Ingraham: A borderless world

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," June 20, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Yes, we forgot to report all this stuff. We have a lot more tomorrow night. Let not your heart be troubled, we'll always be fair and balanced. There she is, Laura Ingraham. All right what wise anchor remark are you going to make about Hannity tonight, Ingraham?

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: No I was actually, when the President said they stopped rocketry, I just think of my sons doing the Boy Scouts, you know those engines on the rockets? They can do that, it's okay of they do rocketry, we just don't want it coming to a war?

HANNITY: We had more fun with those phony rockets, you pump them up and they go. The crowd went nuts over that which is pretty interesting.

INGRAHAM: No it was fantastic. Awesome show Hannity by the way, as always, it's great to-

HANNITY: Welcome back by the way, it's great to have to back.

INGRAHAM: Thank you, oh fantastic. Good evening from Washington, I'm Laura Ingraham, this is 'The Ingraham Angle.' We have another must see show for you tonight. Fresh back from the border and a fresh perspective, the president signs an executive order to illegal immigrant families keeping them together, wow. But will it diffuse the outrage? Speaking of outrage, an aging actor posts obscene and threatening comments about the president's young son Baron, and a Cabinet official. Raymond Arroyo exposes some politically unhinged celebrities in one of his anything but, in tonight's edition of Seen and Unseen. Also tonight we'll reveal the shocking and increasingly dangerous tactics of the left, including harassing administration officials in public. Meanwhile, we look into a stunning bombshell. Did FBI agents actually commit crimes to cover up for Hillary? And China may be infiltrating our universities to steal our hi-tech secrets. We've been talking about this before but we have new info, for you, we'll talk about it later in the show. But first, a borderless world, that's the focus of tonight's Angle. Over the past week, listening to the anchors and pundits and politicians, one would think what they're really upset about it family separation at the border.


RACHEL BADE, POLITICO CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER: If we treated American kids like this, can you imagine the reaction and the blow back like we're seeing right now with these migrant kids

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: How do you explain this to your kids, that these kids who are bring separated from their parents are being ripped apart?

REP. SHEILLA JACKSON LEE, D—TEXAS: This should be placed squarely at this feet, he can handle this. This is not a question of pancing along stop the criminalising of babies and separating them from their families.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC ANCHOR: Families are being torn apart, who in America could do this?


INGRAHAM: Okay they want us to believe what's really getting to them, what they really care about is keeping children with their parents, okay. Family unity, that's all that matters. Of course they don't believe in open borders, who would believe in that? And of course they don't think everyone, minors or adults, bring them across the border should be allowed to stay. But let's take a look at what's really going on. Here's a story from NPR from back in 2015. It notes that at one point President Obama was detaining 2,000 women and their children who crossed the border illegally. But what happened? International migration activists and the ACLU filed law suits and ultimately courts shut down one of the largest family detention centers. The centers that we're now supposed to believe that the Democrats want up and running again? As we've been pointing out, this is all related to that 1997 Flora Settlement and subsequent court rulings that prohibit the federal government from holding children longer than 20 days. So if families aren't separated and can't be housed together? Well we have one humongous catch and release nightmare on our hands. Basically it means any alien with a child will get a fast pass into the country. The Democrats now decry the separation of families at the border, in demand, okay, that families be kept together. But where exactly would we do that since all the family detention centers have been shut down by that 2015 court ruling. A decision the far left night circuit affirmed in 2016. In fact three years ago, 136 House Democrats opposed the Obama administration's detention of families, keeping them together. I'm saying detention of families again, not of children, of families who had been kept together as their case was adjudicated.


AMY MALDONALDO, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: The Obama administration was challenged on family detention and they lost. And Judge G clearly said their family detention centers violated the Flores Settlement Agreement. They were not caring for immigrant children.


INGRAHAM: Okay so Democrats real answer now is simply set them free, just go ahead. Come back maybe, at some point, for a hearing in the future. As a result of liberal activism and policies like DACA, what we ended up doing was we encouraged more families to come from Central America. We encouraged more minors to be trafficked, more deaths in the desert, more illegality, and yes, more strains on you, the American tax payer. Nice going guys. President Trump tried to send a strong message that America was not going to tolerate border crashers and began to prosecute anyone who violated federal law. That's entering the country without permission, not coming through a regular port of entry. Well part of his reason was to discourage people, again, from making that harrowing journey northward, putting themselves and children in danger. But of course after nonstop media coverage of the family separation and the public outcry that followed, Trump ended up relenting. He signed an executive order today that would allow families to remain together as they await adjudication of their cases. He's asking the Defence Department to work with Homeland Security to house the families. We're going to see how that executive order, of course, is greeted but the courts.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are going to have a lot of happy people.


INGRAHAM: Well happy? Not quite. The left has already moved on to their next mantra, "We shouldn't be detaining anyone".


REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D—CALIF.: I give him zero credit and now I'm just concerned that we are going to move to indefinite detention of families at our border and that we're not going to solve this.

