Ingraham: Kavanaugh, Democrats and dinosaurs

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," July 10, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: And by the way NATO needs to play its fair share, and Vladimir, here we go. Let not your heart be troubled, the news continues. By the way, I saw you yesterday outside the White House. I'm like really? It was like the greatest place to broadcast from, I was like jealous. Good for you.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: So I have a questions, Sean.

HANNITY: Oh, boy.

INGRAHAM: Now, you're really going to see Wimbledon but you tell Fox you're going to cover the I --

HANNITY: Wait I didn't hear, what did you?

INGRAHAM: You're going to Wimbledon and you like, "I'm covering the NATO deal" please.

HANNITY: I don't have game tickets to anything. You realize I'm not a tourist. I just go, work, sleep, go home. I go to dinner, I do eat. I hope there's a good restaurant there.

INGRAHAM: Please. Yeah after the Wimbledon final you go home. All right Sean stay safe, great show tonight.

HANNITY: Have a great show.

INGRAHAM: Good evening from Washington, I'm Laura Ingraham, this is 'The Ingraham Angle.' We have a mesmerizing menu of stories to bring to you tonight and as the left melts down over Brett Kavanaugh's a nomination to the Supreme Court, runaway judges are striking fresh blows against the Trump agenda. Plus is California Senator Kamala Harris the female Obama in waiting for 2020? We're going to debate that with someone who ran in her California circles, knows her well. And how President Trump plans to use 'America First' to make a big splash at tomorrow's NATO Summit.

But first, Kavanaugh, Democrats and Dinosaurs, that's the focus of tonight's Angle. Watching the reaction of Democrats to the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the High Court is likely to give you ulcers. Their anger and unhinged rants are one part dystopian drama and one part just sour grapes. Kavanaugh, a federal judge who's occupied the bench for over a dozen years, and written hundreds of decisions, is a man who's really scary because he coaches his daughters' basketball team and volunteers in soup kitchens.

Well he's now being derided as a total monster because of how he might rule on abortion, ObamaCare and gun rights. Actress Julianne Moore tweeted, "Please we must send the senate a clear message. This country cannot afford a justice on the Supreme Court who is likely to support the gun lobby's extreme, absolutist interpretation of the Second Amendment. Message your senators now."

Alyssa Milano who's still ticked that Trump is the boss tweeted, "Brett Kavanaugh, in just on just one case, attacked women's rights, health care and immigration. He's the trifecta of terrible and he must never sit on the Supreme Court."

But it was 'This is Us' director Ken Olin who tweeted my favorite and arguably the most ignorant comment of the night. At least he admits his ignorance writing, "I don't know what kind of judge Brett Kavanaugh is but he and all the other white, and in many cases old folks at the event, looked so out of date, so out of sync with what the world is becoming. What the world needs to become. A last gasp of the way life was in the past. Sad for Us"

So 'This is Us' director believes that old white people are apparently not us. Okay well we're glad we got that straight. Hollywood is not the only community reeling from the Kavanaugh nomination. The shock could be seen on the faces and heard in the voices of the left wing establishment. Oh don't tell Ken Olin but many of the Liberals you're about to see are in fact white and in many cases old.


SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D—N.Y., SENATE MINORITY LEADER: President Trump with the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh is fulfilling two of his campaign promises. First, to undo women's reproductive freedom. Second, to undo ACA. So I will oppose him with everything I've got.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, D—MASS.: He very well could be the deciding vote and whether or not a criminal prosecution against the President goes forward. But this is a President right now who hears the hoof beats of an investigation that is bearing down on him.

SEN. COREY BOOKER, D—N.J.: To avoid a constitutional crisis, we cannot let this confirmation process go forward.


INGRAHAM: Did Elizabeth Warren say hoof beats? Well the last time I saw this many dinosaurs on fire, Chris Pratt was running from them. What voters may soon be doing the same? You've got to watch these people, they're totally nuts. But did you hear what Corey Booker said there? "We cannot let this confirmation process go forward"

Do you remember any conservative, any conservative talking in those terms when Barack Obama nominated Elena Kagan, or for that matter Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court? The answer is no. So go ahead, critique the nominee's legal reasoning, that's fine. Question his or her view of the Constitution. Totally fine. But to adopt an ANTIFA like resistance that seeks to block the process at all costs or weaponize it? Is just absurd. The truth is, for all the histrionics, Brett Kavanaugh would have been a natural choice for pretty much any Republican president.

He served on the second most important court in the country for more than a decade and is widely respected in legal circles. And he's widely like, by the way, by Democrats appointees and Republicans. And his nomination to the high court, it's hardly a radical change in 81 years. Think about this, only three men have held this seat. Justice Hugo Black, Justice Louis Powell and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Now Justice Thomas replacing Thurgood Marshall, now that was a big swing. But this basically a slightly more conservative nominee replacing a generally conservative Justice in Anthony Kennedy.

