Democrats scramble to refocus in the wake of the Mueller hearing

This is a rush transcript from "Ingraham Angle," July 25, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Thanks so much, Sean. I'm Laura Ingraham and this is “The Ingraham Angle” from Washington tonight. 24 hours after Mueller's meltdown, what are the big takeaways from this mess and will anyone be held accountable as the President referenced?

Joe Digenova, John Yoo and Former Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker will weigh in. Plus Frank Evans will reveal what the Democrat's reactions to yesterday's hearing tells us about their chances in 2020. And later Ilhan Omar seems to have something against white men. A newly on earth video gives us a disturbing insight into her warped mind-set.

And finally, do you like to bathe in toilet water, really? If not you may think twice before you take a dip at certain popular beaches across American Dr. Drew is here with all the literally sickening details.

But first, time for accountability. That's the focus of tonight's “Angle.” The fallout from that calamitous Mueller testimony continue to reverberate today and the questions keep mounting. How is a man who's obviously so detached from key aspects of the case ever allowed to run the investigation?

Why didn't they end the investigation when they realized there was no collusion or conspiracy to throw the election? How could Mueller not have known anything about Fusion GPS? And why wasn't the FISA court fully informed about the origins of the dossier?

How did Trump hating partisans manage to become key players on Mueller's team? Why do elites always seem to get away with the abuse of power when conservatives like Trump are dragged through the mud for something he didn't even do?

Well, as to the last question, the elites in both parties, let's face it, have a lot to answer for. And it's up to us to hold them accountable. This kind of thing doesn't happen ever again to any President or frankly any American citizen. So that no one is subjected to defamation or saddled with massive legal bills, or has his or her entire life's work. And in this case, his entire presidency, put in jeopardy.

The fact is the so-called elites have been failing us for decades. And Trump, remember, called them all out in 2016. I think they ever forgave him. Elites have been wrong about major history authoring issues. Under Former Federal Chair Alan Greenspan, they even called him the maestro. He presided over the housing bubble and along with Bill Clinton he thought it was just peachy to allow China into the World Trade Organization.


ALAN GRHEENSPAN, FORMER FEDERAL CHAIRMAN: Permanent and normal trade relations with China will have profound implications for the Rhee world's trading system and the long-term growth potential of the American economy.


INGRAHAM: And remember, folks, from the Bush years like Paul Wolfowitz. He was the architect of the Iraq war. Well, he also got Trump wrong too.


CHUCK TODD, POLITICAL DIRECTOR NBC NEWS: Is this the reason why you're leaning Clinton over Trump because of Trump's isolation issues?

PAUL WOLFOWITZ, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: Look I'm leaning against both of them. I find it incredibly disappointing when the country needs to come together that we have two major party candidates who enjoy so little confidence in the American people.


INGRAHAM: That's funny. Confidence in the American people? According to a Pew Research Poll by 2008, only 38% of the country thought that the decision to invade Iraq was the right decision. Oh, well that of course helped to elect Barack Obama. As for Obama, he pledged to bring in a new team of pros, the elite of the elites who would show everyone how governance is really done. Well, instead, he brought us anemic growth, the Iran deal, and an Obamacare website that didn't even work.


REPORTER: Did you try signing on the site yourself?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have created an account on the site. I have not tried signing up because I have insurance.

REPORTER: You have insurance. Did you find a challenge? I mean what did you think of it?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, I think there certainly are some challenges that could be smoother, could be easier to access, that's really what we are working on. Nobody says the site is working the way we want it to.


INGRAHAM: Wait a second. I thought they were going to be the smartest people ever. And yesterday, of course we were reminded that the American taxpayers spend $34 million for an investigation that could've been easily handled by the regular line prosecutors at the Justice Department. An investigation led by a man who was clearly past his prime, so past his prime that he didn't even bother doing a conflict check on the team he assembled.


INGRAHAM: Again a first-year associate at pretty much any law firm knows that the mere appearance of bias or conflict is often enough to require recusal from any case. In this situation, with the stakes so high, this was of paramount importance.

By the way, each lawyer on Mueller's team had an affirmative legal obligation under the ethics rules to consider their own Anti-Trump bias. And decline the offer to work on the Russian collusion investigation given their past connections to the Democrats.

My friends, Republicans must hold them accountable and get real answers as to why this team was allowed to operate outside the code of professional responsibility that all of us Attorneys are subject to. Heaven forbid, this travesty could happen again. And that's THE ANGLE.

So what's next for these elites? Tonight, we offer a path forward for holding them accountable. Joining us now U.S. Attorney Joe Digenova and Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo. Joe, what's the best course of action here? Should Lindsey Graham hold hearings on Capitol Hill as Chair of the Judiciary Committee and bring the real authors of this report before the Committee? Weissmann and Rhee and find out why this recusal was not done and whether any conflict check was done in this case?

