'Angel moms' weigh in on the immigration debate

close

Video

'Angel moms' weigh in on the immigration debate

Mothers whose children were killed by illegal immigrants weigh in on recent illegal immigration discussions on 'The Ingraham Angle.'

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," August 24, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

JASON CHAFFETZ, HOST: Good evening, I'm Jason Chaffetz in for Laura Ingraham and welcome to "The Ingraham Angle" special, "The Left and Lawlessness." We've got an incredible show for you tonight with example after example of liberals ignoring the law when it serves their political interests.

The GOP has always been the party of law and order, but we're in unchartered territory when it comes to the left, whether it's sanctuary city, decriminalizing drugs or failing to stop rampant crime in places like San Francisco or Chicago. The left routinely puts ideology over the need to enforce the laws on the book.

And we start tonight with more examples of Americans victimized by crimes by illegal immigrants. The latest on Fox News.com right now, an Illinois judge slamming officials for failing to enforce a 2012 ICE detainer against illegal immigrant Miguel Luna who was later able to beat and rape three women. Mr. Luna was sentenced to 80 years in prison on Monday.

Let me tell you about two more stories, sad stories, tragic stories. Hailey King was just 18 years old when in November of 2016 she was fatally hit by a speeding truck. The driver, an illegal immigrant named Sergio Rodriguez. He didn't stop after the accident because he feared being deported. And it doesn't get more tragic than this.

Dimitri Smith lived for just one minute outside her mother's womb. He was delivered in an emergency C-section after an illegal immigrant crashed into his mother's car in New Mexico in 2012. Hailey's mother Kathy Hall as well as Dimitri's mother Aileen Smith, both joins me to share their stories. They're sitting side by side there.

Aileen, Kathy, I appreciate you coming on the show. Our heart goes out to everybody who goes through this. As a parent myself, I can't even imagine the sadness that has gone through your family, and we appreciate you taking these moments and being brave enough to come share your stories and your perspective because I think this country -- you have more of a voice than anybody like myself or somebody who hasn't been through this.

So Kathy, again, I'm so sorry you went through this, but Donald Trump has brought a lot of attention to the status, the illegal immigrant status. Is that the right thing to do? Are we doing the right thing by talking about the status of these people?

KATHY HALL, ANGEL MOM: I believe so my daughter would still be here today if the man would have stopped, if he would have been here legally. I think that if the American public isn't aware of how many cases there actually are and what's going on, Donald Trump isn't going to be able to get anywhere with it.

CHAFFETZ: And Aileen, in your situation, we talk sometimes about the status, legal, illegal. Sometimes people will argue, hey, that's not really a cogent part of the discussion. But what's your perspective? What are your thoughts?

AILEEN SMITH, ANGEL MOM: Well, I think his immigration status or his citizenship status has a lot to say about policy implications going forward and how we handle these kinds of things. You know, it there's a deportation in the mix of this or if we need ICE detainers or not, that's really important. So, as far as policy going forward, we definitely need to look at these cases and include their immigration status.

CHAFFETZ: I mean, first and foremost, we want to remember those kids whose lives were taken far, far too early. But in the case of locking down the border and the immigration policies that move forward, Kathy, what would you like to see happen? What is the right thing that the United States of America should do?

HALL: You know, we had a situation with my daughter's case. I've kind of been on both areas of the fence with this one. The borders need to be locked down. When they come over here illegally, they do commit crimes to stay here illegally. You know, I think that if we don't do something about the issue there, it's going to go well beyond the families that you are having on the show.

My granddaughter was removed, given to a family that was not us after my daughter died. We are still fighting today to try to get my granddaughter back home with her family where she needs to be. But, you know, so I've had both sides of this issue. My daughter should be here. Eileen's son should be here. Many, many, many other mothers and fathers, and it's going to be a lot more if we don't stop what's going on now.

CHAFFETZ: Aileen, one of the public policy discussions people in Congress are debating, you hear Democrats say that we should get rid of ICE, that immigration customs enforcement should just be abolished. There's some that want more open borders. How do you react to that?

SMITH: I think I should start by saying that I'm not anti-immigrant. My grandfather came here to America in 1955 and became a citizen in 1960. But those who are coming in illegally and committing further crimes need to be re-addressed. And I think that this is something that we can easily correct. I don't think anybody in their right mind would sit there and say that we need to abolish ICE. They keep our country safe. God bless those men and women.

CHAFFETZ: Yes.

HALL: I agree.

CHAFFETZ: It's so true. Kathy, Aileen, I want to give you just each a moment, but tell us about your loss and how you want us to remember your -- how do you want us to remember Hailey for instance?

HALL: You know, Hailey was the youngest of four children. She was always happy, laughing, loved everybody. She was hard of hearing and she could play music beautifully. But there wasn't anybody in this world that Hailey wouldn't have put her hand out to help if they needed it. And I just, you know, if anything could ever be considered good coming out of this, I'm hoping that her story will get out there and help save some of other lives.