The big change is that for the first time though since the 1930s, the court could have a reliable Conservative majority, that's big. And this partially explains why some Democrats are just going completely bonkers today. To block Kavanaugh, Dems are trotting out even a new tactic, I loved seeing this unfold today. They now want to force nominees to answer how they would rule on hypothetical cases. Now this is all meant to pin down a nominee on hot button issues. Here's Senator Richard Blumenthal.


SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D—CONN.: You know we have heard these phony platitudes again and again and again. We heard them form Neil Gorsuch, we heard them from now Chief Justice Roberts. These evasive and rehearsed answers are absolutely meaningless. No more business as usual, no more deferential or courteous acceptance of these phony platitudes.


INGRAHAM: A man who knows something about platitudes. Well Chuck Schumer's head seems to be in the same place. Here he is on the senate floor from yesterday.


SCHUMER: President Trump will only select a nominee who will undermine protection for Americans with pre-existing conditions, give greater weight to corporate interests and vote to overturn Rowe versus Wade. The next nominee has an obligation, a serious and solemn obligation to share their personal views on these legal issues.


INGRAHAM: So now an impartial jurist is expected to prejudice his opinions and forecast his views during the confirmation process? Only a year ago, Schumer was singing a much different tune.


SCHUMER: You can't ask a judge who's nominated for a, or a potential judge, who's nominated for a judgeship about a specific case that might come before them.


INGRAHAM: Okay, so what's changed? Well probably this, a new Axios poll of registered voters showing Democrats losing three senate seats while picking up two currently held by Republicans. What's the translation? The Democrats will still be in the minority. That's when Chuck's glasses fall right off the bridge of his nose.

Now in the meantime they'll do whatever they can to try and turn out their base. Their desperate to do that since the senate seems to be slipping away. So even if it means slashing away at confident, very established court pick like Brett Kavanaugh creating this viral drama from the hearing room? They're going to do whatever they can but my sense is when the dust settles, these dinosaurs will be presiding over a fallen kingdom, all of their own. And that's the Angle.

Joining me now for reaction are two esteemed attorneys, Sol Wisenberg was the deputy independent counsel during the investigations into Bill Clinton, knows Brett Kavanaugh and Scott Bolden is a Democrat and chair of the National Bar Association and Political Action Committee. Great to see you. Let's start with you Scott, I think it's completely fair game for the senate, use the constitutional ability seriously, question Kavanaugh's judicial philosophy, his approach to the constitution and ask him about past cases. That's what you should do in your process of reviewing these nominees.

But what you heard from Chuck Schumer is something quite different. He's now demanding, contrary to what he said one year and three months ago, that nominees must say how they're going to rule on certain hot button cases. What is that all about? That's not what he said Scott.

SCOTT BOLDEN, CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE: Or their philosophies. Listen, this is all about ObamaCare. This is all about abortion or Roe v. Wade and it's all about whether this justice nominee believes that thepPresident can be prosecuted or subpoenaed and what have you. These are not hot button issues for the Democrats. These are real issues and when you take the gloves off in those Senate hearings, if you look at maybe the last five to ten that have been published, or that we've seen, you've got non-answers, you've got questions to skirt the issue.

The Democrats and I think some Republicans are going to come out and say, "Tell me what your feelings and thoughts are on Roe v. Wade" When he went to the DC Circuit, Justice Kavanaugh, when he went to the DC Circuit, he said he would follow Rowe versus Wade. But that was a mix because the problem with that is, he was going to the DC Circuit. Now he's going to be on the Supreme Court, why shouldn't we be able to ask him about his feelings on Roe v. Wade now?

INGRAHAM: Well for one, Ruth Bader Ginsberg at her confirmation hearing was very concerned about being asked specific questions. Chuck Schumer, among many other Democrats, when we had Kagan up, when we had Sotomayor up Democrats were in unison.

BOLDEN: Different time, different place. Different time, different place and you're about to shift this court to the right right now.

INGRAHAM: Well okay, Scott. I actually think you're wrong about that and a lot of you guysare probably not going to be happy to hear this. I think you guys ought to be really thanking this president that he nominated someone like Kavanaugh. He is to the right probably a little bit of Kennedy but the idea that Brett Kavanaugh is going to like radically move to take the first abortion case and overturn Roe v. Wade, I don't see that.

BOLDEN: Well he's done violence in prior opinions to all three of those areas is the first thing. But here's the thing, when you use hysterics and what have you, what about the Justice Crisis Network who's going to spend $10 million supporting Kavanaugh, judicial to support--

INGRAHAM: Judicial practice. Oh that's ACLU. Oh the left is doing the same thing. That's the best Sol --

BOLDEN: Oh just $10 million to support, not $10 million worth. What are the Democrats hysterical but the Justice Crisis Network isn't hysterical? Well, both have challenges. Both have challenges.

INGRAHAM: Because they're watching their flank, that's why. I mean you guys just want them to be unilateral disarmed. Let's go to Sol. The left wants Republicans to go into this confirmation fight Sol, without offering any defense of this candidate, of this judicial nominee. They have made this about legislating from the bench because that's what they want the court to do. They want the court to legislate new rights into the Constitution, that the framers never intended. Richard Blumenthal, I want to share something with you Sol that he said today, I could not believe what I was hearing, and the snarly way that he said it, let's watch.


