Ingraham: Washington's real March Madness

This is a rush transcript from "The Ingraham Angle," March 20, 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.'

There was another explosion in Austin, Texas tonight, but authorities are saying they have no reason right now to believe that the incident is related to the previous explosions that have the city on edge. We are expecting a press conference from law enforcement officials, but for now, let's go to Fox News' Casey Stegall who is live in Austin -- Casey.

CASEY STEGALL, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Laura, good evening. Hopefully, we get some clarification at this press conference we are waiting because not only have they said that they don't believe this incident that happened at the Goodwill Store in South Austin was related to the package bombs, and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because it is not every day an incendiary device goes off at a store.

So, either the federal authorities who came out and said that, both from the ATF and FBI, they may know something that they don't want to disclose to the public to jeopardize the investigation, but they were able to rule out right away that this didn't fit the hallmarks of the other incidents, or it is possible that this was a copycat crime.

Again, that is all speculation because we simply don't know. Hopefully, we can get some clarification soon. What we do know right now is that one employee at that Goodwill Store was injured. Apparently, there was this incendiary device, according to the ATF and the FBI, and it went off, injuring the employee.

So, we do know that right now, and Goodwill Industries of Austin has sent out a message on social media saying that until further notice all Goodwill Stores in Austin will remain closed. There have been some local reports of that incendiary device was in a box that was right next to the donation bin.

And when the employee went to check the donation bin, that is when the incendiary device went off. This, of course, Laura, on the heels of five explosions that have rocked Austin, Texas, since the beginning of this month.

Then tonight the ATF also confirmed that a bomb was found inside a package at an Austin FedEx distribution center right next to the international airport here in Austin. But they found it before it went off, and they did a controlled detonation of it at that site.

So that was after a different package did explode at another FedEx distribution center. That one was outside of San Antonio and it happened earlier this morning. That was explosion number five.

Number four was Sunday night, a bomb with a triple wire was planted near a fence in an affluent Austin neighborhood, two men in their 20s driving by on bicycles tripped the wire, causing the bomb to go off. They were seriously hurt.

And explosions one, two, and three happened earlier in the month, and those came in the form of packages that were left on the front doorstep, so front porches, of homes, and went off when the person touched or opened them, and two people were killed between those three blasts at homes in east Austin.

And then you had number four Sunday night. Number five at the distribution center. So police say this shows them that the incidents are getting more sophisticated and they think that if it is the work of the same person or persons that they say it is unprecedented.

So, a lot of unanswered questions tonight, but I can tell you this is a city on edge. Not to be trite, but it is a city on edge. People just don't know where the next call will come from. So that is the latest right here on the ground. Laura, we'll keep you posted as soon as we learn more.

INGRAHAM: OK, Casey, thanks so much. What three things to law enforcement need to know to narrow down who this suspect is, who it might be? Let's go to the experts, Terry Turchie is a former deputy assistant director of counterterrorism at the FBI, directed the federal task force that went after the Unabomber, and Fox News contributor, Mark Fuhrman, a retired LAPD, he joins us now.

Both of you, this is, like, surreal, by the moment, things are changing. We might have this news conference. But Terry, let's go to you. Your wealth of experience in tracking the Unabomber over years. Now we hear, this is going to be quick deal, we'll find them quickly. Tell us what we need to know, the top three things that law enforcement must determine to narrow down who this suspect might be.

TERRY TURCHIE, FORMER FBI COUNTERTERROR AGENT: Laura, three things, very important, especially in bombing cases. Number one is the crime scene forensics, being able to do good crime scenes, and thorough crime scenes, and to get the information from the crime scene out to investigators to follow up on is vital.

The idea that we had a pristine bomb that was able to be controlled and detonated is very important and could very well allow them to take a quantum leap in this case. You know, the second part of this is even more important in that, when you have the information with the crime scenes, we have information eyewitnesses, you use shoe leather.

I know that it's not sexy and I know that people think when you're talking about the basics of police work, which is relationship and interviews and knocking on doors, the more you do that, the more the people who are doing that are skilled and trained in doing interviews, interviews are vital because they help people decide if they actually saw something that is important sometimes or they solicit even more from people who did see something because you are looking for the maximum amount of information you can get.