CHAFFETZ: And Aileen, what could you tell us about Dimitri and what you were going through at that time as a young mother?

SMITH: Dimitri was my first child. He was incredible, fully formed, 10 fingers, 10 toes, had my nose, had my husband's hair and chin. Fit from elbow to fingertip. That's how big he was when I got to hold him before giving him up to OMI. He was greatly anticipated by my family. It was one of the first babies that we had had in decades. And he's sorely missed by his family.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you for sharing your stories. I want to each give you one more chance. If you want to say something to people who serve in Congress, who are public policy makers, maybe let's start with you, Aileen first and then Kathy. What would you say to them?

SMITH: Well, we are doing the Angel Family rally in September in D.C., so please join us for that. A lot of new angel moms are going to be there. People who previously didn't get their story out because they were wrapped up in legal proceedings and things like that. So, it would be very informative for sure. In addition to that, you know, wanting to see further legislation to make sure that these people who are committing heinous acts are deported.

CHAFFETZ: Kathy?

HALL: I agree with Aileen. You know, not all the lawmakers out there are against anything going on. There are some very good ones. There are two state representatives, two state senators that are helping with our case. And then also Senator Tom Cotton has joined on board and I'll be meeting with him in D.C. in September also.

CHAFFETZ: Well, again, sorry for your loss. And we appreciate you taking your the time and having the strength and fortitude to be able to share your story with others. Its heart wrenching and our hearts go out to you, but thank you again for sharing your stories and being with us tonight. And may god bless you.

HALL: Well, thank you.

SMITH: Thank you for having us.

CHAFFETZ: For more on the immigration crisis in our country, let's bring in Michael Cutler, former special agent with INS. It's one of the predecessors that Immigration in Customs Enforcement, often called ICE, and liberal radio talk show host Garland Nixon. Garland, I have no doubt about your heart and your compassion. I know you care about those women. I know you care about those kids.

I'm not trying to in any way, shape, or form give you anything other than 100 percent credit about caring. But when we talk about public policy, you hear these women and they talk about the need to target illegal immigrants and deport them and to deal with the immigration issue. Abolish ICE? Where are you on this and what do you say to those women who say, no, these people should be deported?

GARLAND NIXON, RADIO HOST: Well, I certainly understand, you know, the women. If you have, you know, a major loss like that, certainly you're going to be upset. But I think it is an error and I think it's kind of misleading to use isolated incidents to overlook compelling evidence.

As an example, between 1990 and 2013, the immigration population in America more than tripled, but the violent crime rate actually went down by 48 percent. So, the numbers really say that we don't have a problem with immigration in crime.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, we do.

NIXON: Just the opposite. Those are the numbers.

CHAFFETZ: No, we do. If those people weren't here -- they are here illegally. If they weren't here, those two kids would be alive today. Do you not believe that?

NIXON: But here's the thing, stopping immigration is not going to make car accidents go away. It's not going to make crimes go away.

CHAFFETZ: Nobody said -- no, no, no. Nobody said we were going to stop immigration. The United States of America does more than any country on the face of the planet. We legally and lawfully bring about a million people into this country. So, don't tell me that we're going to stop -- nobody has ever suggested that, ever. And so it's illegal immigration that we're trying to stop. And you do see the difference right between the two?

NIXON: Certainly I see the difference, but my point being the numbers still don't say that they are a significant crime problem. In fact, they're less of a crime problem. And when you take individual examples and do that and overlook compelling evidence, I think it's just misleading.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, that compelling evidence was the first part of our block with those two women and those two dead kids. That's part of the compelling evidence. Now, joining me here in the studio is Michael Cutler. You've dedicated your life and your career to fighting this. What's your perspective?

MICHAEL CUTLER, FORMER INS SPECIAL AGENT: Well first of all, we have to look at the 9/11 Commission. You know, I provided testimony to the commission. What most people don't know is the second largest contingent of law enforcement officers assigned to the joint terrorism task force are immigration agents.

Think about it. They violate immigration laws to enter the United States. They commit immigration fraud. Let's also be clear about nomenclature. This isn't about political correctness. It's about Orwelian Newspeak. Illegal aliens are not immigrants. When people say, well, if you're going to talk about illegal aliens, you're being unfair to the immigrants, no.

People who won't make the distinction between illegal aliens and lawful immigrants are the ones that are hurting the reputation of the lawful immigrants. The difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a bank robber and a bank customer. Think about that.

CHAFFETZ: That's right. That's right. They're getting the --

CUTLER: A guy that walks into the bank to take his own money out is the customer. The guy that robs the bank is not a customer. You don't have an inherent right to enter a country in which you're not a citizen. American citizens do. We spend $14 billion a year on customs and border protection.

