Dershowitz: Accusers said I didn't do it until David Boies changed their minds

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," July 18, 2019. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: We're busy here in Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham, and this is “The Ingraham Angle” from D.C. tonight. A history lesson how AOC-plus-three's anti-Americanism is linked to the radicals behind Barack Obama. My “Angle” will explain.

Plus, something you will only see here. “The Ingraham Angle” has exclusive details about the MS-13 members arrested for brutal killings. And new information about Congresswoman Omar's possible sham marriage. Also tonight, Frank Luntz on how the words of "The Squad" will turn off voters. Alan Dershowitz also on his latest legal battle and Ocasio-Cortez's new challenger stops by to tell us her plan to win in 2020.

But first, the roots of their rage. That's the focus tonight's “Angle.” Now, all week we've been reporting on the radical agenda and tactics of the Democrats' newest darlings, AOC plus three. Now, unlike others, we take them seriously because the freshman, let's face it, have proven themselves to be bold and powerful voices within the Democratic Party.

The 2020 candidates and Hill leadership seem absolutely petrified of them. Well, tonight, we turn to the roots of this new radical vanguard. The Drab Four's anti-American race baiting contains the DNA of the leftist radicals of yesteryear. Now, how so?

Well, AOC-plus-three is the natural outgrowth of those who believe that America is a fundamentally evil place founded by evil white men. Now in the past, some of this anti-American rabble-rousing was largely delegated, relegated to universities. Maybe Black Panther, other radical type of meetings or dying liberal churches. Certainly not the Democrat Party. But the times, they are changing.


REP. ILHAN OMAR, D-MINN.: And because I am ashamed of it continuing to live in its hypocrisy that I work so hard to make sure that others who've had that, like, just be American, why don't you be more like an American, because it used to be a very positive thing.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, D-N.Y.: The United States is running concentration camps on our southern border.

REP. AYANNA PRESSLEY, D-MASS.: But we have yet to enjoy the full measure of freedom as black Americans.


INGRAHAM: So America, the beautiful? No, it's more like America, the oppressor. Now, where have we heard that before?


BARACK OBAMA, FORMER PRESIDENT: He's a friend and a great leader - give an extraordinary welcome to my pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright Jr. (Inaudible). Where's he at?




REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT JR., PASTOR EMERITUS, TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, CHICAGO: No, no, no. Not God bless America, God damn America - that's in the Bible - for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human.


INGRAHAM: Remember him? Reverend Jeremiah Wright? Well, he was instrumental in Barack Obama's "awokening." And it was Reverend Wright who inspired Barack Obama's rhetorical style. And the radical aims that many who've written about Barack Obama believe simmer beneath that cool cat exterior. And a further thing to resist, don't forget Obama launched his political career out of this man's living room.


BILL AYERS, AUTHOR, DEMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE!: A RADICAL MANIFESTO: At a moment when 6,000 people a week were being murdered by our government, we committed extreme acts of vandalism, we destroyed property, and that's not terrorism. We were issuing a creamy - a very noisy scream against genocide. And the terrorists in that time were the people dropping bombs on Vietnam--


INGRAHAM: Well, remember, Bill Ayers (inaudible) of Weather Underground terrorists went on a bombing spree in the 1970s. They were only stopped when a nail bomb exploded in their own faces.

Now, with a lot of air cover from the media, Obama ducked and dodged having to answer any real tough questions about his associations with Ayers and Wright. But Obama's entire worldview has its roots in these two radicals even if the political realities of the day kept him from fully articulating and pursuing them. But that was then, and this is now.

Today this radicalism has taken on a new urgency, mostly in reaction to the success and enduring power of this Donald Trump, President guy. Well, the mainstream Democrat Party, they've done everything I think to try to stop Trump. Think about it. They were certain that the deep state or Stormy Daniels or Bob Mueller would stop him, but it didn't work.

And now they hope this endless absurd charge of racism will hobble Trump. But I don't think that's going to work either because Trump just keeps moving forward. And he draws them out. And for a lot of Americans, he delivers results for the voters across the board; African-Americans, Latino Americans, female entrepreneurs. The list goes on and on.

And so the Democrats see all of this and they're freaking out. Now, enter Antifa, the unofficial military wing of this radical new worldview.


INGRAHAM: Well, it's not surprising that these domestic terrorists are inspired to blow up ICE when their politicians, including AOC and company, who all but say that the agency itself is Hitlerian.


OCASIO-CORTEZ: The fact that concentration camps are now an institutionalized practice in the home of the free is extraordinarily disturbing. And we need to do something about it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: "I am Antifa." That note left behind as part of a manifesto by Willem Van Spronsen before he stormed an ICE detention center in Washington State, armed with explosives and a rifle.


INGRAHAM: Now, again, recall Reverend Wright's iconic line.


WRIGHT: Now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.


INGRAHAM: Well, a couple of years later, a professor at the University of Colorado Boulder wrote a piece entitled "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," arguing that 9/11 attacks were entirely justified due to U.S. foreign policy. Remember that was that sweetheart professor Ward Churchill.


