This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," May 30, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: All right. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington tonight. Did Bob Mueller kill the institution of the special counsel for good? Well, sent him a thank you note. Alan Dershowitz is here, and he thinks so. He'll explain in moments. Also, tonight what's really behind the Left's push as I just said to abolish the Electoral College. Are they looking to silence you, smaller states and rural America? My “Angle” a little later. Plus, they might seem like innocent statements, but Candace Owens is here to tell us why Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton's remarks yesterday should be taken as a stark warning to conservative America. And Dr. Drew is here tonight. His Can't Miss message to California Governor Gavin Newsom ignoring a homeless epidemic that has revived medieval diseases.
But first, the two voices we hadn't heard publicly after yesterday's remarks from Mueller are now speaking out. President Trump has not been shy about his feelings toward the Special Counsel and yesterday's statement did little to change those warm feelings.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT: I think Mueller is a two never Trump-er. He's somebody that dislikes Donald Trump. He's somebody that didn't get a job that he requested that he wanted very badly. And then he was appointed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: But it was Bill Barr's appearance that many were really waiting for. While Mueller praised the Attorney General as having acted in good faith during the process, he also inserted language that raised the specter of disagreement between the two men over obstruction. As I said yesterday, Mueller shirked his responsibility by not reaching a decision on the issue, which the AG echoed today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM BARR, ATTORNEY GENERAL: I personally felt he could have reached the decision.
JAN CRAWFORD, CHIEF LEGAL CORRESPONDENT, CBS NEWS: In your view, he could have reached a conclusion.
BARR: Right. He could have reached a conclusion. The opinion says you cannot indict a President while he's in office. But he could have reached a decision as to whether it was criminal activity.
CRAWFORD: But he seemed to suggest yesterday that there was another venue for this and that was Congress.
BARR: Well, I'm not sure what he was suggesting. But you know the Department of Justice doesn't use our powers of investigating crimes as an adjunct to Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Oh that was a little slap. But that's not all. Barr also defended his suggestion that the deep state was spying.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CRAWFORD: You've got some criticism for using that word.
BARR: Yes, I mean I guess it's become a dirty word somehow it hasn't never been for me. I think there is nothing wrong with spawning the question is always whether it's authorized by law and properly predicated. And if it is, then it's an important tool the United States has to protect the country.
CRAWFORD: You don't think that they've committed treason?
BARR: Not as a legal matter, right.
CRAWFORD: But you have concerns about how they conducted the investigation.
BARR: Yes. But you know sometimes people can convince themselves that what they're doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don't realize that what they're doing is really antithetical to the democratic system we have.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: The contrast between Barr and Mueller could not be more stark. Joining me now former Governor of Arkansas and Fox News Contributor Mike Huckabee and Harvard Law Professor Emeritus and author of the Introduction for the Mueller Report, the final report of the special counsel into Donald Trump Russia collusion, Alan Dershowitz. All right Professor what do you make of Barr's response, look like he was at a hunting lodge there to Bob Mueller.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: Well, he was one 100 percent right. Mueller should have come to a conclusion. I think if he had come to a conclusion, it would have been there was no obstruction of justice. But he was probably pressured by his staff members not to come to that conclusion. He should have come to that conclusion and I think the only thing Barr should have said that he didn't say is that there should no longer ever be any special counsel. The Mueller investigation puts the final nail in the coffin of Special Counsel, special prosecutors, the Attorney General could do this himself. There are staff people, there are civil servants, there are full-time line prosecutors everything that was done here could be done by them.
When the special prosecutor, the special counsel in this case says I couldn't have indicted the President anyway according to the Constitution, then what was his investigation all about. As Judge Ellis pointed out in the Manafort case, they weren't interested in Manafort, they were interested in squeezing Manafort so that he could sing maybe even compose against President Trump, but it turned out there was nothing against President Trump. There was no illegal collusion. There was no collusion of any kind with the Russians and the investigation should have ended the day that decision was made, but it continued on and on and on with collateral crimes many of which were not even committed and others of which if it were committed could have been easily prosecuted by ordinary prosecutors. So, I think we're seeing the death knell of the special counsel's office.
INGRAHAM: I couldn't agree more. That performance yesterday by Mueller, I got into a big row with our one of our favorite Sol Wisenberg last night because he thought it was fine for him to come out and make that statement yesterday that nine-minute statement, he didn't agree with everything, but that was fine. But Governor Huckabee, I think that statement in and of itself was an indication as to why this whole Special Counsel statute, provision, the way it goes has got to be just done away with, just do line prosecutions but these special counsels are always opening the door to corruption or to bias or to concern about bias. I don't think any good comes of it and I really don't.