NATALIA CORNELIO, DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM PROJECT: This order means that families will be incarcerated together meaning the children will be incarcerated with parents.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you think about the people that are being deported, these are people, as you said, that have made the most desperate journey of their life in some of the most dangerous conditions in the world.

INGRAHAM: Again, they were for family unification yesterday, today they're against family unification if they're detained. You see how the goal posts keeps moving, the goal post. It's important that all of you know, by the way, what fueling all of this. The well-funded organizations that work overtime to gum up our border enforcement efforts and push for what ends up being essentially, a borderless world. Here are some of the non-profits funded by billionaire globalists for their grassroots activism and well-orchestrated media campaigns. Of course, not big surprise, the ACLU, then there's the American Immigration Council, who could forget the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law. Then there's the Refugee and Immigration Center for Legal Services that are known as RAICES. And then the Detention Watch Network, and then finally the group formally known as LERASA, UNIDOS US. Well here's the spokesperson of another open borders group, there's a list on and on, the Real Grande Valley Equal Voice Network


CHRISTINA HOULE, EQUAL VOICE NEWTORK OF THE RIO GRANDE VALLEY: It's very difficult to track them through all those agencies. Ultimately, what really worries us is the idea of families being kept together in detention. ICE has a horrible track record for overseeing children.


INGRAHAM: Okay, again, the HHS, refugee resettlement, that handles the children. Family unification in a detention center? That's a different deal. But look, when you listen to the activists and the politicians today, after the president signed his executive order, they revealed themselves. Their goal is simple, they want to show the American people that borders themselves are fundamentally unjust. They're a violation of human rights, free movement, free peoples, you've heard it. So for years they've advocated for restrictive court rulings that tie the government's hands and limit our capability to protect our own people, control our own immigration, who comes and who goes and in a serious way. It's a transnational push for the free movement of people and it requires essentially amnesty for all but perhaps the most violent criminal offenders. And even a few of them, as we've seen in recent months, might slip through the process. As for you, American citizens and all of you illegal immigrants watching, you're just supposed to basically just pick up the pieces. Deal with it, deal with all the fall out, pay the money that you're going to have to pay to cover all these bills, and get ready to welcome whoever comes for whatever motivation, no matter how they get here. And that's the Angle.
Let's discuss this now with John Davidson, senior correspondent for The Federalist and immigration attorney Francisco Hernandez. It's great to have both of you on, we're going to be joined in a few minutes by Dave Brat for the congressional update on all of this. John let's start with you, I think there's so much misinformation out there on how this process works. But we have created this nightmare at out border, over many years, refusing to enforce the laws that are books. John you wrote a phenomenal piece Federalist laying this out. Where are we tonight on this issue?

JOHN DAVIDSON, THE FEDERALIST SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Thank you for having us. Well we're in a lot different place than were just a few months ago. In March I was in McAllen, Texas and that's in the Rio Grande Valley there, it's the busiest center for border crossings. And I was shocked to find out what the system actually is and I don't think Americans realize when families come cross the border illegally, they're processed, most of them claim asylum, their processed by ICE. And when they're released, ICE in McAllen just drives them to a Greyhound station and drops them off there. And then Catholic Charities, which is just a few blocks away, brings busses and vans over and picks them up brings them over to a respite center and helps them call relatives and friends and family members in the United States. Makes sure they get bus tickets to get them where they're going and sends them on their way later that night. Most of the men in this facility had electronic ankle monitors and many of them told me that as soon as they got to wherever they were going, which is all over the country, they just cut the monitors off and throw them away. That's the system. And if you look at federal records, you see that the number of asylum seekers that have their cases go through the system and are adjudicated, a large number of them are decided in absentia, which they just never show up for them. And that's the system that we have in place today and I think that's the system that the Trump administration is trying to fix. Yeah exactly.

INGRAHAM: Reacted to. Yeah they reacted to it saying we can't keep doing things the way it is. Francisco I know you have a big heart and you want to welcome everybody into the United States who wants to come, no matter how they get here. And I'm saying that because I know you, you're a great person, but this system now put children in jeopardy, it puts women in jeopardy and it enriches the cartels because they're making big bucks. The border patrol last night down in the San Diego sector, chapter and verse they said, "The people profiting are the cartels and the human traffickers". Francisco

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ, IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: Well thank you. Oh yeah, oh yeah, it is a lot more profitable and a lot less dangerous for the traffickers than drugs. It costs about $10,000 per person to be smuggled from Central America and Ma Ingraham, you may not know this, but by the time they get to the border, it's the point of no return, they're not going back. The problem here is the administration tried to send a message to tell people, "Don't come", because we're going to separate you from your children, but the people were already three to six months into their trek. They're not exactly getting Wi-Fi in the desert and they're not checking their Twitter account. They're already on their way up here and the smugglers have already been paid so as soon as the smugglers get them here, they just want to dump them on us and we've got to deal with what it is. Now we have to admit that as bad as our political asylum process is, it is a legal way of trying to get here. Why don't we try to change it to where we give yearly renewable work permits for only the breadwinner is going to risk their life coming up here an then we don't have all these people fleeing their source country. Honduras is a lawless nation, it's the Somali of Latin America and mothers know that they're probably going to be separated from their child, it's the baby mother syndrome.