Then finally, all of this is useless unless you form that team with the public. Because, as we have seen, and as Mark would say and I would tell you, and I can give you lots of specifics, case after this case, especially terrorism cases, these are prevented terrorist acts or we have had terrorists arrested and identified because the public came through after they responded to information given to them by law enforcement.

I'll make one final point, then I should stop for Mark a little bit here, but -- and this is important as well. In a lot of these cases, the police themselves, law enforcement, they are the first on the scene, the first to see something suspicious, the first to stop somebody on a highway like Texas Trooper Charlie Hanger did.

This is vital, and we have seen this in case after case from the Unabomber to the Olympic bomber, to 1993, the list goes on. I will stop there. Those are the things that are important and putting together a strategy to integrate all of them and to encourage people to call and help us put this together and stop this and stop it now.

INGRAHAM: Mark, I was trolling around on the internet before the show started, trying to keep up with all the details, and it is interesting that with the internet today, the Unabomber case went on and on, the collection of data. Now you can look up on the internet how to put together a fairly sophisticated tripwire bomb.

I mean, it could be just a firecracker, how you load the gunpowder. I watched the whole thing just before the show. So, people can learn this stuff, although this begins to seem a little more sophisticated, does it not, as time goes on?

MARK FUHRMAN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Well, Laura, I couldn't agree with Terry and everything he said, every single word. He was spot on, in my opinion. To your question, the library has all these books, and they have had for post-Vietnam, these books have been out there on how to build bombs, how to build booby-traps.

MARK FUHRMAN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: It is really not that sophisticated, but I think what is important in this case is just how sophisticated the bombs are. What are the components of the bomb, what is the trip trigger pressure, what type of ignition system is the suspect using?

Another thing that really catches my eye is the fourth bombing. You use the tripwire. If I was a detective on this case at the ground level in the city, the Metropolitan Police Department, I would have to contemplate, I would have to consider, that the suspect actually watched that bombing, that he wanted to see one. And I think it was supposed to be a pedestrian, not a bicycle.

INGRAHAM: You believe that the targets were being surveilled by the bomb maker himself, and maybe there is some type of perverse thrill, you want to see if it works. Makes you feel like a big man -- I'm assuming it's a man, which might be unfair, but I'm assuming it's a man. It's a big rush for them. That could be true in this case, could it not be?

TURCHIE: Absolutely. In fact, I agree with Mark. I think these acts when you think about a person walking into a residential neighborhood and building a comfort level which allows them to go up on a porch and placed a package, which has a bomb in it, and then turn around and walk away, or to do this tripwire, which I think Mark would agree, would take time to kind of set up and arrange, at least a lot of time when you are a bomber wanting to get out of the scene.

So, these are acts designed to essentially terrorize civilians. These are all civilians that could have been affected by these bombs. What is the next logical step for this kind of personality? To stand over off to the side and watch how the bomb explodes. I think he is right on.

INGRAHAM: Could you perhaps contemplate this suspect, this bomber, wanting to become more well-known, publishing something? Obviously, with the Unabomber there was a manifesto. I know I am jumping way ahead. But these people want to go out, it seems, in a blaze of glory. And this seems to be some type of -- there is a narrative being told here, a story about what his beef is with society, who knows? But, Mark, I always think about that. They are looking for an identity, fame and -- not fortune, but infamy, I suppose.

FUHRMAN: Laura, you know, and Terry can address this more, I am maybe speaking outside of my pay grade. But with a serial killer, he doesn't want to be caught, he wants to keep living his life. This is his life, and this is a serial bomber. He might have been a serial bomber in other places, in one incidence or he might have blown up other buildings or different things out in the suburbs that nobody really took notice.

Now he has escalated, and he could quite possibly be trying to figure out the correct formula, the correct method, the correct pressure device, mercury device, trigger, timer, tripwire, or whatever that would affect the most damage to a human target.

Because he hasn't been incredibly effective in his explosive devices, so I would suspect that his explosive element of his bombs might be homemade. I would suspect it's not commercial or military grade. And Terry should address this because, like I said, it's way outside of my expertise.

