Ingraham: President Trump has second thoughts about spending

This is a rush transcript from 'The Ingraham Angle,' March 21, 2018. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

LAURA INGRAHAM, 'THE INGRAHAM ANGLE' HOST: Good evening from Washington. I'm Laura Ingraham. This is 'THE INGRAHAM ANGLE.' Now maybe it's all the snow, but the blizzard of news like Hannity just said from Washington, it seems more blinding by the day and night. Attorney General Sessions fired Andrew McCabe for, this lack of candor, but now it looks like the former deputy FBI director was actually investigating Sessions for the same thing. Isn't that clever?

Kim Strassel will help us dissect it all from 'The Wall Street Journal' and analyze the latest unhinged ruminations by the former Obama CIA chief, John Brennan.

Plus, left-wing actor, Jim Carrey, wasn't 'The Mask' the last good movie he did, is painting himself into a corner and we're going to wash the canvas for you. You won't believe this.

Then old Amtrak Joe Biden tries to bolster his virility, who wrote that, by picking a random fight with the president. A restraining order may be required. Wait until you hear the latest.

But first, the president has second thoughts? Kind of? About congressional spending? That's the focus of tonight's ANGLE.

All right. Last night, we told you about the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill under consideration by Congress. This is it. Look at this. Look at this thing. This is a tenth of it right here. We don't want to kill all the trees, so we only printed out a tenth of it. But we did the math, and this is how big it is. How many people are reading this bill?
No one's reading the bill. This is what it is. OK? This is the Republican Congress.

It's a business as usual spend-orama at a time when the voters expected just the opposite from a president who campaigned against the corruptocrats in D.C. Well, is the sequester cap gone? What are the Republicans doing?
They're linking arms with Democrats. Yes, they're spending more on things we should not be funding at all.

And things the president vowed to defund. So how on earth do Republicans expect the voters to turn out in November for them if they can't live up to the basic precepts of what they campaigned on? This ridiculous omnibus, let's keep moving the camera angles here, but people have to see what this is, because you don't really get it if you don't see it.

Look at this thing. Again, I want you to see this. This is your tax dollars at work. This is it, $1.6 billion in this disaster is devoted to border security. That's it. A paltry $641 million to the wall the president campaigned on. And not even close to what the president requested to ensure the wall actually got built.

Last night, I raised this concern and others to Majority Whip Steve Scalise.


INGRAHAM: This is an opportunity, Congressman, to defund sanctuary cities and to get the real money for the wall that the president campaigned on, and he won the election on that wall. Defund Planned Parenthood, half a billion dollars. I know you agree with me on this. The Republicans are in charge and they punted. That is mind boggling to me.


INGRAHAM: He said, he agrees with us. Perhaps the president was actually watching the angle, I hope so. Earlier today, he reconsidered his support of the omnibus bill and called Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell to the White House for a meeting.

Now in a statement, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders announced, 'The president and the leaders discussed their support for the bill, which includes more funds to rebuild the military, such as the largest pay raise for our troops in a decade, more than 100 miles of new construction for the border wall, and other key domestic priorities, like combating the opioid crisis and rebuilding our nation's infrastructure.'

Now, this is curious. Ryan and McConnell obviously pushed the president to support this bill -- there are some good things in the bill -- but the big push was Mr. President, you cannot afford a government shutdown on Friday.

That's how they always do it. They make you agree to blow your promises and principles but put a gun to your head. This will be terrible, shut the government down. It pains me to say this, but the president is buying a pig in a poke here. He won on calling out the establishment, on naming names, yes, even when it made things uncomfortable.

So, I have a question. Where did that Donald Trump go? And where does all our money go in this bill that's even too big for us to show on camera regularly? It's money we don't have that we will have to borrow from China, Japan, or Germany, et cetera, or print, but where does it go in this discretionary part of this spending (inaudible).

Well, the Pentagon budget balloons to an obscene $700 billion. That's more than $80 billion over current limits. Yes, I said $80 billion. Sanctuary cities? Fully funded. Jerry Brown is happy. Planned Parenthood, a half a billion dollars, and something called, get this, community development block grants to cities.

