dangerous place for this country to be.

INGRAHAM: Elizabeth, in -- Mark Zuckerberg was questioned about this by Ted Cruz back in April. And he -- he said, look, we're -- there's no bias. But we're going to have standards in place. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS: To a great many Americans, that appears to be a pervasive pattern of political bias. Do you agree with that assessment?

MARK ZUCKERBERG, CEO, FACEBOOK: I understand where that concern is coming from because Facebook and the tech industry are located in Silicon Valley which is an extremely left-leaning place. And I -- this is actually a concern that I have and that I try to root out in the company is making sure that we don't have any bias in the work that we do. And I think it is a fair concern that -- that people would -- would .

CRUZ: So -- so let me -- let me .

ZUCKERBERG: . at least wonder about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Well, that was a moment of candor from Zuckerberg. I mean, anyone who's spent any time in Silicon Valley, it's a -- it's a political monolith. I know there are conservatives there, but they probably hide their views. I don't know why, but they don't want to -- they don't want to .

HENG: Yes .

INGRAHAM: . literally do not want to say they're conservative when they work there or they'll -- they probably will lose their job. I mean, I've heard those comments, not -- not at Facebook but other high-tech companies. Elizabeth.

HENG: Yes, Laura. It's undeniable that Facebook has algorithms that lean towards and incentivize those that have more liberal tendencies. And their algorithms will promote those such as Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and my opponent Jim Costa.

And it -- this just goes to show, why did it take five days and the whole national movement for Facebook to respond to my -- my -- my ad here? This is my story. This is -- this is -- the story in which I told that they, I'm assuming had concerns with in the beginning of it, where it -- it shoed glimpses of genocide. Those weren't just photos, but my family has (ph) to (inaudible) .

INGRAHAM: So, Elizabeth, do you think -- do you think you're being targeted?

HENG: . through this.

INGRAHAM: Elizabeth, do you think you're being targeted as an Asian conservative candidate in liberal California because you represent a dangerous possibility for the left, is that what you're saying?

HENG: Yes. We constantly see this time and time again with conservatives. That from these tech -- these tech giants that the algorithms that are in place do -- do not support conservative ideologies. It is so -- and this important part about all of this is that it is so incredibly important for platforms, such as Facebook who claim to be sort of the -- the online community space, to have diverse political thoughts on there.

INGRAHAM: That's (ph) better, yes.

HENG: Time and time again we see that is not the case .

GILLEON: Laura .

INGRAHAM: More speech .

GILLEON: . Laura, can I .

INGRAHAM: is better for everybody. Dan, go ahead.

GILLEON: Yes. There was an Ipsos poll today, 43 percent of Americans support Trump's idea of -- of shutting down media outlets that don't behave. So this is -- this is -- goes both ways. And this is not a Republican versus a Democrat issue. I mean, I -- I -- you mentioned the ACLU. I know the ACLU really does not like any sort of infringement on anything -

INGRAHAM: Well, where are they?

GILLEON: - speech related.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

GILLEON: Well, I can assure -

INGRAHAM: Where are they? We got to get Monica. They're nowhere. They're nowhere. They're focusing on illegal immigration and partisan issues.

GILLEON: Well -

INGRAHAM: Monica, really quick. We got thirty seconds.

CROWLEY: Yes, I mean, I really feel for Elizabeth because she's trying to tell the story of her family, which is the American dream, and, you know, these tech giants are trying to crush that message which is particularly appalling.

INGRAHAM: Yes.

CROWLEY: But as Elizabeth points out, they've got these algorithms. They're clearly set in a certain direction, but then they'll say, "well, then we've got a next barrier of humans, actual human beings who are trying to review these into artificial intelligence decisions and make sure -

INGRAHAM: Yes, yes.

CROWLEY: - there's no bias because all of those people are on the left."

INGRAHAM: All right. Now, they're on the left, and by the way, Jack Dorsey of Twitter today, late tonight says that Alex Jones didn't violate their policy, so Twitter so far seems to be the best of all.

Up next, President Trump made a campaign stop for him in Ohio. Can he pull off a win?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

President Trump tonight facing a political test of his influence in a House special election in Ohio, and this race is neck and neck at the moment. Fox News Correspondent Kristin Fisher joins us live from the election headquarters, a republican Troy Balderson who's fighting Democrat Danny O'Connor for that Ohio House seat. Kristin, what is the latest there?

