This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," August 8, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
Continue Reading Below
LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Good evening, welcome to Washington, I'm Laura Ingraham. This is "The Ingraham Angle." We have a huge show lined up for you tonight. President Trump's legal team firing back at Special Counsel Bob Mueller's terms for that presidential interview. Boy, oh, boy. Trump attorney Jay Sekulow. He does join us with exclusive details.
And mainstream media breathlessly declaring last night's election results are a total wipeout for the president. But they may very soon regret that one.
Plus, the Ninth Circuit's runaway judges are at it again with yet another attempt to dismantle our nation's justice system. We are going to tell you all about it. But first, the left's effort to remake America, that's the focus of tonight's "Angle."
Every once in a while, leftists will slip up and tell us what they really think about America. In a recent interview, New York's new socialist "it" girl gripes that older Democrats in Congress aren't doing more to support a new crop of progressive candidates.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Continue Reading Below
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y., CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: A lot of these folks were in their political heyday in the third way ‘90s politics. I think that politically this like upper middle class is probably more moderate, but that upper middle class doesn't exist anymore in America.
You know, their heyday was in the ‘90s when like, you know, kids had like Furby's and like parents -- you had like soccer moms like two vans and stuff.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Furby's and two vans.
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Yes. That's not America anymore!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: That's not America anymore. She said "like" seven times in that little -- five times in two sentences, I believe, something like -- I was trying to -- almost running out of fingers. As if she knows all of America from her loft in Queens. And by the way, what does she think, that moms outside of big cities can, what, cart their kids around on those dippy electric scooters or something? Oh my goodness.
All kidding aside, what she seems to be saying is kind of hard to dissect it. Is that the new generation of women today are less moderate and I suppose closer to her socialist views? And I'm not sure what minivans have to do -- by the way, I happen to love my minivan. It rocks, but I've never met a single mother who own two of them.
But Ocasio-Cortez's political magic apparently wasn't working last night because as most of her preferred candidates lost, and most of them by double digits. The real story was that in the heartland, moderate Democrats are looking strong. We will get to more of that story later on in the show.
Nevertheless, she's kind of right in the general sense because in some parts of the country it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn't exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people. And they are changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don't like.
From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically in some ways the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and in some cases legal immigration that of course progressive's love. Remember the old Democrats, maybe some of them that Ocasio-Cortez is referring to, they used to think that borders matter. But the new activists believe enforcing immigration laws is essentially an ongoing human rights violation.
Of course they want to abolish ICE and so forth. Well today, we were reminded again of why our law has to be enforced, borders strengthened and the wall built, loopholes closed and sanctuary city policies ended once and for all. Check out what happened courtesy of Philadelphia's refusal to cooperate with ICE detainers.
In May of 2009, Juan Ramon Vasquez, a citizen of Honduras was deported from the United States. Just five years later in March 2014 ICE officers found out that Vasquez was back in the U.S. and was in custody with the Philadelphia Department of Prison. Philadelphia however refused to comply with an ICE detainer request. So, Vasquez was instead released from custody. After his release, Vasquez was rearrested and ultimately convicted for child rape.
This is an unspeakable act of evil that should have never occurred and never occurred on American soil. Remember when the current mayor of Philly did this after a judge ruled in favor of his city's sanctuary status?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES KENNEY, MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA: We are a sanctuary city! Yeah!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Oh, my gosh, what an embarrassment. At this point, I would hope the voters in Philadelphia would see the light and send Mayor James Kenney packing. He's a disgrace. If only such heartbreaking stories though were isolated events, they are not. Last weekend in Colorado Springs, a police officer, Cem Duzel, was critically injured. He was shot by an Iraqi refugee allowed into the U.S. under President Obama.
Karrar Noaman Al Khammasi had been ordered deported after a felony trespassing probation violation only to be released by a judge who cited changes in the law. It was beyond tragic. And for all of you who are buying into the media narrative about the horrors perpetrated on children who were kept temporarily in HHS custody who've crossed the border -- the kids who have crossed the border illegally, consider an actual horror.
An illegal who crossed the border with a child he claimed was his own. Well, that illegal adult turned out to be the child's rapist. Ramon Pedro showed up at a border crossing in Texas last April. He said he was traveling with his daughter and he demanded entry into the U.S. Well, like thousands of other family units, they were processed and then released into the United States, called "catch-and-release."
Well late last month at a routine health screening, doctors discovered the girl had been sexually assaulted -- assaulted allegedly by him. And it gets worse. It turns out the young girl's mother knew that this coyote was a sexual predator, but sent her daughter with him anyway because the mother was promised ultimately later on a job.
Who are these people? Really smart. Mother of the year award there. Who is going to make the argument that this poor, abused and brutalized girl wouldn't have been safer in U.S. detention than with a rapist? And on my radio show today I received this call from Travis from Nevada who told of his own personal loss at the hands, again of an illegal alien.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My brother in April was killed by an illegal alien while he and his son and his girlfriend were out on a planned bike ride. His son is nine-years-old and --
INGRAHAM: Oh my god.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- doing 60 miles an hour on a side street and hit him on his bicycle. The district attorney had said that, you know, confirmed that he is an illegal.