INGRAHAM: We'll talk to Dave Brat about that. But yeah we'll talk to Congressman Brat about that. But we have a situation right now, as it exists, that I think the President is trying to deal with in, I think a reasonable way that nothing is good here, it's either open borders and let people into the country, and we know how that works, it encourages more. Or it's separating the families which is harrowing thing, images are terrible, nobody likes to see. So John I want to go back to you, the President came out today and the media was blaring it, "President back tracks, reverses course". At the same time he says they're not getting rid of his zero tolerance policy, correct John?

DAVIDSON: Yeah that's right and that's what the media had a problem with because the executive order keeps in place that zero tolerance policy. The Trump administration rightly or wrongly, and I think they were not prepared to do this when they did, they're saying we're going to prosecute every single person that crosses the border illegally. That's an insane thing to do if you have the system we have right, but the executive order keeps that in place and says, "We're going to keep the families together while their asylum claims and their immigration status is adjudicated". Now that runs against the 1997 Flores Agreement which says you can't keep kids for more than 20 days, even if they're with their parents. And so the Trump administration has sort of provoked a show down now, it's like a challenge to Congress. This is going to get struck down so how is Congress going to act?

INGRAHAM: Hold on Francisco I want to read something from Dick Durbin said, this just came in. He said, "Make no mistake, the President is doubling down on his 'zero tolerance' policy. His new Executive Order criminalizes asylum-seekers and seeks to indefinitely detain their children. Locking up whole families is no solution at all". Back to the point I made in the Angle Francisco, it was never really about family unification, it was about having no detaining at all. So let's be clear about what people are really upset about they're upset about prosecuting people who cross the border illegally, correct?

HERNANDEZ: Ms. Ingraham, both sides, both parties have blood on their hands, okay. Now this is the problem here it--

INGRAHAM: Blood on their hands, what are you talking about? Francisco, you can call me Laura, you've been on the show for like 20 years okay. Francisco, honestly, when you say blood on their hands that's just doesn't help okay. We want to find the compassion, however we have the rule of law and what the Democrats are doing is they're revealing themselves here. They don't want anyone detained. They want anyone who crosses the border illegally with a child, or frankly without a child, less they're a murderer I guess, to be released pending adjudication, correct?

HERNANDEZ: I know but we're in Texas and we have manners. Both parties have failed to take action on immigration in Congress--

INGRAHAM: The answer is correct, yeah.

HERNANDEZ: That's really where it belongs. I give the President credit for, "Hey, I made a mistake" and he's correcting it. I'm not going to beat up on it because he's correcting it. He has failed--

INGRAHAM: But you don't want anyone detained. Francisco please answer the question. You don't want anyone, like Durbin, they shouldn't be detained at all once they cross the border.

HERNANDEZ: I'm sorry. Look an adult can make the decision but not the children, okay. We got to pace the children somewhere else.

INGRAHAM: Okay we got to get to Brad because we got to get the Congressional update okay. Guys, thank you so much. And speaking of Congress, as I said, we've witnessed a strange spectacle on the House floor today. Finger pointing and heated words between House speaker Paul Ryan, House Freedom Caucus Chair Mike Meadows on what appeared to be over immigration but let's get the inside scoop from Congressman Dave Brat. Congressman, what was going on there, on the floor?

REP. DAVE BRAT, R—VIRGINIA: I think there was an exchange about the initial terms of what the original Goodlatte Bill and the compromised bill.

INGRAHAM: Okay no one understands what the Goodlatte bill is. But We're talking about the immigration bill that are on Capitol Hill right now. The Goodlatte bill is closer to what Donald Trump originally said he wanted but from all accounts it's never going to pass. There's no chance, dead on arrival, correct? It's never going anywhere. So now we have the compromise bill. A lot of my hard line friends are like this is amnesty, it doesn't really build the wall, it kind of does and it doesn't, what the truth?

BRAT: Yeah, no the truth is it doesn't have the four pillars that Trump wanted. It doesn't have--

INGRAHAM: He says it does.

BRAT: It doesn't end chain migration, it ends two of the five categories. It doesn't really get rid of the lottery system, there's no e-verify I it, it doesn't take care of sanctuary cities et cetera. But getting to what Francisco said, he says it's up to Congress blood is on our hands, that's baloney. Six months ago in January, the Republicans, the Senate shut down the government over this issue. They said give us 700,000 DACA and said okay we'll comprise, we'll work with you half way and they said no. And then Donald Trump comes in and says that we'll 1.8 million--

INGRAHAM: He doubled it, I was like whoa, what that all about?

BRAT: The Democrats said no.

INGRAHAM: He called their bluff.

BRAT: Now we have 25 Republicans working with 200 Democrats on a moderate bill that we're talking about and then no Democrats are showing up. And then last night the ultimate, the icing on the cake to show Francisco is totally wrong, we said that Ted Cruz and Mark Meadows put up bills on the family unification part, that's not the issue, you had it right in your Angle, right. It's about open borders but ultimately the rule of law is at stake here.