KRISTIN FISHER, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well Laura, everyone is on the edge of their seat here at Balderson's headquarters because this race is shaping up to be exactly how the polls predicted. It is razor tight, and right literally everybody in the room has their eye on one country. There is only one country that does not have all of its precincts in, and that is Delaware County.

And this is a big deal because Delaware County is the country that President Trump came to on Saturday. It is where he held his big rally for Republican Troy Balderson. This is also a county that has been reliably Republican over the years, and yet when the early vote came in, Danny O'Connor, the Democrat, won the early vote by about 2,000 votes.

So that has everybody here very nervous. They're watching Delaware County very closely. And based on the unofficial results I'm looking at right now on the Ohio secretary of state website, we have 95 percent of the (inaudible) in Delaware County and -- and Balderson is ahead 54-45 (ph). So we'll see if that holds. The other county that we've been watching all night, Franklin County.

That's the county just outside the -- the suburbs of Columbus. This is where the Democrat, Danny O'Connor is from. It's also what the Republican, Troy Balderson had alluded to last night at his rally. He made a little bit of a (inaudible) he said, you don't want to see someone from Franklin County representing us (ph) (inaudible) Democrat Danny O'Connor of course is from Franklin County.

And now O'Connor is ahead there, 65-35. not a huge surprise there, but this is so close, Laura. The other thing I'm hearing a lot from people in the room, the possibility of an automatic recount. If the difference is 0.5 percent or less, that triggers an automatic recount. It is very close. But so far right now, still outside that automatic recount margin, Laura.

It is very exciting in here but everybody's still very nervous and cautiously optimistic. That's crazy (ph). I keep hearing over and over (inaudible) --

INGRAHAM: Kristen, certainly loud there. Great reporting. We'll continue to monitor this race and others throughout the hour and the night and bring you the results as they come in. Very exciting. Of course even if Balderson wins, the other networks will say it's really a loss for Trump. So even if he wins, he loses. So just make sure you get that right.

Well, as we touched on earlier in the angle, one of your favorites -- and I know you've missed her on daily television -- Rosie O'Donnell has gone into full conspiracy theory mode with regard to President Trump. And last night -- about how many blocks is it? 16, 17 blocks from here? O'Donnell led a sing along protest -- I kid you not -- in front of the White House with some of her fellow Hollywood and Broadway stars. Even though no one told them the president wasn't home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O'DONNELL: We are so thrilled to finally be here at the Kremlin annex on night 22. How many have been here every night? Let's hear it. And we're going to keep coming back until he's out. Let the president know in no uncertain terms that we are alive, awake and we are woke. We are not going away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

INGRAHAM: Raise your hand if you're sick of woke. I am. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee joins us with a reaction. Governor, first of all, on my radio show, I played all the really bad singing. I mean, these are great Broadway stars, a lot of talent. But I don't know. The -- the chanting, no rhyming. They haven't updated the chant since like 1968 on the left. So it was very disappointing.

But what do you make of her resurgence on the scene? And the -- tonight, they were -- I went by the White House tonight. These -- these people are still out there. I guess until they feel like they can drive the president from office.

MIKE HUCKABEE, R-FORMER GOVERNOR, ARKANSAS: Well, I think it's important that you know that he wasn't even there. I think they thought it was Halloween and they were there to do some early trick or treating and they scared the daylights out of people around the White House. The other thing that I believe that may perhaps solve this mystery. Where did that noise come from that damaged the ear -- the hearing of the people who were working for the state department down in the Cuban embassy.

I think we now know. Rosie and her team had gone down there and that's what caused that physical damage. One other observation, Laura. I thought Rosie had moved to Canada. You know, she promised that if Trump got elected she would go. So I don't know what she was able to do. I guess she was coming back into the country for a brief visit. Because after all, she's Canadian now, isn't she? Did I miss something?

INGRAHAM: Well she -- she's a woman on a mission. I mean, she actually said to Chris Cuomo last night that Donald Trump and his organization pays people to attend his rallies. And Chris Cuomo is just like what? Pay? Well maybe -- he said, like, maybe some but he has tens of thousands of people. And then she said no he doesn't. What -- I mean, I guess she didn't remember the Mobile, Alabama rally in 2015 (ph) in August where he had 70,000 people.

I guess those were all cardboard cutouts in Rosie land.