JOE DIGENOVA, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Absolutely. It won't do any good to file complaints with bars because bars are not going to do anything about these people. Lindsey Graham has a wonderful opportunity before the final report from Horowitz comes out and John Durham has finished his work as an interim accountability staff, he should hold a hearing, he should have Weissmann, he should have Rhee he should even invite Mueller to testify about why he didn't engage with these people, clear conflicts of interest.

They should never have been on this case, should have absolutely been precluded from becoming involved in these cases and nothing was involved about it. The reason is Weissmann went about this from the very beginning, before he was ever appointed. He told Mueller I want to be on this, I want to be the one you used. Mueller gave him the job. Mueller didn't even care whether or not he had conflicts. Mueller has been absolutely absinthe, a wall--

INGRAHAM: Not even a figurehead. A figurehead would no more than Mueller would know.

DIGENOVA: God, embarrassing. Totally embarrassed.

INGRAHAM: John Yu, U.S. Department of Justice standards of Congress conduct will put up the fall screen graphic only on this show what we do we do ethics provision. Obtaining advice and approval on ethics related matters an employee should contact his or her designated ethics officials for advice or approval when the employee is assigned in a matter in which his or her official actions may affect the employee's own financial interest or the interest of any person or entity whose interests are imputed to the employee.

There is another provision about if any question arises as to your impartiality, which is the operative one in this case then you must go for approval to the ethics official. We have no record of their having been given any approval from the ethics officials at DOJ.

JOHN YOO, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Right. As a Former Justice Department Attorney, as Joe was, you are supposed to take it on yourself to ask yourself, can I be impartial? It's not even whether I can be impartial, it's also would anyone knowing about my work, my past clients or my personal friends or political contacts, would anyone on the outside question the impartiality of the Justice Department if I participated?

You are supposed to report that. A good Attorney will do that themselves. They do not need to be prodded or attacked or questioned by someone on the outside. And as you say it doesn't look like anybody brought that to anyone's attention. You would think that if you are representing the Clinton Foundation or your personal friends were working for the Clinton campaign and you are working on an investigation where the origins of the very facts of the investigation seem to have been fed into the Justice Department by the Clinton campaign, that's a perfect example of when you should be reusing yourself.

INGRAHAM: Yeah, Joe I want to read Provision IV. The employee has to ask the ethics officer for approval if the employee is asked to participate in a matter that might cause a reasonable person to question his or her impartiality. So that's the operative--

DIGENOVA: And here's what's important. Yesterday, Bob Mueller lied. He was asked by committee members, did you have any conflict of interest. He said no. That is false. He did have conflict of interest and in fact he got waivers for them. After he was appointed! So he knew that you had to deal with conflicts and he never required Weissmann or Rhee or anybody else to deal with their conflicts. This is a major, major ethical flaw in everything that he gets. By the way, the investigation was taken from day one by all of these biased people. It's a joke.

INGRAHAM: Oh, the FISA was following. Why are there no sanctions? Republicans tend to just declare victory and move on without actually getting to the underlying punishment that is necessary to prevent this from happening again. You and I and John, we've all talked about what happened in the Kavanaugh case.

A leak from the committee went to "The Washington Post" and spread all over the media about the accusation against Kavanaugh. No investigation. Right John? Right Joe? No investigation.

DIGENOVA: Where is the Committee?

INGRAHAM: Where are the Republicans, though? It's like they just want to shake their hands and move on. You cannot do that right, Joe?

DIGENOVA: That's what you have to have it. In fact Durham--

INGRAHAM: Lindsey Graham has got to bring them before the committee.

DIGENOVA: They have to come before the committee and answer the questions.

INGRAHAM: John will they deny insane and say no I'm not coming, or will they be under formidable obligation to appear? How would that work?

YOO: Well, I think a lot of them have left the Justice Department now. So what I would do action addition to Graham and Congress. Congress can't really punish anybody. As I think you go to Attorney General Barr. These people worked at the Justice Department, they abused the procedures, they did not report these ethical problems, so the Attorney General of the Justice Department could perhaps launch an investigation and see if there were any laws broken.

INGRAHAM: They had because you were supposed to get approval and there was a mechanism of course I was reading this tonight that allows for a formal complaint, Joe -

DIGENOVA: That's right.

INGRAHAM: --at the Justice Department. I want to take a closer look at one of the hires that they didn't vet because people hear these names they forget what their history was. Jeannie Read, this Attorney has a long history with ties to the left. She served in the Obama DOJ, she twice represented Clinton's and gave thousands of dollars to Hillary in the 2016 election. So, Joe, either Mueller was nothing more than a ghost at the investigation or he perjured himself on the stand what could possibly be the case?