MIKE HUCKABEE, FORMER ARKANSAS GOVERNOR: Well, I couldn't agree more with Professor Dershowitz who by the way is simply brilliant and one of the things that I have admired most about him is that he is an admitted liberal and someone who voted for Hillary. But he's played this as a matter of the rule of law and an issue of civil liberties, which is what we should want from every single attorney and certainly from every law professor in the country. And for that, I offer my sincere appreciation to Alan Dershowitz.
DERSHOWITZ: Thank you.
HUCKABEE: Here's a big - let's say a contrast between Barr and Mueller. Mueller comes out and speaks for nine and a half minutes, does not take a single question. Barr on the other hand sits down in an interview and takes questions. There is a huge difference in somebody who simply comes out and says, I'm not going to say anything other than what's in the report but I'm going to toss some red meat over to the Democrats in Congress versus the Attorney General who says, sure, I'll take your questions. I've got nothing to fear and nothing to hide. Keep in mind that contrast.
DERSHOWITZ: But I think the other thing that Barr was right about is, it is not the proper role of Special Counsel to serve as an investigator for Congress. He should not have said yesterday--
DERSHOWITZ: Two of the things he said. Number one, when he said that if the evidence that clearly showed he was innocent, we would've said so. That's not what a prosecutor should say. That's what Comey said when he condemned Hillary Clinton. And second, he said, well there is another branch of government that should be doing this. Let the other branch of the government do the investigation, you're not the handmaiden.
INGRAHAM: Well, he shouldn't have said anything.
DERSHOWITZ: He shouldn't have said anything about that. He said too little in the report, because he didn't come to the conclusion. And then he said too much after the report. Everything he has done since that report came out has been wrong. The report itself and on what he said the other day, I hope we will never hear anymore from Special Counsel, special prosecutors or special anybody else. They do much more harm than good. And they upset the rule of law and the constitution.
INGRAHAM: It's criminalizing politics. We've talked about it before. And gentlemen I've got to point this out, House Democrats now have been ramping up their campaign to get special counsel Mueller to testify publicly. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM SCHIFF, HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Bob Mueller has one more service to provide to the country much as he appears reluctant to do so and that is, he really should testify before the Congress.
MIKE QUIGLEY, ILLINOIS CONGRESSMAN: He doesn't get to decide whether or not he testifies before the American people and he doesn't get to decide which questions he can talk about.
JAMIE RASKIN, MARYLAND CONGRESSMAN: I think it's likely that Special Counsel Mueller will return.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: I mean Mueller could not have been more clear that that's it for him. I mean he looked like he was passing a kidney stone in that nine minutes OK, he did not look happy to be there. Governor should he testify though and whom would that benefit? HUCKABEE: I think it would benefit the truth. And I just would think that for the first time we might get our money's worth out of the 35 million that we spent. Pop some popcorn and sit and listen to people ask Bob Mueller why did he pick the people that he did to serve on that staff who were Clinton donors? Was there any balance? Was there any consideration to try to get people who were completely independent of a political bias? There are some questions that would I know be delightful to watch and I don't think Democrats really want Bob Mueller to show up and testify under oath because it probably will not be good for them. INGRAHAM: I want to play something for both of you from the Obama's longtime confidant trusted adviser Valerie Jarrett who was being interviewed. I think it was on - I don't know what it was on, but she is being interviewed on serious radio and this is again a conversation about is there a double standard here. Trump might not get impeached but would Obama have been impeached if he had done the same things. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZERLINA MAXWELL, DIRECTOR OF PROGRESSIVE PROGRAMMING AT SIRIUSXM: If President Obama had done half of the things and said half of the things that President Trump is saying even you know as recently as this morning, would he have been impeached and how long do you think it would have taken.
VALERIE JARRETT, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: About a nanosecond. I think that the standards have slipped dramatically and there is no earthly way President Obama could have gotten away with any of this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Well, I think a lot of people would say Obama folks might have gotten away with a lot during the time of the Obama administration whether it's fast or furious or the IRS or trailing reporters or now the FISA abuses. But Professor Dershowitz your thoughts on the Obamas. I mean she's kind of alter ego of the Obamas. What do you think about that?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, I know Valerie Jarrett. She's a very decent person. I worked with her and I met with her on numerous occasions during the Obama administration. Of course, Obama never would have been impeached, because impeachment is improper. And I think the Democrats would have realized and the Republicans would realize, you don't just impeach on Maxine Waters ground, Maxine Waters says, the grounds for impeachment are whatever Congress says it is that makes Congress above the law, because the Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors. In other words, there must be high crimes to impeach.