HUCKABEE: Well those cardboard cutouts are sure making a lot of noise. And I'll tell you another thing. It's absurd to say that those people are paid. Those people just happen to love their country. Now let me be fair. Rosie O'Donnell has as much right to protest and sing songs as anybody else. This is America. We're all fine with that.

But I think what we all find a little bit disingenuous is that her attitude is rather than accept the election results from 2016, suck it up and say we're going to do better next time, their idea is let's invalidate the election results because we don't like how they turned out. This is the rantings of a seven-year-old who got defeated playing baseball and decided that we're just going to overturn the game rather than just learn how to play the game a little better next time.

INGRAHAM: Governor, not just that but now the entertainment industry on the left coast and the west Hollywood crowd has voted, I'm sure the president is devastated, to remove the president's star on the Hollywood walk of fame. So no longer will they have to guard the star. People won't pickax. This is what it's come to. This is how petty and pathetic they have become. They're going after some -- what is that, marble. I don't know what it is. But that I guess makes them feel better and they feel like they've had a good -- that's their idea of victory.

HUCKABEE: Well, if they're going to chop up everybody's star who has done something they don't like, they might as well rent a bunch of jackhammers because there's a lot of people on that sidewalk who represent some pretty crazy views and some things that have gotten them landed with the Me Too movement. So will we see a goodbye from Kevin Spacey, from Roman Polanski? How many of the Hollywood elites are going to have their stars chopped up because they didn't exactly do the right thing, to be charitable about it?

INGRAHAM: No. It's such a double standard. We have the -- if you're a star like James Gunn and director of "Guardians of the Galaxy" and you had bad tweets, they make an excuse for you. But if you're anyone who is a conservative, you apologize for something or make a mistake, they never forgive you. The forgiveness only ever goes one way. Governor, thank you so much.

And by the way, the showdown between the Trump legal team and Bob Mueller over that presidential interview is about to take a dramatic turn. Details, reaction, Alan Dershowitz and Wisenberg next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: A dramatic new turn may be imminent in the showdown between the Trump legal team and special prosecutor Bob Mueller. According to FOX News sources, Trump attorneys are preparing to send the special counsel a letter largely turning down any questions related to obstruction of justice during a potential presidential interview. But Rudy Giuliani gave an interview just posted on "Politico" where he leaves the door open to some limited questioning about obstruction, which is an interesting new development.

Will this spark, though, a major escalation between both sides in the Russia probe? Joining us now to analyze, Alan Dershowitz, author of the big bestseller, "The Case against Impeaching Trump," and Sol Wisenberg, former deputy independent council in the Whitewater investigation. We'll also get into the cantankerous T.S. Ellis, the federal district judge who is presiding over the Paul Manafort trial.

But let's get to this breaking news, Rudy Giuliani and this "Politico" interview. You probably haven't read it, either of you, but he seems to leave open the possibility of a very narrow set of questions, if it can be narrowed, on obstruction. Alan, I'll go to you first. What might be the wisdom in that?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: I think Giuliani's tactic is to be able to say to the public, look, our president was willing to speak and Mueller turned him down. I think he's Mueller an offer that Mueller can't really accept. He's putting forth a kind of narrow window. If Mueller accepts it, then game on and we'll see some narrow questioning.

But if I were Trump's lawyer -- I'm not -- I would not under any circumstances allow him to testify, because all you need is one question in which he answers truthfully, but somebody else answers in a different way, say he says, I didn't know about the meeting at the Trump Tower involving the Russians, and Cohen says, yes, he did, then you have an opportunity to spring that perjury trap. So in the end, I don't think lawyers generally will advise a client to testify or sit down with a prosecutor. But I think this client wants to be able to say I offered to sit down and it was Mueller who turned me down. So I think that's the strategy.

INGRAHAM: Here's some of the previous conditions, Sol, placed on any potential interview that Giuliani had set out. And we'll put it up on the screen for our viewers. It can only be two to three hours long, narrow set of questions on collusion. They provide info on FBI information first, so they want that information, show proof that Trump committed a crime, show testimony is needed to end a probe, and curtail obstruction questions. So that's the one that kind of was fleshed out a little bit more tonight in Giuliani's comments to "Politico," that last bullet point. Sol, you're reaction to these latest developments? Do you agree with what Professor Dershowitz is positing there?