That's, by the way, what President Trump wanted stripped from this budget, nearly doubled to $5.2 billion, and then there's the Obama era transportation grant program known as tiger. I don't know what that is. I love tigers, but I can't love this. This would have its budget tripled to $1.5 billion. I could go on and on and on.

We've only got an hour tonight. If I were advising the president, I would tell him, take this as an opportunity tonight to challenge the GOP leadership. There would be no signature on the omnibus bill without a guarantee of full funding for the wall, and a total defunding of the sanctuary cities across this country.

And another thing, he should never sign this omnibus spending bill without first securing a commitment from Democrats to allow confirmation votes for all of his major nominees, which are clearly stuck in committee.

And I'm talking about ambassadors, like Rick Rinel for Ambassador to Germany, and others, judges, district court judges, and assistant secretaries, deputy secretaries, other key personnel. This is the bare minimum that the president should agree to.

This move would also have the added benefit, not the primary, but added benefit of taking the focus off Stormy Daniels and company and all the other people putting on tv on the other cables and return the focus to substance. That's where Trump does best.

The American people did not elect Trump, or the GOP Congress, to fill the swamp. We elected them to drain it. And the fact that the military contractors, the lobbyists are clinking champagne glasses at Washington steakhouses tonight should concern everyone.

The conservative approach is to shrink government, not expand it. Spending more and perpetuating Obama era programs is a recipe for fiscal and electoral disaster. Even with some of the good stuff that is in this bill.
And that's THE ANGLE.

Joining me now for reaction is Republican Congressman Mark Meadows who is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, and Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, who is a Democrat from Illinois. It's great to see both you.

Let's start with you, Congressman Meadows. I just delivered some tough medicine, but that's what I'm going to do. When I look at this legislation, I call it legislation, but it's more than -- there it is. I think this is not draining the swamp. Who's actually reading this, Congressman? Who has read this entire bill tonight?

REP. MARK MEADOWS, R—N.C.: I can tell you, no one's read the entire bill, some 2,230 pages that we got over a little over an hour ago. I'm about 200 pages into it. Obviously, we have staff going through it. But really, this is not about draining the swamp.

When you look at this particular bill, were you too harsh? The answer is, no, you could be a lot harsher. We continue to fund sanctuary cities. We continue to fund Planned Parenthood. We don't build the wall, but we put money in for a tunnel.

The last time I checked, when the president was campaigning, he wasn't campaigning for a tunnel between New Jersey and New York. He was campaigning about a border wall on our southern border. So, you know, there is a lot to be disappointed. We're still going through this, but I'm not very optimistic that there will be conservative wins in this.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Krishnamoorthi, if I'm a Democrat and I see the House is in Republican hands, the Senate's in Republican hands, and we have a Republican, a conservative Republican like Donald Trump in the White House, and I see Planned Parenthood funded, sanctuary cities funded, Chuck Schumer gets his mega tunnel, New Jersey-New York, and a bunch of other stuff gets funded, there's not a lot to be upset about really in this budget, all things considered. Your reaction?

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI, D—I.L.: Well, look, I think that the president is supportive on a lot of shared priorities. It fully funds military and domestic programs, additional funding for the opioid crisis which is ravaging our district. And then it helps to increase funding for NIH as well as making sure our veterans are taken care of. I haven't read the whole bill, as Mark mentioned, but I'm optimistic. I'm hopeful that we can come to a compromise by tomorrow.

INGRAHAM: Now, you haven't read the bill and I'm not criticizing you because there's no one -- the Evelyn Wood A-plus citation student couldn't read this bill, OK? I'm not criticizing you because you just got this.
But given what we know about our current debt levels, it's exploding, exploded under President Obama, exploded under Bush, now it's set to increase, could be another $1 trillion.

Mark, tell me if I'm wrong about this. Don't we have a moral obligation to be honest with the American public about where we're getting the money to fund all these important priorities, China, Japan, Germany, all the people we're borrowing it from? We don't have this money, do we?