INGRAHAM: Is there a lot of news coverage? I didn't see any news coverage of this story and I track all of these stories.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, not at all. Not at all.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: He's right. It's something the president, by the way, pointed out just a few months ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The media doesn't talk about the American families permanently separated from their loved ones because Democrat policies release violent criminals into our communities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: And if you are under the impression that these illegal crossings are somehow slowing down, well new data released in the last 24 hours tells a very different story. Border patrol apprehensions at the southwest border rose more than 70 percent year-over-year. Agents apprehended 31,303 people in July, up from 18,187 a year ago.
And while it's good that they are being apprehended, we should be, you know, be a little bit alarmed, don't you think. Definitely feel like they are entitled to keep coming across the border. And by the way, there were 3,938 unaccompanied children apprehended last month. That's up from 2,475 a year ago, with another 9,258 families apprehended. That was up from 3,389 last July.
And all those are numbers, but we have to -- these are our people, all a lot of people. It's a lot that this country has to process and ultimately most of them are released. And what about those who come here on valid visas? Well guess what, more than 600,000 of those who came on visas overstayed them in 2017.
This is another completely absurd scenario. Everyone is gaming the system. Now, this is a sure way over time to remake and reshape America. This is exactly what socialists like Ocasio-Cortez want. Eventually diluting and overwhelming your vote with the votes of others who aren't, let's face it, too big on Adam Smith and the Federalist Papers.
And as for those minivan-driving women from the 1990s, well, news flash, Alexandria, most of them are still alive and they vote. And I bet most of them don't like the lawlessness at the border and the crime it brings into our country. I have to believe that most American women are smarter than to fall into the socialism open borders trap.
It's clear that we need a reset on the entire issue of immigration, illegal and legal. It's time that the president gives a formal address to the nation, preferably one from the Oval Office. He should lay out his agenda and the cost to the nation of not pursuing it. As he said before, merit- based, legal immigration is fantastic, but what we have now is a complete farce and we are all paying for it, some, as you saw with those examples, more than others.
The president can be so persuasive, so give us the whole truth, Mr. President, the good, the bad, and yes, the uncomfortable. This is a national emergency and he must demand that Congress act now. There is something slipping away in this country and it's not about race or ethnicity. It's what was once a common understanding by both parties that American citizenship is a privilege, and one that at a minimum requires respect for the rule of law and loyalty to our constitution.
And that's The Angle. Joining us now with reaction, I'm so happy she is with us on set, Judge Jeanine Pirro, host of "Justice" right here on FNC and author of the huge best seller "Liars, Leakers And Liberals: The Case Against The Anti-Trump Conspiracy," along with immigration attorney Francisco Hernandez. It's great to see both of you.
FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: Hi. Thank you for having me.
INGRAHAM: Judge, I think this is a national crisis. We are at a crisis point in this country on this issue and I think, you know, you could make the argument that America is changing. Trump slowed it down, but it is changing.
JEANINE PIRRO, FOX NEWS HOST: She's right. She's absolutely right. You listen to Cortez and you say what planet is she from? Well, first of all, just to talk about Cortez herself, this is a young woman who actually grew up in Westchester County, went to school in Westchester County, one of the affluent suburbs in the country. But more importantly when you talk about the emergency, Obama started this.
When Obama said that he was going to change the demographics of this country by allowing in refugees, opening up the border and now we are seeing a spike at the border. That's an emergency, Laura, because right now we've got a business model for smugglers.
PIRRO: They know if they come in with young children that those kids are going to be released because they can't keep the family more than 20 days, they are going to end up being released and the parents are allowing this to happen knowing their kids may be raped, knowing all of this because they want their kids grandfathered in.
And by the way, it's not just kids. It's MS-13. And as someone who has been a D.A., I mean, these are people who prey on other people and that is the way of life for MS-13, and more than half of immigrant families use one or more welfare programs. So when you talk about immigrants, they should be adding to this country and not taking away.
INGRAHAM: Francisco, Nancy Pelosi was pretty -- she was pretty explicit, let's just put it that way, about how the voting for Democrats will give more leverage to the immigrant population, let's watch.
HERNANDEZ: Look, I'm not here to defend --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., MINORTIY LEADER: We believe that we will have leverage when we win in November. And why that's important, because it gives leverage to every family, to every mom who courageously brought her child across the desert to escape death, rape, gang violence and arrest, because it gives them hope.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Francisco, do you think the Democrats or any politicians -- take Democrats out -- that's Pelosi there -- that they should be advocating on behalf of people who are actively trying to break our laws, saying if you vote for me we will give leverage to them? I've never heard of anything like that. I've heard a lot but I haven't heard anything like that before.