SOLOMON WISENBERG, PARTNER, NELSON-MULLINS: No prosecutor worth his salt is going to accept those kinds of preconditions. But there's a reason -- and I do agree with, and have long agreed with Professor Dershowitz's assertion that the president shouldn't go in and answer these questions. It's far too dangerous. But there's a reason Bob Mueller has put up with this dance for so long. And I think a lot of people don't understand it.

If he issues the subpoena to force President Trump to be interviewed by him, to go to the grand jury, for example, certainly President Trump has to accept that subpoena. You can subpoena a president. But then when President Trump invokes executive privilege, under the law, the current law in the D.C. circuit in resealed case, it is going to be very difficult and time-consuming for Bob Mueller to ask the questions he wants to ask, particularly about obstructions. And there is absolutely no guarantee that he will win.

You're talking about the heart of executive privilege here, presidential communications and presidential thought processes. And Mueller would have to show that it's very, very important evidence and that he can't get it anywhere else.

And don't forget, when Jaworski won the tapes case against Nixon, and when Cox won the earlier case, they knew their subpoenas were incredibly narrowly drawn. They knew the tapes existed. They knew there were potentially incriminatory conversations on those tapes. Mueller does not have that.

INGRAHAM: Very different.

WISENBERG: And more than anything else, Mueller does not have the right to even litigate executive privilege. The first thing President Trump is going to say is, I'm your boss. You can't even be in court. So the reason why Mueller has put up with these ridiculous preconditions is that he probably can't win if he goes to court.

INGRAHAM: And Alan, they have already gamed this out. You have Emmet Flood, one of the top partners at Williams and Connolly who's running this side of the legal prep inside the White House. He clerked for Justice Scalia. He was my co-clerk on the Secord Circuit for Ralph Winter. Brilliant guy. They've already gamed this out, correct? This is probably already briefed.

DERSHOWITZ: Yes, they had gamed it out a long time ago. Remember, that was the firm that represented Bill Clinton in his efforts to try to prevent testimony.

In addition to his claim of executive privilege, there's also constitutional argument, and that is that since a senator and a congressman can't be questioned about what they did on the floor of the Senate, I don't believe a president can be questioned about why he pardoned or why he fired or why he tweeted or why he exercised any of his powers under Article Two of the Constitution or the First Amendment.

So although I think in the end if a subpoena was issued and challenged, I think Mueller would be able to get some testimony from the president if he stayed away from issues that are covered by these privileges. But in the end it would be a Pyrrhic victory. It would take him so much time that it would guarantee that the report could not be written until after the midterm election.

INGRAHAM: Wow, we don't even have time to get to T.S. Ellis and how he was a little cantankerous. But when we have you back -- I mean, this is going to be going on for at least another week or so.

DERSHOWITZ: He's a tough judge. He's a tough judge to both guys.

INGRAHAM: I love when he says, you've got to look at me when I talk to you. That's what I say to my kids. And then the lawyer's like, I'm looking at you.

DERSHOWITZ: He tells the truth.

WISENBERG: He does this with everybody. He does this with everybody. But it doesn't make it right. He needs to really hold back and let the litigators try their case.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys.

DERSHOWITZ: But he did the right thing when he talked about Manafort and why they're going after him. He told the truth about that, a truth too few people are willing to recognize.

INGRAHAM: I think he went a little far --

WISENBERG: Yes, but he doesn't need to be doing that in front of the jury, though.

INGRAHAM: But when he's saying, you have tears in your eyes --

DERSHOWITZ: That was not in front of the jury.

INGRAHAM: He says, no, I don't. I'm sorry, but it is very dramatic. But it might be a little too much. All right, guys, thanks so much.

That Ohio 12th race is still too close to call, by the way, but Republican Troy Balderson has a slight lead. We'll bring you updates when the race is called, and perhaps in a matter of moments. But next, an Iraqi immigrant who was set to be deported is now accused of putting a police officer in critical condition. The tragic story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Our country's immigration laws lead to tragic consequences yet again. A Colorado police officer is in critical but stable condition following a gun battle last week with Karrar Noaman Al Khammasi, an Iraqi refugee. Khammasi was in federal custody awaiting deportation in 2016 after he violated probation terms from a previous trespassing plea. But his removal was halted after a 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision invalidated the government's grounds for doing so.

Joining me to discuss all this is Dan Kovalik, who is an international rights lawyer and a professor and the author of the book "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia," and Tom Homan is a former acting director of ICE live from the studio with me tonight. Tom, this guy was quite a beaut. He was arrested on a weapons charge, possession, a previous offender, that was in January of this year, and then leads to this horrific shooting of this police officer.