And if President Obama had done what President Trump is alleged to have done, there'd be no high crimes. So, there wouldn't have been impeachment, there wouldn't have been talk of impeachment. This is a clear attempt to violate the Constitution in the interests of one party. And if the Hillary Clinton had been president, they were trying to impeach her for non- impeachable offenses, I'd be making the same arguments, the only differences they'd build a statute to me on Martha's Vineyard and they'd be inviting me to every possible dinner party because I'd be defending their champion Hillary Clinton. But I don't care whose party is being affected. I will always state the law objectively and neutrally and read the Constitution, the way it was written by the framers.
INGRAHAM: All right. Well, Allan Lichtman, the political historian who successfully - he has predicted the last nine presidents I think including Trump's 2016 victory. He explained why most Democrats today are pushing for impeachment. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Trump is it's in 2020 unless what?
ALLAN LICHTMAN, PROFESSOR WHO PREDICTED TRUMP 2016 VICTORY: Unless the Democrats grow a spine and do their constitutional duty and move into an impeachment inquiry and I think the evidence will show ultimately an impeachment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Governor, so the only way he says that they can beat Trump is to basically by impeaching him.
HUCKABEE: Well, first of all, only 29 percent of the American people think impeachment is appropriate. But even if they think impeachment is a wonderful idea then I would say to them go for it. Knock yourselves out. Put the evidence out there if you honestly believe that the results of the election should be overturned by impeachment, not the next election then go ahead and have the guts to do it and see what happens. It's going to be a disaster for the Democrats, and it will ensure the re-election of President Trump in 2012.
DERSHOWITZ: And also, the case would get to the Supreme Court very likely if the Congress adopted the Maxine Waters approach and put themselves above the law and try to impeach any President without evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors. The Supreme Court might very well have jurisdiction to decide that case. Two former justices said that in concurring and dissenting opinions, and I suspect there might be a majority today in the Supreme Court. If you had an overt attempt to subordinate the Constitution, subvert the constitution and use the impeachment power as a way of reversing an election. That's not what the framers had in mind.
INGRAHAM: Alan, I have a question.
DERSHOWITZ: They rejected explicitly that concern.
INGRAHAM: Alan how would it get to the Supreme Court though? How would it ever get there?
DERSHOWITZ: Well, if the President were to be impeached, his lawyers would bring a case to the Supreme Court seeking dismissal of the indictment essentially, dismissal of the impeachment. Remember also—
INGRAHAM: But don't they decided - wait, they decide it's a political question now. You think John Roberts and these guys are going to want to get--
DERSHOWITZ: It's not a political question. It's not political question when the constitute .--
INGRAHAM: But I worry that John Roberts kind of forward liberals would say that. I'm worried about that.
DERSHOWITZ: Well, remember that John Roberts presides over the trial in the Senate. And if I were the lawyer for the President, the first motion I would make would be to the Chief Justice saying this impeachment has to be dismissed because it doesn't follow the terms of the Constitution. It's not a political question when you're asking justices of the Supreme Court to apply the Constitution, it goes back to Marbury vs. Madison. When Congress acts in violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is ultimate arbiter.
INGRAHAM: This is an unbelievable scenario, even - contemplate both of you are phenomenal to try to analyze it for us tonight. Thank you so much and--
DERSHOWITZ: And thank you governor for your kind words.
INGRAHAM: It's a compliment society tonight. Is the Left's push for abolishing the Electoral College really just a push to silence smaller states, rural America? My can't-miss “Angle” is next and then I'm going to debate one of the plan's proponents.
INGRAHAM: Democrats move to sideline middle America that's the focus of tonight's “Angle.” Oh! they're at it again. Democrats in the activist base, the few Republicans are working overtime to do an end run around the Constitution in order to do what. Well, to wrestle power away from middle America. Now many of them have been frustrated in their efforts to stop Trump through investigations and threats of impeachment. And so, some are now pursuing other ways to ensure that he and anyone like him doesn't get elected again. Enter the push to abandon the Electoral College.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The Electoral College needs to go, because it's made our society less and less democratic.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: There is no question that the popular vote has been diminished in terms of making the final decision about who's the President of the United States. And we need to deal with that.