INGRAHAM: All right, Terry, hold that thought. We have a lot more to get to. News is breaking at the moment. Thanks, guys. We'll have you stick around as we wait for this Austin news conference. We'll see when that happens. We'll take you right there.

Next, tonight's 'ANGLE' on Washington's real march madness with exclusive reaction from House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. Stay with us.


INGRAHAM: All right, we are awaiting the start of a news conference with law enforcement in Austin on the cereal bombing there. When that happens, we are going to go right to it. But first, Washington's real March Madness, the focus of tonight's 'ANGLE.'

INGRAHAM: All right, when most of you here terms such as omnibus spending bill, no doubt your eyes glaze over, I get it, but this is what you need to know, it is a legislative scan because it involves packaging a lot of the federal government's smaller spending bills into one gargantuan bill.  Then the whole thing can be passed with only a single vote in both the House and the Senate. So long gone are the days of the so-called regular order when appropriations were done the sensible way. Department by department, a lot more transparent that way with each bill being considered separately.

Under that scenario, Congress and the voters who elected them have more opportunities to either strip out the waste and fund only essential priorities. It makes sense, right? For years, we have heard leaders in both parties pledged to return to regular order, yet nothing ever happens.

And it is backed to these mind-numbing continuing resolutions, omnibus nightmares, and shutdown threats, and the result is usually a last-minute budget-busting cram down. Sure enough, as spring kicks off, here they go again, and it's really ugly.

Democrats are still in the minority. They are blaming the GOP's poison pill provision for delaying any omnibus bipartisan deal, and, mind you, what Democrats call a poison pill, most Republicans call essential for law and order.


REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI, (D), MINORITY LEADER: They insist on poison pills and the rest. Hopefully, they will get serious and we can get this done before it is the 23rd of March.

SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER, (R): This budget had to be finished. They wanted to add 160, 170 poison pill amendments, none of which would ever survive a vote on their own on the floor.

REPRESENTATIVE JAN SCHAKOWSKY, (D): Democrats and Republicans have worked together to reject many of the poison bill pill riders from President Trump.


INGRAHAM: I'm want to take a poison pill after watching this.


INGRAHAM: Meanwhile, conservatives are in revolt, because they are free of all the old sequestration cap and big shocker, it increases spending.


SENATOR STEVE DAINES, (R): This idea that all the bills come together in one big, what we call an omnibus -- ominous might be a better word.

CONGRESSMAN MARK MEADOWS, (R): We are looking at a trillion plus dollar deficit perhaps as early as this October when the numbers come out. You know, that is under a Republican administration. We need to do better.

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DAVE BRAT, (R): We have gotten this bad habit of thinking money here is free. It falls from the heavens and money is free. It is not.


INGRAHAM: I love that. This means Republicans will need, of course, Democratic votes to pass my pass the measure in both chambers and this means more add-ons, more giveaways, more junk. It is a total mess. Do you remember what Trump promised? He promised to cut spending, to defund boondoggles, and, yes, to drain the swamp.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will immediately terminate President Obama's two illegal executive amnesties and when he defied federal law and the Constitution.

The Trump administration will cancel all federal funding for sanctuary cities. We will end illegal immigration, keep the drugs from pouring into our communities. We are not going to allow them to are not going to fund as long as we have the abortion going on at Planned Parenthood.


INGRAHAM: But as of tonight, it looks like the stuff that should be funded by the Republican majority won't be touched at all. Planned Parenthood, sanctuary cities, Obama's executive amnesties, and this is my favorite, almost a billion dollars for a tunnel connecting New York and New Jersey.

It is a disguised earmark for Chuck Schumer. Nice going, Chuck and two of the most liberal states in America benefit. And that is the short list. It passes for a law, this Freddy Krueger-like omnibus bill will include over a trillion dollars in spending, $1.3 trillion.

And it will pass with scant debate or scrutiny. My friends, this is just sheer madness. It is time to stand on principle without fear of a government shutdown. It is time to educate the public about how both parties god off-board.

Yes, you have to compromise if necessary, but with full transparency, and, if possible, not on the core issues. You are the majority, after all. Start really helping President Trump drain the swamp. Don't add to it. You'll do the country good and you just might surprise all experts in November. And that's the'ANGLE.'