They employ over 60,000 people including Border Patrol agents and custom inspectors at ports of entry, and the immigration agents, ICE, backs them up. They conduct investigations into fraud. And by the way, got to make this point real quickly. If you look at the guy that is alleged to have killed Mollie in Iowa, this guy is the poster trial for what's wrong with immigration.

He ran the border. That border needs to be secured, but of course we have 50 Border States. He also committed immigration fraud apparently by gaining a false identity. If we go with DACA, which we keep hearing about -- they are children. No, they're not. The age cutoff is 37. We have to have honest facts out there so that --

CHAFFETZ: There is so much in this discussion. Now Garland, I served eight and a half years in Congress and I was on the immigration subcommittee on judiciary for a while. One of the things that frustrated me is more than 80,000 times during the Obama administration people who are here illegally who committed crimes, got caught committing those crimes.

Instead of being deported, they were released out into the public. How do you justify that? I mean how -- if you were here illegally and you commit a crime, don't you believe that those people should be deported by default?

NIXON: Well, no. You know, I know of an example right off the bat of someone who was deported and that was because they were caught with a joint in 1983. So when you talk about what the crime was, what the crime -- killing (ph) someone --

CHAFFETZ: So wait, wait, wait, which crimes -- which crimes --

NIXON: -- or was it that they didn't have a vote (ph). They didn't have a (inaudible) on their vote (ph).

CHAFFETZ: So if they're here -- so if they're here illegally and they're abusing, you know, smoking pot, dealing in drugs, either dealing or consuming drugs, do you think that they should just be released back out because they're harmless?

NIXON: Well, what I think is, I think that we should have a policy to deal with that and I think right now the Republicans have both houses and the White House and I think that they should come through with a comprehensive immigration plan, which they haven't. Those things can be dealt with, but they have all the power.

CHAFFETZ: Garland, let me give you -- let me give you the right answer. In the case of Dimitri Smith who was killed, this is Aileen Smith's son with like one minute. The person who was accused of killing that child had three prior driving while intoxicated convictions. Let me turn it over to Michael.

CUTLER: Sure. Look, if you look at the immigration laws and the grounds for excluding an alien, and we know that aliens who evade the inspections process to come illegally know they belong to a category of excludability. It's the aliens with dangerous communicable diseases, mental illness, criminal, spies, terrorist, human rights violators, war criminals and fugitives of justice.

If someone runs the border, they're trespassing. What's remarkable is Chuck Schumer wanted a federal law and you probably know it from your experience in Congress, to make trespass on critical infrastructure or landmarks a five-year felony. He said trespassing is dangerous. Aren't you trespassing on America when you run the border, evade the vetting process at ports of entry.

Yet the same Chuck Schumer and the Gang of Eight said let's give citizenship to people who trespass on America. The disconnect between the political statements and the reality of why we have borders and immigration laws is astonishing. Those borders are our first and last line of defense against criminals and terrorists. Why in the world wouldn't you want to have consequences for people --

CHAFFETZ: Yes. The absolute right order -- the right answer here is to lockdown those borders so they can't come back and if you commit a crime, they should be absolutely deported. Thank you, gentlemen. I really do appreciate your time tonight.

The media make a major error in the Michael Cohen story. Details, ahead.

(COMMERCIAL: BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Welcome back to this "Ingraham Angle" special, "The Left and Lawlessness." One of the reasons the left is able to get away with so much is because the media let them off the hook. Case in point, last month the broadcast networks went wild over a report that Michael Cohen was preparing to tell investigators that President Trump had advance knowledge of that infamous meeting at Trump Tower between Donald Trump, Jr. and a Russian attorney. Here is a montage put together by the media research center.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Bombshell, President Trump's long-time lawyer ready to deliver the goods.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sources tell ABC News that Michael Cohen claims that Donald Trump had advance knowledge of the Trump Tower meeting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael Cohen, the president's former attorney and fixer, claims that then-candidate Donald Trump was aware of the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with the Russians before it happened.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And Michael Cohen claims President Trump knew of the controversial 2016 meeting with Russians that were expecting to give the campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton.

(END VIDEO CLIPS)

CHAFFETZ: There was only one problem with the story. It wasn't true. Here's what Michael Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, said earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: So Michael Cohen does not have information that President Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians beforehand --

LANNY DAVIS, MICHAEL COHEN'S LAWYER: No, he does not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: And here, all the corrections that ran. (CRICKET SOUND) Yes, there weren't any. So, joining me now for reaction is Howard Kurtz, host of Fox News' "MediaBuzz.' Howard, thank you so much for joining us here. When you see this situation, I mean the media was just, oh, they've got their aha moment. They knew they had him on this one. And they ran it, and they ran it, and they ran it, and then they all -- Cohen's attorney is saying that it wasn't true.