HERNANDEZ: I'm not here to defend Pelosi or President Trump or Obama or President Bush. This is all a big myth and you stated just a few minutes ago it's time to push the reset button. But by planting a seed of truth and harvesting and orchid of deceit like the judge just did, what you are doing is you are scaring everybody into thinking that the sky is falling.
We do need immigration reform. You and I have argued from different perspectives for the same thing for years, Ms. Ingraham. It's time for Congress to do something --
INGRAHAM: You can call me Laura. By the way, Francisco, I adore you. Francisco and I don't agree on everything, but I adore you. You can call me Laura, OK. It's too formal. I'm just Laura.
HERNANDEZ: I will try but we are in Texas and you know, its Texas manners.
INGRAHAM: But Francisco, look, we do -- it is a change though, and this is happening under President Trump because I think they know they kind of have us with this catch-and-release thing. And so just in the Yuma sector of Arizona, and I know you know where that is, we all do. We've been following this issue. A 120 percent spike in Yuma, Arizona, of families and unaccompanied minors over the past year. Ten thousand families, 4,500 unaccompanied minors, seven years ago, that figure was 98 families and 222 unaccompanied minors. And if that's not a crisis I don't know what is.
HERNANDEZ: So what changed? Just about six months ago President Trump was telling us on national TV that the immigration issue, illegal immigration was down records, that the problem was in essence soft and when he couldn't get Congress to act on DACA on the deferred action.
Guys, we can keep on chasing our tails like we have been for about 20 or 22 years, or we can get down and do something about it. Laura, you and I have plenty of common ground -- we just can't scare the population into paralysis by indecision, which is what we have.
PIRRO: Let me ask you a question. When you say you can't scare the population, here's the bottom line. If you want asylum you go to a port of entry and you ask for asylum. If you want to come to America and you get in line like everybody else. What is wrong with that?
HERNANDEZ: Fair enough. Tell us where the line is.
PIRRO: What is wrong?
HERNANDEZ: Nothing wrong. Nothing wrong.
PIRRO: Who do we have to reconsider?
INGRAHAM: They are not doing that.
PIRRO: I'm sorry.
HERNANDEZ: Except there is no line, Laura. There is no line.
PIRRO: Oh, yes there is!
HERNANDEZ: If we can just get that message across. There is no line for these people to come here and cross legally.
INGRAHAM: But guess what, contrary to what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is getting at in their opinion, we are going to get to this later on. You don't have an international right to come to America.
HERNANDEZ: You're correct.
INGRAHAM: I don't know where people get this idea that you have some universal, some type of global constitutional right to come into the country or get in the line. You don't have a right. We get to determine who comes in this country.
HERNANDEZ: Let's just make a list of what we need to allow people to come here. Let's just make the requirements. What is wrong with that?
PIRRO: Not just a list. How about you follow the law?
INGRAHAM: How about not child --
PIRRO: Illegals are not a protected class.
HERNANDEZ: There is a law. There is a law right now.
PIRRO: Illegals are not a protected class.
HERNANDEZ: They're not.
INGRAHAM: They will be if Ocasio-Cortez has her way.
PIRRO: That's right.
HERNANDEZ: They are not a protected class on the constitutional jurisprudence. I agree with you on that.
PIRRO: Right. So why do they keep crossing the border? Why do they keep doing that?
INGRAHAM: Because we know why.
HERNANDEZ: Because they are fleeing corrupt governments.
PIRRO: -- the money for a wall.
HERNANDEZ: They are fleeing corrupt governments and cartels.
PIRRO: Oh, really?! Well then come under asylum and swear allegiance to this country.
HERNANDEZ: But they don't qualify for asylum. You and I have agreed on that before, the asylum laws --
PIRRO: Well then maybe you better pass a law, Francisco. Maybe --
HERNANDEZ: If I could, I would.
INGRAHAM: I think that -- there are corrupt governments all over the globe.
INGRAHAM: That's hundreds of millions of people who would want to come into the United States. If you've open up the credible fear, social status to everyone who fears crime, which is what a lot of people like Ocasio- Cortez want to do. That's what she wants to do, open it up to include anyone who lives in fear. Well, you better get ready for hundreds of millions of people to get in the line you want to create. That's the problem.
HERNANDEZ: If that were true, they would already be here.
INGRAHAM: American don't want them. They don't want them.
HERNANDEZ: If that were true -- under current law but --
PIRRO: Are you kidding? Do we even know how many are here?
HERNANDEZ: But you just said hundreds of millions.
PIRRO: She just said that spiked in Yuma.
HERNANDEZ: You're talking about the law that's in place now. Why don't we change it? Let's sit down at the table and come together on common ground.
PIRRO: No, why don't people follow the law? Why don't you just follow the law?
INGRAHAM: But I think we can all agree, the president needs to address this from the Oval and this should become a flash point now, not after the midterms, but now.
HERNANDEZ: It was number one issue.