Joining a number reaction from Washington, D.C., is the majority whip for the House, Congressman Steve Scalise, a Republican who represents, of course, the brave state of Louisiana. Congressman Scalise, it's great to see you. A pretty harsh assessment by yours truly on the big hulking omnibus spending bill. Your reaction to what I say?

REPRESENTATIVE STEVE SCALISE (R), MAJORITY WHIP: Laura, first, it's great to be back with you. If you look at a number of the things that are President Trump's priorities, they are going to be in this bill. You start with our nation's defense.

The biggest piece of this bill by far, is going to be the funding of our nation's defense, which actually restores the ability for our country to provide for our men and women in uniform and restore a lot of the damage that Barack Obama did.

We work closely with President Trump and Secretary Mattis to give him the tools that they need. Look, we saw two more planes fall out of the sky last week. We finally restoring air superiority in this bill. Given our troops a pay raise in this bill. There are tremendous President Trump Republican priorities in this bill.

INGRAHAM: But Congressman, I've got to get in on this sequester cap, which I know was considered a very harsh measure. When those sequester caps were in, they didn't decrease spending, they decreased the rate of increase in spending, crazy Washington speak. There were cutbacks, but the cutbacks are across-the-board.

And the budget deficit under Obama, and for a few years, did begin to go down. Now Republicans are in charge, like, well, the military needs another 300 billion and this project needs a couple $20 billion here and
$30 billion here, and we turn around, and the Republicans are the party of big spending, Congressman.

So how do we, as conservatives, hold up that mantle of fiscal responsibility if, indeed, we're blowing the budget again? Because we are going to more money on the military?

SCALISE: One of our basic functions as a government is to fund and provide for our national defense. We shouldn't hit fiscal discipline against providing for our nation's defense.

INGRAHAM: At $700 billion? That's a lot of dough, right?

SCALISE: It's a lot, but, again, when you talk about restoring the cuts that Barack Obama made, this is not being done on the backs of -- if you look at what is driving our debt, we know what is driving our national debt, that is mandatory spending. We have addressed that in the House.

But also, if you look at some of the problems in terms of what the CBO score say is creating the trillion-dollar deficits, they say our tax cut bill is what blew a trillion-dollar deficit hole in our budget. I don't agree with them, Laura, because we are seeing economic growth.

We are actually seeing not only companies giving bonuses and pay raise to workers, but we are seeing more people get out of the unemployment --

INGRAHAM: I couldn't agree with you more.

SCALISE: We are going to get more money in Washington because of the tax cut bill.

INGRAHAM: You're absolutely right. No doubt about that. But 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. Defund Planned Parenthood, you heard the sound bite about half a billion dollars to Planned Parenthood. Republicans are in charge and they punched it. That is mind-boggling.

SCALISE: I share your frustration there. But if you look at this bill, President Trump will have the ability to defund sanctuary cities in this bill, and I support the president and saying we not only going to go after sanctuary cities but sanctuary states.

There is a big fight going on, and I'm glad that President Trump said, we will confront this. He has that ability. Funding of the wall, that is something we are negotiating in these final stages right now that hasn't been completely released yet, but I think we'll have the ability for the president to start building the wall with this bill.

We've got wins for the president, but you want to talk about what's driving our debt, number one, I don't think tax cuts are going to blow a trillion- dollar hole in the budget and you're already seeing economic growth is actually happening, and we are going to ultimately have less than a trillion-dollar deficit. Saving Medicare from bankruptcy --

INGRAHAM: I got that, but Congressman, we've got to be honest with the American people. You know I adore you, but we have to be honest with the American people. Planned Parenthood will be fully funded in this bill, correct?

SCALISE: Not fully funded. Look, they've been getting funded for a long time. We are trying to roll that back. Our health care bill, which passed the House and failed in the Senate by one vote, would have fully defunded Planned Parenthood. We've got to continue that fight. I'm not dumb of that fight. I have worked very closely with all the pro-life groups. We are going to be rolling back some of the money that they are getting. We've got to continue to battle to get that done.

INGRAHAM: This sanctuary city was such a winner politically; it has to be defunded.