MEADOWS: Well, we don't. Laura, here's one of the interesting things.
Yes, we'll end up with a $1 trillion deficit that will probably come out in October of this year, $1 trillion-plus. Here's the other interesting thing, you don't have to read the fine print to understand that we're going to grow the size of government by 12 percent to 13 percent.

So, when you're looking at that kind of growth, I don't know that his district or my district, anybody back home saw a 13 percent increase in their wages, but somehow, we're going to give government a raise like that?

Here's the other problem, Laura, is this. We have a Republican-controlled House. We have a Republican-controlled Senate, and we have a Republican in the White House. And we have a Democrat here tonight saying how great this bill is. There is a problem there when you have that.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think the right honorable gentleman from North Carolina

INGRAHAM: He's smiling. Congressman, first of all, I already like you, because you came on the show. A lot of your colleagues won't. But I already like you, because you're being honest. This is a good bill for Democrats. It's good the military gets tons of funding and that's all great. Military needs a raise, I understand that. But you're smiling, not just because you're hanging out with us on whatever the heck this is, a Wednesday night, you're having fun. This is a good deal for Democrats, I'm sorry.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: How can you not smile when you're standing next to Congressman Meadows. Look, the bottom line is -- I haven't read the full bill, I haven't made my final decision on this, but if it's fully funding the military programs, right now or military readiness is at all-time lows. Secretary Mattis said we cannot good on another continuing resolution stop- gap budget. It would hurt the military.

INGRAHAM: Maybe we should think about that the next time we commit our troops to some godforsaken country. Maybe we should think about what it will cost when we commit our troops to another multiple deployment intervention. It's nice to say we're in the hole $5 trillion, but --

MEADOWS: Laura, here's the other thing. If we wanted to fund the military, why didn't we put forth the funds to fund the military and deal with the nondefense discretionary separate, but somehow, we put them together because we grow the size of government. That's the problem.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, I think we've got to take care of the veterans.


INGRAHAM: OK, the veterans, we always -- it's veterans, veterans, veterans. Every time I raise an issue about the bill, people say we got to take care of the veterans. I understand that, but we also have other issues that are weighing down on the American public. I do believe tonight the American people have to understand this, we're going to have, you know, 438 Congressmen, 100 senators will vote on this legislation in the next, what, 72 hours, guys, 72 hours, something like that?

MEADOWS: Probably quicker than that, yes.

INGRAHAM: OK, 48 hours. I would say 98 percent of them, and I'm being charitable, will not have read this. We're going to have to pass it to see what's in it. We're back in that stage and I know there's good stuff. People will get some help. But we've got to go back to the regular order, where each department --

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Yes, Ma'am, I agree with you.

INGRAHAM: Each department gets a budget and each budget is voted on. We can have some transparency. Maybe it's this long. Maybe it's this long.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I really think Speaker Ryan -- I'm really disappointed that Speaker Ryan didn't present it with a budget -- this particular bill sooner than tonight. We need regular order around here so -- I'm rank and file, I'm not leadership.

INGRAHAM: I got it.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I don't run the trains around here. All I can say is, I need more time to read through this thing. I would like to work with people like Congressman Meadows and make it a better bill. But if the choice is not funding the troops, taking care of the veterans --

INGRAHAM: But they're putting you in that provision --

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I can't do that.

INGRAHAM: But Congressman, they're putting you in that position. It's the way Washington works. You've got to do what you've got to do, you've got to pass it -- it's ridiculous. We cannot do this to the American taxpayers and our future generations.

But Congressman Meadows, Congressman Krishnamoorthi, it's great to have you both on. Fantastic segment. It's complicated. So, we really appreciate it.

Coming up, what a fired FBI official may have done to try to bring down a member of Trump's cabinet? Yes. Kim Strassel, 'Wall Street Journal,' here to explain next.


INGRAHAM: The personal lawyer for Attorney General Jeff Sessions is pushing back tonight against the startling new report. The lawyer tells Fox News that Jeff Sessions is not under a criminal investigation for perjury, allegedly committed during his confirmation hearing.

But ABC News reports that former FBI official, Andrew McCabe, investigated whether Sessions did tell the truth about his contacts with Russia. Sessions fired McCabe last week for what the FBI called his own lack of candor.