DIGENOVA: Bob didn't care any of this. He was a phantom. This was the Andrew Weissmann investigation.

INGRAHAM: Should've been called the Weissmann report?

DIGENOVA: Weissmann wanted January on that he didn't care about her conflicts. He wanted her on the staff, he got her on the staff, and the reason was they were all Clintonistas, they hated Trump, and they wanted to get him. This was a rig investigation from the beginning. And by the way Lindsey Graham can subpoena Rhee and Weissmann, they have to come. The fact that they are former DOJ employees doesn't absorb them from a parity foreign committee.

INGRAHAM: John. Right. We're running out of time. But john, this may have affected the 2018 election? Talk about election battling.

YOO: That was the goal! That was the goal!

INGRAHAM: To get them out of office or to make sure the midterms when a certain way. We'll never know how much it affected the election, but talk about meddling.

DIGENOVA: Didn't help it.

INGRAHAM: Right, certainly didn't help it. John, final thoughts I'm got to go.

YOO: As you say, this was very cleverly done. I am still a big supporter of Bob Mueller as a person but after that terrible performance yesterday, I think it's toiled the gentleman. I'm here to say I think I might've been wrong. I expected him to take care of his problems but actually you are raising very excellent points.

Actually, it looks like people took advantage of him and were driving the investigation, possibly for partisan purposes -

INGRAHAM: The future of the country -

YOO: --we were disappointed and sadden.

INGRAHAM: --was at stake. Yeah, the future of the country was at stake. That's when you better err on the side of really being careful on conflict checks and impartiality. The appearance of impartiality is enough to throw to you off an investigation and it's your affirmative individual responsibility to raise it.

So either they just decided not to do that or Bob Mueller was out to lunch. Any way this is where I'm getting back to my professional ethics. Guys, thank you so much. And my next guest, hey boy, took a lot of criticism for his temporary role in overseeing the Mueller investigation including chargers that he mishandled it.


STEVE KORNACKI, NATINAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT NBC NEWS: Whitaker may be biased against the investigation. He now oversees as it acting Attorney General.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC HOST: Whitaker is known as a vocal critic of Mueller's enquiry.

REP. STEVEN COHEN, D-TENN.: He was kind of Luca Brasi-esque.

REP. DENNY HECK, D-WASH.: Congressman Ed Nadler accurately described in his--

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know how somebody could be that cowardly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I think he is there in part to make a DOJ into the DOJO, the Department of Justice Obstruction.


INGRAHAM: I am surprised that these people have jobs. I'm sorry this is just - again being liberal means never having to say you're sorry. Joining me now Former Acting U.S. Attorney General Matt Whitaker. Matt first your reaction to yesterday's hearing.

MATT WHITAKER, FORMER ACTING US ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well I hope we can get this behind us.

INGRAHAM: So you don't want any accountability?

WHITAKER: No I do. I want a lot of accountability. But I want the Mueller investigation and the Mueller report to be behind us and to move on to the important work that we need to do. One is to hold the folks accountable for the decisions that were made. But the other thing is to work on all of the things that Congress should be working on, instead of what it appears that it's going to continue to occupy the house.

INGRAHAM: When there was a political vendetta that was being carried out under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Justice, when the taxpayers shut up $34 million for this travesty, when they basically lied to the FISA Court with that affidavit. Signing an affidavit without revealing Hillary paid for that dossier.

I think that's enough, you know something if this happens again, we could flip an election. That's why Rhee and Weissmann, I'm not going to be like, let's go home we won, no way. We've got to bring people to account here. And otherwise if they are going to be knocking Trump, it may be someone else next time.

WHITAKER: Right and we got to make sure that this never happens again.

INGRAHAM: What's the process in Justice Department for a conflict check? Do you have an formidable obligation do you not? So not be involved if you have a--

WHITAKER: We are in the appearance of lack of impartiality. Exactly the analysis I had to go through when I was appointed of Attorney General. Five weeks it took me to do that analysis. It's a multipart task. Every lawyer needs to do it. They were clearly were allegations that they lacked impartiality, so they had to do this analysis.

And I think all you have to do is look at part two of the report to see exactly how that lack of impartiality manifests. It's with that new standard that John Ratcliffe really laid out clearly which is that we don't exonerate as prosecutors. I've charged over a thousand people with a crime.

INGRAHAM: You were US Attorney.

WHITAKER: U.S. Attorney for five and a half years, I never stood up at a podium or file a report or did anything that said, I fully exonerate or don't exonerate this defendant. It's either you charge him with a crime or you declined to prosecute.

