This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," April 11. 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
LAURA INGRAHAM, 'THE INGRAHAM ANGLE' HOST: Good evening from Washington. I am Laura Ingraham, and this is THE INGRAHAM ANGLE. We have a series of jaw-dropping developments for you tonight.
First, those Trump-bashing FBI lovebirds Peter Strzok and Lisa Page still have their security clearances. Are you kidding me? What does it take to get the partisans out of the FBI? Ace reporter, John Solomon, is here to detail the latest example of shocking bias in the FBI and DOJ. Plus, Ben Shapiro has become the face of free speech on campus, and he will speak freely in our 'Defending the First' series. Diamond and Silk are here to discuss their battle with Facebook never ending. To react after CEO Mark Zuckerberg took questions on Capitol Hill about their case. Raymond Arroyo will also be here to explore the London mayors wacky new expanded knife control plan.
A report on the nationwide pro-life walk out today that news media covered. Later, tonight's ANGLE, what White House -- House Speaker Paul Ryan's decision to step down, what it really means for the future of the GOP? But first, THE INGRAHAM ANGLE gets results. Last night on THE ANGLE, House Intel Chairman Devin Nunes issued this ultimatum to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Robert Koster from 'The Washington Post' speculating tonight on Twitter that you are on the verge of moving to hold Christopher Wray and Rod Rosenstein in contempt of Congress. And that you have a deadline of tomorrow apparently to get this information. Is this a real possibility?
REP. DEVIN NUNES, R—CA., INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: I can tell you. We are going to get the documents. We are going to get the two pages. So, they can either cough them up now or it will get really complicated starting tomorrow night.
INGRAHAM: What are the chances you will hold them in contempt of Congress right now?
NUNES: I can tell you that we are not going to just hold them in contempt. We will have a plan to hold him in contempt and impeach.
INGRAHAM: To impeach Christopher Wray?
NUNES: Absolutely. We are not messing around here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Late this afternoon, the FBI and DOJ caved, a government source telling Fox News saying that Nunes, Congressman Trey Gowdy, and committee staffers were finally shown a largely un-redacted version of that memo that the triggered the FBI's Russia probe.
And despite this initial reveal, sources tell Fox News tonight there are still serious questions about the underlying intel and the credibility of the sources used to initiate that Russia probe.
Here to react to today's development, Republican Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, a member of the House Oversight Committee. So, Congressman, all is well, right? They finally coughed up the electronic communication, the two-page document after that comment last night by Nunes on the show. So, all is well, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JORDAN (R), OHIO: A step in the right direction, but, you know, there were still redactions in it. Sometimes I go to the fundamentals, why is it that folks in the Department of Justice get to see unredacted things, but members of Congress elected by the people of this great country can't see them?
INGRAHAM: You know why because they say you guys leaked. They've say you guys cannot keep the information --
JORDAN: What I know is the American people want answers and you can't get answers to the American people to important questions that deal with their fundamental liberties if you don't have access to the information into the documents that are pertinent to the investigation.
INGRAHAM: Why does Peter Strzok and Lisa Page still have their security clearance?
JORDAN: Same issue. They are so compromised Bob Mueller even kick them off his team but think about all the partisans on that team. He kicks them off their team, but they still have security clearance and members of Congress can't see documents.
We had Mr. Lausch in, the new point person at the Department of Justice. John Lausch is the new point person. Why you need one I don't know because there's plenty of people over. He's the new point person to give documents to Congress that we are entitled to see.
So, he comes in to talk to Mr. Meadows and I, yesterday along with several other lawyers from the Department of Justice asking four simple questions. What's the approximate universal documents we are entitled to? What's the number? I don't know.
I said what is the standard for determining how the reductions are done and what are the steps and how that process works? I don't know. I don't know, which leads the important question, when are we going to the documents? I don't know.
So, my attitude is like Devin's, if things don't change dramatically, and I am talking days, not weeks or months. If they don't change dramatically then impeachment and contempt and resignations should all be on the table because we are tired of it, and more important, the American people are tired of it.
INGRAHAM: When you say impeachment, resignation, firing, who are we talking about?
JORDAN: We are talking about the guys were supposed to be running the Department of Justice, Jeff Sessions and Rod Rosenstein. They are the guys who were supposed to be in charge. They are the guys who were supposed to give us the information.
Because Laura, never forget the underlying issue here, they took an opposition research document, dressed it all up and made it look it was legitimate intelligence, took it to a secret court to get a secret warrant to spy on a fellow citizen associated with the Trump campaign.
And they didn't tell the court who paid for the document and more importantly in those renewals and the FISA court, they didn't tell the court that the author of the document, Christopher Steele, had his relationship terminated with the FBI, why, because he went and linked to the press, not members of Congress --
INGRAHAM: It looks like according to what you, guys, have seen is that actually Strzok wrote that or significantly contributed to that document. Again, so people understand, we are talking about the two-page document that was the basis for beginning the surveillance --
JORDAN: Two critical documents, there's the two-page document that Devin and Trey have got to look at now. That's what launched it all. That's the Papadopoulos -- what I think it is associated with Papadopoulos and the launch of the --
INGRAHAM: But Strzok wrote that document or significantly directed the writing of it. It's what the reports were today.