REP. BETO O'ROURKE, D-TX, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If we got rid of the Electoral College, we get a little bit closer to one person one vote for democracy. It is warped. The other word used earlier was captured. It is corrupted right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Well, to be fair, Beto does have some experience with the whole warped thing. While seriously, the Founders designed the Electoral College as part of the overall system of checks and balances, so that all 50 states, not just the most populous ones have a meaningful say in electing the President.
Alexander Hamilton, one of our faves Federalist Paper Number 68, he wrote the electors chosen in each state are to assemble and vote in the state in which they are chosen. This detached and divided situation will expose them to much less to heat and ferments than if they were to all be convened at one time in one place. Nothing was more to be desired than that every practical obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. Interesting. Well that could be the definition of I don't know today's deep state, cabal, intrigue and corruption. Just tripped up my tongue.
Well now largely funded by powerful globalists, including George Soros affiliated group, dispensing with the Electoral College has become a priority to most of the 2020 Democrats as you saw. Now without the Electoral College, think about it. Those candidates could spend most of their time campaigning and just a handful of states like California, New York, Texas, Florida and Illinois popping in and out of their biggest cities. The same places by the way where they raise all of their money.
Now there was a time when Democrats believed in running in rural states rather than just seeking to disenfranchise them. RFK campaigned in Appalachia. FDR visited the Dust Bowl. They believed in a system that required candidates to appeal to a broader segment of America one that includes rural areas, the Midwest, the Deep South, states like New Mexico and even New England. And by the way, don't be fooled for a millisecond by this argument.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My view is that every vote matter and the way we can make that happen is that we can have national voting and that means get rid of the Electoral College.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Gosh, she really thinks we're stupid. We must fell for the DNA tests, but we didn't. Now California has a population of 40 million people. West Virginia has about 2 million. So how would that state have any meaningful say in this new system.
Without the Electoral College, we'll essentially be living in something akin to a tyranny disguised as a democracy with a handful of liberal states making all the decisions for the rest of us. For instance, California with its super Democrat majority believes in sanctuary cities. Of course, pot legalization, taxes, regulating anything that moves and their values and concerns, it's beautiful state but those values and concerns often don't match up with those of other states, like South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia. In fact, those values are often diametrically opposed and that's OK. That's how the framers envisioned it.
And that's why the Electoral College provides a necessary balance. While on occasion, the candidate with the most votes doesn't win, but in those cases, it's usually because that candidate only appealed to a slice of America, not a broader coalition.
Remember the electoral map that showed how counties voted in 2016. Wow, it's like a bid red ink spot. Well, people often refer to the United States, don't they as a democracy. But we're not. We're a republic.
The founders made a very smart decision not to establish America as a pure democracy because they feared the mob mentality and what James Madison called the tyranny of the majority. Now given modern media, they were present, it's also important to know who is behind this effort to do away the Electoral College. And it's not a new idea but it has been renewed and I think invigorated since Hillary lost.
Does the name David Boies mean anything to you? Well, he not only successfully argued the gay marriage case at the Supreme Court, he represented Al Gore in the 2000 recount. He's now arguing the cases against the Electoral College in Massachusetts, California, South Carolina and Texas. Who's funding the litigation? Well, a bunch of big law firms. They don't do stuff for free, I used to work for one. Now probably the same folks also who helped gin up the faux outrage, about statues that have been standing in public squares for decades. I bet they have a hand in this. And the same folks who are spending millions on local and state campaigns and Arizona and Florida for Secretary of State, state judges and city school board officers, they are really into this. They're really agitated to keep Trump out. No re-election for him.
The Left means business. Now, they've already tried to silence and demonize traditionalists in business, on college campuses, in the public square and in the social media. If the Left believes it has to upend the entire constitutional structure to quash the influence of flyover country. Whether it's from court packing or lowering the voting age or axing the Electoral College. They'll do it. And it's up to smart constitutionalists to make the case for the rights of the threatened minority and middle America.
Small Town USA is every bit as American as New York and LA and they should have a say in our government. And that's “The Angle.”
All right here now to respond is Saul Anuzis, Senior Consultant to the National Popular Vote Initiative. Saul, you're an old friend and it's wild that you're doing this because you and Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg and George Soros' kids are all on the same side. So why did a good Republican from Michigan decide to throw in with all those characters for what the betterment of the country.