INGRAHAM: They do not want any of it. This is not about unifying families, as heart-warming as that is, we are all worried about that. But if they wanted that and said, "Okay we're going to adjudicate your case", well "Oh you're going to keep them in internment camps". Well I mean thanks, oh okay.

BRAT: They don't want any of it. So the conclusion is what s what do they want? They want an issue in November, they don't really want to help the kids.

INGRAHAM: They don't want to solve this.

BRAT: They don't want to unify families, we got bills to do that. They don't want a rational immigration policy, they don't want DACA kids, they said they want to help DACA kids, they're voting no with their feet.

INGRAHAM: Now on chain migration, why are they only are they only eliminating two of the five categories? So they would allow adult children to come in, spouses, which is fine and parents and what else?

BRAT: Well that's about it and all you need it that because at 1.8 DACA eligible kids--

INGRAHAM: It should be just minor children right? Just minor children and spouses.

BRAT: Well just so people know, that bows it up from 1.8 million to three or four million and then what are our border security people going to be doing? Can they do border enforcement when we say we are going to do border enforcement? No they're all going to be processing all those people who have no paperwork coming from Guatemala, Honduras et cetera, right. You think that they have documentation to show who the parents are what the status is? Nothing.

INGRAHAM: This is what I'm saying, our border patrol, I was there in San Diego last night, these are the most amazing people, by the way, great men and women. And I said how do you determine, and we have example after example of MS-13 coming in with minors. Let me just give you a couple, `May 2018, border control apprehended an adult male who was travelling with his supposed one year old son, he's a known MS-13 gang member, previously removed from the country in 2012. His minor child was released to an uncle'. This goes on and on, a rape convict of MS-13, female MS-13 apprehended last month. Goes on and on and on. With children, because why Congressman? You bring a child in and it's like you can't separate the families, okay.

BRAT: And it's explosive. Bruce Westerman, one of my colleagues, 60 million lethal doses of Fentanyl came over the southern border in the last six months. 60 million lethal doses of Fentanyl. So it's that, it's MS-13, it's the illegal drugs and it's the rule of law that's ultimately at stake. Where are the Democrats--

INGRAHAM: Democrats tell stories with pictures, Republicans site numbers and charts. The emotion they have it on their side but is thing going to pass, the immigration bill?

BRAT: No I don't think either will going to pass.

INGRAHAM: Well then I guess we are going to keep having a chain migration explosion in the United States and across the border. Thank you so much for that insight.

BRAT: Thanks Laura.

INGRAHAM: How low can they go? We are going to show you how the radical fringe seems to have lost what's left of its collective mind during the latest tantrum over Trump. Stay there.
INGRAHAM: Oh by now you've all heard of the Trump syndrome but this latest immigration crisis seems to have triggered the left into something far more dark and potentially dangerous. When media outlets allow Nazi and Holocaust comparisons to go unchallenged, it's no wonder that fringe groups are going off the rails. It all started Monday when an unoccupied Wall Street account supposedly humorous instructions on how to assassinate ICE agents. The tweet has since been deleted. Then yesterday the radical leftist group ANTIFA tweeted out a database with the addresses of 1,500 ICE agents and their families. Might this lead to real violence and where is the condemnation? Well let's examine that with former Chuck Schumer aide Chris Hahn and former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. It's great to see both of you. Chris let's start with you. I know you don't condone any of this stuff and both sides can get wild and wacky. After spending down time at the border and I've been there, I think the last time that I was really there was like 1997 during a report on the border, all those years ago. So being there last night and talking to the border agents, these are just great people, they're just trying to their job and Washington just seems so far away for them. And to have organizations post their addresses and they have children too, how did we get here?

CHRIS HAHN, FORMER AIDE TO SENATOR CHUCK SHUMER: That's horrible and that should never happen. We could have a real debate about what we want to do at our border. We could come up with solutions and comprehensive immigration reform or we could stop what President Trump started which is what he did today, hopefully. But we don't we don't have to be vile about it and I don't condone that at all, I think that most mainstream people don't. Look, people's tempers and passions were definitely enraged over this issue. I know myself, I have been very upset by what I have been seeing from the border but there's no reason to start calling people Nazis and there's definitely no reason to provoke violence. And look, it happens to me all the time from the right. I got lots of hate emails, I got dozens of them after my appearance this week. It happens all the time, it's not good. It should never be good and it should never happen.

INGRAHAM: Yeah but we're in the public eye. You and I and Ari are used to it, it's like bring it on, it doesn't norther me. This is like wimpy men who sit in their basements with their BVDs and it's like, "Oh I'm cool, I'm on Twitter". It's like they're not real men in my view. So it doesn't bother me at all but Ari these are people doing their jobs day and day out. You also had Kristin Nielson, obviously a public figure, she was in a Mexican restaurant last night and she was just trying to get some dinner and, I think we have the video and this is what happened to her. She was basically driven out of a restaurant. So now a cabinet secretary can't even eat dinner apparently. Ari

ARI FLEISCHER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Laura one of the reasons these things happen is because there is no uprising against the groups that do it. There's no shaming of them, there's no sense of a probe to them that you've crossed a line. The only people that really blow the whistle are Fox News and Conservatives and I assure you if it was done in reverse, if a Conservative engaged in that type of behavior, the New York Times, CBS, CNN, ABC, they would all collectively blow a gasket because they want to draw a line on what's acceptable and what's not acceptable. So when so much of the media sits relatively silent about these types of behaviors, it only encourages them to keep doing it because nobody they care about is correcting them. So the path is open to them.