SCALISE: The president will pursue that, the big gateway project you were talking about, the boondoggle. Hopefully, we will be able to defund that in this bill, take a look when the final ink is dry, a lot of these projects are talking about, I agree completely on. Once this bill is done, I think you will have that ability while restoring our nation's defense to the superiority it deserves and restoring a lot of the cuts Barack Obama made. President Trump wants this bill.

INGRAHAM: Let's go to special counsel. Both you, now, you have joined Kevin McCarthy, other leaders in the House and the Senate, all believing it is time for a second special counsel to examine the Russian probe and the Hillary email probe given what we have learned about the FBI. Why a second special counsel with endless budget and almost no accountability? How is that the right answer?

SCALISE: Laura, right now I think we don't have the accountability we deserve. We have seen serious questions raised from the house's investigation into what is going on with the special counsel. It's not just the special counsel. It goes far beyond that.

You see the abuses, potentially, of the FISA process, which is a really important process. If FBI agents were abusing that, and I think mostly this is coming from some of the top-level FBI agents going back to the Obama regime.

The FBI does great work at the local level. Frankly, at some of their credibility has been called into question. You have these reports that have come out. I think a second special counsel to look into some of these abuses that we have seen, and the serious questions that are raised, I think it is well in order to restore the confidence in the FBI that is desperately need.

INGRAHAM: Are you surprised, Congressman Scalise, that after we learned that the FBI blew two chances to intervene against Nikolas Cruz, both on that YouTube video posting and in the tip line when he basically told he was going to blow up the school, that we never -- as far as I could tell, we never have seen Christopher Wray, the FBI director, address how this happened, how we are going to prevent this from happening again. Does that concern you in the wake of the Parkland shooting?

SCALISE: It absolutely does, Laura. I know you and I have talked about this before. One of the passions I have is to find out exactly who had his file. Cruz said, I'm going to be a professional school shooter. He told people he was going to do that.

INGRAHAM: Where is Wray? Why hasn't he come out?

SCALISE: We need to have true accountability and I want to know the names of everybody in the FBI who handled that filing made the decision to not pursue him, and ultimately that led to him going out and massacring 17 people. It should have never happened. The FBI dropped the ball.

You saw some problems with local law enforcement as well that angered me too. But in terms of oversight, we have oversight over the FBI, and I think we deserve and the public deserves to know just by the FBI dropped the ball in this critically important case.

INGRAHAM: Congressman Steve Scalise, always great having one. Thank you so much, sir.

We are going to be giving a close eye on the development in Austin. We are awaiting a news conference any moment from our enforcement officials.
We'll take it there as soon as it happens.

Coming up, one city in California has voted to jettison its state's sanctuary policy. The mayor is going to be here to debate his city's decision. Stay tuned.


LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: We are watching events out of Austin tonight. A news conference from law enforcement officials is expected at any time. When it happens, we're going to go straight to it.

But in the meantime, a lot of other news out of there. President Trump held a televised roundtable discussion today with top law enforcement officials on the problem sanctuary cities cause for federal immigration officials.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Sanctuary cities release thousands of criminal aliens out of our prisons and jails and back into our communities. They go into those sanctuary cities, when they see them, they go there because the feel their safe. Democrats' priority is to protect criminals, not to do what's right for our country.


INGRAHAM: Meanwhile, one city in southern California is fighting back against the state. The Los Alamitos city council voted four to one to exempt itself from California's sanctuary law. Some citizens did object.


RABBI JONATHAN KLEIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CLERGY & LAITY UNITED FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE GROUP: As I read about ICE rounding up the suspected illegal immigrants with common surnames, many are law-abiding citizens, and it reminds me of Nazi Germany.


INGRAHAM: Let's discuss that with Troy Edgar. He's the mayor of Los Alamitos, and the former DNC deputy press secretary Jose Aristomuno. Great to see you both. All right, mayor, let's start with you. This was a wild council meeting; I know it was overflow capacity. People were outside waiting to get in or hear what was happening. Why did you decide, your small town of 12,000 people, decide to take the stand against California's sanctuary policies?

TROY EDGAR, MAYOR OF LOS ALAMITOS, CALIFORNIA: When that bill was passed and the end of the year in January when we started to engage this, we needed to do something. I think my Mayor Pro Tem Kusumoto looked at this. We both said, look, enough is enough. We feel that the state of California is out of touch. And most of all we had sworn an oath to be on the city council, basically that we would honor and focus on the U.S. constitution, and we think that this law directly conflicts with that. And so for our city we wanted to make sure that we are focused on the U.S. constitution.