WARD CHURCHILL, AMERICAN AUTHOR: I'm not a judge. I don't make the assessment as to what it is they deserve. I'm simply pointing to the reality of it. If you want to avoid September 11th, if you want security in some actual form, then it's almost a biblical framing. "You have to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."


INGRAHAM: Well, 14 years later, we now have Congresswoman Ilhan Omar casually dismissing 9/11 and the 3,000 Americans who lost their lives.


OMAR: CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.


INGRAHAM: In the 1970s, radicals rallied around opposition to the Vietnam War. But today, it's immigration. Both in the radical worldview, well, demonstrate the inherent evil of the American government. But the radicals of 50 years ago didn't become members of Congress, but now they are.

And they are prepared to blow up the entire Democrat Party to advance their cause, a complete dismantlement of our current economy to establish one where they reward their friends and punish their enemies. The toil and struggle of radicals over decades in the media and in academia are finally bearing fruit. They're now the new face of the Democrat Party. And that's THE ANGLE.

As I noted last night, the left lost it completely after Trump supporters at a North Carolina rally chanted "Send her back" in reference to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.


TRUMP: Omar has a history of launching vicious anti-semitic screams.

CHORUS: Send her back. Send her back. Send her back.


INGRAHAM: Well, today, the President was asked about those chants and the backlash.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why didn't you ask them to stop saying that?

TRUMP: Well, number one, I - I think I did. I started speaking very quickly. It really was a - I disagree with it, by the way. But it was quite a chant. And I felt a little bit badly about it.


INGRAHAM: But that still wasn't enough. It never is. Liberals are still condemning President Trump for something he himself at that rally did not say.


JOE BIDEN, D-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: When has that ever happened other than the last time you remember anything about George Wallace? No, I'm serious.

This is about dividing and raising the issue of racism across the country because that's his base.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I thought of it as something that we'll remember in the history books like a Bull Connor kind of moment.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is all part and parcel of the President's 2020 re- election strategy. No more dog whistles, just naked racism.


INGRAHAM: Here to debate, Pastor Darrell Scott, Trump 2020 Advisory Board member, and Democratic strategist, Monique Pressley.

All right, Pastor Scott, let's start with you. Your thought on all of this. The President seemed to distance himself from that chant, but his critics said, look, over the weekend, he basically said that himself, so why bother distancing himself from it?

DARRELL SCOTT, PASTOR & TRUMP 2020 ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER: Well, first of all, as you stated, the President didn't originate the chant. The chant came up - took him by surprise. He processed it and he deflected from it. He didn't want to distance himself from his base, however, in distancing himself from this chant. But here we are, the left, this fake sensitivity that they have, this President has been attacked, vilified, criticized, condemned by every faction of the left. He's been insulted, berated, everything you can do. And he takes it, but they want to have this fake sensitivity.

These young ladies, this - to me, they remind me of the movie "Mean Girls." They're a clique. They act like Nancy Pelosi is a mean old president - I mean, a mean old principal. And they're a clique and they want to intimidate and bully anybody, and if anybody opposes them, they want to cry racism. And so the chant came up. The president distanced himself from it, but he's not going to distance himself from his base trying to appease them.

INGRAHAM: Monique.

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Right. So we have one President of the United States, and I acknowledge that that is Donald J. Trump. Whatever standard we use, whether it's for freshman members of Congress - they're not girls, they're grown women who are elected officials.

INGRAHAM: Nancy Pelosi called them girls yesterday.

M. PRESSLEY: Right. And - I don't care what Nancy Pelosi said about them or what Pastor Scott says about them. What I'm saying is that they are women who are elected officials and they deserve to be spoken of with respect. And I speak about President Trump in the same way. And this is not that. I hear Pastor Scott laughing. Maybe it's because we share knowledge of the same good book. Right? I'm an ordained minister. He's a pastor. We understand that--


INGRAHAM: --biblical-

M. PRESSLEY: --this eye-for-an-eye thing that in this administration we seem to have going, but that's not really the way that it's supposed to be done.


M. PRESSLEY: A leader leads and then people follow. And what we saw last night was people following the leader. We had tweets over the weekend, and they fell right behind those tweets and said "send her back." And even though what he said was that he tried to stop it - we see the video, we know he didn't. What he said is that he started speaking faster. No, he waited 13 seconds until the chanting stopped. And then he kept on--

SCOTT: 13 seconds, but who's counting?

M. PRESSLEY: --with his planned remarks. No, I'm counting, and the people obviously in the crowd were counting because they kept on chanting. And those things just shouldn't happen. I'm not even here to debate whether the President is a racist or not. I think the record is clear.


M. PRESSLEY: What has to happen now is--

INGRAHAM: So you're saying he's a racist, yes.

M. PRESSLEY: --we have to figure out - no. I'm saying that it's quite obvious--

INGRAHAM: You said the record is - OK. So--

M. PRESSLEY: --that he is a racist.

INGRAHAM: So I think then you end the conversation.