INGRAHAM: Can you imagine Chris, Mika and Joe, as Ari said if the situation we reversed and we had all members of some liberal group home phone numbers published, "We know where you live". It would be intimidation. You would be intimidating people from speaking out, it would be wall to wall coverage and they would basically say it's a First Amendment human rights issue and you're endangering the lives of innocent Americans. But we're all supposed to just shrug it off here.

HAHN: Well two points, one, I'm old enough to remember 2010 when many people were shut down by people who called themselves the Tea Party including in Town Hall forums and other forums of protests across America. It happens, people get passionate. As for the secretary of Homeland Security, she probably should have been at the border trying to understand what was going on and not sitting in a Mexican restaurant where she could be protested and she was subject to protest. Now look, I'm not at all for people getting protested wherever they were, she should have been at the border last night. She should have been wondering what's going on. She still has not visited a detention center where some are being harmed and that's on her.

INGRAHAM: Wait a second, remember when Obama went down there in 2014, Ari and he went and gave a speech and he was really close to the border. He didn't even go to the border, he was in Texas with thousands and thousands of people were pouring across the border.

HAHN: J. Johnson went.

INGRAHAM: This big deal about, "Oh I didn't go to the border", yeah J. Johnson went at the same time when he was being pushed and pushed and pushed and this thing had been building for months. They blew off the Conservatives for months until it got heated in June of 2014. One at a time guys

FLEISCHER: Hold on, let me get in here, you had your chance. There's a huge difference between a member of Congress holding a Town Hall organized political event and being heckled and having somebody from the opposing party, in this case the Tea Party does again, speak out against them. If somebody, a border agent, an ICE agent and even a cabinet secretary having their privacy invaded by people who don't like what they do in the course of their public lives. You can't compare the two. One is their daily job, the other is their private life. And you don't want us to open that door. If I were to open that door, should conservatives go to the restaurants that Democrats eat? You don't want anybody to do that.

HAHN: She was in public.

INGRAHAM: If this happened to any of the Obama people, if Loretta Lynch was subjected to this in a restaurant, Chris I'm sorry I don't think you'd all "oh it's a public space". You'd be going crazy. And I actually would be, too. It's outrageous. It shouldn't happen. Protest on the street, protest when she's on her way out of the restaurant.

HAHN: Again, I agree.

INGRAHAM: I got to go to these other things, because I want to know what Chris thinks of this. Today, the website Splinter published the cell phone number of senior presidential adviser Stephen Miller, who has since reportedly been deluged with vile texts and so forth. So is this the new normal? Apparently they are all celebrating this, that they put up his personal cell phone. They've been suspended from Twitter for like five seconds for that apparently. I'm joking, but it's a minor, minor slap on the wrist, Twitter jail.

HAHN: It is horrible, but President Trump did give out Lindsey Graham's phone number during the presidential election. And we all remember that. Lindsey Graham did the video where he destroyed his cell phone, many different ways.

INGRAHAM: That was not smart.

HAHN: Is horrible. It should never happen. The president shouldn't have done during the campaign and this group should definitely not have done it down.

INGRAHAM: All right, check this one out. One celebrity's Trump bashing now so outlandish that the Secret Service has been contacted. Raymond Arroyo looks at Hollywood totally unhinged in an inspiring moment, too, in "Seen and Unseen" next.


INGRAHAM: It's time now for our "Seen and Unseen" segment where we expose what's really behind the cultural stories of the day.

And tonight a special Hollywood edition, starting with an aging star who has made threatening comments about the president's young son. FOX News contributor, "New York Times" bestselling author of the "Will Wilder" series Raymond Arroyo has a shocking lineup of tales from Tinsel Town tonight. One bright light as well.

RAYMOND ARROYO, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, we have a bright light. Let's start with Peter Fonda.

INGRAHAM: Start with a negative.

ARROYO: Let's start with a negative, and the darkness to the light, Laura.

Celebrities like so many were outraged when they saw these pictures of kids being separated from their families, Peter Fonda, as well. He tweeted this. He said "We should rip Barron Trump from his mother's arm and put him in a cage with pedophiles and see if mother will," this is his misstep here," stand up against the giant blank-hole she is married to, 90 million people in the streets on the same weekend," and then f-bomb. This is the level of discourse we have naturally.

INGRAHAM: What is the last move he was in?

ARROYO: I think "Easy Rider."

INGRAHAM: We say aging. Some aged. Why are we calling him aging? Aged.

ARROYO: He has got a new movie coming out. But people are saying he it shouldn't be released given these comments. Melania Trump called the Secret Service.