JORDAN: And his deputy had a counterintelligence -- involved in that, right?
INGRAHAM: And he's writing about insurance policies and so forth.
JORDAN: And he also likely had a big influence on the dossier even though he may not have signed it, he had big influence.
INGRAHAM: What is the time frame here we are talking about? You're throwing around words like impeachment, resignation, and firing. That --
JORDAN: It should all be on the table. If they're not going to improve, we have been asking this information for five months. Not just about the Russia --
INGRAHAM: Jeff Sessions' says he is serious about complying. He says he hears you, he said multiple times.
JORDAN: We've also asked -- and I don't like special councils -- but we do need a second special counsel.
INGRAHAM: You are not getting one.
JORDAN: Again, the fundamental question is can the FBI investigate themselves? John Huber (ph) and John Lausch, seems like a nice guy but, who do they answer to? Rod Rosenstein. The employees are going to investigate their boss? That's how this is going to work and that's going to give us the answers that the American people --
INGRAHAM: If you were the president, would you fire Rosenstein now given
where we are, all this time that's passed?
JORDAN: I think all those things should be on the table. Resignation, impeachment, contempt, all those things just like Chairman Nunes --
INGRAHAM: Mark Warner gave a comment. He says he is fed up with your complaints and Congress' complaint about this. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK WARNER. D—VA.: I think it's fairly typical of the way the House majority has operated. Frankly outside the boundaries of what most of us would be a would be appropriate. Obviously not in any sense bipartisan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JORDAN: When I talk to folks back home, they are fed up with the double standard, the idea that there is one set of rules for regular people and different rules for Clinton, Comey, Lynch, and the way that the president has been treated. You got to look (inaudible) Mr. Cohen's office.
INGRAHAM: Congressman Jordan, thank you.
For more, let's bring in from Salt Lake City, Brett Tolman, a former U.S. attorney, and in Los Angeles, Harry Litman, who was deputy assistant attorney general during the Bill Clinton administration. Gentlemen, great to see you.
Brett, your view of the document production. You heard what Congressman Jordan said. Palpable frustration with the thwarting of what the GOP majority believes is the rightful oversight role of the legislative branch over this process that led to the spying on an American citizen through the use of this FISA court.
BRETT TOLMAN, RAY, GILBERT & HESEXER, PC CHAIR: Yes. It's interesting to hear Representative Jordan because he is absolutely correct. They have oversight responsibility. I have the luxury of working in the Senate prior to becoming the U.S. attorney, and during that four-year period of time, I heard the Democrats clamoring and asking again and again for the Department of Justice to be transparent.
To be transparent, give us documents. It's ironic for me to now see them saying hold up. This is not their prerogative. They are going too far. No. The Department of Justice has long held Congress with some disdain and has treated them as a step brother or sister, not worrying about what they want and not answering their subpoenas or requests for documents. I saw it, you know, front and center.
INGRAHAM: Harry, I think the Democrats for the longest time were the party that was going to protect the people against government overreach. The government intel, they are going to be spying on Americans. It's a heavy-footed stuff. We don't trust that. We don't trust the big government because people have rights.
Now you have the Democrats seeming to give carte blanche to the FISA court and the way it operated with this application for the warrant and so forth. This is legitimate for Congress to one of these documents why are they not getting this information in a timely fashion?
HARRY LITMAN, PARTNER, CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP: So, a couple points, Laura. I think it's right, and Brett sort of underscores it. It is a perennial debate. It really isn't Democrat versus Republican issue. It is the Hill versus DOJ issue. It plays out all the time. There's this push and pull.
Why are they getting it? Here is what the department would say I think it's pretty legitimate. Congressman Jordan says it's still unredacted. Yes, there were two redactions in the document they saw today. One was the name of a foreign agent. The other was the name of a foreign country. People in the FBI, Democrat or Republican are worried about --
INGRAHAM: I've got you. Harry, why does it take the threat of impeachment to get information? What are they hiding? You have to threaten impeachment of the head of the FBI or another high-ranking official to get an EC to the leaders of this committee? It's wild, truly wild.
LITMAN: Again, Laura, there's the whole point, the FBI says it's going to take a while. This point --
INGRAHAM: It's a two-page document.
LITMAN: I hear you. On that specific document, what is the problem? It's the potential revelation of specific foreign agent, country. One more thing which is you made the right point. It's not a Democrat, Republican issue, but in fact -- does leak like a sieve and even the chairman's record is not so good.
INGRAHAM: I've got to read the headline in 'The Washington Post.' I want both of your reaction. Steve Bannon is out there. Bannon pitches White House on plant to cripple Mueller probe and protect Trump. The first step would be for Trump to fire Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein. Bannon is also recommending the White House cease its cooperation with Mueller, this according to Bob Costa. Brett, you comment on that. What would that lead to, firing Rosenstein who is the deputy AG?
TOLMAN: Well, certainly, it's not going to be without any sort of debate. I will tell you that is something you know when you serve in the Department of Justice. You serve at the pleasure of the president.