INGRAHAM: Jose, to you, the news came out today that at least three of the individuals who escaped after Mayor Libby Schaaf of Oakland warned the community that ICE was probably going to come to a raid, at least three of the individuals who ICE sought but didn't get have been rearrested. Some of the crimes include robbery and gun crimes, DUI, corporal injury to a spouse, among other things. I think some of these smaller injuries, they are just trying to take care of their people. They don't want any more criminal problems. Isn't California taking this a step too far?

The reality, a small town like Los Alamitos, population of 11,000 which probably has a very small percentage of undocumented folks. I don't know why they did this. I'm a little surprised they would do something like this. It doesn't make any sense because sanctuary cities, Laura, actually make our cities safer because it allows for the undocumented community is to actually communicate and share information with police officers so that they can actually do their job. Police officers are supposed to make sure that cities are safe. They're not meant to be immigration officials.

INGRAHAM: So let me understand the argument. Sanctuary cities are safer because they welcome undocumented immigrants into the city without fear of, you know, being caught or reported to authorities, even though among those illegal immigrants are actual felons, violent criminals, domestic batterers, people who commit crimes against children, DUIs. I understand -- Jose, hold on. I understand some people cooperate with authorities.
That's great. But those people shouldn't be in the country in the first place. So this idea it's safer because we have more illegal immigrants, that's lunacy.

I think most people in the country, they hear this and they think California has gone cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. And this is nuts. Mayor, you've got one person on your counsel, like a four to one vote, one person, Michael Churro, I think, voted against it.

EDGAR: Mark Chirco.

INGRAHAM: Yes, Chirco. He said this is going to bring on lawsuits, and the ACLU has basically threatened you, in a manner of words, with a lawsuit. What's going to happen here?

EDGAR: Well, you know, at this point, we don't know if we'll have a lawsuit from the state or from the ACLU. We were really careful in how we went about putting this thing on the agenda. And what is really interesting to me is the ACLU is sitting back, and all we are seeing is scripted discussion. The lady that came into our council chamber last night, generic discussion. Today on the radio, having some debates with some of the ACLU folks. I really think they thought we would spend a lot of time getting our ordinance nailed them perfectly and then bringing it back in 30, 60, 90 days, be able to get a head of steam and then come and get ready for the lawsuit. I think right now I'm definitely not encouraging the ACLU to come on and sue us. But I also think really quick action on behalf of the city council --

INGRAHAM: Guys, we're going to continue with this at a later point, but right now law enforcement officials in Austin are holding a presser on the latest on the Austin serial bombings. Let's listen in.

ELI REYES, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN, TEXAS: Good evening. Thank you all for being here. My name is Eli Reyes, E-L-I R-E-Y-E-S. I'm an assistant chief of police with the Austin police department, and with me I have an assistant city manager Rey Arellano as well as assistant chief Chris McIlvain.

Tonight, at approximately 7:00 p.m. the Austin police department received a call that came through Travis County. The call was upgraded to a bomb hot shot call that occurred at the Goodwill in the 9800 block of Brody Lane. APD officers responded to the scene. Upon the initial investigation, officers determined that a Goodwill employee had found a box that someone had dropped out that contained some items that that employee didn't think the Goodwill wanted to have.

He passed that box after another employee who was told to dispose of the box. That employee took the box around the corner and, and upon looking inside of it, it had two small devices that were artillery simulators that look like some type of military ordinance or some type of memento. The employee handled one of those devices, at which time it initiated, and the employee sustained an injury. That employee was transported to the hospital, and he is doing well and he is recovering. Of course, as you can imagine, with all of the incidents that have been going on in the Austin area recently, we responded to this with our EOD team along with our federal partners from the ATF and FBI to investigate this, just as we did all of the rest of the incidents that occurred in the city as an explosive device.