SAUL ANUZIS, NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE INITIATIVE: So, there's a little bit of a nuance here in the sense that the Democrats do want to eliminate the Electoral College. There is two proposals out there. One that as you mentioned the Democrats have been pushing to eliminate the Electoral College. And then one that I'm proposing and working with which basically is a bipartisan approach that basically wants to use the national popular vote and keep the Electoral College. So, you've got two different proposals that a lot of people confuse all the time.
INGRAHAM: Right. But you claim you don't want to abolish the Electoral College.
ANUZIS: We don't claim it, we just don't.
INGRAHAM: But the problem is if states in your plan. Well states would have the right not to give their delegates to the person who wins in the state, to the candidate who wins in the state.
INGRAHAM: They would be obligated or could vote for the candidate who won the most popular vote. So, in other words, if Trump wins Texas, then under your plan if this passes to state legislature in Texas. They would say, no, they're all going to go to Kamala Harris.
INGRAHAM: How is that fair to the people of Texas?
ANUZIS: Well, it's very fair because what happens is, we want to make sure that every voter and every state is politically relevant in a re-election. And under the current system, four out of five Americans live in flyover states. So today for all practical purposes, 95 to 90 percent of all the money spent in 10 states or less. And we elect basically the president of the battleground states of America versus the President of the United States of America.
INGRAHAM: Obama got elected twice. What do you mean, the battleground states? He won a fairly broad section of the country.
ANUZIS: But it doesn't matter, look you and I could sit down within three minutes and identify we're 40 to 42 states are going to vote in the 2020 election. Right. And so, both campaigns are going to basically campaign in probably--
INGRAHAM: But the framers wanted it that way, Saul. You claim that you don't want to do an end run.
ANUZIS: That's just not true.
ANUZIS: So, Article 2 Section 1 of the constitution.
INGRAHAM: Know it well.
ANUZIS: Says the state legislature--
INGRAHAM: Shall - right.
ANUZIS: So, what they basically said is the state legislatures and their selfish best interests will determine how their electors are chosen and what the framers wanted was a series of white male property owners to sit around the table and decide who the President--
INGRAHAM: So, we're going back to race.
ANUZIS: No, we're not. You said what the framers wanted.
ANUZIS: It's the current.
INGRAHAM: But that actually is funny that you raised that because a lot of the people who you claim you're not associated with or you don't really agree with, you're basically the outcome is going to be the same. It's going to be making the Electoral College null and void. ANUZIS: It's not going to be the same.
INGRAHAM: OK. The whole system -- Trump would have gotten elected with your plan?
ANUZIS: Absolutely. Absolutely.
INGRAHAM: How --
ANUZIS: As President Trump, he said if it would've been a national popular vote, he would've campaigned around the entire country. President Trump only campaigned in 13 states, right. So you expect people --
INGRAHAM: Why would anyone campaign in Iowa or in New Hampshire under a national popular vote? The top four most populous states in the country are 36 percent of the population.
ANUZIS: So you believe, how about the top 50 cities in the country?
INGRAHAM: Almost all of them, the top 20 is where all the population --
ANUZIS: OK, so the top 50 make up what percentage of the national popular vote?
INGRAHAM: It doesn't matter --
ANUZIS: Sure it does. If the top 50 cities --
INGRAHAM: There is a limited amount of time, Saul.
ANUZIS: OK, so the top 15 cities make up 15 percent of the population.
INGRAHAM: Why do you want to disenfranchise rural America?
ANUZIS: I want every voter and every state to be politically relevant in the count. Today, if you live in a flyover state --
INGRAHAM: They're not completely irrelevant.
ANUZIS: Right now -- look, we know today where Utah is going to vote. We know how Oklahoma is going to vote. We know where California is going to vote. We know where Texas is going to vote.
INGRAHAM: Yes, because those are conservative states. Big deal.
ANUZIS: So we don't campaign there. So we're not asking them where they stand on the issues. We don't care. We pander to the battleground states.
INGRAHAM: The problem with your argument is the folks who are on your side are all globalists, who want --
ANUZIS: Fred Thompson agrees with us. Newt Gingrich agrees with us.
INGRAHAM: Fred Thompson? Fred Thompson is dead.
ANUZIS: He is. So he did believe --
INGRAHAM: He can't have an opinion on this right now --
ANUZIS: He had that opinion before he died. That's OK.
INGRAHAM: But the people who are behind the big efforts, the big-money efforts -- who pays your salary, for instance?
ANUZIS: National Popular Vote.
INGRAHAM: George Soros' son and daughter foundation has given to you, correct.
ANUZIS: I believe his son --
INGRAHAM: It's $1 million, correct? The Tides Foundation, $25,000.