INGRAHAM: This is a critical issue for the country and it is the number one issue on the last poll that was done on most important issue.
HERNANDEZ: It is. So let's get to it.
INGRAHAM: Fantastic conversation judge. It's always great to see you, Francisco. Thank you so much.
INGRAHAM: Thank you, Laura.
INGRAHAM: All right. The president's legal team delivers its response to Bob Mueller and his terms for a presidential interview. Trump attorney, Jay Sekulow joining us exclusively with the new details, next.
INGRAHAM: It's one of the big looming questions of the Russia probe. Will President Trump sit down for an interview with Bob Mueller? The president's legal team gave its highly anticipated response to the special counsel today. Fox News chief national correspondent Ed Henry joins us now with details, Ed.
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Laura, good to see you, the president's legal team tonight seems to be sending two clear messages to the special counsel. They are willing to work with him on a potential interview with the president but they believe it is basically put up or shut up time in terms of bringing this probe to some kind of a conclusion as part of a deal to get testimony from the president.
Rudy Giuliani declaring this a short time ago with Sean Hannity, that this is Mueller's last best chance to get a one-on-one with the president and pushing for the special counsel to wrap this up by September 1st. That may seem like a stretch at this point but the fact is earlier this year Mueller privately indicated that the bulk of his work might be done by the summer, so it would not unfairly overshadow the midterm elections.
Way back in April the "Washington Post" reporting Mueller had indicated to the president's legal team he would release a report on obstruction by June or July. That deadline clearly came and went. The caveat at the time was that Mueller wanted an interview with the president before concluding that part of the probe.
But even if he subpoenas the president to testify, as you heard from the former deputy independent counsel Sol Wisenberg last night, it would take Mueller a long time to try to enforce the subpoena and there's no guarantee he will win before the Supreme Court. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SOLOMON WIDENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: There is a reason Bob Mueller has put up with this dance for so long and I think a lot of people don't understand it. 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. He probably can't win if he goes to court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HENRY: The president's attorney, Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, obviously know that. That's why Mueller seems to have preferred to try and get a voluntary interview. And it's also one of the reasons why the lawyers continued today to try and take a hard line in narrowing the focus of potential questions from Mueller dealing with obstruction and other matters because they have consistently said the president has vast executive power to hire and fire officials like former FBI director James Comey, Laura.
INGRAHAM: Ed, thanks so much. And joining us exclusively now with reaction is Jay Sekulow, an attorney for President Trump's legal team. Jay, thanks for being with us tonight.
JAY SEKULOW, ATTORNEY FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP: Hey, Laura.
INGRAHAM: So, where are we now on this exactly? You gave your response. You are waiting for a response. How long do you anticipate the response taking from Mueller's team?
SEKULOW: Look, I don't give dates. This is an investigation that its outset has been corrupt. There's no question about that. It continues every single day, there seems to be a new revelation. So, I'm not going to give a date. I think it needs to end very soon and it needs to end very soon because the nature of what's taking place here is irregular and that's being kind.
And when I say irregular, look at how this started. It starts with the dossier from a foreign spy basically, Christopher Steele. He was an intelligence officer from Great Britain. He puts together this dossier on behalf of who? Fusion GPS and the DNC, OK. Another interesting fact and now we are getting a lot more information on that, the number four at the Justice Department, Bruce Ohr. His wife is working for Fusion GPS with Christopher Steele putting together this dossier. That's how this investigation commenced.
So, as you know in the law, there is the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree and I think that anything going forward here has to keep all of that in context and in mind before we agree to do anything. And right now the fact is, and I've said this and Rudy has said it and other lawyers that have commented have said it.
If you lined up 100 lawyers, those 100 lawyers are going to say don't sit for an interview, and there's a reason for that. Not just the perjury issue but the fact that you would ask questions potentially if the president regarding Article II powers, I mean, you are a constitutional lawyer. The answer to that is no.
INGRAHAM: Yes, they want more information, more documents. That would be a big, big fight. Daniel Goldman, former assistant U.S. attorney in the southern district commented on the concern that he says your team has about putting the president under questioning. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANIEL GOLDMAN, MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST: They are absolutely right to be concerned that if the president were to go into an interview with incredibly well-prepared prosecutors who have not just the president's tweets and his own statements, but as Rudy Giuliani correctly pointed out, millions of documents, testimony from dozens of witnesses. They know the back story much better than any of us sitting here know it. And when they question Donald Trump he would lie within the first 30 seconds.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: That's being repeated across the media today.
SEKULOW: Can I respond to Daniel Goldman's statement? Yes, but let me tell you something. Where do you think the special counsel received the millions of documents and the witness interviews? Because this president, unlike others, has decided that he would be completely transparent in the process.
INGRAHAM: Yeah, but Jay, you don't know everything they have. You don't know everything they have. Obviously.
SEKULOW: Of course not. Of course not.