I was told that maybe a hundred different times when I was nominated, confirmed, and served as the United States attorney. So, the president does have that prerogative. We are in dicey political times. We understand that.
But what we don't know is why isn't there a more aggressive analysis that's been done when the FBI has leaks, when the FBI has issues, when they have presented information to a judge, a FISA judge, which we hold sacrosanct that process, when they have given information that they know to be bought
and paid for information.
How is that not something that at the highest levels of the Department of Justice they are taking a close measure look and analysis of, and we are seeing but reluctance.
INGRAHAM: We are doing this thing called the 'Defending the First' series. Talking a lot about the media's role and everything. Harry, a friend of mine says what happened to 'The Washington Post?' It used to be let's get to the heart of corruption in government. Now it's all about the porn
It's not about, we could have abused a process that allowed the government to spy on an American citizen, doing so for purely political purposes, to prevent someone getting elected president, as an insurance policy and then after he was elected to undo the election.
I mean, that is something an investigative reporter should be salivating over. Let's get to the bottom of it, but there seems to be a fascinating lack of curiosity on the part of many so-called mainstream journalists.
LITMAN: All right, so two points, first, I think they go where the news is. You might remember in Nixon and Watergate, there's Donald (inaudible) in dirty tricks, same thing with --
INGRAHAM: Yes. There's Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Cheryl Mills. Plenty of characters here, Harry. You might have been out of the country.
LITMAN: No, what I am saying is the news about tawdry events.
INGRAHAM: Bleached, uranium. What else do you need--?
LITMAN: Let me, Brett also brought this back to the FISA point. Look, the question is not worthy probe originates but whether it is bonafide. Was Linda Tripp a solid, credible person? Was Paula Jones, Richard Mellon Scaife? No, they had biases, but the question for the Judge Starr (ph) and the Congress was their info bonafide? That's the question here. Not the question of --
INGRAHAM: All right. Gentlemen, fantastic segment. We have more. While there is still no evidence the president colluded with Russia, the special counsel's probe just keeps widening, intensifying, who knows where it will go. Contrast that with the DOJ and FBI efforts to exonerate Hillary Clinton and her scandals.
Now that the FBI has conducted an intrusive and possibly unconstitutional raid on the president's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, we have to ask this, where were the feds when it came to Clinton's lawyer and advisor, Cheryl Mills? How did she end up with immunity?
For answers we're joined by ace true investigative reporter, John Solomon of 'The Hill.' John, I don't mean to go after the whole profession of investigative reporting, but this is a wild thing. We have you and Carter and a few others but not many who were really interested in this.
JOHN SOLOMON, EXECUTIVE VP, 'THE HILL': I say this a lot. On some days I don't recognize the profession I got into 30 years ago. Not the curiosity we used to have.
INGRAHAM: So, let's talk about this, the double standard. It's more conservatives complaining, Hillary is gone. She's out of the picture, why are we still harping on Hillary?
SOLOMON: The facts are clear. When you talk to Republicans who say there's been a double standard. Look at the facts. There was a moment where someone close to Hillary Clinton lied. The guy who erased all of her -- the vendor that erased her email archives while they were under subpoena by Congress, very important, it was --
INGRAHAM: Documents under subpoena. Everybody understanding this. When your documents are subpoena and you destroy them, that's de facto obstruction of justice.
SOLOMON: He lied about it the first time. Mike Flynn, when he was accused of lying, they charged him with 1001. When Papadopoulos was accused of lying, they charged him. This guy, they immunized. They start to interview him. He says he can't answer the questions.
The question, did Hillary Clinton's lawyers instruct you to destroy those documents, and he said I can't answer. I have attorney-client privilege. That's a document that Congress has released. How can you have attorney-client privilege? He is not the client of David Kendall (ph) or Cheryl Mills. He was a vendor. The FBI said OK, we just want to ask you about it—
INGRAHAM: What law school did he go to?
SOLOMON: Donald Trump lawyer, you have your office rated and you hear about how Hillary Clinton's lawyers were able to (inaudible) attorney-client privilege. The FBI throws their hands up and says we are done. You can see why they come to the idea that there is a double standard.
INGRAHAM: Do we know for sure how many people in Hillary's inner circle received immunity? Do we know for sure?
SOLOMON: We know of at least five including the man who lied --
INGRAHAM: Cheryl Mills, close personal advisor and attorney.
SOLOMON: That's right. There's two other attorneys. I think Heather Samuelson (ph), if I remember it correctly. There's a third one whose name I missed. Then the witness, and I believe there's a fifth one, who is the IT director who set up the whole email system.
INGRAHAM: Huma Abedin was never given or offered immunity? She's not able to just send documents to another computer, classified, secret documents?
SOLOMON: There was a time when Huma Abedin was under investigation for time sheet fraud. She was charging hours to the government beyond what she was allowed to. She was working two other jobs and claiming the government as a full-time job. Nothing happened there too. That's why the Republicans have these claims.