ANUZIS: Beyond that, I really don't --
INGRAHAM: Steven Silverstein Foundation, $1 million. Who in that group is a conservative?
ANUZIS: None of them. But Tom Golisano who gave over $10 million is a conservative, pro-life, antitax.
INGRAHAM: The first guy, the guy who runs it now? He's given $14 million to the Democrats.
ANUZIS: He's a big liberal.
INGRAHAM: So you can throw a few --
ANUZIS: So just because there are a bunch of liberals backing it you think it's a bad idea?
INGRAHAM: So you actually think people are going to campaign in any more states because of your plan?
INGRAHAM: I don't think anyone is understanding your distinction.
ANUZIS: Well --
INGRAHAM: The Electoral College will be meaningless.
ANUZIS: That's just not true. That's just not true. It's no less meaningless than it is today.
INGRAHAM: And it will not stand Constitutional scrutiny. But I'll be looking forward to seeing the argument.
ANUZIS: It will be a lot of fun. But I think there is a lot of misconceptions.
INGRAHAM: We've got to go. It is misconceptions, but we'll continue to follow it. And I appreciate, Saul, and old friend from a long time ago.
A 2020 exclusive is next, but not with a candidate. Pete Buttigieg's brother-in-law is accusing the Democratic presidential hopeful of distorting his family's history for political advantage, next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG, D-IND., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Where I come from is a Christian faith that teaches humility, that teaches love. The reason that being married to Chasten has made me a better person and made me feel closer to God is that it has been that experience of caring about someone else more than you do for yourself, and humbling yourself, and putting yourself in your place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: And Chasten Buttigieg has become a staple on the campaign trail, and as such has been the subject of multiple glowing profiles. One particular piece in "The Washington Post" described a childhood marked by intense poverty and an intolerant family that turned their back on him because of his lifestyle.
Tonight, Chasten's brother says these stories have been spun for political advantage by Pete Buttigieg and are hurting his family. Since the "Washington Post" article came out, the family has been subjected, he says, to hateful messages by email, social media, and text, one suggesting that my next guest kill himself.
Here now exclusively, Pastor Rhyan Glezman, brother of Chasten Buttigieg. Rhyan, thank you for being here. My first question is, has your family had an issue with your brother and his husband, his lifestyle?
RHYAN GLEZMAN, CHASTEN BUTTIGIEG'S BROTHER: Before I answer, Laura, I just want to say thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to come on here. It's a privilege and an honor to be on such a great show.
But to answer your question, absolutely not. It couldn't be further from the truth. There has absolutely never been any amount of shunning him from the family. I love my brother dearly. I want the best for him, I want the best for Pete. And this story, this narrative of the family shunning him from the family just couldn't be further from the truth.
INGRAHAM: Why would he make this up?
GLEZMAN: The way I see it, Laura, is in such a competitive, a very large Democratic field of candidates, you need to have a story. And I'm not going to cut down on a mayor's role. I think a mayor's role is very important. But at the end of the day, if you only have the mayor role, and you are go at the highest office in the country, you need to have a different story. And unfortunately, we became victim to that, our family of having this rags-to-riches story be brought up about my brother's childhood and the past to gain political points in the polls is the way I see it.
INGRAHAM: I'm sensitive to this issue of family coming out and commenting on other family members. Why don't you just pick up the phone and talk to either Pete or your brother-in-law? Why come on this show? I'm glad you're on the show, but I don't understand, why you don't just pick up the phone?
GLEZMAN: To be honest with you, I didn't sign up for this. The only reason I'm here is for the truth to prevail. If it was that easy, that would've already been done. These communications, that would've already been done if it was as easy as it could be.
INGRAHAM: When was the last time you spoke?
GLEZMAN: The last time we spoke was at my grandmother's funeral in Traverse City, Michigan, was the last time we spoke.
INGRAHAM: When was that?
GLEZMAN: That would be coming up on a year ago.
INGRAHAM: So would you describe yourself as a close family? You haven't spoken in a year?
GLEZMAN: To be honest, our family dynamics has been rocky for nine to 10 years. When I became a born-again believer in Jesus Christ, the family dynamic dramatically shifted. If there was any shunning, to be honest with you, to share the truth, that would be myself being shunned over my brother.
INGRAHAM: Does he feel an unaccepted, or does he feel upset, that you don't validate his choices? He is who he is at this point. So does he feel bad? I don't want to do family dynamics, psychoanalysis here, and I'm not a doctor, I don't play one on TV. But it seems to me that you all should get together and talk. To me, that seems like the better thing. But you seem to be saying that Pete Buttigieg, Mayor Buttigieg, is selling this story, I don't want to put words in your mouth, for political reasons.