INGRAHAM: And that's one of the pitfalls. I wouldn't put my client in this position to walk into, you know, a perjury trap with obstruction of justice, but why would you even --
SEKULOW: Not going to happen.
INGRAHAM: -- why would you even give them a narrow opening on obstruction? Is it because some lawyers are saying you know they will say no? Because they are not going to want to be limited in their questioning on the obstruction angle, whatever perverse angle they have.
SEKULOW: Look, Laura, I've said this -- I've been saying this for a year. I will say it again. My thoughts and my view of the constitution is they don't have the right to ask any of these questions and I think that's supported not only by case law in the D.C. Circuit, but also by the structure of the constitution itself. So, we're not -- I can assure you this tonight, this legal team is not walking this president to a perjury trap, not going to happen.
If there's any type of interview whether it's written or otherwise, it will be the appropriate type of response. We are not letting the president walk into a perjury trap. This investigation from its outset -- who would allow that in light of everything that has transpired and continues to transpire?
So, I'm not going to disclose the contents, because you understand, I'm not going to disclose what we told the special counsel, but needless to say, we didn't accept their offer.
INGRAHAM: Do you think it's possible to get a fair two hours of questioning knowing what you know now with the new revelations about the makeup of the Justice Department, Bruce Ohr, the new revelations about Christopher Steele, do you think you could get two or three hours of reasonable but tough questions from the special counsel?
SEKULOW: Here's my response to that. I'm not inclined to believe at this point in the nature and scope of where this investigation is, that there is such a thing as a fair shake. Now, that's not to say that something couldn't be arranged, but I will tell you this, my inclination on speaking here as a lawyer to the president, I can also speak for our legal team. We'll Go back to the perjury trap. It is not going to happen. Thus, the question is, could they structure a series of questions that the president should answer under Article II of the constitution. And I think the hurdle on that is very high for them and they haven't established it at this point.
INGRAHAM: Have you already briefed this to your legal team, Emmet Flood and the guys in the White House? Has this already been briefed in the event that this does go to court?
SEKULOW: Laura, you've known me for a long time. I don't just deal with the plan A to plan B. And I'm one that practices before the Supreme Court. So the issue, which you are pointing to, is if there was an issuance of a subpoena, which is a serious question that I do not think the Justice Department has the authority in this case and would authorize it, because Bob Mueller is not an independent counsel, he can't do that himself.
Are we ready to go to court if we had to? You bet. Do I think we are going to have to? I don't think so. If we do, we will do it. Look, you've got to protect not just this president, but the presidency. That's what's at stake here. Could you imagine every U.S. attorney that had an issue with the president of the United States could issue a subpoena for that president to testify? The founders knew that wouldn't work, and that's why they structured three branches of government and separation of powers.
INGRAHAM: Jay, thanks so much for joining us today. We really appreciate it.
SEKULOW: Thanks, Laura.
INGRAHAM: And in a somewhat related turn, we have breaking reporting, I just referred to some of it, from Byron York on some nefarious ties between the British spy Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS's Glenn Simpson, and the Justice Department, that official Bruce Ohr. Byron will update us on all of these important developments. Stay there.
INGRAHAM: They're breaking developments tonight about the link between Christopher Steele, the Justice Department and a Russian oligarch tied to Vladimir Putin. Joining us now with more, Washington Examiner's Byron York who breaking the stories tonight. Byron, tell us what you have learned.
BRYON YORK, CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Well, we are trying to find out about the origins of the dossier, long search. And what we found out through some new emails that have been released is that the dossier's author, Christopher Steele, the former British spy, was in touch with an official at the Justice Department, Bruce Ohr, a lot earlier than we thought. They were exchanging emails in January of 2016. And what was interesting here is that Steele was writing to Bruce Ohr at the Justice Department and he was talking about a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, and Deripaska had been involved with Paul Manafort and the 2000s.
INGRAHAM: They got in litigation with each other.
YORK: They're both suing each other.
INGRAHAM: He's suing. He's not a fan of Manafort although he doesn't think what is happening to Manafort is fair.
YORK: They both claim the other one was stealing from the other. His visa was revoked for a while because of suspicions that he was involved in Russian organized crime, Deripaska, that is.
INGRAHAM: The details on that is never clear either. They don't really give you clear details on that.
YORK: It appears that Christopher Steele when he's writing these emails is kind of lobbying for Oleg Deripaska, saying he wants to come back to the United States for a meeting, and it looks like it's going to get a visa and that's a really good thing because we are hearing he's not really a tool of the Kremlin. It was like he was lobbying on his behalf. And you're thinking what in the world is going on here? And then these conversations kind of morph at midyear 2016 into a dossier conversation.
INGRAHAM: Are you saying you think Oleg Deripaska had something to do with the dossier?
YORK: I don't know. He was in contact with Christopher Steele.
INGRAHAM: Maybe he can have two conversations going on at the same time. Why do they have to be related?