And the regulations of the Special Counsel lay that out that's what the report had to do. Instead, we have this strange part two that does this, we aren't going to charge, or alleging any crime, but we're not going to exonerate him, and that we are all left in this strange place that we have to figure out.

INGRAHAM: This is why so many people now are hung up on prosecutors. I know you are a former prosecutor, a lot of friends that are former prosecutors. Patrick Fitzgerald himself turned many people's lives upside down until the Supreme Court came in and overturned convictions. We have Conrad Black, look what they did to him.

I am glad President Trump did the pardon. But I mean there a lot of prosecutors out there who are looking for their next step, their next move. And I think it's the best system out there, but it's a problematic system. I want to get to something that the Democrats kept pushing yesterday the old math the idea of prosecuting President Trump after he leaves office. One suggested even that the statute of limitations, if that runs, then it's another argument for basically defeating Trump in the next election. Let's watch.


INGRAHAM: He went on to basically say that the only remedy is to make sure he is held accountable is to defeat him? That's basically what he was implying there. That's how low this has gone.

WHITAKER: Well, it was that hearing was difficult, especially some of those questioning down those lines. The report on its face says we are not alleging that the President committed any crime. Then it puts the weird exonerate clause at the end of that sentence that has Congress I guess thinking that there are crimes here to prosecute. This needs to be behind us. This is my point when we started.

The President needs to have this behind us and needs to focus on continuing this great economic recovery -


WHITAKER: --fixing the immigration system that's broken, the southern border, I mean we're having a great progress. Employment is the lowest it's been -

INGRAHAM: Think about - I think only Trump could have withstood what he has been subjected to over the last two years and still deliver the results. I started off the monologue tonight THE ANGLE by talking about the elites and all these supposedly is at the best of the best have screwed up major things in this country and Trump is like, he doesn't have any political experience. He comes in he says I think you're all full of it basically. And I'm going to show you how it's done. And he has done all the stuff that they claim they can never do. Hold China accountable, US MCA and get this GPD up.

WHITAKER: And I was in the room with him many times. And I saw somebody that could focus on what was important and could hold his leaders impressed and pressed his cabinet secretary to get stuff done, to accomplish his agenda knowing that we have limited time. We have distractions. We had to focus on getting stuff done.

INGRAHAM: He wants results. I like the fact that he's impatient for results and you look at the difference between Mueller and Bill Barr, that testimony? Come on. Trump's cabinet is by norm the best cabinet we've had in a long, long time. Matt, thank you for joining us.

WHITAKER: Thank you, great to see you.

INGRAHAM: Great to see. And so what happens next? What could be more damaging to the Democrats' because then Mueller's performance yesterday. We have a new report from the White House next.


INGRAHAM: Despite being thoroughly embarrassed, let's face it by Mueller's testimony Democrats are now insisting they'll never stop trying to take down the Trump. Fox News Kristin Fisher is here with the Democrats' dynamic plans. Kristin.

KRISTIN FISHER, REPORTER: Well, Laura Republicans say it's over. But Democrats are continuing to move forward with their investigation. You have got the House Oversight Committee issuing subpoenas for emails from Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner's personal accounts.

The House Judiciary Committee is preparing a lawsuit to enforce the subpoena issue to former White House Counsel Don McGahn then the House Intelligence and Financial Services Committees probing the President's finances, an area that the Mueller investigation appears to have avoided and then here is the question of impeachment.

Texas Democrat Al Green who has measured to impeach was defeated last week tweeted after the hearings, "There was no aha moments because we've the report and want to discuss the President's impeachable actions as nauseam impeach now". But Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Adam Schiff still are not sold.


REP. ADAM SCHIFF, D-CALIF.: Does the country benefit going through an impeachment if it's going to be unsuccessful? And we know in the Senate release it would be unsuccessful. So I am not there yet but I'm keeping an open mind and I may get there.


FISHER: But the Republicans argue there is nowhere left to go.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why would you ever bring up impeachment after yesterday's hearing? That should be put to bed. That's over. We watched it, we heard it, we've read it. What more can they make up?


FISHER: And there are two investigations that Republicans do want to continue. The Justice Department's internal reviews into the origins of the Russia probe. Once those are overcome the Senate Judiciary Committee led by Chairman Lindsey Graham will also investigate. So, Laura, we've still got quite a ways to go.

INGRAHAM: Oh, Kristin it never ends. Thanks so much. And they were labeled spies and traitors, their reputations and finances ruined. They were the collateral of the damage and Robert Mueller's shame enough investigation against President Trump and his associates.