SCOTT: Listen, like I said--

INGRAHAM: Yes. So that's--


SCOTT: Listen, listen. Like I said--

INGRAHAM: Go ahead.

SCOTT: Like is aid, this fake sensitivity and this fake outrage, you all need to put that in the CAIR and don't try to bring up the Bible. In Matthew, Chapter 23, Jesus called his critics snakes, vipers, (inaudible) because he told them they were all going to hell. So let's not act like you're not supposed to answer your critics. He answered those critics. They criticized him.

Listen, the President is who he is, and he responded the way he responded. And you guys initiate - he's a counterpuncher. They initiated. Those young ladies - I called them girls. They're all young enough to be my daughter. But those young ladies have insulted him even while they were on the campaign trail. They came into office calling him MFers. And so let's not try to act like these are some innocent little--

INGRAHAM: Shrinking violets, yes.

SCOTT: --dainty little flowers that need to be treated with such respect. They're out here in politics, and they are going hard, and when they get slapped back, they have a problem with it.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Cory Booker--

M. PRESSLEY: They don't seem to have a problem.

INGRAHAM: No, I think--

M. PRESSLEY: The President is calling them out.

INGRAHAM: All right.

M. PRESSLEY: He's got the biggest bully pulpit in the world and he uses it- -


M. PRESSLEY: --to prompt--


SCOTT: And they are using theirs as well.

M. PRESSLEY: --freshman members of Congress.

INGRAHAM: OK. But why--




SCOTT: They are using theirs as well.

M. PRESSLEY: --because they are--

INGRAHAM: So what? They don't care about being prejudice.

SCOTT: They all have a bully pulpit.

INGRAHAM: They're running the party.

M. PRESSLEY: They don't have - but he is supposed to be running the entire free world.

INGRAHAM: So - but I got to say--

M. PRESSLEY: And he's got all the time in the world for this--

INGRAHAM: All right. All right. Hold on. Hold on.

M. PRESSLEY: --it makes no sense.

SCOTT: Then respect that.

M. PRESSLEY: It makes no sense whatsoever.

SCOTT: If he's supposed to run the entire free world, tell those girls to respect that.


INGRAHAM: All right.

SCOTT: They need to respect that.

M. PRESSLEY: He's supposed to be.


M. PRESSLEY: He obviously is--


INGRAHAM: I have--

SCOTT: If they don't respect him for the person he is, they need to respect him for the office he holds. Respect the office there.

M. PRESSLEY: They respect the office. And can you please--

INGRAHAM: They don't even call him President.

M. PRESSLEY: --next time--

SCOTT: Respect the office.

M. PRESSLEY: Well, listen, I'm calling him President. Next time you talk to him, Pastor Scott, tell him to respect the office.

SCOTT: But you need to tell them--

M. PRESSLEY: That would be much better work.

SCOTT: You need to tell them to call him President too.

INGRAHAM: OK. All right.

SCOTT: Why don't you tell them to call him President?

M. PRESSLEY: I don't have anything to say to them.

INGRAHAM: OK. I do have this - I do have an issue like I actually take them seriously. I don't dismiss them as they're people who are going to come and go. I think they represent a worldview. I take them at their word with what they say and what they want to do and I'm treating them as serious political figures because I think they think this Democrat Party has gone off the rails, I think they believe that Obama in some way didn't fulfill the dream, and Omar has said that in interviews. She thought hope and change was a mirage. She told Politico magazine that.

So I think they want the Democrat Party to become something much more activist and much more tilted toward the left. That's kind of obvious. So if they want to be taken seriously, OK, but I don't think if you hit them, they can shrink back to say we're just - you can't criticize us because we're freshmen or we're women of color. You're in the arena. And when I take you seriously--

SCOTT: Right.

INGRAHAM: --then be able to defend your views. And I think people should try to be respectful when they do it. So I agree with you, Monique, on that. But I want to play something that--

SCOTT: Let me say this though, Laura. Let me - real quick. If those young ladies have their way, they would overthrow our entire system of American government and replace it with a socialistic agenda.

INGRAHAM: Yes, I think they - yes, I think - I think they would agree that the fundamentals of our system need to completely be upended. I mean--


INGRAHAM: --their worldview dictates that. So I would agree with you. Cory Booker spoke out. I believe this was today. Important to watch.


SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I felt like I was watching when my parents watched in black-and-white, I mean, literally the same language of Governor Wallace, people who believe that they could use race and bigotry as a sword to try to not only cut down their political enemies but also as a sword to advance their political agendas.


INGRAHAM: Monique--

SCOTT: I grew up in this--

INGRAHAM: Yes. Let me - I'll go to Monique first.

SCOTT: I grew up in the '60s.

INGRAHAM: Hold on. Hold on one second.

SCOTT: All right.

INGRAHAM: Doesn't - Monique, doesn't - AOC and the other three young women, don't they do that too? Don't they use charges of racism as a bludgeon against people with whom they disagree? Even almost Nancy Pelosi the other day.