BLUMENTHAL: Judge Kavanaugh, you don't belong in this building as a justice. My colleagues should be a no on this nominee unless Judge Kavanaugh specifically commits that he will recuse himself on any issues that involve President Trump's personal financial dealings or the special counsel.


INGRAHAM: Okay Sol explain that one for us please.

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Well there's absolutely no basis for it. There's no basis in ethics or history for the concept that you can't rule on a case involving a president if he happened to have appointed you. Now Rehnquist, if you recall, recused himself from the Watergate tapes case but that's because he was a member of the Nixon administration and a high official in the Justice Department. But it's just ridiculous and you're going to hear more of this kind of stuff. And you're right Laura, really I got no problem with people opposing a judicial candidate because they oppose his constitutional philosophy or her constitutional philosophy.

But the Democrats don't want to play that game because then they would have to admit in public hearings that really they believe the court should enshrine their notion of progressivism into the Constitution. They really can't win an argument based on textualism and originalism and so they have to come up with these phony issues and that's what you're going to see. And it's going to be very brutal and it's going to involve a lot of false-its and the Republicans have to stay the course, that's all there is to it.

BOLDEN: But Sol why shouldn't the Democrats and the Republicans be able to ask about specific questions about his view on Roe v. Wade, why shouldn't they be able to ask about his views on immigration and his prior cases that he's decided in the DC Circuit? That's not shenanigans, that's doing real good cross examination, direct examination to get a feel for what this next justice is going to be. That's not shenanigans at all, that's real discussion to know what going on.

WISENBERG: Because Scott there's been a rule that's been followed for decades that a judicial candidate should not opine on something on a specific issue that may come before him or her. And it's gone on in both parties for at least the last 50 years and by the way, there a lot of hypocrisy in Washington but there no area full of hypocrisy that judicial selection as Laura pointed out when she quoted Schumer from Justice Ginsberg's nomination fight. The party's totally changed positions depending on whose ox is being gored about what you can ask.

Now the fact is it's absolutely fair game to get into questions of judicial philosophy and you can find out a lot about a candidate when you do that. But it's not fair game to ask him how they're going to rule on something. Again--

BOLDEN: I don't know a rule about that by practice it may be but there's no rule like that. You've proven my point. That's not what I said, that's not what I said.

INGRAHAM: What did Judge Kavanaugh say last night? He said, "I will approach every case with an open mind" An independent view of the judiciary which I think most people believe that's what the court should be. We don't a Supreme Court that acts like it's a super legislature on these issues that Congress can't either state legislatures or the Congress can't get its act together, on whether it's immigration or any of these other social issues. Let those percolate up through the states and be handled in due course.

You see after 45 years of Rowe versus Wade, the issue is not settled. The country is still roiling over 50 million babies being killed in the womb because of this sacrosanct right that was emanating out of penumbras in the Constitution, that didn't work. And I think that's what the left wants to keep going, didn't work. I want to play one more thing for you Scott, one more thing. This was Feinstein on Kavanaugh's view of the Second Amendment, let's watch.


SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D—CALIF.: Because the issue of gun safety is so important to me, I want to mention how extreme Kavanaugh's views are in this area. He argued in 2011 against Washington DC's ban because weapons like AR-15s are in quote, "Common use"

SEN. DICK DURBIN, D—ILLINOIS: Kavanaugh's views on the Second Amendment are straight out of the gun lobby playbook.


INGRAHAM: Again, this is the most facile way of looking at case law. Do you know the case he's talking about, the Heller Case?

SCOTT: Heller case, absolutely.

INGRAHAM: Okay do you know what Brett actually wrote in that case, are you aware if it?

SCOTT: It escapes my memory but I have read his opinion many times.

INGRAHAM: He said, "Our task is to apply the full constitution, we have the full screen, in precedence of the Supreme Court. Regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as matter of first principles or policy" That was a 2011 case following on from Heller. He was applying the Heller case. The fact that they don't AR-15s which are one of the most commonly owned long guns in the United States, that's fine, California has rules against that, but as a matter of constitutional law Scott, it's very different than being a legislator.

BOLDEN: But you conflate the issues.

INGRAHAM: No I separate the branches of government Scott.

BOLDEN: No, I do too. But you conflate the issues in this regard. If you're going to be ruling on abortion issues, why should I not be able to ask you, "What are your professional feelings or thoughts on Roe v. Wade? What it is on ObamaCare?

INGRAHAM: Your feelings don't matter as a judge, the Constitution matters. His judicial philosophy is well known.

BOLDEN: Okay. His thoughts have revealed parts of it already, that's fair game. And that's all I hear from those senators that they disagree with what rule and court writings have been and that's fair game.

INGRAHAM: Sol, final word. Will he get confirmed, yes or no do you think in the end?

WISENBERG: Oh he'll definitely get confirmed but you know the real question about Rowe versus Wade that he clearly can't be asked is, "I don't care what you thought about Rowe versus Wade when it was decided in 1973, the question is whether it should remain valid law if the case comes before the court" And everyone would agree that's just something you can't ask somebody who's a judicial nominee and you'd have to try to glean it from his linings.