And tonight, one man who had his entire life turned upside down is here to deliver his own message to Bob Mueller. Former Trump Campaign Advisor Michael Caputo is here now. Michael, is this the end of the Mueller's saga for you? Do you want to just shake hands, move on, call it a day, or should Republicans demand real accountability?

MICHAEL CAPUTO, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISOR: Well, of course we need to demand real accountability. I went from emotion to emotion like tars and on vines the last couple of days. After that hearing I first thought - I thought it was hilarious and I laughed aloud about it. Then I got really sad. I realized that our country is probably found its end if this is what we're talking about is the Department of Justice.

And now Laura, I'm just mad. I'm really angry because they clearly chose Robert Mueller because of his outstanding reputation, but still knowing that he really didn't have it all together anymore. They knew if they installed him as Special Counsel the Hillary loving lawyers there could ripped each of us apart limb from limb while Robert Mueller was trying to program the cloth on the my microwave in the break room.

This thing is really got me really angry. All of us should be up in arms but you know, I've talked to survivor after survivor who was just dying to come out and say something about this right now. But each of us have been told by our Attorneys that if we go out here and defend the President and talk about how this whole thing is a complete travesty, that these House Democrats are halls in front of hearings and cost us each 20000- $20,000, $30,000 more per hearing.

I'm just not afraid of it any more. I'm so angry about this. I think everyone should know that Robert Mueller is a new admiral Stockdale and these hearings will be in the lead of his obituary just like Stockdale's. Even though Stockdale was a hero, all we remember him for is for making an embarrassing performance at that debate.

INGRAHAM: All right, Michael, how much personally did this cost you? People understand you were an advisor to the campaign, yet you are dragged before the Mueller investigation and you had to hire counsel. How much money did you end up spending of your own wealth?

CAPUTO: Well, I've been billed over $200,000 of legal fees alone--

INGRAHAM: Oh, my God!

CAPUTO: I'm also right now being sued for $25 million by Larry Claimant for some crazy reason, I can't figure out. I'm still paying legal fees. The great thing is people who support Donald Trump were very generous in donations to help me pay for legal fees, but then you've got to think about people like Roger Stone who is going to end up paying $3 million to $4 million to defend against charges from people led by a man who couldn't find his backside with both hands in front of the United States House Representatives.

INGRAHAM: Yeah, and let's remind everybody that they came to his house like using Gestapo tactics, they're bringing all these vehicles, military vehicles, clearly they tipped off, someone in the office tipped off the media who showed up and filmed it all. So this what--

CAPUTO: Do you know what's really interesting, Laura? Do you know what's really interesting, Laura? On Friday I was contacted by a very reliably liberal reporter from a reliably liberal outlet who said the word is that Donald Trump has been telling people for weeks that Robert Mueller has lost his step and he's going to embarrass himself before these hearings.

I went back to the reporter, I said hey, may be Donald Trump's on to something because that reporter is like D grade freshman criminal justice paper. But did anybody talk about that? Donald Trump was on to this before anybody was. He knew this was coming.

INGRAHAM: He knew the vindication was coming. We have to hold these people accountable. Cannot just let it drop. Michael, thank you very much for sharing your story. And coming up, we attempt to answer this question. Does Congresswoman Ilhan Omar hate white men? Now, that sounds like an extreme thing to say, but given some recently unearthed statements of hers, it's worth asking. Stay there.


INGRAHAM: Today "The New York Times" featured a column by the anti-Semitic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. She used the platform to level charges of racism against President Trump. The timing of this is pretty ironic because it comes just one day after a shocking video resurfaced where Omar said this.


REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: Our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country.


INGRAHAM: So is Ilhan Omar anti white male, as many were raging online and saying? Joining me now to discuss is Asra Nomani, cofounder of the Muslim Reform Movement. Asra, what do you think about that statement where she references white men, people online saying that she has a problem with white people? How do you take it?

ASRA NOMANI, CO-FOUNDER, MUSLIM REFORM MOVEMENT: It's amazing how Ilhan Omar spews hate with a smile. Whenever she puts out his big grin, you know something awful is about to come out. And what I've heard over the last 10 years by Muslims including her is this effort to deflect. What they were talking about was an issue of violent jihadism, but the interviewer, Mehdi Hasan from Al Jazeera, the Qatar propaganda channel, put that in air quotes, and she wanted to divert that to the issue of white men. And it's their ploy right now to try to take all the attention from any issues in our Muslim community that need discussion.

INGRAHAM: It was interesting, this rapper over in Sweden, you've probably been following this, who was apparently according to Swedish reports was attacked by it looks like an Afghan refugee who had a criminal background. The president has urged this guy to be released because he was basically trying to defend himself, but Swedish authorities have him in custody. In Sweden, people think why is Laura talking about Sweden, they have a huge problem, massive.