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST, "MEDIABUZZ": Yes. And we now know that it wasn't true. Michael Cohen doesn't claim it's true. Lanny Davis says it's not true. All that whole montage you just played comes from a CNN story. CNN was the one that broke this exclusive story. It still hasn't been corrected.

And, you know, a major problem Jason with the coverage of the Trump presidency is that some news organizations have lowered the bar for what they publish. They're too quick to run in gun. They're too quick to put out allegations based on unnamed sources that sometimes turn out not to be true.

CNN had a problem with that last year and had to fire three journalists over an unsubstantiated story on Anthony Scaramucci. I asked CNN for a comment this morning. I haven't heard anything back, no public statement.

CHAFFETZ: Well, now the New York Post is out with a story saying that it was actually Cohen who was the person who had confirmed the story in the first place. They must have known that. How could they not ask him or question him about that -- hey, you confirmed this the first time and now you're saying it's not true. Doesn't the media, if they know that, don't they have an obligation, a duty to then follow up with that second question and produce the appropriate apology or correction?

KURTZ: Absolutely. But I would say don't hold your breath. And you know, it's so ironic because every single day, many news organizations and sometimes it's part of our job, hammer the White House so you were wrong on this, press the president lying about that, why won't you come clean? I mean, it kind of dominates a lot of the coverage and in the time of investigations you might expect some of that.

But when a member of the media -- we all make mistakes, but when there's a mistake on a story of this magnitude, claiming advance knowledge of this Trump Tower meeting, suddenly you don't see that same zeal to correct. Now, Lanny Davis, who as we mentioned, Cohen's attorney, has said that he was an anonymous source for CNN.

He (inaudible) he was trying to waive the network office story, maybe he wasn't clear enough. He's told me that he regrets that, but CNN should come out and talk about that and sort of say we now retract the story. Again, no public comment from the network.

CHAFFETZ: Yeah, that's what I meant to say, it's Lanny Davis, not Cohen.

KURTZ: Right.

CHAFFETZ: I mean, he's supposed to be representing him as the attorney and not clear, I mean, that's sort of black and white in this situation. I want to go back to one that's always bothered me and I've always wanted to ask you this. But way back when in the day, look at this Time magazine cover. This is a cover story red-handed with Donald Trump, Jr., making him look really ominous.

I mean, there is still a question about this. What do you make of -- I mean, Time magazine goes to great lengths. It is so inflammatory. And this now were ending up maybe not even true.

KURTZ: I have lost track of all the Time magazine covers that made President Trump and in this case, a member of his family look absolutely awful. I presume that cover was from a time with the Trump Tower meeting when Donald Trump, Jr. and Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner had that meeting with the Russian lawyer.

And look, you know, the fact that they took the meeting is very controversial. It did appear they were looking for dirt on Hillary Clinton. It went nowhere, but you know, it's a very accusatory cover and of course you find the obligatory unflattering picture to go with it.

CHAFFETZ: One last very quick question. When Donald Trump talks about fake news and you look at the people in the heartland of America, they figure this out, don't they? Don't they figure this out, Howie? Don't they understand that maybe the media is just way too zealous and too quick on the draw and there is a double standard?

KURTZ: Well, I think a long time ago many people in this country figured out that the media are a little bit tougher on your part of the Republican Party. And I also think that fake news -- I never particularly liked the term. In fact, in that interview with Fox's Ainsley Eerhardt, President Trump now says 80 percent of the media are fake news.

To me, fake is fabricated, deliberately made up. We don't really see very much of that, but we do see a lot of unrelentingly negative coverage of this president, sometime biased topics, sometimes outrageous commentary. He gives it back of course. He has every right to do that. Sometimes he goes a little far in his rhetoric, but to answer your question, yes, the media have lost a whole lot of confidence of a major chunk of the country and it's sort of on steroids in the Trump era.

CHAFFETZ: That's right. Howie, thank you very much. Your show, "MediaBuzz" airs 11:00 a.m. eastern on Sunday. I look forward to it.

KURTZ: Thanks Jason.

CHAFFETZ: President Trump's recent tough talk aimed at Jeff Sessions is producing some distressing headlines in the mainstream media press, such as this one in the Washington Post. "Critics fear Trump's attacks are doing lasting damage to the justice system." Really? Joining for a debate are Professor Charles Kessler with the Claremont Institute and attorney Jan -- sorry -- Jan Ronis. I really do appreciate you gentlemen being here tonight.

Look, Donald Trump was elected to be a disruptive president, right. I mean he was elected to come in and not do the status quo. Some would obviously argue with maybe some of his tactics, his tweets, his aggressive nature, but that was -- wasn't he -- I mean, that is what he was elected to do, was it not? Jan, I want to give you the first stab at this.