Let's get into all of this with 'Wall Street Journal' reporter, Kim Strassel, Democratic strategist and attorney, Scott Bolden, and Sol Wisenberg, deputy independent counsel in the Bill Clinton Whitewater investigation. Great to see all of you.

Kim, let's start with you on this. This is wild. So, we've got McCabe, who reportedly was investigating, or wanted to investigate Jeff Sessions for what he said about his contacts with the Russians. This took a wild turn today.

KIM STRASSEL, REPORTER, 'WALL STREET JOURNAL': Yes. Well, isn't it a coincidence that this story leaks just as you have a number of Senate Democrats that are trying to revive this whole argument that they made months ago that Sessions misled them.

Of course, that was a bunch of nonsense. He was very honest that he had forgotten that he had bumped into a Russian ambassador at some event, that he misspoke. But now we find out that at the bequest of two Democratic senators, the FBI went so far as to investigate whether or not Sessions had lied in front of Congress, which is astonishing to think that the FBI was doing this.

INGRAHAM: Now, Sol Wisenberg, I want to go to you here. When I first heard this story today, I thought we're now on a completely different planet. Deputy FBI director, investigating Sessions on a, I guess perjury, lack of candor, and he gets fired for the same thing. What's your pulse on this now, given what Chuck Cooper, Sessions' lawyer said today?

SOL WISENBERG, FORMER DEPUTY CHIEF COUNSEL, WHITEWATER: I am absolutely appalled by this. Laura, this is to me the most scandalous thing I've ever talked about on your show. There are three big stories here. There are three big parts of this.

First, as Kim said, it's highly unusual for something like this to happen.
The administration officials from both parties go before Congress all the time, they make misstatements, they're accused by the other side of perjury, there is almost never an investigation.

There wasn't an investigation opened of Eric Holder when he made false statements about the 'Fast and Furious' investigation. I don't think he was perjuring himself. There wasn't even an investigation of Jim Clapper when he said the NSA didn't collect data, and everybody knows he was intentionally lying.

So that's the first thing. That's highly unusual. The second thing is, Andrew McCabe, by the time he opened this investigation, was already toxic. He had already been outed by 'The Wall Street Journal' for his role in the Clinton investigation, and had already been forced to recuse himself.

And then months later, after all of that, he doesn't recuse himself? This Clinton person affiliated with, his wife is affiliated with Clinton cronies doesn't recuse himself, and himself opens an investigation? I've got to tell you something, I want your viewers to know this, this isn't talk show b.s., this doesn't happen.

This is highly unusual. It is highly corrupt in my view. The third thing that I don't want people to forget is that Chuck Cooper, Jeff Sessions' lawyer, doesn't lie. And he made it very clear, Bob Mueller has told him, Jeff Sessions is not under investigation anymore. He was spoken to.

He is not considered to be under investigation for perjury, which is good, because the whole concept of it, as Kim said, is preposterous. This is, actually, to me, an amazing story, and you would have to know how the DOJ works and FBI works to know how totally improper and unusual this is.

INGRAHAM: Scott Bolden?

SCOTT BOLDEN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION PAC: Well, let me just tell you this, I know how both work and I don't think the story is preposterous. I also don't think that this investigation that you're probably putting too much on it, it could certainly be an inquiry. It would be in his interests, Sessions' interests and the FBI's interest to know whether he had misled Congress or lied to Congress.

You can mislead Congress and that's still illegal. Whether it was an inquiry or an investigation, I think once Mueller took over, if Mueller says he's not under investigation anymore, what he means is, he's not under investigation at this point.

If that investigation continues and if there are some facts that support going back to Sessions, because remember now, he didn't lie once, he lied twice or misled them twice by saying --

WISENBERG: He didn't lie at all.

INGRAHAM: He didn't lie, Scott. If he lied --

BOLDEN: If he lied or mislead them --

INGRAHAM: How many of you think that the special counsel wouldn't have been on this like 7 on 8, I'm sorry.