NOMANI: They do. I was in Europe just now, and I went to Paris. I was going to do a road trip to Sweden and stand outside the courtroom, but instead what I did was I did a pilgrimage to the offices of Charlie Hebdo and the theater where there was a shooting also. And so there's a huge radicalization problem in Europe. And what I've come back to see here is - -

INGRAHAM: Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, they'll say, look, the FBI talked about white supremacists in the United States, that that really is, according to the FBI director, that has the most force in domestic terrorism now. So they'll say, look, even the FBI director is saying that. So is it unfair to say that they have a problem with white men?

NOMANI: White extremism is a problem. It happens. Black extremism is a problem. Jewish extremism is a problem. Muslim extremism is also a problem. She is right now trying to deflect from any issues in our community. They've basically hijacked America. That's what I've come back here to the United States over these last couple of weeks and just been frightened to see. I see that the Democratic Party is not standing up to these politicians. And what they are doing is basically pushing forward the agenda of this radical Muslim lobby that wants to destroy Israel, that want to --

INGRAHAM: Why are the Democrats buying into this? Why are they afraid to take on people like Ilhan Omar?

NOMANI: So what I brought with me was some of the propaganda that the Muslim lobbies put forward, my Muslim vote. It's a beautiful idea about civil liberties. No ban, no law, liberty for fall. They are using all of the language of liberalism, right? In God we trust, and American values.

INGRAHAM: That's a Muslim --

NOMANI: This is all propaganda from the alphabet soup of organizations in the United States.

INGRAHAM: So they are using the language of liberty, freedom, and civil rights to try to turn the narrative, in you view?

NOMANI: Yes. The great Muslim Adventure Day, I just got an email from it today, where Muslims are going to have a great Muslim adventure day at Six Flags. And in little fine print, it says wear reasonable, modest attire.

INGRAHAM: Cover up women.

NOMANI: Yes, exactly. So that's what the Democratic Party is allowing. They've got to stop.

INGRAHAM: Asra, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

And that's not all from Congresswoman Omar. There was another comment she made near the end of that same interview that is even more disturbing.


REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: If fear was the driving force of policies to keep America safe, Americans safe inside of this country, we should be profiling, monitoring, and creating policies to fight the radicalization of white men.


INGRAHAM: OK, you've got that? A Muslim-American calling for more domestic surveillance. I wonder what the ACLU thinks about that. Lucky for us, president of the New York Civil Rights coalition and former ACLU National Vice President Michael Meyers is here with his reaction. Michael, you just heard Asra talking about the need for a Muslim reform movement that speaks truth to power, on what's really happening with the propaganda of the Islamists, but now she wants surveillance of certain white male groups.

MICHAEL MEYERS, FORMER NATIONAL DIRECTOR, ACLU: Yet. It is unbelievable. It's sheer racial rhetoric on her part. She doesn't even know American history. She doesn't even though Minnesota history. Some of their greatest white men in the civil rights and equality movement where white man. Hubert Humphrey, look it up, Congresswoman. And Walter Mondale, read the name and the law school there. Walter Mondale was a great liberal white. They believe in racial equality. They didn't believe in racial rhetoric, they didn't believe in racial separatism, they believed in equality. And yet they believe in immigration, but immigrants wanted to enrich America, not take advantage of it, not to scapegoat it. We are in a situation where we have Ms. Omar engaged in racial rhetoric and reversal of our American heritage, which has been truly equal opportunity for everyone without regard to their race. And she is now profiling, she is profiling white man.

INGRAHAM: She wants to profile. But again, that was Asra's point, and she had all this literature, Michael, on the table, it looks very shine, using all these great -- togetherness and unity. But you look at the fine print, wear your modest clothing. And then the edicts of the political Islam come into play. My question to you is when did liberals become so OK with a restriction approach to language, to dress, to free speech, whether it's speech codes on college campuses, I dealt with that back in the days of Dartmouth, or what we are seeing with some of the more violent in Antifa? They don't even want any questions within Antifa of Antifa methods and operations.

MEYERS: Some liberals, those liberals who think they are not racist but they are being racist, those liberals who had racial bleeding for minorities, like Muslims, and irrespective that there are Muslims who want to be a real Americans, who want to have equality. They do not want preferences based on race. They don't have preferences based on gender. This congresswoman is completely erratic. She's wrong. And people have got to say that you are wrong, and that you are distorting and inverting the language and the history of America's civil rights movement.

INGRAHAM: she said this. I want to play this really quick, and then we've got to take a break, but this is what she said last night, or yesterday, about President Trump. Watch.


REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: When we are talking about the president, people will say, his remarks are racist, and we'll forget the inherent racism that has always been part of him, and how much he always takes an opportunity to others, to vilify them.


MEYERS: Border control is not racism. Go to Australia. Go to any country that believes in protecting its borders. That's not racism. That's common sense.

INGRAHAM: They use racism and charges of racism as a cudgel and a weapon. They're going to continue to do that as long as people take it --

MEYERS: Laura, it's racial double-talk. It has to be rejected.

INGRAHAM: Michael, thank you so much for joining us tonight.

And this is an odd transition, but poop in the water at your favorite beaches, really? Is this really what it's come to on “The Ingraham Angle?” Dr. Drew is here to break it all down, a new study, tell us why this might be happening and what to do about it. Stay there.



INGRAHAM: Well, it's not really smoke on the water. It's poop in the water. A new report is finding that human and animal feces are contaminating some of America's most popular beaches. The nation's dirtiest? You'll find that outside in L.A., and as for California as a whole, nearly 80 percent of the state's beaches had at least one day with fecal matter above EPA safety levels. Here now is Dr. Drew Pinsky. Dr. Drew, some are pushing back against this study, but do these findings seem plausible to you?

DR. DREW PINSKY, ADDICTION MEDICINE SPECIALIST: Absolutely. It's no doubt that the ability to keep the water clean gets exceeded by our current technology, but what's going out here in southern California, I can tell you precisely what's happening here and you can extrapolate out to the rest of the country.

There is an organization called Heal the Bay that keeps very close tabs on our water safety along the southern beaches in southern California from Orange County to Ventura. And since the rains this last winter, they've been giving us C's to F's. And F means completely overrun with fecal bacteria, unsafe amounts of fecal bacteria. What comes with that, other things like syringes and Hepatitis A and other infectious diseases.

Now, I spoke to a representative at Heal the Bay. His explanation was all the runoffs from the fires. There were the fires that cost about two dozen homes to get disconnected from the sewage treatment plant. Laura, there are 60,000 people defecating directly into our gutters every day, urinating, defecating, bleeding. There sewage is going directly into the ocean. We've had a massive die off of mammals in the spring. And for goodness sakes, if a city the size of Pasadena suddenly became disconnected from our sewage treatment plant, where do you think the environmentalists would be on that? They would be screaming bloody murder. Where are they now? Where are they?

This is a catastrophe. And it is exposing all of us to potential, really serious infectious diseases.

INGRAHAM: And Dr. Drew, you don't even let your kids go in the water most of the time.

PINSKY: I saw the algae bloom in the southern beaches. I would not let my family go in. I was a lifeguard in those beaches back in the day. I know what's going on when the water gets bad. And it happens sometimes very occasionally with runoffs, that will always here and there. But this was a consistent contamination of our water, and why shouldn't it be, 60,000 maybe as many as 80,000 people are contributing directly into the L.A. River and the Santa Ana River basin. These things let out. Guess what, right where they let out, impossibly bad water.

INGRAHAM: There is also a problem with Mexico pumping raw sewage into the ocean with that long sewage pipe -- I did a report on this, I think it was 20 years ago. A terrible problem with raw sewage from Mexico, floats up to the San Diego beaches. And that's been a persistent problem for a long, long time. And I guess we just not doing anything about that either.

Dr. Drew, you and I, you mentioned the homeless crisis in California, you focused on it and as have we. And this YouTube star named Fleccas Talks, he hit skid row just to show how horrifying this situation has become.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: In L.A. County, there is over 53,000 homeless people out on the streets. There are over 1,000 registered sex offenders. And when it comes to the problem these people face, a third or so are mentally ill, another third have substance abuse problems or are addicted to something, and the other third are kind of off just living off the grid and kind of grifting.


Dr. Drew, the pictures. This is America. We have sanctuary policies in California that cost the state a lot. Your thoughts really quick?

PINSKY: It speaks for itself. The sanctuary city, people are beginning to wake up to the fact that we are providing unlimited health care and jobs -- and by the way, these 800,000 undocumented immigrants we welcome into our sanctuary cities all found a place to live. So the city focuses on the idea that what you are seeing in this video is a housing problem. No, this is a mental health problem. This is a law problem. The cops cannot enforce the laws. We cannot bring these people to the health care they need, and they're drying in the street at inhuman numbers.

And the question is, how many must die? That's what we asked the ACLU and the other attorneys that keep suing the city to prevent them from doing anything. Now, what you are seeing here, what you are seeing there is considered those people's quote, "belongings," and law enforcement cannot touch them. They cannot touch anything. It is proliferating to the point that literally traffic is getting blocked by debris and feces and garbage. Again, as I've told you before, rats have overtaken the city. It's not consistent with civilization. How many people must die before we change direction is the question I keep asking everybody that's involved in this.