JAN RONIS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I don't recall anybody suggesting that he was elected to be the disruptive president that he's become. Quite frankly, he's the head of government. He's the head of the executive branch. And his vitriol and criticizing for example law enforcement, judges, prosecutors, intelligence services and the way in which he does it, this does not advance the cause of democracy.

We are the most civil-ordered government on earth. We even taught (ph) to be proud of our government and we should be. We have a wonderful government. But for the president to single-handedly criticize the people that have worked for him in a manner which he does it, advances nothing.

Look what he did, how he embarrassed Rex Tillerson. Look how he's denigrated Jeff Sessions. Look how he's suggested the intelligence services, the law enforcement agency, the prosecutors around the country and have been engaging in conspiracies. This does not advance the cause of the democracy they've been taught to expect out of a president.

CHAFFETZ: Charles, what's your take on this?

CHARLES KESSLER, PROFESSOR, CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE: Well, the president has a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. That means he's in charge of the whole executive branch. He and he alone has the power and the duty to judge the performance of his attorney general and of his intelligence agencies.

He alone has the ability to classify material, to declassify it, and to grant clearances for people in his administration and even people like John Brennan in previous administrations.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, now Charles --

KESSLER: But it seems to me he's doing his job.

CHAFFETZ: Charles, he was supposed to change the political norms. Is he doing that? Is that a good or bad thing in your book?

KESSLER: Well, I think it depends on what the norms are. Many great strong presidents have been norm breakers, from Andrew Jackson to Abraham Lincoln in his own way, to Harry Truman, to FDR. It's not unusual for presidents to change the way they do the job because the job of president doesn't come with a manual, a how-to manual.

And it has to adjust to the personality and the times of the occupant. And as long as he remains faithful to the constitution and to the common good, the president gets to make up a lot of his own job requirements and performance.

CHAFFETZ: So Jan, do you believe that the resistance movement, no matter what the president does, no matter what the president says, we're going to resist at all levels? We're going to go after this -- my word is not somebody else's. A scorchter (ph) type of philosophy that says we can't let anybody have any victory in any place (ph).

Do you really think that that's resonating with the American people because the economy has been getting better and I think on foreign policy, you can argue it's a much safer place than it was from the time Donald Trump took over?

RONIS: Well, I'm not suggesting -- I think quite frankly, Donald Trump has been his own worst enemy. I mean, look, he came into the office having an opportunity to be a really great president, but the manner in which he's taken to electronic means of communication to denigrate officials --

CHAFFETZ: No, but I'm asking about the resistance movement. I mean, the Democrats on the other side of the aisle say, we're going to resist at everything and we're going to have this scorchter (ph) philosophy. Is that effective in communicating?

If you're going to be critical of Donald Trump for being a vitriolic type of personality and, you know, these mean tweets, the resistance movement, I mean, let's go pick on, you know, yell at people while they're eating dinner, is that really what you think is going to be the winning formula for Democrats?

RONIS: Well, I don't think that you ought to resist every effort of the president of the United States, just as I thought the Republicans should not have resisted as they did everything that President Obama proposed during his presidency, and so --

CHAFFETZ: We didn't do that. That's not true. I was in Congress.

RONIS: That's it. Even I believe the Senate Majority Leade Mitch McConnell vowed that he was never going to let President Obama have any success. The Democrats have not been nearly as bombastic in their opposition to Donald Trump as Republicans were when President Obama was president of the United States.

CHAFFETZ: Absolutely not. That's the funniest thing I've heard tonight. But I really do appreciate you gentlemen coming to join us tonight, but that is just absolutely not true. Thank you gentlemen both. I appreciate it. Its Friday so, Friday Follies time. Raymond Arroyo here with perhaps the wildest story you've ever had on this show. You will not want to miss this so stick around.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: It's Friday, and you know, what that means. This next story is so crazy we're going to have to bring in Fox News contributor Raymond Arroyo to explain this whole crappy story that he has for us. So what's the new job in San Francisco, Raymond?

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks a lot. I'm glad you bring me on for this, Jason. But this story is really unbelievable. There are over 7,500 homeless people on the streets of San Francisco. Well, they have now deployed what the San Francisco Chronicle is described as a poop patrol. Their one mission, and they're getting paid $185,000 a person, their one mission --

CHAFFETZ: Wait, wait, how much money are they being paid?

ARROYO: It's $185,000 a person, Jason. All they do is pick up poop. There's another patrol force, $700,000 they spend on them. All these four people do are pick up needless from the street. This is a breakdown.

And I will put up on the full screen of the $72 million San Francisco is spending just to clean up its streets. This is what's called making a truce with illegality. There's no penalty for homelessness. They don't enforce the laws, and public urination is legal. Look at this, $12 million for homeless encampment housing, just to clean it up, $2.8 million to wash down biohazard material, and $3.1 million for pitstop portable toilets.