BOLDEN: If you can't prove a lie that doesn't mean that he didn't lie. He mislead them. The bottom line is, it's a nonstory at this point because McCabe is gone, Sessions is there and --

INGRAHAM: Well, that's convenient. We've got a lot of fish to fry here. We've got to move on to Brennan.

BOLDEN: I'm a practical Democrat. I don't know about the Republicans on the panel, but I'm practical.

INGRAHAM: I got you. We could talk about McCabe for an hour. We've got to move on to Brennan. This is what the former CIA director said this morning. Let's watch.


JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: I think he's afraid of the president of Russia.


BRENNAN: I think one can speculate as to why, that the Russians may have something on him personally, that they could always roll out and make his life difficult. I think the Russians have something, and that is why Mr.
Trump is concerned. Mr. Trump knows better than any of us whether or not the Russians may have something on him.


INGRAHAM: Kim, I've got to go to you. The CIA, supposed to be nonpolitical, and he's all but saying, he's intimating that he knows of some dirt that the Russians might have on Trump. Your reaction to that?

STRASSEL: I think but threw out the nonpolitical label on John Brennan a long time ago, by the way. Just saying. Look, there used to be a day when intelligence officials, whether they were in office or out of office, would not spew innuendo like that, especially such grave charges.

If John Brennan was aware of any evidence like this, he had a duty to say so back when he was in office. And we've never had any intimation that he did. He's now a year out. So, the idea that he is privy to such classified information is almost crazy.

But look, here's one of the problems here. He goes on, they said at the opening of that segment, he is NBC's new intelligence analyst. And so, he comes on acting as if he has some knowledge of the intelligence issues.
He's been out for a year.

And people need to instead look at John Brennan, the media in particular, as what he is, which is apparently an Obama partisan player who has an interest in undermining the current presidency.


BOLDEN: But Laura, if I may. Did you just watch the video that I watched? He was asked a question, and he said he was speculating. He said perhaps maybe.

INGRAHAM: Do you think -- a former intel chief who was privy to state secrets, to go on television and freelance and intimate about something that he did have probably some personal knowledge of, because he admitted many times that he unmasked individuals, and that apparently nobody was ever denied a request? You don't have a problem with him going on tv jawboning about this, really? Come on.

BOLDEN: Given Donald Trump's coddling, if you will, Putin, a dictator who kills and --

INGRAHAM: Coddling, when he put sanctions on them, or when he's funding the Ukrainians?

BOLDEN: -- and his staff, a month, month and a half, after the House and Senate presented it to him, and he still wouldn't impose those sanctions.

INGRAHAM: He's tougher on the Russians than Obama ever was, I could tell you that.

BOLDEN: That's a super problem when you don't do anything.

INGRAHAM: I've got to go to one other thing. Sol, I want to go back to this issue of what we are seeing now with the Justice Department. Christopher Wray came out on 'Nightly News' last night and said he had never been pressured by Trump, no influence on the Russia investigation, didn't feel like any pressure, it was almost like a surprise to people, then it kind of died, after the FBI director was interviewed. But that was actually interesting in all of the other stuff that's been covered.

WISENBERG: Well, it was interesting, and totally consistent with the fact that Horowitz is the person that sent a portion of his report, everybody knows he's a nonpartisan. He was -- except perhaps the president. He was appointed to that particular position by President Obama.

He's got a sterling reputation. He's the one who sent his report to the career person appointed by Mueller at DOJ at the Office of Professional Responsibility. They made the decision it's preposterous to suggest that they were pressured in any way.

Now, you can talk about that, you can speculate that with the attorney general, but you certainly can't with the people who generated this report and made the recommendation.

INGRAHAM: All right.

WISENBERG: can I just say one thing about Scott?

INGRAHAM: Real fast. Real fast. We're out of time.

WISENBERG: I told him if he disagreed with me tonight, I was not going to buy him a steak at the prime rib next week. So, I warned him, and he screwed up.

INGRAHAM: God bless, prime rib. Let's carbon date that. That's a prime rib, circa 1982.


INGRAHAM: All right, guys, I'm just teasing. Great segment. By the way, a major Catholic university is jettisoning its mascot over concerns that it's too violent, Islamophobic, Disneyworld has a Me Too moment. The 'Seen and Unseen' segment up next with Raymond Arroyo.