INGRAHAM: Dr. Drew, as always, thank you for raising awareness about this. California, it's not political. You just have to wake up. This is just absurd.

And up next, three reasons why we know the Democrats are in a panic, frothy panic post Mueller. Frank Luntz breaks it all down.


INGRAHAM: We all know the Mueller hearings were a huge flop for the Dems and a spectacular win for the Republicans. And now the left is in a full- blown frothy panic. Here now to break down the language that gives it all away is pollster Frank Luntz. OK, Frank, I want to start with Pelosi and a few of her media friends who use a certain loaded term post Mueller. Watch.


REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., HOUSE SPEAKER: What we saw today was a very strong manifestation, in fact, some would even say indictment, of this administration's cone of silence in their cover-up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He could have done a sealed indictment, theoretically.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This president remains vulnerable to criminal indictment once he leaves office.


INGRAHAM: Indictment. So they can't actually indict Trump and they don't want to impeach him, but they will use the word "indictment" anyway.

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER: The whole process is a mistake. The American people -- and it's amazing. There were 40, 50 cameras outside those hearings. What about health care? What about immigration? What about trade? The issues that really matter to the public.

INGRAHAM: No one watched the hearings. They were really low ratings.

LUNTZ: Not only are they using the wrong language, it's simply the wrong topic. If I'm a Democratic advisor, I'm going insane. Focus on quality of life, things that Americans care about.

INGRAHAM: I want to get to our second example of Dems in danger. Instead of taking out funding to address the growing crisis at the border that you referenced today, the House Oversight Committee approved subpoenas for Trump family members. This enraged Republican Congressman Chip Roy who said this before storming out of the hearing.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is a fishing expedition for political purposes which we saw on high display yesterday in the room next door. This is the face of the Democratic Party. This is the face of your Congress today, America.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shame on my colleague from Texas who questioned the motivations --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shame on his body.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I know, we've heard from you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: America deserves better from what I just heard from Mr. --


INGRAHAM: They called Trump a racist last week basically on the House floor, but they don't like saying it's a shame?

LUNTZ: It's out of control now.

INGRAHAM: That was great from Roy. I think that's very effective.

LUNTZ: But I would have changed it. Instead of making a statement, I would have asked a question. Is this the face of the Democratic Party? Because you are much more effective if you ask the question and your viewer responds to it, because then they are answering it in their minds, answering visually and verbally. Just change it from a statement to a question.

INGRAHAM: Finally, "Morning Joe," Joe Scarborough, ramped up the rhetoric with this gem on what the Democrats need to do.


JOE SCARBOROUGH, MSNBC HOST: If you want to stop Donald Trump, it is time to stop fighting by Marquess of Queensberry rules. It's time to roll up your sleeves and go after him and do whatever it takes to win.


INGRAHAM: What a tough guy. Of course, that's what Maxine Waters said, get in their face, gas stations, restaurants. But Scarborough is a tough guy. Get in their faces. We are so scared, Joe.

LUNTZ: But now I have to roll down my sleeves because it going to look like I was taking directions from Joe Scarborough. No, the public does not want this. The people who are going to make up this next election, don't want the yelling, they don't want the screaming. They want you to do the job for the American people.

INGRAHAM: Results.

LUNTZ: Results and success. They want it to be meaningful, they want it to be measurable, and three more words -- efficient, effective, and accountable. I don't hear any of that language from the Democrats.

INGRAHAM: The kind of huffing and puffing and all that. You've got to say, is your life better than what it was two and a half years, and by November, 2020, four years ago? Are you doing better, is your family doing better? That's going to be a pretty simple question to ask and perhaps even answer. Frank, always great to see you.

LUNTZ: And the numbers, it's 60-40 right now that we are better off today than we were two and a half years ago.

INGRAHAM: This is going to be good. Frank will be with us through this election season. Frank, thank you so much. We'll be right back.


INGRAHAM: Time for the Last Bite. MSNBC's Nicole Wallace thinks she has the solution to what ails the Democrats. The key, why, it's Puerto Rico.


NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC: Message to Democrats, -- this is how you do it. A corrupt leader with misogynistic and intolerant leanings resigned late last night, driven from office by an investigation in the legislature and protests from the people he represented.


INGRAHAM: Oh, I love that dramatic music. That made it all the more credible. That's all the time we have tonight. Don't forget my new podcast just dropped. Joe D (ph) was on. It was hilarious. Shannon Bream, the "Fox News @ Night" team take it all 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.