INGRAHAM: Cheryl Mills was involved in scrubbing the 30,000 emails. DOJ allowed attorney-client -- attorney-client privilege expanded its definition during the Clinton probe and shrunk during the raid of Cohen. You did some original reporting on Strzok and Page. We know that they have their security clearances. They can look at these documents that are being sought by Congress, but ranking members of these key committees cannot see these documents.
SOLOMON: It's been a real frustration for Congress. There is a lot of history to this. The FBI is always willing to share information when their conduct is not being investigated. Once the table turns on them, they've always been reluctant, 9/11, WACO, they have always resisted oversight. And I think that's what you're seeing a traditional inclination to resist oversight --
INGRAHAM: And a lot of Americans are wondering why Peter Strzok and Lisa Page have their jobs still.
SOLOMON: Great question.
INGRAHAM: John Solomon, thank you so much. Up next, what Paul Ryan's departure really means. Stay there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: What Paul Ryan's departure really means. That's the focus of tonight's ANGLE. People seem so surprised by Speaker Ryan's announcement today. I think it all makes perfect sense. After all, John Boehner is gone. Eric Cantor is gone. Now Paul Ryan is out.
It should be said up front, I have known Paul Ryan for a long time. He is a stand-up person. He is a man of deep faith. He is a man committed to his family which he said was the reason for his retirement.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RYAN (R-WI), HOUSE SPEAKER: Now all three of our kids are teenagers. What I realize if I'm here for one more term, my kids will only have ever known me as a weekend dad. I just can't let that happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: On a personal level, this makes perfect sense. Remember, Ryan excepted the speakership with a lot of reluctance. On the political level, this reveals the schism between the establishment wing of the party and the conservative populist Trump wing. Let's not forget how tortured and outright critical Ryan was of Trump before and after his nomination.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RYAN: This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for, and more importantly, is not what this country stands for.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: You have said throughout the process that you will support the Republican presidential nominee. Now you have a presumptive nominee, Donald Trump. Will you support him?
RYAN: Well, to be perfectly candid with you, Jake. I'm just not ready to do that at this point. I'm not there right now.
I regret those comments he made. I don't think, claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: But after all of that, Ryan and the president, they were able to forge a personal and working relationship.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RYAN: We talked quite often.
INGRAHAM: can you pick up the phone and call him? Any time.
RYAN: We talk all the time. We talk about everything. We talk about policy. We talk about families. We talk about our kids. We talk about everything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: The speaker and the president worked together on the tax cut bill, which will be no doubt be the highlight of their collaboration. Paul Ryan was great on the life issue. He empowered important House investigations.
But on many other fronts, Ryan leaves the House with much unfinished business, although, the House did pass their own Obamacare repeal bill, both Ryan and McConnell were unable to take it over the finish line.
His long-sought desire to reform entitlements, big share of the federal budget, never went anywhere. The true tragedy is that Ryan's swan song will be the nightmarish $1.3 trillion almond in this spending bill. It's expected to explode the deficit to over $1 trillion by 2020.
So, for someone who dedicated a lot of his political life to fiscal responsibility, that is a tough legacy. Let's face it. Speaker Ryan was also uncomfortable with President Trump's positions on everything from
tariffs to the wall to foreign policy.
The two of them represent opposing strains of conservatism in some sense. One, the free-trade, more interventionist establishment, that's Paul Ryan, and the other a more American first populism. That's Trump.
The speaker's departure is a clear sign in my mind that Trump's vision, not Ryan's, is the future of the party. People misread the investigation mania around the White House as a sign that the president's agenda is unfocused, unsteady, may be unpopular.
In reality, these investigations were the insurance policy against the tide of conservative populism that Trump represented. They needed to stop Trump
because his vision is actually pretty popular and it's actually working. Manufacturing is up. Unemployment is down.
China is back on his heels in making trade concessions. Rocket Man is ready to flush his nukes. Unbelievable. Regulations are being slashed. Great for business. Even on issues where Paul Ryan, he used to own these issues, Trump is now in his own way making a difference.
Just yesterday the president signed an executive order pushing work requirements. Hallelujah, for those on public assistance. Ryan's exit, like Flake and Corker before him, is another indication the establishment unable to be Trump in 2016 is frankly just out of steam.
We all know the phrase if you can't beat them, join them. In this case, it seems to be if you can't beat them, leave them. The establishment may finally be beating the party to the man who dug in from them in the first place. That's the ANGLE.
Joining me now with reaction here in Washington is Congressman Sean Duffy, who like Paul Ryan is a Republican from Wisconsin, and Matt Schlapp, the chairman of the American Conservative Union.
All right, Gentlemen, Congressman Duffy, let's start with you. Paul Ryan, great guy, personally love him. The president and he were never together on key issues, immigration being on, trade being the other, and foreign policy I think being the third, and this omnibus sticks under Trump's craw rightfully.
REPRESENTATIVE SEAN DUFFY (R), WISCONSIN: Laura, I think you've been hard on Paul Ryan. He is a good friend of mine. The reason he's leaving is not policy differences. He's a family guy. He slept in his office for 20 years. His kids are teenagers. He lost his dad when he was young, wants to be there for his own kids.