GLEZMAN: Like I said, in a crowded field, you need to get your story out there. So what better story to have this rags-to-riches, to make it look like he came from a mayor of a midwestern town going for the presidency. His husband, who supposedly, according to "The Washington Post," had been shunned from the family, had been kicked out by the family, who supposedly was homeless, which we have no memory of that ever happening.
INGRAHAM: You are saying he was never homeless?
GLEZMAN: To my memory there's absolutely no recollection of him being homeless, there's no shunning. There's absolutely none. My family embraced him more.
INGRAHAM: Is anything that he said true? Is anything he said true about your family dynamic from your opinion?
GLEZMAN: From my opinion, absolutely not. Everything in that article was spun in a way to make a rags-to-riches story for this political gain.
INGRAHAM: We've got to go, Rhyan, but who are you voting, if you don't mind sharing? Would you vote for Mayor Pete.
GLEZMAN: Trump in 2020.
INGRAHAM: Maybe people are going to say your comments are political, then. I could see that story written, your comments are political. Either side is going to say they're political. But we appreciate you're coming on tonight, and I think you should pick up the phone and have a cup of coffee. You take care.
And what were Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi really trying to do with their comments about Facebook and edited videos yesterday? Candace Owens has answers, next.
INGRAHAM: Tonight, we are sounding the alarm and warning viewers about what is coming ahead in 2020. Comments made yesterday by Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, they seem like innocent jabs. But when you dig deeper, there's something far more nefarious at play. It's centers around a video of Pelosi on Facebook.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: Facebook says I know this is false, it's a lie, but we are showing it anyway. Well, to me, it says two things. One, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. Clearly they wittingly were accomplices and enablers of false information to go across Facebook.
HILLARY CLINTON, D-FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: The video is sexist trash. And YouTube took it down, but Facebook kept it up.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: They are trying to bully social media, satirists, people with comedic flair, anybody put it in a bad light that is a liberal, what's their goal? They're goal is to use Russian hacking threats and manipulation of social media as a part of a larger effort to silence conservative voices ahead of the 2020 election.
Here now, Candace Owens, conservative commentator and activist. Candace, you've had some experience with this on social media. This is wild. Now they're using the Russian interference as pretext to be able to silence voices.
CANDACE OWENS, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, TURNING POINTS USA: Yes, and it's bizarre. I just want to say first and foremost to Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, welcome to the Internet, where things are doctored, there are memes. If you do a fair search of my name, your name.
INGRAHAM: Oh, no, they never do it to us, Candace.
OWENS: I can't believe the amount of noise that they're making over this. This is the way the Internet works. This is the game of humor, of parody. And they've made a big deal out of this. But you're right, they are trying to create this narrative as if somehow this is the reason that Hillary lost. She still has not got over the fact that Trump just ran a better campaign. And what they are ultimately doing here is they're undermining voters yet again, saying that you aren't smart enough.
INGRAHAM: They are meddling in the election.
OWENS: Exactly, and trying to silence conservatives.
INGRAHAM: Don't you see this happening right before the 2020 elections? We're about to build up into the big momentum. Summer time is really fall, that's it. It kicks into high gear. But if you can't be a conservative putting together a montage -- we've been doing montages both on my old radio show, my podcast, this television show, for years. Everybody does. And they do it on late-night TV of Trump and people like yours truly all the time. I don't care. It doesn't bother me what other people, frankly, say about me. I don't care. But they are so thin-skinned, the most thin- skinned people out there. They think Trump is thin-skinned? Nancy is thin-skinned.
OWENS: Right. And I think it's also ironic because her whole platform is she thought she was strong enough to be the president of the United States and she can't deal with any doctoring of videos on the Internet. Just think again of what Trump has to deal with every single day. This is ridiculous.
But I will say this. Silencing and banning conservatives, that actually works for us. It works for us. When you ban somebody's favorite political commentator, their followers don't go, OK, I guess now I'm a Democrat. They double down and they dig their heels in. And we are going to see in my opinion, people are going be voting for conservatives and voting for Trump in larger margins in 2020.
INGRAHAM: They know when they are being silenced, they know when they are being lied to, I think. Most people are onto this game. Facebook now, what do they monitor, quote, "hate." That sounds good until you realize hate means some of the people they have shunned.
OWENS: There I am!