YORK: That's entirely possible. When Mark Warner, the Democratic leader on the into the Senate Intelligence Committee, wanted to get in touch with Christopher Steele he went to the publicist -- excuse me, the lobbyist who worked for both Deripaska and Steele. It's just an odd situation.
Then, midyear 2016, Christopher Steele says to Ohr, we need to talk. I need to talk about some other business, but I specifically want to discuss with you informally and separately, and it concerns our favorite business tycoon. And now most people who have read this believe that's Donald Trump, because that's just a few days before Christopher Steele actually tells the FBI, gives them the first installment of his dossier, which is that famous Moscow hotel room scene.
INGRAHAM: So does that get us further down the road to determining the original provenance of the dossier, who contributed to it?
YORK: It gets us further down the road to who in the Justice Department in the U.S. government knew about what was going on and when they knew it.
INGRAHAM: We still don't know the details of that, which is unbelievable after all this time. They don't want anyone to know the details.
YORK: Because even if you are in Congress and have subpoena power, it's --
INGRAHAM: They won't give you the information. There's a reason they won't give us information. Fascinating stuff, Byron, thank you so much for that report tonight.
Also tonight, when a win isn't really a win. All five candidates President Trump endorsed appear to have won in the Midwest primaries, but it was closer than expected, no doubt. And Ohio's 12th district has the media tongues a-wagging.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY ROSEN, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Congressional Republicans are scared tonight, there is no question about that.
CHUCK TODD, NBC HOST: Democrats I think are now heavy favorites to take control of the House. I think the question is really the size. They have a night like this like they did in Ohio, they could win 40 to 60 seats.
DAVID JOLLY, FORMER FLORIDA REPRESENTATIVE: However this ultimately turns out, I think it's safe to say tonight that Democrats should begin having a conversation about who they want to be speaker of the House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Oh, my goodness. It's time to pick speaker already, is it? Look, there are some troubling signs for the GOP, but have they learned nothing, these analysts, from 2016? Ari Fleischer is a former press secretary of course for President Bush. Doug Schoen is a Democratic strategist, a FOX News contributor as well. Great to have all of you on. Let's start with you, Ari. It is amazing. Chuck Todd was out there today saying this could be like 50 seats for the Democrats in the House. I have no idea what's going to happen, but that's quite a leap from the events of last night.
ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I think there are two things we know. There have been nine special elections, eight of them the Democrats fell short. That's eight brides who didn't quite make it to the altar. But there is a fact, and you have to be realistic as a Republican, that the voter turnout is high on the Democratic side. In Ohio, just looking at the numbers, the previous presidential year, 2016, the Democrat who ran got 112,000 votes. Last night the Democratic candidate Danny O'Connor got 100,000, 90 percent of the previous presidential turnout showed up in the special. On the Republican side, only 40 percent showed up in the special. The Democrats have a lot of voter enthusiasm that is turning out against Donald Trump, and that's a fact.
INGRAHAM: And Doug, another story, of course, the socialists were pretty much rejected in the Midwest. Ocasio-Cortez, she thought she already had the magic wand, and she was running around endorsing people and giving the nod to people, and most of those folks lost.
DOUG SCHOEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: That's good news for the Democrats, Laura, because we really do not want these leftwing socialist candidates running as the party standard-bearer. We don't need Ocasio-Cortez making endorsements, and the worse her candidates do the better we do.
I would add to what Ari said, I agree with him, that the suburbs are a huge, huge problem for the Republicans, and in Washington state there are three seats now in play that arguably weren't in play before yesterday. So I'm not going to go as far and say it's 50, 60 seats, but as a betting man and a prudent Democrat who tries to be objective, I think the Democrats are odds-on favorites to win the House and probably get 30, 35 seats if I had to bet as of today. But much can change. That is certainly politics.
INGRAHAM: Ari, if you had to give the president some advice for some of the more important Republicans on the national level who will be out campaigning, what would it be on focus, on the issues that you should focus on? I have my own theory here, but I'm curious about yours.
FLEISCHER: Let me put doomsday in context first. Republicans are going to gain seats in the Senate, I think. They are going to probably pick up one to three seats in the Senate. So for all the bad headwinds in the House, there's countervailing headwinds in the Senate races.
I think the issue for Donald Trump is just to tone down the edges a notch or three so he's not always picking these fights that set a lot of suburban women and previous Republicans thinking that there's just something morally suspect about Donald Trump. That's where if he could only turn it down just enough, I think that he could energize the base without antagonizing a lot of the so-called moderates that Republicans still have to count on to win. That to me is the key, Laura.
But I will also add one other thing. Special elections are a breed apart. There were 21 special elections when President Obama ran, and each of those 21 when you average it out, Democrats underperformed Obama's numbers by 7.9 points. Under President Trump, Republicans are underperforming Trump by 8.5 points. It's because specials --
INGRAHAM: Yes, he's popular in that district. And Byron, peace, prosperity, happy warrior, there is this investigation going on and all the intrigue that you've done all this investigation on, but Trump the campaigner, happy warrior, cracking jokes, the country is coming back, roaring manufacturing, I think women like that message. They don't mind the tough guy, but they want the pursuit of happiness part I think.