INGRAHAM: All right we got it, we can't prejudice future cases. Fantastic segment both of you, thank you so much for joining us.

BOLDEN: Thank you.

INGRAHAM: And while the left goes to extraordinary lengths to paint Kavanaugh as really a monster, we expose the actual threats inside our court system when Andy McCarthy and Judge Mike Mukasey join us next.

INGRAHAM: Okay while the media are in an absolute panic meltdown case of the vapers mode of the Trump's Supreme Court nominee, there are federal judges right at this moment undermining the president's agenda. The latest example? Los Angeles based US District court Judge Dolly Gee, an Obama appointee and that rhymes, on Monday she rejected the Trump administration's request to allow children who are illegal immigrants to be detained together with their parents. Now Judge Gee called the administration filing a, "Cynical attempt to undue a long standing court settlement that prohibits children caught at the border from being detained longer than 20 days" But is it?

And are federal judges overstepping their bounds by essentially legislating from the bench? One judge can affect national policy or bring policy to a total stand still. Here now to explain further is former federal prosecutor and Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy. Andy this Flores Settlement that we've talked about for quite some time continues to haunt the immigration stance of this president. Specifically this problem of family units or people posing as family units crossing the border and thinking they'll just be released into the country. Trump and Sessions wanted to put an end to that but now they are up against the same federal court judge that had shut down this process before for Obama. Where are we here?

ANDY MCCARTHY, FORMER ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: It's a real tough problem Laura, although I would say as far as this judge is concerned far, I think, from a cynical attempt to undermine the law. I think what the Trump administration tried to do ere was get this reversed the right way which would be to go to the court and go back to the litigation where this settlement was originally entered. The fact that they didn't succeed was predictable but I do think they did it in the right way and the honorable way.

The problem here is that this is a terrible abdication by Congress and it's a great example of what happens when you legislate through litigation. So basically what we need is Congress to say, "Here are the rules and the conditions of confinement, the conditions of detention that should apply to minor aliens" They won't do that so they delegated to the Justice Department and what we end up having is these activist litigations where there's a discovery of substantive due process rights of minor children to a certain level of treatment when they're here. I think as humane people we can all sympathize with that and agree with it.

But it's not an adult policy if you going to say, "We're going to give these people these rights and we're not going to provide the physical infrastructure that you need to carry it out"

INGRAHAM: So Andy the court though, you're right, it's shifting responsibility from Congress. They already should have dealt with this. You should be able to deport people at an expeditious manner at the border who cross the border illegally to non-contiguous countries and so forth. But at the same time this judge is taking it upon herself to undo what this administration is trying to do and I think this is an example of what happens when an activist judge gets a hold of a hot button issue like this.

Most Americans listening to this conversation tonight are thinking to themselves, "Wait a second, illegal immigrants have constitutional rights and if so, what rights? How far do they extend, do they get court interpreters, do they get lawyers paid for? Do they get to go to school and get entertainment while they're in custody?" I mean I think for most Americans they think the whole thing is a little odd given the fact that they're illegally here.

MCCARTHY: Laura, that's exactly the problem because if Congress had dealt with this in an adult way we'd have answers to all those questions. And instead it's as it floated up in litigation and the fact of the matter is, the Supreme Court in the early 1990s assumed, as did the Justice Department, that they have substantive due process rights to a certain level of humane detention here. And then they basically say, "You guys now work it out"

INGRAHAM: Figure it out.

MCCARTHY: And the problem is back 1997 when this decree was entered which now has the force of law, the problem was one level. Now it's geometrically a bigger issue that it was before and we don't have the infrastructure we need to address it.

INGRAHAM: No it's absurd. Now Andy I'm going to ask Judge Mukasey the former attorney general also, but I want your take in this, it's very important. What is happening Paul Manafort, Trump's former, briefly he was the campaign manager for the campaign. Manafort is now being held in solitary confinement 23 out 24 hours a day as he's trying to prepare for his trial on tax and bank fraud charges. No collusion, none of that but it's tax and bank fraud and his lawyers are saying he's being held in a Virginia prison cell and it was in rural Virginia, in Warsaw Virginia, I've driven through that town and he's 23 hours a day in solitary confinement.

MCCARTHY: Yeah Laura it's very highly unusual in a white collar case like this to detain somebody prior to trial. They say he was tampering with witnesses, persuaded the district court that that was the case. The problem is, once you have somebody that's high profile like him, if the judge does actually put him pre-trial, that is put him in custody, rather than allow him to be out on bail, it's very hard for him to be in general population. So it's almost a given that if you find that he has to be detained, he's going to be detained in these every arduous conditions.

INGRAHAM: Yeah well where's the ACLU? Andy thank you so much for that. Let's bring in Mike Mukasey, former US Attorney General. Judge I want to get your take on this because as someone who is a former white collar criminal defense attorney myself, I cannot think of an occasion on which one of my clients was even close to being put in solitary confinement two weeks before, a fairly complex litigation in preparing for this. His lawyers are saying it's much more difficult to prepare for the defense. What is going on here?