THOMAS HOMAN, FORMER ACTING ICE DIRECTOR: I think it's clear that somebody shouldn't have been allowed to stay in the country. It's a great privilege to be allowed to come to this country as a refugee or a non-immigrant. And to anybody in this country that's given such a great privilege, that's somebody that needs to leave. They need to remove that privilege and be removed from the United States and send them home.

INGRAHAM: The 10th circuit initially said in their ruling that the government didn't have a right, I think it was the description of what a violent offense is, too ambiguous of a term. So said no, that's not going to work. So once again, the courts end up making the job of enforcing commonsense immigration law much more difficult.

HOMAN: Well, I disagree with the court's decision. But as a law enforcement officer, career law enforcement officer, they ran a law enforcement agency, we have to salute and follow the court's order. However, now it's up to Congress. If they're saying the definition of crime and violence is too vague, it's up to Congress to fix it and make it not vague, because people that come to this country and commit crimes, they need to go home. We need to protect the sovereignty of this country and we need to protect public safety.

INGRAHAM: Dan, President Trump wants to reduce the number of refugees in the United States. Currently about 40,000, Hillary wanted about 100,000. He wants to bring it down to about 15,000 because difficulty vetting. We're going to do extreme vetting but we don't know how well that's working out. What's your reaction to this particular story and then the broader issue?

DANIEL KOVALIK, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, first of all, my response is that you can never extrapolate from one example. There was a very good story in the "Washington Post" in June by a guy named Christopher Ingraham showing that in fact both illegal immigrants and legal immigrants commit much less crimes in fact than natural-born Americans, which needs to be kept in mind. But I also want to note if we want to look at the big picture issues, things we can extrapolate from. These wars the U.S. has been fighting, like in Iraq, have actually exacerbated the immigration issue. And if people want to deal with lower immigration, the U.S. ought to start to think about withdrawing from these wars and avoiding --

INGRAHAM: OK, we're not here to debate the wars. I would probably agree with you on a lot of the wars issue. We're talking about our right, our sovereign right as a people to decide who gets to come in, and then when you're here as basically a privilege that we grant you, who doesn't get to stay. And we have violent criminals who are released onto the streets, people who are here illegally, and, Tom, as you know, who have been deported multiple times, who come back, commit heinous crimes or DWI. They have a trail of tears behind them. And we still have the ACLU out there beating the drums for more illegal immigrants in the United States. And I think this has got to stop.

KOVALIK: Statistically, immigrants commit less crimes.

INGRAHAM: I don't care. That is such a meaningless statistic. They're not supposed to be here.

KOVALIK: No, it's a very important statistic.

INGRAHAM: They're not supposed to be here.

KOVALIK: He was a legal immigrant. He was legal.

HOMAN: Let me respond to the meaningless quote that he just made that illegal aliens and aliens here illegally commit less crimes than U.S. citizens. That's not the issue. The issue is how many crimes could have been prevented if they weren't here. So for people to say they commit less crimes. The question is how many crimes could have been prevented if we have secure borders and immigration law that made sense. That's the question.

INGRAHAM: And the John Lott study in Arizona which was the most definitive of any jurisdiction that's ever been done, Professor John Lott, showed that illegal aliens are 142 percent more likely to be arrested for a crime. It's specific police data culled through. It was painstakingly specific and well documented. So that's another fact.

By the way, I want to put it as one full screen. We're running long. Issues that are important to the American voters, America's top problem facing the U.S., immigration, number one at 22 percent of the public. Government, poor leadership, 19 percent, race relations down at seven percent. Healthcare is down at three percent. Immigration, Dan, the number-one issue for Americans. And I don't think it's because Americans want more illegal immigration in the United States. You can close it out real quick.

KOVALIK: I think immigrants are being scapegoated for a lot of problems that are not theirs, and I don't like people being scapegoated. I don't like the Russians being scapegoated, and I think this is a country of immigrants. My grandfather was here from --

INGRAHAM: Legal immigrants. Legal.

KOVALIK: Yes, but I don't think there's any such thing as an illegal immigrant. But in any case --

INGRAHAM: That's very revealing. Borders don't matter, countries don't matter. Let's do I tall, John Lennon song. There's no wars, there's no borders, there's no countries, there's no sovereignty, and then ultimately they'll be no freedom. Love the segment. Thank you both.