YORK: There's no doubt it works with his base. And what Ari was saying is if Trump could just round off a few of the sharp edges, that is kind of an internal quest, and it doesn't happen.
INGRAHAM: He's not going to do that.
YORK: He's not going to do it. But there is a question. We know Republican strategists who are trying to keep the house, are looking at some of these suburban districts. They are worried about the president's job approval rating among people who maybe voted for Barack Obama and then switched over to Donald Trump. Maybe they are not fully on.
INGRAHAM: Maybe they should start passing more of his legislation and actually protect the country from what we've been talking about early on. Fantastic conversation, guys, thank you so much.
And is a Mexican killed on Mexican soil by a U.S. patrol agent protected by the U.S. constitution? The ninth circuit court of appeals just ruled yes. We are going to ask a border agent what he thinks that's going to do to morale and whether that will deter agents from actually doing their job, next.
INGRAHAM: This is a headline that some would say is actually hard to believe. A U.S. federal appellate court has ruled that constitutional protections apply to non-U.S. citizens who are not on U.S. soil. It stems from a case of a Border Patrol agent, Lonnie Swartz. In 2012 he shot and killed a Mexican teenager through the Arizona-Mexico border fence. Swartz claims self-defense, saying a group of Mexican teens were attacking him, trying to force him from his position and clear the way for drug smugglers. They were throwing rocks and other stuff.
But now the teen's mother is now, according to this decision, allowed to sue the agent in federal court for, it looks like civil damages. Joining me now to discuss, Art Del Cueto, a Border Patrol agent who grew up on the Arizona-Mexico border, and Art Arthur, a resident fellow in Law and Policy at the Center of Immigration Studies. Art, the majority opinion, which I painstakingly went through. In total it's 71 pages long in the ninth circuit. The judge, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, I think we might have picture of him, he wrote the majority opinion. He's a George H. W. appointee to the court. He said the decision to allow noncitizens to sue, there's the judge, will not deter border agents in their duties because you don't have a right or a duty to shoot someone through the fence for doing nothing, because he had to accept the facts as they were, as determined by the district court. So he allows the suit to go forward. What effect might this have, you know this deal, on agents in the field?
ART DEL CUETO, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: You look at the case itself and understand that the decision was based on -- they are bound to look at just the allegations that were done in the civil complaints, and they have to assume that those allegations are true. So if you look at it that way, you understand more or less why his decision was made.
I've read the majority of those pages, and I can tell you that this individual was not just a teenager that was walking and strolling through the sidewalk headed home. We are talking about a criminal. That's who it was. And I've seen the video. They've shown the video, Lonnie Swartz went to court. The jury said that he was not guilty of murder, and now they are just beating a dead horse, and they want to go after him, they want to go after him, they want to make sure somebody has got to be guilty.
The reality is, where are the guilty people? It's the drug dealers that are on the Mexican side. It's the drug dealers that were bringing drugs into our country. That's where they need to look at for guilt.
INGRAHAM: But they are retrying the border agent -- they are retrying the border agent for I guess it's manslaughter. And Art, I want to go to you on this, because there's a circuit split, and I'm trying to be the law geek here, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled no, you do not as a noncitizen have a constitutional right to bring action in federal court against a federal agent. You can imagine where this is going to go, that noncitizens are going to be able to sue for denial of, I don't know, asylee status, refugee status, H1B visa. If you have a right to sue in federal court in this kind of theory, I think anything goes. This is obviously going to go to the Supreme Court. Your take on this as you know the facts to be?
ART ARTHUR, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: There's plainly a circuit split between the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit, as you stated. The Ninth Circuit erred and recognized you can apply right of action for damages for alleged constitutional violations by a Border Patrol agent for a number of reasons, First and foremost of which is that it interferes with the political branch's jurisdiction over not only the national security, but also the foreign relations of the United States. In addition, the court has acted where the Congress has refused to act, to grant tort damages to aliens injured by federal agents abroad. Quite frankly, this can't stand, and if it stands in this case, very strong, very straightforward, and quite frankly correct.
INGRAHAM: I want to read part of the dissent by Judge Milan Smith, appointed by George W. Bush in 2006. He wrote by creating an extraterritorial Bivens remedy in this case, meaning qualified immunity is breached, the majority veers into uncharted territory, ignores Supreme Court law, and upsets separation of powers between the judiciary and the political branches of government. That is what Art just referred to. And there you go. So it's a separation of powers point and also citing Supreme Court precedent on this.
Judge Kleinfeld said this was a Fourth Amendment -- this is a Fourth Amendment claim. You are depriving someone of their life -- it's a seizure claim, Art. And, again, the facts of this case will be disputed when the suit goes forward. But again, I think this opens up federal agents, Border Patrol agents, ICE agents, to a world of hurt and trouble in federal court if this kind of action is deemed to be able to go forward and the Supreme Court doesn't do the right thing, Art.