INGRAHAM: But it's people who believe in border enforcement, people who believe in national sovereignty.
OWENS: People who believe in black America.
INGRAHAM: Heaven forbid, or black conservatives, keep them out of that. It's back of the bus for you.
INGRAHAM: Candace, I think this is going to be a moment, though, for us to stand up to these censors, because they are the new sensors.
OWENS: That's correct, and it will backfire, as I said, but we're going to win in 2020.
INGRAHAM: And I get to meet your fiance, who is in the studio. Lucky man.
Two topics with Dr. Drew is next. A rare breakout of typhoid fever in L.A., what he fears could come next. Plus he takes on the latest case of celebrity privilege, this one involving a six-figure rehab facility, next.
INGRAHAM: Two hot topics and just a short time to get to them. So let's bring in Drew Pinsky, board-certified internist. OK, Dr. Drew, great to see you. I have to begin with the shocking case out of L.A., and two friends of mine have told me about this. A police officer now has contracted that really rare and life-threatening illness, disease, typhoid fever. Fewer than 350 Americans contract this every year, so what is going on here?
DR. DREW PINSKY, CELEBRITY DOCTOR: We have a complete breakdown of the basic needs of civilization in Los Angeles right now. We have the three prongs of airborne disease. Tuberculosis is exploding. Rodent-born, we're one of the only major cities in the country that does not have a rodent control program. And sanitation has broken down. We had a typhus outbreak last time. We will have a typhus as outbreak this summer. I'm hearing from experts that bubonic plague is likely. It's already here. It will get onto the rat fleas. And then now finally we have this oral fecal route contamination, which is typhoid fever, three cases, one confirmed, probably three.
This is unbelievable. I can't believe I live in a city where this is not third world, Laura. This is medieval. Third world countries are insulted if they are accused of being like this. No city on earth tolerates this. The entire population is at risk. And God forbid if measles -- this is a population that is sub-optimally optimized. If measles gets, I just have an image of myself on knees in the gutter tending to people, because this summer is likely to be a very profound problem.
INGRAHAM: Meanwhile, we are welcoming in tens of thousands into California in the next few months of illegal immigrants, and I've had a chance to talk to a lot of these migrants after they crossed the border. They have no papers, they have no identification, but they have a friend or a relative that they are going to go visit. A couple people had nowhere to go. So I don't know how you check health records, and they are flooding into many cities in California, San Jose, L.A., San Diego.
PINSKY: And we can't handle our situations such as it is. And there is a very bizarre thing going on where the government is somehow insisting that housing is the problem, when in fact we have chronic mental illness, we have addiction, we have people who don't want to leave the streets. They literally won't take the housing if we give it to them. And that is the population that is vulnerable. And it's going to get so ill this summer, it scares me for their well-being.
Laura, I need your help. I want to pierce their shield of qualified immunity so we can go after them for reckless negligence. This is disgusting. It is reckless negligence. And we have to have a solution to this.
INGRAHAM: I know the businesses are upset, just like they are in San Francisco.
PINSKY: I don't think you get how dire this is.
INGRAHAM: I do.
PINSKY: I'm telling you as a physician, like I'm standing on a railroad track, saying the bridge is out. This could be a very serious summer.
INGRAHAM: But where are the politicians? The liberal politicians in California care about people.
PINSKY: They are negligent, disgustingly negligent. It's almost like -- I was driving over and I thought, do they want the people on the streets to die? Is that really, they don't care if they all die? Is that really where we are now?
INGRAHAM: Dr. Drew, we didn't have time to get into the six-figure rehab. We'll have to have you back for that. That's a shocker.
PINSKY: I'll do it. You got it.
INGRAHAM: It's a teaser for your next appearance. But thank you for sounding the alarm. This is not political. This is a health crisis now.
PINSKY: No, no. This is a health crisis that I have not seen in this country for 100 years.
INGRAHAM: Dr. Drew, thank you so much. We'll be right back. Stay there.
INGRAHAM: OK, the podcast today, Malkin as in Michelle blew the lid off of what's happening in social media and how they are completely trying to manipulate what we talk about before 2020. Yes, silencing conservative voices, it's not just a talking point. It's happening. OK, so go to podcastone.com. Listen to that. It's unbelievable. Dan Patrick was also on about the ongoing immigration crisis. Good for Trump on the tariffs on Mexico. Ed Henry is in for Shannon Bream, takes it from here.
Content and Programming Copyright 2019 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2019 ASC Services II Media, LLC. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of ASC Services II Media, LLC. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.