M. PRESSLEY: So it's interesting that you would say that because we started the program tonight and I thought we were in some sort of time warp, because we are looking at pictures of and video of Reverend Wright from 18- -

INGRAHAM: They don't come out of nothing, Monique.

M. PRESSLEY: --18 years ago.

INGRAHAM: No, no. They didn't emerge out of nothing.

M. PRESSLEY: OK. It's not they then. Why don't we call it us? And you and I have a way where we can sometimes agree and sometimes we disagree--

INGRAHAM: All right.

M. PRESSLEY: --but we can meet and have those conversations. I agree with some of the positions of those four members of Congress. I don't agree with others. I don't feel like I'm obligated to agree with everything to think that people who are elected officials deserve respect.

INGRAHAM: OK. So you don't think they use racism as a bludgeon?

M. PRESSLEY: It's - you don't use racism when there is racism.


M. PRESSLEY: If you are talking about the existence of racism--


M. PRESSLEY: --then that means--

INGRAHAM: All right. Pastor.

M. PRESSLEY: --that there's something to discuss.

INGRAHAM: All right. We got to go. We have like five seconds. Go ahead.

SCOTT: It's funny. It's funny they would use George Wallace and Bull Connor because they were a face of the Democratic Party in the '60s when I was growing up. They were the face of racism. Joe Biden probably hung out - George Wallace was probably Joe Biden's mentor or something--


SCOTT: --because George Wallace and Bull Connor were the face of the Democratic Party in the '60s during the civil rights struggle.

INGRAHAM: All right.

SCOTT: So why would they even use those guys as a reference?

INGRAHAM: Yes, well--

SCOTT: Those are their heroes. That's their foundation. Those are their roots.

INGRAHAM: All right, panel, we got to go. We're way over. Thank you so much, both of you, for joining us tonight.

And who are AOC-plus-three really protecting by calling for the abolishment of ICE? We have exclusive details on “The Ingraham Angle” only here tonight about those 22 MS-13 gang members we told you about last night. Don't move.



NICOLA HANNA, U.S. ATTORNEY: Many of them came into the country within the last four years. 19 of the defendants, of the 22 defendants, are in the country illegally. Many of the victims are recent immigrants into the country.


INGRAHAM: Now, last night, we told you about the arrest of these MS-13 gang members and affiliates for the brutal killings of at least seven people in California. Well, tonight, we've got our hands on new details you're only going to see here in “The Ingraham Angle.”

Three of the 22 arrested had existing deportation orders. Meaning, they should not have been in the U.S. at all. Five of the alleged murderers sought asylum within the past few years. A process the left wants to make easier for those crossing our border.

Here now for an “Ingraham Angle” Exclusive is Acting U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director, Ken Cuccinelli. Ken, great to have you tonight. To me, this is about as clear cut as we can get. For an example, a concrete example of what happens if the left gets its way, which it's gotten its way sadly on asylum reform, stopping it, and making it more difficult to deport bad actors out of the United States.

KEN CUCCINELLI, ACTING DIRECTOR, USCIS: Well, of course, just this week, we and the Department of Justice and DHS jointly issued a new asylum reg, and if it holds up, it will make a big difference.

But to your point, Laura, Congress holds the main keys here, and not much of this is very complicated. This doesn't have to be a big deal. I mean, we could put - pass two loophole closures that even President Obama supported, and I can fit them all on one page. And it can be bipartisan and everything else. But we're not seeing that out of the House in particular. Senator Graham over in the Senate is working on some of this, but no one in the House. They're waiting to go on vacation.

And you are right about this group of really vicious MS-13 murderers. And I'll tell you, Laura, when I was a State Attorney General in Virginia, MS- 13 was the worst, most violent scourge--

INGRAHAM: Oh, yes.

CUCCINELLI: --in Virginia. And a lot of states would say the same thing. California, I assume, may well be one of them. Ironically enough, these arrests centered in LA where we are also dealing with the--

INGRAHAM: Sanctuary policies. Yes.

CUCCINELLI: --sanctuary city--


CUCCINELLI: --that wouldn't have turned over--


CUCCINELLI: --these three with deportation orders.

INGRAHAM: So, Ken, I'm thinking about these domestic terrorists, because that's what Antifa is, that surround these ICE facilities and racy Mexican flag, try to firebomb it as that domestic terrorist did who was killed. And I think--


INGRAHAM: --do they realize that the people being harbored, many of them have criminal convictions separate from their crossing the border, they've been ordered deported, and these individuals would have been gone from the country. They - most of them, it looks like, came in during the Obama years--


INGRAHAM: --correct? During that summer of 2014, 2015, during that mad push when we were told then, Ken, that these were families seeking a better life. Well, some of them are, but not all of them are. And--


INGRAHAM: --one American dead, but here seven American dead. And it's a big yon from the Democrats. You don't see AOC-plus-three talking about this case tonight.