MIKE MUKASEY, FRORMER US ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well apparently they brought, the government alleged apparently produced some evidence to the effect that he was contacting witnesses and so they got the judge to revoke bail. Once he was turned over to the bureau of prisons, the bureau of prisons made the decision that if you put him in general population, he's going to be an attractive target for the kinds of people who are in general population. Bear in mind this man has not been convicted of anything so to protect him and to protect the bureau of prisons against liability, they put him in solitary confinement.

But this it totally unnecessary. It is not rocket science to have somebody in a detention situation outside a prison, home detention and similar kinds of detention in which he can't get access to a computer or to a telephone. There are people who are convicted of dealing in child pornography who are out and about who get restrictions on their access to computers and so on. This can be done and it is not rocket science. And it would not be rocket science to put Paul Manafort in a setting outside of prison in which his access to a telephone maybe restricted, maybe a monitor and so on, this is unnecessary.

INGRAHAM: No and where's the ACLU. The ACLU had issued the most condemnatory statements about solitary confinement that it's essentially its own type of cruel and unusual punishment. A lot of the people on the left want to get rid of it all together. But you don't hear a peep from them on this case. But judge I want to move on to both Brett Kavanaugh briefly and this idea a federal district court judge, something that Justice Thomas wrote about at the end of the term in one of the big cases, that travel ban case. One judge being able to put an injunction in place that stops a President's policy, whether it's on immigration or a broad variety of other issues. First on that issue, how problematic is this today with the federal district court judges?

MUKASEY: It's enormously problematic because it's become very much in style for judges to grant blanket injunctions that purport to apply nationwide on the theory that, well, the case before them is very much like the case that is faced elsewhere, and so they are going to apply the rule that they decide to all cases that are similar in all jurisdictions. That procedure is, as Justice Thomas pointed out, ripe for challenge. And I expect that in the coming term, we will see a challenge.

INGRAHAM: I'm going to have to toot the horn of my old boss, but I am so glad he wrote that in his concurrence because it's long overdue that that be examined.

Now, I have to play this for you. This is Keith Ellison from Minnesota who was speaking, I guess he was back in his home state yesterday, or Monday, and he was talking about the Supreme Court nominee. Didn't know who it was then. But already talking possible impeachment. Let's watch.


REP. KEITH ELLISON, D—MINN.: I will say that there have been lower court judges that have been impeached. And honestly there were some things that came up with Justice Thomas that I thought were very concerning to me, in terms of, is there partiality? So I agree it's not going to happen, but it could theoretically happen.


INGRAHAM: So I don't know if you could hear that, judge, but --

MUKASEY: It's hard to hear.

INGRAHAM: Yes, basically saying all bets are off. Probably won't happen but it could. What about that?

MUKASEY: It's a parody of itself. He is urging that somebody be impeached because he disagreed with their approach to the law. Is that what he said?

INGRAHAM: Basically, yes.

MUKASEY: Well, there is a definition in the Constitution of what constitutes an impeachable offense. It's a high crime and misdemeanor. That is at a minimum a gross neglect of duty. And simply disagreeing with Keith Ellison I don't think amounts to a gross abuse of duty. The man is delusional.

INGRAHAM: Being an originalist and a textualist is apparently a high crime and/or a misdemeanor, today Judge Mukasey. That's how bad it's gotten. You heard about Blumenthal and company. Judge, thank you so much. It's great to have you on as always.

MUKASEY: Good to be here.

INGRAHAM: And it's the 2020 presidential race showcase. So is Senator Kamala Harris the new Barack Obama? Back in a moment.


INGRAHAM: California Senator Kamala Harris is becoming a shining hope for the had left in 2020 presidential race. Yes, we are already talking about that. Isn't that fun? It's 2018, we're already in 2020. OMP is shaking her head. She has liberal heart swooning even more after a report that her office, check this out, refuse to even accept a courtesy phone call from the White House counsel's office about of course the Supreme Court pick. They wanted of course to discuss the Kavanaugh appointment.

Her office is now denying that exact, precise characterization, but regardless Senator Harris is on a relentless campaign to beef up her leftwing bona fides. And it doesn't hurt that she is reportedly a longtime favorite of former president Obama's. But can she reach Obama-like status with the left?

Here to discuss is Congressman Sean Duffy and Austin Dobb, an attorney who has run in many of the same legal circles as Senator Harris. Great to have you both on. Kamala Harris, I see her as a likely 2020 frontrunner. I don't think it's going to be Elizabeth Warren. I don't think it's going to be Bernie Sanders. Joe Biden is not going to resurrect the Amtrak express. Hillary is not going to be with the Scooby-mobile. That's not going to happen. It's going to be someone like Kamala Harris. Mr. Dove, you know Kamala Harris. What about her versus Barack Obama? Are they of the same epic star-like quality for the Democrats?