INGRAHAM: You are totally right and that's fine.
DUFFY: Paul Ryan and President Trump speak all the time together. They work on policy together. So, if you look at regulation, tax reform, people in the military, energy independence --
INGRAHAM: Did Trump win on the border and trade on and being less interventionist? He won on those three issues.
DUFFY: When you put Congress in one chamber as a whole, that's unfair. If you look at what we've done in the House under Paul Ryan's leadership, we've accomplished the president's agenda. We've moved over 400 bills that the president loves over to the Senate. Mitch McConnell, his partner in
Chuck Schumer, they don't allow us to get the big items that the Trump agenda, which is the House agenda and the Paul Ryan agenda.
So, to blame Paul Ryan for the failures of the Senate are completely unfair. If you look at, establishment versus new Republicans or conservatives, Paul Ryan is still fighting for entitlement reform. It's Donald Trump who says no entitlement reform, no Social Security --
INGRAHAM: Entitlement reform has gone nowhere. He's given speeches on it. He passed a piece of legislation I know --
DUFFY: But you need presidential leadership to help us on that effort, and Trump has been absolutely nowhere.
INGRAHAM: If it weren't for Trump you guys would be in the minority if you ask me.
DUFFY: I'm a big supporter of Trump.
INGRAHAM: I know you. I love Paul Ryan too. It's not about personal stuff. He deserves to be with his family. He's a great guy. But on the key issues that Trump got elected, the two of them were not on the same page. And I think he's leaving for his family, I'm sure he is, but this is not Paul Ryan's party. This is Donald Trump's party. It's a conservative, populist party. The principles, it's not about the man. It's about the principles.
MATT SCHLAPP, ACU CHAIRMAN: I think that's right. I think the key is for Paul Ryan is that what happens after Paul leaves, right. And Paul Ryan can spike the ball on the tax cut bill which is a great thing, but there's this whole other agenda, let face it --
INGRAHAM: It's $1 trillion deficit that we're going to have. How is that making America great again?
SCHLAPP: There's a whole other part of this agenda, let's face it, that Paul Ryan never cottoned to. His political advisors come from the Mitt Romney wing, and they were always uncomfortable with how the president approaches these major issues. And the real --
INGRAHAM: He is embarrassed by Trump.
SCHLAPP: He is not comfortable by this.
INGRAHAM: Elkhorn, Wisconsin, we've got to play this, October 8th, 2016, this is the day everybody is piling on Trump, the Billy Bush tape came out. I said his comments were gross and despicable. Paul Ryan is supposed to have candidate Trump at fall fest. I'm sorry, this is one of my favorite scenes ever in Wisconsin politics. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAUL RYAN, R—WI., SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: There is a bit of an elephant in the room. And it is a troubling situation. I'm serious. It is. I put out a statement about this last night. I meant what I said and it is still how I feel. But that is not what we are here to talk about today.
Thank you so much, you guys. God bless you all. Thank you. Appreciate it.
MALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Shame on you!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: That was bad. That was like Erick Erickson disinviting Trump to a Red State gathering, God bless him. But that was bad judgment. You don't kick the guy when he's down.
DUFFY: I absolutely agree. It took Paul Ryan a lot longer than me to get on board with President Trump.
INGRAHAM: You were great.
DUFFY: On the omnibus bill, Donald Trump could have vetoed that bill.
INGRAHAM: He should have. Paul Ryan should've told him to veto it.
SCHLAPP: There wasn't enough in the bill to justify putting everybody on the line. So let's do a rescission, let's reduce the spending, let's do it.
DUFFY: I agree with you, but you have to understand that the Senate, the negotiation in the Senate gave us not just the military money but gave us $63 billion of nondefense discretionary spending that we were stuck with.
SCHLAPP: Your colleagues know --
DUFFY: I agree with you.
SCHLAPP: They know it.
INGRAHAM: We're at a hard break. Any way we could continue for another segment?
SCHLAPP: Laura, the Ryan kids and Janna Ryan are celebrating tonight.
INGRAHAM: I love them. They are great people. But it's Trump's party now. It's Matt Schlapp's party now. It's Sean Duffy's party now.
Still to come, 'Defending the First' series, Ben Shapiro, a lot more, combatting groupthink on college campuses and beyond.
INGRAHAM: Time now for our 'Seen and Unseen' segment where we expose what's really going on behind the big cultural stories of the day. Topics run the gamut today from the media blackout on today's pro-life walkout on college campuses across the nation and to the mayor of London calling for, get this, knife control after his city's murder rate is poised to pass New York's.
For analysis we are joined by 'New York Times' bestselling author of the Will Wilder series, FOX News contributor Raymond Arroyo. OK, Raymond, where do we start, knife control?
RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: We have to start with Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London's knife control. This is the same man, just to remind everybody, a few years ago, he rescinded the policy of searching and stopping people who might have knives, might have weapons, because he said it's racist and might be Islamophobia.
INGRAHAM: Did they only stop Islamic --
ARROYO: They stopped a lot of Islamic folks because these are members of gangs. And its mostly gang activity in London that we're saying.