CUCCINELLI: No. And it is very hard to reconcile. The same cities that scream at ICE for enforcing the law, doing their job, are the same ones who harbor these folks, many of whom are just evil and vicious people. And yet they continue the same behavior.

And I don't know why anybody expects MS-13 members to change. Certainly ICE doesn't expect them to change and prioritizes removing them and gets no help from places like Los Angeles. And--

INGRAHAM: Hey, Ken, real quick, real quick.

CUCCINELLI: --we see the results here.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Real quick. Why are we announcing that we're doing raids? I've asked this on this show probably five nights in a row. I do not understand why the administration broadcasts "we're about to do raids." And then we know the cities, we get the interactive maps. And then all these - these corrupt NGOs giving their how-to-avoid-ICE--


INGRAHAM: --deportation nonsense. Like, why is that happening? Who is leaking that from down below? Someone is leaking that.

CUCCINELLI: Well, forget just NGOs. I mean, the Speaker of the House is out there doing that.

INGRAHAM: Yes, obviously.

CUCCINELLI: The Chief of Police in Los Angeles is out there doing that. And all the while, ICE - professionals at ICE are trying to do their job and facing increasing and more specific threats. It isn't just the incident in Washington, in Aurora. They have to contend with this all around the country. And they're doing a great job even with the resistance they're getting from those on the left, frankly.

INGRAHAM: Yes. All right. All right.

CUCCINELLI: And it goes on and on. But ICE is going to keep going on and on too. You can count on it.

INGRAHAM: Yes. Well, stop announcing raids. Just do it as a matter of course because that is what the law requires.

Ken, thank you so much for being with us tonight.

CUCCINELLI: That's right.

INGRAHAM: We appreciate it.

And those who call for smarter immigration laws, they're often labeled evil or racist, so you don't have any compassion. It's all that usual stuff. Well, that sort of language is used to shut down political debate, demonize. But is the American public buying any of this?

Here to tell us now is pollster Frank Luntz. Frank, the AOC-plus-three crowd, as I like to call them, they're really the ones playing this game most obscenely I fear - I think. And I want to start with one of their classic phrases. Let's listen.


OMAR: The President is committing human rights abuses at the border, keeping children in cages.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: He can't look all Americans in the face and justify why this country is throwing them in cages.

A. PRESSLEY: If we improve the conditions of children in a cage, they are still in a cage.


INGRAHAM: OK. So it's kids in cages. Does that language work with voters?

FRANK LUNTZ, POLLSTER: Actually, Laura, it does because it's visual language. It's impactful. It's memorable. And what they do is they give that presentation, they show a photograph of one of those interment centers, and you've got it right there. So when you put that up and you tie that to the language, you just did it. It actually adds credibility to that statement. Does the public appreciate this angry, visual, hostile communication? No. But is it impactful? Does it change people's minds? Yes, it does.

INGRAHAM: Well, what's your evidence for that? Because - I mean, I go across the country, talk to - people come up to me and they're like "look, we don't want any problems at the border, but these people came across the border without authorization. Most of them have one piece of paper on them with a plastic around it and they know where they're going. Their cartels told them how to do it or other people along the way told them how to do it. And so Americans say "this is terrible, we don't want anyone to suffer, but we are overloaded."

LUNTZ: I get it.

INGRAHAM: So I don't think Americans who are struggling every day - so I disagree with you on this. I'd like to see your data that that worked. People struggling every day say, "You know something? I'm exhausted at the end of the day. I'm working my tail off--

LUNTZ: I get it. Laura--

INGRAHAM: --and I know I'm going to have to spend the money on a million people this year coming across the border illegally." I think people are enraged by this. I don't think they're - I don't think they're leaning toward the AOC-plus-three worldview at all.

LUNTZ: Yes, but you know what? That's the reason why some people voted for House Democrats in 2018 after immigration was the issue for two months. They talked about what was happening at the border, and Republicans lost 40 seats in the House. There is a better way for the GOP to be communicating.

Number one, you secure the border. You have genuine, genuine border security. Number two, you have to do something with those who have been here already. Number three is that they want these people to help the economy. There's a reason why the GOP did so bad in 2018, and they need to learn those lessons in 2020.

INGRAHAM: So you're saying, Frank Luntz--

LUNTZ: You asked me a question - Laura, you--

INGRAHAM: Frank, you are saying--

LUNTZ: I'm on the same side. Hold on.

INGRAHAM: Right. But - no--

LUNTZ: You and I are on the - I can't let you do this to me because--


LUNTZ: --you're going to generate 10,000 screaming e-mails saying that --

INGRAHAM: Oh, you're afraid of the e-mails now, OK.

LUNTZ: Yes, I am afraid of the e-mails and the texts and the yelling and the screaming.

INGRAHAM: Oh, please.

LUNTZ: Laura, we agree on policy. You asked me a question on language. And it's one of the reasons why the public just wants immigration solved. They don't want this left and the right. We've been doing a lot of pulling on it in the last couple months. They want it to be beneficial to the economy. They want people who are here for the right reasons, and they want that border secure. But they believe Democrats and Republicans can't come to an agreement.