AUSTIN DOVE, CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ATTORNEY: Well, other than the fact that it's kind of trite to say just because their ethnicity is similar in terms of being biracial, they are obviously both from the Democratic Party. They are very strong candidates, but they come from different beginnings and different origins. Kamala's background was steeped in local politics first, then headed the district attorney's office and a large county in California in the San Francisco area, and then became the state attorney general before becoming a senator. Barack Obama's background was much more grassroots, working with organizations before he came on to the political stride and gained traction as a senator and popularity through his speeches and so on, his connection to the voters.

I think in any sense we want a candidate who resonates with the voters, someone who can connect, someone who has a strong background in policy, in lawmaking, and understanding how to work across the table in different circles. And I think Kamala is that candidate.

INGRAHAM: Whoa, whoa, whoa, Austin, Austin. You lost me at work across the table. You were doing really well until you got to that point. By the way, I raised her as a woman who is a former prosecutor, very strong background in the law, as Obama. It was anything about her ethnicity.

DOVE: That's exactly what I'm talking about.

INGRAHAM: It's about the fact that she has a pedigree and is now trying to push her more leftwing bona fides much more so than just her days as a prosecutor, which I think are really interesting. But let's talk about what she said today about Brett Kavanaugh. It didn't sound like she was interested in working across the aisle. Let's watch.


SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D—CALIF.: Listen, if you are a young woman in America or you care about a young woman in America, pay close attendant to this nomination. Pay close attention, because Kavanaugh has made his purpose clear. It's about government taking on the decision about a woman and what she does with her body instead of giving that woman and her family and her God the power to make the decisions for herself.


INGRAHAM: OK, so Brett Kavanaugh is essentially, we are supposed to believe, Sean Duffy, standing at a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic and barring women from going in. That's what the woman who is the 2020 I think likely presidential contender.

REP. SEAN DUFFY, R—WISC.: Laura, set that aside. The thing that Kamala Harris is talking about, protecting women's rights. How about protecting a woman when she is in the womb as an infant, someone who is the most vulnerable in any stage of life when they are in the womb? And I know that's not the debate we're having here, but the fact that we are talking about women's rights and not protecting the women's rights in the womb is outrageous.

That aside, I think your intro was absolutely correct. When we talk about Kamala Harrison and Barack Obama, it's not about race, it's not about their background. It's about who can be radical. Who can be the leader of the resist movement. Who can be the biggest hater of Donald Trump, because if you're a Democrat, there's no ideas, there's no policy that you can run on. It's just being a resistor.

Not only that but I think Democrats are so engaged in what's happening right now because if you can't win at the ballot box, if you can't win votes in Congress, you have to look to the courts to have activist judges that will implement your progressive liberal socialist policies for you because you can't do it in the Congress and you can't win the hearts and minds of voters. So you want to have the activist court initiative and you also have who's going to lead the resist movement, and Kamala I think fits both of those, or Senator Harris, I should say, fits both of those narratives.

INGRAHAM: Austin, I remember the comment Barack Obama made not too long ago about Kamala Harris. And this is why people still today say of all the people out there, possible people running in 2020, she's probably his favorite. Let's watch.


BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I'm out in California. We are at a fundraiser having a nice time. I happen to mention that Kamala Harris is the best-looking attorney general in the country.


OBAMA: As you might imagine, I got trouble when I got back home.


OBAMA: Who knew Eric Holder was so sensitive?


INGRAHAM: I thought we weren't supposed to objectify women who went to prestigious law schools. I am just teasing. I think that kind of humor is fine. But the left -- Obama can make those jokes but conservatives can't. But Austin, what is your thought here? Is she the Kamala Harris, the tough-nosed prosecutor, or is she Kamala Harris, if you care about women then you have to stop Brett Kavanaugh, because to me the latter is just not going to resonate with Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin?

DOVE: I don't think those two are mutually exclusive, nor do I think the fact of being unattractive woman sort of excludes you from being politically adept and capable of being a leader the way Kamala has demonstrated.

INGRAHAM: I was talking about commenting on it. Do you comment on people's looks often while you're -- you probably don't because that's just not --

DOVE: That appeared to be --

INGRAHAM: Those in polite circles are told not to talk about that. I actually think it's funny. I think that's where Barack Obama is very charming. But the left never has a sense of humor on that and conservatives do. But that's beside the point. The point is, is Kamala Harris going to resonate with mainstream America or is she going to stay in the resistance mode, fight Trump all the way?

DOVE: First of all, her comments, her thoughts about what's happening with women's rights coming up in certain swing decisions that will be taking place coming up, I think it's important for her to establish up front and say this is where I stand on this. I think that we are talking about more than 40-year-old precedent that may be on the block again. That's important for her to articulate that very clearly as well.

As far as what her viewpoints are, can she gain traction, come outside the resist mode, as you characterized it, I don't think that's where she really sits. I think as a former prosecutor as you indicated at the outset, I think she's got strong chops there. I think she's got strong chops in lots of policy.

INGRAHAM: Lots of policy, you keep saying lots of policy. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but Sean, you are in Congress. What is the Democrats' agenda?