After our investigation on scene, we did determine that this was not an explosive device. This incident is not related to any of the other incidents that we have had here in Austin. This was an old military type ordnance that initiated in this person's hands and it did cause injury. There is no reason for us to believe that it is related to any of the other incidents that have occurred, and we are thankful that we got the response that we did. And we just want to reiterate to the community that if you see something suspicious, if you have a suspicious box, a suspicious package, that you continue to call 911. We are receiving a lot of calls about suspicious packages, and we want the community to continue to be vigilant and notify us of these packages as they come in. We will respond to every single one of these.

We are fortunate that we are being aided by our federal partners, by other DOD units around the state and around the country that have come in to help with these calls. And we want everyone to know that, if you see something, say something. We are in this together as a community. We want all of these incidents resolved and we want them solved quickly, and we can do that together as a community with your help. With that, I can open up to any other questions about this incident here on Brody Lane tonight.

FEMALE REPORTER: What happened to the car on fire?

ELI REYES, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN, TEXAS: That is going to be part of the investigation. We will be reviewing the video footage at the Goodwill to determine who dropped the device off if we can identify that person.

FEMALE REPORTER: What happened to the car on fire?

ELI REYES, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN, TEXAS: There was a vehicle that did catch on fire there. It was not related to any other incident. It was a mechanical fire. We have no reason to believe that this is an attempt at a copycat.

MALE REPORTER: The attorney general tonight indicated that he believed from his sources that this was -- and said that on national television.

ELI REYES, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN, TEXAS: I can't comment on what the attorney general said.

MALE REPORTER: Did it seem malicious, like they meant to harm someone or they did not mean to harm someone?

ELI REYES, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN, TEXAS: That will be part of the investigation. But I will let you know that a lot of times these military-type mementos are found by family members and they do not know how to dispose of these devices. So if you have a family member or you have something that you find in a garage that looks like a military device or a memento, please call 911 and we will send someone out to inspect it, and we have the equipment and we have the capability to dispose of these devices properly.

MALE REPORTER: Do you know who left the box?

ELI REYES, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN, TEXAS: We do not know who left the box.

MALE REPORTER: Can you give us the run down at this point of how many devices, how many have detonated, what the connected -- the connected devices are?

ELI REYES, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN, TEXAS: I'm not going to discuss any of the other devices that we are investigating right now.

FEMALE REPORTER: Can we say what the military devices actually were?

ELI REYES, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN, TEXAS: These were about approximately six inches in length, almost like a 40-millimeter type artillery simulator device.

MALE REPORTER: Is this some sort of military flare?

ELI REYES, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE, AUSTIN, TEXAS: It was an artillery simulator. Thank you.

INGRAHAM: All right, let's bring back Terry Turchie, former deputy assistant director of counterterrorism at the FBI, and FOX News contributor Mark Fuhrman, a retired LAPD detective. Let's unpack this. So this last device was incendiary but not explosive. Terry, did we glean anything from the official there on the status of this investigation? He seemed very reluctant to discuss any of the other devices.

TERRY TURCHIE, FORMER FBI COUNTERTERRORISM AGENT: Well, I think he is reluctant, Laura, because they are going to want to try and give information to help the public sort this out while protecting just about everything they have. They don't want to create copycats and they want to know when they find the right person that that person hasn't been privy to information and can be a phony leader or something. So they are holding off just like we would normally do.

But I think something really important is going on, and that is that if you watch them, you get the instinct that all of this task force is really working well together. The federal, the local, the state, you don't see any differences. You see really dedicated people communicating with each other.

Remember that while they were out there talking to us and while they are out there doing the job during the day, these people are working all night. People are now working on this 24/7. And we can be proud of what I think we are seeing.

One more point I want to make. We have heard that several hundred breeds were developed and interviews conducted. That's interesting. But we have also heard that several hundred fellow agents are in Austin doing work there. Let me tell you something, several hundred federal agents are already trying to track down these components that came from these crime scenes. That is why they are there. And that tells us a great deal.

And we have to hope and we have to pray that this is resolved a lot quicker than we might think, because I think they are doing everything right. They're doing everything they possibly can do. And I'm very proud of them. I've sat there and watched bombs go off while you're trying to manage something, and on behalf of all those people, that is a hard thing to do. And I just wish them the very best.