By the way, police bust a man threatening the life of House Majority Whip Steve Scalise barely a year after he was nearly killed by a gunman. Congressman Scalise joins us exclusively with his reaction next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: House Majority Whip Steve Scalise facing new threats to his life barely more than a year after he was nearly assassinated during that Congressional softball team practice. Police have arrested 63-year-old Carlos Bayon of Grand Island, New York, charging him with menacing the Congressman after leaving violent voicemail messages. Authorities discovered hundreds of rounds of ammo and firearm purchase receipts in Dayon's home along with bomb-building information.

Joining us exclusively now with his reaction is House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. Congressman, it's great to see you. I'm so relieved this guy was found, this was prevented. Lord knows what might have happened. We're also awaiting the election results from Ohio 12, which we're going to talk to you about, Congressman Scalise. But your reaction to yet another violent threat against your life.

REP. STEVE SCALISE, R-LA., HOUSE MAJORITY WHIP: Well, Laura, it's great to be back with you. And clearly, these kinds of disturbing things, there's no place for it in politics. I first want to thank, once again, our United States capitol police. They were very quick to act when my office received this threat. They sent the information on to Capitol police. Capitol police did research, found out that this man has had some real serious concerns. And it was hard to track him down because he was trying to use aliases. But ultimately they found him. And he's in custody, in federal custody. And hopefully he gets a serious sentence, because you can't allow this kind of threats and violence against peoples based on their political views.

INGRAHAM: Congressman, did he have postings on social media about you? Was it a purely political ax to grind? Is he mentally deranged or a combination of both?

SCALISE: I guess we'll find out a lot of that. Clearly he had some strong disagreements with my political views and others. There were others that he threatened as well. And he's going to have to account to that. The Justice Department has him now. But again, my thanks and true appreciation goes out to our law enforcement, the United States Capitol police acted quickly and working with New York authority to make sure that he got into custody.

INGRAHAM: Does what you see with Antifa across the country, taking over this Portland ICE office, black hoods, the beatdowns of conservatives, intimidations of conservatives in public. You saw what happened to Charlie Kirk and his colleague Candace Owens the other morning in Philadelphia. This seems to be ratcheting up. The left blames President Trump. They say, well, he's calling the news fake news and calling them out and that's making people more and more anxious.

SCALISE: No. You look at some of the liberal rhetoric that's coming out from the left. They're encouraging and inciting, in many cases, violence. And it's got to stop. In fact, liberals need to call this out. They need to speak up, just as we're speaking up saying there's no place for it on the Republican or Democrat siding. I think people on the left need to be as vocal about calling out this kind of violence.

INGRAHAM: We were talking about Facebook and Apple moving against more conservative voice beyond Alex Jones but to other conservatives who have seen their voices diminished on these mega-platforms, trillions of dollars of market cap in these companies. Are you concerned that groups like Antifa, which have incited violence at these rallies, they have -- I mean, they continue on YouTube and so forth and Facebook seemingly with impunity, other groups like them.

SCALISE: Yes, it's clearly a double standard. We've pointed some of this out. In fact, when Mark Zuckerberg testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee that I sit on just a few weeks ago, I brought this up, the bias that we're seeing on Facebook since they put a new algorithm in place to change the way that people get their newsfeeds, and where they're literally starting to filter in, from what we've seen, a left-leaning way and having a bias against conservatives. We've raised it to them, and they have gotten back to me to let me know that this is something they're looking into. But we need to watch it closely, because if they get into a position where it looks like they're trying to become the platform of the left, there are other social media sites people can go to and will go to if it becomes a liberal site. They don't want their site to become a liberal --

INGRAHAM: Yes, a monopoly. We don't want them to have monopoly power.

We're almost out of time. You predict this Ohio 12 is going to go Republican, Congressman, yes or no?

SCALISE: I do. And the numbers that are coming in our strong. President Trump going in, Laura, I think really helped swing this race to the Republican side. It was neck and neck all the way.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Scalise, thank you so much. We'll have results.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

INGRAHAM: Before we go, let's take a quick look at the latest results in that special election for Ohio's 12th Congressional district, still neck in next with Republican Troy Balderson with a razor thin lead over Democrat Danny O'Connor. Balderson is expected to speak to supporters at any moment.

And lucky, Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team are up next. They're going to have it all covered and the live event, the live presser then. Shannon, it doesn't get more exciting than this. It's like less than one point.


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.