ARROYO: They should have been called. You are threatening the person of not only the first lady but the first son. You can't do this. Now, he has since apologized, Laura. He sent out of thing saying, look, "I tweeted something highly inappropriate and vulgar about the president and his family. Like many Americans I'm impassioned and distraught over the situation that children separated from their families at the border."

But here's the problem. You when I have friends, Democratic friends, who were very upset when President Obama had his deportation policy and was incarcerating people, families. In 2014, I don't remember anybody threatening the first daughters or the first lady. We've got to tamp this down. Your outrage over policy is not a free pass to hate, threaten, demean people. We've got to keep this on the topic and not allow our emotions to take over. I'm really worried. I see hatred all over social media. It's personal and it's dangerous.

INGRAHAM: It's dangerous, and what they are doing with the phone numbers and harassing people in restaurants. If this had been done, I keep saying, to Loretta Lynch or going back to Janet Reno, I don't know why she comes to mind, but really going back --

ARROYO: Donna Shalala. Anybody one else you would like to bring up from a golden past?


ARROYO: Pat Buchanan. We can go back to Casper Weinberger. Anybody else he would like to touch?

INGRAHAM: The outrage, OK? I'm a little punchy tonight. Don't you dare do that.

ARROYO: By the way, before we leave the Fondas, Jane Fonda is getting a lifetime achievement award --

INGRAHAM: Of course she is.

ARROYO: From the Michael Moore film festival. I'm going to get you a ticket.

INGRAHAM: Oh, good.

ARROYO: We've got to move onto the f-bomb.

INGRAHAM: I'll wear my dirty baseball cap.

ARROYO: I've been noticing something out there. Since Robert De Niro got up at the Tony Awards and just yelled f-bomb Trump repeatedly, we are seeing this in celebrity culture, Kathy Griffin. Now John legend over Father's Day weekend, Paul Ryan tweeted out, happy Father's Day to all the dads out there. Legend tweets back, "Seriously, f-- you. Reunite the families of the border and we can talk about Father's Day."

INGRAHAM: Why doesn't John take in some other families in his compound in Malibu? Why doesn't he bring them all over to his house? OK, let's really treat them the right way. Let's give them life Hollywood style, Malibu style. I'm sure they are hanging out at the cafes in the morning, sipping their tea if John Legend will bring them in.

ARROYO: If people want to disagree over the policy, disagree, but do it amiably and civilly.

INGRAHAM: Was John Legend upset during Obama's time when he was deporting all those people?

ARROYO: No, but he's upset now. My problem is they are insinuating a vulgarity into the culture and teaching our kids, yours and mine, that it's OK to throw an f-bomb, no reason, no argument, just attack. That is not good enough. That is not acceptable.

Now I want to get to somebody that is more than acceptable.

INGRAHAM: You've got three minutes here.

ARROYO: Chris Pratt was given the Generation Award at the MTV Movie Awards this past week. I want to share this with you. He listed nine rules. Now, he used this opportunity, he had a few jokes, he talked about his family, then he listed nine rules for living. Watch this.


Chris PRATT, ACTOR: God is real. God loves you. God wants the best for you. Believe that. I do. Learn to pray. It's easy, and it's so good for your soul.



ARROYO: But look at the reaction.

INGRAHAM: Yes, I like that.

He also talked about being an influencer, using your platform to affect and touch other people.

INGRAHAM: Something good.

ARROYO: He's doing it. And when kids like mine, my Lorenzo loves Chris Pratt. The "Parks and Rec" Chris Pratt, the Star-Lord Chris Pratt, and the "Jurassic Park' Chris Pratt. When he says it, it's different than you or I saying it or somebody else. These are people they really look up to. I love that he is using his platform to uplift people and young people.

And then he went on. And how often do here celebrity talk about the soul and tell young people, why don't you pray.

INGRAHAM: We all need to talk about the soul.

ARROYO: We do, and to remember what this is about and the journey we are really on. Then he said this. So often we hear, sweetheart, you are perverted, don't change. Chris Pratt had a different message.


PRATT: And finally, number nine, nobody is perfect. People are going to tell you, you are perfect just the way you are. You're not. You are imperfect. You always will be. But there is a powerful force that is energy that way. And if you are willing to accept that, you will have grace, and grace is a gift. And like the freedom that we enjoy in our country, that grace was paid for with somebody else's blood. Do not forget it. Don't take it for granted.



INGRAHAM: I'm going to the church of Chris Pratt. I need homilies like that at mass, come on.

ARROYO: Uplifting, fun. He told a poop joke, he told other things. Interesting, "Cosmo" when they reported this, they didn't mention any of his God talk.

INGRAHAM: That's a shock.

ARROYO: But that was a critical thing we just heard. You are not perfect. We are all imperfect, we are all craving grace and need it, and I love that Chris Pratt brought us some grace, brought it to young people who need to be uplifted. They are often attacked. The stuff we heard earlier today, f-bombs --

INGRAHAM: Raymond, you mentioned this point, social media, it's so easy, social media is such a bad influence. There is so much dark, awful stuff on social media. And that is actually just what I need tonight.