DOVE: I've talking about her --

INGRAHAM: What agenda do the Democrats have? Besides Donald Trump, they have zero agenda. So I would love to hear the policy the Kamala Harris is advancing to get people more jobs, higher wages, et cetera, except raising the minimal wage in California. That's all she does.

DUFFY: It's single-payer --

DOVE: You can't at the same time say --

DUFFY: One second. You look at 2018, you can't energize Democrats any more than they already are. This Supreme Court issue is going to energize the right and actually we are going to gain seats in the Senate. You talked about this. We actually might gain House seats because you are energizing the right because of what is happening with the Supreme Court.

INGRAHAM: All right, Austin, you can close it out.

DOVE: I would beg to differ. Your other guest's own state, Wisconsin, that is shift very much blue as a result of the very things he's talking about right now. So those are up on the blocks.

DUFFY: Pollsters said Clinton was going to win as well. The pollsters are wrong.

INGRAHAM: All right, guys, we're out of time. We are out of time, but I will say this. I will say this. The Democrats at some point have to offer an affirmative agenda beyond single-payer, abortion and every, pot, I'm sorry. But we've got to have more, we've got to have more than just hate on Trump.

DOVE: Those are real policies that have a real impact on the voters today, and they will matter.

INGRAHAM: OK, well, I hope we hear a real substantive debate.

President Trump, by the way, is taking the America first idea to the world stage. How he is planning to make sparks fly at tomorrow's NATO summit. Can't wait to watch after this.


INGRAHAM: President Trump is now in Belgium for a two-day NATO summit that begins tomorrow. President Trump has escalated his America first rhetoric and criticism of NATO ahead of this big meeting, and that's not sitting well with many European leaders.


DONALD TUSK, PRESIDENT OF EUROPEAN COUNCIL: I would like to address President Trump directly who for a long time now has been criticizing Europe almost daily for, in his view, insufficient contributions to the common defense capabilities. Dear America, appreciate your allies. After all, you don't have that many.


INGRAHAM: I still don't get it I don't think. Joining us now, Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, and Mike Fuchs, senior fellow at the Center for America Progress. Mike, you take it away here. Big meeting, NATO. Obviously the president has made it clear that he wants the NATO member countries to pay up their old dues that they still haven't paid and pay the two percent required GDP. Most of them are nowhere near that. German has paid one percent GPD. Why is that a bad idea?

MIKE FUCHS, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS SENIOR FELLOW: It's not a bad idea. If you look at it, actually in recent years NATO has been increasing its expenditures, member countries have in recent years, and that's a good thing. Past presidents have asked the same thing. My issue with what President Trump is doing is he's basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to NATO. He is saying that NATO, maybe we don't need it anymore. Maybe it's not useful to us right now because they are not paying their dues.

INGRAHAM: When did he say that? Because I think the last big speech he gave he reinforced the importance of NATO which was a relief to many of the global elites. At least he said that. So I think he has had how important our NATO alliances and he wants to reinvigorate it but he wants it to be fair.

FUCHS: No. I think what he said repeatedly, frankly, since the campaign is actually that our NATO allies are not going their own weight and they're not --

INGRAHAM: They are not.

FUCHS: -- and they're not going enough, and that's not true. If you at it, actually, even if you talk about finances of it, NATO bases save American taxpayers dollars.

INGRAHAM: Why did Obama say they should do more?

FUCHS: They pay for our bases. Because I think it is not a bad part of a usual give-and-take with our NATO allies, talking about how we both need to be making sure that we are paying the right amount. But let's just remember, I just think it's important to remember when we talk about the finances here, NATO bases save American taxpayers dollars. They save American taxpayer dollars.

INGRAHAM: Matt Schlapp, that sound reasonable.

MATT SCHLAPP, CONTRIBUTOR, "THE HILL": Nobody is trying to say there's something wrong with having the bases. What we are saying is when these countries come together and they all agree they're going to spend two percent of their GDP on national security, they shouldn't get away with not doing it. They shouldn't get away with paying only 50 percent of that. If they are going to put their name on the dotted line and commit to this, then they have to do it.

Let's face it, we all know it. America has for decades paid the lion's share of all these expenses with our allies abroad, when we have these coalition operations. And the American taxpayer, the American voter is simply saying, hey, why can't you just live up to your agreement? And by the way, it's not just NATO. It has to do with tariffs and trade and all these things that allies --

INGRAHAM: They have a $150 billion trade deficit right now with Europe. The president has addressed that a lot. There is a lot of money there to play around with. But also a social welfare state as vast as Europe's, all health care, national health care, that costs a lot of money. Maybe if they had more of a free-market approach to some of these grand entitlements that have a little bit more extra cash floating around to invest in their military. There's spending more, I think you're right, but I think most Americans watch this and they're like, gosh, that doesn't seem right. We spend an enormous amount, and I think we should. But they need to spend a little bit more.

I want to play something Max Boot who, I guess he used to be a writer for "The Wall Street Journal." Now he's just on cable television trashing Trump. And he is one of those people, never Trump, hope Republicans lose in November. OK, this is what he said when he watched President Trump landing in Belgium. Let's watch.