INGRAHAM: But it led to profiling?
ARROYO: But Laura, eight to 15 knife attacks a day in London.
ARROYO: So now he's passing these knife control measures which means you cannot have knives delivered to your home and you can't order them online.
INGRAHAM: What about wedding registries? Steak knives are great gifts.
ARROYO: Do without knives. This is what he tweets.
INGRAHAM: The Ginsu knife set is one of my favorite things to get on late night TV.
ARROYO: You better borrow it from someone else. There are no new ones. This is what he tweeted. This is Sadiq Khan. He said 'I am joining -- oh, sorry.
INGRAHAM: No excuses. There was never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone
who does with be caught and they will feel the full force of the law.
ARROYO: There is never a reason to carry a knife. Wait a minute. If you are a baker, you need a knife. If you are a butcher, you need a knife. If you're a tech guy, you work on -- you need a knife.
INGRAHAM: My God, we use knives that my house to just cut stuff.
ARROYO: My favorite, I found this psychiatrist in London quoted in 'The London Times,' 'Why do we need these deadly weapons at home? We need curved instruments.' So it's a country of butter knives apparently. That's all you need.
INGRAHAM: What are the West End going to use?
ARROYO: They'll kill people with a butter knife. What next, axes, trucks?
INGRAHAM: Sean Duffy was just in here. He is a big lumberjack in Wisconsin. He was a lumberjack remember in the old days. This is comical now. This is what everybody used to joke about. What's next? Hair spray. That could be deadly.
ARROYO: I was thinking piano wire. We have to have piano control. Anything, you can kill with anything. The corners of a desk. I don't know where this ends.
INGRAHAM: Pro-life walkout happened today. I didn't hear anything about them.
ARROYO: You had this teacher on yesterday who was at Rocklin high school. She raised a question at the time of the gun walkouts. Remember a month ago you had school walkouts all over the country. They were covered with helicopters and live reports.
INGRAHAM: Big march in Washington.
ARROYO: Big march, but it wasn't only that. It was school walkouts organized by the women's march, OK. Now a student, Brandon Gillespie at Rocklin high school, he decided to stage job pro-life walkout today. Two-hundred schools participated, high schools, 80 colleges. No coverage at
INGRAHAM: Will he be on the cover of magazines, maybe?
ARROYO: No magazine cover. The kid couldn't score; I don't know what. It's ridiculous. There are barely pictures of it. We will put a few pictures up so you can see. But very little video, no local or national coverage of this. It's an outrage. He did it to prove a point.
INGRAHAM: And he proved it. We don't even have -- there we go. We have one photo.
ARROYO: His school district in Sacramento made special provisions when the kids walked out of school for gun control. And they were given use of school accessories, microphones and speakers. They didn't afford him those luxuries. So now lawyers are about to sue the school, and they've already threatened them, saying this is content discrimination.
INGRAHAM: What do we tell you, it is like a 'Defending the First.' Here we are. It's like we talked about last night.
ARROYO: It's terrible.
INGRAHAM: John Boehner has been known to enjoy his cigs and booze every now and then.
ARROYO: Merlot, merlot.
INGRAHAM: Oh, please, not just merlot. He is a scotch drinker, isn't he, and he's perpetually tan. He's a great guy. I like Boehner. But how he's changed his thinking, don't you know, on pot. We call it cannabis. It makes us feel better to call it cannabis.
ARROYO: Remember in 2011 he said this. He said I am on unalterably opposed to the legislation of marijuana, OK. He was on the record. Now he tweets out today he is now a member of, he has joined Acreage Holdings, which is a cannabis distributor. It distributes to --
INGRAHAM: How much money is he making off pot and wrecking the minds of young people?
ARROYO: I think the former speaker is finally seeing green, not only marijuana but those Benjamins that are coming through the door. This is really sad.
INGRAHAM: I know, it's sad. We have enough problems in the country. We don't need more kids, once your adults, it's fine. Then the kids are going to do it. I am adamantly, I know it's not the cool thing to be but I'm not wild about it.
ARROYO: It has terrible effects, and he claims it's going to help veterans
with opioid addiction.
INGRAHAM: Oh, no, no.
ARROYO: It's addicting.
INGRAHAM: Just be honest. Just be honest. If you want to make a lot of money on pot, just say it's better than going around the country speaking at 10,000 bucks a pop. They are going to pay me a huge amount of money to sit on their board. Whatever it is, just be honest. Don't try to claim you're doing it for the vets. OK, that is just, that's sad.
ARROYO: And then I have to share this video. The president signed a piece of legislation today to help outlaw online human trafficking and prostitution. There was a survivor behind him. And watch this video. We're going to show it? We got time?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
YVONNE AMBROSE, MOTHER OF SEX TRAFFICKING VICTIM: I am not a survivor. I am MA. It's about damn time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ARROYO: Dancing during the signing.
INGRAHAM: Look at her. I love her.
ARROYO: She is doing a joyous dance.
INGRAHAM: It went on, by the way. We cut it off, unfortunately, but it went on.
ARROYO: Joy. I like it.
INGRAHAM: I like it. She was rocking out.