INGRAHAM: Now it's time for 'Seen and Unseen' segment today.


INGRAHAM: I did it the wrong. Where we really expose what's going on about the big cultural stories of the day.

A Catholic college has killed its mascot of almost 100 years, Disney remaking a major attraction in the name of Me too, and the political art of Jim Carrey. To explain it all, FOX News contributor, author of the 'Will Wilder' series, Raymond Arroyo, book number three coming out soon. This is crazy. Let's go to Jim Carrey. Now what is it with the funnyman, or at least former funnyman?


INGRAHAM: Pet detective, political cartoon. Is he sitting in a room by himself just scratching away at --

ARROYO: He released these strange images, first of Sarah Huckabee Sanders. We'll put it on the screen. It looks like it was drawn in an insane asylum or something. And he wrote nasty things. He said this is a portrait of a so-called Christian whose only purpose is to lie for the wicked, monstrous. He got attacked for that naturally. It's bigoted, it's anti-Christian.

INGRAHAM: It doesn't look like her at all.

ARROYO: Then he released an image of Donald Trump this week as the Wicked Witch of the West Wing.

INGRAHAM: That's not even funny.

ARROYO: Something is wrong with the man.

INGRAHAM: What? It looks like Freddy Krueger with a blue hat. Is that Freddy or Jason? No, Freddy Krueger. Jason has the hockey mask.

ARROYO: Flying monkeys behind him. But we dug into the video archive and we found Seinfeld talking to Jim Carrey walking into the inner sanctum of this so called art. Watch.


JIM CARREY, ACTOR: This is the world for me. I just love paint. I love the colors, I love everything about it. Yes, the girl with the machine gun, I've got power now.


INGRAHAM: It looks like a murder scene. What is that?

ARROYO: It is an insane asylum. But you know what's so sad. First of all, I wish his movies got as much attention as the political cartoons. He has inspired me, Laura. I resumed my own political art today. Jim Carrey, smoking no more. And I have another illustration to share with you later. But you know what's so sad, he was the comic heir to my pal Jerry Lewis. This man was so funny in he heyday. Go back. To steal somebody's line, shut up and clown.

INGRAHAM: Make us laugh.

All right, Holy Cross, we've got to go to Holy Cross College. Now, why is Holy Cross, this is in Massachusetts, Springfield, Worcester, Mass, it's a Jesuit college. Now it's removing part of its logo, but it's keeping its name. What are they embarrassed about now?

ARROYO: They are the crusaders.

INGRAHAM: What's that.

ARROYO: That's a crusader with a sword. They are stripping the logo and their mascot because it is violent and Islamophobic.

INGRAHAM: So is football, but we still do that.

ARROYO: The chairman of the board as well as the president of the school issued this video. Watch this.



MALE STUDENT: Our community does not tie the crusader name to the crusaders. We're crusaders for social justice and care for the underserved. We're crusaders for making a difference in our world.


ARROYO: This is the ultimate --

INGRAHAM: Camera, camera, camera. We're crusaders for recycling and that's what makes us really good. We're crusaders for the --

ARROYO: Why are they running from the -- the crusades were defensive war in the 11th century. Two-thirds of Christianity had been gobbled up. They called themselves a crusader. I object to the changing logos 100 years after the fact.

INGRAHAM: Or changing history, changing history.

ARROYO: Remember the fighting Irish? They wanted to strip the little leprechaun away because it was offensive to a group. What group? The Lucky Charms guy?

INGRAHAM: I was just going to say that, they're going to take our little marshmallow treats on top of our cereal next.

All right, Disney, you're going to Disney next week, aren't you? Raymond has been to Disney about, what, 35 times? You have a problem. You have an issue with Disney.

ARROYO: Now I'm really upset, because this attraction, the Pirates of the Caribbean, it's been there for 50 years, Walt Disney had a hand in designing and shaping it. They are stripping this. You remember this scene. It is a scene of -- this is the update. Go to the original picture.

INGRAHAM: Can we go to the original one?