INGRAHAM: That is a great sentiment. Mark, at a time where the FBI has been under such scrutiny after Parkland and Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Mueller, there are 500 federal agents from ATF, FBI, local police, state police, working together. I think Terry makes a really great point. This is where we really see experience kick in, cooperation, and transparency with each other. So people aren't getting turf conscious, that is really important here.

MARK FUHRMAN, FORMER LAPD DETECTIVE: It is. And time is not their friend in this incident. Ted Kaczynski who takes 17 years to complete all of his bombings, this guy is very accelerated and he's very active.

So Terry makes some great points about the interaction of these law enforcement agencies. But let's remember, these are federal detectives assisting police detectives and police officers in uniform. These are not people that are involved with politics, bureaucrats, Washington, D.C. These are cops. They are dealing with cop issues.

And I think one thing that they are very guarded about here is I think that just like a serial killer, a bomber has a signature, and his signature is how he makes his bombs and what he uses, and maybe the pride he takes and how he initiates certain trigger devices or delivery systems for packages, or however they are constructed. So they are working on every little piece of these bombs, every wire, every connection, every nut, bolt, anything that is in that device they are trying to track down to who bought it, where was it bought, where was it made? That is what they're doing right now at the same time people are knocking on doors.

INGRAHAM: Guys, I remember that Oklahoma City bombing and the little shreds of the VIN numbers from the vehicle, they ultimately found that, and that was indispensable to determining who the bomber was. Phenomenal analysis from both of you. We can't thank you enough.

And we're going to keep everyone up to date with any new developments out of Austin, so keep it right here. But up next, we are going to show you how easy it is for President Trump to make Democrats lose their minds. Yes, next.


INGRAHAM: This is how easy it is for President Trump to make the swamp dwellers lose their collective minds. All he did was mentioned in passing that he congratulated Russian President Putin on his reelection, and they all went thermonuclear. Never mind that his main point was President Putin on Supreme Court, North Korea, Ukraine, and the nuclear arms race. The mainstream media and their allies went into a full-fledged tizzy.


WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump never mentioned the poisoning of this ex-Russian spy in England and his daughter, or some of the other sensitive issues.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, R-STATE: Here he is on the phone with Vladimir Putin. He offers words of congratulations for an election that is not free and is not fair.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, R-STATE: He is talking as though he is a leader of a democracy somewhere else, not giving the context of Russia. This is like congratulating Saddam Hussein when he got 98 percent of the vote in the Iraqi elections.


INGRAHAM: Topping them all, though, is Senator McCain, who admonished Trump that, quote, "An American president does not lead the free world by congratulating dictators on winning sham elections." Wait a second, Senator McCain, you mean like when President Obama congratulated the Islamic Brotherhood's candidate on winning Egypt's presidential election in 2012?

Or in 2013 when Obama broke three decades of precedent to congratulate the winner of the Iranian presidential election? Or in 2014 when Obama congratulated Turkey's President Ergodan, the same guy who said there is no such thing as moderate Islam? Or someone else Obama congratulated on winning the presidency -- Vladimir Putin in 2012? Yes, the same Putin. I don't recall so many of these voices of concern, or any of the swamp dwellers fulminating about those congratulatory wishes.

The double standard is so obvious it's pathetic. The president so far has gotten North Korea to the negotiating table, squeezed trade concessions from the Chinese, and all of this has happened, tax reform, and the media and all of his enemies condemned his every move, his every utterance. It's not really surprising. He is never going to please them. But my message to the peanut gallery -- let the president deal with Putin. He just might surprise you. Not that you are going to give him any credit when he does.

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


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

At the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in D.C. tonight, the president sounded off on Hillary Clinton's recent comments in India.


DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Her last statement about women, they have to get approval from her husband, their sons, and their male bosses to vote for Trump. That was not a good statement. You notice how fast the Democrats have run from these statements now. They are disavowing those statements like I've never heard before.


INGRAHAM: Well, Mr. President, she might make it home. She might go home so long as there are no steep stairs there.

That's it for us tonight, but we want to hear what you thought about tonight's show. Tweet me @IngrahamAngle, follow us on Facebook.

And now we go to Shannon Bream and the "FOX News at Night" team for all the updates in Austin and beyond. Shannon, it's always great to see you.


<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.>