INGRAHAM: And 51 percent the latest poll, the Hill hated to report this, but yesterday or the day before, 51 percent of Americans support the president's widespread raids to remove people from the country who are here illegally. I think the way this story is reported, and I agree that Republicans are terrible at telling stories generally. I think most people are just trying to take care of their families. And they have compassion. They support organizations that help people. But they are like, don't blame you for the stuff that Obama started with the kids in the cages. Don't blame me for that. Blame Congress for not doing its job. That's where I think the Republicans have to tell their story better.

LUNTZ: They have to tell their story better. They've got to be more articulate. They do have to be emotional. But I want to go back to the one visual, because you actually showed people in cages. That's what the public does not want to see. Can't we secure the border, can't we do the right thing, the legal thing --

INGRAHAM: Not without money. Not without money. The president can't secure the border with the snap of a hand, can't do that.

So Frank, we're out of time. We had a whole slate of things to talk about.

LUNTZ: Sorry about that.

INGRAHAM: But we got stuck on this. But that's all right. That's why we love Frank.

And breaking new details in the curious case of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and the alleged marriage to her own brother. Can that be true? Why is the media ignoring this story? The man who kicked off the entire investigation blows the whistle, next.



TRUMP: Well, there's a lot of talk about the fact that she was married to her brother. I know nothing about it. I hear she was married to her brother. You're asking me a question about it. I don't know, but I'm sure that somebody would be looking at it.


INGRAHAM: President Trump referencing reports that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar may have married her brother back in 2009. Omar denies this, but a new report claims to have enough evidence for authorities to investigate the first Somali-American in Congress. Trace Gallagher is in our West Coast Newsroom live with the details. Trace?

TRACE GALLAGHER, CORRESPONDENT: Laura, investigative reporter David Steinberg with PJ Media has been following this story for almost a year. Now Steinberg claims that through social media and numerous interviews with the Minnesota Somali community, he has the evidence to prove that Ilhan Omar entered into a sham marriage with her brother and participated in, quote here, "fraudulent activities and willful misrepresentations related to her marital arrangements."

According to his reporting, Omar came into the U.S. in 1995 as a fraudulent member of the Omar family, using their last name to apply for asylum. Steinberg says her real name is Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, and in 2009, she married Ahmed Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, her biological brother, who applied for asylum under his real name. Steinberg also says he has the evidence to identify Omar's biological sisters and father. He goes on to say Omar should be investigated for perjury, immigration fraud, tax fraud, student loan fraud, and bigamy.

Scott Johnson worked with David Steinberg on the piece and earlier spoke with Tucker Carlson. Watch.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The sham marriage part I would put at a 98 percent level of certainty. That's my view. The marriage to her brother part I would put at about a 90 percent level of certainty.


GALLAGHER: We should note Fox News has also looked into these allegations but we have not found concrete evidence to confirm them, though Ilhan Omar is stonewalled nearly all questions and inquiries, therefore getting to the truth has proven elusive for a number of news outlets. Her spokesperson told the "Minneapolis Star Tribune" that she is often the target of conspiracy theories and false accusations, and that media outlets shouldn't, quote, "fan the flames of hate," though it appears the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board is also fanning the flames of hate because it has ruled that Omar violated campaign finance rules and ordered that she reimburse her former campaign committee. The board says Omar and her current husband filed joint tax returns. The problem is that at the time she was married to another man, namely Ahmed Elmi. Laura?

INGRAHAM: Wow. Again, as Trace just laid out, Fox has not independently verified this extensive information laid out by this independent journalist. But it does raise the question, why aren't any mainstream media outlets looking into this? Omar's local paper, the "Star Tribune" last penned a piece nearly a month ago. We reached out to them and they refused to give us a clear answer as to their future coverage.

But what about "The Washington Post," "The New York Times," A.P.? You'd think that issues over nationalization and immigration status of a member of Congress who has become so prominent, so powerful so fast, would be of interest to the media. Just any glimmer of curiosity?

Here now, the men who actually launched this investigation in the first instance, Minnesota State Rep Steve Drazkowski. Steve, what is behind the larger media blackout on this?

STEVE DRAZKOWSKI, R-MINN, STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Laura, thank you. Actually, David Steinberg and others have been working on this for about three years now, and they have really spoon-fed this to the media. But when you've got media like the "Minneapolis Star Tribune" in Minneapolis here that has a giant fawning portrait of Ilhan Omar hanging on their lobby wall, I'm going to say that again.


DRAZKOWSKI: I mean that literally. They have a portrait, a large portrait of Ilhan Omar hanging on their lobby wall in the "Star Tribune" office.

INGRAHAM: We've got to get a copy of that. We've got to get a picture of that. That's hilarious.

DRAZKOWSKI: I can send it to you.


DRAZKOWSKI: And so that is what we are dealing with here in Minnesota. And over again, the media has been stonewalling this for the last year, and so we are really frustrated, and really appreciate you reaching out uncovering some of this.