And Jason, just to give you some sense of what the poor people of San Francisco are going through, the San Francisco authorities receive 70 calls a day from complaints about individuals leaving human waste in public areas. This is a disgraceful situation in more ways than one. It really needs cleanup both politically and otherwise.

CHAFFETZ: It's sad when you've got a homeless situation, I don't want to minimize that at all, but to pay something $185,000 to clean up the human waste, that's unbelievable.

ARROYO: Right. You've got to enforce the law, or build another homeless shelter and teach people basic hygiene. But to just let this go on --

CHAFFETZ: They're not solving the problem. Their liberal policies are not solving the problems.

ARROYO: Exactly.

CHAFFETZ: I want to get your reaction to another story. Steven Tyler, he was evidently a longtime acquaintance of the president. He is demanding that President Trump stop playing Aerosmith music at his rallies. What's happening here?

ARROYO: That's right. They're acquaintances. Steven Tyler has worked for the president at Mar-a-Lago, the Trump Tower, at other events. He was just here in New Orleans as a matter of fact where I'm coming from tonight. Steven Tyler was at Jazz Fest. He was warm. He went out to people. He sang at bars in town. People loved him. But he's not showing the love to Donald Trump these days. He has sent three cease and desist letters to the president saying we don't want to hear you playing Aerosmith's music anymore. Here he is to Joe Rogan. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVEN TYLER: He calls me up and I said, Donald, you can't use "Dream On." That's for causes, not campaigns. And he did anyway. He did anyway. And I had to sue him. I got to sue him. I send him a letter of cease and desist. I've been through that --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: You know, the curious thing here is, I mean, you can enforce copyright. And that's what Steve Tyler says he's doing, enforcing copyright. He says it's for good causes, not for politics. But I don't know how you can stop the public dissemination of music. If you're paying basic ASCAP fee, you should be able to play that music wherever you want, whether it's at a political rally or in a public park or a restaurant. So I don't quite know how this is going to shake out, but Steve Tyler keeps making a lot of noise about this, and the president seems to be telling him, dream on. We'll see where this goes.

CHAFFETZ: That's too bad. But finally, another story out of Hollywood. This one is -- a new Muppets movie celebrating I hear murder. What in the world is that about?

ARROYO: Brian Henson, who is Jim Henson's son, has created a new movie called "The Happy Time Murders." It's not just about murder, it's an R-rated feature featuring puppets that look an awful lot like the Muppets you and I grew up with. I can't even show you clips from this movie. I'll show you this little bit of the trailer. Just watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hey, handsome.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You looking for some rotten cotton?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm a woman.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's even better.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Good time for you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ARROYO: Remember Waldorf and Statler, the two Muppets that sat in the box seat of the old Muppets Show? They used to say it's like a kind of torture to have to watch the show. That's how I feel about this "Happy Time Murders" movie coming up. There are sexual scenes. Muppets having intercourse is not something I want to even think about. But this movie is filled with this stuff.

You know, Jason, I sit back. Disney tried this last year when they rebooted a show called "The Muppets." And it was trying to restart the Muppet franchise. But it was also off-color, a little raunchy and randy. It didn't work. People rejected it. Why Brian Hanson now thinks a feature will work with filthy Muppets getting killed, slaughtered, and having sex, I don't know. It would be a little bit like the Disney daughters taking Mickey and Minnie and create an animated pornography with them. You don't do this. You're ruining childhood memories and you're destroying a lovable, sweet, family brand that you really could have a great future with, and I think running it into the gutter.

CHAFFETZ: Listen, great stuff, thanks for sharing it with us, but you're right, they're ruining their brand and destroying memories that kids like me and some others had fond memories of the Muppets. That's too bad.

ARROYO: I agree. Leave Fozzie Bear alone and let him have his clothes on.

CHAFFETZ: Exactly.

A shocking number of charges in Chicago after the city's bloodiest weekend. The full story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: The most lawless place in America may very well be the west and south sides of Chicago, which are suffering through horrific levels of violence. Three weeks ago, 75 people were shot in a single weekend, the bloodiest of 2018. But guess how many people have been charged since then? One. That's right, one. Only one has been charged according to The Chicago Tribune. In a city that's been run by Democrats for decades, should city leaders be taking more heat?

Take a look at these statistics. Since 2011, the year Rahm Emanuel, President Obama former chief of staff, before he became mayor -- since he's become mayor there have been over 18,000 shootings and nearly 4,000 murders, murders in the windy city. Just unbelievable.

Joining me now for reaction, a retired police officer Ron Martinelli, and Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright. Antjuan, I want to go to you first. There's that saying, if you want different results, you're going to have to elect different people. Democrats have been running the windy city. What to you say to Rahm Emanuel, because his policies aren't working, and after nearly 4,000 murders and 18,000 shootings, don't you think maybe it's time to try something else?

ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, FOUNDER AND CEO, BLUEPRINT STRATEGY: Well, Jason, let me first say how sad and heart breaking it is to hear those numbers. I think any time we have someone's child being killed and a mother and a father having to have a funeral, it makes you reexamine this thing called life and why we all do what we do.

But I don't think you can pinpoint this on Rahm Emanuel, although he does share some of the blame. This has been going on for a very long time. And while the right and even you in your opening comments want to make this about Democrat versus Republican, liberal versus conservative, I think it is a societal problem. When a child doesn't see the American experiment as something to move their life forward, it becomes a problem.

Gangs are a problem not just in Chicago, not just in the inner cities, but they're a problem everywhere. And we have to address the root of the issue, whether it's education, economic empowerment, or just simple things like making sure a child has access to the American experiment the way some other children do. I think that's we have to do, focus on the root of the problem versus shifting the blame.

CHAFFETZ: I'm not trying to go after somebody based on their political affiliation. I'm saying that the Democratic policies are the ones that are flawed because they've been implementing those sort of liberal policies, and it's not working. I mean, they've got some of the tightest gun laws in the country and yet they have some of the worst gun violence. Their education policies aren't working.

SEAWRIGHT: Jason, I'm glad you brought up the notion about gun policy. Well, keep in mind the bordering states around Illinois have some of the most lax gun laws in the country, and it's so easy to go across the border and bring a gun back and do illegal things. Guns are not the problem. I guess it's policies and procedures that we have to reexamine all over the country, not just in Chicago. And it's not just about Chicago. The state of Illinois bears some responsibility. I think federal leaders bear some responsibility as well as community leaders. Again, I'm not in the business of pointing blame to left or right or that matter. I want to get to solutions.

CHAFFETZ: That's always convenient when the left's been in charge for decades. They always say it's not about the left, but it is about their policies, and the left has been in charge of those policies.

SEAWRIGHT: Name one policy.

CHAFFETZ: Let me bring in a law enforcement officer, somebody who has dedicated his life to this. Ron, what's your take on what's going on in the windy city?

RON MARTINELLI, RETIRED POLICE OFFICER: First of all, thanks for having me on. This is the first time I think I've ever agreed on anything with a Democrat. So I agree with your co-host. These are behavioral issues. They're not gun issues. They're behavioral issues. And I tend to be very apolitical about these things because death and the forensic investigation of death, especially shootings, is something I do every single day. I have 54 homicides on my caseload, and I'm in private practice.

That being said, the problem in Chicago is endemic with all of the major urban cities. And politicians, be they right or left, be they Democrat or Republicans, create these problems and in fact exacerbate the problems. Politicians are not going to be able to solve these societal and criminological problems. These are --

CHAFFETZ: Ron, let me go back for a second. You have 75 shot in one weekend and one arrest. Is that an acceptable ratio for law enforcement?

MARTINELLI: No, I can give you even more statics.

CHAFFETZ: Well, I don't want any more statistics. I want to know the underlying problem with why they're not able to arrest, charge, and convict and put people away that are committing these crimes.

MARTINELLI: Sure. I'll tell you exactly what the problem is. Number one, we have to change the totally paradigm of how communities look at themselves and look at behavior. That's number one. It starts in the home. It starts with good parenting, having both parents there, role modeling, guidance, mentoring. It starts with that. You have to give people hope and opportunity, not entitlement and not enslave them to the government.

ROBERTS: Yes. Antjuan, what's your take on that? I guess we're just one big, hey, let's just hope and then we'll get better than one out of 75.

SEAWRIGHT: No, no, that's it, Jason. What has to happen in Chicago, and not just inner cities. I want to be clear because it seems like the right wants to pinpoint some of the issues we have in cities like Chicago and Baltimore, they want to make it just an inner city problem. Keep in mind these things happen in rural areas, too. They just may not get the same level of attention. But what has to happen is that Democrats, Republicans, black and white, rich or poor, people who agree and don't always agree have to come together and identify the root of the problem and then put forth a policy prescription that will identify those problems.

CHAFFETZ: That's not happening in Chicago. It's 75 in one weekend, 4,000 murders.

SEAWRIGHT: Just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean it will not happen. Just because it hasn't happened yet that does not mean it cannot happen if people are willing to put aside the differences to come to the table to find a solution.

CHAFFETZ: We're not just one big group hug away from solving this, OK. There's got to be a change, a fundamental change. And that may mean that the president or the National Guard, something's got to change here because the status quo and one big group hug ain't going to solve it. I thank you for being here. I wish we had more time.

SEAWRIGHT: I agree. You and I agree on that, Jason.

CHAFFETZ: Good.