ARROYO: She was the first woman to sue Backpage. And she lost --
INGRAHAM: I bet the feminists are all thrilled. They love Backpage, apparently. Raymond, awesome segment.
And up next, free speech champion Ben Shapiro joins us to discuss his quest to defend the First Amendment.
INGRAHAM: It's time for the second installment of our new series 'Defending the First' where we expose the enemies of the First Amendment, free expression, and free thought.
Radio talk show host and 'Daily Wire' editor in chief Ben Shapiro has emerged as one of the top defenders of free speech, particularly on campus. In a series of speeches over the last few years, Shapiro has debunked sacred cows like safe spaces, micro-aggressions, and the quest for multiculturalism and diversity, and not without risks to his own personal safety.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN SHAPIRO, HOST OF 'THE BEN SHAPIRO SHOW': And there it is, gang. Guess what. Do you know what? They are not going to stop us.
SHAPIRO: If I attempt to enter that hall right there and sit down just to listen to somebody speak, or if I attempt to ask questions or engage in free speech, you will have me arrested?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At this point, yes sir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: The tolerant ones. Joining us now, Ben Shapiro himself who we thought of it immediately when we launched this series.
Ben, you don't look too threatening. You've got some interesting ideas and thought-provoking conversations, and you freak them all out. They have got the headgear on, they got the riot police out. It is funny because it's so pathetic, but it's also very dangerous because you do have the guts to go on college campuses. But there are a lot of conservatives I know who are invited to speak. Do you know what they say? I have better things to do with my time. In a way you can't blame them. But that's is itself chilling free speech.
BEN SHAPIRO, HOST OF 'THE BEN SHAPIRO SHOW': No question. The hecklers vetoed it, so many universities are now using to shut down free speech on college campuses by saying the left is going to get violent. It's pretty astonishing.
Listen, I don't blame conservatives who don't want to take their lives in
their hands by going on some of these campuses. I don't want to pretend this is happening at every campus but it is happening to a lot of conservatives. I'm talking about not even just conservatives. I'm talking about people who range from Jordan Peterson to Jason Riley to Heather Mac Donald to Charles Murray. There's a wide variety of conservatives who are being really rioted against in some cases on campus.
And the administration has in some cases really not done enough to prevent that from happening. And when they do attempt to stop the riots from happening, the way they typically do it is by bringing a lot of cops onto campus and then by suggesting that we have to restrict the number of people who can actually attend the lectures. They actually end up restricting free speech even when they are attempting to protect it in some cases.
INGRAHAM: So again, irony, the free speech movement, it all started at Berkeley. And Berkeley is ground zero of the anti-free speech movement in the United States today.
In the last couple days, an interesting development, Ben, that fits with our series, at Penn State. The Penn State Student Power Network along with other students and community members gathered outside old Maine on Monday to present a list of demands to President Barron. I love it when they have a list of demands. These demands included denouncing and defunding hate groups on campus. I think to myself oh, my God, are the Nazis on campus? Who is on campus? The U.S. Communist Party? No. It's groups with anti-immigrant rhetoric. I guess that's someone who is in favor of enforcing the border. What does that mean?
SHAPIRO: Everything has been deemed hate speech on campus, up to and including there was a point during the election cycle when people were barred on certain campuses from writing President Trump's name when he was a candidate because this made people feel bad that some people actually supported Trump as a candidate. So I can only imagine that anti-immigrant rhetoric would be things like let's enforce our border or let's deport some illegal immigrants.
But that's not a shock. Again, Penn State is one of the campuses I visited, and there was a near riot when I was at Penn State. I'm sure that some of the people who are protesting against the conservatives on campus, and it was some conservative groups who they were protesting, were some of
the same people who a couple years ago nearly tried to break through the doors where I was speaking to disrupt the lecture that I was giving.
What's amazing about all of this is that it's perfectly easy to have a nice event where people come and listen to me or listen any of the other people I mentioned, and all of us are willing to have Q&As, all of us are willing to have discussions. We had one last night over at Pepperdine where a lot of the student groups who are on the left and talking about the same sort of minority student groups you're hearing about at Penn State, decided that instead of boycotting they would show up and ask questions, and we had a perfectly nice conversation.
But unfortunately there is part of the left as distinguished from I think liberals at large, there's a big part of the left and it's growing that says that it is incumbent to protect the campus from ideas that are
dissenting, and everyone who dissents must be thrown off.
INGRAHAM: And the reason that they want to stifle speech is because your speech actually grows conservatism. It spreads the ideology and it draws people in. They have no idea. They are out of ideas. They're out of solutions. They are into demonization.
You go to college campuses, you could be going to corporations and speaking, but you go to college campuses, and I think the groups that are trying to make your life miserable or going after Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA, those groups, the list of who is behind this effort to really tamp down on free-speech, we know some of the big funded groups by George Soros, but go through that briefly for us.
SHAPIRO: There are certainly a lot of student groups that coordinate, I'd say a lot of the groups that are associated with the Women's March are very much associated, a lot of the groups that were originally associated with Black Lives Matter were very active in this campus movement. Obviously Antifa was the far edge wing of this movement that was actually promoting violence at a lot of these speeches.