INGRAHAM: So what Steinberg says is that basically a 1995, Ilhan entered the United States as a fraudulent member of the, quote, Omar family, but that's not her family. The Omar family is a second unrelated family which was being granted asylum by the United States. The Omars allowed Ilhan, her genetic sister Sahra, and her genetic father Nur Said to use false names to apply for asylum as members of the Omar family. Ilhan's genetic family split up at this time. Ilhan's three other siblings, using their real names, managed to get asylum in the U.K. That's just really bizarre.

But I think people have to realize that entire villages from Somalia were basically brought into the United States as part of this new refugee plan to bring in -- now there are about 90,000, correct, 80,000, 90,000 members of the Somali community in the St. Paul, Minneapolis area. But that's quite a story of I guess you're trying to freeload, allegedly freeload on someone else's asylum claim and just piling onto that family tree to get into the country. If that's the case, do you lose your naturalization if it's discovered that you came in under false pretenses?

DRAZKOWSKI: Yes, I don't know the answer to that, and that's why we really need an investigation here, and we've been clamoring for one. The interesting part is the family situation, Laura. It's been described as a complicated thing, but really it's simple. Ilhan Omar and her -- has stayed together with the same guy since they were teenagers. And they had two kids, and they eventually had a third, but they had two kids, and then decided to go to NDSU to college. Her brother from England came over and lived with the whole family during the time they were in college, and then her brother left and went back to the U.K. And so the sham marriage stayed intact until 2017 when it become an inconvenience politically and she had to disband it at that point.

INGRAHAM: Wow is all I can say. How do the people of Minnesota think about it? I was just in Minnesota for about eight days, and people just roll their eyes when you mention her name. It wasn't a scientific study, but I just asked a bunch of people. But what of people in her district. Is she still really popular?

DRAZKOWSKI: I don't spend a lot of time in her district, but I expect it's about 80 percent Democrat district, and so I suspect that she is. I can tell you, in Minnesota outside of that district, it's probably about 80 percent or 90 percent that would like her to have a full investigation.

INGRAHAM: All right, Steve, thanks so much.

And up next, Alan Dershowitz is involved in another legal standoff. He's here to explain in moments.


INGRAHAM: A New York judge ruled today that financier Jeffrey Epstein will remain behind bars while awaiting trial for sex trafficking charges. His attorneys pushed for him to stay in his $77 million New York mansion. Well, his recent arrest ramping up the war of words between one of his former attorneys, Alan Dershowitz, and an attorney for one of Epstein's accusers, David Boies.

Now, as we've been reporting, Boies is suing Dershowitz for defamation. He told "The Wall Street Journal," quote, "He wants to make this between him and me for some unknown and unknowable reason. I've decided to go after him. That's absurd. It's disproved."

Here now to respond exclusively is Alan Dershowitz, former Epstein attorney and Harvard law professor emeritus. Alan, you've been vigorous in your defense in this case. What does David Boies think he has on you?

ALAN DERSHOWITZ, HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR EMERITUS: He has nothing, because I have them on tape admitting that his client was wrong, simply wrong, and that she couldn't have been in the places where she claimed to have sex with me. Each of the two accusers had said I didn't do it, and then they met David Boies, and he changed their mind. So they committed perjury after meeting David Boies. There is no coincidence about that.

Boies has about the worst record of ethical charges and ethical alleged violations of any prominent lawyer in American history. People have gone after him for everything, for Theranos, for Weinstein. He once paid money to a witness on a contingency fee, the better the outcome, the more money he would get. He was accused of having too close a relationship with a client and giving her free legal advice. One judge in federal court in New York said that even a first-year ethics student would know that what Boies did essentially was unethical.

So why is he going after me? I have to tell you, I have a theory. I think he's projecting. David Boies has a terrible reputation for sexual activities. And I have had issued a challenge to him. Look, I have had sex with one woman since the day I met Jeffrey Epstein. I challenged David Boies to say under oath that he's only had sex with one woman during that same period of time. He couldn't do it. So he has an enormous amount of chutzpah to attack me and to challenge my perfect, perfect sex life during the relevant period of time.

He's doing it for money. He claims he's doing this pro bono. He's already earned enormous amounts of fees from these same people, and I'm sure he intends to earn more, because he got case in order to get a billion dollars from Leslie Wexner. So I'm going to beat him, and I'm going to beat him bad. And my goal is to see him --

INGRAHAM: What is the discovery like in all of this, Alan?

DERSHOWITZ: The discover is going to be great.

INGRAHAM: These are quite the charges back and forth. So everyone gives up their documents and their e-mails and their texts over a certain period of time?