The Confederate monuments controversy comes to the footsteps of North Carolina's capital building. Victor Davis Hanson, one of my favorite people, smartest minds there is, joins us next to weigh in.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Thanks for sticking with us on this "Ingraham Angle" special, "The Left and Lawlessness." Earlier this week we told you about an angry mob that tore done a Confederate statute at the University of North Carolina. Roll the tape.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(SHOUTING)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: Nice scene for the parents sending their kids off to school the day before school was starting. Three people have been charged over that incident, and university leaders issued and vague and ominous warning to students today, telling them not to attend a possible Confederate statue rally this weekend.

And in related news, earlier this week state officials announced that three Confederate monuments at North Carolina capital building will remain in place. Joining me now for reaction is historian and Hoover Institute senior fellow Victor Davis Hanson. Professor, thank you so much for being here. How far do you think the hard left will try to erase history that they don't like? And is this the right way to do it, just tear it down?

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON, HOOVER INSTITUTION: No, I don't think they know what they're doing. History is not melodrama or psychodrama. It's tragedy. So you can have Nathan Bedford Forrest who was the founder of the Ku Klux Klan who was a general who was a racist, but then you can have tragic figures like James Longstreet or the 75 percent of the households in North Carolina that didn't own slave or the 95 percent of people, and yet they fought for I think a bad cause and for various reasons.

But all that complexity gets washed away when we turn history into melodrama. Just as a point, 28 years ago Ken Burns riveted the United States with a brilliant Civil War documentary. It just captured everybody's imagination again, renewed interest. But in that wonderful film, he had Shelby Foote, the folksy, charming southern historian and novelist, who tried to give a dispassionate but sometimes sympathetic reason why people fought for a bad cause. And at times he even said he could understand why they defended southern soil.

But are we going to go back now and say to Ken Burns we want you to cut out all of Shelby Foote's interviews because they promote white supremacy? At least we feel they do. And believe me, many more millions saw that film then saw silent Sam, the statue. It doesn't have a good history, whether defacing Roman emperors after they were dead, the damnation of memory, or the French Revolution raiding cathedrals and monasteries, or Joseph Stalin erasing all iconic imagery of Trotsky.

I'm sitting here in the San Joaquin Valley, and two miles in my hometown where my family has been for 140 years, our city council voted to put an Aztec totem of the snake earth goddess who was the object of thousands of human sacrifices of the Aztec culture. Above it the have the inscription "Viva la Raza," long live the race, a racists epithet that was reinvented by the Chicano movement of the 60s, borrowed from Francisco Franco's Spain when he wrote a novel called "Raza," a fascist novel. Am I going to go in there and say, this is awful and in the dead of night put a hood on and try to topple that? Or if I really do object to that what I feel is a promotion of human sacrifice or racism, wouldn't be better in the tradition of Thoreau or Martin Luther King to peacefully demonstrate? When I was told to leave, if I didn't, I would be arrested, and then I would go to jail, and then I would publicize the cause, and then gradually we would find some type of resolution rather than to just go in in a thuggish manner and do that.

CHAFFETZ: You spend an awful lot of time with students. Here we've got these young minds, people going into college at the University of North Carolina. What's the message this sends them? And what should the message be, what should they be learning if they actually do want to affect change?

HANSON: You're supposed to go to college to learn two things, the inductive method of reasoning and come out disinterested and learn a body of fact and knowledge so you can support your arguments. And we don't really care whether you become left or right. But that's not what universities have become. They've become an indoctrination center. When I go on campus and I see young kids with Che Guevara shirts or I see posters of Mao on state supported schools, it's not my right to go there and rip them off and say to a student Che Guevara personally executed people with a revolver in a psychopathic manner, or Mao Zedong was the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century, probably of all time, 60 million died due to him, and tear that off. I don't have that right. I can protest. I wish they wouldn't do it. I can write a letter please do not use state university facilities.

CHAFFETZ: Victor.

HANSON: But we're not doing that now.

CHAFFETZ: Thank you. I could talk to you all night. You're one of the great minds.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CHAFFETZ: Before we go, one of my favorite places to get a good laugh these days is a video site called "Bad Lipreading" which makes hilarious parody videos involving public figures, and there's arguably no better goldmine for material than the White House press briefing and it's unrule behavior. Here's a clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You, speak.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, what is the Roswell --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You really thought I'd take your question? You suck.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The way you talk to me, I mean, do you need to talk so evil?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you need to look like a stuffed bake potato in that Walmart shirt? Because you suck.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHAFFETZ: It really is funny stuff.

And that's all the time we have tonight. Thank you for watching "The Ingraham Angle" special. I'm Jason Chaffetz. It's been a pleasure filling in for Laura Ingraham all this week. Laura returns from vacation on Monday. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team are coming up next. Have a great weekend everybody. Goodnight from New York City, God bless you and may God bless your family. It's the greatest country on the face of the planet and I'm honored to be here. Thank you so much for watching us.

END

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.