DEL CUETO: Laura, this is how ridiculous this case is. It's something that's being pushed here in the Tucson sector. The Tucson sector is responsible for close to 50 percent of all the drugs that are seized in the country. And what this message is doing to these agents, it's telling them that it's OK to be a smuggler, it's OK to attack our federal agents, and you have a way to sue us if we defend ourselves. That's the reality of what this case is being pushed as. It's sickening. It's truly sickening.
INGRAHAM: Judge Kleinfeld just dismissed that in the majority. He said holding Swartz liable for this constitutional violation would not meaningfully deter Border Patrol agents from performing their duties, because he's a big expert I guess in Border Patrol duties. It's ridiculous. Thanks so much, guys.
DEL CUETO: I would like to know what academy class did he graduate in the Border Patrol?
INGRAHAM: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judicial activism branch, that's what he focused on.
DEL CUETO: That's it.
INGRAHAM: Guys, thanks so much.
And the left loves to claim it's the champion of inner-city communities and prison reform. So why is the reality proving to be just the opposite? Coming up.
INGRAHAM: Don't you notice that the left always claims to occupy the high ground when it comes to issues surrounding inner-city communities, issues like prison reform. But their words and policies rarely back up the claim. Instead of offering reforms, they offer rhetoric, poisonous rhetoric like this from Elizabeth Warren last Friday. Sorry. "The hard truth about our criminal justice system, it's racist, I mean from front to back." That will move the debate forward, yes, great, fantastic. So she doesn't want prison reform. She wants the whole thing reexamined back to who gets arrested, when they get arrested, how they get arrested, because the whole thing is obviously corrupt and racist at its core.
And remember back in May when President Trump and House Republicans, remember when they were pushing for prison reform? Senate Democrats actually sunk it just to avoid giving the president a win. You have to ask yourself now, who is really serious about fixing problems in communities the Democrats have essentially taken for granted for years?
Joining me now is civil rights attorney Brian Watkins. Brian, it's great to have you on. Michelle was going to be here to debate you but her satellite feed went down. So lucky you, you have me.
BRIAN WATKINS, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Lucky me.
INGRAHAM: Brian, I think the president is really committed to this idea of prison reform, and they are going to I think I'll tackle sentencing reform as well. But let's just go back and listen to what the president said on the subject earlier this year.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Two-thirds of the 650,000 people released from prison each year are arrested again within three years. We can help break this vicious cycle through job training, very important, job training, mentoring and drug addiction treatment. We'll be very tough on crime, but we will provide a ladder of opportunity for the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: So Brian, then we get the pushback from the Democrats, New York Post headline, you probably saw it, Trump's push for prison reform faces opposition from Democrats. What's going on here? I thought the Democrats were the ones who really cared?
WATKINS: They do. And we would be supportive if Trump did actually what he says he's going to do in putting reform and put job programs in there and help educate a lot of the kids in the inner-city so they don't have to see a prison cell. That would be great. But the problem is there's rhetoric on both sides. Donald Trump talks a lot but he has yet to do anything about it.
INGRAHAM: For prison reform you have to have Democrats in Congress actually agree to work with him on this. He's not going to be able to -- he's not going to be able to wave a magic wand and get this done on his own. This is a Congressional push. They talked about this for years. Now you have a president who actually wants to do it. They brought in faith leaders. They are bringing in folks from the business community, and they want to get this done. So are you saying that Democrats with this president, despite what Elizabeth Warren is saying, that they will actually work with people like Jared Kushner, who is also spearheading this effort? Will they do it?
WATKINS: Hopefully. What Elizabeth Warren was saying is there's racism in the criminal justice system. And step one is recognizing that fact, that there is in fact racism in the criminal justice system.
INGRAHAM: Yes, but is black on black crime for instance right now in Chicago a bigger problem for the community than just the racism that you claim is in the criminal justice system?
WATKINS: It's both. Both are problems. I understand the problems in Chicago. The number one way to stop gun violence in Chicago is to stop pulling the trigger of a gun. You won't have any shootings if you do that, I understand that. But there's a bigger systematic problem that we also have to address. If we don't recognize that there's racism in the criminal justice system, we won't be able to fix it.
INGRAHAM: You can do prison reform and have that other conversation at the same time. We are going to have you back with Michelle in a longer conversation.
INGRAHAM: Closing out tonight with a 10-year-old boy attending a Tennessee fair. Avery Price, who often uses a wheelchair and requires braces on his legs, is becoming a viral sensation after getting up for the National Anthem in spite his disability. Avery told local reporters, quote, I usually sit and put my hand on my heart, but last night I decided to stand because I like my country, like to stand for my country. Inspiring words, Avery. And thanks so much for doing that, inspiring us all. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team are up next.
Shannon, have a great show.
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.