DERSHOWITZ: I have e-mails from the accuser in which she admits she didn't have sex with me and that she put me in her book in order to help sell the book. And then she puts me in the book as somebody she didn't have sex with. And the other accuser has e-mails that claim she has sex tapes of Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and Donald Trump and Richard Branson. These are the most tainted, serial liars imaginable, and they all started telling their lies after they met David Boies. I want a federal investigation of David Boies. I've called for an investigation of me by FBI. Let the FBI sit in the courtroom, because they will hear perjury committed. It will either be by me because I will swear I never met these women, or by these women who have been basically trained by David Boies, and they will say they did meet me. One of us will be committing perjury, and I want the federal government to investigate. I went to the D.A. with this. I went to the U.S. attorney with this. I am afraid of nothing. I have nothing to hide. Boies has plenty to hide.

INGRAHAM: I want to get your thoughts on another plea deal that's coming under some scrutiny tonight. The "Washington Examiner," Alan, is reporting that then Attorney General Kamala Harris cut a deal with former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner back in 2013. People remember Filner, he was a Democrat and he escaped jail time and having to register as a sex offender in exchange for pleading guilty to lesser crimes. About 20 women had accused him of sexual harassment. Could she be the next Alex Acosta here? They filleted him even though he actually fought to get some jail time for your former client.

DERSHOWITZ: I think in all of these cases, you have to look at what the standards were at the time. In the post-Acosta world, nobody is going to accept pleas anymore in sex cases. Every case is going to go to trial, and the government will lose a lot of their cases. Today what they do is they make a deal, they get some jail time or some probation or they get something out of it. But nobody is going to make deals anymore after Acosta. And so more week cases will come to trial. There will be more acquittals, and the courts will be clogged with cases that should've been plea bargained.

INGRAHAM: Alan, thank you so much. Great to see you tonight.

And challengers lining up to take AOC's job in 2020. One of them is here next.


INGRAHAM: A new poll taken by an anti-AOC PAC in the congresswoman's own district could have the squad's leader worried. The key findings, 51 percent have an unfavorable view of AOC, and reportedly 33 percent are ready to vote against her. Only 13 percent said they would vote for her. So I guess if that poll holds true, it's not surprising that AOC has a Republican challenger. Businesswoman Scherie Murray is running against her and her extreme agenda. The question is, how will she play the race card, AOC, against a Jamaican immigrant who happens to be a Republican? Scherie, good to see you tonight. Why are you the strongest GOP candidate to run against AOC?

SCHERIE MURRAY, CONGRESSIONAL CHALLENGER TO AOC: It's a pleasure to see you too, Laura. And I am the strongest candidate because there is a crisis in Queens and the Bronx, and that crisis is AOC. From the job killing Green New Deal to killing the Amazon deal in New York, she is just the wrong candidate at the right time.

INGRAHAM: Yes, well, it seems that people in AOC's district get a little frustrated. They are frustrated by the Amazon deal getting nixed. And we'll listen to one person in particular, Josh Bowen (ph).


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our politicians, did they hit their head or something? This is the stupidest decision by a local politician maybe in the history of our local politicians. Now we are just some Staten Island sort of borough now. No business, nothing happens here.


INGRAHAM: A "New York Post" headline March 30th, "Her heart is not in the Bronx." Quote, "I thought AOC would be our savior, but that's not the case, complained Roxanne Delgado, a local activist, said she tried for months to get in touch with the congresswoman to help save an animal shelter and to clean up parks in the district." We actually tried to call the congresswoman's office tonight, and you can now leave a message. Before, apparently, it was difficult to leave a message.

But does that translate. This is a pro -- or an anti, I should say, AOC poll that we cited. I don't put a lot of stock in polls that are done by partisan organizations. But it's pretty tough when someone has the name I.D. that she has, Scherie, to actually be able to come through, cut through, and get people to turn out to vote for you.

MURRAY: Listen, Laura, when I toured the district, when I was thinking about my possible run for the seat, persons, residents, they didn't know who she was. And your numbers reflect that, Laura. They didn't know who Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was. They didn't know who AOC was. But what was clear, as I spoke to those residents, were the issues that they felt were not being addressed as we see the representative on the national stage more interested in the limelight then the concerns of the constituents in the get district.

INGRAHAM: I get it. I get it. When people knew I was having you on, they said we like the idea of someone running against AOC. But they cited a tweet that you sent out in June of last year where he said "Congratulations, Alexandria. Queens is headed in a new direction, and it's time for new leadership. #Yes." Was that you?

MURRAY: That was me, and I was excited as a young woman seeing another young woman win. It was an incredible feat. She ousted the party chair, former Congressman Joe Crowley. It was an incredible win, and she should be congratulated. But she won, and what we see now is not the reason why she was elected to office.

INGRAHAM: All right, so you've changed your mind from that tweet.

MURRAY: Look at what she's done on the national level. AOC plus three --

INGRAHAM: All right, we've got to take a break. Scherie, thank you for being with us tonight.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The end is inevitable, Maverick. Your kind is headed for extinction.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe so, sir, but not today.


INGRAHAM: That's a sneak peek of the new sequel to the classic film "Top Gun." You knew it was going to happen. Tom Cruise hasn't changed a bit, though.

That's all the time we have tonight. Don't forget to check out my latest podcast.

Mike Emanuel and 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.