ARROYO: It was originally a bride auction where a group of ladies are lined up, a lady in red is being auctioned off. Well, they've decided this is too controversial and it's a Me Too moment, so they're updating it to this.

INGRAHAM: This is what they're updating it with.

ARROYO: It is now a pirate queen.

INGRAHAM: What. My God, it looks like Johnny Depp in drag. What is that?

ARROYO: So we went from a wench being auctioned off to a pirate queen. We turned her into a thief. Here she is thieving, rips off the rum supply. I'm waiting for them to take Trixie, the overweight country bear jamboree singer, I think really they fat shamed her all these years, at least 50 years. Time for Trixie to come down. Maybe the little hula girls at the Small World, they need to come down as well. Who else is offended?

INGRAHAM: I got stuck on the ride, 'It's a Small World. I was stuck in there for 45 minutes. I was like Terri Garr in 'Tootsie!' when she was stuck in the bathroom. I was on 'It's a Small World.'

ARROYO: That's a connection.

INGRAHAM: That's scary.

ARROYO: I'm going to come back later and share with you my 'Ingraham Angle' political art inspired by Jim Carrey.

INGRAHAM: This is wrapping us. 'Seen and Unseen,' and out of time. Now, what has PETA got against Labrador retrievers? Stick around. We'll hash it out with one of our pet reps. Don't go away.


INGRAHAM: You all know PETA, their very name is pro-animal, right? Then why in the world would PETA object to a proposal to make the sweet, cuddly, beautiful, wonderful Labrador retriever the state dog of Ohio? What's the problem with that. So we thought we'd ask PETA associate director Ashley Byrne who joins us from L.A. and we're delighted she's with us.

Ashley, so again, for people who are watching, they don't kind of follow the controversies about shelter dogs versus dogs that are bred. Ohio wants to have the dog as its official dog. And other states have dogs as their official dogs, which was new to me until today. We have dogs that are the Catahoula dog, which is Louisiana's dog. We have Alaska, the malamute. We have New Hampshire, the chinook, I thought that was a helicopter. We have Pennsylvania, the Great Dane. So why are you guys at PETA upset that the lab is going to be Ohio's official dog?

ASHLEY BYRNE, PETA ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR: Well, don't get me wrong, we love all dogs, and we love it when people make a point of recognizing how wonderful dogs are. The problem is that when you do something to promote a specific dog breed, what we see is people running out and buying lots of those dogs, and that means lots of those dogs eventually ending up in shelters after they've been purchased on a whim. And also lots of dogs being bred by puppy mills where they're kept in deplorable conditions. It also means less dogs, less mutts being adopted from shelters. You consider the fact that --

INGRAHAM: So you're worried that because Ohio will name the lab as its official dog, that all these random Ohioans who apparently have never heard of a lab before will suddenly -- I get your point. I want to point this out to you, Ashley, OK. I had two labs, beloved dogs, Troy who was 13, and also Lucy who lived to age six. There's Lucy. God rest her soul. I believe dogs go to heaven. I believe that. So that's Lucy. But now --

BYRNE: So do we.

INGRAHAM: But now Ashley, I now have two rescue dogs. One we're going to show now, Jimmy the junkyard dog. Hold on, we've got to put Jimmy up. There's Jimmy, he looks very guilty. He looks very guilty.


INGRAHAM: So I agree with you. I love rescue dogs. And I support rescue dogs, I support shelters. But I think this is where PETA loses people. I don't people are going to run out -- they already know the lab is the most popular dog in the United States. It's a hunting dog, bomb-sniffing dog. So I don't think it is going to make people go out and get labs. People think PETA has lost its mind and they're going to throw ink on fur and stuff again. I think people, you know what I mean, you kind of lose people with that.

BYRNE: I know what you mean, and we know that this bill is well intentioned. But we've seen this before. When the movie 101 Dalmatians came out, people rushed out and bought Dalmatians, and so many of those dogs ended up in shelters. It was a crisis.