But the generalized attempt to shut down speeches by pressuring administrations, that's a lot of student groups that have been on campus since the time that I was on college campuses as a student myself. And they continue to push for the idea that these campuses should be conservative free and should be complete safe spaces for people on the left, not only because they think conservatives are going to convince a lot of people but also because they actually just think conservatives are evil. They really think people like me are there to do them harm. And when I show up and it turns out I am a relatively nonthreatening character and I've never really beaten anyone up in my life for several reasons you can imagine, then that's the impact.
INGRAHAM: Again, you don't look too threatening. But ideas are threatening to these people. Ben, thanks so much.
Up next, Diamond and Silk.
INGRAHAM: Facebook's treatment of Diamond and Silk is just the latest example of censoring conservative's voices. The pro-Trump sisters became a hot topic during Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg second day of grilling on Capitol Hill today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN, R—TN: Do you subjectively manipulate your algorithms to prioritize or censor speech?
MARK ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK CEO: Congresswoman, we don't think about what we are doing as censoring speech. There are types of content like terrorism that I think that we all agree we do not want to have on our service. So we build systems that can identify those and can remove that content, and we are very proud of that work.
BLACKBURN: Let me tell you something right now. Diamond and Silk is not terrorism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Zing. Let's get reaction from the ladies themselves. Joining the angle now the only and only Diamond and Silk. Diamond, let's start with you. Marsha Blackburn jumped on it because Mark Zuckerberg was like, we are worried about terrorism. I'm looking at you two. I don't see any terrorism. I don't see any threat to community standards or whatever the heck their justification is. I don't see any of it. What did you think about the play you guys both got at the hearing, and did you get any satisfaction from what Mark Zuckerberg said?
LYNNETTE HARDAWAY, 'DIAMOND': Well, first of all, I appreciate everyone that really stood up for us and our platform and even other conservatives. And with Mark Zuckerberg, I was happy to hear him admit they made a mistake. So now it's time for him to rectify that mistake. I would like, we would like to sit down and talk directly to Mark Zuckerberg so that he can rectify this here and make this right.
INGRAHAM: Congressman Barton brought you both up as well. Let's play this so people understand what you're referring to. Do we have the soundbite?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOE BARTON, R--TX: Please ask Mr. Zuckerberg, why is Facebook censoring conservative bloggers such as Diamond and Silk. Facebook called them unsafe to the community. That is ludicrous. They hold conservative views. That isn't unsafe. What's your response?
ZUCKERBERG: Congressman, in that specific case our team made an enforcement error. And we have already gotten in touch with them to reverse it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Did you get contacted by Facebook, and has this been reversed?
HARDAWAY: No. We have not been in communication with Facebook. We have not been contacted. We have not spoken to anyone over the phone, so that was a lie.
INGRAHAM: Wait a second. This is the second night we've had you on, the second time Facebook has said they have contacted you and this has been dealt with. And this is the second night you have said no contact. You guys are either not telling the truth or Facebook, and I'm sorry. I trust you guys, not Facebook in this circumstance. Have you checked your messages? Is your mailbox full? What's going on.
ROCHELLE RICHARDSON, 'SILK': If you go to the side of our Facebook page right now you will see where people are still having issues with liking and following our page. The same algorithms are still there. Nothing has been resolved and no one has been in communication with Diamond and Silk.
INGRAHAM: All right, they've got to get in touch with you.
Guys, there is a headline out today by this thing called Grio. Here it is. 'Black Trump supporters and FOX News puppets Diamond and Silk accuse Facebook of discrimination.' They call you FOX News puppets. Then they state 'Viral court jesters Diamond and Silk are easily President Trump's most vocal black supporters and have made a name for themselves dancing for him and his administration.' Your reaction?
HARDAWAY: You have to understand that that publication is just an envious publication. It's a very small, minute publication. And they are just trying to use us as clickbait because they know nobody ever reads their stuff. If they put their stuff out on Facebook they have hardly any views. So they have to use Diamond and Silk's names in order for someone --
INGRAHAM: What is Joy Reid's role in that? She has some connection. Editor in chief for two years. Yes, well, editor in chief. Roseanne calls you comedians and she said to stop censoring them. Are you comedians, ladies?
HARDAWAY: I don't think we are comedians but what we say may be comical or may be funny. But we really be telling the truth. We are trying not to be so funny, but it comes out funny.
INGRAHAM: I like it. You can have fun, ladies. You can have fun and do politics. And you do that and I love it. I love it. Facebook, get in touch with Diamond and Silk. Ladies, thanks so much. We'll be right back.
INGRAHAM: Before we go, remember, tweet me @IngrahamAngle with reaction of the show tonight and you might get a read on air, like this one. Brad tweeted 'Laura, you just had who should be the next Speaker of the House on your show, Jim Jordan of Ohio. No question.' That's an interesting one. I'm sure the establishment would love that.
That's all the time we have tonight. Shannon Bream and the 'FOX News at Night' team is next. They have a big show on tap and they'll take things from here.
Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.