ARROYO: Me, too. See, I'm glad I could bring a little unseen light.

INGRAHAM: I feel very awkward having such a positive -- can we go back to satire?

ARROYO: All right, Friday is coming. We'll find something.

INGRAHAM: Friday Follies, OK.

We might have the biggest revelation yet, by the way, the entire course of the Hillary and Russia investigations. What am I talking about? Potentially explosive bombshell dropped in a House hearing. Why it could change everything.


INGRAHAM: A major development in the Hillary Clinton and Russia investigation. Congressman Mark Meadows says FBI agents might have altered witness reports, what the bureau calls 302s.


REP. MARK MEADOWS, R—N.C., HOURS FREEDOM CAUCUS CHAIR: There is growing evidence that 302s were edited and changed. It is suggested they were changed to either prosecute or not prosecute individuals, and that is very troubling.


INGRAHAM: During yesterday's House hearing, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz replied that he may have information confirming that, and he was investigating it. If the FBI agents committed crimes by altering evidence, the consequences would be enormous.

Let's discuss that with former FBI national spokesperson John Iannarelli, and former U.S. attorney Guy Lewis. John, let's start with you. Have you ever heard of anything like this before?

JOHN IANNARELLI, FORMER FBI NATIONAL SPOKESMAN: Absolutely not. And there is no way to alter a document without consequences. That is very, very basic in the rules of the FBI, even to the point if I put the incorrect data on a report, I would do a separate 302 to reflect I mistakenly put the incorrect date. There is no changing the facts of anything.

INGRAHAM: I want to talk to Guy about this, as well. I think it's important to listen to part of the exchange from yesterday when Meadows was questioning Horowitz, again, about the identity of these individuals whose names were not used in this report. Let's watch.


MEADOWS: You said, I think I'm correct, that they did not want that divulged because they actually worked in counterintelligence. Is that correct?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That is what we were told by the FBI.

MEADOWS: Those two attorneys, do they not work for Trish Anderson?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Those two attorneys work in the Office of General Counsel.

MEADOWS: And so would one of those attorneys be Sally Moyer?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm going to differ --

MEADOWS: They don't work and counterintelligence. If that is the reason the FBI is giving, they are giving you false information because they work for the general counsel.


INGRAHAM: Guy, what is going on here? Is this -- could this be a potentially criminal wrongdoing on the part of the FBI for mislabeling, improperly identifying the general identity of these actors in this report? And why do we have to keep their names a secret? To me, if they are working for the general counsel, why are we keeping their names secret?

GUY LEWIS, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY: Laura, it makes no sense. And it is a big deal. It truly is. John is 100 percent right in the sense that you don't go in and start doctoring, changing reports, 302s. The 302, the report that the FBI uses, is meant to take down investigation, things that are happening, activities of the investigation. And also when you sit there and interview, like when they were interviewing Secretary Clinton, they would have generated one 302 as a result of the interview.

Now, they can't go back and make changes. And if they lied about it to the OIG, that, in and of itself, is a criminal offense, subject to prosecution. It's very, very serious, serious business.

INGRAHAM: You worked with Christopher Wray and Michael Horowitz, Guy, so do these guys take this seriously? Horowitz seemed to want to defer on naming one of the individuals. He wouldn't confirm or deny it was Sally Moyer. But Christopher Wray was like none of this impacts the credibility of the Bureau. He was coming out and defending the Bureau about the overall report the other day. But this is ridiculous. This can't stand, can it?

LEWIS: Laura, I understand Chris, Director Wray, defending the Bureau. There's a lot of great women and men out there that are working their hearts out to keep us safe day in and day out. But when you look at what happened here, the very top of this really elite law enforcement agency, the director, the assistant director, who has now been referred to prosecution, the director who has been fired, some would say in disgrace. The deputy assistant director was led out of the building and escorted out of the building.

And then you look at the lawyers and how Michael Horowitz, the I.G., who is a tough nut, he is a hardnosed prosecutor, and I believe truly that he is going to get to the bottom of this. But when you look at the top of the organization, I got to tell you, Laura, it's very, very troubling.

INGRAHAM: Right, that's what I'm saying. John, John, the fish rots from the head, is that the saying? The head of the fish is rotten, the fish is -- I don't know. But it seems to me that you can't come out and say after this I.G. report, oh, the Bureau stands on its credibility, and the great - - of course there are great men and women. But two of the most important investigations of the last five, 10 years, Hillary email investigation and the Trump-Russia investigation. Hillary email investigation had real problems. Now it looks like they may have altered the documents.

IANNARELLI: What I would suggest to Director Wray, I think he's doing the right thing in trying to clean house of the problems that existed under his predecessor. In the goodwill speech to the troops, it's important to keep the morale up because the vast majority of these agents and support personnel are doing a great job.

But as far as talking to the general public, the public wants to have confidence in the FBI. If I could make any suggestions to the director, it's time to face the public directly and say, mistakes were made. I am working at cleaning up the mistakes so that you can have confidence, not say everything's fine because right now, it isn't. Public perception is bad.