MAX BOOT, CNN ANALYST: And as I watch these pictures, I just do so with his intense sense of unease and angst and foreboding, because this is really, could potentially a make or break week for the western alliance, for American foreign policy, for the post-Cold War order. This could be the most momentous a few days in American diplomacy in the 21st century. And we will see to what extent the damage that he does over the next few days, but I can't imagine any benefit from this trip. The only question in my mind is, how bad is the damage going to be?


INGRAHAM: Always the optimist about Trump. Mike?

FUCHS: I actually agree.

INGRAHAM: That's a shock.

FUCHS: I have a sense of foreboding that Max does here.

SCHLAPP: It's going to be OK.

FUCHS: I'm not so certain. I think that there's an issue here. For the last 18 months, I think European leaders have done their level best to actually try to work with President Trump, and I think over the last few weeks they've begun to show, you know what, we are fed up. We're not going to be treated like this. We have come to your defense in the past.

INGRAHAM: OK, let's see how long that lasts. Matt, real quick.

SCHLAPP: It's the apocalypse. We pulled out of the Paris treaty. Brett Kavanaugh. We're going to make NATO pay its dues. Come on.

INGRAHAM: A new so-called fast track immigration court guide for border crosser seems to be slowing things down a little bit. Details next.


INGRAHAM: It really is hard to imagine more chaos coming to our immigration system, but somehow the government is managing to pull it off. A new report from the "San Diego Union Tribune" reveals, quote, "fast track misdemeanor immigration court rules out with confusion, tension." The court is designed to streamline border crossing cases, but it appears to be creating some logjams instead. Is this what we have to resort to as Congress flails at solving this border crisis.

Joining us now with reaction, immigration attorney Saman Nasseri. Saman, good to have you on tonight. Here is the problem I think most people see that are outside the political world. They are just watching this unfold. When we had thousands of people, which we do every month, crossing our borders illegally, not through the normal ports of entry, just crossing into our country illegally, most people believe that releasing them into the country, catch and release, is a joke and it just encourages more illegal crossing which is very dangerous and not compassionate at all. But the fast track court is not something you think is fair. Why?

SAMAN NASSERI, SAN DIEGO IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY: It doesn't give anybody due process. Once you enter the United States, once you cross, whether you are a citizen or not, you have the same Constitutional rights. You have the right to due process. You have the right to confront your cases. And as an attorney to advocate for these cases, it's extremely difficult when you're on such a short timeline because you're being given either credit for time served, which is usually a good deal, or let's try to fight your case. And now these individuals are making statements that could be adverse to their immigration interests down the road.

INGRAHAM: But you don't have the exact same constitutional panoply of rights as you do if you are an American citizen and you are accused of a crime. We know that. It's a substantive due process right, but it's not exactly the same.

The problem, however, is we don't have the facilities. Congress hasn't passed requisite legislation or funding for enough immigration courts and so forth, so a lot of these courts are now going until 10:00 p.m., correct? They used to go until midafternoon, 4:00 p.m. Now they are running nearly 18 hours a day to try to get through these cases. It seems to be having an effect, however, because now more people think, gosh, when I come across, if I don't have a child with me or someone I say is my child, I'm not going to be just released into the country. And we are beginning to deport people faster, which I think most Americans approve of, Saman.

NASSERI: It's not a matter of deporting people faster because, you said it earlier, it's chaotic. And you said about catch and release. All you are doing is delaying the inevitable. You have people that are going to go through this federal process. They're going to get credit for time served. They are going to get deported and they're going to be back here as quick as possible, this time asking for asylum when they get to the entry or get caught crossing the border again. I was in immigration court today and they were close to 80 bodies in there. Usually there's about 20 to 30 in the detention facility.

INGRAHAM: Well, don't cross. Here's a clue. Trump said this tonight, Saman, or today, and people went crazy. Don't cross into our country illegally. That's what Obama said in 2014. He said do not make this journey. It is dangerous. It's not the way to do it. If you come, you're going to have to be sent home. That was Barack Obama. I play that soundbite on my radio show frequently because people forget that he said that. Just very briefly, what's your idea for how to solve it?

NASSERI: I don't disagree with what you are saying. The same problem happened in 2014 to 15 when the unaccompanied minors came in. The problem is what's being told people in their own countries. Now we have -- Mexico does have to have better accountability for people that are traveling through thousands of miles before they get here.

INGRAHAM: Saman, I'm going to have you on radio. We're going to bring on radio to go into a longer explanation about this very complicated. Stay with us.


INGRAHAM: Listen to radio tomorrow, we have a big show on radio. Another huge show tomorrow night as President Trump, will he be the skunk at the NATO picnic? We can only hope. It will be more fun that way.

Lisa Page is going to be testifying in front of Congress, right? Oh, wait, never mind. She is ignoring her congressional subpoena, says she can't show up because she didn't see all the documents ahead of time. We're going to dig into all of that tomorrow night.

Until then, tell us how we're doing here on Twitter. Tweet me @IngrahamAngle. And for now let's hand it off to Shannon Bream and the "Fox News @ Night" team. Shannon?

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.