Also, though, you know, if someone is set on a specific breed of dog, including a lab, they should know that of the 6 million to 8 million dogs who end up in shelters every year, about 25 percent of those dogs are purebred. And in fact, if you go on the website Pet Finder right now, you can see that over 19,000 Labrador retrievers in the U.S. right now are homeless, are looking for --

INGRAHAM: Ashley, I can't even go to a shelter. My kids and I when we have nothing to do, we just go to shelters. That's like our thing on the weekends. Raymond is going to laugh at me because I'll invariably bring home another animal because I can't stand it that dogs don't have homes. So I do get it.

But I think there's got to be some kind of happy medium between the purebred people and the shelter people. And I think we've got to work it out. If you can adopt a dog, I like adopting children and I like adopting dogs. I think it's all a good thing.

BYRNE: And that's wonderful. We applaud that.

INGRAHAM: And as for the Dalmatians, what happened to them? Did they end up getting euthanized, all those cute Dalmatians? Because I do like Dalmatians. Cruella de Vil, did she kill them all or what?

BYRNE: About half of the animals who end up in shelters every year, half the 6 million to 8 million ending up in shelters do up euthanized for lack of good homes. And I've got to tell you, for dogs, the people who run puppy mills and pet stores are Cruella de Vil because they are sentencing shelter dogs to death every time --

INGRAHAM: No, it's bad. And I think there's some good protections that Ohio has put in place, John Kasich has done it, and that's good stuff. Ashley, its' great to have you on. Thank you so much.

BYRNE: Thank you so much for having me on.

INGRAHAM: And by the way, Joe Biden is threatening the president again. His latest trip down hypocrisy lane, or on Amtrak, next.


INGRAHAM: Joe Biden is at it again. This time he's threatening the president at a rally against sexual assault at the University of Miami. Referring to the infamous 'Access Hollywood' tape, Biden recalled the president's comments to Billy Bush.


JOE BIDEN, (D) FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: They asked me would I like to debate this gentleman. And I said, no. I said if we were in high school I would take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.


INGRAHAM: Let me get this straight. At an event to stop assaults, old plugs Biden said he would like to assault the president. That's rich. And then there was this whopper.


BIDEN: No man has a right to touch you no matter what.


INGRAHAM: OK, pot meet kettle, if you could hear that. So when it comes to unwanted advances, few have a worse reputation than touchy-feely uncle Joe. Who can forget the oh so creepy shoulder rub of Ash Carter's wife during the defense secretary's swearing-in ceremony. Can we see that. A little higher. We need to organize a rally just to protest that. Biden is the all-time champ in Washington when it comes to unsolicited grabbing, hugging, and shoulder rubbing. You name it. He once did this to me, remember? He grabbed me by the shoulders. That was sweet, I didn't mind it.

Between the groping and the threats against the president, this man, he has some issues. As the 'Washington Post' said about his remarks in Miami, Joe Biden can't stop talking about beating up Donald Trump. Who would win that fight? Let's think about it. 'USA Today' polled five boxing experts, they all picked Trump, except for one. And he went with Hillary.

We'll be right back with 'The Last Bite.'


INGRAHAM: Before we go, it's time for 'The Last Bite.'

Melania Trump is making good on her promise to battle cyberbullying. And it is driving the left nuts since the call President Trump a Twitter bully. And in a defiant opening speech on a cyberbullying conference at the White House, the first lady was not cowed.


MELANIA TRUMP, U.S. FIRST LADY: I'm well aware that people are skeptical of me discussing this topic. I have been criticized for many commitment to tackling this issue, and I know that will continue. But it will not stop me from doing what I know is right. I am here with one goal -- helping children and our next generation.


INGRAHAM: I loved it. I am so glad she is sticking to her guns, defying all the critics. But I expect the media and the president's enemies will give her plenty of cyberbullying to combat. Keep it up, Melania. Keep going. I just love that.

That's all the time we have left tonight.

ARROYO: Wait, wait, wait, I have something for you. I drew this during the break.

INGRAHAM: Who allowed you back on?

ARROYO: This is what happens. This is you.

INGRAHAM: You've got to zero in on that.

ARROYO: Jim Carrey has inspired me. I'm not going to do my own caricatures. No more television, no more writing books. I'm just going to draw pictures.


<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.>