INGRAHAM: Guy, that is a great point. You want to see him mad. You want to see Christopher Wray really upset, like this can't be. We have great people. It's not going to happen on my watch, it's ridiculous, I'm going to get to the bottom of it. I think that's a great point, John.

But Guy, on its issue of extracting texts, why is it that the DOJ will not get these text messages to members of Congress and obviously the OIG in a timely fashion? They had to go to the Department of Defense, the inspector general's office had to go there to get the texts. What is that about?

LEWIS: Laura, there is no excuse for it. Really, you can raise objections, you can raise these kind of broad, hey, it's a matter under investigation. But what this does in my judgment, having done this for 30 plus years, and tried some fairly significant cases, it taints everything.

You can't come out and say, look, I'm conducting this investigation, the Russia investigation. I've conducted this investigation, the Clinton investigation, and I closed it out. I've got to tell you, I have no faith in what went on in the Clinton case and what is going on in the Russia case. Truly I don't because of exactly what you are talking about.

INGRAHAM: Fantastic segment and panel. Thank you so much to both of you. Both highly experienced people with actual knowledge about how this type of process works. Really important for the developments we brought you tonight.

And up next, we reveal how China may be stealing our high-tech secrets right under our noses -- Chinese universities.


INGRAHAM: Chinese government related organizations are providing huge bucks to more than 50 American universities for joint high-tech projects. The problem, these actually may be attempts to steal U.S. research and technology. Dozens of lawmakers are asking Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to investigate the potential threat to national security.

Let get details from Defense Department consultant Mike Pillsbury who just got back from China, just off the plane. He's writing up a report on this very subject. Michael, the Confucian Institutes, we've heard about this before. At some point we heard there was 100 Confucian centers at universities. Rubio wants a lot of these things reexamined and shut down. What is really happening here?

MICHAEL PILLSBURY, DEFENSE DEPARTMENT CONSULTANT: There are more than 100. America has the most Confucius Institutes.

INGRAHAM: What are they, Confucius Institutes?

PILLSBURY: On the surface they are pure language training places where you come in and learn about Chinese festivals. Yesterday was dragon boat festival, you learn how to say that in Mandarin. So on the surface they appeared to be performing a function. But they pay universities sometimes $5 million, sometimes $10 million, often they have a secret contract. So there is a second side to them that they tend to have objections. If the Dalai Lama wants to come to speak -- this actually happened in San Diego.

INGRAHAM: I remember.

PILLSBURY: So the channel of influence on the university as a whole --

INGRAHAM: Extremely smart. The Chinese are very smart.

PILLSBURY: We don't do this.

INGRAHAM: We don't do this kind of thing.

PILLSBURY: We don't have the George Washington Institutes all over China. Plus they would block it because it would be a channel for American values.

INGRAHAM: So we think voice of America, radio free, we think that is the way that -- we put McDonald's everywhere and that is going to help. But in fact we don't export our values of free market, free people, free expression. They say, no, no, no --

PILLSBURY: We would be a bully to do that. That would be un-American, somehow, if we push our ways onto the Chinese people. This is what the Chinese say back to us.

But besides the Confucius Institutes, what this pressure on Betsy Devos today is there seem to be many other channels, contracts with more than 50 universities, where they seem to be targeting our most innovative research and laboratories, signing contracts that the senators want to see. And apparently the first fruit of some of these research organizations at the universities goes to China. So our competitiveness, our most innovative S and T is being peeled off before American companies even get it. You have to admire the chutzpah.

INGRAHAM: But the American universities, I would say, are purposely ignorant. Huge money. They love the foreign students coming in, too. They pay cash, cash.

PILLSBURY: One-third of all foreign students now are Chinese.

INGRAHAM: Are Chinese, at Ivy League institutions, the University of California system, incredibly smart people. But they are looking to get our IP as it's being developed.

PILLSBURY: Before our companies can get it, or the government.

INGRAHAM: And sovereign wealth funds going in and investing early.

PILLSBURY: That's another channel. All of this it seems to be controlled and targeted by the very top in China. We used to think this was just free market companies do this --

INGRAHAM: The government is doing this. They have the China 2020 plan, and this is part of it.

PILLSBURY: That used to be the conspiracy theory. Now it's a White House document today.

INGRAHAM: Peter Navarro's report came out.

PILLSBURY: Yes, Peter Navarro's report were he uses these buzzwords about economic -- it's a great report.

INGRAHAM: We are going to get into more of that. That is a really important part. Mike Pillsbury, thank you. We'll be right back.


INGRAHAM: Something we didn't have time to get into with Pillsbury but is really important. It's this report we mentioned released by White House trade adviser Peter Navarro's office this morning. It shows the four pillars of Chinese economic aggression. You see them right there on your screen. Well, we'll keep reporting on this threat. It's real. I've been talking about this issue since about 1996, was laughed at by most people, but now we are seeing the fruits of their infiltration of our universities and our economic system.

That's all the time we have. Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" is next.

Copy: Content and Programming Copyright 2018 Fox News Network, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2018 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.